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.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Your definition matches what most people seem to think. I've heard that anything people create that goes beyond practical function is art.

So a hut that is built simply to have a roof above your head is not art, but once the creator starts making choices about color and shape that aren't completely functional, you get into the realm of art.

I disagree with this. Simplicity in form and function is itself an artistic choice. Choosing to make something that works and stopping there, with no more embellishment, is just as much an artistic statement as decorating that thing. Designing something to intentionally be the bare minimum required is a deliberate act. As such it has artistic merit.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Your definition matches what most people seem to think. I've heard that anything people create that goes beyond practical function is art.

So a hut that is built simply to have a roof above your head is not art, but once the creator starts making choices about color and shape that aren't completely functional, you get into the realm of art.

I disagree with this. Simplicity in form and function is itself an artistic choice. Choosing to make something that works and stopping there, with no more embellishment, is just as much an artistic statement as decorating that thing. Designing something to intentionally be the bare minimum required is a deliberate act. As such it has artistic merit.

That's a silly definition because by that standard everything is art. Simplicity can be an artistic choice, but for that to be the case it has to be an artistic choice at all. The creator has to deliberately make it simple because that is their aesthetic goal, merely making a hut simple because you're poor and can't afford anything but the most basic possible shelter is not a choice.

 Peregrine wrote:
That's a silly definition because by that standard everything is art. Simplicity can be an artistic choice, but for that to be the case it has to be an artistic choice at all. The creator has to deliberately make it simple because that is their aesthetic goal, merely making a hut simple because you're poor and can't afford anything but the most basic possible shelter is not a choice.

Frankly, I've seen computer code that's down right artistic if you understand how to appreciate it.

In a world with code golf damn near anything could be considered art, or at least having artistic value, if you're familiar with the craft used to make it. Pop art is a different thing as people without a clue have to understand, but that's not what we're talking about.

And if you're wondering, what the balls is he talking about, code golf is writing code in a short a form as is humanly possible. First good example I found:

⊢(/⍨)⊢=⌈\

{⍵/⍨⍵=⌈\⍵}

Bizarrely intricate Emote? No, those are sorting algorithms.

Thanks to my wife's texting habits I some times have to ask her which is which of what she's sent me.

 Peregrine wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 odinsgrandson wrote:
Your definition matches what most people seem to think. I've heard that anything people create that goes beyond practical function is art.

So a hut that is built simply to have a roof above your head is not art, but once the creator starts making choices about color and shape that aren't completely functional, you get into the realm of art.

I disagree with this. Simplicity in form and function is itself an artistic choice. Choosing to make something that works and stopping there, with no more embellishment, is just as much an artistic statement as decorating that thing. Designing something to intentionally be the bare minimum required is a deliberate act. As such it has artistic merit.

That's a silly definition because by that standard everything is art. Simplicity can be an artistic choice, but for that to be the case it has to be an artistic choice at all. The creator has to deliberately make it simple because that is their aesthetic goal, merely making a hut simple because you're poor and can't afford anything but the most basic possible shelter is not a choice.

Yes. I think that arts yearns to be contrary, and the deliberate contrariness of spartan choice when viewed in the greater context of the medium makes it art or not art.

So- if a prehistoric guy built a mud hut for a shelter, and made it as functional as possible, it isn't really art. If a current human decides to go live on the side of a plateau and creates a mud hut to dwell in, I'd call it performance art. They might be doing the same actions to create their hut, but the context really changes things.

I think that with a lot of objects, it is impossible to make them completely non-art (you have to make some sort of presentational choices). Of course, it didn't take prehistoric peoples very long before they started scrawling pictures on the wall- because creating art is something very basic and human. The best we can do is separate out the "parts" of something that are art, and the parts that are not.


In this sense, the question of whether or not games are art is a strange one. I think I am wondering about games in two contexts:

1- Are the Rules to a game art, or are they simply functional?

2- Is an instance of people playing a game art? Are they part of the artistic creation, or are they simply a very involved audience? (in the case of video games, I'd definitely say that the player is a very involved audience).

There is art, something containing artistry, and then there is "Art" as an elevated form of expression.

Any productive act can contain artistry, but that is something distinct from the quality of a thing being Art. One struggle with discussing art is that any attempt to define it is immediately met with a person that seeks to create art that contradicts the definition. To that end you either have a definition so broad almost anything can be art, or you have a definition so specific that it rules out a lot that may have artistic qualities but isn't strictly speaking "Art".

So art is really two distinct things, it is either something so broad anything appreciated as artistic is art or its so specific that very little is "Art". So in that sense, yes a game can be art.

One of the more consistently pointed to aspects of where something goes from being "Art" to just artistic is in the volume of resulting works. Simply put something mass produced may contain artistic elements and artistic effort, but isn't "Art". A positions Andy Worhol pushed back against by mass producing prints of cans of soup and the alike. Ultimately one traditional pitfall of trying to elevate a game to art.

Similarly another aspect is the intention of the effort in creating the work. Some say its only "Art" if its a personal expression and thus something produced for commercial purposes or collaboratively wouldn't be "Art" just because the artist was producing some variation or interpretation of what they were assigned by other people. That position though ignores the reality that many classical pieces or "Art" were commissioned and those artists were given some form of instruction or were painting a portrait and were often produced with the assistance of apprentices working on the more mundane elements.This is a position cinema has pushed back against and again a similar problem to calling a game art.

I don't think "Art" is limited to aesthetic creations and I don't think its limited by intention or means of creation.

I'd define "Art" as some thing crafted as an expression of mastery and skill.

Mastery of what?-Skill of what?-Not that important, I think its harder for something mass produced with multiple contributors to be "Art" but not impossible.

I personally don't believe performance art is "Art" unless there is some recording or preservation of that instance. So "thing" is awfully loaded.

Expression in itself requires an audience to observe and appreciate, but even that component raises the question if a work of "Art" is destroyed before its seen, is it "Art"? Another challenge to whether games can be art is how games blur the line between the artist and the audience, as players are both participators in the creation of the expression and the audience for the expression. There is modern art that's pushed back against this notion but it is a challenge to games as "Art".

If you go to see the ballet and the dancers inexplicably took you on stage spun you around, was that art? Or if you were at a rock concert and were brought up on stage to perform with the band for a song, is that art? Or was the art something created before those instances? -This is sorta the problem with games.

If we accept games as art, the consumer then deserves attribution for their participation since without them the game would not have been expressed the way it was. And maybe that's what a "Good game!" and a handshake are for? This newer thing of going online and watching people playing games has the potential to elevate games as an artistic medium.

If we try to separate the participation from the game you have something that is incomplete in its expression.

Is "Paint by Numbers" art? Is a coloring book art? Is a jigsaw puzzle art? Do they become art when you complete them?


A big caveat when discussing art vs "Art" is there is a distinct difference between the artistic merits and whether it is good or bad. There is good art and bad art, there is good "Art" and bad "Art" but in many was that comes down to personal preferences.

Games can contain art - I agree with that