AIAS announces nominees for 7th annual AIAA

[Sol Invictus]

People love to pretend that things like entertainment, music, and even technology (e.g. electricity) don't really matter to them and they act as if they can survive (or even want to survive) without the bare necessities of modern day life.

As for me, I'm honest. I really don't see the point in living in a world that attributes no value in art. I don't want to live in a colourless, mundane world where everyone goes about haughtily about how life is about survival and nothing else. What's the point of living if there's nothing to live for? Love? Pfft. Drop the teenage fantasy, kids. It'll only last for awhile before you get tired of it.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Yeah. I mean, without video games, I would be forced to go out into the community and actually contribute something. Man..... that's just too scary to even think about. :shock:

 

[Amerestatistic]

Perfectly understandable. I mean, you've seen the community, right?

I mostly just stay home.

 

[Nomad]

There's a difference between art and entertainment. Art is what makes life worth living; it helps provide context and meaning to the world while entertainment is an escape from that world.

Games are entertainment, they are not art. Whether it is a sport, board game or video game, it's purpose is to entertain the player(s) or the audiance.


N.

 

[Anonymous]

They are both to me.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

I consider video games and movies to be art just as much as anything Picasso ever did. To say it's not is bullshit. Anything someone CREATES can be considered a work of art.

Art: n. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

Duh.

 

[Vault Dweller]

Perfectly understandable. I mean, you've seen the community, right?

How true

 

[Volourn]

I never stated that games weren't important; I stated they weren't as important as some were making them seem to be. Obviously, as I've satted peviously in this thread and I shall again, the fact I spend more than my share of time playing/debating games kinda illustrates that point. Geez..

 

[Nomad]

Personally, video games are a diversion. I can appreciate the skill and craftsmanship involved in their creation but it is no different than the skill exhibited by a professional athelete or a thrash metal guitarist. That does not make their output art.

Movies are slightly different because they are actually a medium and are more akin to software itself, rather than a specific application set (such as video games). That is, you can have software whose purpose is to educate just as you can have film. Video games are defined by their purpose - to entertain.

I'm not saying that my opinion is the right one on this, it's just my opinion. If you want to say that you spend your after-work time in art-appreciation that's entirely up to you. I prefer to accept the fact that when I play video games after work I am ultimately wasting my time. This way, I don't get too upset when I don't like a game that I've purchased or a game that I don't like gets an award.

If video games (or any form of entertainment) were ever to stop being a diversion for me, I'd have to quit playing.


N.

Edit: Bottom-line art is in the eye of the beholder. If you really like thrash-metal and consider it art, that's fine. I will never agree with that statement, but respect your right to make it. The same goes with video games; they will never be anymore to me than Microsoft Word and that is not art.

 

[Astromarine]

the fact you consider a piece of music to be art or not not based on any intellectual value or virtuosity of performance but solely on the sound the instruments make being unpleasant to you makes your opinion wrong. it's your opinion and you're entitled to it, so are the flat-earthers.

And the fact that the only films you consider art are educational pieces makes you a moron, sorry to say. David Lynch's movies are most times unpleasant as hell, and I'd REALLY like to know what you can learn from Eraserhead, but if you DON'T consider them art then please stay the fuck away from me

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Bottom-line art is in the eye of the beholder. If you really like thrash-metal and consider it art, that's fine. I will never agree with that statement, but respect your right to make it. The same goes with video games; they will never be anymore to me than Microsoft Word and that is not art.

Did you even read the definition of art. Art is NOT in the eye of the beholder, but rather BEAUTY is. And it's through our love of beauty that we think something artful. Per the definition of art, this is not my opinion, but rather fact. Imagine for just one moment that you liked opera. Now imagine that you go to a showing of Wagner's Ring Of The Nebuligen and it blows you away. Would you not say you were entertained? Okay, so you were entertained. Well, woops! Guess what? Opera is ART. You were just entertained by ART. To that same affect, thrash metal is an art and considered to be so by the mainstream simply because it's a creation of somebody's. Now, people may consider it to be BAD art, but it is still ART.

Everyone has a right to voice their opinions. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to be stripped naked, have a swastika tatooed to their forehead, and airdropped into a football stadium filled with jews armed with baseball bats. The problem is, per the definition of art, video games ARE art. I'm sure even people who play video games just as a diversion have had moments where they think to themselves "Well, this is one beautiful piece of work.", and just by saying that, it's art.

