If it's crap ... We'll tell you
It's a question thats been on my mind quite a bit recently, and I'm interested in hearing some of your opinions on the matter. Truth is, games have been getting a lot of shit, mostly from people that dont really understand it. A lot of talk has been made about it's effects on the human mind and stuff like that, and though that factors into it, thats not what this discussion is about. What I want to know from you guys is, considering everything games have gone through, do you think they will be accepted as an artistic medium, or hell, do you think they are even an artistic medium at all? What you think of it as a storytelling device, its possibility and where it s now, love to hear your thoughts.
Personally, eventually yes. There has been an enormous amount of shit heaped on games recently, and in the past, but you have to remember, TV and movies had to go through a lot of the same stuff in their early days, and in all honesty gamin is still a young medium, with lots of space to grow and evolve over time. I think a lot of the appeal and what will help game's advance is that in a way there more of a niche market. Not saying it's not mainstream, but both because there's a lot more room and most "casual" or "mainstream" gamers don't really play much other than Halo or Wii Sports, there's a lot more room to explore more taboo idea's. Look at Dragon-Age, both games. They both deal with elements of homosexuality, allowing the player to romantically involve themselves with a member of the same gender, and portrays homosexual relationships seriously and gives the homosexual characters the same depth as the straight ones. Same with Fallout: New Vegas. And that's something I can guarantee you wont find in a mainstream, Hollywood movie alone.Ofcourse, they still got shit for it, but I think that level of freedom and ability to explore elements of humanity, in an interactive form no less, will definitely get it recognized as an art form in the near future.
I just added art as my second major, because I had already completed half the required credits just for fun pretty much. My opinion of the Modern Art scene is very low. Nothing, but a bunch of self important dingle berries, trying to defy all the conventional "rules" when the act of being unconventional just for the sake of it is tired, and cliche. That isn't to say there are no more talented artists I'm simply saying that what the Art community chooses to embrace has very little to do with the validity of the art.
The Modern Art movement was created to throw off the old shackles of Oil paintings being nothing, but depictions of wealth, or status, but I'm afraid that Modern Art has now become the tired old convention, and digital art might be the wave of the future.
I love video games, and have always considered them fine art, and once our generation gets older, and acquires more money the rules will change.
I guess the best way to describe Modern Art, or Contemporary Art I don't enjoy, is when the emotional connection the Artist makes with the piece is supposed to overshadow the piece itself.
At the MOCA in LA I once saw a rotating bathtub filled with dried pig lard, and in the lard was the impression of a person laying on their side. As the display turned there was a TV showing a video of the "artist" being lifted out of this tub, and leaving the impression. The piece was called rebirth, and was supposed to symbolize him becoming a vegetarian. It's ok with me that people are impressed with that kind of thing, and I understand that his expression is the art itself, and this is a way for him to share his feelings, and blah blah blah, but when I look at the "art" absent of the artist it doesn't stand alone, and all he really produced is a tub of lard.
"but when I look at the "art" absent of the artist it doesn't stand alone"
Yeah... but he obviously never meant it to. If a piece of art is that connected to its creator why should it stand on its own?
A piece's ability to stand on its own implies a disconnection from its author. By your own description he has created a piece of art with is inseparable from it's creator, which to me sounds to me like a completely valid approach for someone making a piece about a specific point in their life.
Why is it necessary for him to have produced something more then the tub of lard? You apparently got the metaphor and all of the pieces seem to add to the concept. Why add to it or do something more traditional? I think it makes sense that a personal piece should have its own identity and find a medium that is unique to its author.
I don't know about brilliant but it actually sounds pretty interesting and effective to me. This is of course without me having seen it.
"Yeah... but he obviously never meant it to. If a piece of art is that connected to its creator why should it stand on its own?"
Art needs to stand on it's own. This isn't one of those, "art is everyyything" deals, it's a serious element of art, and the goal, actually. The artist will not always be there to explain it, it should absolutely speak for itself.
People have different goals for their art. Timelessness is not a goal everyone shares and it certainly isn't the point of art. I know many people who believe that art is only relevant at the time of its creation and once that passes it has already served its purpose and is no longer art.They certainly are not working under the same assumptions that you are.
If the artist has no desire for a work to retain its relevance then it is pointless to judge it as a stand alone piece. I don't claim to know this artist's intention but with a subject as personalized as this is, even if it did "stand alone" no one will care once he is gone because he is the focus.
I should also add that I am in an art major and will be receiving my masters degree in two years.
ok well that explains why you're being so pompous.
If a work of art can't stand alone what's it's purpose? if the artist need to stand over your shoulder to explain what it is, it isn't effective. Even pieces where the goal is not timelessness have some degree of importance to anyone other than the artist, but I have seen pieces like this in galleries and they were boring and irrelevant to everyone but the most despicable hipsters there. I see works like Tracey Emin's, for example, in galleries and I am annoyed with artists for boring us to tears.
Who is being pompous? The person forcing their own narrow definitions of art on everything or the one saying you should just accept that not everyone shares your view?
Art doesn't have a universal purpose other then expression.
You also should realize that I actually agree with you and I definitely follow the philosophy that art should stand on its own (although I do reject the idea of art as timeless). However, I also realize that this is not everyone's point of view and criticizing work for lacking an aspect which the artist never intended to be there is a waste of time. In a piece like the one that was described, I would say that artist has made himself as much of the piece as the lard or the bathtub without him the piece is meaningless.
I'm not saying you have to like it, I just think you are criticizing it unfairly.
When it comes to artistic expression I'm never going to tell anyone not to do something. Artists don't need to consider what I think, or like, and because of my personality I can probably tell you more about the pieces i despise than enjoy, so maybe you are right, and his message, and medium are effective, but there is no visceral reaction to seeing the art for me at least.
I have just always felt that those pieces were too self indulgent. Like me making a dietary choice is reason enough to construct a 20 foot rotating display in an Art Museum. Also in general these artists usually like to examine mundane, or extremely personal aspects of life instead of the grand universal concepts that I'm more interested in.
Finally when an artist makes a piece that is that personal there is no room left for interpretation. I'm not left to wonder what the artist is trying to tell me, because he already told me in the video, and the art absent of the video doesn't give me enough to come up with the correct conclusion. Oil paintings from 13th to 17th century are my favorite because they stand alone, and represent concepts larger than the artists who made them.