Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Spoon on December 09, 2013, 06:14:26 pm
-
[01:11] <@Axem> i find fredding to be an artform, and im pretty sure that opinion is shared by an amazing 4 other people
Let's find out!
-
Is it? no idea, I cannot comprehend FRED.. Also I want a : Polygons are crunchy option!.
-
Is it? no idea, I cannot comprehend FRED.. Also I want a : Polygons are crunchy option!.
this and where is Snuffy???????????????????????
-
You don't know what beauty is until you see a thousand sexps working in unison, working without hate or prejudice. A choreographed performance that can only be thought of as divine. The finely polished gems, born as rough ideas, shine brightly against the black drop of space.
All so a teenaged girl can buy overpriced tacos from a supermarket. If that's not art, then I don't know what is.
-
this and where is Snuffy???????????????????????
Dumb tradition that I REFUSE to take part in.
You hear me?
DUMB.
Also, its not ART.
-
Ah so the art debate moved to here? :D
COCKS
I saw that before it was sniped :D
Ahahahah
-
Damnation!
-
I'd say no, as even Axem is describing the product that the consumer gets. This is something which FRED is wildly divorced from.
It's like if you needed a completely different set of eyes to view a statue. A completed mission may be art when played, and that's related to FRED, but what's actually in FRED is very divorced from the completed mission and would look a mess to most players.
-
According to that analysis, because I mostly work in ArchiCAD and my clients get the product in paper and then in brick and mortar in a shape of a building, what I do isn't art.
Curious.
-
But isn't art skill in something? A fencer is an artist. A Blacksmith is an artist. Etc. So yeah, Freding is a form of art.
Sorry, I meant to say Snuffleupagus.
-
But isn't art skill in something? An master fencer is an artist. A Blacksmith is an artist. Etc. So yeah, Freding is a form of art.
Sorry, I meant to say Snuffleupagus.
I TOLD YOU THAT IS NOT AN OPTION.
-
I'd say no, as even Axem is describing the product that the consumer gets. This is something which FRED is wildly divorced from.
It's like if you needed a completely different set of eyes to view a statue. A completed mission may be art when played, and that's related to FRED, but what's actually in FRED is very divorced from the completed mission and would look a mess to most players.
So you're saying that a mission can be a piece of art, yes? So that would make FREDding an art form, no?
-
... I TOLD YOU THAT IS NOT AN OPTION.
snuffy is eternal
-
What is art? Ask a bunch of different people and you'll get a bunch of different answers.
-
Whatever you can get away with. :p
-
The act of fredding itself is not art for me, but the results could very well be considered as such. So i'd say yes.. in some way.
-
No it's not art. It's torture.
There's about as much artistic expression in FREDding as in an angry mob of fanatics clawing out each others' throats.
You don't know what beauty is until you see a thousand sexps working in unison, working without hate or prejudice.
What a ****ing joke.
They don't even work, much less in unison.
All they do is crash the game instead of doing what they should be doing. That, or they just don't work as advertised, or conflict with something, or hell, gah **** it every time I open FRED I find myself immersed in an endless torrent of engine limitations and engine bugs which frustrate me to no end.
Though I suppose they do work in unison if all you want to do is make ****ing escort missions.
Gah. I hate FREDding. I should really just ****ing stop, since I've seen and pushed the limits, been there done that, seen all there is to see - and it's ugly if you don't have some pull in the SCP.
-
I heard transcend and sync were considered pieces of art. It sure didn't feel that way for me.
-
this and where is Snuffy???????????????????????
Dumb tradition that I REFUSE to take part in.
You hear me?
DUMB.
mwahahahaha :drevil:
-
this and where is Snuffy???????????????????????
Dumb tradition that I REFUSE to take part in.
You hear me?
DUMB.
mwahahahaha :drevil:
damn those mod powers :p
-
this and where is Snuffy???????????????????????
Dumb tradition that I REFUSE to take part in.
You hear me?
DUMB.
mwahahahaha :drevil:
damn those mod powers :p
Second time I've seen that done.
-
So you're saying that a mission can be a piece of art, yes? So that would make FREDding an art form, no?
FRED is the block of unfinished marble you ordered. It can only become art through the use of FS2 to make it so.
Assuming FS2 doesn't bug out and crack Venus De Milo's arms off again.
-
mwahahahaha :drevil:
Moooongooooosseee!
YOU FORCED MY HAND
-
FRED is the block of unfinished marble you ordered. It can only become art through the use of FS2 to make it so.
Assuming FS2 doesn't bug out and crack Venus De Milo's arms off again.
The question isn't whether or not FRED is art, the question is whether or not FREDding is an art form. To use your analogy, it's saying that sculpting is a form of art, while the sculpture is the piece of art it creates.
-
The question isn't whether or not FRED is art, the question is whether or not FREDding is an art form. To use your analogy, it's saying that sculpting is a form of art, while the sculpture is the piece of art it creates.
And in that analogy, FS2 is still the art form, and FRED's files that it runs is still raw materials.
Fredding is igneous rock production.
-
mwahahahaha :drevil:
Moooongooooosseee!
YOU FORCED MY HAND
Fascist! Stifling my free speech! Just because you don't like the results, you just destroy them. That's art all right. The art of BEING A JERKY MCJERKY PANTS FACE! (http://lazymodders.fsmods.net/files/emot-colbert.gif)
-
The question isn't whether or not FRED is art, the question is whether or not FREDding is an art form. To use your analogy, it's saying that sculpting is a form of art, while the sculpture is the piece of art it creates.
And in that analogy, FS2 is still the art form, and FRED's files that it runs is still raw materials.
Fredding is igneous rock production.
:wtf: I don't even know where to begin with how wrong that is...
-
Fascist! Stifling my free speech! Just because you don't like the results, you just destroy them. That's art all right. The art of BEING A JERKY MCJERKY PANTS FACE! (http://lazymodders.fsmods.net/files/emot-colbert.gif)
You wouldn't know art if it HIT YOU IN THE FACE. And you would APOLOGIZE TO IT you CANADIAN.
-
I accept your apology. :)
-
I accept your apology. :)
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/1182808871337_zps62609c1d.jpg)
(This is art btw)
-
:wtf: I don't even know where to begin with how wrong that is...
Fredding cannot produce art and cannot be an art form because of it. All it can produce is FS2 files, which require FS2 to actually become any possible kind of art. One does not even know with certainty whether an FS2 file and what is done in FRED will even work, save by using FS2 to check.
Fredding is the production of raw materials which are combined with other raw materials in the forum of audio and graphical and AI and everything else to generate the artistic experience of the end consumer. Art happens inside the game engine; fredding in a vacuum creates nothing.
-
Sooo... modding is an artform, FREDing by itself is not?
-
Sooo... modding is an artform, FREDing by itself is not?
That'd be pretty accurate, yeah.
Mind I'm not sure I actually believe any of this, it just strikes me as the least-contradictory position if you start from the position that art is in the eye of one who beholds a completed work.
-
FREDing can be art... but what Axem does is an abomination....
-
Sooo... modding is an artform, FREDing by itself is not?
That'd be pretty accurate, yeah.
Mind I'm not sure I actually believe any of this, it just strikes me as the least-contradictory position if you start from the position that art is in the eye of one who beholds a completed work.
Therefore an artisan is really someone that only exists as a kind of holographic mirage to those that actually "consume" the pieces of art?
I am giggling at all the insanities over here. Might as well ask if "sculpting is a form of art". Not only the grammar is weird, the answer should be obvious.
-
Question: Is math art? Is programming art? Is composing music art?
If yes, then FREDding is art.
See:
A Mathematician's Lament (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maa.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpdf%2Fdevlin%2FLockhartsLament.pdf&ei=25CmUuqYA6feyAGav4HoDQ&usg=AFQjCNFGDSuprzF62frJ9aW3y61xxH-w3A&sig2=BTG3N71YkzufD7gr3bkJFA&bvm=bv.57799294,d.aWc&cad=rja)
-
Therefore an artisan is really someone that only exists as a kind of holographic mirage to those that actually "consume" the pieces of art?
They're less than that. Aside from the evidence of the work's existence and possibly other works' existence I'd wager you've seen any other sign the artist exists for well under half the works you've encountered.
Artists who don't perform are not real people to most of the end users, which is why acting pays big bucks and writing doesn't.
-
I don't think it has to be a "completed" work to the end-user for it to be art.
Someone who loves composing music is producing art, even if it's just for his or herself. Creative writing is an artform in the same vein. Likewise, someone who is FREDding is producing art as long as there is artistic merit; just like how a stack of assorted papers can be considered art, or a blank canvas with near-random black ink splashed on it.
Art has very simple criteria to fill. To be considered art, one person must consider said work to be art. If Axem considers FREDding to be an artform akin to painting, then FREDding is art.
Having FREDded myself, I am simply amazed at Axem's artistic ingenuity. It's like comparing a three-year old drawing a stick figure to Da Vinci drawing a man; you can't compare!
e: To clarify, I am not denying that artisans aren't recognized. I'm saying that fame and art are independent of each other.
