In that case you were right after all: nothing is art!

(Yes, I'm responding to you. But don't worry, it's the last time.)

Yeah, you're right. I was aggreveated. I sincerely apologise everybody I insulted, but I hate when on these forums people more often and often use arguments ad hominem and ad personam to "prove" they are right.

That's nigh on impossible unless the society remains totally without change. Social values and appreciation will change - either as a whole or at personal levels. Heck even within a single generation the varying viewpoints of a society are likely to result in differences in how an artistic work affects how people feel or regard it .

Ok, I got your points. These are fine points, really. They don't suit my definition, but I see how you can consider eintertainment goods an art.

Photographer example, for me, can be showed both ways. There is much bigger possibility that photographer will do something extraoridinary, astonishing, unique, etc. if he took a camera somewhere and start shooting.

And then there's a couple who want "make us wedding photos" - it is still possible that some photos will be amazing, but most of them will be just like any other wedding photos.

The uniqness of the art is not limited by ability to copy it. You may copy one photo one hundred times, but it doesn't change the fact this is the only photo.

I don't know how to explain it better. It's the right timing, moment, photographers vision that make the work unique, not the possibility to copy it.

There are plenty unique movies, but most of the massively produced entertainment goods like movies and games are just "copy paste". They bring nothing more to the world.

Call of duty is a twin brother of Battlefield, etc etc. They are forgotten as fast as the next installement is produced.

I don't know how about you, but I believe Da Vinci pieces, as most trivial example are still amazing and unique, even the centuries went through. I mean something like that. His skills are still remarkable, his works are still astonishing the people.

The Cat and the Coup wikipedia article had a link to this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_for_Change

I guess those people consider at least some games as a form of art?

Very true, however its also important to realise that sometimes the idea of what a "common" wedding photo is only applies to other wedding photographers. The "audience" can greatly determine if art is art or what standard the art is (for example look at some of the rubbish - quite literally often - manages to be classed as quality art at the Tate Modern.

But a movie is just lots of photos all strung together and often combined with an audio medium as well as visual when delivered as a final work. The intent that it be distributed to the masses might affect it in the same way that you outline above; however it might not. It really depends on the specific situation with the film itself - take something like Sin City or 300 - both fairly "artistic" films and yet both intended for the large market.

I feel that trying to impose the Clause that art must be produced for a limited market before the art is made is a false way to define art itself. Art should be defined upon the work as it stands. Not who made it; why it was made; who its marketed toward; how it was made; what the creator wanted to make

Whilst many of those (esp who made it) often get roped into defining "Good" art its a false way to represent it. Creative works must stand on their own independent of the other factors to be judged as art.

Agreed on both accounts, actually, I'm probably just bad at expressing myself.


Of course "better" is subjective, what isn't, but just as you can have a discussion about which game is better, you can have a discussion about which work of art is, I just don't think you can seperate between those two.

Or per your example, I can see how you can say "To the Lighthouse" is greater, but "The Day of the Triffids" appeals to you more (purely theoretically, I've read neither), but I don't understand the thinking behind saying that "Lighthouse" is greater, but "Triffids" is a better book. You're mixing up personal opinion and accepted wisdom in a manner that I really don't see the point of, exept from being contrary for the sake of it.

To come back to my original point, I really don't think that one can make a distinction where on one side of the divide there is entertainment, and on the other there is art, that's the one opinion voiced in this thread that I really disagree with.

Have you bothered searching for definitions ;P ? There were quite a few... including Tatarkiewicz's disjunctive one:
“A work of art is either a reproduction of things, or a construction of forms, or an expression of experiences such that it is capable of evoking delight, or emotion, or shock.”

I personally adore the definition (from around XX century, I believe ?) that emphasizes what could best be described as the property of being "epic" (exactly in the sense we use it in gaming lingo) ;P.

Yeah, I think I described what I meant, so I will give one other example, and then I'd let others to say what they want

Movie posters. Most of them are the same - same patterns, same deployment, same composition etc.

And then some artist makes such amazing movie poster , so different than anything you see every day, that people are amazed by it.

Mostly the uniqueness is the main factor. In modern art is mostly "I could do that!" AND "But you didn't".

artes liberales , focused on the work of the mind should be able to interest the receiver both esthetically and intellectually. Popcorn movies, popular novels, videogames mostly do not require any intellectual effort to be received. I mean by analysis, not "solving puzzles" of course :P

Thanks for your replies.

Kids, I don't want to burst your bubble here, but this discussion is ages old and

done and done before by people that are a lot more smarty pants than any of us.

The only valid question here is, what do I/you consider art, and that is non-negotiable.

In my legal training we had a very good way to know if something is art (there it actually is a question when it comes to constitutional freedoms). You don't know what it is, You don't know what it is supposed to do, than it's art. When in doubt, it's art.

Wait, you agree with me and you use the reply function despite posting directly under my post...

Where is the real keeveek and what have you done with him !!!

;-P

Think of it like this - one can learn to appreciate what is good whilst still not accepting that the style or nature of the production is what you consider to be to your taste. You know its "better" (eg in the case of a story better written, better structure and content) but it might not be your taste (eg in a book the story might be a subject you've no interest in).

Thus one can show appreciation for a greater work, whilst still not really liking it upon a more personal and less theoretical level.

I'd not even try to separate them; I think it a false line to try and directly link the two together. The two might interact and might well influence each other, but in so many varying ways as to be impossible to easily list out; certainly I'd not try to consider something less or more artistic if it was any more or less entertaining.
They are separate criteria for measuring something.

That's interesting. You claim that you want art to be free - however the selection of what art is or is not is very limited and given to selected elitists? 'Ordinary' people do do not know what art is, if they buy it is is ordinary, art can only be art if it is extraordinary? What is extraordinary anyway? Who says that the artists have to 'limit himself' to have mass appeal? Is it not just as possible that the artists vision is in tune whit what the 'masses' likes, he may even be one of them... or do all artists have to be 'extraordinary'?

Benjamin was just arguing that reproduction of art took it away from "experts in ivory towers" dictating to the masses what is and what is not art, and democratising it instead. The 'masses' (i.e. the majority) can then decide for themselves what they consider art.

Hey, I remember having the exact same discussion with you months ago! What I'd like to add is that of course you're not only clicking your mouse button... there's gottabe some reaction, even if it is just the sound of the clicking, and you're trying to make a melody out of it, or the reaction of your own muscles, and you want to see how long you can keep it up until you cramp. I consider both activities to be games, albeit pretty shitty ones, of course, so I agree with you about more complex objectives and obstacles being very helpful.