30th November 2005, 8:20 AM
(This post was last modified: 30th November 2005, 8:39 AM by Dark Jaguar.)
You say Metropolis like it's some bastion that speaks across generations and to the human condition, abstractifying some aspect of reality into a form that is recognizable by the average person for what it is.
That's the definition I've heard for art, but what to make of beads and jewelry? What possible message can that get across, or does it simply look "pretty"? I say this because that's some of the earliest art humans have produced. Are they not art simply because there is no message? Or, is the message simply a mathematical one? The math that is hard wired into our minds that allows us to determine what is and is not pretty.
By the same token, I would like to hear a valid definition of what constitutes "art". Unless we can nail down the definition, the word "art" is utterly meaningless. From there we can decide what does and does not match that definition and see if games are among that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
Wikipedia defines art as anything crafted by intelligence. Martial arts, for example, or a painting, all fit in this. Video games are art by this definition as well. Problem solved.
Not so fast. There is something some might contend. By this definition, a rainbow, a nebula, flowers, a sunset, a spider's web, accidently spilling some paint producing, by accident, a sheerly random event that still has meaning to the beholder, even (possibly) meaningful images generated by a computer via artificial "natural selection" (the last one is actually somewhere in between, since the nature of this digital evolution program is artificed, and is thus art itself, but can art make art even though after that point no intelligence is involved?) are not art. None of these are made by an intelligence, and are merely the nature of reality. However, we certainly find meaning in them, and a number of people do consider such things art even without an intelligence involved in their construction.
So what then? Does "art" become defined as "anything which can potentially have meaning to us"? Well, that would describe ALL things in existance, and the nonexistant as well. Art suddenly becomes a non-word. If it can describe everything, of what good is the word at all? One might say "well it means everything can have an artistic quality", but that misses the point. If art defines everything, an artistic quality suddenly defines everything as well. Artistic qualities themselves become art. And, we already have a word for "everything". In fact, I just said it. Art is utterly meaningless if it describes everything. We have to try again.
So, define art.
That's the definition I've heard for art, but what to make of beads and jewelry? What possible message can that get across, or does it simply look "pretty"? I say this because that's some of the earliest art humans have produced. Are they not art simply because there is no message? Or, is the message simply a mathematical one? The math that is hard wired into our minds that allows us to determine what is and is not pretty.
By the same token, I would like to hear a valid definition of what constitutes "art". Unless we can nail down the definition, the word "art" is utterly meaningless. From there we can decide what does and does not match that definition and see if games are among that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
Wikipedia defines art as anything crafted by intelligence. Martial arts, for example, or a painting, all fit in this. Video games are art by this definition as well. Problem solved.
Not so fast. There is something some might contend. By this definition, a rainbow, a nebula, flowers, a sunset, a spider's web, accidently spilling some paint producing, by accident, a sheerly random event that still has meaning to the beholder, even (possibly) meaningful images generated by a computer via artificial "natural selection" (the last one is actually somewhere in between, since the nature of this digital evolution program is artificed, and is thus art itself, but can art make art even though after that point no intelligence is involved?) are not art. None of these are made by an intelligence, and are merely the nature of reality. However, we certainly find meaning in them, and a number of people do consider such things art even without an intelligence involved in their construction.
So what then? Does "art" become defined as "anything which can potentially have meaning to us"? Well, that would describe ALL things in existance, and the nonexistant as well. Art suddenly becomes a non-word. If it can describe everything, of what good is the word at all? One might say "well it means everything can have an artistic quality", but that misses the point. If art defines everything, an artistic quality suddenly defines everything as well. Artistic qualities themselves become art. And, we already have a word for "everything". In fact, I just said it. Art is utterly meaningless if it describes everything. We have to try again.
So, define art.
"On two occasions, I have been asked [by members of Parliament], 'Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?' I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question." ~ Charles Babbage (1791-1871)