Jump to content

They call it art...


Xydonus

Recommended Posts

 

As an artist, this offends me greatly, knowing that my precious creations are less "arty".

But really, If they call it "art", I call it bullshit.

Speaking as an artist as well it doesn't offend me at all. If something ivokes an emotional response, makes you think or both its art.

Art is hella subjective, it's like getting angry about someones music tastes differing from yours.

 

Yeah, I can relate to that.  If some people claim this painting 1zzrr6b.jpg

 

is an art (this worth millions by the way), there is no harm to be done by calling that bullshit bed an art. Again, tastes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I hope at least the government takes a sizable percentage of the money raised by such a piece to use for things such roads, electricity, medical care and hunger relief and the betterment of humanity.

 

Also I'd prefer art that shows off mastery, skill and precision. Such things are the heritage of humanity, a stain on canvast takes no skill to conjure, nor does an unmade bed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I hope at least the government takes a sizable percentage of the money raised by such a piece to use for things such roads, electricity, medical care and hunger relief and the betterment of humanity.

 

Also I'd prefer art that shows off mastery, skill and precision. Such things are the heritage of humanity, a stain on canvast takes no skill to conjure, nor does an unmade bed.

Skill =/= Art

 

I've seen pieces that are technical masterpieces but do absolutely nothing for me on an emotional level.

 

An example would be being enamored with this:

Mzn0703.jpg

 

And being completely fucking bored with this:

BD6gkDl.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First one looks like a child did it (van Gogh judging by colour palette alone). The second one to me seems more thought envoking as well. My own preferences remain and I do not argue that art is not art due to skill, what I am arguing is that skill should == value. Beyond that it is not the place of the governing body to determine what precisely constitutes 'good' art, only to classify it as art and then levy a sizeable tax upon it that suitably diverts the time and labour that money represents back into helping humans.

 

What is the second piece called by the way and by whom?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First one looks like a child did it (van Gogh judging by colour palette alone). The second one to me seems more thought envoking as well. My own preferences remain and I do not argue that art is not art due to skill, what I am arguing is that skill should == value. Beyond that it is not the place of the governing body to determine what precisely constitutes 'good' art, only to classify it as art and then levy a sizeable tax upon it that suitably diverts the time and labour that money represents back into helping humans.

 

What is the second piece called by the way and by whom?

If you think that you're missing the ENTIRE point of art. Skill should not determine the value of an art piece alone. The meaning, cultural relevance, how it impacts people should all be taken into account far more than if its technically sound.

 

The artist is Feng Zhu btw.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Art has no point, it is expressive, it could mean a thousand things, it could mean absolutely nothing and everyone just imagines the meaning. My point is that it is not a valuable thing to society, it does not help anyone apart from the artist. You cannot eat art, art does not produce electricity, art does not cure disease, art does not improve technology. Thus what I am saying is; irrelevant of the value people place on it, the majority of that 'value' must be redistributed for the actual betterment of humanity.

 

Have you ever compared the hardship of a labourer working 12 hour shifts day-in day-out with that of an artist throwing out a flask of paint? Would you pay millions to such a labourer for the thoughts you had of him? Would you pay millions even for the sweat that person sheds keeping the world going?

 

Why then must a drawing that inspires 'emotion' or 'thought' have such a ludicrous value when absolutely everything you ever see has that very same ability if not more so? Trust me if you ever had to tell a child they will die because they cannot receive medication you would quickly see the folly of this so called 'value' art has. Art shall never be as vivid nor as visceral as reality. Art should be taxed as the ludicrous excess it is and not put up on a pedastal that somehow is more worthy of adoration than the suffering of millions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because people aren't emotionless automatons? People like to think and feel. What you just said could be applied to so many things in the modern day its unreal. Can't get that video game/movie/smartphone/book/TV/car/pair of shoes/literally anything that isn't required to stay alive because some kid in Africa has Ebola. That argument is so far gone from reality its staggering.

