[Mongoose]

So does that mean we can tell Jackson Pollock to posthumously suck it then?

[NGTM-1R]

So does that mean we can tell Jackson Pollock to posthumously suck it then?

All you want!

[Luis Dias]

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.

[NGTM-1R]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.

[Grizzly]

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.

[LordMelvin]

Is fredding a form of art?

Not the way I do it.

[Bullhorn]

Nice!

[swashmebuckle]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

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.

[Lorric]

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.

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?

[Bullhorn]

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

[Lorric]

I am developing a game mission with Lorric and Rodo.

Lepanto and Rodo.

[Bullhorn]

DOH!!
corrected.

[swashmebuckle]

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.

[Bullhorn]

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...

[Lorric]

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.

[Bullhorn]

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

[swashmebuckle]

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.