> Can we really label Computer Generated pictures/worlds/whatever, true
> "Art"? Is it Fine Art? Its very easy to duplicate, try painting Van Goghs
> "Three Musicians" Again, it wont be easy. :>
>
> We need to be careful in how we label Art. Just because someone
> splashes paint on the wall does not necessarily make it expressive art. Whom-
> ever throws that paint must understand the theories and thoughts that went
> into that genre of painting.
>
> So too must the programmer/graphics person understand the concepts
> of "Art". A Game as Art? Maybe as a pop art, maybe if it reflects our
> culture and ways to repair the damage we have inflicted..
>
Defining Art (with the capital A and all)... a nice game indeed.
Back when land art had it's glory (soil piled in galleries) and
un-entertaining performances were Happenings, we all tried to define Art.
We tried looking at it, looking at WHo dunnits and finally we sat and
sighed. Art is what is considered as such. Fine, the old man said. Who
decides. The medium does replied the young 1979 wolf, art-yuppy to be. And
the medium is the Gallery, the museum. Movie theatres now, and festivals
too. The day that we'll accept an interface as an art medium, will accept
what we "see" with it as Art.
Mart!n
PS: Excuse the langage, me is french spikin
PPS: The definition of Art is important to those that rely on
institutionned art but those are the same that don't accept the
institution as a definition. :)