ART TALK

CONTINUED FROM THE OHR COLLABORATION PROJECT TRHEAD

To me, art has a simple, yet broad definition:

ART = ACTION.

In other words, any time someone choose to do something, they are shaping the world around them to fit their values. So for me, every action is a choice which reflects the values of the person performing the action.

A distinction I'd like to make in this impromptu discussion is that a lot of us have been speaking from a critical perspective - we're trying to say what kinds of art please us, and we're basing our definitions of 'art' subjectively on what pleases us. Or, more simply, "I think it's art when it meets these criteria."

This is opposed to defining art objectively as a part of a process of human (well, not necessarily human; elephants do it, too) thought and action.

Oh, and to me, chili is only chili if you can enjoy a beer with it.

---

Email contributions to the OHR Collab project to:

ohrcollab@gmail.com

All contributions will be recorded in the credits.

I have never had beer alongside my chili, but I think that is a pretty respectable definition :)

Modern art: to challenge one's perception of art and acceptance of anything as art through elaborate troll attempts.

j/k

What is an art discussion thread without some pictures! Here is the artist I mentioned in the other thread (Jay McCafferty), he is at work solar-burning one of his pieces, and you can see how little of it remains:



Newbie's joke about trolling reminds me of something. When I was in Jay's class, he was invited to participate in a fundraiser. They were asking various artists to paint on the surface of wooden chairs, and then they were then going to auction off the chairs.

I think the chair painting was probably inspired by the cow-painting craze. If you do a google image search for "painted cows" you will see what I mean.

I don't think he liked being told what kind of art to do, and what kind of materials to use, and he didn't like the idea of this organization selling the chair with his name on it and attaching his reputation to it.

So he spread lighter fluid on the chair, put it in the middle of a concrete ceramics kin, and set it ablaze. He didn't take it out until it was completely charred. it was still chair-shaped, and it held together, but only just barely. Then he gave it to the organization for the auction. I heard later that they were furious because it was definitely not what they wanted.

He was definitely trolling them. There is an element of defiance in art. I could never say that all art is defiant, that would be nonsense, but it is interesting to see how often artist push back vigorously against anyone trying to tell them what to do.

I think there is almost some kind of quantum art effect,where measuring art changes art. Where if you say "THIS IS ART" you are always going to be able to find somebody who takes that declaration as a challenge to be broken.

Whoops, this should be in general discussion, not games...

My bad, lol.

---

Email contributions to the OHR Collab project to:

ohrcollab@gmail.com

All contributions will be recorded in the credits.

Hmm, you missed my point a little. I don't argue a bit that anything someone calls art is art. I just don't think certain things are GOOD art. Certainly the paintings kindergartener make in school are art, but should we put them in museums?



Well certainly it should be a factor. I think the idea that when people look at a piece of art and think "this is terrible" should factor into a work of art's quality as well.
The only argument that I can think of that would show a blank canvas as a GOOD work of art is when you consider the audience the work of art is designed for. Things like a urinal certainly bring up a lot of questions for the top notch art critics, and it creates a lot of conversation and thought. And so it could be argued that works of art like that have actually succeeded in what they set out to do and could in that way be considered good.



I somehow knew you'd respond like this. But I didn't really mean to single out Bufandu so much as example one of the games on SlimeSalad that could be argued as not very game like. Perhaps OHR House, Don't push the button or my Deforestation would all be better examples.




I'm sure it's fine. Though, perhaps one of the mods will take care of it later.




Oh, I guess I'll post a picture.

Yay Salvador Dali elephants!

Actually, I think the concept of "Good" is one of those things like Art where it is easy to grasp emotionally, but a precise definition of goodness is terribly elusive.

We need shared concepts to be able to communicate with each other, yet the only building blocks we have to construct those shared concepts from is our own subjective ideas, and our own subjective ideas about other peoples subjective ideas. (and our subjective ideas about their subjective ideas about or subjective ideas)

Communication is a delightful puzzle! :)

Haha, splitting these threads off is always awesome because it's great to have the chili subplot without seeing its genesis.

I don't mean to sound like such a slime, but if art=action, you really haven't accomplished much in your definition. A definition is only helpful if it discriminates, and I don't see this definition helping to do that much.

I happen to be of the opinion that a helpful, objective definition is impossible for the word "art", and any discussion about art is best served by moving to the subjective right away. I've thought about my previous offer, and I like the following better as a definition:
Artistry is a quality of an object/event/whatever that is assigned by the observer (subjective again!). This quality is a measure of the intellectual or emotional appreciation of the object. This will be different for everyone. However, the word art itself defines all (created?) objects that are judged by artistry over and above other possible (physical/utilitarian) criteria, even though each individual judgement will be different.

