Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I'd argue that the average issue of a comic is a hell of a lot more artistic than many people would give them credit for.

I would definitely agree with that. Video games and comics have gotten this unfair reputation as childish, which if you take a step into a store that sells either for more than ten minutes, you find out isn't necessarily true.

In all honesty I haven't followed comic books in a LONG time. I'm not quite up to date on what is currently going on. I got a little excited when I heard they killed Bruce Wayne and thought that maybe they were finally mixing things up, but then I remembered that for comic book super heroes, there is no death, and he'd be back soon enough, and I was right

Comic book death can bite my butt. If you're gonna kill someone, have the guts to keep them dead.

LordofHats wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I'd argue that the average issue of a comic is a hell of a lot more artistic than many people would give them credit for.

I would definitely agree with that. Video games and comics have gotten this unfair reputation as childish, which if you take a step into a store that sells either for more than ten minutes, you find out isn't necessarily true.

In all honesty I haven't followed comic books in a LONG time. I'm not quite up to date on what is currently going on. I got a little excited when I heard they killed Bruce Wayne and thought that maybe they were finally mixing things up, but then I remembered that for comic book super heroes, there is no death, and he'd be back soon enough, and I was right

Comic book death can bite my butt. If you're gonna kill someone, have the guts to keep them dead.

Well, there's quite a few heroes I can think of who've stayed dead, as well as various villains.
Starman, Hourman (I think), the original Question, Jade, Katma Tui and various veteran Green Lanterns.
Black Mask I, Ra's Al Ghul, Copperhead, KGBeast, Orca, Magpie, the original Ventriloquist, the Floronic Man (I think...)
By the way, being resurrected as a Black Lantern does not count, just so you know.


But I can see what you mean. Still, technically there was a new Batman, in the form of Dick Grayson, at least for a short while. And some of the villains are no longer villains; Riddler is now a detective, for example.

Captain America has died and been replaced a few times. There's been multiple Spidermans, but I doubt anyone really wants to get into the Clone saga again.

No, let's not go there.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:All comics are art. They all have hand drawn pictures. A comic may not be good but that doesn't invalidate it as art.

Being a picture, drawing, or simply pretty isn't what art is about. If a comic isn't good then it hasn't made any meaningful impact upon society. If it hasn't done that then it isn't art. It's sort of like saying "bad art" isn't even art if that makes sense.

I also think what most people think is art within in videogames is just atmosphere and gameplay mechanics. For example Penumbra does an excellent job at scaring you but after that, so what? All the interactive elements of a game are great because they are unique to the medium, but what they enhance is gameplay and immersion, not its artitistic value. Could interactivity be a vehicle for art in the future? I think so, but we're not there yet. And I hope that the interactive quality of games is used to create a vehicle for better gameplay rather than art.

Games are form of entertainment more than anything else, and they entertain well. I have of course no problem with something being entertaining and art, but games don't need to be art to be successful, presently. They should worry about other problems in the industry first. And if you look at all the games that have been succesful recently like, "Meatboy" for example you'll have proof that games are doing fine without being artitsitc.

Also I don't know how you get art out of a physics engine letting you blow stuff up...

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:

LordofHats wrote:

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:I'd argue that the average issue of a comic is a hell of a lot more artistic than many people would give them credit for.

I would definitely agree with that. Video games and comics have gotten this unfair reputation as childish, which if you take a step into a store that sells either for more than ten minutes, you find out isn't necessarily true.

In all honesty I haven't followed comic books in a LONG time. I'm not quite up to date on what is currently going on. I got a little excited when I heard they killed Bruce Wayne and thought that maybe they were finally mixing things up, but then I remembered that for comic book super heroes, there is no death, and he'd be back soon enough, and I was right

Comic book death can bite my butt. If you're gonna kill someone, have the guts to keep them dead.

Well, there's quite a few heroes I can think of who've stayed dead, as well as various villains.
Starman, Hourman (I think), the original Question, Jade, Katma Tui and various veteran Green Lanterns.
Black Mask I, Ra's Al Ghul, Copperhead, KGBeast, Orca, Magpie, the original Ventriloquist, the Floronic Man (I think...)
By the way, being resurrected as a Black Lantern does not count, just so you know.


But I can see what you mean. Still, technically there was a new Batman, in the form of Dick Grayson, at least for a short while. And some of the villains are no longer villains; Riddler is now a detective, for example.

