Hideo Kojima - "videogames are not art"

[sabre2922]

Kojima goes on to say that they are "a form of art though" :hmm:

http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2098&Itemid=2


"I don't think they're art either, videogames," he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

While Kojima said that games as a whole aren't art, he did say that games do incorporate art. "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum--how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

[WiseSalesman]

Simply put, if film, literature, poetry, graphic novels, prose, television, and abstractism can be considered art, then video games must follow, by proxy.

[sabre2922]

Simply put, if film, literature, poetry, graphic novels, prose, television, and abstractism can be considered art, then video games must follow, by proxy.

agreed

[Ed Oscuro]

We covered all this in the Ebert thread when it first was news...

[sabre2922]

We covered all this in the Ebert thread when it first was news...

I thought about posting this there

but I thought HEY WHAT THE FUCK I WANT TO POST SOMETHING JUST TO GET ON the ALMIGHTY ED OSCUROS NERVES

So that he can once again flame someone for NO FUCKING REASON :roll:

[blissfulnoise]

Seeing as how everyone agrees that art is subjective, then anything can be art.

Anyone who tries to define something as "art or not art" is missing the point.

[Truffle]

Simply put, if film, literature, poetry, graphic novels, prose, television, and abstractism can be considered art, then video games must follow, by proxy.

My exact opinion.

[unwinddesign]

I think he meant art in a more traditional sense -- sculpture, painting, drawing, etc.

[Vroomfunkel]

Seeing as how everyone agrees that art is subjective, then anything can be art.

Anyone who tries to define something as "art or not art" is missing the point.

I would maintain that practically no-one agrees that art is subjective. If art was in fact truly subjective, there would be no such thing as great art.

Furthermore, far from 'missing the point', for a lot of modern art, the definition of what is or is not art is the point.

Vroomfunkel

P.S A little hint : As a rule, you're practically always going to get your argument off to a bad start when you begin with "Since everyone agrees with ..." and then follow it with your personal point of view ...

[keiblerfan69]

I would think that someone that has made so many games that are considered art that he would think they could be. Simply put Kojima is off his rocker. Video games are an art form.

[blissfulnoise]

Of course art is subjective. The basic nature of the medium is one of preference and personal meaning. Who can doubt that?

Great Art is only identified so due to it's resonance on historical trends or due to some monumental objective criteria (for example, Mt. Rushmore, The Sistine Chapel).

But the fact that people can agree that it’s Great Art doesn't necessarily mean it’s great art. That's, again, a question of preference. Thus the inherent subjective nature.

Can't an apple be delicious AND red?

You can point to Dadaism, or some other anti-art school of thought, that tries to blur the lines of what art is, but it only strengthens my statement. Anti-art is an effort to destroy the barrier between "art or not art", thus it serves my purpose. Even modern art that seeks to specifically say "this is not art" qualifies as art by making that statement (literally or figuratively).

I see broad strokes when you see narrow lines.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
- Plato (paraphrased)

"Art is lies that tell the truth"
- Piccaso

"Beauty is truth, truth beauty"
- John Keats

[Joker T]

They are sometimes but it seems rare these days that developers do artistic things. Games can be an art form like recently Shadow of the Collosus but games in general are not art. I cosider that games are made purely for entertainment and just for enjoyment not necessarily art. Art is meant to be looked at and admired, games are all about being a part of something.

[blissfulnoise]

Art is meant to be looked at and admired, games are all about being a part of something.

Is a performance of Shakespeare any more art for the audience than it is for the players?

[crazyjackcsa]

At one time I'm sure a novel was not a form of art, at one time I know a movie was not a form of art. Who decides what is art? I'd say popular consensus decides what is and isn't an artform. What does the mass think right now? I'd say we are at the dawn videogames being an art. Personally I can't fully agree or disagree, Not every game is art. That is for sure. Not every Photo, Painting, Movie, Song or piece of poetry is art. What is the criteria? I have no idea really. I just know what I like, and some games to me are art. Many others are not. When I sit down and play a game I sometimes get a "feeling" that something special is going on, and that for me, the game moved from entertainment into art. The Sands of Time did that for me.

Also I'd like to point out that critics don't decide what is art, and never have. As an example. Picasso has stated that the wierder his paintings got, the more the critics loved them, and that pushed him to be stranger. Not to please the critics, but to make fun of them.

[Haoie]

VGs, or some of them at the very least, are certainly a form of art, as art expresses human emotion.

[Vroomfunkel]

Of course art is subjective. The basic nature of the medium is one of preference and personal meaning. Who can doubt that?


Please! You don't do yourself any favours by starting off with things like this, declaring that your opinion is unquestionable!!

The rest of your post contains some reasoned arguments - although I do not believe them to be valid. But can we at least establish that I genuinely disagree with you here ...

Who can doubt you? Well, it may stagger your mind that someone would dare to disagree with you ... but I do!!

It's nearly 1am here, so I am not going to reply at length now - but trust me, you if it is an argument on aesthetics that you want, then I will bring it!!

Vroomfunkel

[Vroomfunkel]

ah, sod it, I can't resist posting at least a very quick repudiation of the "art is subjective" thing.

The notion that art is simply based on preference is a misnomer. Appreciation of art can be based on far more than simply "I like it" or "I don't like it" - there are aspects of technical ability that can be discussed, and of creative engagement with subject matter. Think of the paintings of Van Gogh, or of the poetry of Gerard Manley Hopkins - both were pretty much dismissed during their lifetimes. However they are now held to be masters of their respective domains.

If the merits of a piece of art or poetry are merely subjective then you must hold that whilst Hopkins was alive, his poetry was bad. But now that he is dead, and that it is appreciated, it is now great poetry. I would maintain that his poetry is in fact objectively great - and demonstrably so - and that it was merely not recognised at the time.

The mere fact that there are disagreements over such things, or mistakes, does not mean that there is no objective truth of the matter, so please don't muddy the waters with that red herring either. There are disagreements and errors made in science also, yet this does not mean there is no objective truth there. In fact, great advances in both art and science are often met with strikingly similar initial scepticism, before being later accepted and eventually passing into convention.

More another time, but that at least is something to be going on with!!

Vroomfunkel

[crazyjackcsa]

I thought I'd chime in again here Vroomfunkel. I disagree, and this arguement is very very old. "Who is art for, and what does it take to decide what is good art and what is poor?" You take the position that art is not simply "I like it or I don't" however I take the opposite approach. Of course there are always unappreciated artists, or ones that went unrecognized in life, however I'm dealing with a far wider canvas as it were, the entire art "world" If art is for the artist, than he decides what is and what isn't art. If art is for the critics then they decide what is and what isn't art. and if art is for the general population (which I believe it is) than the general population decides. If the latter two are to be taken as true then art is subjective.

