Video games now legally recognized as art.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109835-Games-Now-Legally-Considered-an-Art-Form-in-the-USA
Thought this might promote some interesting discussion.
Thought this might promote some interesting discussion.
Comments
If you programmed/look at NES game code, sometimes the tricks and stuff they do to save memory and space is amazing. I have considered this an art on the programming side forever. Glad to see this happen.
Of course it's art. It always makes me wonder why anyone would think otherwise. Same goes with comics, it's something that people are dedicated to producing and making it quality. Case in point. Alex Ross.
My penis says otherwise.
AceEbb said: "99.99% of all porn"
My penis says otherwise.
Me and mine had a short 'debate over the matter, but I choked him off.
*rimshot*
If you programmed/look at NES game code, sometimes the tricks and stuff they do to save memory and space is amazing. I have considered this an art on the programming side forever. Glad to see this happen.
It's not even about the restrictions, as they are mainly in graphics, not ROM and mostly not speed. But that didn't stop them from optimizing their program very well when it wasn't 110% needed. But there still is crappy games that aren't optimized and pretty in the code, still. Microsoft was one of the best at programming anything in the 80's truthfully. Oh how the times have changed!
On the other hand, the only thing that separates narrative videogames from movies is the interactive factor, but not all videogames qualify as big narrative devices. I see a chance for videogames to be a different form of art in this respect, just like movies are different from theater. For that to happen, the VG artist would have to consciously integrate the interactive aspect of the game with the story, to evoke different feelings and concepts, than just the sum of all the cutscenes and FMV in the game.
Something that undermines their possible status as art is the purpose: most of them are done just as entertainment. Real art is purposeless in its origin, and innovative (in some way) in their topics/manufacture. Commercial devices like, say, the Transformers movie (made for entertainment), de design of the iPod, a peruvian clay pot, can have influence on some artistic ideas "for looks", but that's it.
Who the fuck cares, art is just something "fine" people talk about in order to show everybody that they have better taste. No one can define what art is anyway so why bother?
I agree that there's much snobism in art, but you only need to go to expositions more to be able to appreciate it. There's art that has clearer messages and concepts, and then other pieces of art are just lame and/or pretentious. Most classic stuff, like portraits, busts, sculptures from the trends that embrace the greek concept of art and beauty, are most appreciated for the technique and manufacture quality, though they also represent subtly the trends of the time (political, historical, moral, etc.), which can be appreciated the more you know about those periods. Though most art expositions of this kind of art give the historical background, it is better to go in a tour with a museum expert, those can be quite interesting, and you'll see there's more into classic art that meets the eye.
For modern art (modernism, conceptualism, avant-garde, abstract stuff), there's more emphasis in the meaning of the piece (symbolisms, parodies, allegories). This is were snobism abounds, but with more experience in expositions (and reading), you can tell if something sucks or not. Why? because if the artist exposes a concept that you don't know/understand, you won't get it even if it trully has merit, and could deem it "lame" just for its looks. I admit there's a lot of bullshitting from the curators and artists alike, when making the conceptual discourse: if after understanding the discourse, you don't think the art accurately represents it, it failed. If the discourse is convoluted and pretentious, it failed from the beginning.
For the definition of art, even if anything can potentially be art, it's the purpose that defines it for me: if it has the intention to innovate conceptually and/or aesthetically, it is good art. If it doesn't innovate at all, but it's made with no commercial purposes, it's still art, but lame. Commercial stuff that draws heavily from existing aesthetic trends isn't art.
Who the fuck cares, art is just something "fine" people talk about in order to show everybody that they have better taste. No one can define what art is anyway so why bother?
I agree with you when you say that art cannot be defined. I don't think there is a 100% definitive answer of what is art and what is not due to the subjectivity of it all. Though it is nice to see the medium of video games being recognized.