They'll be back. There's only one permanent death in comics: Uncle Ben.

asimo77 wrote:Being a picture, drawing, or simply pretty isn't what art is about. If a comic isn't good then it hasn't made any meaningful impact upon society.

If that's your definition, then almost nothing is art.

Games are making a big impact on society. The Wii is a household name, as is Halo, and World of Warcraft. If you merely judge based off of the impact something has on society then games are far more artistic in the modern era than classical art.

You have yet to actually define "artistic value" in a way that means anything.

Personally, I don't find any real artistic value in Picasso's paintings. I think that if only art majors can enjoy it then it's not very artistic to begin with.

asimo77 wrote:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:All comics are art. They all have hand drawn pictures. A comic may not be good but that doesn't invalidate it as art.

Being a picture, drawing, or simply pretty isn't what art is about. If a comic isn't good then it hasn't made any meaningful impact upon society. If it hasn't done that then it isn't art. It's sort of like saying "bad art" isn't even art if that makes sense.

Yes, well that's exactly the opposite of what i'm saying. Bad art is art. Who can say what's good or bad. For example I think picasso sucks balls. However I'll admit its art, highly over rated though it may be.

Melissia wrote:

asimo77 wrote:Being a picture, drawing, or simply pretty isn't what art is about. If a comic isn't good then it hasn't made any meaningful impact upon society.

If that's your definition, then almost nothing is art.

That's actually the most formal definition of art, and probably the most useful for aesthetics.

IE, noone that really matters?

I don't know if this has been made clear enough, but I honestly couldn't care less what the art community thinks.

No, really, I don't think it is possible for me to care less about the subject. My own exposure to said community has been extremely negative, and hell, most of them would mock you for playing 40k or collecting/painting the models.

Melissia wrote:IE, noone that really matters?

I don't know if this has been made clear enough, but I honestly couldn't care less what the art community thinks.

No, really, I don't think it is possible for me to care less about the subject. My own exposure to said community has been extremely negative, and hell, most of them would mock you for playing 40k or collecting/painting the models.

That's essentially claiming that in regards to physics you don't care what a physics professor thinks. I know their douche bags, but their douche bags who specialize in this kind of talk. It's their life. They'll probably keep saying video games aren't art even after they've achieved that status (some people still argue films aren't artistic). But that doesn't mean their knowledge is invalid. Their meanies but their meanies who happen to be correct (EDIT: eh, probably most correct). This is assuming everyone agrees with that given definition, which all don't.

It is interesting seeing the differing view on art between those who are artists, those who study art, and those who just casually engage in it.

Unlike art, physics is a science. Art is entirely subjective. The laws of physics are not (at least outside of quantum physics, but that's a subject most people don't even remotely understand anyway until they get a masters).

There is no comparison.

Ya, to even compare art and physics shows a disconcerning lack of understanding either of them. Math is by definition quantifiable, art not so much.

Melissia wrote:Art is entirely subjective.

People should stop that. Art being good or bad is subjective. Being Art is less a matter of subjective value judgements and more defining what the attributes of art are, and those attributes can be objectively determined.

And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.

Also, I consider myself a casual artist. I occasionally draw object or portraits using my various pencils (most people don't even know there's pencil grades other than number two to begin with). I enjoy art in general, but classical art bores me.

and what are your "attributes of art"?

LordofHats wrote:And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.

No.

Art is subjective. Even what makes up art is poorly defined.

I should haven been more specific about the description of art,, admittedly. I was trying to address how many people think something being a painting immediatley makes it art.

When I say impact society, I mean that there is a significant shift in cultural schemas. Very good art paves the way for other pieces like itself, it not only has to say something important but the idea has to be big enough for other people to expand on it.

As for people bashing what is classically taken to be art: Look at the Mona Lisa for example, it may be pretty, ugly, whatever but it has become a symbol for art itself. Throw up a picture of the Mona Lisa and people immediatley know you'll probably be talking about art.

However, in my definition of art I'm usually thinking in literary terms though, because I don't want to say that anything that becomes a symbol is art, then like you said, the Wii could be artful.

Also it's more than just impacting society. Technology has had a large impact on society, but would you call penicillin art?

I would call the science behind the production of chemicals such as penicillin an art form.

