You are not logged in. Please login or register.
Are choose-your own adventure books art? Can they be? Maybe, but I've never seen one that was. So I don't know.
So, they can be art if they're good enough for you to call them art? Or what does that mean? I don't understand your answer, amigo.
Then you possess an incredibly limited and antiquated notion of what Martial Arts actually are.
Conceded. Happily. I am an empty cup, as the saying goes. But for the record, I meant "dance" in the sense of making aesthetically pleasing movements and poses with the body. Not, like, the Electric Slide or whatever.
So, they can be art if they're good enough for you to call them art?
Oh, no, that's not what I meant at all. I just meant that the only Choose Your Own Adventure books I've ever seen are the ones I had when I was a kid. They were most definitely intended to be toys. There was no apparent artistic intent there. But could somebody write a book in that style with the intent of making art? Sure, I imagine that's possible. That's all I meant.
However, in response to your going back to comparing games to paintings, I re-invoke my thing about maybe it's the difference between one artist and not four hundred.
So you do not believe a symphony can be art, because it requires a hundred musicians to perform it?
I guess something worth mulling is, do you all find a difference between a creative skill and an art?
You need creative skill to make art.
downinfront wrote:However, in response to your going back to comparing games to paintings, I re-invoke my thing about maybe it's the difference between one artist and not four hundred.
So you do not believe a symphony can be art, because it requires a hundred musicians to perform it?
downinfront wrote:I guess something worth mulling is, do you all find a difference between a creative skill and an art?
You need creative skill to make art.
Mike, I agree with your larger point but to be fair, most Symphonies have ONE author writing the arrangement.
He's gonna say games have one or two producers. Fair enough. It's still one composer against one producer. Have fun.
Yo guys, let's make teams 
But seriously, Jeff, if you think they CAN be art that is like saying really old paintings that were ugly and did not make people feel good by looking at them are not art, but if they just "tried harder" to make something appealing, it is art. I don't know, I just don't agree with that, but I feel like I don't understand you because I cannot fathom that you think that way 
FIG
Think of it as one writer of a script to the entire crew needed to make it.
Last edited by TrowaGP02a (2010-04-23 23:15:35)
Mike, I agree with your larger point but to be fair, most Symphonies have ONE author writing the arrangement.
And most movies have one or two screenwriters writing the "arrangement."
As most video games also have one or two writers.
I know you're not necessarily disagreeing with me and more playing devil's advocate but I don't think it's a valid objection in the context of the point I'm making.
FIG
Think of it as one writer of a script to the entire crew needed to make it.
Like I said, I know I'm on shaky ground here, but don't consider me someone who thinks of movies as art. I currently don't.
With regards to the whole, "it's art if one or two people work on it, but not a large team" idea, let's remember that much of Medieval and Renaissance paintings and sculpture were actually created by whole teams of people, with the attributed artist merely being the lead of the operation, with many craftsmen working underneath him with direction.
It's just that the lead artist was the only one that signed their name.
Like I said, I know I'm on shaky ground here, but don't consider me someone who thinks of movies as art. I currently don't.
I know. My question is, do you also not think of music as art? Because the same arguments you are using to dismiss video games, and then movies, as potential works of art are equally applicable to music, except in the cases of one person writing and performing music entirely solo. In which case you're well on your way to formulating the auteur theory.
But seriously, Jeff, if you think they CAN be art that is like saying really old paintings that were ugly and did not make people feel good by looking at them are not art, but if they just "tried harder" to make something appealing, it is art.
No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. Look, think about Jackson Pollock, 'kay? A few years ago I painted my spare bedroom, and at the end of the day the dropcloth on my floor was virtually indistinguishable from a Jackson Pollock canvas. But his is art and mine isn't. Why? Because of the intent of the person who made it. Jackson Pollock was trying very hard to make art. (I'm not educated enough to know whether it was meant to be expressive or what, but he was definitely doing it on purpose.) I just didn't want to get paint on my carpet.
It's not about skill or whatever. It's about intent. If I go into the kitchen and come out with an inedible mess, I was still cooking because I was trying to bake a cake. Get me?
I know. My question is, do you also not think of music as art? Because the same arguments you are using to dismiss video games, and then movies, as potential works of art are equally applicable to music, except in the cases of one person writing and performing music entirely solo. In which case you're well on your way to formulating the auteur theory.
No idea what auteur theory is.
I don't consider music as a whole an art. I consider songwriting or composition an art, sure.
Auteur theory is a film-school thing. It says that the end product of the filmmaking process reflects the director's intent and vision, and not anybody else's. Whether the theory is descriptive — this is how it happens whether we like it or not — or prescriptive — directors should make films this way otherwise they're hacks — depends on who you ask.