 

And an artist has got to eat. Unless you're really well known among the art community or have a job that's attached to a payroll, like a conceptual artist, then you aren't going to be raking in the millions or even thousands. Why do you think art pieces cost the amount they do? Some artists sell VERY few pieces a year just to get by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Can't get that video game/movie/smartphone/book/TV/car/pair of shoes/literally anything that isn't required to stay alive because some kid in Africa has Ebola.

 

Video games/movies are entertainment that is vital to ensure constant sanity to a brain as complex as our own, these are important for the continued stable functioning of individuals to ensure productivity and at least some level of satisfaction from lives that are otherwise somewhat empty, same reason we allow alcohol, same reason music exists. Yes they can be art but the main function is not to make the user think, it is to make the user 'forget' more or less. And even with its uses being obvious it is still somewhat overpriced to the point where the vast majority of people would wait years for such things to become more economical and others would rather bootleg it and pirate it instead.

 

Smartphones are merely technologically innovative mobile communications terminals capable of sending text/voice/images that in many cases do actually save lives, be it through calling for assistance, capturing evidence to safeguard society in times of crime, they can even be used in medical trials to gather vital information from populations that lack access to transport.

 

Books are a group of pages bound together that is capable of storing information for subsequent generations, and thus a pillar of civilization in itself, because 'books' are the manifestation of information being passed on and the ability to adapt and learn without making the same mistakes as those before us, a life-saver in other words.

 

Televisions are used to transmit news and information much in the same way books do and is therefor also quite important to the improvement of civilization.

 

Cars are modes of transport that allow rapid transit for all sorts of reasons including but not limited to hauling supplies and materials to areas where they are lacking, it is the means of transport that allows for specialists to reach their places of work in a economically feasible way and thus improves all-round production of those who use them.

 

Shoes are vital in extremes of temperature to keep people going, they are vital to protect our otherwise weak feet from rough terrain, again to ensure mobility and the ability to reach the places where we need to be to do our productive work.

 

Comparing art to any of these things is in my opinion what is detached from reality. Yes you get ridiculous excesses in these things as well and that too is a problem that must be alleviated to the benefit of the greater humanity.

 

Concerning your statement of 'Some kid in Africa has Ebola', perhaps you could show some more compassion to your fellow human? Perhaps you could think beyond 'not my country' and look at the fact that it is a plague with the ability to ruin entire cities, it is something that needs to be studied and fought against with all our might for it is a true enemy that kills without discrimination and one that is ill understood, one that could very well mutate to be far more dangerous than presently.

 

What I was saying is that it needs to at least try and contribute to a better world either directly or indirectly via taxation. I never said that the artist needs to starve, what I am contesting is that if you sell an unmade bed for 2.5 million pounds a large portion of that money should go into helping people.

 

Compare $4291175.00 to (1)$81,462.00, the first is the price of that bed, the latter is the entire year's income for a coal miner in the US during 2012, averaged. That is ridiculous, the one is a bed that is unmade, the other is a year of risking your health in a mine. Tell me how my argument is somehow more "far gone from reality its staggering" than THAT.

 

(1) http://www.nma.org/pdf/c_wages_state_industries.pdf

 

Afterword: No hard feelings to you PB but I just sincerely don't agree that art is as valuable to Humanity as it is made out to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Video games/movies are entertainment that is vital to ensure constant sanity to a brain as complex as our own

 

Which art also does???

 

Yes they can be art but the main function is not to make the user think, it is to make the user 'forget' more or less

Totally false.

 

 

Smartphones are merely technologically innovative mobile communications terminals capable of sending text/voice/images that in many cases do actually save lives, be it through calling for assistance, capturing evidence to safeguard society in times of crime, they can even be used in medical trials to gather vital information from populations that lack access to transport.

 

Books are a group of pages bound together that is capable of storing information for subsequent generations, and thus a pillar of civilization in itself, because 'books' are the manifestation of information being passed on and the ability to adapt and learn without making the same mistakes as those before us, a life-saver in other words.

 

Televisions are used to transmit news and information much in the same way books do and is therefor also quite important to the improvement of civilization.

