I take it you are someone who thinks that art has no definition other than the definition you impose on it. By that standard everything is art and I suggest that by that definition, nothing is.
I take it YOU are someone who thinks that art has no definition other than the definition YOU impose on it. Your ability to appreciate the artist's meaning (or your decision that it is worthy of being called art) holds as little in the argument of what is art as anyone else's opinion, because (unfortunately for some) there is no badge, club or even protected title that suggests some minimum qualification is required to produce something that makes people think, feel or maybe see something from a different point of view. By that definition, and because of that element of our society, I say anything can be art so long as someone wants to call it art.
Surely the value of art is not that it is art, but that it has the ability to reflect a thought, a feeling, an idea or a skill. That it showcases something; physical, literal, satirical or metaphorical. And surely there isnt a minimum number of people that have to "get it" before that thought, feeling, idea or skill is validated as art. Otherwise, who makes the distinction of what is art and what is not?
You pine for days when an artist was someone that could "sculpt a statute or paint a chapel somewhere" or otherwise create something tangible and saleable. You can have your boring economical classicism and still allow the rest of the world to enjoy the romantics - how is it hurting you that this guy calls himself an artist? Where is the confusion or watering down of talent that comes from this guy calling himself an artist? It is an elitist hypothetical and a logical fallacy. Surely if I wanted my cliff face to be scultped into a grandiose temple, or I wanted the ceiling of my chapel adorned, or I wanted a backing track to my latest commercial, or I wanted a logo for my startup, I wouldnt just call the local "artist"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I don't care for an opinion that degrades the standards and quality of the creative industry.
And I totally agree. Luckily for me though, I don't let a bad album muddy my opinion of the latest bestselling book. Or let my opinion of Hirst's paintings influence the way I feel about Carravagio. Art for arts sake lives happily with art for gentry's sake, and in my opinion they bolster each other.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I find it an insult to know very hard working and talented artists who have studied and learned their craft for years and someone makes programs that deletes files and that they are even discussed for a second in any capacity other than ridicule.
So in your view publicity is the payoff for an artist? Interesting. Surely someone that has studied and learned their craft for years will be unaffected by an artist who makes a computer game that gets some publicity and spreads an important (to some) message.
Adam.
p.s. When discussing a piece of art that pushes an anti-killing agenga, it would have been a masterstroke to play the "we should kill the artist" card; but I think you crashed and burned when you suggested benefit to society was key to the argument, rather than sticking with the irony.
IMHO, I think the real problem with violent games lies in their realistic imagery. It's quite well known that your body has the ability to adapt itself to a steady exposure to many things. An example would be painkillers, i.e. if 1 aspirin is effectively used for a headache and is used frequently ... soon 1 is not enough.
Our brain reacts to imagery the same way, i.e. the first exposure to graphic violence is quite unsettling but if we are exposed daily our mind starts to accept it as normal and just because it happens on a screen rather than in real life matters little. It's the reason why visualization techniques work.
I honestly think we do ourselves a disservice by allowing and encouraging media producers to keep "upping the ante" in their use of violence. ... just my 2 cents worth.
Color me skeptical, people have been making that argument for decades and it's not been a proven causal relationship. I think it's a hard argument to justify when game violence have been getting more realistic (same with movie violence for that matter), and yet, real-world violent crimes have been declining at the same time. I just don't see where it's worth trying to ban and censor games, because that's what it's really going to take to put a stop this pretend violence.
what bugs my butt is that we can easily go from an open threat to the same threat hidden or embedded someplace
if i had a bazooka i would shoot these people
Yeah this is the problem. Use the code in a bejewelled style game and link it's high scores & Downloads page to Facebook feeds and you have an unstoppable force...
I agree that it needs more protection to stop random programs from deleting files.
I thought the game itself was a great way to promote pacifism in gaming though
IMO you are mixing up your definitions here. Art is about meaning.
You say you wish they did something more meaningful, but then you kind of imply that it's the "talent" they show (or don't show), that's the core of it all, which is really code for "craft." Craftsmanship /= "Art".
I would say art is about significant meaning in the same way beauty is about significant beauty. Many men will have wives with facial hair and consider them beautiful but they would not be considered beautiful by a majority. There has to be a limit when using global and not personal definitions. I don't want that to come across to mean that only the majority defines art, merely that it has to be sufficiently justified.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27
I am someone who thinks that art is defined by the creator or by the viewer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamthecarny
By that definition, and because of that element of our society, I say anything can be art so long as someone wants to call it art.
