ggg likes their game more than their players?

"

pandasplaying wrote:

art isn't required to be a useful word, and it's not required to describe only some things and not others.

If the word "art" doesn't have any meaning or connotation, then it is by definition a meaningless word. That's not a property of "art" in particular, that's just how words work. A word is to be used for some things and not others. A word is used when its meaning is meant. It's kind of hard to explain, but you don't use "bird" or "tree" just any old time, you use them when there's a bird or a tree. Does that makes sense?

"

one person might decide everything they're able to see is art, and they would likely have a much better outlook on the world than somebody who scrutinizes what things look like and calls some things art and some things (noun).

Art is a neutral quality, neither good nor bad, I think; a person could see everything as art and be totally miserable just as easily as they could be ecstatic. Do you mean a person who decides everything they're able to see is GOOD art? I have to condemn that point of view, I can't agree with it at all. Unless that person specifically avoided looking at some things (poverty, domestic abuse, environmental destruction) they would be a real monster if they were never unhappy with anything they saw. I guess being monstrous isn't necessarily bad, but for myself, it is worth more to be pained by the sight of those things than it is to be happy all the time.

"

you'll likely enjoy seeing things more if you don't put expectations on them like how you think they should be.

I think that seeing my expectations be trounced is a really fun thing to have happen. Whenever I look at something and can't figure it out, that's usually when I'm at my happiest, but when I look at something and feel like I understand it immediately, I quickly get bored. Maybe you're different, but for me, I think the opposite of what you're saying is true. Putting expectations on things is great, because almost always, those expectations are frustrated.

"

ThatsSoGoodman wrote:

"

pandasplaying wrote:

art isn't required to be a useful word, and it's not required to describe only some things and not others.

If the word "art" doesn't have any meaning or connotation, then it is by definition a meaningless word. That's not a property of "art" in particular, that's just how words work. A word is to be used for some things and not others. A word is used when its meaning is meant. It's kind of hard to explain, but you don't use "bird" or "tree" just any old time, you use them when there's a bird or a tree. Does that makes sense?

"

one person might decide everything they're able to see is art, and they would likely have a much better outlook on the world than somebody who scrutinizes what things look like and calls some things art and some things (noun).

Art is a neutral quality, neither good nor bad, I think; a person could see everything as art and be totally miserable just as easily as they could be ecstatic. Do you mean a person who decides everything they're able to see is GOOD art? I have to condemn that point of view, I can't agree with it at all. Unless that person specifically avoided looking at some things (poverty, domestic abuse, environmental destruction) they would be a real monster if they were never unhappy with anything they saw. I guess being monstrous isn't necessarily bad, but for myself, it is worth more to be pained by the sight of those things than it is to be happy all the time.

"

you'll likely enjoy seeing things more if you don't put expectations on them like how you think they should be.

I think that seeing my expectations be trounced is a really fun thing to have happen. Whenever I look at something and can't figure it out, that's usually when I'm at my happiest, but when I look at something and feel like I understand it immediately, I quickly get bored. Maybe you're different, but for me, I think the opposite of what you're saying is true. Putting expectations on things is great, because almost always, those expectations are frustrated.

the word art can be defined without putting limitations on what can be called art. i could say art is defined as anything anybody calls art. would the definition interfere with your perception of art? it should help you accept anything being called art for being how it is, instead of how you expect it should be.

why shouldn't somebody be able to consider the visual aspects of anything as good? somebody may think poor people look good, a domestic abuser looks good, and maybe destroyed environments can look good if only the visual aspects are considered.

have you ever tried not putting expectations on how you think things should be? i've gone to art galleries and expected all of the art to be great, and then seen many art works i considered very amateur since i'm an artist and knew how easy it would be to do. if i didn't have expectations i might have liked the art better, and might have appreciated the simplicity of some of the art works.

Wouldn't it be easier simply to defer to already established definitions of the word?

I'm pretty sure that all definitions of "art" for which there exists a consensus include the following qualities:

1. It is created by a human or humans.
2. It is created for aesthetic purposes.

Someone earlier in this thread said that art is everything manmade that was not created as a tool. I like that, because it conveys the already existing distilled consensus definitions into a descriptor that is easy for everyone to grasp, and it also accounts for inbetween objects (a knife can be art, but only to the extent that it has been created with aesthetic intent).

Kind of like my personal definition of music (which everyone I've ever met has agreed with, albeit not always right away): organized sound.