 

Cars are modes of transport that allow rapid transit for all sorts of reasons including but not limited to hauling supplies and materials to areas where they are lacking, it is the means of transport that allows for specialists to reach their places of work in a economically feasible way and thus improves all-round production of those who use them.

 

Shoes are vital in extremes of temperature to keep people going, they are vital to protect our otherwise weak feet from rough terrain, again to ensure mobility and the ability to reach the places where we need to be to do our productive work.

Thanks for missing the point entirely. Of course those things have their uses JUST LIKE ART. Its a way to express and take in ones culture and to see things from different perspectives, you shooing it away as a waste and an insult to humanity is ridiculous. I listed those things because on the surface level they seem frivolous but once looked at deeply they hold value. You sound like a robot.

 

Concerning your statement of 'Some kid in Africa has Ebola', perhaps you could show some more compassion to your fellow human?

Again missing the point entirely. When you say shit like this:

 

Trust me if you ever had to tell a child they will die because they cannot receive medication you would quickly see the folly of this so called 'value' art has

I'm assuming you're saying too much time/money is spent on the arts and not what YOU think it should be spent on like medical treatment, ya? Then I listed all the shit we could replace the word art with in the sentence above. I do care about abolishing illness and disease from the world but implying that little billy is going to die of lung cancer because some millionaire bought a toilet seat on a hinge is dumb.

 

 

 

What I was saying is that it needs to at least try and contribute to a better world either directly or indirectly via taxation. I never said that the artist needs to starve, what I am contesting is that if you sell an unmade bed for 2.5 million pounds a large portion of that money should go into helping people.

I sort of agree with this point. I don't think the artist should go completely tax free or at least when their pieces are sold at these types of functions.

 

 

Compare $4291175.00 to (1)$81,462.00, the first is the price of that bed, the latter is the entire year's income for a coal miner in the US during 2012, averaged. That is ridiculous, the one is a bed that is unmade, the other is a year of risking your health in a mine. Tell me how my argument is somehow more "far gone from reality its staggering" than THAT

Your average artist is never EVER going to make that amount of money EVER. Some WISH they could make the amount the coal miner makes a year but that's just the way of the business, you might get it big but you also might only be eating bread for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compare $4291175.00 to (1)$81,462.00, the first is the price of that bed, the latter is the entire year's income for a coal miner in the US during 2012, averaged. That is ridiculous, the one is a bed that is unmade, the other is a year of risking your health in a mine. Tell me how my argument is somehow more "far gone from reality its staggering" than THAT.

 

The world is crazy. See: actors and famous sport players are paid the most, compared to doctors. Artists do not set the price for their masterpieces, people do.

 

Also, the matter of: art should be taxed (or rather if you get paid millions for a piece of art) is ridiculous. Do you think you should be taxed for sitting quietly in your room drawing, and knowing or not your "art" is worth millions? Art is just an abstract thing; it is a product of the imagination, and, as said hundred times in this thread: it depends greatly on tastes (it could be pointless or silly). It is timeless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world is crazy.

 

An understatement, if there ever was one. Soldiers who put their very lives on the line are paid less than the average common man. You have footballers kicking a ball around a field on 50k/200k/400k a week. You have celebrities who get paid 10 million for remembering their lines and looking 'good' on television.

 

And then, you have 'art' like that bed, which is worth a couple of million... Easiest money ever.

 

But that's life; it ain't bloody fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Value is whatever soneone is willing to pay for something.

Sure I get piece as a snapshot of someone in depression. But, I find the price tags on modern art simply insane. Think of what you could actually do with 2.2 million. Literally everything else, no matter how hedonistic, is better than buying this bed. Siggghhhh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... people condemning artists and saying Art is useless feels terrifying.

You guys either lost it or have no idea what you're talking about. Tho yeah I get where you're coming come from, the outrageous prices of some "pieces of abstract art". Well Art isn't the one to be accused, it's the absurdity of the "hype" surrouding those very few privileged artists and performers that is disturbing.

I get that paintings from master/famous painters, old original books or music sheets can have historical and material values for collectors, but the hype around modern abstract art is just absurd and meaningless. (if not useful to show the twisted minds of a few rich people living out of reality).

