Fun Stuff > CLIKC
A misunderstood masterpiece of mainstream political art.
KharBevNor:
--- Quote from: Johnny C on 27 Dec 2006, 01:05 ---Your last sentence is why I disagree with you on GTA as an art gallery. It's not. If it's anything for those modellers, animators, etc., it's more of a trade fair or an industry showcase than an art gallery.
--- End quote ---
The OED, among its 17 definitions of the word 'art', mentions the following:
"The application of skill to the arts of imitation and design"
"Anything in which skill may be attained or displayed"
"An Industrial pursuit or employment of a skilled nature"
As if there's any real difference between an art gallery or trade show anyway: exhibitions, if they are not being used to directly sell pictures, are anyway used to promote an artists 'brand' and make money via admission, with but a few exceptions (I'm thinking of cultural collections like the Tate or the Louvre, which are more museums of art, and private collections, which even then may be, as with Hirsts latest exhibition, show-offs of the taste and curatorial skills of whoever put it together). Because somethings 'camp' doesn't mean its not art, it just means its not quite up there with the Mona Lisa and Bergman films. There are countless pieces of fantastic, widely respected art that were done on commission, and there's some brilliant artists doing mainly commercial work. You want to say that Milton Glaser isn't an artist because he does advertising? The distinction is not between art and not art, but good art and bad art. To suppose that there is some mystical boundary of quality where something transcends to the status of being art is sheer elitism.
Johnny C:
--- Quote from: KharBevNor on 27 Dec 2006, 01:58 ---The distinction is not between art and not art, but good art and bad art.
--- End quote ---
I don't know, I get a little queasy saying that because something exists the simple act of bringing it into creation makes it art. I don't think it's a matter of "good" and "bad," I think there needs to be a line, however subjective, where art begins; otherwise, there's no reason you couldn't just waltz into a gallery and put up a bunch of liquor and cigarette and tampon and mutual fund advertisements. Those use contrast and tone and composition really effectively because they're meant to look compelling. If you call them art, however, I might get fairly pissed off.
ScrambledGregs:
Shouldn't video games being art or not art be judged on a different 'scale' (for lack of a better word) than other forms of art??
KharBevNor:
--- Quote from: Johnny C on 27 Dec 2006, 02:29 ---otherwise, there's no reason you couldn't just waltz into a gallery and put up a bunch of liquor and cigarette and tampon and mutual fund advertisements.
--- End quote ---
How, er, how often do you go to art galleries?
@ Scrambled: not really. Well. I think the line where video games became (become?) art is when they actually start telling a story, when you have graphics and characterisation and what not. Basically, where they start being more an artistic endeavour, an interactive story, than mathematical exercises. Spacewar! and the Game of Life aren't art. GTA III, and a lot of other modern games, are. Not all modern games, but a lot of them, for various reasons. Right now, I can't think of a clear boundary, but if you mention any game, I could definitely make a judgement, and explain my reasoning, as I see it.
Ozymandias:
...I think you could make a good case for Life being art, actually.
Spacewar! would be more difficult.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version