[MatthTheGeek]

If you honestly can't see the difference between "He took her to an art museum and showed her some modern art which I think is garbage" and "He took her to show her an actual pile of garbage" there isn't much point in continuing this conversation.

So putting something in a museum magically makes it art? Good job there.

If something was intentionally made as an artwork and is shown in museums, then yes.

So just wanting it to be art makes it art?

If I want the whole world to be art, shouldn't we put the whole world in a museum then?

[Phantom Hoover]

just build a small, inside-out museum (this also qualifies as art)

[Dragon]

Yeah. And then, everything will be art, except for what you put out of the museum. Yeah, this approach gets ridiculous pretty quickly when you think of it. It also disqualifies architecture and outdoor sculptures from being art because they're not inside anything, which is just plain unjust.

[mjn.mixael]

This thread is a form of art.

[karajorma]

If I want the whole world to be art, shouldn't we put the whole world in a museum then?

You've obviously forgotten that art requires an act of creation. Feel free to make the whole world first. If you can do that, then you could call it art. I doubt you'd find anyone to disagree with that definition.

[General Battuta]

But what about Found Art. Or a robot programmed to make Cornell boxes. Are posts art!?

[An4ximandros]

  [o,o]
 [ ;   ; ]
(d      b)
  H _ H

There! Art.

[MatthTheGeek]

If I want the whole world to be art, shouldn't we put the whole world in a museum then?

You've obviously forgotten that art requires an act of creation. Feel free to make the whole world first. If you can do that, then you could call it art. I doubt you'd find anyone to disagree with that definition.

So I could dump a **** in my bathroom and call it art?

Oh wait, that's your entire point. I don't think it gets stupider than that.

EDIT:
The fundamental problem is, if the only requisite to something being called art is that its maker wants it to be called art, then art has literally no value whatsoever.

[Dragon]

If I want the whole world to be art, shouldn't we put the whole world in a museum then?

You've obviously forgotten that art requires an act of creation. Feel free to make the whole world first. If you can do that, then you could call it art. I doubt you'd find anyone to disagree with that definition.

So I could dump a **** in my bathroom and call it art?

Consider that one guy mentioned earlier did just that, then carried it to an art gallery and apparently got paid for this. Clearly, some would consider that art... Yeah, there has to be some limit. Or we can say that modern art indeed has no value whatsoever, and that it needs to be something more than art to matter. But that's even more complicated than limiting what "art" is.

[MatthTheGeek]

Clearly, some would consider that art...

And I'm pretty sure that makes those people stupid.

[Dragon]

Yeah, or just plain nuts. I already posted about that earlier. If this is art, I'm seriously asking the question "what isn't?". Either there's a boundary, or "art"="stuff".

[Lorric]

Eye of the beholder. It's just that simple.

[niffiwan]

It really isn't that simple (as this thread has *quite amply* demonstrated IMO )

So - what would you call "art" that was created in an alien culture?  (alien defined as very different to you, not defined as extra-terrestrial)

... If this is art, I'm seriously asking the question "what isn't?". Either there's a boundary, or "art"="stuff".

The excrement created by 99.9999999% of humans on this planet is not art   (insert hundreds of other trivial/obvious examples here) So is it really the case that the Wikipedia definition means that there is no boundary?

[Lorric]

It really isn't that simple (as this thread has *quite amply* demonstrated IMO )

So - what would you call "art" that was created in an alien culture?  (alien defined as very different to you, not defined as extra-terrestrial)

People are just getting tangled up in something that's really quite simple at it's base.

I wouldn't know what to call it until I saw it. I would certainly acknowledge it was art to them. Would it be art to me, I don't know.

The saying is beauty is in the eye of the beholder. After sexual attraction, what's next? Maybe art. There's also natural beauty.

As far as sexual attraction goes, people's taste in looks varies extremely widely. So too for art. It is simply too far and wide to break down into what is art and what is not speaking for everyone.

[niffiwan]

I wouldn't know what to call it until I saw it.

Ahah!! SchrodingerArt!!!   

(sorry, couldn't resist...)

[Spoon]

I regret 99% of this thread.

[An4ximandros]

On the original topic:

I believe FREDing is and isn't art, it all depends on the author.

Axem is (for example) one of the few FREDers capable at excelling at the barbaric sisyphian torture banned by BETAC creative use of the tools at his disposal. His creativity, in a way, allowing him to transcend the limitations of the scripts available, making the missions not only fun and memorable, but also capable of inspiring others to look at FRED in a different light. One that isn't simply as a torture device by superevil deisgner chaos god.

I am tired.

[General Battuta]

FRED is easy and fun :colbert:

The interface has a couple really ****ing annoying quirks that render basic tasks a bit make-worky, but all in all it's pretty slick.

[Mongoose]

Yeah, from what I understand, having a simple event system founded on basic logical statements in a GUI editor puts FS in extremely rare company among the overall game-modding scene.  I know there are plenty of games out there that require learning full scripting languages (if not something even more esoteric) in order to accomplish anything, whereas in our case that was a FSO addition designed to supplement the solid base that FRED already provides.

[Phantom Hoover]

But what about Found Art. Or a robot programmed to make Cornell boxes. Are posts art!?

it's basically a diagonal argument at the end of the day, given any algorithmic definition of 'art' that actually produces a meaningful categorisation you can construct something which defies it to the extent that it is in itself art