The waters get muddled even further when the case for public funding of the arts is considered. Should unpopular art get funded? Should the public decide what it should and should not fund? Are they capable of deciding? Does dumping cornflakes in a park consitute art?

If there are any Calvin and Hobbess fans here, Calvins dabbling in the "art world" comes to mind as a good example.

[sabre2922]

Many good and valid points from those on both sides.

My opinion is this; WE THE GAMERS should decide wich games should be taken into consideration as a work of art NOT THE GENERAL PUBLIC since we are the ones that (for better or for worse ;) ) have the greater knowledge about what seperates a great game from an average one and more importantly what few games are a cut above the norm of a great or even AAA game and transcend what has traditionally been thought of as "just a videogame".

The same rule applies to many other artforms be it paintings,novels,music or even movies , one wouldnt ask the average Joe off the street to critique a picasso right? You would want the opinion of one educated in THAT PARTICULAR ARTFORM.

By default the same rule should apply to videogames.

This IS DP after all and all arguements and old "flamewars" aside I have a great respect for 98% of the fellow gamers that reside on this site,forums and blogs , meaning that if anyone has the right to debate wich games should be considered art IT SHOULD BE US.

After all a writer or painter doesnt create a work and the suddenly claim "this is a work of art" it is those that admire that work or are knowledgable about that particular field that eventually decide what is a work of art or "masterpiece" and what isnt.

hah k finished with the rant - for now :D
-----------------------------------------------------

Im going to nominate 2 games (one single one a series) to be considered for being labeled a "work of art" that are the most obvious choices to begin with just to see what
type of reactions and opinions are recieved from the vast knowledge of gamers here on this board.

First (and most obvious) : ICO for PS2

Second: the METAL GEAR SERIES including Metal Gear nes metal gear 2 solid snake msx and the metal gear solid games.
----------------------------------------------------

Of course I can think of many older and a few new games that could be considered also including a sega CD game or two , a few 16-bit/32-bit games etc.

IF you think that there are a few videogames that have the right to be called "art" then by all means name it and see what kinda responses you get, if not then tell us why (without useless flaming hopefully).

[EnzoSangiorgio]

I hate art.

[blissfulnoise]

So, Vroomfunkel:

The crux of your argument is that technical prowess equates to high art. The crux of my argument is that emotion equates to art. Does that sum it up?

I never said, nor implied, that art is based on preference; certainly not a universal preference. I do not care for most impressionistic paintings, I do not care for Maya Angelou's writings but I do not dismiss them. But, to further my apple analogy; an apple can be both bitter AND red. It's still an apple.

It seems to me that another main point in your argument is that great art is identified so by popular consensus at best, or critical consensus at worst. I’ll stand up and be the first to say that critics, in all forms, are a vital part of life at this stage in the game. We’re so bombarded by information; it helps to have specialists out there helping to wade through it. That said would Van Gogh’s works be considered so great today if said critics did not make subjective opinions about them? Would Paul Gauguin be better known had if these subjective opinions didn’t change?

I mean is there really some objective truth as to why The Yellow Christ is a inferior painting to The Starry Night? It’s not like humanity burst out, “Oh shit! We really do rotate around the sun, it explains the seasons and stuff. Yeah, and Sunflowers totally kicks Night Café at Arles ass because Sunflowers are a genetically superior flower!”

I mean we ARE still talking about art and not the artist, right?

Your points about Van Gogh and Hopkins are, to use a phrase that's become popular on message board discussions, straw-man arguments. Is it so hard to believe that tastes change over time? We're talking about works of creativity here, not scientific truths such as gravity or molecular structures. Thus comparisons to scientific progress are baseless.

But to take your points further, sure, in science, the truth of yesterday (the Earth is flat) is not the same as the truth is today (the Earth is round). But to make analogies between scientific truths and aesthetic truths is comparing oranges to Orangutans. You can do it, but it doesn't make any sense.

Sure you can make some statements that apply to both science and art that I'd agree with. For example; that Math or Physics can be art, or at the very least, artistic. But to equate E=MC^2 to The Thinker serves no purpose. The Thinker can invoke feelings of loneliness, triumph, piety, or boredom. E=MC^2 says we can't go faster than the speed of light… and boredom. I suppose that E=MC^2 can say even more than that to people, but, again, that's a subjective experience.

Both are beauty, both are true, and, as I see it, both are examples of art in a subjective sense. But E=MC^2 is science in an objective sense.

Look, I know exactly where you're coming from. Hell, I consider myself an Empiricist at heart (well, a humanistic rationalist if you wanna get technical).

You're taking a page from Kant's book in that if you cannot objectify an object or thought, then we are wasting our time discussing it in that there is no equitable perspective to view that object or thought. In order to have art existing with any meaning at all it needs to be objectified for us to derive some benchmark to determine its worthiness.

I respectfully disagree. I think if we objectify art, we negate it. I will not stand up and tell someone that their emotions evoked by a meaningful act, object, or thought are voided because another work should express that emotion instead.

And while privately, I may be an elitist prick who looks down on the works of Ansel Adams and Yanni, I won’t publicly or privately shun another person’s meaningful connection with those works because of it.

But I think I provoked you with my original statement in that I blanketed a subjective sentiment with an objective statement. Sorry, I didn’t mean to speak for you. Your opinion has merit, and I didn’t mean to dismiss it before you said it. You can give my paper a B+ for lack of tact if it makes you sleep easier.

[EnzoSangiorgio]

www.dictionary.com

Sorry, I had to.

[crazyjackcsa]

Wow! Suddenly I'm digging this thread! Some deep thinking, no name calling... it can't last.

[Graham Mitchell]

Though my 2 cents will not be nearly as captivating as what's going on here between blissfulnoise and vroomfunkel, I'm going to add it anyway because this is something I actually feel strongly about.

I basically feel that, for me, the quality of art has nothing to do with technical prowess. I'm really into music, and I know people who trash-talk Wire or the Fall because they don't perform with the same grandiose sense of arrangement and ability that Rush or Primus do. But to me, Rush and Primus say absolutely nothing (lyrically or musically). Sure, they spent hours locked in a room learning to do all that complex stuff, but it's just showboating. It doesn't prove a point, and I interpret it as a ruse to confuse the listener in order to suppress their realization that there's nothing important being expressed.