-
FRED is a tool, like a hammer or pencil or keyboard.
Fredding, the act of taking an idea and turning it into a completed mission, is not functionally different to the process a sculpter goes through when turning clay into a sculpture.
So, is fredding art? No. Are finished missions art? Yes. Are Fredders artists? Yes, absolutely.
-
Question: Is math art? Is programming art? Is composing music art?
If yes, then FREDding is art.
See:
A Mathematician's Lament (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CCwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.maa.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpdf%2Fdevlin%2FLockhartsLament.pdf&ei=25CmUuqYA6feyAGav4HoDQ&usg=AFQjCNFGDSuprzF62frJ9aW3y61xxH-w3A&sig2=BTG3N71YkzufD7gr3bkJFA&bvm=bv.57799294,d.aWc&cad=rja)
Well, math definitely is art. What else could all those infinite-dimensional spaces, "wheel" algebras (in which you can divide by zero, and that's not the weirdest thing about them) and infinitely recrusive geometric forms be good for? :)
-
Therefore an artisan is really someone that only exists as a kind of holographic mirage to those that actually "consume" the pieces of art?
They're less than that. Aside from the evidence of the work's existence and possibly other works' existence I'd wager you've seen any other sign the artist exists for well under half the works you've encountered.
Artists who don't perform are not real people to most of the end users, which is why acting pays big bucks and writing doesn't.
That's quite solipsistic. Luckily artists do not need your "recognition" of their existence for their own ability to self-recognize as artists.
(Let alone the obvious confusion you make between artists and performers. People can be both, or not. They are not the same thing however)
-
FRED is the block of unfinished marble you ordered.
Fredding is igneous rock production.
Marble is a metamorphic rock. :P[/geologist]
As for the topic at hand, I have to admit I don't really feel like an artist when I sit down to FRED. But I suppose by most definitions it could be considered as such. But if it is art, its fairly constrained, restrictive art, which seems antithetical to the concept, to my mind at least.
FRED is perhaps more like a craft, like blacksmithing or woodwork. A finely made but traditional table, for exqmple, can have some artistic flair, after a fashion, but much of it is predicated by the requirements of the purpose of the piece. I think FREDdibg has a lot in common with that sort of product, moreso than art for pure art's sake.
-
What is art?
Baby just FRED me :ick:
Seriously? I think FREDing may be considered as a kind of art. If FREDer is an artist, a mission is an art "product", and FRED a tool, then FREDing is using a tool (FRED) by an artist (FREDer) to make an art (missions). So, art?
We write stories in books, right? There are also movies, audiobooks, comics... Books give you story, but rest is to imagine by yourself. Comics show you how the stuff looks, movies give almost everything - story, visual and audio feelings, but games give you also emotional "feel" of the story. Not to be a side "witness", but to be a hero of it. To be in it. Take part in it.
FREDing is mostly making an interactive story. Well, at least partially interactive. When writing a story is making art, FREDing does the same. Just in a different way.
Of course, FRED might be used as a tool for "experiments" like a tool to make a pile of mud instead of a sculpture :ick:
-
If writing (the act of writing), sculpting, acting, directing, composing are forms of art, then I'd say FREDding is as well. It's the means by which one creates what could be a work of art.
If FRED is the canvas and assets the paints, and the final mission is the work of art, then the FREDding is where you put all the things together that make the art.
-
FRED is a tool, like a hammer or pencil or keyboard.
Fredding, the act of taking an idea and turning it into a completed mission, is not functionally different to the process a sculpter goes through when turning clay into a sculpture.
So, is fredding art? No. Are finished missions art? Yes. Are Fredders artists? Yes, absolutely.
I get where you're coming from, and I'm a bit surprised to find that my original perception is different from what should be the obvious.
I see FREDding as art because I see "beauty" (usually astonishment and/or horror) in a completely FREDded mission. When I open up FRED and place my setpieces on the board, I see myself as hiring the actors. When I add in events, I am directing them. When the mission is fully FREDded, when viewed in FRED, the .fs2 can appear grand, horrifying, simple, or even confusing; just like a painting.
I see artistic merit in the .fs2 file itself rather than only when viewed in FreeSpace 2.
-
I always felt it was more like engineering than art. Art is subjective, but engineering is absolute.
FREDing is taking a series of events and making them, to the least invasive approximation, a real thing. It has a lot in common with the numerical simulations I do for my work.
-
I always felt it was more like engineering than art. Art is subjective, but engineering is absolute.
And I think that is the heart of the issue. Planning out a mission/campaign, with details like "How many ships?" and "What is going to happen?", is art. Getting from that idea to a finished mission is engineering. You can still have some art while engineering the mission, but that is usually because something won't work.
-
Some people view good engineering as art...
-
Fredding cannot produce art and cannot be an art form because of it. All it can produce is FS2 files, which require FS2 to actually become any possible kind of art.
By that logic, image editing software cannot produce art and cannot be an art form because of it. All they can produce is image files, which require an image viewer to actually become any possible kind of art.
-
I wanted to raise that point a few days ago, except I was about to use movies as an exemple instead :P
-
FRED is a tool, like a hammer or pencil or keyboard.
Fredding, the act of taking an idea and turning it into a completed mission, is not functionally different to the process a sculpter goes through when turning clay into a sculpture.
So, is fredding art? No. Are finished missions art? Yes. Are Fredders artists? Yes, absolutely.
This.
For me, Art is all about conveying a certain set of emotions or thoughts. For example, an emotion I often feel when playing "He who rides the tiger" is "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA". Thus, "he who rides the tiger" can be considered art.
-
For me, Art is all about conveying a certain set of emotions or thoughts. For example, an emotion I often feel when playing "He who rides the tiger" is "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA". Thus, "he who rides the tiger" can be considered art.
Would you say that the act of creating art is an art form? Or would you say that only the finished product is an art form?
-
Brain be hurting now.
-
I agree, this discussion has degraded quite a lot. It's beyond silly for me to watch this ghastly display of generalized wilful ignorance and contempt for anything that goes near art theory.
Kill this thread with fire. It deserved a lot worse, with a few exceptions (like The_E's short but clear comment).
-
I'd say no, as even Axem is describing the product that the consumer gets. This is something which FRED is wildly divorced from.
It's like if you needed a completely different set of eyes to view a statue. A completed mission may be art when played, and that's related to FRED, but what's actually in FRED is very divorced from the completed mission and would look a mess to most players.
Nonsense.
The production of Art is in itself a form of Art. Reference Francis Bacon's studio, preserved as-is in the Hugh Lane gallery in Dublin. This is a visual of his process, his brain turned inside-out. It's chaotic, 3 dimensional, utterly unique and beautiful.
Many Art production processes seem more like technical exercises than finished art. But Ridley Scott's storyboards for Blade Runner are both a technical process ANDa sequence of carefully worked up images.
FREDing is certainly more technical than traditionally creative, but I would not separate the Art from its process. A painting on canvas is very different to one on wood. But the selection of which surface is part and parcel of the finished product. The decisions the artist makes, in whatever medium, is what creates the artistic quality in an object, image, concept or production.
Weather or not the process makes sense to other players is completely immaterial - it makes sense to the Artist/FREDer. That's all that matters.
My 2 cents.
BH
-
I accept your apology. :)
(http://i1054.photobucket.com/albums/s490/kingspoon/1182808871337_zps62609c1d.jpg)
(This is art btw)
THIS.
HAS ME.
IN STITCHES.
-
FRED is a tool, like a hammer or pencil or keyboard.
Fredding, the act of taking an idea and turning it into a completed mission, is not functionally different to the process a sculpter goes through when turning clay into a sculpture.
So, is fredding art? No. Are finished missions art? Yes. Are Fredders artists? Yes, absolutely.
I think there is some general confusion in this thread between an Art Work and an Art Forms.
-
And the moment you mentioned it, the distinction is now made.
-
?...
You would argue there is not? Or is?
I'd go with one and same, yet identifiable as separate parts of a holistic process. Something can be 'unfinished' (like many a FRED mission) and still a work of art. An art forms, to me, can possibly result in an art work.
EG digital fps game design is an art form, with FS2 as a resulting art work.
Layered within FS2 is Fredding as another art form, with the mission file as the container/frame of the resulting art work - the mission experience itself.
-
By that logic, image editing software cannot produce art and cannot be an art form because of it. All they can produce is image files, which require an image viewer to actually become any possible kind of art.
You gain wisdom. Art is in the eye of the beholder, not in the work of the creator.
-
So does that mean we can tell Jackson Pollock to posthumously suck it then? :D
-
So does that mean we can tell Jackson Pollock to posthumously suck it then? :D
All you want!
-
You can, it doesn't mean anyone will take you seriously. Not me at least.
This "art is in the eye of the beholder" is one of those philosophical questions better be placed beside those silly other proclamations like "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". They are nice to ponder and question our more naive ideas, but they are not to be taken that seriously or literally.
Art is a dirty process that is filled with pain and duress. It usually means dealing with crass tools and shenanigans all over, not to mention the madness in the artists' heart and mind, in order to make what will at the end be considered a "piece of art".