With this definition, art does not exist without an intellectual/emotional observer. I don't think this is a big deal. It's difficult enough to define physical reality without an observer, let alone art. Also, this definition takes away the intent of the creator. I put that "(created?)" bit in there because I don't know if it should matter whether an object is 'natural' or not. Is a natural sunset art? Not sure.

One nice thing about this definition is that an object can become art, although it was not originally envisioned as such. For example, a man or woman could design and build a bridge needed for transportation, but years after it is no longer necessary, people could view it as a work of art. This also applies to things like sports, where individual actions are done with the goal of winning the game, but a viewer can recognize real artistry in the development of the winning play. Then the winning play was a work of art, and will be appreciated as such over and above its success in terms of winning the game.

---

I am Srime

Why does it matter if it's 'good' or not? It is just - you can like it or not. Furthermore, you can asses it in term of some kind of aesthetic criteria and make a judgement based on that. The qualitative assessment that you are attaching is misplaced.



I think you should reread the example I gave regarding procedural generation and then reconsider the relationship to time spent making something and the resulting product. For example, you could have an extremely productive year and produce an excellent, fully formed game, with originality, charm and inventiveness. The fact that this took you a year, or a week, or a decade doesn't detract from the actual end product. Why should it be any different for art?

To the second point: if people like it or not has nothing to do with it. There are examples of art which are masterpieces, yet people don't like.



Nice painting - one of my favourites.

Now I want to know what this word was. Either Mogri hid a few easter-eggs in the word filter, or Swamptroll is swearing in an unusal and creative context ;)

It shall be secret forever!

No one would ever argue that OHR House or Deforestation is a game.

---

Super Walrus Land: Mouth Words Edition

I think the problem is the word "art" is being abused by people claiming to be "tortured artists." Splattering a bunch of paint on a canvas and calling it an expression of yourself is, in fact, art. And probably a lot of fun. Hell, we all had pictures of similar quality hung on the refrigerator as kids.

Then you have attention whores who hurl a bunch of feces on a canvas and say the same thing. Or put a chair in a box and call it art. Or the infamous Ell Perrito Vive (don't click that link.) Sure, the creator can justify it however they want, and say it represents whatever they want, but in the end its childish, lazy, and needlessly cruel, in that order.

My point is we call anything and everything "art." I could cover a canvas with glue, whip a Scrabble game against it, and make up some jibba jabba about it representing the oppressiveness of words and language in modern society, and BOOM. Museum display.

Just to hammer the point home, a Scrabble game was the first thing I saw when I looked away from my desk.

---

—- So anyway, how are you?

Fenrir did in his terrible contest rule game. Called that type of game "a game where all you do is press a button to proceed."

I think you should try this and see if you can get someone to buy it. If you're successful, then you've validated your point (and made a few extra bucks to boot).

I have this movie that challenges the very idea of art, good art, and even the canvas itself called The Shape of Things starring Paul Rudd and Rachel Weisz. It's based on a play, but it really does a number on the concept of art and human emotion. If any of you get a chance to see it, you should really do so. It fits into this discussion perfectly and would make for an interesting add-on to the things you're already talking about. Plus, it's just a really crazy movie.

My feelings on art come down to how well a person's creativity is reflective of himself onto others. In Stewie's example, I'd call that art because he's using manipulated materials to make a point and to evoke an emotion. If people respond, then he's done his job. Likewise, a movie poster could be lumped in the art category because it presents a layout designed to entice an audience to see another form of art called a movie. The movie, of course, is written (art form), acted (art form), scored (more art forms), and filmed (art, art art!) to evoke an emotion from a targeted audience. Whether it's a stupid comedy written to generate laughter from a low-brow audience, or a silent film starring a French guy and his dog designed to appeal to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, that film is artistic to its intended audience if that audience responds in some way, preferably in a passionate way.

Going back to traditional canvas art (or sculptures if you want to include other visual arts), I think the same principle applies as it does to movies, movie posters, and glued-on Scrabble pieces. Why did Michelangelo paint the Sistine Chapel? Because somebody asked him to. He had an audience in mind. Yes, it took him a while, and his canvas was a little odd, but he did it because someone would appreciate it. And someone did. You can now find pictures of it in pretty much any classic art book. So, here's your thought of the day: If no one liked it, would it still be considered art? A tortured artist is someone who thinks no one appreciates his work, so it might be interesting to theorize whether he is, in fact, an artist. Maybe the canvas is in his mind (psychology discussion!). There's no right or wrong answer, but it would be interesting to see where you guys take that idea.

---

Place Obligatory Signature Here