Caring about what is and is not "art" is reactionary defense of the elite. My mind will not be changed
they will steal and plunder your artifacts to hang in their living rooms while saying your culture and people bring nothing of value. They will commission and display our naked bodies while destroying any rights we have associated with then.
there's proletarian utility to demarcation and even if you don't want to philosophize about it we'd start clustering around some consensus positions
explain marxist definitions f art that isn't yu just pulling more shit out of your ass
Who knows, who cares. First you have to define what art is, which you will never come up with a definition that carries widespread agreement and that also isn't gatekeeping what is "creative enough." It's a completely unproductive conversation on the same level of "what constitutes a sandwich." Is a ravioli a sandwich? Is a hot dog a sandwich? Is the Earth a sandwich? Who knows, who cares. It doesn't fucking matter. It's the same conversation except "art" "matters" and "what is a sandwich" doesn't. The only reason art "matters" is because rich people say it does.
I'm not going to get out here and gatekeep what is "creative enough" to be considered "art" and neither should anyone else. There are better things to do than help wealthy capitalists gatekeep "art"
"Art is what an artisan does". There is nothing obscure about what art is, and to pretend otherwise is to yield the definition of "artisan" to capitalists. It has nothing to do with "creativity" and everything to do with labor. A CNC machine can't produce art, but a machinist can certainly use one to create a new configuration of material that has never occurred previously. An LLM can't produce art, but a person using one can apply their narrative and aesthetic sensibilities in the use of the tool to create something. Likewise a paintbrush, a text editor, a recording device, etc. "High art" is the mystification of the creative impulse we should combat. We should not petulantly refuse to engage with the topic at all while suggesting that "art" as a concept cannot be defined materially.
By itself, no. When appropriated by a human, yes. It'd be like how people appropriate landscapes, ambient sounds, resampled art, etc. in their own work sometimes. (note: this is not a claim on whether using generated shit is actually good or useful to society or to art creation because a lot of the ai-art conversation assumes autuer theory and people as lonely individuals who wish to control or own the entire art process and can't imagine or afford to collaborate with another human).
Art is about the transmission of meaning (symbols, thoughts, feelings, etc.) from at least one person to another. This definition is rigid in actually defining the function of art, but not in what physical objects or acts in this world are art, which is the opposite of what non-marxist normies on the internet and in this thread want where they just want a taxonomy chart of what established things are art rather than analyzing the social relation/function of it.
I'm torn on ai art because on the one hand it's just plagiarizing works done by other people, but on the other hand it does give people an outlet to express themselves in their own way, but on the other hand, it's usually just slop, but SOMETIMES it can be nice and cool to look at (at least to me I impress easily).
Much like how Fascism co-opts leftist aesthetics and is the "Socialism of fools" for offering shortcuts and easy answers and a simulacra of a solution to people's problems while ultimately giving them nothing, AI art is the same for art, though obviously I'm being a bit hyperbolic here, I'm not trying to give a moral comparison of the two, or claim that anyone who likes AI art is a fascist, more just in how they affect people personally.
It is the art equivalent of false consciousness, because it is missing a major component of art creation: struggle and self-improvement.
Making mistakes and learning from them is a vital part of learning anything, and when it comes to creative mediums (not just physical art, but writing, music, anything really) it deprives people of that ability. It prevents the people from using it from ever actually improving their skills, leaving them perpetually stunted. If you've ever learned an instrument, you probably know that sort of feeling of getting better at something and feeling good, not because "you can play the guitar" but because you worked hard to learn how to play the guitar. You can't get that from an AI music generator, you can get a quick little tic-tac of dopamine from pressing the "make a thing" button, but it is a poor substitute for actual self improvement and self-expression.
It feels like self expression, but it isn't, it's a shortcut to the final dopamine hit part of self-expression, minus all the friction and effort that comes with actually expressing yourself. And since it is just a short dopamine hit that is easy to get, it ends up addicting and can make actual self-expression feel distasteful, as you need to spend a lot more time and effort to get the same happy brain chemicals.