But Art is NEVER useless. Painting, music, drawing, literature, cinema, street art, dance, martial-arts, performing, video-games, sculpting, handcraft, arts & crafts etc... Art is everywhere and that's pretty much what distinguishes us from monkeys. Art is vital, creating is vital for us. It's the expression of our understanding of the world, we use it to communicate, it can hold important ideas or a deep spiritual message, it can change one's mind, help people wonder about their surrouding (because that's important), it can spread among people faster than a zombie apocalypse. It can also be empty of meaning, just something beautiful or ugly, It can be just dumb and amuse people, it can be a rather bad catchy song to make people dance and cheer. But it can always hold a timeless message about our nature and lack of nature (and that's freakin' deep).

Questionning the use of Art is like questionning the use of Life. There's none, it just is. It's inherent to the awarness of our surrouding world, to our conscious.

Project zomboid is fockin' art.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow... people condemning artists and saying Art is useless feels terrifying.

You guys either lost it or have no idea what you're talking about. Tho yeah I get where you're coming come from, the outrageous prices of some "pieces of abstract art". Well Art isn't the one to be accused, it's the absurdity of the "hype" surrouding those very few privileged artists and performers that is disturbing.

I get that paintings from master/famous painters, old original books or music sheets can have historical and material values for collectors, but the hype around modern abstract art is just absurd and meaningless. (if not useful to show the twisted minds of a few rich people living out of reality).

But Art is NEVER useless. Painting, music, drawing, literature, cinema, street art, dance, martial-arts, performing, video-games, sculpting, handcraft, arts & crafts etc... Art is everywhere and that's pretty much what distinguishes us from monkeys. Art is vital, creating is vital for us. It's the expression of our understanding of the world, we use it to communicate, it can hold important ideas or a deep spiritual message, it can change one's mind, help people wonder about their surrouding (because that's important), it can spread among people faster than a zombie apocalypse. It can also be empty of meaning, just something beautiful or ugly, It can be just dumb and amuse people, it can be a rather bad catchy song to make people dance and cheer. But it can always hold a timeless message about our nature and lack of nature (and that's freakin' deep).

Questionning the use of Art is like questionning the use of Life. There's none, it just is. It's inherent to the awarness of our surrouding world, to our conscious.

Project zomboid is fockin' art.

 

Well said, but I have to disagree: video games are not art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Well said, but I have to disagree: video games are not art.

 

Care to elaborate why?

 

As a gamer and perhaps a potential video game developer I may sound like a heretic by stating the above, but, as of now, I'm really agnostic to the whole idea.

 

 

 

"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."

 

Here is the full article.

 

"The worlds created by electronic games are more like playgrounds where experience is created by the interaction between a player and a programme. The player cannot claim to impose a personal vision of life on the game, while the creator of the game has ceded that responsibility. No one "owns" the game, so there is no artist, and therefore no work of art.

 

This is the essential difference between games and art, and it precedes the digital age. Chess is a great game, but even the finest chess player in the world isn't an artist. She is a chess player.Artistry may have gone into the design of the chess pieces. But the game of chess itself is not art nor does it generate art – it is just a game.

 

And so is Dwarf Fortress."

 

Here is the full article.

 

"… can video games be art? And the answer is still No, or at least, Not Likely. It seems a bizarre and irrelevant question to ask. Like, if I was reading Jane Austen and you said, "But is it sport?" No, it's not sport, it's a novel. Why would it need to be anything else?

 

Electronic games offer a rich and spectacular entertainment, but why do they need to be anything more than fun? Why does everything have to be art?

 

Very few things count as Art. I would argue that very little art is actually art – because most of it fails, and failed art is not art. We just politely pretend that it is."

 

Here is the full article.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can games elicit emotion or be built primary to provoke an emotion?

Woo, it's art, by art's standards.