 

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I'm sure even people who play video games just as a diversion have had moments where they think to themselves "Well, this is one beautiful piece of work.", and just by saying that, it's art.

So, if i said the same to myself while looking at Vida Guerra's ass, her ass would be art?

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

So, if i said the same to myself while looking at Vida Guerra's ass, her ass would be art?

In a sense, yes. Poetry in motion and all that, you know.

 

[Nomad]

We all have our own opinions about what is and isn't art. As I said before, to me art helps to provide context and meaning to the world around us. I also think that art has a certain longevity. That is, the messages it communicates can resonate beyond the time in which it was created.

Conversely, entertainment is a distraction, an escape, from the world.

Can art entertain? Sure. Can entertainment be art? Of course. These are not mutually exclusive conditions. That doesn't mean that all entertainment is art. Nor is all art entertaining.

Where a particular ativity falls is entirely up to you. I find video games, movies and most modern music to be almost exclusively entertainment only. That is, they have not profoundly affected my outlook on life and offer no long term value to me. As such, I give no weight to the awards presented by their so-called academies. (That's where this whole topic started.) Your mileage may vary.

By the way Astromarine, I did not say that only educational films are art. Also, please don't lecture me about the validity of my opinions on issues such as these. Everyone's opinion is valid when it comes to art, that's the great thing about it: what I think is trash can be the highest form of art to someone else and we're both right.

I won't even bother getting into the whole name calling thing other than to say "Grow up."


N.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Everyone's opinion is valid when it comes to art, that's the great thing about it: what I think is trash can be the highest form of art to someone else and we're both right.

But see, that's my point. Whether you want to think so or not, it's all art in the end, whether bad or good in each individual's mind. I am not saying you don't have a right to call something bad art. It's your mind, and you know what you like and dislike. What I am saying is that it's still art, even if you consider it "just entertainment". A movie director is an artist. He just uses film instead of a pallete and actors instead of paint. Same goes with game programmers. They use code instead of a pallete and sprites/polygons instead of paint.

 

[Nomad]

I agree, Otaku; we're just talking semantics at this point.

Personally, I would rather call the movie director, 3D modeller, and programmer craftsmen than artists because what they make, to me, is not art.

Again, it's a personal definition. It's not intended to insult any of those employed in those pursuits. It's also not intended to trivialize their work. If they want to call it art, that's fine. If all the people that work in those professions want to call it art, that's fine. If all the people that purchase their product want to call it art, that's fine. I won't argue that point. However, I won't call it art because with very few exceptions those products don't fit my criteria.

Let the AIAS and the movie Academy (whatever it's called) have their awards. I don't care. It makes no difference to me and has no bearing on how I choose to make my purchases.

Just out of curiosity, what professions are there that you would not label as artistic in nature? Accountant? It could be argued that there is beauty in numbers and a balanced accounts receivable and accounts payable. Doctor? It could be argued that there is beauty in a healthy body. Mechanic? It could be argued that there is a beauty in the sound of an engine running smoothly. Teacher, broadcaster or tour guide? It could be argued that there is beauty in the ability to communicate clearly.

If all of these are professions are artistic in nature, then the word, art, loses all meaning (for me at least) since it can be used to describe _anything_ and _everything_ people do. If some are artistic but not others, then the formal definition given above is incomplete.


N.

 

[Amerestatistic]

I have a tendency to define the artist as being involved in the creation of media that can cause an emotional response of some sort. I take it most people would agree with this?

The problem with games is that they're a bit more complicated than films or literature. Even bad fiction is created for the purpose of evoking some kind of emotion from an audience, however often even the greatest games aren't really designed with this kind of purpose in mind. However, some definitely are.

Thus, I guess literature, films etc. are artistic media, whereas games are potentially artistic media.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

Let the AIAS and the movie Academy (whatever it's called) have their awards. I don't care. It makes no difference to me and has no bearing on how I choose to make my purchases.

Most definitely. I don't base my purchases of anything off awards or ads. I'll scan reviews first and then hit forums to see what the word from the players is. I have bought games the minute they hit the shelves, but everyone of them were either from a company I trusted, or I had played the demo and had confidence in the game. I've only been let down once this way that I can think of.