But then I am a Chemistry major, and I absolutely love looking at the shape of molecules and how they interact with eachother.

Your dodge of the question was artful.

I don't see why I need to answer the question directly anyway, considering that noone really agrees on what makes art.

For myself, I think the best definition of art is the first one given by Princeton: "the products of human creativity". Wikipedia's definition is also good: "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions."

But I think some people in this thread would say that this is overbroad

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.

No.

I get this all the time, mostly because all my friends are doing computer science, physics, and engineering while I'm the only one from my entire highschool doing philosophy and history. I have successfully combined esoteric and useless into one doubly un-lucrative double major :(

I always get a ton of "why don't you study something real" and "who cares about that" I don't talk about any of that stuff in casual conversation, but when philiosophy does get brought up everyone seems to want to ignore the philosophy major :(

Melissia wrote:I don't see why I need to answer the question directly anyway, considering that noone really agrees on what makes art.

I was refering to Asimo's answer to me.

Well something that causes an entire society to rethink, complicate, or expand pre-established values and in some cases create new ones or eradicate old ones.

asimo77 wrote:

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.

No.

I get this all the time, mostly because all my friends are doing computer science, physics, and engineering while I'm the only one from my entire highschool doing philosophy and history. I have successfully combined esoteric and useless into one doubly un-lucrative double major :(

I would love to do that however "doubly un-lucrative double major" is the perfect description for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

asimo77 wrote:Well something that causes an entire society to rethink, complicate, or expand pre-established values and in some cases create new ones or eradicate old ones.

That's excessively lofty. You putting art on a......pedastol.
Anyways, the thing is a child playing with hand paints is art.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:and what are your "attributes of art"?

I've gone over it in the thread. And their not really mine. I do not study aesthetics, I'm a history major. I did a paper on this very subject a year or so ago, and am mostly repeating the various information I put together for that.

A better question would be what are your attributes of art? EDIT: Rather, what standard would you use to qualify something as art?

Melissia wrote:Also, I consider myself a casual artist. I occasionally draw object or portraits using my various pencils (most people don't even know there's pencil grades other than number two to begin with). I enjoy art in general, but classical art bores me.

I write fiction, but nothing I write is really artistic. I don't play with language, nor do I have anything meaningful to say. I do it because I doze off and start day dreaming way to easily

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.

No.

Yes. You can't deny the position and knowledge of an expert just because you disagree with them (even if they are douche bags). They amy very well be wrong, but so far you've done little to prove them wrong.

Art is subjective. Even what makes up art is poorly defined.

No. Art is complicated to discuss. What makes it up is very difficult to determine because it is a vast and varied field and unlike math, not easily quantifiable. That doesn't make it subjective. This is basically philosophy 101. Not being emperical does not make something subjective, just bones hard confusing.

Melissia wrote:I would call the science behind the production of chemicals such as penicillin an art form.

Today we would call that... science. And the practice of science is a craft (which at a time in history was considered the same thing as art but for the past few centuries we've chosen to draw a distinction between art and craft).

Melissia wrote:I don't see why I need to answer the question directly anyway, considering that noone really agrees on what makes art.

No one agrees but no one has every proposed "art is what I say it is" and been taken seriously. It's called making an argument.

But I think some people in this thread would say that this is overbroad

Indeed. But come now. It is an interesting discussion

I do admit I have very high standards and I think that a medium must have several seminal pieces produced to consider the entire medium as an artform.

I would think that a child's painting is more of a sign that he or she is developing cognitive and motor skills at the expected pace. Of course I should tell that to that kid's mother and see what I get...

asimo77 wrote:I do admit I have very high standards and I think that a medium must have several seminal pieces produced to consider the entire medium as an artform.

By your standards only a dozen human beings on the planet are capable of art. That is simply not true. Most people are capable of art. Art does not have to redefine civilization. Art can be my Imperial Guardmen.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Damn you quote function! You've bested me again.

LordofHats wrote:Yes. You can't deny the position and knowledge of an expert just because you disagree with them

Yes I can. They are not an expert in a scientific endeavor. They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Yes. You can't deny the position and knowledge of an expert just because you disagree with them

Yes I can. They are not an expert in a scientific endeavor. They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.

Really. Philosophy is not a field of subjective study. People learn this in any introductory philosophy class.