Expressing yourself requires a willingness to share "yourself" with others and self-discovery. You aren't doing either with AI generated content, it's just a pretty picture that got made after you pressed the pretty picture button. That's not to say that a person can't use AI art as self-expression, but they would need to make it transformative and personal in some way, taking the picture and modifying it themselves, like people do with a collage or remix. Building off of it instead of just using it as is. As is it separates the actual creative process from the prompter, it is a shortcut to feeling the sensation of having "created" something, without the actually struggle of creating something.
I know if you aren't skilled at drawing and you take out pen and paper and draw something it won't look nearly as "good" as AI art, but that is part of the problem, we live in a society that commodifies art, that treats it not as a form of self-expression, but as something we assign value to based on aesthetic, not always monetary value, often social value, so people gravitate towards the thing that lets them skip the actual "self-expression" part and try to jump straight to the "social capital" part. I think this is why almost all people who create AI art do so as a "get rich quick" kind of thing, they see no value in art, no value in self-expression, and only want the reward that comes with being skilled at something without putting the effort in.
Uhh...to try and tie this ramble back to video games; AI art is kind of like if a video game took all the "hard parts" out, removed all the friction. Instead of a tough boss or platforming challenge that you really struggle with and have to learn and improve to beat, it just lets you jump straight to the end of the level as if you beat it, with no actual friction with the game or personal struggle to overcome a challenge. A game that does that probably wouldn't be very mechanically satisfying, because it would deprive you of the core part of "playing" a game. I'm asking you to imagine a game where it shows a platforming challenge and then just warps you to the end of it, or a mean looking boss and then just cuts to the boss being defeated. Maybe it would be kind of funny at first, but the actual "game" part would be non-existent and leave no impact. It wouldn't feel satisfying to complete the game, since you didn't really do anything.
Sorry for the wall of text, I meant to just do a short quick reply and then had a lot more to say on the matter than I thought.
Nah. I don't care to be philosophical about everything. If someone admits to me they're using AI for art. I'm ending the conversation. It's absolute kook shit.
Gamers yearn for validation so much that some dude with a tiniest bit of authority blurted out a shit argument about what is art 20 years ago and gamers still argue with his ghost
"Is X art" is usually a question that ends in elitist bullshit that reinforces "true" art as solely the realm of the finicial elite. The only "true" art disciplines also happen to be ones which require the artist to have an independent source of income or risk destitution. "A gentleman never works". Meanwhile any art that serves a practical function, that is easily with in the reach of the lower classes, is shunned. You don't find many nepo trust fund babies doing wedding photography or sculpting miniatures or drawing weird porn (An extreme example, but the truth is that furry commission you just finished will probably bring the owner more actionable joy than anything they will ever see in a gallery).
This goes beyond the commiditification of art, although it is exacerbated by it, this is about practicality. Demystified art, that is still tied to its use value and serves a function, is a threat to the idea that art is somehow elevated beyond the realm of mere trade and is instead a mystic priesthood caste.
Trade artists are treated as lepers both by the backstabbing art grant gladiators fighting over the coins the government tosses into their gutter and by the "serious" working world. This is why we see industries like game development chew these people up and spit them out.
drawing weird porn (An extreme example, but the truth is that furry commission you just finished will probably bring the owner more actionable joy than anything they will ever see in a gallery).
This is the main reason I would rather do this than work as a "fine artist" for rich snobs. I'd like to not worry about bills and rent, so unfortunately that comes first above everything else, obviously, but I'd rather make art that people enjoy, even if they have "unconventional" tastes, rather than art that is just used by the rich as a tax write off or to assist in huffing their own farts.
What shocked me when I started doing adult art as a side gig was just how gratious people were. People were so happy to have their needs met that they would go out of their way to tell me how much it meant to them. In all my years as an artist I dont think I've ever had anyone, never mind multiple people, tell me that something I made had quantifiably improved their lives. It kind of shifted my whole view on the function of art.
