Art and Shmups

[Skykid]

This is not a debate. It's a lol thread.

Fuck off then.

[icycalm]

Nice way to treat someone who is trying to teach you something, skykid. Your mom would surely be proud of you.

[Skykid]

What were you trying to teach me?

Just figured you felt the thread was a waste of time.

[icycalm]

What were you trying to teach me?

Re-read my posts, and particularly the article I linked.

Just figured you felt the thread was a waste of time.

It depends. If even a single person goes away from this having understood that the question under discussion is nonsensical, and therefore has no answer, then the thread will not have been a waste of time.

Plus, I got an excuse to link my site again.

[professor ganson]

My favorite artist at the moment has a retrospective in New York City. Murakami:
http://www.moca.org/murakami/

If you can get there, you best do so.

[Hulkcore]

What about the definition of the word 'chair'? Is that opinion too?

Words are defined by convention. If everyone just pulled a definition out of their ass then we wouldn't be able to communicate (see also: this thread).

So when everyone on Shmups.com agrees to a single definition of the word 'art', and to a single definition of the word 'game', then a serious discussion on the topic can begin. Until then, we are all just trolling for lols.

...or until then we're all just discussing our views on art, games, and combinations thereof. Welcome to the thread....

And to be an ass, yes the definition of the word 'chair' could very possibly be debated if one wanted. I.e., is a stool really a chair? How bout a love seat or is that a couch? If I sit on a cardboard box, does that become a chair while I'm sitting on it? Etc... Again this is a matter of context.

[Skykid]

If even a single person goes away from this having understood that the question under discussion is nonsensical, and therefore has no answer, then the thread will not have been a waste of time.

Oh right. Thanks for the heads up.

[icycalm]

...or until then we're all just discussing our views on art, games, and combinations thereof. Welcome to the thread....

You are not discussing anything. You are simply regurgitating half-baked, misunderstood notions of things that we cannot even talk about, because we haven't yet defined what they are. Welcome to the Human Race...

[BulletMagnet]

What about the definition of the word 'chair'? Is that opinion too?

Depends on how specific you want to get - ask most anyone what the "dictionary definition" of a "chair" is and they could probably give it to you, but ask a bunch of people to, say, draw the first thing that comes into their mind when they think of the word "chair" and some will draw a simple wooden frame, others might show a recliner, others an airplane seat, and maybe a few might even draw the "chair" who heads their department at work. Do each of them know what a "chair" is? I think it's safe to say that they do, though each one's mind works around that concept a bit differently, likely based upon their own experiences with "chairs" (on a related note, you could give, say, a tribal person the task of naming "something you sit on," and he probably wouldn't say "chair," but rather "a stool," or "a rock," or "the ground," or maybe even "my backside").

If you're willing to put such discrepancies in such a position of importance when it comes to whether something is even possible to discuss purposefully, then there's not a heck of a lot, if anything, that would fit the bill.

[shoe-sama]

zomgz where is 3d gfx?

[jpj]

what shoe-sama is trying to communicate is 'can images conceived artificially with a computer be classed as art? and can they have the same emotional resonance as a hand-drawn painting? does art need to be man-made to be art? and if so, would that nulify the "games are art" argument?'

at least i think that's what he said.

[shoe-sama]

yesyesnono

btw wtf are you talking about lol

[icycalm]

If you're willing to put such discrepancies in such a position of importance when it comes to whether something is even possible to discuss purposefully, then there's not a heck of a lot, if anything, that would fit the bill.

This is the usual response, but it's simply wasting time by arguing for the sake of arguing.

A chair is sufficiently well-defined for us to discuss anything we want to discuss about it. The word 'art', on the other hand, is being used in a million different contexts with countless meanings which, in the words of George Orwell, "cannot be reconciled with one another". Any intelligent discussion on ANY subject would therefore completely leave out the word 'art', except in the straightforward sense that Josh used it: a drawing of some kind.

I mean it's 2008 now, have you guys never heard of Dada? I can take a turd and stick it on a canvas and call it art. I mean I don't even have to stick it on a canvas for Chistsake, I can just leave it in the toilet and call it art.

So what would the question "Can games be art?" mean then? "Can games be shit?"

Hell yeah they can. What the hell does that prove?

It's like mathematics. Before you begin approaching a problem, you have to make sure that all your terms are properly defined. Otherwise you are simply inhaling your own farts.