A similar argument could be presented in video games. Some people think first-person shooter are always the best games because they push the hardware to the max, and have really flashy visuals. Yet, I feel absolutely nothing when I play Doom 3. Some games are more about expression than others (and some, like Final Fantasy X, have TOO MUCH expression). I tend to prefer those because I'm a nerd.

So to me, art is about the emotional or expressive component, and objective skill or ability is worthless. Since that's my opinion, and not everybody else's, I guess that leads me to think that art is subjective. So, Hideo Kojima's opinion is his opinion, my opinion is my opinoin, and Vroomfunke's opinion is his opinion, and none of us are wrong. That's what makes art great.

[Joker T]

Both sides seem to offer valid points, it's hard to say.

[rbudrick]

Blah, blah, blah...bunch of art snobs

Listen, everything I write is art. Art is subjective, so I say so subjectively. Except for when I state objective fact, which is truthfully what my art is. Except when I lie.

Those games back in the day written by one guy or gal? Art. Game made by 2-100 people. Crap. Just entertainment.

Don't you guys know this? It's fact. Just like everything is art, except for everything that isn't. And, of course, those things that are or aren't also fall in this category.

Hey, you guys seen that new French film about that guy and girl that go to that place? Now that's art. The whole movie. I didn't like the parts that weren't that artsy, though. I hate subtitles. I'd rather watch it in the orignal language. I'm so cultured.

I only drink bottled water.


Unless I'm fucked up on Champagne.

-Rob

[Vroomfunkel]

to me, art is about the emotional or expressive component, and objective skill or ability is worthless ... that leads me to think that art is subjective.

You are mistaken about what I am taking issue with. Technical prowess was only one example of something that can be objectively discussed in reference to what makes a piece of art good or not. The emotional and expressive component is another, and I would not agree that this aspect of a piece of art detracts from its objectivity.

Since it's not 1am this time, perhaps I can explain myself a little better. Here goes:

If I am having a discussion with someone about brocoli, and they say "I don't like it", and I say "well I do", then our difference of opinion on the matter is something subjective. There's no meaningful way that I can argue with them to convince them that actually they do like brocoli - it's just a matter of taste, and no amount of reasoning can change that.

A piece of art is different. If I consider a great piece of art, and someone comes to me and tells me that it is in fact facile and derivative, then I can conduct a reasoned argument with them about why I disagree - and I can possibly even hope to change their mind. Historical facts about the development of a particular genre can be brought up to demonstrate that the work possesses an originality that may have been overlooked. We could discuss the nature of the materials or utensils used, or the choice of a rough, broad sweeping brush-stroke instead of a thin delicate line - and how that choice contributes to or detracts from the piece.

And as for suggesting that great art is identified by popular or critical consensus, I am saying completely the opposite! I am maintaining that Hopkins poetry was great even when the vast majority of opinion (both popular and critical) stood to the contrary.


Your points about Van Gogh and Hopkins are, to use a phrase that's become popular on message board discussions, straw-man arguments. Is it so hard to believe that tastes change over time? We're talking about works of creativity here, not scientific truths such as gravity or molecular structures. Thus comparisons to scientific progress are baseless.

This is simply begging the question again. You say 'comparisons to scientific progress are baseless' because you are working from the assumption that appreciation of art is subjective and scientific advances are objective. But this is the very point under discussion here! You can't prove your point simply by repeating it ....

Contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, it is possible to be mistaken about a piece of art. It would be correct to say that E=mc^2 tells us something about the relationship between energy and mass. It would be a mistake to say it told us something about, for example, the reproductive rituals of porcupines. Likewise, it would be correct to say that Philip Larkin's poem "Days" deals with religous themes. It would be a mistake to say that it dealt with political themes. All these things are objective facts.


I will not stand up and tell someone that their emotions evoked by a meaningful act, object, or thought are voided because another work should express that emotion instead.

I'm not sure what you are getting at here - different works can inspire similar emotions, that is not in dispute is it? I am not suggesting that we 'void' people's emotional reactions to a piece of art either. But emotion is not the only level of response we that we can have to a piece of art.

Vroomfunkel

[/quote]

[blissfulnoise]

I don't disagree with you in that art can, and probably should, have some tangible quality we can discuss beyond what evocative meaning it might have.

"That is a very tall statue."

"The Pyramids took many years to build."

"This poem is about chipmunks."

But those sorts of statements only apply to the creation, application, or modification of the object themselves. It gives us factual data about the information we're considering but that's all. The artistic merit in the object is where it becomes unique to the individual. Just because a painting is original does not make it objectively better than a derivative painting.

It may bear repeating, in my eyes; "Art" is a personal experience. Artistry may be something else entirely.

The broccoli analogy is a good one, but you should take it further. Can you not have a discussion with someone about why broccoli is delicious (and it is damnit) using reasonable dialog? And how often do you manage to persuade someone that this band is better than that band? I'm willing to bet most people resist (probably passively) those persuasions because they've probably made up their mind on if they like something or not regardless of how "awesome" said band is.

I think the point that stands against your reasoning is that there is no "formula" that creates great art. And as long as there is no method set in stone, then by definition, it is a subjective medium.

Why would people write off a performance artist who takes a dump on an American flag as a lunatic but rave about the latest work of Thomas Kincaid? Is one of these forms of art more meaningful than the other? Is one better art?


I'm not sure what you are getting at here - different works can inspire similar emotions, that is not in dispute is it? I am not suggesting that we 'void' people's emotional reactions to a piece of art either. But emotion is not the only level of response we that we can have to a piece of art.

As I said in my first discourse, an apple can be both delicious and red. We agree with that I think. Where we disagree is in the most important quality of the apple:

From what I understand, you'd said that it's red. I'd say that it's delicious.

Of course emotion isn't the only type of response we can have, a work of art could be tactile, bright, purple, upside-down, on fire, or any number of other things. We could talk at length about any number of objective qualities of any piece of art. My argument is that the only one worth having is how it makes you feel. And that's up to me to decide.

[Vroomfunkel]

I think I see where you're trying to go now.

The problem is that whilst the red-ness and the delicious-ness of an apple are distinct and not necessarily connected, this distinction is not so clear cut as the various responses to a piece of art. In this sense I think you are setting up something of a straw-man of the type that you criticised me for.

You wish to separate the objective attributes of a piece of art from our emotional response to it, but in fact our emotional response to a work of art is necessarily connected to the objective attributes. To put it another way, if it did not have the same objective attributes - if it were not the thing that it is - then we would not have the same emotional response to it. If the Mona Lisa was sticking her tongue out instead of smiling, our response would be affected.