Yeah, it's my favourite part of the job, I've never felt like I've actually provided something valuable for people before I started drawing adult art. Every job I had before that it always felt like the public only ever saw me as a "food dispenser" (I used to be a chef) and had 0 respect for the people who made their lunch every day. I was little more than a vending machine to them. I know that feeling isn't surprising to literally anyone here, but it is actually incredible how much my life has improved since I started working doing something I enjoy that people appreciate. Capitalism is a fuck and I hate how wretched a commodity the working class has become.
Meanwhile any art that serves a practical function, that is easily with in the reach of the lower classes, is shunned.
Used to be pretty common that well of ladies would do crafts like wood carving, embroidery and stuff like that to keep their hands busy even when they had housekeepers to do the brunt of the domestic labor.
At least that's what my grandma told me but she has an impressive collection of antique craft magazines to back it up.
This is my favorite take in the thread, i declare anything else as counterrevolutionary.
My point is that engaging in the arguement of "What is art" regardless of your actual position lends it legitmacy. In my opinion, the only correct answer to "What is art" is to say "who cares" (if you are feeling polite). Its an inherently idealist arguement that obfuscates the material reality of artists and their works.
Oh boy.
Now imagine playing a version of a video game without the art assets, where you just interact with the raw rules, the raw systems, the raw spaces. You only see the grayboxes of levels, rather than the final meshes. Imagine how that is artistic in its own way. Maybe it’s not as appealing overall, and maybe it suffers a bit for not giving as clear or understandable feedback (visual design and sound design impact the game design too!), but try thinking about how this too is a type of art.
Video Games are containers for art, but at the end of the day they tend to be a commodity.
lol this great man theory liberal thinks one person made the rules to soccer.
i don't fuck with the maximalist position, if hopscotch is art then the category "art" is completely useless
When he moved to Britain, the Crown forced him to change his name to John Football, thus instigating a hundred years of controversy
to be honest i agree with the article where the vast majority of the discourse was driven by gamers seeking validation by attaching their hobby to the prestigious title of "art". i remember people were going buckwild for anything that might indicate games have a positive effect. they improve your reaction time your socal skills your problem solving etc etc. on one hand yes it's juvenile but on the other hand games were still treated as for kids essentially, and by extension gamers were treated as juveniles so why would anyone be shocked that the reaction to it was also juvenile?
also some of the arguments don't make sense to me. im not an art philosopher so i particularly don't care about this stuff but if everything is either art or can be art, i don't see how that is a useful label at all.
Yeah tbh, like i was a child at the time all this went down and i was just using any and all arguments to justify why i should have more time playing with my toys like all kids have since the beginning of time. It's weird and kind of offputting to think about the grown adults that were ig 'on my side' getting so mad that a lifelong art critic didn't think much of their hobby.
Games are art. Not even just in the everything is art way but in that way too.
Maybe it's possible to make games that aren't art too but many are art.
too long have we asked "what is art" and have not engaged in our own systems of critical thinking in regards to the art we interact with. To be a critic in the sense that you will define what something means to you, and why something does or doesnt resonate. To view a piece critically, not just accepting it "as is" but also questioning the system in which it was created and what led or informed it's creation. Being a critic is an art in an of itself, your critique of art could resonate with other people, and bolster their own theories of art.
- Show
(I hope this doesn't come across as mean spirited. I think your comment is pretty good. But I also needed to get this out of my system)
Not every game is art, the same way not every movie is art, and the difference usually comes down to bourgeoisie elitism.
One of my favorite films An Elephant Sitting Still. There are few people that would argue that movie is not art. But sometimes I want to watch Crank 2: High Voltage in 3d. Who fucking cares
What's funny is I think that often my ideas about this mostly come down to "how much do I want to deal with arguing with pedantic angry nerds who have tied their identity to corporate slop"
In the online discourse it seems to be two camps. There are the people who reflexively appeal to authority and intimate towards some institutional or academic notion of art. Then there are people who skip to the end by saying everything is art and view you as problematic if you try to specify it at all. It's obvious that the idea of art is heavily poisoned by centuries of being defined by those who could afford it. Also the chauvinism that art is made by only Western cultures. People want to push back by opening up the realm of art to cover all the neglected categories, genres, techniques, and mediums. But I find it specious to say everything is art based on it's existing lack of exclusivity. Maybe "art" is just a limited concept for what we're trying to describe. Luckily there is a third way!