Fredding is obviously just like "sculpting" or "drawing" or whatever else you imagine. It's not without shenanigans and pain. And the results can be awe inspiring. Or not. Thus, "Fredding" is a form of art if we define "art" as the process, as the action. If you willingly equivocate this definition with the end result then you will arrive the same erroneous / misleading conclusions that some people here seem to go into.
-
This "art is in the eye of the beholder" is one of those philosophical questions better be placed beside those silly other proclamations like "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?". They are nice to ponder and question our more naive ideas, but they are not to be taken that seriously or literally.
More fool you then. The statement is not a philosophical question but a sociological understanding. It will always be art to at least one person who looks at it, the artist, but whether it has the slightest amount of artistic merit to anyone else is up in the air.
Your mileage may vary, etc. That's what it's about; one of the immutable laws of taste-based creation. Nothing naive here.
-
Defining art as "taste-based creation" is naive in a very extreme form. Art is transcendent, it constantly defies these kinds of mechanistic definitions. It may well be that there is no objective criteria for what is art and what it isn't, but to go to the other end and make an extreme relativistic proclamation is unwarranted. As I said, you may well consider Pollock "not an artist" and whatever. I couldn't care much about that. In fact, I would stop caring whatever you will say about this field at all.
-
For me, Art is all about conveying a certain set of emotions or thoughts. For example, an emotion I often feel when playing "He who rides the tiger" is "AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA". Thus, "he who rides the tiger" can be considered art.
Would you say that the act of creating art is an art form? Or would you say that only the finished product is an art form?
The finished stage is just one stage in the whole process (and in some cases, not even the final - see the Statue of LIberty), I consider the whole process to be art.
Look at, say, a musician. A musician produces music, which is a sound. However, the way in which he plays the music is often more important (look at drummers, for example), and is often inspiring.
I geuss "display of skill" is also a big part of it. I must say that I don't think about these things often. I just take it all in without thought 0_o.
-
Is fredding a form of art?
Not the way I do it.
-
Nice!
-
I don't think the "eye of the beholder" line of thought is particularly useful when it comes to defining art, as it reduces it down to basically meaning "stuff that seems good to me at this moment."
I understand the appeal of excluding works that one doesn't understand or works that one doesn't like from the definition, but I think that's only superficially empowering (in a "now I will impose my will on the universe" sort of way) and makes communicating with someone who hasn't shared all of your experiences (which is sort of the point of language) more difficult.
-
I don't think the "eye of the beholder" line of thought is particularly useful when it comes to defining art, as it reduces it down to basically meaning "stuff that seems good to me at this moment."
I understand the appeal of excluding works that one doesn't understand or works that one doesn't like from the definition, but I think that's only superficially empowering (in a "now I will impose my will on the universe" sort of way) and makes communicating with someone who hasn't shared all of your experiences (which is sort of the point of language) more difficult.
If you're not the one to decide, who does it for you? And why is their opinion worth more than yours? To me, art is subjective. As is music. As is entertainment. What's art to one person is trash to another. What's music to one person is noise to another. What's entertaining to one person is boring to another. Even if something gets really popular, those who don't like it generally don't acknowledge it as art/music/entertainment. It's still just trash/noise/boring to them. Because it's in the eye of the beholder.
The problems start when people start taking issue with people who like something that they don't, for no other reason than they like something they don't. If no one does that, and just lets everyone enjoy what they want, then there's no problem.
-
No, the problem is when people do exactly what you've done and decide that they can screw up the English language because they don't like something. :p
You can do that with almost anything and it makes a mockery of the very concept of language if you decide that words mean whatever you want them to mean based on your own subjective view of the world.
-
No, the problem is when people do exactly what you've done and decide that they can screw up the English language because they don't like something. :p
You can do that with almost anything and it makes a mockery of the very concept of language if you decide that words mean whatever you want them to mean based on your own subjective view of the world.
What are you talking about?
-
Veering away from potential confrontations...
This is all very esoteric.
The fundamental question seems two sided:
1) does the individual FREDer feel they are creating art; if they do, then it is.
2) does the viewer/gamer feel they are experiencing an art work/form?
If yes, then it is so.
I am developing a game mission with Lepanto and Rodo. I have nearly completed a Prelude mission, which uses several Cutscenes to setup the mission.
To me, I am telling a story. This story gets handed over to two other people who will develop it as a light-hearted contest between them.
For me, my prelude mission qualifies as art, and my fredding as the art form. But to Lepanto & Rodo it could be anything - a game, technical exercise, tactics & weapons test, story telling event, anything.
It seems that Art can to be anything we want, and it's production similarly subject to our personal perception.
I consider fredding an art form, as it's process is inherently creative ( I am CREATING a mission and it's world). Weather anyone actually plays it is immaterial - the ACT of creation is paramount.
Bh
-
I am developing a game mission with Lorric and Rodo.
Lepanto and Rodo. :)
-
DOH!!
corrected.
-
If you're not the one to decide, who does it for you? And why is their opinion worth more than yours? To me, art is subjective. As is music. As is entertainment. What's art to one person is trash to another. What's music to one person is noise to another. What's entertaining to one person is boring to another. Even if something gets really popular, those who don't like it generally don't acknowledge it as art/music/entertainment. It's still just trash/noise/boring to them. Because it's in the eye of the beholder.
Color is literally in the eye of the beholder, but you don't get to call the color red blue just because you like the color red and think it goes better with the sound of the word blue. If you did, you certainly wouldn't be entitled to get angry when the person you hire paints your house "the color formerly known as blue" instead of red, which is obviously what you meant when you said blue.
Things don't become art when you start liking them (or understanding them), and pretending that they do robs the word of its utility.
-
4 pages of discussion on the nature and perception of Art is, honestly, the last thing I expected on a forum dedicated to a decade old game...
-
If you're not the one to decide, who does it for you? And why is their opinion worth more than yours? To me, art is subjective. As is music. As is entertainment. What's art to one person is trash to another. What's music to one person is noise to another. What's entertaining to one person is boring to another. Even if something gets really popular, those who don't like it generally don't acknowledge it as art/music/entertainment. It's still just trash/noise/boring to them. Because it's in the eye of the beholder.
Color is literally in the eye of the beholder, but you don't get to call the color red blue just because you like the color red and think it goes better with the sound of the word blue. If you did, you certainly wouldn't be entitled to get angry when the person you hire paints your house "the color formerly known as blue" instead of red, which is obviously what you meant when you said blue.
Things don't become art when you start liking them (or understanding them), and pretending that they do robs the word of its utility.
Oh sure.
What I'm saying is people decide if something is art or music or entertainment to them. And as long as they then don't go forcing that view on others, there'll be no problem.
4 pages of discussion on the nature and perception of Art is, honestly, the last thing I expected on a forum dedicated to a decade old game...
Oh there's plenty more where this came from in this place. Though the Freespace thread is an unusual place to see it, it's usually in General Discussion.
-
If you're not the one to decide, who does it for you? And why is their opinion worth more than yours? To me, art is subjective. As is music. As is entertainment. What's art to one person is trash to another. What's music to one person is noise to another. What's entertaining to one person is boring to another. Even if something gets really popular, those who don't like it generally don't acknowledge it as art/music/entertainment. It's still just trash/noise/boring to them. Because it's in the eye of the beholder.
Color is literally in the eye of the beholder, but you don't get to call the color red blue just because you like the color red and think it goes better with the sound of the word blue. If you did, you certainly wouldn't be entitled to get angry when the person you hire paints your house "the color formerly known as blue" instead of red, which is obviously what you meant when you said blue.
Things don't become art when you start liking them (or understanding them), and pretending that they do robs the word of its utility.
Oh sure.
What I'm saying is people decide if something is art or music or entertainment to them. And as long as they then don't go forcing that view on others, there'll be no problem.
4 pages of discussion on the nature and perception of Art is, honestly, the last thing I expected on a forum dedicated to a decade old game...
Oh there's plenty more where this came from in this place. Though the Freespace thread is an unusual place to see it, it's usually in General Discussion.
Its definitely a good thing :)
-
What I'm saying is people decide if something is art or music or entertainment to them. And as long as they then don't go forcing that view on others, there'll be no problem.
This is exactly what I have been disagreeing with this whole time. Words like "Art" and "Music" communicate valuable information (just like the words "blue" and "red" do) that has absolutely nothing to do with whether you find merit in the subject you are discussing or not. Just because you think Bach is the greatest composer ever and Vivaldi is just some hack doesn't mean you would be right to say that the Brandonburg Concertos are music and the Four Seasons are not.
Language relies on our agreement that words represent certain ideas, and we already have plenty of words we can use to explain our feelings on things--there is no need to sacrifice the words Art and Music to that cause. There is no "music to me" here because "music to me" damages what the idea of music is by conflating it with your opinions, biases, etc. The Four Seasons is music, but the banana I just ate is not. Neither categorization is altered in the slightest by how badly I misunderstand the work of Vivaldi or how much I enjoyed the banana.
-
What I'm saying is people decide if something is art or music or entertainment to them. And as long as they then don't go forcing that view on others, there'll be no problem.