If a guy cutting words into his flesh is art, or someone smearing 5 lines on newspaper with a large brush can be considered art, games (or at least the non-game aspect) can certainly fit the mold. (Not to mention those terrifying "interactive" displays.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those pieces of articles are deeply wrong, and the authors got misguided or something. They judge if video-games is Art from a player's point of view, like the artistic work should come from the players. That's absurd.
In that case literature ain't art either, it's not an artistic work to read words sitting on a chair, nor should be painting because it ain't an artistic work to look at one.

 

Video-games is Art. Level design, sound design, story telling, 3D modelling, texturing, coding, creating a universe etc... all those takes skill and thoughts, and in the end, when you put everything together, people playing do feel emotions. Some games are just astounding by their visual aspect, some games have a deep meaningful story, some just have an interesting gameplay etc...
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Video games can definitely be art, I just feel there isn't many of them. And then you have the blurry world of what constitutes one game as art and another not.

 

One might argue Project Zomboid is art; I would argue it isn't. I would argue Journey (for PS3) is art; someone else might say differently.

 

Which is why art is so abstract and hard to pin down. In the end we might just end up calling something art because we got tired debating it, and ended up walking away while stuffing our face with caviar and looking pomp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think games can definitely be art but the problem is that people use the term "games are art" for the sake of saying it rather than meaning it. It's always interesting hearing people assert games are art when there's the idea of censorship or games being knocked down in general, yet people can also maintain there can't be a deeper meaning within a game. One of the best examples, and something I feel captured the closest you could get with such a discussion like in film was Mass Effect 3.

 

While the ending was a bit meh all considered, there was this theory that was going around called the Indoctrination Theory. It was a rather big thing at the time with people analysing the game to try and support this theory. It was even kind of a huge community investigation looking deeper into the games files/mechanics/ideas to support the theory. It was actually pretty good but the general opposite argument was that everything should be taken at face value, that the developers were just idiots.

 

I think that personally games can be art, but people generally don't treat it like art. A lot of the time it feels like games are art is just a shield to protect the medium from harm, rather than something people really do believe in. Still interesting discussion none the less. ;)

 

For those interested in the Indoctrination Theory:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't see how the indoctrination theory can constitute it as art. If your saying that because Mass Effect caused a heated discussion within the community on its ending christened the game as 'art' well that's like saying any game that causes controversy is art. WarZ must be art? Garry's Incident must be art?

 

Don't see the connection, and I wouldn't constitute something as art simply based around the amount of emotion/controversy involved because I like to think art is more than just - Emotion = Art.

 

Bottom line; don't see the connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude, if someone can legitimately claim that the London Subway map is art (Introduction to Design by Alan Pipes) then I really don't know what you can do to disprove that anything someone says is art. The most you can then do is critique it for its artistic merits and use that to dissuade someone that it just isn't "artistic enough."

But hey, I hate the humanities.

From a follow-up article of Roger Ebert's "What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't see how the indoctrination theory can constitute it as art. If your saying that because Mass Effect caused a heated discussion within the community on its ending christened the game as 'art' well that's like saying any game that causes controversy is art. WarZ must be art? Garry's Incident must be art?

 

Don't see the connection, and I wouldn't constitute something as art simply based around the amount of emotion/controversy involved because I like to think art is more than just - Emotion = Art.

 

Bottom line; don't see the connection.

 

 

Controversy != art you are right. What I'm saying is a piece that allows a deeper analysis/discussion of an aspect of that piece is really what art is about (or at least to me anyway) the Indoctrination Theory is not about the controversy/emotional aspect of the ending (that's more like the groups Retake Mass Effect :roll: ) it's about a deeper analysis/discussion on the story, to come to a different conclusion than is presented at face value, which is what I feel art is about.

 

Discussion of art is always a bit round about and pointless since everybody has different ideas of what art can be, though I do find it kind of funny that the original piece has probably done what it intended to do, whether it be an emotional reaction or spark a discussion on the nature of art and what it is. It's certainly been a pretty interesting thread.

 

Edit: I should point out that, I don't believe IT is art itself, I believe games to be art, but use ME3 as an example of what I believe art is about or can be about. Figured I should clear that up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...