I'm a huge believer in craft vs art. It seems that craft is what most people like more than art anyways. Craft is more Marxist than art because it focuses on actually making a thing rather than how it exists in the mind or heart. I'm not saying the two don't coexist in pieces that we all agree are art, but craft is my favorite child and the more noble pursuit. Also no big coincidence that you see a huge push in craft in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Also, also art academia pushed indigenous and non-Western art under this category, hmmmmm.
Games undeniably have craft and I think that's what most people mostly respond to that. When I see arguments like this blog saying "rules are art" without really expanding on that, I just assume she means rules are art because it's a crafted experience. That's the key word, craft, showing up to give us a clue. When people are saying games are art they really mean they enjoy the craftsmanship of certain games and want to celebrate it by elevating them to art. Crafts are just fine and we should instead work to elevate craft.
Corporations more often operate in the space of art because it's easier to tamper with concepts, reactions, and ideas of art than it is to fool someone on the material craft of the product. These companies have advertising, marketing, PR, and run influence campaigns. That's why these entities are completely on board with calling games art and stressing that in the media. Once everyone accepts games are art then it's only a matter of using the media you own to declare your products art and give yourself awards. Now you have a new marketing claim against your competitors.
It's much harder to operate in a space where craft is important. Craft demonstrably declines over time as companies cut costs and squeeze labor in favor of profits. Just as a heuristic, it provides a much better space for the game consumer. Even if a billion dollar company creates a well crafted game, that's okay. If every game company did that then gamers wouldn't dwell on this art question so much.
(I did read the article)
I 99% agree but the craft / art distinction is a bourgeois construct that will be abolished at some point
First thing you learn in art philosophy class is that this distinction didn't exist until the bourgeoisie became the de facto most powerful class, and the next thing you learn is how bourgeois philosophers are unable to distinguish the two lol
Also when there's messaging it's just art/craft used as a vessel for discourse, doesn't justify a whole new category of things
Yeah but you understand that I'm not using the distinction in the way that Renaissance bourgeois used it. More so the Arts and Crafts movement way. We have to treat it like a real distinction, regardless of origins, because it's now economic reality. The artisans were laid off, fired, and couldn't find work. At that point it's not just a philosophical construct. The same thing is still happening with game devs.
Some video games are not art. We didn't possess the language to understand this till we had to explain how some video games are just gambling with extra steps. Other video games are art that sucks. Which makes it hard to analyze. Some are sports, which can produce art in the playing but is not itself sufficent to be called art.
Gamers being generally terrible will not be able to verbalize their emotions on thrbmatter unfortunately
there's a lot of things we call "games" that kinda aren't games either, but we've gone full circle and "game" became the prestigious signifier in some places so you get people trying to go "not a game" (derogatory) and then you have people defending that as "yes a game" (supportive) when not giving ground to reactionaries is more important than the more correct "not a game" (positive) where we validate and uphold interactive multimedia projects that don't have rules or objectives or score on their own merits.
Kinetic Novels, 3D scans of museums, simulations, etc all have their own merits and don't need to be "Games" to be valid, just as games in some gestalt whole don't need to be "Art" to be valid.
We didn't possess the language to understand this till we had to explain how some video games are just gambling with extra steps.
According to the article, gambling or sports are also art. People who argue from a more narrow definition of art can only claim that some games include art, but cannot make the case that the games in themselves are artistic.
Maybe he was a big fan of Perfume.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCxCPraMOpQI found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Thanks for reminding me that I survived that shit stain on history that was 2009 to 2014. Seeing this pop up everyday on Reddit as well as the astroturfed support for every colour revolution going including Kony 2012.
