Wednesday, April 28, 2004

Some of my thoughts on art, as brought about by two recent conversations:

On the art thing, here are my comments from a (somewhat) related
conversation on slashdot. "I think that the point people are missing
here is that most video games are art. Bad art. The arguments being
made in most of the posts I see is that the artistic process in video
games is sideswiped by corporate interests and the purposes of
entertainment. The same can be said for many genres that still have
the occasional piece held up as an example of art. "Art" as an
abstract concept crosses boundaries. It can be found in architecture,
pop music, acting strangely to confound strangers, telling a story
about what happened to you when you were a kid, even tv sitcoms. It
usually isn't, but it can be. Something's utilitarian and functional
purposes are not at odds with its aesthetic value, its elevation into
the realm of beauty. Of course there can be art in video games. That
doesn't mean that there always is, or necessarily even often, but
saying there is no art in them is like saying there is no art in the
coliseum - after all, it's just a building. There's no artistry in my
apartment complex, after all. :)" Now, to relate it back to your
conversation a little better, 'Bad Art' is still art, it's just crappy
art. Virtually everything that people do has traces of artistry to
it, in my opinion, as it is our nature to impose our aesthetics on
everything we do. Art is an arbitrary line in the sand, the point at
it becomes noticeable to other people that this artistry is more than
*just* the 'way someone did something'. Functionality, especially in
intricate or multifunctional devices or processes, tends to obscure
this, which is why we think of "Art" as something somehow separate
from everything. This is all just my opinion, of course, but I'm
rather proud of my little rant here, so I'm going to post it on my


Post a Comment

<< Home