If all of these are professions are artistic in nature, then the word, art, loses all meaning (for me at least) since it can be used to describe _anything_ and _everything_ people do. If some are artistic but not others, then the formal definition given above is incomplete.

I've heard many a people from cooks to lawyers and all inbetween claim their profession to be an art. If what they accomplished is beautiful to them and others, no matter what, then surely it IS art. The accountant who masterfully pulls a company from the trenches and gets them back on the road to the top is most definitely an artist. Art is everywhere. Even in Vida Guerra's ass, as Role-Player so adequately put it.

Amerestatistic: Again, this is a matter of subjectivity. The game that evokes emotion in me, may not do the same for you. The reverse is true as well. When I play a game (specifically RPGs and FPS'), I immerse myself into the thing as best as I can. If the artistry is there, that's not something too hard to do. It's not about whether or not they made the game to convey an emotion, it's about the emotions they poured into the game while making it. You can tell the difference between a labor of love and something that was just thrown together for the sake of making money. If I can shut out my lights, put on my headphones, and crank on a game only to suddenly find myself in the game, that's good. Anything else is bleh. But it's still art.

 

[Sol Invictus]

I never stated that games weren't important; I stated they weren't as important as some were making them seem to be. Obviously, as I've satted peviously in this thread and I shall again, the fact I spend more than my share of time playing/debating games kinda illustrates that point. Geez..

That is completely a matter of opinion. What you may consider unimportant or less important, others may think otherwise. Your opinion is not the be-all end-all. Your opinion is not absolute. You are not the alpha. You are not the omega. Now shut the fuck up and get back to your corner.

This applies to you as well, Nomad.

 

[Astromarine]

Look Nomad, I really dislike (REALLY) the whole "my opinion" crap in discussions. Suddenly it became a catchall safety net for spouting random crap.

You being entitled to your opinion is true but irrelevant. Your opinion in this case amounts to rewriting dictionary definitions, and so is VERY MUCH attackable. The only opinions which are not are those pertaining exclusively to personal taste.

Art is subjective NOT in its presence or absence, but only in how it applies to each individual. Opera does nothing for me, but I call it art. Even using your (wrong) definition rock music influenced the world a lot more than, say, the Bauhaus school. Most modern art WILL, despite your opinion, become timeless. Just not for you, because these things are only very rarely retroactive.

As for the distintion between art and craftsmanship, there is none. The distinction is purely a modern conceit. Even the word "artisan" shares the common root. From the masses of people working at a craft, those talented few who use their talents to perform labors of love as Otaku said, are worthy of the "artist" name. That's why I call David Lynch an artist and Jwe Boll not. Not on the basis of taste, but on the basis of talent and motivation. The same, for example, with Carsten Strehse and Tim Cain. The same with Eminem or Tupac (or Bone Thugs who I'll defend to my death) and some two bit crackhead pjnk who raps to score bitches and dope. etc etc etc

 

[Volourn]

Exitium, youa re one to talk about thinking your opinion is all important. perhaps, you should take your own advice, Wannabe Alpha Omega. Please try again; but THIS time use your brains and common sense.

 

[Nomad]

Who judges the talent and motivation of the "artist", Astromarine? As soon as someone else is involved in judging the validity of a person's claim to be an artist that whole argument falls apart.

Why are the so-called talent and motivation of the "artist" better criteria than the impact and longevity of the "message" contained in the art? They both require a judgement call on the part of the viewer or consumer of the "art".

Again, I will not argue with anyone who wants to call themselves an artist or what they do, art. I will not argue with anyone who wants to support or denounce that claim. I reserve the right to judge for myself however, whether _I_ consider that work to be of any value and consequently whether _I_ consider it art. That is, just because you say it's art, doesn't mean I have to agree with you.


N.

 

[Otaku_Hanzo]

That is, just because you say it's art, doesn't mean I have to agree with you.

*pulls out his kindergarten whiffle bat and chases you around with it* Do too! Do too! Do too!

 

[Sol Invictus]

Volourn, you sound like you fell out of the stupid tree and hit all the branches on the way down. I urge for you to reassess what you said to me and comprehend how the things that you said might apply perfectly to your own position.

 

[Volourn]

Perhaps YOU should reassess what YOU said to ME and realziae what YOU say applies to ME also applies to YOU.

P.S. Is that clear enough for you? Probably not; but no surprise there.