Art & WoW

They're not art because they only serve a prefunctory purpose. They can't just exist to exist. If they were art than board games would be art and so would a futon.

On a more important note Josiah, I just woke up. From a night of dreaming that you had died. It was pretty intense, I kept waking up and going back to sleep and it was still true. I woke up, went to chattablogs, and there was your new entry on this blog, so thanks for posting to calm me down.

And as I have just woke up, I am writing prefunctory instead of perfunctory instead of "functional".

Good to know I'm still alive in your dreams!

But John, I don't really buy the whole "art must not be functional" def. of art. I mean, define "functional"? Somebody had to MAKE the art, i.e. engage in the function of making the art. Somebody has to view the art, appreciate it, understand it (or attempt to), etc. Aren't those "functions"? Isn't the art an essential element TO that function?

If art isn't supposed to be "functional", I can't see how anybody should be allowed to view/read/hear a work of art because then its "functioning" to some extent or another. At which point the "art object" has a relationship as art merely to the artist, but only as the artist makes the art, because he wouldn't be allowed to view/appreciate/understand the very art he created because then it would serve a function and cease to be art.

At which point it becomes: if an artist makes a painting that nobody every sees does it matter? who cares?

I have found that only artists and art professors are allowed to determine what is and what is not art...

oh, fyi, stay clear of those immersive online games - they want to destroy your general productivity and marriage.

if you must indulge, have someone, likely your wife control the doses.

You speak truth Dave. I have 10 days to indulge in WoW before the wife returns. After that, she's running the show.

Relatedly, what I like about WoW is that its designed, some argue, AGAINST level-grinding and long term play. You can actually sit and play for 20 minutes and get something accomplished. Very cool of Blizzard.

In reference to John's comments, art can of course be functional: furniture, architecture, and even dishware - though usually either aesthetically neutral or actively offensive in America - can be both artistically and practically satisfying. But the problem with claiming that video games can be aesthetically valuable in any substantial way is that the fact that all of the art forms that they potentially involve - narrative, painting, film - are dependent for their most profound effects on the presence of order and design. You could make a Sin City game, for instance, that would have the pulpy dialogue and striking color palette of the film, but absent an author's narrative structure or the shot framing and selection of a painter or director, all you have have is a rambling and wholly random assortment of data.

According to Chuck Klosterman who I'm obsessed with right now, art changes your perception of the world around you. Therefore some video games would be art. He makes the case that the Sim video games are art in the truest sense.

Julian- I don't really consider architecture, furniture, or dishware are. There is an art to them, but that's a different thing. Maybe I just don't want to admit that after spending years and years in the music library learning about art, my father the furniture salesman knows just as much as I do about it. Maybe there is something Freudian to my definition of art. Maybe not.

I think the biggest reason the functionality of the video game disqualifies it as art is because that is WHY it was made. To be used. In other words, that was the reason it was made- to be marketed, consumed, and used. I have about 100 unheard songs on my hard disk recorder in my room that are my evidence that art is not made to be used or consumed.

I know there are people out there who are potters and they are artists, but the second someone puts food in that bowl, its no longer art. Not that makes the potter a nonartist.

For the record I don't know how much I actually believe what I just said. Probably 80 percent.

Play Guild Wars for something where you can "play for 20 minutes and get something accomplished." Shadowbane also felt the same way, however not too many folks play that anymore.

What kind of server is Kil'Jaeden? I suggest a server with a PvP element. While I personally don't like the fact that factions can't communicate with each other, I know that some people hate the "trash talking" that comes with PvP, so in a sense, it's good that WoW doesn't indulge that type of behavior.

art can be both functional and nonfunctional--though even nonfunctional art has a function, to be viewed. I think that the determination of what is art is in a constant state of flux. There is no one person who determines what is art.

It is possible for a computer game to be art. It was created by humans, sure with the help of computers but not entirely. Graphic design, illustration, animation, and digital media are considered fields in the arts (though not always digital media) and yet they are also commercially driven.

Also: Once art, always art. Unless it is significantly altered or destroyed. Putting something in a bowl, that is considered art, does not make it not art. That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard.

Just because someone makes something with care does not make it art. None of the dishes in my cabinet are art.

And looking it something, is not really "using" it. The only thing you really use as you walk around an art museum are your shoes.

Last year, in I.D. magazine, I recall one famous design critic saying that she thought Grand Theft Auto should win a design award. As for the difference between art and design, I'm not certain myself, but it validates your instinct.

I wasn't implying that just because something is made with care it should be called art. I didn't have time to write a book. Also, why can't looking at something be "using" it? What if you look at it and it makes you think. Reading a book is a function. You can "read" art. Many childrens books are all pictures. They look at them. Are childern's picture books nonfunctional?
Looking at art We "use" our eyes and our brains--hopefully.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your meaning of "function."

