/loomis/ - Art Gains

>>382

i agree

videogames can have many artisitic elements but are still games at the core. you dont win a painting, you dont unlock music or defeat a book. art is simply experienced.

>>1403

That's actually a pretty good metric, but I suppose people that support video games being art would assert that beating a game is analogous to finishing a novel

>>1403

You walk away from a painting, songs end, and you finish a novel. Any good work will direct the listener's eyes or ears along a path, challenge them, dare them to understand and uncover meanings, goals, and tiny details needed to truly understand the whole of the work. The only difference is a novel can be glossed over, a song can be half heard, a painting can be stared at blankly, but a video game demands a present audience. And, as far as I'm concerned, you'd have to be a fool to see a more demanding canvas as less capable of transferring meaning, emotion, and experience.

>>1414

That's a good point. I don't know, maybe it's silly of me to think literally everything in the game has the potential to be art but the game itself.

The act of putting together a set of rules that creates a certain possibility space is something that I would consider artful or creative. Games don't exist for a practical purpose. The rules in them are arranged to stress different "aesthetics" you could say, not a visual aesthetic, but something akin to the writing style of a work of literature, or the sound of a work of music.

By these terms, I would say Soccer is a work of art, not the act of playing soccer, but the rules of the game itself. Same with tic tac toe, chess, rock paper scissors, and mario. People don't perform art in the act of playing a game, but the act of creating one is artful, and the work itself should be called art because the creation of it exhibits similar types of creativity on the part of the artist.

>>354

You should really study linguistics and semiotics.

Polysemy is a feature of most every word. Words are names we give to things, and many different things can be called by the same word, "art".

Unfortunately, as the word "art" signifies so many different things to so many different people, it's impossible to tell, taken out of context, what "art" is meant to signify.

Unfortunately many people assume that all the things labelled "art" are in fact one thing. Which is impossible, as no one can agree on what criteria there are for something being "art" or not.

Art can refer to any skill, broadly.

Art can refer to graphic works, paintings, sketches.

And then there are people who use "art" as a term of value. Like it signifies that something isn't a "mere" piece of media but has ascended to a higher level.

This is usually how people are using "art" when they ask this question.

What exactly counts as this valuative "art", no one can agree on. But they all act like they're talking about the same thing.

This "art" doesn't exist. People just have just seen the word slapped on to a bunch of different things they were told were good. Each person developed his own, purely mental impression of what counts as "art".

Most people then assume this impression they have in their head is in fact a real objective thing, and that it's the same thing everyone else is talking about when they use the word "art" in this way.

It's impossible for something to just be an impression in your head, and simultaneously this real, objective thing. It's impossible for each person to have his own particular impression of what counts as "art", and for everyone to be talking about the same thing.

Instead of trying to pigeonhole things into the incoherent valuative categories you were taught to in your youth, just describe the actual qualities of the things you can observe. Categorize things by what you can see is true about them, not how you've been conditioned to feel about them.

>>1549

Thanks fam