This is exactly what I have been disagreeing with this whole time. Words like "Art" and "Music" communicate valuable information (just like the words "blue" and "red" do) that has absolutely nothing to do with whether you find merit in the subject you are discussing or not. Just because you think Bach is the greatest composer ever and Vivaldi is just some hack doesn't mean you would be right to say that the Brandonburg Concertos are music and the Four Seasons are not.
Language relies on our agreement that words represent certain ideas, and we already have plenty of words we can use to explain our feelings on things--there is no need to sacrifice the words Art and Music to that cause. There is no "music to me" here because "music to me" damages what the idea of music is by conflating it with your opinions, biases, etc. The Four Seasons is music, but the banana I just ate is not. Neither categorization is altered in the slightest by how badly I misunderstand the work of Vivaldi or how much I enjoyed the banana.
Well this comes back to how do you define art, which I say is in the eye of the beholder. It's like if say I'm looking at a picture and I don't like it. Let's say it looks like someone let a bunch of rats loose with brushes tied to their tails. But the person next to me thinks it's art. It's not art to me but it's art to them. And I'm not going to argue with that. It's art to them and not art to me because art is subjective.
Or am I not understanding you right? I'm not going to say a banana is music or something. You can't hear a banana. You've talked about this idea that by people having their own views then they want to impose that view on the whole universe, and I'm not wanting to do that. If someone tells me something is art, they don't get to decide if I think it's art, only I do. But they still get to decide if they think it is.
-
I don't think you're understanding swashmebuckle - he's saying that Art is Art, no matter what any individual thinks, in the same way that the colour Red is Red, no matter if you're colour-blind or not. Within that framework I think your position would be defined as "I do not like / appreciate that Art", rather than "that is not Art".
Using myself as an example, I don't appreciate the Mona Lisa, I saw it in the Louvre and it was a complete let down. I really don't understand the fuss about it, but just because I don't think it's worth the canvas it's painted on doesn't mean it's not Art. Ditto for still life paintings (for crying out loud JUST TAKE A FRAKKIN PHOTO if you want a picture of a bowl of fruit stuck on your wall!). But again, it's Art to some people, and that makes it Art no matter what I think.
-
I don't think you're understanding swashmebuckle - he's saying that Art is Art, no matter what any individual thinks, in the same way that the colour Red is Red, no matter if you're colour-blind or not. Within that framework I think your position would be defined as "I do not like / appreciate that Art", rather than "that is not Art".
Using myself as an example, I don't appreciate the Mona Lisa, I saw it in the Louvre and it was a complete let down. I really don't understand the fuss about it, but just because I don't think it's worth the canvas it's painted on doesn't mean it's not Art. Ditto for still life paintings (for crying out loud JUST TAKE A FRAKKIN PHOTO if you want a picture of a bowl of fruit stuck on your wall!). But again, it's Art to some people, and that makes it Art no matter what I think.
This is probably a mix up of wording more than anything. All three of us probably have basically the same opinion. As you say, if someone thinks something is art, then it's art. But if I don't like it, then it's not art to me. But I understand it's art to them.
The easiest example is probably to go with music. There is music I could listen to all day, and music which if I was forced to listen to would do me harm, while someone else could listen to it all day. So it's music to them, but torture to me. And my music might be torture to someone else.
So yes, as you say my position would be defined as "I do not like / appreciate that Art", rather than "that is not Art". It's not art to me, but I won't tell someone who thinks it's art that they're wrong to like it. And I said in my post which started all this that the problems start when people start taking issue with people who like something that they don't, for no other reason than they like something they don't. If no one does that, and just lets everyone enjoy what they want, then there's no problem.
-
[2cents]
A very interesting question. Now, in my debate club we talked a lot about language and definitions. The problem here, I think, is that there are multiple ways to define certain words. In a debate round, (CCO league at least :P ) the first thing you do is define the key terms of your presentation. For that reason, let me propose one possible definition of art- the definition I think best applies to the discussion:
"Something developed creatively by one person or group to entertain an audience through the sharing of a story or set of emotions."
Under this definition, Paintings, Sculptures, Music, Films, and yes, Games count as art. Now, whether they are GOOD art is a different question. I'm not a fan of Picasso, for example, but I wouldn't claim that he wasn't an artist- just that he wasn't that great of an artist.
So you CAN objectively say whether something meets a given definition of art. Which brings up the interesting point about the subjectivity of art. On the one hand, there is a great deal of subjectivity on the viewer's part- some techniques or styles might trigger a greater response in some people than others. However, I would also claim that there is such a thing as objective quality in art, and that by gaining a better understanding of art you can develop your ability to recognize and appreciate that quality. For example, I really don't like the "Anne of Green Gables" films, but I recognize that they are good films and good art regardless of whether or not they appeal to my taste, and that with a broader sensitivity to art I could enjoy them (humorous as that sounds). However, "All Dogs Go To Heaven" is not just a film that doesn't suite my tastes, it's objectively speaking a poor film. On the flip side, some films suite certain aspects of my tastes, but I would consider them poor films despite this (G. I. Joe).
Put in FreeSpace terms, Silent Threat: Reborn is better than Silent Threat. If you want an extreme example, if someone went around claiming that Second Great War Part 2 was better than Derelict, we MIGHT tolerate his opinion for the sake of the peace, but we would all agree that his tastes and judgement were less accurate than ours and that he was just plain WRONG. (speaking hypothetically,of course. Realistically we'd call him out as a troll pretty quick. :lol: )
Which brings us back to the question: Yes. FREDers are artists (they can be good ones or bad ones). Missions are artwork (good artwork or bad artwork). FREDing is, therefore, a process through which art is created, which is one definition of "art form". The E hit the nail on the head.
[/2cents]
That's my chatter on the topic; I won't force anyone to agree, and if you would rather discuss a different definition of "Art" or "Art Form, that's 100% Legit.
And Bullhorn, you're right, I'd normally expect to discuss this in art class or philosophy class. Not that it's a bad question to ask- it's worth thinking about if you want to FRED.
-
This is probably a mix up of wording more than anything. All three of us probably have basically the same opinion. As you say, if someone thinks something is art, then it's art. But if I don't like it, then it's not art to me. But I understand it's art to them.
While I understand what you're saying, you really should drop the whole "it isn't art to me" method of expressing it, as it makes as much sense in linguistic terms as saying "It isn't a banana to me". Simply go with it being art you don't appreciate or like.
-
Well, suppose you had a synthetic banana. :) A conceivable idea, given a few years. Many would simply call it a banana. However, many would dispute this, insisting on using other, usually negatively charged words. Note, it's not that the synthetic banana tastes bad (a separate issue entirely), but that it's somehow different enough not to be considered a banana. It's related to "no true Scotsman" fallacy, except you're not really re-defining anything, instead just disagreeing on how strict the definition should be.
Now, it's the same with art. There's a difference between "art I don't agree with" and "things that don't deserve to be called art". For me, stuff like urinals or garbage cans are not art, even if displayed in a Paris art gallery. On the other hand, a mural can very well be, regardless of the place it's in or who painted it. This is subjective, though, and is a valid subject of discussion.
In a nutshell: For me, art makes me go "indeed, very wise" or "well said, but you're wrong". Not-art makes me go "Just what was that stuff you were smoking?". :)
-
Well, suppose you had a synthetic banana. :) A conceivable idea, given a few years. Many would simply call it a banana. However, many would dispute this, insisting on using other, usually negatively charged words. Note, it's not that the synthetic banana tastes bad (a separate issue entirely), but that it's somehow different enough not to be considered a banana. It's related to "no true Scotsman" fallacy, except you're not really re-defining anything, instead just disagreeing on how strict the definition should be.
Now, it's the same with art. There's a difference between "art I don't agree with" and "things that don't deserve to be called art". For me, stuff like urinals or garbage cans are not art, even if displayed in a Paris art gallery. On the other hand, a mural can very well be, regardless of the place it's in or who painted it. This is subjective, though, and is a valid subject of discussion.
In a nutshell: For me, art makes me go "indeed, very wise" or "well said, but you're wrong". Not-art makes me go "Just what was that stuff you were smoking?". :)
While I understand what you're saying, you really should drop the whole "it isn't art to me" method of expressing it, as it makes as much sense in linguistic terms as saying "It isn't a banana to me". Simply go with it being art you don't appreciate or like.
-
It's hard to get people take that simple point! :D
-
Well, suppose you had a synthetic banana. :)
And that's where you should have stopped. A Synthetic Banana.
Not a "Not Banana". Not a "Not a banana for me so I'll call it something else". Adding words to the description of an item in order to better qualify it is great. Trying to redefine a word to suit your narrow definitions of what is and isn't a banana is stupid.
Go up to a chemist and tell him that a synthetic diamond shouldn't be called a diamond despite them being almost exactly the same chemically. The look of pity and derision they'd give you is exactly the look you should expect to get when you attempt to define what art is based on what you like.