So you are of the opinion that when someone produces a piece of child pornography and calls it art no matter how obscene, you would unconditionally agree with them? Everyone draws a line somewhere, yours is just further to one side but having a line at all is contrary to what you said. Also, I don't understand how anything can be art yet you object so strongly to a forum post - if an artist can define anything as art, surely I can say anything I want for it to be a valid critique.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27
That is no excuse for wanting to shoot them! That was my main problem, your wishes of death of another person purely for having different views.
As someone else pointed out, you took the comment too seriously - I clearly worded it to compare it to the 'artistic' endeavor of deleting files vs the benefit of realizing your dependence on them. If I'd said that those people wouldn't be given publicity instead, then it wouldn't have related at all to the principle behind the game.
Quote:
Originally Posted by camroidv27
Now, if it was intended as such, I don't know for sure, but I do know that I view it as art, and though I don't think I'll see it in any museum ever, I can appreciate the message.
Sure, I can appreciate the message too but as someone pointed out, the message is simplistic and a global definition of art rather than personal must have significant meaning. If he had accompanied the game with an eloquent message such as:
"Always endeavor to conquer yourself rather than fortune, and change your desires rather than the order of the world, and in general, accustom yourself to the persuasion that, except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power; so that when we have done our best in things external to us, all wherein we fail of success is to be considered, as regards us, absolutely impossible: and this single principle seemed to me sufficient to prevent me from desiring for the future anything which I could not obtain, and thus render me contented; for since our will naturally seeks those objects alone which the understanding represents as in some way possible of attainment, it is plain, that if we consider all external goods as equally beyond our power, we shall no more regret the absence of such goods as seem due to our birth when deprived of them without any fault of ours, than our not possessing the kingdoms of China or Mexico, and thus making, so to speak, a virtue of necessity, we shall no more desire health in disease, or freedom in imprisonment, than we now do bodies incorruptible as diamonds, or the wings of birds to fly with.
But I confess, there is need of prolonged discipline and frequently repeated meditation to accustom the mind to view all objects in this light; and I believe that in this chiefly consisted the secret of the power of such philosophers as in former times were enabled to rise superior to the influence of fortune, and, amid suffering and poverty, enjoy a happiness which their gods might have envied.
For, occupied incessantly with the consideration of the limits prescribed to their power by nature, they became so entirely convinced that nothing was at their disposal except their own thoughts, that this conviction was of itself sufficient to prevent their entertaining their desire of other objects; and over their thoughts they acquired a sway so absolute, that they had some ground on this account for esteeming themselves more rich and more powerful, more free and more happy, than other men who, whatever be the favors heaped on them by nature and fortune, if destitute of this philosophy, can never command the realization of all their desires."
Rene Descartes, 1637
If someone presents a simplistic comment on human behavior and it's left to the public to give it any weight then the piece is not art nor is the producer an artist, only the viewer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robodude
It's not as if he's passing this [rape tunnel] off as art...
I would put them in the same category. Modern art is all like this from the unmade beds, empty sheds, feces, empty rooms. It's devoid of significant meaning for the purpose of having the viewer impose their own onto it. It's no more art than a blank canvas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by adamthecarny
So in your view publicity is the payoff for an artist?
Nope, publicity is the payoff for a class of artists including modern artists and the subject of the thread and I'm saying it's not deserved because it justifies the status as art. It's used as a self-fulfilling definition i.e I define it as art, it causes people to discuss it at great length, it becomes art simply because of the discussion. It's weak and it degrades the industry in that it makes people lazy.
When our society looks back through history, we see so much passion and talent because an artist had no choice but to do better work to make an impact. Steve Jobs has said as much about Apple - for Apple to win, Microsoft doesn't have to lose; Apple just has to do a better job, the innovation alone distinguishes between the leader and the follower (mindshare). I would not be surprised to see a future society look back at us and hang their heads in disappointment at the lazy, get-rich/famous-quick, inward-looking mentality we promoted. There are still the few who do more to make our lives better but they are the ones who deserve recognition, not because they need it but because they are owed it.
Comments
My previous post satisfies those requirements.
I take it you are someone who thinks that art has no definition other than the definition you impose on it. By that standard everything is art and I suggest that by that definition, nothing is.
I take it YOU are someone who thinks that art has no definition other than the definition YOU impose on it. Your ability to appreciate the artist's meaning (or your decision that it is worthy of being called art) holds as little in the argument of what is art as anyone else's opinion, because (unfortunately for some) there is no badge, club or even protected title that suggests some minimum qualification is required to produce something that makes people think, feel or maybe see something from a different point of view. By that definition, and because of that element of our society, I say anything can be art so long as someone wants to call it art.
