Hierarchy in art

To start off with, let's define art so that we have a common starting point.

In general, art is something that makes our senses take notice and evoke an emotional response in us.  Art is generally skillfully and creatively done so that the end result often impresses us as beautiful in a way we may not have thought of before.

 

I proposed this general definition of art without referene to any medium so that we can discuss how various forms of art may compare with each other and ultimately,  how video games fit in as an art form.  This topic was proposed by Paolo who felt strongly that video games as an art form is no lesser than any other form such as movies.

 

The discussion group immediately took issue with my definition.  Some think that we should not exclude ugly art as beauty is a subjective judgment and therefore anything that evokes an emotional response is art.

 

Mano also suggest that in order to define something as art, we must be able to say others are not art.  If everything is art,  then nothing is.

 

Dan wonders if a beautiful piece of drift wood can be art as no one made it and it is a result of the randomness of nature.  This ties in with those who think that art needs to be created by some one with intention.  So God created the driftwood and believers can consider the driftwood as art but athiests are missing out on a lot of naturally created art but only see them as beautiful objects???

 

What if the spectator interprets the art differently than what the creater had in mind?

 

Bob suggested that art is a fuzzy set which means that there are some things that we know definitely as art but there are other items that are less certain as we drift towards the fuzzy boundaries of what is or is not art.  Therefore we can cite examples of art and not art but there is a lot of grey in between.

 

One of the other properties of art suggested by some is that it stands the test of time.  Paolo felt strongly that this is not a legitimate measure.  Are classical music really better or are we culturally influenced from birth that this is "good" music?  Paolo wonders if Shakespear would be as outstanding in our esteem if we were not all exposed to it as part of most school programs.  Is it the exposure that formed our taste or is Shakespear truly a stand out on its own?

 

Bruce cites the example of Blake as a poet who was ahead of his time and only later did the population caught up with him and appreciate him.  This seems to imply that our taste changes like fashion.  We can be slightly ahead of the crowd and be fashionable but too far ahead and we risk being an outcast.

 

Paolo said that he thought of the topic because someone who agreed with him about a certain video game being a beautiful art piece wondered why it is not made into a movie.  To Paolo, the video game is a worthy art form on its own and movies are not any better art form.

 

What occured to me though is that video games are primarily something to engage the player.  The player takes on a role and interact with the game and other players.  This changes the traditional notion of art as something that we experience through seeing, hearing, or combination of both.

 

The player involvement in the game changed the nature of th experience to something more akin to sports. 

 

We marvel at some of the top soccer and hockey players on how they can come up with new moves and strategies to outplay their opponents.  Yet even the sport spectator do not consider these great moves as art even though it engages the spectator and the player to love the sport.

 

Is sport not an art form if it evokes such emotions out of sport fans and they decribe the moves as a thing of beauty?  Seems to fit the definition perfectly.

 

My thinking is that we are simply bounded by tradition of what art is without ever trying to define it properly.

 

If we consider aspects of sport and games (is creative chess move an art?) as art, then video games as an art form both in the creation and playing will be more natural to us.