4 ms·

Video games aren't art because they are use-objects. If using something is part of experiencing it, it's impossible to maintain the critical distance that partl

by slibhb 6y ago

Video games aren't art because they are use-objects. If using something is part of experiencing it, it's impossible to maintain the critical distance that partly defines art. Games often have art in them in the form of assets. Chess is not art but a chess piece may be art. And it isn't a rebuke to say something isn't art, not everything worthwhile is art.

setr 6y ago
There are multiple views into the subject, but art is often described as a conversation between the piece and its viewer — that is, it’s interpreted by its audience, and given meaning by its audience (in the extreme, this leads to death of the author — art is only defined by its interpreters). From that perspective, games reign supreme in their potential: not only are they interpreted, they are themselves changed by their interpretation. Not simply a conversation in a single point of time (by viewing the object under question) but an extended one, with both parties conversing with the other, and both even capable of changing their stance and topics as the conversation continues. I personally don’t think you’ve ever needed “critical distance” to determine an object as art — because nothing is truly that distant, and beating someone over the head with a small statue does not change the status of the statue in regards to its “artistry”, despite the critical distance changing (the evaluation of the statue as a weapon may however not be an artistic evaluation). And of course, Duchamp’s urinal is the primary counter-example to contend with.
- slibhb 6y ago
  If art is "conversation between the piece and its viewer" then art is something that one person makes that another person reacts to. Why isn't this sentence art? We're playing the game of distinctions. Some things are art and some things are not art. One way to lose that game is with arguments like the one you've made, which make it impossible to say that anything is not art. If that's our conclusion then everything anyone has ever made is art and the world is a museum. To me, that is not a satisfactory place to end up.
  - setr 6y ago
    The problem with the other interpretation is that we exclude things that are obviously art (a painting stops being art when you use it) and you have a massive gray area (a urinal, placed in an art exhibition). By using interpretation, it becomes “closer” to correct — its art, when one treats it as such. A urinal changes from a tool to an art piece based on context and its viewers. And then it becomes a question of if anything can be art, and anyone can interpret anything as art, then when isn’t it? And my answer really boils down to reasonable and group interpretation — it’s “art” when a sufficient number of people (a percentage of relevant population) considers it so, and it is generally treated as such when it holds certain qualities (an interesting statement, an aesthetic, sufficient skill, etc). That is, like currency, it only holds value so long as people believe it holds value. Anything can be used as currency, and you can correctly claim anything to be currency, but it’s quite meaningless without convincing others to buy into your interpretation Thus, anything can be called “art” if you can convince enough people of it — and this is how it works out in the “real world” as well (graffiti switches from art, to a statement, to a public menace, and back to art, depending on what group you’re talking to) Also note the similar question: what defines a chair?
    - slibhb 6y ago
      > The problem with the other interpretation is that we exclude things that are obviously art (a painting stops being art when you use it) and you have a massive gray area (a urinal, placed in an art exhibition). I don't see this as a problem. I can use my shoe to hammer a nail into a wall but my shoe is a shoe, not a hammer. A painting isn't a use-object. You can use a painting for whatever you like but it doesn't make it a use-object. > A urinal changes from a tool to an art piece based on context and its viewers. A urinal is not art. Hanging something to sell tickets doesn't make something art. > That is, like currency, it only holds value so long as people believe it holds value. Anything can be used as currency, and you can correctly claim anything to be currency, but it’s quite meaningless without convincing others to buy into your interpretation > Thus, anything can be called “art” if you can convince enough people of it — and this is how it works out in the “real world” as well (graffiti switches from art, to a statement, to a public menace, and back to art, depending on what group you’re talking to) I think you're correct to link your perspective to fiat currency but that just drives home how empty the subjectivist view of art is. Using this definition, nothing is art because tomorrow or a year from now or next decade, people may not consider it art. Art (and all meaning) is endlessly deferred. This is not how people experience things, it's a cop-out. It is very tricky to define art. But we're better off engaging with the people who tried to answer that question and building on their work instead of the people who refused to answer at all.

by slibhb 6y ago

setr 6y ago

There are multiple views into the subject, but art is often described as a conversation between the piece and its viewer — that is, it’s interpreted by its audience, and given meaning by its audience (in the extreme, this leads to death of the author — art is only defined by its interpreters). From that perspective, games reign supreme in their potential: not only are they interpreted, they are themselves changed by their interpretation. Not simply a conversation in a single point of time (by viewing the object under question) but an extended one, with both parties conversing with the other, and both even capable of changing their stance and topics as the conversation continues. I personally don’t think you’ve ever needed “critical distance” to determine an object as art — because nothing is truly that distant, and beating someone over the head with a small statue does not change the status of the statue in regards to its “artistry”, despite the critical distance changing (the evaluation of the statue as a weapon may however not be an artistic evaluation). And of course, Duchamp’s urinal is the primary counter-example to contend with.

slibhb 6y ago
If art is "conversation between the piece and its viewer" then art is something that one person makes that another person reacts to. Why isn't this sentence art? We're playing the game of distinctions. Some things are art and some things are not art. One way to lose that game is with arguments like the one you've made, which make it impossible to say that anything is not art. If that's our conclusion then everything anyone has ever made is art and the world is a museum. To me, that is not a satisfactory place to end up.
- setr 6y ago
  The problem with the other interpretation is that we exclude things that are obviously art (a painting stops being art when you use it) and you have a massive gray area (a urinal, placed in an art exhibition). By using interpretation, it becomes “closer” to correct — its art, when one treats it as such. A urinal changes from a tool to an art piece based on context and its viewers. And then it becomes a question of if anything can be art, and anyone can interpret anything as art, then when isn’t it? And my answer really boils down to reasonable and group interpretation — it’s “art” when a sufficient number of people (a percentage of relevant population) considers it so, and it is generally treated as such when it holds certain qualities (an interesting statement, an aesthetic, sufficient skill, etc). That is, like currency, it only holds value so long as people believe it holds value. Anything can be used as currency, and you can correctly claim anything to be currency, but it’s quite meaningless without convincing others to buy into your interpretation Thus, anything can be called “art” if you can convince enough people of it — and this is how it works out in the “real world” as well (graffiti switches from art, to a statement, to a public menace, and back to art, depending on what group you’re talking to) Also note the similar question: what defines a chair?
  - slibhb 6y ago
    > The problem with the other interpretation is that we exclude things that are obviously art (a painting stops being art when you use it) and you have a massive gray area (a urinal, placed in an art exhibition). I don't see this as a problem. I can use my shoe to hammer a nail into a wall but my shoe is a shoe, not a hammer. A painting isn't a use-object. You can use a painting for whatever you like but it doesn't make it a use-object. > A urinal changes from a tool to an art piece based on context and its viewers. A urinal is not art. Hanging something to sell tickets doesn't make something art. > That is, like currency, it only holds value so long as people believe it holds value. Anything can be used as currency, and you can correctly claim anything to be currency, but it’s quite meaningless without convincing others to buy into your interpretation > Thus, anything can be called “art” if you can convince enough people of it — and this is how it works out in the “real world” as well (graffiti switches from art, to a statement, to a public menace, and back to art, depending on what group you’re talking to) I think you're correct to link your perspective to fiat currency but that just drives home how empty the subjectivist view of art is. Using this definition, nothing is art because tomorrow or a year from now or next decade, people may not consider it art. Art (and all meaning) is endlessly deferred. This is not how people experience things, it's a cop-out. It is very tricky to define art. But we're better off engaging with the people who tried to answer that question and building on their work instead of the people who refused to answer at all.