However the apple could be red, purple, blue, pink or invisible - it would not affect our judgement of its deliciousness.

Vroomfunkel

[blissfulnoise]

However the apple could be red, purple, blue, pink or invisible - it would not affect our judgement of its deliciousness.

But see it probably would! Would you eat a rotten apple even if you knew it would taste the same as a ripe one?

I know people who think that certain foods are unpalatable because of certain objective qualities. Because a Banana is squishy, because ketchup is red, because Sweet-tarts are similar to pills.

I'm not sure where this discussion derailed from where I thought it was at, but I agree, more or less, with the jist of your last post. I don't think I was ever refuting it.

My impression of the rest of your counter-argument was that the objective qualities of art were more important than it's subjective nature. That high art (or just art) was justified by it's empirical properties rather than it's emotional impact.

I took the opposite approach. That the sum of these objective qualities mixed with a person's individual taste creates our subjective impression of a piece of art. My argument is that said subjective impression is the most important, and only valid, response to art.

I agree that if the Mona Lisa was sticking out her tongue our responses would be affected. My perception is that it would not necessarily be affected negatively, but either way it doesn't make the Mona Lisa any less "art". Would you agree?

Am I misunderstanding where you stand?

[cyberfluxor]

I consider it art. If creating something involves thought, imagination, and planning then it is considered an art in my book, which they fall under. When someone decides to create art by flinging paint around, they had to think "Man, I would like to make art by flinging random paint around!" and use their imagination to make sense of it. Without planning how would they get the pain on the wallscroll/paper or decide to do it in their garage? Well, by any means anyone can create art in many different shapes and forms, video games are one.

[Graham Mitchell]

Vroomfunkel and Blissfulnoise: I love you guys. This is a great thread.

Anyway, I'm sorry I misinterpreted your post, Vroomfunkel. I really do understand what you are saying. This is a tough concept to pick apart, but I do agree that a lot of our responses to a piece of art indeed are directed at its objective qualities.

I guess where I feel differently is that if I were to look negatively on the objective attributes of something, I wouldn't let that obscure the expressive component for me; I wouldn't be compelled to call it a bad piece of art, or to say that I don't enjoy it. Hence, I like PonyCanyon's versions of Ultima:Exodus and Super Pitfall.

[sabre2922]

hmmm "hes right vidoegames are NOT art" vidOEgames :drinking: must have had a few too many that night

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/weblogs/upload/50/152000025743d7482a29a8f.jpg

[Damion]

Kojima goes on to say that they are "a form of art though" :hmm:

http://next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2098&Itemid=2


"I don't think they're art either, videogames," he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

While Kojima said that games as a whole aren't art, he did say that games do incorporate art. "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum--how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

I get the feeling that maybe, just maybe. He is saying video games are more then art.

[Ed Oscuro]

Kojima fumbles for words and the fanboys swoon LOL

[sabre2922]

Kojima fumbles for words and the fanboys swoon LOL

If being a FANBOY of Hideo Kojima is wrong then baby I DONT WANNA BE RIGHT! :rocker:

[Ed Oscuro]

LOL

Hideo's just trying to express a feeling he has. I agree with Damion, he's trying to say that video games aren't like traditional art.

Saying "video games are not art" is a bit of a misstatement on his part, but it's mostly just a misunderstanding of what he intends to say.

[sabre2922]

LOL

Hideo's just trying to express a feeling he has. I agree with Damion, he's trying to say that video games aren't like traditional art.

Saying "video games are not art" is a bit of a misstatement on his part, but it's mostly just a misunderstanding of what he intends to say.

Now thats a quote I can agree with 8-)

[Ed Oscuro]

Aye. Actually, the second half of what I should've said was that haters would use this as "Kojima is stupid" ammunition. Nope, just thinking out loud.

[Vroomfunkel]

However the apple could be red, purple, blue, pink or invisible - it would not affect our judgement of its deliciousness.

But see it probably would! Would you eat a rotten apple even if you knew it would taste the same as a ripe one?

That's a bit of an impossible question, given that our definition of 'rotten' is something that has deteriorated beyond the point of edibility. If a rotten apple tasted the same as a ripe one, we wouldn't call it 'rotten'.


I know people who think that certain foods are unpalatable because of certain objective qualities. Because a Banana is squishy, because ketchup is red, because Sweet-tarts are similar to pills.

People can, and of course do, make choices about foods based on objective qualities - but they are not necessarily logical choices. And ultimately, the taste experience of ketchup is not affected by its redness. Here's the test:

Put blue ketchup and red ketchup (identical in every other way) into bowls. Blindfold the subject, and ask them to taste both.

And indeed, it may be that a brown apple will often taste bad and a red one good - but it is not the brown-ness that makes it taste bad. Coat the ripe apple with chocolate, and it will be brown, but it won't necessarily taste bad!


agree that if the Mona Lisa was sticking out her tongue our responses would be affected. My perception is that it would not necessarily be affected negatively, but either way it doesn't make the Mona Lisa any less "art". Would you agree?

Perhaps my example wasn't clear enough. Our response to the Mona Lisa is to a depiction of a woman. That we perceive it and judge it as such is dependent on the objective qualities of the painting - the relation and position of certain lines and colours, to certain conventions of perspective and such. If the lines were not where they are, the colours not combined in the way that they are, then we would not have even the same picture, or perhaps even a picture at all.

If our response is dependent upon these things, then we can examine and discuss our response to it in relation to those qualities. We can discuss whether the wobble of a certain line is an intentional device which adds to the quality of the work - by lending an air of hesitancy - or whether it is a mistake by the artist which detracts from the overall impact of the piece.

Another reason that I do not believe art to be completely subjective is that this eliminates the artist from the equation and places everything in the mind of the observer. Do we really believe that the meaning, impact, the quality of a piece of art is completely detached from the artist and resides solely with the observer? Ultimately, this is what the subjective view of art has to conclude - and I think that this is so patently false that it must be challenged.

What art is is a big question - but at the base of it, there is an expression of our shared humanity. And this depends on engagement both from artist and viewer(s)

Vroomfunkel

[blissfulnoise]

I'll undoubtedly agree that art, and indeed all things, have objective qualities and these objective qualities are what we use to form our opinion of the art in question.

I also believe that the meaning of the art IS detached from the artist. Many artists do create works solely for an audience to interpret rendering any muse that they used to create the work irrelevant. These artists want their work to be in a natural state, or a subjective experience if you will (for a recent example, look at Jim Jarmusch's Broken Flowers).