[GaijinPunch]

I mean I don't even have to stick it on a canvas for Chistsake, I can just leave it in the toilet and call it art.

Or put it in a cup, hire 2 girls, get a webserver and...
well, you get the picture.

[BulletMagnet]

I mean it's 2008 now, have you guys never heard of Dada?

Believe me, I could go on for quite awhile about it.

In any event, if you think that terms like "art" are so pliable that they're not even worth discussing at this point, that leads to the next logical question - do you believe that at some point a bunch of really smart people are going to get together and come up with a hard-and-fast definition of "art" so inarguable that everyone is going to abide by it, and then rational discussion of it can resume (if it ever really existed in the first place)? Or, instead, is "art" presumably a completely untouchable subject for reasonable people from now till doomsday? On that note, could I do the same thing to "chair" if I started labeling anything I wanted a "chair" and it caught on with a certain group of people, who then went on to label themselves a "movement?"

[icycalm]

Or put it in a cup, hire 2 girls, get a webserver and...
well, you get the picture.

lol yeah, that's the moral of this thread, really.

a hard-and-fast definition of "art" so inarguable

This is the real problem people here. Human beings have not yet learned to separate words from the concepts which they are supposed to represent. There are NO "inarguable" definitions of words. There are only inarguable definitions of concepts.

So I can define 'art' as my balls if I want to, and no one can say anything against that. A word is only that, a word. Three miserable letters. A sign. Nothing more.

The important issue here is whether anyone can define the concept of art in the sense that the so-called "artfags" use it, and the answer to that question is that "No, they can't. It is impossible, and Luttwig Wittgenstein explained why nearly a hundred years ago."

But to understand his explanation you have to understand his book, and to understand his book... well. That takes some balls, man, let me tell you.

[BulletMagnet]

Human beings have not yet learned to separate words from the concepts which they are supposed to represent. There are NO "inarguable" definitions of words. There are only inarguable definitions of concepts.

How do you propose we work towards such a goal? How can we express/discuss said concepts without language, i.e. words? Heck, every concept being used by you, I, and Wittgenstein is being Fed-Exed between the lot of us by those unreliable and undefinable words - if the whole setup is unsuitable to begin with, what's the point of even having this discussion, or any discussion, since any of us can potentially twist the other's words any way we wish to? If nothing else, it seems that such a lofty (unattainable, I'm sure some would argue) standard for communication would be a handy thing to apply to conversations you just plain don't feel like having (not that I'm insinuating anything, mind you).

So I can define 'art' as my balls if I want to, and no one can say anything against that.

If you wanted to think that your honey-pouch was art then I obviously couldn't mind-meld with you and force you to think differently, but that doesn't mean that I have to accept your definition of "art" as valid.

The important issue here is whether anyone can define the concept of art in the sense that the so-called "artfags" use it, and the answer to that question is that "No, they can't."

Why are you even attempting to dissemble the thought process of a group whose way of approaching things you find so distasteful in the first place? If their standard doesn't butter your muffin, why not just reject it and use a different one? If your is better than theirs then reasonable people will abide by it - and I'm sure you'd be eager to tell the rest where they can go.

[jpj]

bulletmagnet worded it way better than i did on my first post in the thread: there needs to be an uncontradictory definition of art. i haven't heard one yet, but that doesn't some clever person wont figure it out in the future. or moreover: when does art become fine art?

there were some interesting posts on the subject on the insomnia forum (until icy banned said users for disagreeing with him )

to be honest, if you are seriously contemplating the subject, you're probably too old to be playing videogames

[icycalm]

BulletMagnet, you are making no effort to understand what I am telling you. All you want is to disagree. I'll make one last attempt.

Human beings have not yet learned to separate words from the concepts which they are supposed to represent. There are NO "inarguable" definitions of words. There are only inarguable definitions of concepts.

How do you propose we work towards such a goal? How can we express/discuss said concepts without language, i.e. words?

The way we are currently doing it is fine. The problem with the concept "art" as it is expressed by the "art people" is that IT DOES NOT EXIST, and therefore it cannot be put into words.

So we can put into words concepts such as "the law", "friendship", etc., but not that vague, non-existent concept which people use because they like some things so much that they feel it is necessary to invent new concepts in order to praise them.

So I can define 'art' as my balls if I want to, and no one can say anything against that.