-
Note, we're talking common language here, not scientific parlance, which is defined with incredible precision. A synthetic diamond is, by strict chemical definition, a diamond. But to some people, it not being naturally formed (and mined by a poorly paid worker in inhuman conditions...) might be enough to somehow knock it down a notch. Yes, this is a ridiculous stance, but I've seen such cases.
I have another example. Synthetic bananas don't exist yet, so I'll use another item. There's a particular brand of stone-baked "pizza" (let's call it that not to muddle the waters further...) which tastes so-so and is quite cheap. Among the ingredients is something called "cheese analogue". We called it "cheese" until we noticed (at which point we stopped buying that junk). So is it cheese or not? It sure does look similar, act similar and tastes "cheesy", though it's not something I'd recommend to a friend. Would you call this thing "cheese"? It's probably not made of anything natural, and it certainly doesn't meet the formal (at least, in Polish law) definition of cheese (if it did, they'd have called it "cheese").
I suppose you could differentiate by additional words. "Real banana", "fake banana", "fake cheese", "real pizza" etc. Well, we can talk about "true art", then, it's all the same. Then everything else would be, "fake art". Since "fake" (as I understand it) means "it pretends to be something it isn't", we're kind of back to the starting point. "True art is art, fake art is only called art by some people". I suppose it's neater linguistically, but in the end, it's the same thing, and a bit more of a mouthful.
-
You still don't get it. Language is a covenant agreed upon by all the speakers of that language. An agreement that the word I use has the same meaning for you. You can't simply choose to define the words to mean what you want them to mean. In your cheese example you point out that the social covenant was changed. People agreed not to call it cheese any more because it didn't fit the formal definition. That works because pretty much everyone agrees on what constitutes cheese. It can be defined easily. Few people would disagree on the definition.
There is no such thing as real and fake art because you could never get any agreement on what constitutes real art and what is fake art. You would have different people using different definitions because you are attempting to make objective something which is fundamentally subjective. And down that path madness lies.
There is art you like and art you don't like.
-
This is probably a mix up of wording more than anything. All three of us probably have basically the same opinion. As you say, if someone thinks something is art, then it's art. But if I don't like it, then it's not art to me. But I understand it's art to them.
While I understand what you're saying, you really should drop the whole "it isn't art to me" method of expressing it, as it makes as much sense in linguistic terms as saying "It isn't a banana to me". Simply go with it being art you don't appreciate or like.
I gave this serious consideration, but I can't do it.
Now, maybe I can in many cases, but there are cases where I'll feel dirty not using the distinction between art to me and art to someone else. This being my favourite example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_****
While I can acknowledge it is art to those buyers, I can't call it art straight out.
-
Better turn off filtering, otherwise Lorric's link gets censored. Just a heads up.
-
Better turn off filtering, otherwise Lorric's link gets censored. Just a heads up.
Heh. I didn't know that.
Might be simpler to just google artist's s h i t without the spaces, it should be the top one, it was for me.
-
If you'll excuse the expression, that's objectively speaking very crappy art. If a art museum chose to display it, I'd recommend the manager to a good psychologist. But it still counts as art.
-
I actually found the whole FS2 modding as a kind of art. I'm working on dark fantasy novel and it requires as much patience, imagination and motivation as a whole mod. I have good comparision now, when I released Shadow Genesis. FREDing itself is also an art. It's neverending polishing and elaborating your effort, and despite that you will never be fully satisfied at your work, you know it must be done as well as U can. I think most of us - modders and freders have the same neverending disonanses as proffesional writers, painters etc. When we finish and release our mods and missions, we're all thinking "Well, I would do it better now." That's how I actually see it.
-
You still don't get it. Language is a covenant agreed upon by all the speakers of that language. An agreement that the word I use has the same meaning for you. You can't simply choose to define the words to mean what you want them to mean. In your cheese example you point out that the social covenant was changed. People agreed not to call it cheese any more because it didn't fit the formal definition. That works because pretty much everyone agrees on what constitutes cheese. It can be defined easily. Few people would disagree on the definition.
There is no such thing as real and fake art because you could never get any agreement on what constitutes real art and what is fake art. You would have different people using different definitions because you are attempting to make objective something which is fundamentally subjective. And down that path madness lies.
So what you're essentially saying is that banana/cheese comparison wasn't such a good idea. :) Yes, there's a fundamental difference between art and banana. You can define a banana, and clearly know when something is not a banana, even if it does look and taste like one to many people. Not so with art, which is vaguely defined to begin with.
Still, I believe the line between "art" and "not art" should be drawn somewhere. The concept of "good taste", while not truly universal, is a pretty good candidate to use as a definition for art. I fail to see what "artistic" any sane person would find in a literal pile of manure or a filled garbage can. What such a piece of junk can express anyway? If this can be art, then why can't I point at the wall in my room and say "this is art"? And what does it express? Well, the desire of the carpenter to build a good wall, obviously. :) And it's a very well built wall. Indeed, compared to some stuff exhibited as "art", it's a true masterpiece.
So, I'm with Lorric on that one. Let's not lump a pile of manure together with David or Mona Lisa. I don't know who are the people who think otherwise, but somehow, I don't think I'd enjoy being anywhere near one of them.
-
Then the fault lies with you and Lorric, not with your choice of analogies.
You're like the person who says that synthetic diamonds can't be called diamonds. In a discussion about diamonds, your responses would simply be unwelcome noise because instead of using the language in the way everyone else in the discussion has agreed to, you have decided to warp the meaning of basic words to suit your own views and then will be forced to explain your strange language every time it causes a problem. To be honest you might as well reply using every 5th word in Klingon for all the disruption this sort of thing causes to a thread.
Don't expect the rest of us to follow you. Most of us understand that the entire point of a language is that words must have common meaning. And most of us reject your attempt to redefine the meaning of the word art because we realise that there are already ways to differentiate between the kind of art we think is rubbish and great art like the Mona Lisa. Furthermore, if we follow your example we leave ourselves with no word to describe the kind of ****ty art that you find so abhorrent.
-
Then the fault lies with you and Lorric, not with your choice of analogies.
You're like the person who says that synthetic diamonds can't be called diamonds. In a discussion about diamonds, your responses would simply be unwelcome noise because instead of using the language in the way everyone else in the discussion has agreed to, you have decided to warp the meaning of basic words to suit your own views and then will be forced to explain your strange language every time it causes a problem. To be honest you might as well reply using every 5th word in Klingon for all the disruption this sort of thing causes to a thread.
Don't expect the rest of us to follow you. Most of us understand that the entire point of a language is that words must have common meaning. And most of us reject your attempt to redefine the meaning of the word art because we realise that there are already ways to differentiate between the kind of art we think is rubbish and great art like the Mona Lisa. Furthermore, if we follow your example we leave ourselves with no word to describe the kind of ****ty art that you find so abhorrent.
We're not talking about diamonds. We're not talking about bananas. We're not talking about things which are one thing and one thing only. Art is something you can try and stretch to encompass anything and everything.
So would you simply call those cans of **** art you don't like?
-
How many people need to think that something is Art before it can be called Art?
-
So would you simply call those cans of **** art you don't like?
****ty art.
What would you call them? Since you've rejected calling them art, it's a perfectly valid question to ask you
a) What do you call them.
b) What do you call a gallery that displays them.
c) What do you call the people that make them.
d) What do you call the people that make a living critiquing them.
I'm asking you to explain how you would possibly refer to those things without calling them art in a way that wouldn't require you to redefine them every time you use the word. Spare me the facetious answers.
-
So would you simply call those cans of **** art you don't like?
****ty art.
What would you call them? Since you've rejected calling them art, it's a perfectly valid question to ask you
a) What do you call them.
b) What do you call a gallery that displays them.
c) What do you call the people that make them.
d) What do you call the people that make a living critiquing them.
I'm asking you to explain how you would possibly refer to those things without calling them art in a way that wouldn't require you to redefine them every time you use the word. Spare me the facetious answers.
I don't do facetious.
a) Garbage. But I won't dispute someone who calls it art, because it's art to them. It's subjective.
b) It's still an art gallery. No art gallery will have nothing but works where someone likes every single one.
c) They're just people to me. Artists to whoever likes their stuff.
d) They'd still be an art critic.
-
"Cans of **** that someone put in an art gallery because they were a goddamn idiot" does seem to get the point across without redefining any language. :p
-
It's rather unnecessarily wordy compared with simply saying "****ty art / ****ty artist" though isn't it?
a) Garbage. But I won't dispute someone who calls it art, because it's art to them. It's subjective.
This entire conversation has you been disputing the term. To the detriment of the English language. If someone calls something art and you passive-aggressively refuse to use that term you are disputing it.
b) It's still an art gallery. No art gallery will have nothing but works where someone likes every single one.
c) They're just people to me. Artists to whoever likes their stuff.
d) They'd still be an art critic.
You notice therefore that in at least two of your responses you still have to use the word art. And that in the others you completely failed to answer the question in any meaningful manner.
"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her some garbage." completely fails to express what actually happened.
"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her something which isn't art for me" still requires you to acknowledge that it is art and is rather ridiculously imprecise.
"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her some ****ty art." on the other hand manages to succinctly summarise what was viewed and what your opinions on it are.
