OK, I'm obviously not able to make myself clear enough. For what it's worth, I agree with your paragraph, I've tried to explain to overread further up the thread that I was trying to make a slightly different point, but I apparently can't pull it off. Maybe it's my English.

As for Citizen Kane, I like that one quite a lot, though there are literally dozens I prefer. Ah, would you indulge me and tell me which ones you actually like? Because I'm really into movies and absolutely unable to resist talking about them if someone makes even the most passing remark.

OK, but just how arty are games? Are they not that arty, artier than other art, or actually the artiest art?
Hi! Yeah, I wanted to take an extended brake from gaming and to a lesser extend the internet, in order to focus on my studies. I'm actually doing well, the only game I've played in the last 6 months is Mass Effect 3 (plus a week of constant multiplayer, oh well), and I've decided to check in here for old times sake, and then some ass makes an interesting thread and other asses post interesting replies and so here I am. I also bought that new old school style RPG that had so stylish screenshots on the front page, but I'm gonna postpone trying it ou until next year.

Or maybe your English is fine (which it is) and I'm just being daft. It would not be the first time, you know :)
Hm, tough. I'd personally call Apocalypse Now the best film ever. Closely followed by The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. And perhaps Time of the Gypsies.

Oh, yeah, hi. Well, it's good to hear (read) that, I hope it lasts. You may now continue annoying me with your perfectly reasonable replies on the topic.

System Shock 2, right?

"...long story short, that's why I call everyone 'insect'."

Well this too at times, but...

...actually it was Planescape: Torment.

Don't make me laugh.
If that were true, then art critics and art historians (who after all should be aware of those theories) would actually agree on the "worth" of a creation, and they mostly don't.
I'll agree that some art forms like music or architecture have more constants than others, but those aren't what people refer to when they identify something as art or not.
For most people, something is artistic if it's aesthetically and emotionally pleasing to them.

There is no objectivity when it comes to art, just opinion, simply because art is about emotion. Mostly, people FEEL something is art, they don't measure it, because art is meant to create emotions.

Therefore, no matter what anyone says or what qualifications they may have, or what "theories" they may have codified, it's sheer arrogance to believe their opinion on the matter have more weight than anyone else's.

You do know that the art critic who first sided with you has since revised his opinion since you know actually playing a game...

Thanks. Never heard of the last one, even though I love Arizona Dream by Kusturica. That's why it's worth asking, now there's another movie I'm looking forward to watch.

He, thanks. It's quite surprising how much time taking a break from gaming has freed up for me, and there are no side effects either, apart from the occasional sudden urge to fight giant rats and spiders.

Whilst there is a lot of debate within the subject itself there is still a good general conciousness and direction of thought. Furthermore one can objectively pull apart images and creations to view the components of them. Do this to enough and you can start to build rough guidelines and theories by which one can utilize to further advance the creation of new art.
Yes there is a somewhat random or at least much harder to define series of components which do contribute to producing a lot of art; however there are also solid foundations within the subject itself. One can learn them and put them to good use; further by understanding how and why certain theories work one can also understand how to use the opposite of those theories and to "break" them correctly.

*sigh*

Maybe so. But unfortunately that only matters to the people who are actually aware of those theories.

When it comes to the rest of us ignorant people, we'll continue judging art not on any objective criteria, but rather on what it makes us feel.
No matter how many art critics, artists and other "experts" assure me that or [url=http://artinvestment.ru/temp/cache/20080913_robert_indiana.jpg] thatare artworks, I'll still feel it's junk, I'm sorry to say.
And I'm fairly certain I'm not alone.


Edit: badly made links

Oh I agree there is a lot of modern junk that is in the art world and much of it is, indeed, somewhat childish and lacking in quality. I consider is a modern fad and something that might well ease out in time (or at least move out of the upper circles and back into sane prices for such --- creations).

That said the theories themselves are often very sound and can be repeatedly seen to work. Yes it won't affect those who have no understanding of the subject, but then again it will affect those who create works as well as those who are more selective/experienced within their niche areas of interest - which is often where you see works shift from just "Good" to "outstanding".

Further many of the average people actually obey and follow the guidelines of composition and artistic theory. However because they've never studied they've no idea that the patterns with which they look at a work actually translate into how they view and respond to it. So they are both following the theories (at least a typical person is) without realisation of them - so in a sense they do still have a place.

Personally I have no doubt that games are art. I can follow the reasoning of people who claim otherwise, but in my opinion, they are always based on a rather narrow definition of art. Perhaps these people see my definition of art as too broad, but I just don't see any logical way keep the current contemporary definition of art and _not_ include games.

Some examples:

"Games are too bad to be considered art" -> valid way of reasoning, but then, 95% of movies, paintings, music etc. isn't art either (see Sturgeon's law). Not a very useful definition imho.

"Games are too commercial to be considered art" -> again, valid way of reasoning, but very narrow definition. Most artists would disagree. Also, this definition would exclude many classical pieces of music or paintings that nobody would _not_ consider art, because they were created for commercial reasons (e.g., to put food on the artist's table).

"Games are produced for the masses, art shouldn't be" -> same here. By this definition, paintings in churches couldn't be art, utility design (e.g. Bauhaus) couldn't be art, etc.

"Games are interactive by definition, art can't be interactive" -> by this definition, improvisational theater and most "event art" wouldn't be art. Many installations who change their look or sound based on actions/movements of the viewer couldn't be considered art either.

"Games are skill contest, like sports, and sports aren't art" -> That's the Roger Ebert argument, and it's based on a lack of knowledge about games (which Ebert himself is ready to admit). While some games are extremely sports-like, fact is that (1) even those have aesthethic qualities that can be considered art, and more importantly, (2) there are whole genres of games that focus on story-telling and don't have any sports-like features at all (Planescape: Torment being a good example).

So, in the end, Icannot _not_ consider games art, I don't see any logically viable way to do so.

I see Art as the physical manifestation of thought.

The concept of art can't be defined in a way that allows you to objectively categorize.