If you wanted to think that your honey-pouch was art

Again, you are not understanding me. I do not want to THINK that my balls are art -- this is how I am defining the word. The three letters a, r and t, in succession. Do you understand the concept of a 'definition'? In the subject of language, definitions are arbitrary. They are conventions. The only important thing is that we all agree to symbolize a specific object or concept by a specific sequence of letters. But you cannot put into words concepts which are not crystal clear in your own head first. And the concept 'art' is not crystal clear in ANYONE's head, because as I explained it's nothing more than a "non-existent concept which people use because they like some things so much that they feel it is necessary to invent new concepts in order to praise them."

Why are you even attempting to dissemble the thought process of a group whose way of approaching things you find so distasteful in the first place? If their standard doesn't butter your muffin, why not just reject it and use a different one? If your is better than theirs then reasonable people will abide by it - and I'm sure you'd be eager to tell the rest where they can go.

The issue here is that people are not educated. It's not a matter of what I think, or what you think, or what anyone who posts on this message board thinks. These are issues which have been dealt with almost a century ago, and the only reason people are still discussing them is because they have not been properly educated.

As for why I try to explain these things to people on a message board... I know it is futile. That's why I write articles on my website -- because at least there they are not just read by a dozen people and then get immediately buried under a ton of trivial, inconsequential posts.

But, you know. I made a post in this thread which I shouldn't have, and after you start people respond to you and it's hard to stop.

I am trying to cut down. I've made some great strides in the past few months. But I browse several forums for gaming news, this can't be helped, and seeing threads like this one is like waving a red flag in front of my nose. I am only human after all.

Anyway. The best thing that ever happened to me on the internet was that I got banned from several forums. One day I'll be banned from all of them

[professor ganson]

The best thing that ever happened to me on the internet was that I got banned from several forums.

How is that a good thing, let along the best thing? What about making friends and learning tons of stuff?

[BulletMagnet]

BulletMagnet, you are making no effort to understand what I am telling you. All you want is to disagree.

On the contrary, I'm trying to get more at the gist of what you're saying here by playing devil's advocate and hoping that you'll clarify and/or expand upon what you've said...apologies if I'm irritating you by being too thick to understand it all the first time, and, even more inexcusably, giving it another go instead of remaining ignorant and leaving you in peace.

Not to be overly blunt, but I find this to be the case with a lot of "philosopher" types - they groan to high heaven about how ignorant the rest of the world is, but then get annoyed whenever anyone asks them to descend from Olympus and try to put their musings in a way (more to the point, several different ways) so that as many people as possible can understand them. Apparently philosophers' only job is to make sure that a volume of their stuff is in a library someplace, regardless of whether anyone other than themselves can actually read and understand it, or even know it exists.

If this isn't what you meant to convey in your opening to your reply, then ignore the above.

The way we are currently doing it is fine. The problem with the concept "art" as it is expressed by the "art people" is that IT DOES NOT EXIST, and therefore it cannot be put into words.

And the concept 'art' is not crystal clear in ANYONE's head...

...that vague, non-existent concept which people use because they like some things so much that they feel it is necessary to invent new concepts in order to praise them.

If I read you correctly it sounds as if the use of the word "art" that bothers you is the one where someone will say "I love this, it's a work of art," no matter what it is - one could possibly call something "good" or "great" or "appealing" or something like that and mean more or less the same thing. I know you're aware that this isn't the only thing that "art" can mean...heck, you yourself say that this exists only in the realm of the "artfags" anyway, so why outlaw the word wholesale from "respectable" discussions for their sake? Or does your griping regarding "art" stretch beyond this aspect of the word?

Again, you are not understanding me. I do not want to THINK that my balls are art -- this is how I am defining the word.

Well then, if you choose to define your balls as art, I am still under no obligation to accept your definition, if you can even call it a "definition" if you're the only one who uses it.

These are issues which have been dealt with almost a century ago, and the only reason people are still discussing them is because they have not been properly educated.

Are you talking about Wittgenstein, or the Dadaists, or someone else here? And in any event, apparently you've adjusted the source of the problem - now it's not that the word "art" is impossible to get a bead on (apparently someone already did this a century ago...or else just told everyone to stop talking about it altogether), but just that not enough people are aware of it. So are we all supposed to assume that everything that's worth saying about this is already on your web site, and that the rest of us all ought to just leave it at that even if we want to look further into it, or what? As distasteful as you might find some of the responses to your stuff on forums or whatnot, if you want anything you write to gain anything resembling a foothold with anyone you need to be able to hold your nose and respond to the earnest questions while ignoring the "just trying to start something" ones, as opposed to just pshaw-ing "my work speaks for itself."