In my more careless moments, I might listen to some rap (I hate most rap) or really crummy jpop (I live in Japan, where for sophisticated reasons of corporate monopoly and organization many pop idols are tone deaf) and say, "Holy shit, this is NOT music." But I am wrong to say that, and should say instead, "This is derivative, juvenile, and annoying music. It IS music, but it's garbage."

A lot of people in this thread are making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE.

Bad art != not art.

As I said earlier, Roger Ebert made a fool of himself when he insisted that video games (specifically those with a win condition, probably the only kind he was aware of at the time) can not be art. Learn from his mistake. ;)

"

pandasplaying wrote:

why do you think it's useful to put limitations and rules on art?

Are you saying this isn't a work of art?

It's obviously a product. But you can't deny its artistry.

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

Wouldn't it be easier simply to defer to already established definitions of the word?

I'm pretty sure that all definitions of "art" for which there exists a consensus include the following qualities:

1. It is created by a human or humans.
2. It is created for aesthetic purposes.

Someone earlier in this thread said that art is everything manmade that was not created as a tool. I like that, because it conveys the already existing distilled consensus definitions into a descriptor that is easy for everyone to grasp, and it also accounts for inbetween objects (a knife can be art, but only to the extent that it has been created with aesthetic intent).

Kind of like my personal definition of music (which everyone I've ever met has agreed with, albeit not always right away): organized sound.

In my more careless moments, I might listen to some rap (I hate most rap) or really crummy jpop (I live in Japan, where for sophisticated reasons of corporate monopoly and organization many pop idols are tone deaf) and say, "Holy shit, this is NOT music." But I am wrong to say that, and should say instead, "This is derivative, juvenile, and annoying music. It IS music, but it's garbage."

A lot of people in this thread are making the EXACT SAME MISTAKE.

Bad art != not art.

As I said earlier, Roger Ebert made a fool of himself when he insisted that video games (specifically those with a win condition, probably the only kind he was aware of at the time) can not be art. Learn from his mistake. ;)

i want to be able to say the earth's natural landscape is art, but it wasn't created by humans and not for aesthetic purposes.

"

pandasplaying wrote:

"

ThatsSoGoodman wrote:

Spoiler

"

pandasplaying wrote:

art isn't required to be a useful word, and it's not required to describe only some things and not others.

If the word "art" doesn't have any meaning or connotation, then it is by definition a meaningless word. That's not a property of "art" in particular, that's just how words work. A word is to be used for some things and not others. A word is used when its meaning is meant. It's kind of hard to explain, but you don't use "bird" or "tree" just any old time, you use them when there's a bird or a tree. Does that makes sense?

"

one person might decide everything they're able to see is art, and they would likely have a much better outlook on the world than somebody who scrutinizes what things look like and calls some things art and some things (noun).

Art is a neutral quality, neither good nor bad, I think; a person could see everything as art and be totally miserable just as easily as they could be ecstatic. Do you mean a person who decides everything they're able to see is GOOD art? I have to condemn that point of view, I can't agree with it at all. Unless that person specifically avoided looking at some things (poverty, domestic abuse, environmental destruction) they would be a real monster if they were never unhappy with anything they saw. I guess being monstrous isn't necessarily bad, but for myself, it is worth more to be pained by the sight of those things than it is to be happy all the time.

"

you'll likely enjoy seeing things more if you don't put expectations on them like how you think they should be.

I think that seeing my expectations be trounced is a really fun thing to have happen. Whenever I look at something and can't figure it out, that's usually when I'm at my happiest, but when I look at something and feel like I understand it immediately, I quickly get bored. Maybe you're different, but for me, I think the opposite of what you're saying is true. Putting expectations on things is great, because almost always, those expectations are frustrated.

the word art can be defined without putting limitations on what can be called art. i could say art is defined as anything anybody calls art. would the definition interfere with your perception of art? it should help you accept anything being called art for being how it is, instead of how you expect it should be.

why shouldn't somebody be able to consider the visual aspects of anything as good? somebody may think poor people look good, a domestic abuser looks good, and maybe destroyed environments can look good if only the visual aspects are considered.

have you ever tried not putting expectations on how you think things should be? i've gone to art galleries and expected all of the art to be great, and then seen many art works i considered very amateur since i'm an artist and knew how easy it would be to do. if i didn't have expectations i might have liked the art better, and might have appreciated the simplicity of some of the art works.

