Art Games

[JP]

The 'context' definition isn't mine, but I haven't found anything that disproves it (yet) which is why it's the definition I'm most comfortable with.

The Museaum of Contemporary Art Detroit & Christopher Bissonnette had a bit of a play with this a few years back where they gave visitors what they called ArtArrows.

They asked them to stick them next to things they considered to be art, to take photos of them and the photos were then displayed together in the museum and the photos were changed as more were sent in.

There were trying to look into the questions of context. Is it art? Why is it art? When did it become art? What was it half a second before it became art?

They used to display the photos on their site but it seems to have been taken down now and the arrow is all I can find.

[Ish]

Brats - we were talking about context being a large part of art and in your example used Tracey Emin's unmade bed as an example of something becoming art because of its context - if you made tomato soup in art gallery would you consider that art?

I'm trying to get an understanding of what you understand art to be.

[noobish hat]

Been playing Photopia, but I accidentily pressed return after I asked Alley about the Queen, now I don't know what's going on!

[Brats]

Brats - we were talking about context being a large part of art and in your example used Tracey Emin's unmade bed as an example of something becoming art because of its context - if you made tomato soup in art gallery would you consider that art?

I'm trying to get an understanding of what you understand art to be.

I think an installation of me in an art gallery making soup could be art. I think context also requires enough people to either accept or debate it as art.

In another example, let's say you have a janitor's broom. It's in a cupboard, so it's not art. But an artist takes the broom and puts it in a gallery. Is it art? Well not if everyone ignores it because they think it's just a broom that someone has left there accidentally. But if Charles Saatchi comes along, buys the broom and sticks it on display in his house, then yes it's probably art.

What I'm trying to say is that context works both ways. However I don't think it's necessary for the public to accept something as art. The mere fact that a number of people query whether something is art or not gives it a context. I think many people on the street's idea of art is Rembrant or Picasso and the idea of My Bed being art is ridiculous. That doesn't make it not art though.

[Brats]

Just to add to this, I think in the 20th and 21st century we have really struggled with the concept of art. I think this is for two reasons:

One is because the Dadaist movement really destroyed the notion of art being about craft, which it was before. Even the impressionists which were hated at the time clearly have craft to their art. But taking a found object, giving it a title and sticking it in a gallery blew all of that out of the water. Which is why Fountain is called the most influential piece of art of the 20th Century. It's about intelectual interpretation, not the effort to create it.

But the second issue is that music, films and games have developed and these forms have no 'original' artwork. It's easy to differentiate between a phisical object that sits in a museum or gallery. It's more difficult to grasp the concept of a film shown in theatres around the world, which is why the art establishment often retreats to 'video installations' in galleries. They try to make unique physical objects out of infinitely repeatable, non-physical media, because it's much easier to put a video on display in the Tate and label that installation as art. It's much harder to look at the films at your local cinema and decide which ones are art or not. Is Schindler's List art? Is Star Wars? Is Derek Jarman's Blue? I don't know the answer. This is why art games need to call themselves art games. Without the label, no-one can make the differentiation.

One thing I do believe is that there are a lot of things that are not art. I know some definitions of art include everything and that's very nice and diplomatic, but I think you'd struggle to make the case for a Hannah Montana song. It's made with no expectations of being regarded as art and hardly anyone would ever consider or debate it as art. So I think it isn't.

[Matt]

Has anyone else given these a go then?

[Magnakai]

Surely anything's art if it's intended to be. You don't need to put any criteria on it. Whether it's good and meaningful and a worthwhile effort is another matter entirely.