what is art? popular vs my personal definition etc
in response to this thread and news articles, thought i would post here in case it was exceptionally annoying to the person who's journal I was posting on to opine there...
http://pretentiousgit.livejournal.com/133290.html?view=684202#t684202
-as far as video games and tv influencing people, I think it happens very much so, though often in more subtle ways on most levels. Most people are not entirely conscious about all their decisions - they are very reactive, they do things based on gut, their unconscious motivations, and habit... this, monkey, see, monkey do... you practice crashing expensive cars in high speed chases, it makes it seem much less unreasonable to try doing it, and somehow proving you are 'as cool and invincible as in the game' seems to appeal to many people... I think many 'gangstas' exist because they are emulating rappers and others that popularize it ...watch a movie like 'requiem for a dream', and maybe fucking around with drugs will seem a little less cool, etc. That's not to say that other factors weren't involved, and perhaps simplifying things to 'monkey see, monkey do' is in some way, also a disservice... people are known for 'oversimplifying' and bastardizing, popularizing things of real merit to the point where there is very little merit left... people focus on the (in sufi wisdom, pardon the paradigm shift) the secondary selves, or shallower 'appearances' and don't bother with 'deeper meanings' as much, especially in regards to things that might have the appearance of 'art.' To Segue into the second idea, I think that is why 'video games are not art.' Or more correctly, peoples' general definition of art has evolved to mean something that is obtuse, bizarre, simply controversial or very 'pretty' ... but not something in a more basic sense, that 'expresses truth in an intuitive sense', in thearea of games, both in an understandable, and interactive way... so in this way, I think the problem is not in the definition of video games, but in what art is... it has become such a small, narrow view that reflects a sense of snobbery and elitism, than any sense of breaking beyond logical and rational boundaries to 'real truth' as perhaps zen would suggest is undescribeable in most senses by mere 'verbal' or 'meta-' descriptions, but something that has to be 'experiences' or 'perceived' ...I think art is meant to bridge that gap in some sense, between the mind and reality, the world of ideas and the world of senses, but if someone somehow makes this approachable, the common 'popular' or 'surface' opinion, if you will, of art, would have us believe that therefore such a thing does not meet the definition of art (ie it is approachable and 'normal' people can understand it or like it). To be a little more direct, I guess the definition is ass-backwards; good art is the most approachable, even though it speaks of deep and complex things. Ok art is either very approachable but speaks of very surface things, or is very deep and complex but not approachable at all; poor art speaks of surface things, poorly, and it entirely unapproachable by people. These are my own personal definitions, and I can see the last definition of art as being useful in teaching the 'medium of art', or the 'art of seeing art without being bothered with the other elements, so that you are proficient in interpretting things regardless of actual merit', but as an end to itself I think it loses relevance.
I'm going to copy this post to my journal and link to here, so you can delete this if you want; it wasn't my intention specifically to merely be aggravating, and it occurs to me that it's possible it will be seen this way.
Are you going to bring back your regular comic postings sometime? I have not right to dictate what you put in your journal (but I read it often because it is quite stimulating) but I really did enjoy those when you were making them. eheheh ^_^; rereading what I'm saying, it seems like what I'm saying is justing getting more potential annoyin/grating/ aggravating and eog-centric, so I think I will stop rambling now...
m_G
http://pretentiousgit.livejournal.com/133290.html?view=684202#t684202
-as far as video games and tv influencing people, I think it happens very much so, though often in more subtle ways on most levels. Most people are not entirely conscious about all their decisions - they are very reactive, they do things based on gut, their unconscious motivations, and habit... this, monkey, see, monkey do... you practice crashing expensive cars in high speed chases, it makes it seem much less unreasonable to try doing it, and somehow proving you are 'as cool and invincible as in the game' seems to appeal to many people... I think many 'gangstas' exist because they are emulating rappers and others that popularize it ...watch a movie like 'requiem for a dream', and maybe fucking around with drugs will seem a little less cool, etc. That's not to say that other factors weren't involved, and perhaps simplifying things to 'monkey see, monkey do' is in some way, also a disservice... people are known for 'oversimplifying' and bastardizing, popularizing things of real merit to the point where there is very little merit left... people focus on the (in sufi wisdom, pardon the paradigm shift) the secondary selves, or shallower 'appearances' and don't bother with 'deeper meanings' as much, especially in regards to things that might have the appearance of 'art.' To Segue into the second idea, I think that is why 'video games are not art.' Or more correctly, peoples' general definition of art has evolved to mean something that is obtuse, bizarre, simply controversial or very 'pretty' ... but not something in a more basic sense, that 'expresses truth in an intuitive sense', in thearea of games, both in an understandable, and interactive way... so in this way, I think the problem is not in the definition of video games, but in what art is... it has become such a small, narrow view that reflects a sense of snobbery and elitism, than any sense of breaking beyond logical and rational boundaries to 'real truth' as perhaps zen would suggest is undescribeable in most senses by mere 'verbal' or 'meta-' descriptions, but something that has to be 'experiences' or 'perceived' ...I think art is meant to bridge that gap in some sense, between the mind and reality, the world of ideas and the world of senses, but if someone somehow makes this approachable, the common 'popular' or 'surface' opinion, if you will, of art, would have us believe that therefore such a thing does not meet the definition of art (ie it is approachable and 'normal' people can understand it or like it). To be a little more direct, I guess the definition is ass-backwards; good art is the most approachable, even though it speaks of deep and complex things. Ok art is either very approachable but speaks of very surface things, or is very deep and complex but not approachable at all; poor art speaks of surface things, poorly, and it entirely unapproachable by people. These are my own personal definitions, and I can see the last definition of art as being useful in teaching the 'medium of art', or the 'art of seeing art without being bothered with the other elements, so that you are proficient in interpretting things regardless of actual merit', but as an end to itself I think it loses relevance.
I'm going to copy this post to my journal and link to here, so you can delete this if you want; it wasn't my intention specifically to merely be aggravating, and it occurs to me that it's possible it will be seen this way.
Are you going to bring back your regular comic postings sometime? I have not right to dictate what you put in your journal (but I read it often because it is quite stimulating) but I really did enjoy those when you were making them. eheheh ^_^; rereading what I'm saying, it seems like what I'm saying is justing getting more potential annoyin/grating/ aggravating and eog-centric, so I think I will stop rambling now...
m_G