You did the same thing with the term artist. What do you call someone who makes a living making art you don't like? And what do you call an art critic who only reviews art you personally abhor? Are you seriously claiming his job title changes depending on whether someone likes his work? Do you not realise the chasm of linguistic stupidity you're skirting on the edge of by suggesting that people should use these kinds of definition?
-
It's rather unnecessarily wordy compared with simply saying "****ty art / ****ty artist" though isn't it?
Yes, but that would entail dignifying the end product with the term "art," which kind of gets back to the crux of the argument.
I mean, I do understand the assertion that "art" as a definition should cover a certain category of creations regardless of one's personal feelings on a specific work, but I think the question has to be begged as to who is attaching the label in the first place. If you're going by the assertion, "It's art because the person who made it is an artist, and they said so," that's in a sense removing any meaning from the term: if anything can be art just on someone's whim, then that term doesn't really describe anything. I do feel like there should be some general minimum standards laid out before we can have a real conversation about the topic, and what it actually covers.
-
I'm pretty sure
"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her some garbage."
expresses pretty accurately what exactly happened.
-
Yes, it does. The entire point is that "bad art" is a cut above "garbage". There are works I don't like, but I can see how someone can be fond of them and still be a reasonable person. Then there's garbage which no sane person could consider art, and if they do, they haven't seen/smelled it.
What would you call them? Since you've rejected calling them art, it's a perfectly valid question to ask you
a) What do you call them.
b) What do you call a gallery that displays them.
c) What do you call the people that make them.
d) What do you call the people that make a living critiquing them.
a) Garbage, junk, crap. We've got more than enough other words, but the filter would cut them out anyway. :)
b) An art gallery with a manager that's either dumb, insane, malicious, or all that.
c) Nuts, madmen, etc. Once again, plenty of other words I wouldn't say in polite company. :)
d) Poor, unlucky art critics that have to be near this stuff to make a living. Unless the review comes out positive, then refer to c).
All those call this supposed "art" what it is. And I'm not interested in people who insist that it's art. I have a feeling that I wouldn't want to meet one...
-
Yes, it does. The entire point is that "bad art" is a cut above "garbage". There are works I don't like, but I can see how someone can be fond of them and still be a reasonable person. Then there's garbage which no sane person could consider art, and if they do, they haven't seen/smelled it.
Friendly advice: Get out of this thread. In fact, stay away from any thread that comes even near a discussion of what is art. You literally do not understand why your stance is completely and utterly invalid, and given that there is no way to make you understand that is clearer than what Kara has said here, I fear that there is no hope for you on this topic.
-
So you consider my stance invalid. Well enough, you're entitled to have your opinion. I disagree with you, and I'm entitled to have my opinion, too. Your post has failed to convince me to change my opinion so far, and in fact, I have another opinion it's your stance that is invalid. I never told you not to express your opinions, whatever they might be, so do me a favor and don't tell me (or force me, I've seen a guy banned for having an opinion before) to stop expressing mine. So far, Kara didn't convince neither me nor Lorric, though he did have some good points, and he might succeed yet. You don't have to be right every time, and silencing people who disagree with you certainly doesn't make you "right".
I certainly do not understand why you consider my stance invalid. If you cared to elaborate, I could change my mind. Or not. Depends if you have a valid point that is not purely an opinion.
Oh, and if I offended you by what I said about people who like "art" consisting of cans of feces, I apologize. It wasn't my intention. I assumed some things based on people I know, and if it turns out that this sort of thing is, in fact, liked by normal people in some part of the world, I can retract my statements about them. I still maintain it's junk, and have low opinion about it's creator, though. I'm not going to forbid other people from liking it, but I'm afraid I won't understand them, either.
-
Okay, one more try:
Whether something is art or not is completely unconnected to whether or not you consider it art. There are basically two kinds of art: Stuff you get, and stuff you don't get. Both are still art, and will always be art, regardless of your opinion of them.
As kara said, the sentence "It isn't art to me" is completely meaningless. As in, it does not mean anything; it's just an oblique way of saying "I don't get this". In other words, just because you do not understand a work of art does not take away the fact that it IS art, the fact that you can't even answer the few questions karajorma posted above without getting into circular reasoning should be sufficient evidence of the inherent flaws of your and Lorric's position.
You are basically defining "Art" as "Stuff I like". This is not a valid definition of the term as it is used in everyday language.
-
I'm pretty sure
"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her some garbage."
expresses pretty accurately what exactly happened.
Heheh
-
You are basically defining "Art" as "Stuff I like". This is not a valid definition of the term as it is used in everyday language.
OK, then give me a valid, globally agreed upon definition of the term "art" as it is used in everyday language. In fact, if we knew that, we would easily answer the question in the OP and forever resolve any disputes of whether anything is art or not. Alternatively, give me an exhaustive definition of things that aren't art, so we can define art by what it isn't. Though TBH, I doubt such an universal definition has been formulated.
Besides, if you paid attention, you'd notice that I'm not defining art as "Stuff I like". I mentioned it before. I said there is "Art I like", "Art I don't like". For example, I'm not really fond of Hirst's "half the shark in formaline" exhibit, but I would say it's art. No, I want to exclude stuff that crosses the boundary of what I (and most people around me) understand as "good taste". Basically, stuff that is incredibly gross, involves recently dead humans or is an actual hazard to viewers.
-
OK, then give me a valid, globally agreed upon definition of the term "art" as it is used in everyday language. In fact, if we knew that, we would easily answer the question in the OP and forever resolve any disputes of whether anything is art or not. Alternatively, give me an exhaustive definition of things that aren't art, so we can define art by what it isn't. Though TBH, I doubt such an universal definition has been formulated.
You haven't read the wiki on the subject, have you.
(...) the word art may refer to several things: a study of a creative skill, a process of using the creative skill, a product of the creative skill, or the audience's experience with the creative skill. The creative arts (art as discipline) are a collection of disciplines which produce artworks (art as objects) that are compelled by a personal drive (art as activity) and convey a message, mood, or symbolism for the viewer to interpret (art as experience). Art is something that stimulates an individual's thoughts, emotions, beliefs, or ideas through the senses.
I'd say that's about as concise a definition you can find.
Besides, if you paid attention, you'd notice that I'm not defining art as "Stuff I like". I mentioned it before. I said there is "Art I like", "Art I don't like". For example, I'm not really fond of Hirst's "half the shark in formaline" exhibit, but I would say it's art. No, I want to exclude stuff that crosses the boundary of what I (and most people around me) understand as "good taste". Basically, stuff that is incredibly gross, involves recently dead humans or is an actual hazard to viewers.
See, you can't draw a boundary like that. There are subsegments of art that are explicitly about challenging what "good taste" is.
EDIT: And by the definition above, an artwork that is made to disgust you is still art.
-
Karajorma, you just... don't get it. You're not making sense of it, the way I see it and will speak of it, and I don't know what to say to you now to make you understand.
However, I want to show you something though. I was reading The Ghost Brigades last night, and came across the following excerpt on page 215:
Children in art classes had been encouraged to paint the corridor walls, which featured suns and cats and hills with flowers in pictures that were not art unless you were a parent and could be nothing but if you were.
There's nothing outlandish or wrong in speaking this way.
-
(...) the word art may refer to several things: a study of a creative skill, a process of using the creative skill, a product of the creative skill, or the audience's experience with the creative skill. The creative arts (art as discipline) are a collection of disciplines which produce artworks (art as objects) that are compelled by a personal drive (art as activity) and convey a message, mood, or symbolism for the viewer to interpret (art as experience). Art is something that stimulates an individual's thoughts, emotions, beliefs, or ideas through the senses.
I'd say that's about as concise a definition you can find.
Besides, if you paid attention, you'd notice that I'm not defining art as "Stuff I like". I mentioned it before. I said there is "Art I like", "Art I don't like". For example, I'm not really fond of Hirst's "half the shark in formaline" exhibit, but I would say it's art. No, I want to exclude stuff that crosses the boundary of what I (and most people around me) understand as "good taste". Basically, stuff that is incredibly gross, involves recently dead humans or is an actual hazard to viewers.
See, you can't draw a boundary like that. There are subsegments of art that are explicitly about challenging what "good taste" is.
EDIT: And by the definition above, an artwork that is made to disgust you is still art.
Perhaps you do have a point here. However, the definition you posted is incredibly broad. For example, any political speech is mean to stimulate your beliefs (political ones, in this case) through your senses (hearing). So it fits the definition of art, yet you don't see them exhibited in galleries. Indeed, any expression of one's thoughts meant to influence beliefs of the others (such as your post) would qualify. You want to stimulate (and convince me to change) my ideas about what is art through my senses (sight). I suppose we can work with that one, but I think it's a bit too broad. Considering all the things that fall under it, it's definitely broader than what most people think about when saying "art" in a common conversation. It also does not account for the fact that the word is positively charged and implies that there's some worth in what we call that.
At least, if we do use that definition, FREDing is definitely art. So we could call that question answered if we agree this definition is good.