That's a fine definition, it's just that if you adopt it, you'll have to explain many times what you mean by the word "art", which is fine. Personally, I limit the definition of "art" to describe things that humans have made, and the word "beautiful" to describe the rest. I think that "art" should have intention behind it, and what is interesting to me about art is the discovery of that intention through the execution of the work. I think that art is social and should teach people new ways to experience. All that isn't necessary to art, but I've found that the art that I like seems to share those qualities, so, because the art that I like most does that, I say that art "should" do it.
It's not totally relevant, but the word "art" comes from the same root as "artifice", the Latin "ars" which means skill or craftsmanship. Historically, art has meant things that have been made with skill. Definitions can change, though.

Art isn't only the visual aspects of something. I would hope that if someone saw domestic abuse, they would do something about it instead of sitting there admiring it. I guess I agree with you that those things could be considered good art, because some people are sadistic and love to see the suffering of others.

Sometimes I think that's useful and sometimes I don't. When I go to a painting exhibit, I'm not amazed that people had the idea to put oil on canvas, because I expected that. I think expectations are often a useful shortcut, but of course they are only a shortcut and should be flexible. I don't think I ever have had absolutely zero expectations, though, I'm not even sure if that's possible. If you know something I don't, educate me!

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

1. It is created by a human or humans.
2. It is created for aesthetic purposes.

So a play with a political message isn't art? Historical fiction isn't art? Art is tricky to define because it isn't quite a noun, it's almost an adjective. It has to do with the way an object is experienced by people, instead of being an inherent quality of the object itself. If it were up to me, art would be either an adjective or an adverb, like "It's an art painting" or "I'm looking at this suspension bridge artly." But it's not up to me T_T

why do you assume only humans can make art? even plants have been observed as having intelligence, and their flowers may look beautiful on purpose to attract bees to pollinate them. some animals like peacocks look colorful and unique to attract mates, so their appearance could be called art even though they're part of nature and not man-made.

i think it's fine to go to an art gallery and expect some of the paintings to be oil on canvas, but there might be mediums you didn't expect to see, and your expectations not being met should be a good thing like a pleasant surprise instead of a disappointment. i dont believe expectations aren't unhelpful, but some get in the way of accepting things for being the way they are.

"

pandasplaying wrote:

why do you assume only humans can make art? even plants have been observed as having intelligence, and their flowers may look beautiful on purpose to attract bees to pollinate them. some animals like peacocks look colorful and unique to attract mates, so their appearance could be called art even though they're part of nature and not man-made.

i think it's fine to go to an art gallery and expect some of the paintings to be oil on canvas, but there might be mediums you didn't expect to see, and your expectations not being met should be a good thing like a pleasant surprise instead of a disappointment. i dont believe expectations aren't unhelpful, but some get in the way of accepting things for being the way they are.

Most non-human art isn't intelligible to me, so I don't call it art. I don't know what intention if any is behind, for example, the sheen that forms on an oil slick, and I can't communicate with its maker. Although natural beauty can sharpen my experience of my senses, I don't think that is its purpose, so I don't call it art. To me, there's a difference between something whose appearance can be admired, and art. You don't draw that distinction, I guess.

I like being disappointed sometimes, it can be a useful experience, and I don't think it's either practical or useful to totally avoid that feeling. Sometimes I am disappointed when my expectations are met, and sometimes when they aren't. I also think there's some merit to refusing to accept things as they are in some cases.

"

pandasplaying wrote:

i want to be able to say the earth's natural landscape is art, but it wasn't created by humans and not for aesthetic purposes.

Right. There is no widely accepted definition of art which includes natural phenomena. You might want to say that that is art, but you would be wrong according to any objective analysis of the word's denotation*. Art is, by definition, manmade.

"

ThatsSoGoodman wrote:

So a play with a political message isn't art? Historical fiction isn't art?

If the play or fiction is devoid of aesthetic intent, it is not art. Correct. But point to any well-made political play or piece of hitorical fiction that is completely devoid of aesthetic intent. I am positive that you cannot.

----------

*Reference for those who don't know what denotation is:

noun
1.
the explicit or direct meaning or set of meanings of a word or expression, as distinguished from the ideas or meanings associated with it or suggested by it; the association or set of associations that a word usually elicits for most speakers of a language, as distinguished from those elicited for any individual speaker because of personal experience.
(Random House Dictionary, 2016)

"

gibbousmoon wrote:

"

ThatsSoGoodman wrote:

So a play with a political message isn't art? Historical fiction isn't art?

If the play or fiction is devoid of aesthetic intent, it is not art. Correct. But point to any well-made political play or piece of hitorical fiction that is completely devoid of aesthetic intent. I am positive that you cannot.

I think a lot of political art is structured to offer the greatest political impact, instead of being as beautiful as possible. Some religious art, for example depictions of the Passion, is probably the same way (substituting religious for political intent).