Surely the value of art is not that it is art, but that it has the ability to reflect a thought, a feeling, an idea or a skill. That it showcases something; physical, literal, satirical or metaphorical. And surely there isnt a minimum number of people that have to "get it" before that thought, feeling, idea or skill is validated as art. Otherwise, who makes the distinction of what is art and what is not?
You pine for days when an artist was someone that could "sculpt a statute or paint a chapel somewhere" or otherwise create something tangible and saleable. You can have your boring economical classicism and still allow the rest of the world to enjoy the romantics - how is it hurting you that this guy calls himself an artist? Where is the confusion or watering down of talent that comes from this guy calling himself an artist? It is an elitist hypothetical and a logical fallacy. Surely if I wanted my cliff face to be scultped into a grandiose temple, or I wanted the ceiling of my chapel adorned, or I wanted a backing track to my latest commercial, or I wanted a logo for my startup, I wouldnt just call the local "artist"?
I don't care for an opinion that degrades the standards and quality of the creative industry.
And I totally agree. Luckily for me though, I don't let a bad album muddy my opinion of the latest bestselling book. Or let my opinion of Hirst's paintings influence the way I feel about Carravagio. Art for arts sake lives happily with art for gentry's sake, and in my opinion they bolster each other.
I find it an insult to know very hard working and talented artists who have studied and learned their craft for years and someone makes programs that deletes files and that they are even discussed for a second in any capacity other than ridicule.
So in your view publicity is the payoff for an artist? Interesting. Surely someone that has studied and learned their craft for years will be unaffected by an artist who makes a computer game that gets some publicity and spreads an important (to some) message.
Adam.
p.s. When discussing a piece of art that pushes an anti-killing agenga, it would have been a masterstroke to play the "we should kill the artist" card; but I think you crashed and burned when you suggested benefit to society was key to the argument, rather than sticking with the irony.
IMHO, I think the real problem with violent games lies in their realistic imagery. It's quite well known that your body has the ability to adapt itself to a steady exposure to many things. An example would be painkillers, i.e. if 1 aspirin is effectively used for a headache and is used frequently ... soon 1 is not enough.
Our brain reacts to imagery the same way, i.e. the first exposure to graphic violence is quite unsettling but if we are exposed daily our mind starts to accept it as normal and just because it happens on a screen rather than in real life matters little. It's the reason why visualization techniques work.
I honestly think we do ourselves a disservice by allowing and encouraging media producers to keep "upping the ante" in their use of violence. ... just my 2 cents worth.
Color me skeptical, people have been making that argument for decades and it's not been a proven causal relationship. I think it's a hard argument to justify when game violence have been getting more realistic (same with movie violence for that matter), and yet, real-world violent crimes have been declining at the same time. I just don't see where it's worth trying to ban and censor games, because that's what it's really going to take to put a stop this pretend violence.
why doe's this game attack my mac ??
ans why is this ok ??
oh wait thats right
it's >> im a windows user for a day >> day .
It doesn't attack your mac unless you fire a shot - that's kinda the whole point.
I agree it's a danger to have on your machine with kids & idiot friends around, but I decided not to download it so it's not a danger to me.
I wish all software threats came with two warning screens and no way to propagate, it'd be a lot easier!
It doesn't attack your mac unless you fire a shot - that's kinda the whole point.
I agree it's a danger to have on your machine with kids & idiot friends around, but I decided not to download it so it's not a danger to me.
I wish all software threats came with two warning screens and no way to propagate, it'd be a lot easier!
thank you for responding
what bugs my butt is that we can easily go from an open threat to the same threat hidden or embedded someplace
if i had a bazooka i would shoot these people
thank you for responding
what bugs my butt is that we can easily go from an open threat to the same threat hidden or embedded someplace
if i had a bazooka i would shoot these people
Yeah this is the problem. Use the code in a bejewelled style game and link it's high scores & Downloads page to Facebook feeds and you have an unstoppable force...
I agree that it needs more protection to stop random programs from deleting files.
I thought the game itself was a great way to promote pacifism in gaming though
It sure would be a fun way to delete your Trash.
IMO you are mixing up your definitions here. Art is about meaning.
You say you wish they did something more meaningful, but then you kind of imply that it's the "talent" they show (or don't show), that's the core of it all, which is really code for "craft." Craftsmanship /= "Art".