-
Perhaps you do have a point here. However, the definition you posted is incredibly broad. For example, any political speech is mean to stimulate your beliefs (political ones, in this case) through your senses (hearing). So it fits the definition of art, yet you don't see them exhibited in galleries. Indeed, any expression of one's thoughts meant to influence beliefs of the others (such as your post) would qualify. You want to stimulate (and convince me to change) my ideas about what is art through my senses (sight). I suppose we can work with that one, but I think it's a bit too broad. Considering all the things that fall under it, it's definitely broader than what most people think about when saying "art" in a common conversation. It also does not account for the fact that the word is positively charged and implies that there's some worth in what we call that.
At least, if we do use that definition, FREDing is definitely art. So we could call that question answered if we agree this definition is good.
Umm
The definition is so broad because it is not possible to find a narrower one. Yes, political speeches are art. A well written speech, using rhetorical devices to achieve a point, is just as much art as a well written book.
I grant you that when we speak of art, most people will imagine a painting, or a sculpture, or maybe a video installation if they're fancy, basically something that can be exhibited somewhere. But even if we constrain ourselves to that subset, art that does not meet your subjective criteria for being "worthwhile" or "significant" or that you find obscene and gross is still art.
Children in art classes had been encouraged to paint the corridor walls, which featured suns and cats and hills with flowers in pictures that were not art unless you were a parent and could be nothing but if you were.
There's nothing outlandish or wrong in speaking this way.
I know John Scalzi is a pretty decent writer, but he should not be considered an authority on these subjects. It's still wrong use of the term "art", plain and simple. It's introducing an artificial dividing line between art you approve of and art you do not, bestowing the "art" moniker on one set of cultural artifacts but denying it from a different set that was produced through the same process as the ones you do approve of.
-
Children in art classes had been encouraged to paint the corridor walls, which featured suns and cats and hills with flowers in pictures that were not art unless you were a parent and could be nothing but if you were.
There's nothing outlandish or wrong in speaking this way.
I know John Scalzi is a pretty decent writer, but he should not be considered an authority on these subjects. It's still wrong use of the term "art", plain and simple. It's introducing an artificial dividing line between art you approve of and art you do not, bestowing the "art" moniker on one set of cultural artifacts but denying it from a different set that was produced through the same process as the ones you do approve of.
And you and Karajorma should? Why?
-
Not saying we should. But the position Kara and I are taking is infinitely closer to the actual definition of the term art than yours is. Please read the wikipedia article on the subject (A relevant excerpt of it is quoted above). Our definition of the term is less subjective, and thus more useful when talking about whether or not something is or should be considered art than your purely subjective stance.
-
Not saying we should. But the position Kara and I are taking is infinitely closer to the actual definition of the term art than yours is. Please read the wikipedia article on the subject (A relevant excerpt of it is quoted above). Our definition of the term is less subjective, and thus more useful when talking about whether or not something is or should be considered art than your purely subjective stance.
Perhaps you're having trouble with my use of "not art to me". On a subjective subject, it is only for me, not for anyone else. I don't think my view of art should apply to the whole World, nor do I think my view of what is art is superior to anyone else's, or inferior. It is simply mine. It is simply what works best for me. And I think someone else's view is simply theirs and simply what works best for them.
-
Umm
The definition is so broad because it is not possible to find a narrower one. Yes, political speeches are art. A well written speech, using rhetorical devices to achieve a point, is just as much art as a well written book.
I grant you that when we speak of art, most people will imagine a painting, or a sculpture, or maybe a video installation if they're fancy, basically something that can be exhibited somewhere. But even if we constrain ourselves to that subset, art that does not meet your subjective criteria for being "worthwhile" or "significant" or that you find obscene and gross is still art.
Here's the thing:
OK, then give me a valid, globally agreed upon definition of the term "art" as it is used in everyday language.
We all could have gone and checked the dictionary, or Wikipedia, for a formal, linguistically approved definition of the word "art". But we aren't playing Scrabble here. For most people, art implies something of value, but the official definition does not capture that. The OP question becomes quite trivial in this context.
Usually, if someone speaks of a "work of art", then it's definitely one he/she considers good. I think that a definition of "art" should account for that. For something to be called "art" by most people, it needs to have a value of some sort, otherwise it's just... Well, random stuff. Mind you, I'm constantly talking the "commonly understood" definition here.
That's why I'm a fan of Lorric's subjective approach. Value is, for good part, in the eyes of beholder. I suppose we could define "word 'art' as commonly used" by "valuable art (as per official definition)". That cuts out most political speeches beside truly amazing ones, among other things, and I think that it fits what most people think about as "art". And using this definition, stuff that you usually pay people to get rid of is out. :)
-
And that subjective approach is only good for one thing: Answering the question "Do I like this?". Answering the question "Is X Art?" requires a different approach.
-
And that subjective approach is only good for one thing: Answering the question "Do I like this?". Answering the question "Is X Art?" requires a different approach.
You know, this got me thinking. Yes, my approach can't determine whether something is art or not. But in my way of thinking, I don't think such a thing can really be done. You can decide if you personally think it's art or not. You can ask someone if they personally think something's art or not. You can measure whether lots of people think something is art or not by asking lots of people. You can determine a piece's value by seeing what price it fetches, but that value is only to the person who bought it.
But deciding for the whole World whether something is art or not, imposing the view on people who don't think it is, I don't like that.
-
Now, I wonder if there's a point in discussing this today. Notice that the only things we all can definitely agree to be valuable art are old. Almost none were created when I was alive, and most are much older. At the time of their creation, a lot of them were decried as "mockery of art" and such. So perhaps we should leave that subject to our grandchildren. From what I've seen, valuable art generally gets remembered, the rest doesn't. This isn't very subjective, since something getting a place in collective memory "just sort of happens". While this is an incredibly conservative criterion, it might be the only way to definitely answer such a question considering how subjective the subject is. Such an answer would still be pretty subjective, but there's no more objective answer than that.
If you ask me, FS (and FRED, by extension) has a good chance of passing the test of time. It already stood up for an amazingly long for a video game, and TC could help keep the awareness up. It's already quite well known in space sim circles, and when video games become a more widely respected medium, it has a good chance of being included into the canon of digital classics, complete with original copies selling for huge sums of money.
Otherwise, we can conclude that FREDing is a form of art, because it fits a dry and rather broad dictionary definition. But as I mentioned, this answer is rather trivial and doesn't really tell you everything.
-
I'm pretty sure
"Last night he took his girlfriend out to show her some garbage."
expresses pretty accurately what exactly happened.
Only to someone who already knows that they went to an art gallery to look at ****ty art, otherwise it could just as easily mean he took her into the garden and showed her the rubbish. If you are trying to redefine a word to something more confusing, less intuitive and with less meaning than the original word, you are wrong, plain and simple.
-
Only to someone who already knows that they went to an art gallery to look at ****ty art, otherwise it could just as easily mean he took her into the garden and showed her the rubbish.
I don't see any fundamental difference here. A pile of garbage is a pile of garbage.
If you are trying to redefine a word to something more confusing, less intuitive and with less meaning than the original word, you are wrong, plain and simple.
Says who? You're the one trying to call a pile of garbage "art", which is definitely more confusing, less intuitive and with less meaning than the original word, which means that you are wrong, plain and simple.
-
No. I'm saying that's already the accepted definition which you are trying to change. The E has already proved that with the Wikipedia entry.
I don't see any fundamental difference here. A pile of garbage is a pile of garbage.
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.
-
Err... Maybe "He took her to an art museum to show her an actual pile of garbage?". :) That seems the most fitting. Afterall, not matter how do you try to glorify it, this thing is, at it's most basic level, a pile of garbage. Now, someone could have tried to attach a meaning to that pile, but that's irrelevant if there's nothing in it that gets the point across. It surely does stimulate senses, but does it influence any beliefs or ideas? Well, it doesn't, I don't think I know anyone who would have any sort of meaningful experience looking at this. It would only make me go "who put that thing here?" and not give it a second thought. That means it doesn't really fit the Wikipedia definition of art. It might've been intended to be art by it's creator, but I think it falls a bit short. It doesn't even offend or challenge anything, it just sits there being gross.
-
And that subjective approach is only good for one thing: Answering the question "Do I like this?". Answering the question "Is X Art?" requires a different approach.
You know, this got me thinking. Yes, my approach can't determine whether something is art or not. But in my way of thinking, I don't think such a thing can really be done. You can decide if you personally think it's art or not. You can ask someone if they personally think something's art or not. You can measure whether lots of people think something is art or not by asking lots of people. You can determine a piece's value by seeing what price it fetches, but that value is only to the person who bought it.
But deciding for the whole World whether something is art or not, imposing the view on people who don't think it is, I don't like that.
I don't think the imposition here is any greater than that involved in defining any other term (red, blue, banana, etc.), it's just that the concept of art is broader and more difficult to grasp, so there is a temptation to latch on to something close at hand, like the idea you are espousing that each individual should decide on their own what does and does not qualify for the word.