While obviously not all art or artists go this path, it doesn't make the reality of the situation any different. Othello is a tragedy; does that mean the audience will always be sad? Who's to say that someone cannot take a perverse pleasure from it? Who's to say that it has to elicit a feeling at all?

Put a person in front of a Van Gogh and a work from Francis Bacon. Ensure this person has no idea who Van Gogh is and who Francis Bacon is. Ask them to view both.

When you take a person, tabula rasa, the artist, and their original intentions for creating the art, becomes irrelevant. There is nothing left but personal experience with a piece of art. I argue that is what art strives for.

Sure a painting may be OF flowers, but does that mean it has to be ABOUT flowers?

The final point I'll try to make on this subject before I concede our, unfortunate, fundamental disagreement is that the expression of art does depend on an engagement from the artist and viewer. But only in that the artist must create, and the viewer must perceive. Assuming the artist had a motivation beyond just the creation of the piece, and if the impact on the viewer is the same as that original intention, then super! But it doesn't make the piece more "art" then if it isn't.

[Vroomfunkel]

Othello is a tragedy; does that mean the audience will always be sad? Who's to say that someone cannot take a perverse pleasure from it? Who's to say that it has to elicit a feeling at all?

This is entirely irrelevant - for there to be an objective truth about whether Othello is or is not a tragic play does not depend on everyone agreeing upon it, any more than the existence of gravity depends on everyone agreeing upon that.

And if the intention of a piece of art is to allow as many interpretations as possible, it can still succeed or fail in that objective.


When you take a person, tabula rasa, the artist, and their original intentions for creating the art, becomes irrelevant. There is nothing left but personal experience with a piece of art. I argue that is what art strives for.

I would argue that talk of 'tabula rasa' is just nonsense. There is no such thing as a person approaching a piece of art 'tabula rasa'. We all have formative experience, understandings of certain conventions of language, depiction, expression etc. etc. These things are fundamental to our interaction and understanding of the world around us. Without them we would be completely unable to communicate at all.


Sure a painting may be OF flowers, but does that mean it has to be ABOUT flowers?

No, not necessarily. But you seem to be raising the point that it is possible to be mistaken over what a work is about. If art is subjective, as you assert, then this is impossible - it must be about whatever you decide it is about. Under the subjective view of art, if I decide that Dali's St John of the Cross is about the extinction of the dodos, then I must be right.

I would hold that this is patently nonsense, and that anyone who thinks the painting is about this is just wrong. Objectively wrong.

Vroomfunkel

[blissfulnoise]

I would argue that talk of 'tabula rasa' is just nonsense. There is no such thing as a person approaching a piece of art 'tabula rasa'. We all have formative experience, understandings of certain conventions of language, depiction, expression etc. etc. These things are fundamental to our interaction and understanding of the world around us. Without them we would be completely unable to communicate at all.

I did say that's what art strives for. Tabula rasa in the literal sense is impossible, as we all know, my intention was to say that a person should approach the art as a blank slate without opinion or preference to artist, medium, composition, subject matter, or environment. Not a blank slate in that they have, literally, no internalized concepts of anything.

I argue that there IS no "right" in art. You keep saying that there is. That if a piece of art depicts something, then it must be about that or at least stay in the vicinity.

You could make an argument that St John of the Cross is about the extinction of the Dodos if you legitimately deduced that from various expressive factors. No sane person (and that's the fulcrum point here) could see the painting and say, that's, literally, a Dodo. But figuratively, they could see any number of things, and if that's how you interpret the art, then by all means, run with that. If you want to the person to say, "no stupid, that paintings about the folly of religious iconography", then go for it. I'm not taking that ground.

But let me take your next step for you. What if we allow something like Walden to be viewed as a piece of Nazi Propaganda or some other socially dangerous position? Is that a wrong view of art? Under my argument it wouldn't be. Do I think that kind of deduction is good for society, no, I don't, but that's the conundrum isn't it?

I finally see the meat under all your bread. Can a wildly subjective view of art be so far right or left of center that it becomes "wrong"?

I guess I can concede a point about a person's collective experiences being so askew, where sanity becomes a factor, that they make a potentially volatile conclusion when exposed to art. At that stage, I think that their conclusions could be wrong ethically, but not necessarily wrong atheistically. Are they one in the same? The empiricist in me says yes, and the humanist in me says no.

And understand, I'm trying to stay honest here. It'd be easy to say, screw it, that conclusion isn't wrong; it's just as valid an opinion as that Walden is about camping out just to keep the ball in your court.

It's a hell of a question, but seeing as how it's so far outside the scope of the argument I was trying to put forth, I'm not going to tackle it. Maybe you'd say it is in the scope of my argument, since I didn't make allowances in my original post. When dealing with questions of sanity, we've all got to keep that in another jar because, otherwise, all bets are off.

If you're looking for a universal field theory of art, then yes, under the most remote circumstances, dealing with mentally damaged people, yes, there is a point in which art must be objective. Walden is not a call for people to eradicate the Jews. I still argue that it's possible for someone to derive that from the work, so I guess it's potentially universally subjective whether I like it or not, so you may need to concede that. But at that point, the person may be ethically "wrong" about art.

[Vroomfunkel]

I did say that's what art strives for. Tabula rasa in the literal sense is impossible, as we all know, my intention was to say that a person should approach the art as a blank slate without opinion or preference to artist, medium, composition, subject matter, or environment. Not a blank slate in that they have, literally, no internalized concepts of anything.

I did wonder whether this would be your response. You will be unsuprised to learn that I disagree! Art depends upon learnt conventions, experience, historical and conextual knowledge and all these other things in order to be even seen as anything more than random splodges of colour (focusing here on represantational art for a moment). I find it completely impossible therefore to accept that it 'strives' to be understood devoid of all this. Does it matter that Monet painted with watercolours rather than crayons? Yes it does! Does it knowing of Dali's experiences of the Spanish civil war affect our understanding of his paintings? Yes, it does!


I argue that there IS no "right" in art. You keep saying that there is.

Agreed


That if a piece of art depicts something, then it must be about that or at least stay in the vicinity.

Disagreed! A piece of art can be about many things other than that which it depicts (if indeed it depicts anything at all). It can convey a feeling or a mood, or it can have metaphorical or symbolic meanings. My position is that these can also be objectively discussed.


You could make an argument that St John of the Cross is about the extinction of the Dodos if you legitimately deduced that from various expressive factors.