I would say art is about significant meaning in the same way beauty is about significant beauty. Many men will have wives with facial hair and consider them beautiful but they would not be considered beautiful by a majority. There has to be a limit when using global and not personal definitions. I don't want that to come across to mean that only the majority defines art, merely that it has to be sufficiently justified.
I am someone who thinks that art is defined by the creator or by the viewer.
By that definition, and because of that element of our society, I say anything can be art so long as someone wants to call it art.
So you are of the opinion that when someone produces a piece of child pornography and calls it art no matter how obscene, you would unconditionally agree with them? Everyone draws a line somewhere, yours is just further to one side but having a line at all is contrary to what you said. Also, I don't understand how anything can be art yet you object so strongly to a forum post - if an artist can define anything as art, surely I can say anything I want for it to be a valid critique.
That is no excuse for wanting to shoot them! That was my main problem, your wishes of death of another person purely for having different views.
As someone else pointed out, you took the comment too seriously - I clearly worded it to compare it to the 'artistic' endeavor of deleting files vs the benefit of realizing your dependence on them. If I'd said that those people wouldn't be given publicity instead, then it wouldn't have related at all to the principle behind the game.
Now, if it was intended as such, I don't know for sure, but I do know that I view it as art, and though I don't think I'll see it in any museum ever, I can appreciate the message.
Sure, I can appreciate the message too but as someone pointed out, the message is simplistic and a global definition of art rather than personal must have significant meaning. If he had accompanied the game with an eloquent message such as:
"Always endeavor to conquer yourself rather than fortune, and change your desires rather than the order of the world, and in general, accustom yourself to the persuasion that, except our own thoughts, there is nothing absolutely in our power; so that when we have done our best in things external to us, all wherein we fail of success is to be considered, as regards us, absolutely impossible: and this single principle seemed to me sufficient to prevent me from desiring for the future anything which I could not obtain, and thus render me contented; for since our will naturally seeks those objects alone which the understanding represents as in some way possible of attainment, it is plain, that if we consider all external goods as equally beyond our power, we shall no more regret the absence of such goods as seem due to our birth when deprived of them without any fault of ours, than our not possessing the kingdoms of China or Mexico, and thus making, so to speak, a virtue of necessity, we shall no more desire health in disease, or freedom in imprisonment, than we now do bodies incorruptible as diamonds, or the wings of birds to fly with.
But I confess, there is need of prolonged discipline and frequently repeated meditation to accustom the mind to view all objects in this light; and I believe that in this chiefly consisted the secret of the power of such philosophers as in former times were enabled to rise superior to the influence of fortune, and, amid suffering and poverty, enjoy a happiness which their gods might have envied.
For, occupied incessantly with the consideration of the limits prescribed to their power by nature, they became so entirely convinced that nothing was at their disposal except their own thoughts, that this conviction was of itself sufficient to prevent their entertaining their desire of other objects; and over their thoughts they acquired a sway so absolute, that they had some ground on this account for esteeming themselves more rich and more powerful, more free and more happy, than other men who, whatever be the favors heaped on them by nature and fortune, if destitute of this philosophy, can never command the realization of all their desires."
Rene Descartes, 1637
If someone presents a simplistic comment on human behavior and it's left to the public to give it any weight then the piece is not art nor is the producer an artist, only the viewer.
It's not as if he's passing this [rape tunnel] off as art...
I would put them in the same category. Modern art is all like this from the unmade beds, empty sheds, feces, empty rooms. It's devoid of significant meaning for the purpose of having the viewer impose their own onto it. It's no more art than a blank canvas.
So in your view publicity is the payoff for an artist?
Nope, publicity is the payoff for a class of artists including modern artists and the subject of the thread and I'm saying it's not deserved because it justifies the status as art. It's used as a self-fulfilling definition i.e I define it as art, it causes people to discuss it at great length, it becomes art simply because of the discussion. It's weak and it degrades the industry in that it makes people lazy.
When our society looks back through history, we see so much passion and talent because an artist had no choice but to do better work to make an impact. Steve Jobs has said as much about Apple - for Apple to win, Microsoft doesn't have to lose; Apple just has to do a better job, the innovation alone distinguishes between the leader and the follower (mindshare). I would not be surprised to see a future society look back at us and hang their heads in disappointment at the lazy, get-rich/famous-quick, inward-looking mentality we promoted. There are still the few who do more to make our lives better but they are the ones who deserve recognition, not because they need it but because they are owed it.