Unfortunately, that idea hinders rather than helps our ability to communicate clearly. If our definitions of art are to be subjective (so that art always means "art to me"), is everyone's individual definition then equally valid? I have this great speech where every noun is replaced with the word art because everything and nothing in the universe is a work of art because I just did mushrooms and my definition is just as good as yours because we're both artists, so good art with your art, art-art. Seriously though, are there any criteria you can impose on the word at all? Wouldn't imposing any basic standards on what the word means involve demanding the same sort of consensus that you are trying to reject? And if there aren't any defining criteria, does the word actually mean anything?
Given that the point of having words is to facilitate communication, I hope you can see how much more useful it is to adopt a broad (but equally clear to everyone) definition like the wikipedia one.
-
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.
-
And that subjective approach is only good for one thing: Answering the question "Do I like this?". Answering the question "Is X Art?" requires a different approach.
You know, this got me thinking. Yes, my approach can't determine whether something is art or not. But in my way of thinking, I don't think such a thing can really be done. You can decide if you personally think it's art or not. You can ask someone if they personally think something's art or not. You can measure whether lots of people think something is art or not by asking lots of people. You can determine a piece's value by seeing what price it fetches, but that value is only to the person who bought it.
But deciding for the whole World whether something is art or not, imposing the view on people who don't think it is, I don't like that.
I don't think the imposition here is any greater than that involved in defining any other term (red, blue, banana, etc.), it's just that the concept of art is broader and more difficult to grasp, so there is a temptation to latch on to something close at hand, like the idea you are espousing that each individual should decide on their own what does and does not qualify for the word.
Unfortunately, that idea hinders rather than helps our ability to communicate clearly. If our definitions of art are to be subjective (so that art always means "art to me"), is everyone's individual definition then equally valid? I have this great speech where every noun is replaced with the word art because everything and nothing in the universe is a work of art because I just did mushrooms and my definition is just as good as yours because we're both artists, so good art with your art, art-art. Seriously though, are there any criteria you can impose on the word at all? Wouldn't imposing any basic standards on what the word means involve demanding the same sort of consensus that you are trying to reject? And if there aren't any defining criteria, does the word actually mean anything?
Given that the point of having words is to facilitate communication, I hope you can see how much more useful it is to adopt a broad (but equally clear to everyone) definition like the wikipedia one.
The broad definition falls in line on it's own. There will be things of a subjective nature that many people view as qualifying, whether it be art, music or entertainment.
The wiki, and any other broad definition should be seen as a guide rather than an absolute imo. What fits that wiki description for me does not fit for others, and vice versa. Artist's **** being the perfect example. It's just empty garbage to me. And likely to most people. But not to the people paying the huge sums of money clearly.
-
So putting something in a museum magically makes it art? Good job there.
This. Something being or not being art does not depend on where it is located. Mona Lisa would be just as artistic if it hung in a shack in the middle of a desert. A gallery is simply a convenient place for accessing art.
Likewise, a pile of garbage is a pile of garbage, no matter where it is. It applies to other things, too. An urinal remains, at it's essence, an urinal, even if it is in an art gallery, outside the bathroom. It's still a piece of bathroom furniture, nothing more. It can potentially be used to create art (just like your random bucket of paint could be used in creating a painting), but for that, more needs to be done than just exhibiting it. It's a very similar difference as between a stack of paint buckets and a painting. The former can hardly be called art (unless they're meaningfully arranged), while the other usually can (not always, but often). Even going by the broad definition from the Wiki, art needs some sort of meaning to be art.
-
Like almost all is/isn't arguments, this question is predicated on a concept of entitivity that's very orthogonal to the way the human brain actually processes concepts.
-
When you say entitativity are you talking about us (a group of people trying to hash out definitions) not being a distinct entity that needs to agree on that sort of thing or are you talking about our perceptions of concepts like art and whether they should be treated as pure entities? Keep in mind I took 1 psychology course in my life.
-
The latter, I think - I'm trying to talk about the way we identify thing-ness. Trying to sort...anything...into a category by a set of hard algorithmic rules is a really difficult proposition. As an exercise, try to write a set of rules to identify a dog: it's pretty much impossible.
Extend that to something as huge and abstract as 'art' and I think you've, at the very least, got to start thinking about 'how much is this art' vs. 'is this or is this not art'. (It's art, though)
-
The latter, I think - I'm trying to talk about the way we identify thing-ness. Trying to sort...anything...into a category by a set of hard algorithmic rules is a really difficult proposition. As an exercise, try to write a set of rules to identify a dog: it's pretty much impossible.
A dog is a member of the Canidae family of the mammalian order Carnivora. A domesticated subspecies of the gray wolf.
That wan't so hard. :) My mother's a biologist (and an artist, BTW, though she does more conventional art than we're mostly discussing here :) ). For most things like that, scientists have worked hard, algorithmic classification a long time ago. When talking things like art, it does become a bit problematic, though, and that's why this discussion is dragging on for so long. :)
-
No, biologists will be the first to tell you that algorithmic rules don't work - many core biological concepts ('alive', 'species') are based more on consensus and prototypic similarity than clean algorithmic delineations. Your dog definition isn't implementable.
-
Just on a pure science point, our reality is fundamentally underpinned by algorithmic rules. It's just when things get more complicated that they can't be separated out :)
-
Exactly - since those fundamental rules are the only rules, trying to define higher-level concepts with the same knife-edge binaries often requires you to start reducing. It's a lot more useful to take the approach that the mind actually uses on the neural level: degrees of semantic association and similarity to prototypes.
There's a lot of art in FREDwork because even the structure of an individual SEXP permits intentionality and expression in achieving its attended effect. I don't think you'd ever confuse an Axem SEXP for, say, someone else's.
-
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. That's what separates a three year-old coloring rectangles from Hans Hoffmann. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hans_Hofmann%27s_painting_%27The_Gate%27,_1959%E2%80%9360.jpg)
-
The latter, I think - I'm trying to talk about the way we identify thing-ness. Trying to sort...anything...into a category by a set of hard algorithmic rules is a really difficult proposition. As an exercise, try to write a set of rules to identify a dog: it's pretty much impossible.
Extend that to something as huge and abstract as 'art' and I think you've, at the very least, got to start thinking about 'how much is this art' vs. 'is this or is this not art'. (It's art, though)
Oh, well I definitely agree that good definitions of art-related concepts would describe processes and qualities that can manifest themselves to varying degrees rather than in an on/off sort of way.
I just have a lot of difficulty with the notion that attempting to define art in a less self-defeating way than "it's whatever YOU think it is" is a hopeless errand. That's probably in part because I've had a lot of useful learning experiences (you know, the subjective kind) in settings where commonly accepted definitions of broad concepts like this really helped clarify discussion and prevented a lot of potential confusion, but I also think that there are concrete reasons why it is a good idea to tackle the problem of defining our terms as accurately as possible. I acknowledge that different people learn in different ways, but I also think it's true that some ways of doing things just work better than others, period.
I also can't resist the urge to oppress Lorric with my externally imposed fascist definition regime. Sorry Lorric.
-
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?
-
just build a small, inside-out museum (this also qualifies as art)
-
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.
-
This thread is a form of art. :nervous:
-
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. :p
-
But what about Found Art. Or a robot programmed to make Cornell boxes. Are posts art!?
-
[o,o]
[ ; ; ]
(d b)
H _ H
There! Art.
-
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. :p
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.
-
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. :p
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.
-
Clearly, some would consider that art...
And I'm pretty sure that makes those people stupid.
-
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".
-
Eye of the beholder. It's just that simple.
-
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 :p (insert hundreds of other trivial/obvious examples here) So is it really the case that the Wikipedia definition means that there is no boundary?
-
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.
-
I wouldn't know what to call it until I saw it.
Ahah!! SchrodingerArt!!! :p :lol:
(sorry, couldn't resist...)
-
I regret 99% of this thread.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Here's another question, are humans themselves art then?
-
Maybe, like, Chiwetel Ejiofor. Or my girlfriend.
My personal feeling is that you would have to present a person somehow for it to be arty - add some element of intentionality to the context.
-
Recursion!
What about found art?
-
I don't find his definition particularly killer, but I like that Scott McCloud (http://scottmccloud.com/2010/04/20/wrong-question/) at least takes a shot at it:
Here’s what I actually said way back in 1993:
“Art, as I see it, is any human activity which doesn’t grow out of either of our species’ two basic instincts: survival and reproduction.”
…followed by pages of explanations of how I don’t see art as an either/or proposition, but a component of human behavior that exists to varying degrees in nearly everything we do.
-
so a poem you write to chat someone up isn't actually art then
-
…followed by pages of explanations of how I don’t see art as an either/or proposition, but a component of human behavior that exists to varying degrees in nearly everything we do.
Going by this definition, it would be fair to say that a love poem could very well contain much art, but it would probably be impossible to say how much of the work "grew out of" your desire to mate. I don't find it to be a super convincing definition, but I like that it's a lot shorter and more to the point than ones like wikipedia's, which involve paragraphs of chipping away and seem to me to be mostly concerned with bringing the reader up to speed on the history of art criticism.
-
Axem! FRED me like one of your French girls.