Key word - 'legitimately'. I agree with you here. However, if you infer it illegitimately - that is, without sufficient evidence, then your argument is wrong.


No sane person (and that's the fulcrum point here) could see the painting and say, that's, literally, a Dodo. But figuratively, they could see any number of things, and if that's how you interpret the art, then by all means, run with that. If you want to the person to say, "no stupid, that paintings about the folly of religious iconography", then go for it. I'm not taking that ground.

I love it how you set up the interlocutor for objectivity here as a pompous ass. Let's keep it civil, eh? I can disagree with someone without calling them stupid. If someone were to insist to me that the painting was about Dodos then I would indeed say I thought they were wrong - but I wouldn't commence by calling them stupid.

But OK, I picked an outlandish example for the misunderstanding - one that could easily be seen to be a mistaken understanding of the work. Let's try a less outlandish interpretation instead - say instead that our Dali observer thinks the painting is a devotional piece, dedicated to the conventional Christian faith. I will still maintain that they are simply mistaken in their interpretation, and that objective facts can be called upon to verify that.

The subjective part of their understanding of the picture may remain valid - they may indeed derive genuine religious pleasure and affirmation from it. But in their understanding of it as a piece of art, they are mistaken.




Walden is not a call for people to eradicate the Jews. I still argue that it's possible for someone to derive that from the work, so I guess it's potentially universally subjective whether I like it or not, so you may need to concede that. But at that point, the person may be ethically "wrong" about art.

Nice try - but I concede nothing here! If you want to allow that an interpretation of Walden as Nazi propoganda is as valid as any other interpretation of it, well I guess it shows dedication to your belief in subjectivism - but I can't see how it relates in any way to how we actually interact with art and with the world. I would just say that they are mistaken.

Go to any book group in the world reading Walden, and try suggesting to them that it is in fact Nazi propoganda. I would be interested to see how many of them nod sweetly and say "Well, I'd never really thought of it that way, but if you think so then it must be right on some level".

Vroomfunkel

[blissfulnoise]

The subjective part of their understanding of the picture may remain valid - they may indeed derive genuine religious pleasure and affirmation from it. But in their understanding of it as a piece of art, they are mistaken.

Isn't this what I'm trying to say? So what if they don't know why Monet painted Water Lilies. Hell, I don’t. A viewer can be mistaken as to the artists (original) meaning, sure, are you saying that an emotion elicited from a lack of knowledge is less valid an emotion? A wrong emotion?

Again, we're not talking about Science. Someone can, and will, be wrong if they expect an apple to fall up instead of down, regardless if they know about Isaac Newton or not.

You're still asking me to invalidate a response to a piece of art if it's taken out of context. And, again, I do not believe that a response to art is ever invalid. If someone explains to that person that the artist’s intention is otherwise different, and they change their impression, than that's fine too.

Of course you can objectively discuss said feelings. "That painting makes me sad because the subject is crying." "This poem makes me nostalgic because I used to live there." But if someone sees sad, and someone sees joy; isn't it subjective?

It only matters that Monet used watercolors in so far as people do or do not enjoy watercolor paintings. Are you saying that watercolors are a more artistic medium than Crayola and will always generate a “better” emotion? Some people may enjoy the works more if he had used crayons. And it may elicit different responses to the work as a result. It doesn't change my argument; people will still see the painting and, potentially, respond to it differently if nothing else on a base, primal level.

Here's the core, the bottom of my point; outside of all of the analogies and longwinded rebuttals.

As long as someone can look at a piece of art and say, "I like it", while another person looks at the same piece of art and says, "I don't”, I stand by my original statement.

Regardless of all the other external stimuli, above and beyond any preferences of medium, knowledge of the artist, or dissenting experts; a person will still, ultimately, derive a personal opinion of the work. Unless there is some external factor, where applied, in which one opinion is elicited one hundred percent of the time, it, by definition, becomes a subjective medium.

[Joker T]

This makes me wonder if DP should have a debate team.

[Ed Oscuro]

I agree, heh

[zerohero]

I'm shocked someone as smart as Hideo would say something like this, I must say his credability has been somewhat shot down in my mind... Now finish MGS4 you basterd!

[Vroomfunkel]

As long as someone can look at a piece of art and say, "I like it", while another person looks at the same piece of art and says, "I don't”, I stand by my original statement.

Regardless of all the other external stimuli, above and beyond any preferences of medium, knowledge of the artist, or dissenting experts; a person will still, ultimately, derive a personal opinion of the work. Unless there is some external factor, where applied, in which one opinion is elicited one hundred percent of the time, it, by definition, becomes a subjective medium.

Well, it's getting late here again, so I'm just going to go with this final point here. The problem with this is that you can apply this argument to absolutely anything. If your logic is valid for this, then it is also valid for two people examining theory of relativity. One says "I like it" - the other says "I don't like it". Well, so what?

And the objective / subjective debate simply cannot be boiled down to "it can only be objective if 100% of people agree on it when presented with all the evidence".

All this means is that there is no such thing as objectivity at all. As can be ably demonstrated in any field - be it science, mathematics, art, IT, politics, you can always find someone to disagree with you, even with all the same evidence at their disposal as you have. On this level, art is subjective - but so is science and maths. But I don't think that's where you want to go, is it?

The point about objectivity is that an objective fact will still be true even if no-one agrees with it. Difference of opinion over objective fact is therefore not only possible, but almost inevitable - and so to attempt to dismiss objectivity in art unless there is 100% agreement over a piece of art is rather pointless.

Vroomfunkel

[blissfulnoise]

I do think there is a significant difference between objectivity in math/sciences and in art (and probably politics, but please, let us not go there). Not necessarily in that they contain facts (2 + 2 = 4, this is a statue of a dog); because both do, it's what we infer from that information.

You're right, it doesn't matter if people like a mathematical equation or not, at least on an aesthetic level. As long as the equation is logically correct, it serves its purpose.

Art, on the other hand, does matter if people like it or not. A core function of art is that it needs to elicit a reaction. Art is about exhibition to ultimately solicit a, for lack of a better word, critique, be it private or public.

Logic says that because 2 + 2 = 4 then 4 + 4 = 8. Art cannot be so easily surmised. Just because this picture of a flower elicits joy, it doesn't mean that a different picture of a similar flower will affect the viewer the same way.

So objectivity can certainly be demonstrated in fields that deal exclusively in absolutes. If someone wants to dissent, the burdon of proof is on them to find a mistake.

There are no mistakes in art, if you're looking at that statue of the dog and want to infer that it's a metaphor for Theodore Roosevelt, then it's as right as anyone else's take, even the artist's. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... but sometimes it's not.