"Auteur" is the French word for "author," which is just being snooty. The competing theory is Schreiber theory, which says that it's the screenwriter, not the director, whose vision the film reflects. Schreiber is the German word for "author," which is somehow even more snooty.
Thanks for that.
I gets ya! SO, you think the intent of those creating a choose-your own-adventure books (to your knowledge of the books) was not to create art, but instead to create something else? I have a feeling your going to say his intent was to make a "game", and then were gonna start all over haha
EDIT
Jeez I wish you could F5 this site!
Last edited by TrowaGP02a (2010-04-23 23:26:25)
Oh, and on the music thing. I took an art history class as my blow-off elective my senior year of high school, and to my surprise it became my most favorite class ever. We had this great argument in class one day about what art form is the most abstract. Somebody said dance, 'cause all you have is your body, but then somebody else pointed out that dance is just sculpture in motion, and then somebody else said music because of how far removed it is from anything in nature. It was a fun class.
Anyway, yeah, music is totally art.
Jeffery Harrell wrote:SO, you think the intent of those creating a choose-your own-adventure books (to your knowledge of the books) was not to create art, but instead to create something else?
I do, yeah. And I was also gonna say game originally, but ow, the circles hurt my brains. So I went with "toy," which seemed like a better fit anyway.
But I really can't emphasize strongly enough how long ago that all was. I could be speaking from a position of astonishing ignorance here without even knowing it.
Also? I just wanna say you guys are all fucking awesome. That's all.
I would have to agree on the awesomeness of everyone.
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it!
No, no, no. That's not what I'm saying at all. Look, think about Jackson Pollock, 'kay? A few years ago I painted my spare bedroom, and at the end of the day the dropcloth on my floor was virtually indistinguishable from a Jackson Pollock canvas. But his is art and mine isn't. Why? Because of the intent of the person who made it. Jackson Pollock was trying very hard to make art. (I'm not educated enough to know whether it was meant to be expressive or what, but he was definitely doing it on purpose.) I just didn't want to get paint on my carpet.
It's not about skill or whatever. It's about intent. If I go into the kitchen and come out with an inedible mess, I was still cooking because I was trying to bake a cake. Get me?
But then, again, this doesn't jibe with your attempt to paint video games as inherently "not art." If someone TRIES to make a video game that invokes an emotion or aesthetic experience or sense of the sublime, then they are making art whether they "succeed" or not, correct? Just by trying?
Earlier you tried to say "a game is not art because a game is one thing and art is another," but that's nonsensical. A game is one thing and a painting is another and a sculpture is another and a movie is another. Art is a category, and you are willing to accept the last three things into that category but not the first one, and you may think you've explained why but you honestly haven't made a meaningful distinction between what that medium can offer versus the others, particularly movies, which you have said you feel are art "more often than not" (and that's farther than I would go, TBH).
We had this great argument in class one day about what art form is the most abstract. Somebody said dance, 'cause all you have is your body, but then somebody else pointed out that dance is just sculpture in motion, and then somebody else said music because of how far removed it is from anything in nature.
Aside from songs that animals (particularly birds) sing. And the fact that music is just audible mathematics -- in that sense, it's really the most concrete.
Let me attempt to swerve the conversation.
Alright, games can. But can gameplay?
Evelyn Beatrice Hall, actually
And I equate gameplay to standing and staring at a painting or sitting in a theater.
You the MAN Shadow!
Last edited by TrowaGP02a (2010-04-23 23:36:59)
So it's art if someone sets out with the intention of making art? Do you consider 4' 33" art, or monochromatic paintings to be art? If I did the same thing, would it still be art?
Jeez I wish you could F5 this site!
Direct link to this page, which you can refresh.
I actually installed Reload Every for Firefox, which I love. Install, right click, Reload Every, set your timeframe, and set it to "Enable."
If someone TRIES to make a video game that invokes an emotion or aesthetic experience or sense of the sublime, then they are making art whether they "succeed" or not, correct? Just by trying?
Yes!!!eleven That's exactly how I see it.
Now … can you name me a video "game" (for lack of a better word) that was made with that intent? I'm not challenging you; I legitimately don't know of one.
Art is a category
Ehhhhhh … sort of. I just dumped some eggs, flour, sugar and baking powder into a container. Was I cooking or putting stuff in the trash? It depends on my intent. You dig me?
And the fact that music is just audible mathematics -- in that sense, it's really the most concrete.
Well if you're gonna be like THAT, then everything's essentially mathematics.
This thread is the best episode of Radiolab ever.
Last edited by Jeffery Harrell (2010-04-23 23:40:06)
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