The distinction between "Art" which is pure and made to be looked at but non-functional, and "art/craftsmanship" which is made to be used or functional is one that we've really only had since the Enlightenment and I'm not sure its a very helpful distinction. For example, J.S. Bach wrote a new cantata each Sunday to be used in the worship service at his church, for something like two years--this was disposable church music at its best. However, any music scholar will tell you that Bach's cantatas are some of the finest art in western history. Or you have the skilled artists in Exodus who directed the building of the tabernacle, where much of their artwork had very specific purposes, and yet was also beautiful art. At the other end of the spectrum, things made purely for their function can seem cold and uninviting, or almost inhumane due to their lack of beauty, such as high-rise apartment buildings in communist countries.

Perhaps our daily lives are impoverished because we often relegate Art to galleries, rather than recognizing there is art to be made in all corners of life, since we are each made as creative children of our Maker. Being creative is part of who we are as humans, and should be part of all aspects of our lives, even in little important things like a simple meal prepared with a beautiful table setting, which can create a space in time for people to really connect with each other. (I'm not saying art galleries are bad, or that art always has to be functional, but only that we miss out on much beauty when we limit art to non-functional artifacts.)

Who made each of the carved and painted animals at the Coolidge Park Carousel? Are they art? They are beautiful, and they serve a very specific purpose. Sure, there are major differences between fine are and folk arts, or between the art of the china used at state dinners in the White House versus the rough-hewn elegance of hand-crafted wooden rice bowl, but that doesn't mean that they can't both be artful and useful.

*And to tie in with Josiah's original question, probably video games could be a medium for artistic expression and creativity. Even in a game with incredibly flexible and "random" structure there is underlying code providing order, though that may manifest itself in unpredictability.

jollyswan, you have a wonderful way with words and have said much of what I have been trying to say (which for me has not been very successful). I like what you've said.

I wonder how many people are drawn to "functional" objects based on only their fuction as compared to others who are drawn to "functional" objects based on their aesthetics/pleasingness to the eyes? I am absolutly drawn to "functional" objects based on how pleasing they are to the eyes, but also take into consideration how well they function.

Pornography is also pleasing to the eyes and functional.

Sure, there is an art to making everything. There is an art to making furniture, there is an art to filling out tax returns. But for the sake of discussion, we cannot going around calling everything that takes skill and craftsmanship art.

There are two definitions of art that have been used for a long long time. One is broad, the other is narrow. If you accept the broad definition and agree with Josiah that his video game is art, than you also have to accept that the TV he watches it on is art and so is soda that he might drink while playing.

The narrow definition, which is more useful is that art is something like- works of beauty, usually in painting, sculpture, dance, music and literature.

Another argument could be that whatever it is that makes pornography non-art is the same thing that makes video games non-art.

No, no, no, no, no, and no.

There are more than two definitions of art. You are forgeting about all the possibilities inbetween the two.

I am not calling everything that takes skill and craftmanship art. Are you equating skill to being creative? They are not the same.

It is possible to make furniture that is also art and at the same time is truly functional as furniture. Once in a 3D design class, the class had to make a light for the final project. One of the lights that I saw was truly a work of art and it was also a light.

So you are limiting art to painting, sculpture, music, dance, and literature? What about photography, printmaking, fibers, ceramics, metals, graphic design, illustration, etc...? Do you consider these to be art?

your last argument makes absolutly no sense at all.

I am not saying that all video games are art, but that there are probably a few that are.

Have you even checked out the link Josiah's talking about? It looks like illustration.

have you had any art history classes? I'm just curious, based on your definition of art.

Yeah, I've taken art history classes. What does that have to do with it? I don't think directing the topic to my qualifications clears up the discussion no matter how qualified I am. I learned how to critique art, not video games. Yes I've checked the link. Your implication that I might not be qualified to speak about art only proves my point that there ARE people who know about art and they CAN say that certain things are not art. Stelmodad may have been kidding but he was kind of right when he said only artists and art professors can decide what art is. I wouldn't say "only" though.

I have a bachelors degree in jazz studies and no one can tell me that Kenny G qualifies as jazz. In the same way, anyone who HAS taken art history classes can say that calling a video game art is at the very least, a stretch.

The areas of interest you ask about (photography, printmaking, fibers, ceramics, metals, graphic design, illustration, etc.) are all related to painting and sculpture.

The reason that my last argument DOES make sense is this:

The difference between pornography and art involving nudity is that pornography is made to satisfy a chemical stimulation and not an intellectual or spiritual one. The same can be said about video games.

Your point is that the definition of art is relative. And some scholars might agree with you, but they don't teach about video games in their class rooms.

Would you call someone who ONLY took pictures of wedding parties and yearbook pictures for a living a professional artist?

I wasn't questioning your qualifications, I was just curious. The problem with writing text is that we can't imply tone. I might have been a little harsh earlier on, I didn't mean to be. I just didn't understand where you were coming from.

No worries, I wasn't offended. I was just trying to say that the very need to qualify ones self to speak about art should also imply the need to qualify art.

To some extent the definition of art is relative, but not completely. There are standards.

Perhaps we can agree to disagree.

Well I guess you all proved art is at least pretentious