I made, more or less, the points I wanted to make. Unless there is anything significant you want to add to change the dynamic of the discussion, I'll just cut myself off here and leave you the option of the final word. Thanks for your time Vroomfunkel, and sorry to thread jack the original topic.

And to answer the question, yes, I think video games can be art.

[Ed Oscuro]

I'm shocked someone as smart as Hideo would say something like this, I must say his credability has been somewhat shot down in my mind... Now finish MGS4 you basterd!
Hideo's always saying crazy things. Doesn't mean he's less smart for it, just...maybe not as wise? Or perhaps we should blame the interviewer for giving him a chance to dissipate a bit LOL

[Vroomfunkel]

I agree that we are probably coming to the end of what we have to say to one another on this, and it looks like we will just have to continue to disagree.

Let's not even get on to the argument about whether my position or yours is objectively correct though :)


You're right, it doesn't matter if people like a mathematical equation or not, at least on an aesthetic level. As long as the equation is logically correct, it serves its purpose.

I wasn't necessarily talking about liking it on an aesthetic level ... although that can come into it too. Two people can look at an equation and one say "that is correct" and the other say "that is incorrect". This does not mean that the truth of the equation is subjective.


Art, on the other hand, does matter if people like it or not. A core function of art is that it needs to elicit a reaction. Art is about exhibition to ultimately solicit a, for lack of a better word, critique, be it private or public.

But art does not necessarily seek for everyone to like it - in fact, often the opposite. Some art goes out of its way to shock, offend, disgust or otherwise provoke. These aims, and their success or otherwise, and the capability or originality with which they are pursued are all things that can be objectively discussed. The actual liking or disliking is not the most important element!


Logic says that because 2 + 2 = 4 then 4 + 4 = 8. Art cannot be so easily surmised.

Neither can logic! Logic only says the above on the basis of certain arithmetical systems, which are fairly arbitrarily chosen. Under a different set of axioms "2+2=4" =X> "4+4=8" . For a relatively simple example, in base 5. Here 2+2 =4, but 4+4 = 13


So objectivity can certainly be demonstrated in fields that deal exclusively in absolutes. If someone wants to dissent, the burdon of proof is on them to find a mistake.

I think there is a problem here in the assumption that mathematics and science are fields that deal 'exclusively with absolutes'. They emphatically do not. There are whole fields of mathematics devoted to non-absolutes. Statistics is resolutely non-absolute. Quantum physics also. Does this make them any less objective?


There are no mistakes in art, if you're looking at that statue of the dog and want to infer that it's a metaphor for Theodore Roosevelt, then it's as right as anyone else's take, even the artist's. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar... but sometimes it's not.

This is exactly the same as the Walden/Nazi example, or the Dali/dodos example so we are just running circles here. If we cannot say to someone who thinks that Walden is about Nazis, or St John of the Cross is about dodos, that they are mistaken then I think we devalue art - and indeed there is no need for art even, because we can all go out and infer all or none of these things from a rock in the street and be equally fulfilled and informed.

I would say that the fact that we can't do this shows that there is something more substantial to art than simply whatever we choose to infer.


Thanks for your time Vroomfunkel, and sorry to thread jack the original topic.

It's been a pleasure. I'm sorry I wasn't able to convince you, but that is by the by! Many eminent philosophers and thinkers are mistaken in just the same way that you are ;) j/k (... sort of!)

I am not especially sorry for jacking the topic ... but if anyone was offended by it then I apologise also!

Vroomfunkel

[sabre2922]

An interesting interview with the director of Shadow of Colossus and ICO : http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70286-0.html?tw=rss.culture

Wired has posted an interview with Fumito Ueda, the director of Shadow of the Colossus for the Playstation 2. This game is widely considered to be one of the most artistically impressive games for the Sony machine, and Wired asks Ueda what inspired him. He says at one point that his first game, Ico, is so far from the conventional game design that it can not be considered a video game at all.

"It isn't a video game -- a conventional video game has things like a life meter or other icons on the screen. Ico doesn't have these things."

WN: When you say Ico isn't a video game, it makes me think of the animator Hayao Miyazaki, who stresses that his work is not anime. It's as if he wants to distance himself from the connotations of that word.

FU: Yes, he always says that his films aren't anime, they're manga movies. But I think it's different -- I think Miyazaki is shy, and he'll never praise his own work. That's why he says that. But for Ico, at the beginning of the development period, I thought that the games industry had a negative image for many people. If I called my work a video game, people would think, "Well, this is just a video game, so I don't want to play it."

[cyberfluxor]

I still stand and think they're a form of art. Most programmers will agree with me because it takes a form of thought to make these things. Games such as Ico and Shadow of Colossus are top notch games that show off the visual side of our art in design for complex electronic systems. Sierra does a good job at these things as well. Plus check out Myst and tell me that wasn't a piece of work. :)

[Sanriostar]

Okay guys, this thread has just rolled back the door from the tomb and walked out. Reviving it because I'm writing a paper about this very argument, and wanted some fresh (?) perspectives. We have the following points made:

1:Art is subjective. Not all of us are going to agree.

2:Ico and Colossus are close examples of what proponents think of as Video games as art.

3: The nature of Art has been discussed. It makes you think, can manipulate emotions. So I now offer up these questions:

Is Chess art?

Is Pac-Man Art?

Video Games can mold your emotions, just like "The Wizard of Oz" or "Faster Puyssycat, Kill! Kill!" So when does the emotional guiding stop being a just a manipulation, and become, well, art?

Should Video games be a vehicle for telling a story, or a vehicle for letting the player/audience create one?

Where does the art/entertaiment line lie?

If you do NOT think videogames are art, I'd like to know why. Doesn't need to be a long post, a sentence or two would be OK.

I'll offer up my 1/50 of a dollar to start things; video games will become art in due time. People are trying to take them in that direction, and it will happen. Some of the games that may take us there are already out.

I see a close parallel with movies and games. Some are made with financial gain in mind, some are made to tell a story, others to ask a question. Games have this potential.

Chess and Pac-Man are not art, but are still going to be around for a very long time....

[slip81]

art is not eniterly subjective, nor is it about technical merrit or universal opinion. An apple can be great art, or a urinal for that matter.

Something becomes art when the creator places it into a predetermined context and/or gives a specific meaning to said object.

A brick layer laying bricks does not usually consider the wall he's building to be art, nor does a stockboy consider the action of stocking soup cans on a shelf art.