[icycalm]

Not to be overly blunt, but I find this to be the case with a lot of "philosopher" types - they groan to high heaven about how ignorant the rest of the world is, but then get annoyed whenever anyone asks them to descend from Olympus and try to put their musings in a way (more to the point, several different ways) so that as many people as possible can understand them. Apparently philosophers' only job is to make sure that a volume of their stuff is in a library someplace, regardless of whether anyone other than themselves can actually read and understand it, or even know it exists.

Philosophical books are not only in libraries -- they are in bookshops and on the internet. And the best of them, the ones which one would have to read in order to be considered educated in this day and age, are crystal clear and self-explanatory. All one needs to do is read them.

If I read you correctly it sounds as if the use of the word "art" that bothers you is the one where someone will say "I love this, it's a work of art," no matter what it is - one could possibly call something "good" or "great" or "appealing" or something like that and mean more or less the same thing. I know you're aware that this isn't the only thing that "art" can mean...heck, you yourself say that this exists only in the realm of the "artfags" anyway, so why outlaw the word wholesale from "respectable" discussions for their sake? Or does your griping regarding "art" stretch beyond this aspect of the word?

1. The word art has been given countless meanings by man. To use it in a discussion all the participants have to agree to a single meaning. But once you do that you discover that the word is not necessary anymore, because there is ANOTHER word that fully describes that meaning, and which is less confusing to use for everyone because it has only a single meaning.

2. The concept art as in "a means for artistical expression" or whatever, is bullshit, because as I just explained to you absolutely anything and everything can be art in that sense, including every piece of shit that comes out of my ass every day. Even pieces of shit can have "messages" as long as one is stupid enough to read one in them.

Again, you are not understanding me. I do not want to THINK that my balls are art -- this is how I am defining the word.

Well then, if you choose to define your balls as art,

Again you misunderstand me. I am not defining my balls as art. I am defining art as my balls. There is a MASSIVE difference. My balls are the concrete thing that needs no definition. Art is just a word which, in order to be useful, we must define. I gave you the example of my balls to help you see the distinction between words and concepts. There are whole university degrees on the subject of Semiotics. I cannot teach you this in a freaking online message board about stupid little games where you have a tiny spaceship and fire at other spaceships. Just take my words to heart, and go out and buy some books.

I am still under no obligation to accept your definition, if you can even call it a "definition" if you're the only one who uses it.

Of course I can! That's the whole point!

So are we all supposed to assume that everything that's worth saying about this is already on your web site, and that the rest of us all ought to just leave it at that even if we want to look further into it, or what?

Pretty much. And if you really wanted to "look further into it" let me tell you, Shmups.com is not the place to do so. Take my advice and go buy some books. I can even give you a specific reading list if you want me to, and the order in which to go through it. In a couple of years, we can talk about this again if you want.

Or just do what everyone else does on the internet, and keep contributing to the deafening noise. It's your choice.

[ED-057]

*edit* since icycalm just clarified his own argument, then I don't need to try to do it for him...

[jpj]

at least you managed to enlighten and educate josh

[spadgy]

Icycalm's making a lot of sense to me.

I guess defining 'art' with any word is only going cause the definition and the concept trouble...

I think I'm just going to try to stop thinking about what it is and just enjoy likink what I like to see, hear, etc, and just get on with that. Obviously absorbing the meaning of stuff, but not the definition of the medium...

And Skykid... I'm glad you know what it is to suffer Hoxton and stuff... I went to Goldsmiths too... I'm obviously a sucker for surrounding myself by arty people I like to moan about...

[Rob]

Usually the worse a game is as a game and the more it emulates other mediums the more it is a work of art. Killer 7, Audiosurf, now that is ART.

This is a good answer to the original post.

[JoshF]

Sewer Shark

[Skykid]

For a waste of time Lol thread, Icy's invested a remarkable amount of time indulging in the topic of 'art and shmups.'

Win.

[icycalm]

I type fast. I think even faster. You have no idea how easily I can shit a couple thousand words. It's an art!

[Skykid]

I type fast. I think even faster. You have no idea how easily I can shit.

Fixed.