[Lorric]

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.

[niffiwan]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[InsaneBaron]

[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 ) 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.  )

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Dragon]

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?".

[The E]

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.

[Luis Dias]

It's hard to get people take that simple point!

[karajorma]

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. 

[Dragon]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Lorric]

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.

[An4ximandros]

Better turn off filtering, otherwise Lorric's link gets censored. Just a heads up.

[Lorric]

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.

[InsaneBaron]

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.

[Nyctaeus]

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.

[Dragon]

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.

[karajorma]

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. 

[Lorric]

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?

[niffiwan]

How many people need to think that something is Art before it can be called Art?