But if a person takes those things and applies meaning to them and presents them to the public in a specific context, such as Carl Andre and Andy Warhol both did, then it becomes art.

I wouldn't say art is subjective because (usually) artists do not arbitrarily imbue objects with an abstract meaning.

One could say that videogames as an idea are art, but the videogames of Kojima are not art because the creator (Kojima) has not presented them as such.

[Graham Mitchell]

There are visual elements to Ico and Colossus that are causing people to say "okay, maybe this is art." But what about a masterful game design? I think that whoever designed chess is an artist. The complexity and ingenuity of such a creation, that has an appeal that lasts centuries to new generations and new cultures--to create something that had that much impact on the world--how could that not be art (in my opinion...)?

Ms. Pac-Man and Galaga cabinets are still around, they still produce money, and they still have an impact on culture. They will grow to have as much impact on my generation as the Rolling Stones did on my parents' generation. And if they stay in the public consciousness, they will have an effect on generations to come. Why is that? Because they have pretty side art? No, it's because the game design is something MASTERFUL. The designers have created, through the use of a machine, an experience that pleases the human mind so purely and so profoundly that people continue to crave the experience 20 years later. Game design that perfect and powerful must be art (to me). But my definitions of art don't come from a textbook.

To me, an artform is something that you can learn, you can improve on, you can always do differently, maybe even do better at some point, but the past does not get forgotten. Look at, say the early slough of Capcom games. They all look similar due to the personal touches every artist and programmer embedded into the final product, but they all play differently. The Speed Rumbler and ExedExes are okay. But at some point those same developers came up with Strider, Bionic Commando, and Street Fighter II by improving their own craft and gaining experience with what works and what doesn'. I would consider that process to be one definition of an artform.

Sorry, the post is long, but it's tough to sum this up quickly.

[blissfulnoise]

First, I’ll apologize if some of my discourse goes off the tracks or becomes muddled in itself. C'est la vie.

There is a definite "art" to Chess implying it takes a unique skillset and perspective to play successfully. But is Chess actually art? Probably not unless someone identifies it as such. E.g. "I'm playing chess as art." verses "I'm playing chess."

Again, and this is where the subjectivism comes into play, someone interprets a particular chess match as artistic and responds in some emotional matter to the match. Then it really doesn't matter if the player(s) declare their match "art", it becomes art to the viewer.

That's really the big idea behind all of this; the mundane as "art". I don't believe in a narrow definition of the term, though I know some will. And I understand why they might. If you take the restriction of art defined as art by an artist or an authoritative source, then it bottles the concept up and makes it easier to digest and discuss. If you remove that limiting factor, potentially anything can become art based on how it is individually perceived.

This opens a big can of worms and almost devalues traditional art as a whole, but if something can elicit a response based on emotion or even aesthetic appreciation then it falls into the realm of art.

That's why it doesn't matter of Kojima or Ueda think their games are "art" or not. It's irrelevant. Art can be functional as well as aesthetic, look at a chair, a well grown pumpkin, or a movie for example. Just because they say they make games strictly for entertainment doesn't invalidate them as an artistic achievement either. Kojima might say he doesn't set out to make his games as art, and that's fair, but it doesn't make them less interpretable as art.

So where do we go next? Is it fair that something that enters public domain be defined (or at least interpreted) as art though it may not be the expressed wish of the creator for it to be so? Yes. Because once you exhibit something for the public to experience, on any physical level, it will likely elicit some sort of abstract emotional reaction. I like it. I hate it. I think it’s pretty. I think it sounds awful. And once we apply these concepts to an object, it takes on a kind of artistic merit regardless of intention.

This does create a big paradox in that any physical thing, or possibly even action, now falls into the realm of “art”. But I’ll fall back on the ‘ol “I don’t know art, but I know what I like” quote. Most of us disregard the vast majority of stimuli we receive on any given day to focus on whatever tasks we have at hand. This negates the personal artistic merit of the objects and activities we pass or ignore, at least for that moment. But just because we personally may not acknowledge the artistic merit in, say, a park we pass by everyday doesn’t mean that another passerby can’t have a meaningful “experience” in viewing or enjoying the park.

So here we go… is art still art if no one is there to look at it?

I guess I’d have to argue, yes, in that the potential is there, but it doesn’t become art until it is subjected to someone’s response.

What I never really meant to argue was that a painting of, say, a Sunflower is anything other than a painting of a Sunflower. The vast majority of art (traditional art anyway) is representational and there really isn’t any room for interpretation on subject matter. But the emotional response elicited by the painting is what justifies it as art, and that subjective response is the crux of what art is. That’s why a Pac-Man cabinet is art for some but just a means to make money for another. That’s why a particularly skillful chess match may be art to some, but an exercise in tedium and boredom to another.

Let’s take something difficult like an apple in a supermarket for example. 1000 people in a day view the apple. 750 out of 1000 people who view the apple get hungry from looking at it. 200 out of 1000 disregard it. 49 people are disgusted by it. 1 person acknowledges the apples form, color, and spatial significance. Is the apple art to all 1000 people? No. In this case, without taking in other factors, it was art to one person as others acknowledged the apple in a mundane sense. Is the apple itself now art? Yes. The potential was always there, but it had to be acknowledged as such to become art.


Where does the art/entertaiment line lie?

All art is manipulation and manipulation is entertainment. The Wizard of Oz is no more manipulative than say Naked Lunch or Tideland. Ico is no more manipulative than Pong. The Scream is no more manipulative than The Starry Night. Like most things, it’s all there in the degrees and in the subjective response of the person interpreting the art. So I don’t think that “line” exists.

If you’re talking about manipulation in a negative sense like those that might lead you to “false” emotions or insincere interpretations, those are just part of the territory. I’d argue that there aren’t “false” emotions in regards to art, no matter how misleading the experience might be. An extreme example would be something that may put a reviled historical figure in a positive light or distort the reality of a theme or place; the elicited emotion itself is sincere, but it becomes the interpreter’s responsibility to parse the art to disregard what might be distasteful or even untrue. However, in the above example, I’d say art that can do that is extremely successful as art but may be a colossal failure as something else (a historical book, a documentary, a broken piece of furniture).


Should Video games be a vehicle for telling a story, or a vehicle for letting the player/audience create one?

It doesn’t really matter. Video games don’t need a story at all. And, further, it’s irrelevant for video games as art. Look at something like Geometry Wars or FLOW. These are video games as artistic expression but are devoid of story or even emotional backdrop, they’re just what they are.


There is no must in art because art is free.