pouët.net

4mat : Like this ? link me beautiful

Rez, thumb up.

last time checked, demos were art.

Yes.

That looks like the NIVEA logo. Must be good for your skin that chocolate.

Next question?

Are intros art?

Last time I checked, they were. ;)

are crack-intros art?
are cracks art?
is using crack art?

some art isn't even art

Subjective.
One man/woman's shit another man/woman's art.

cg_, whether something is shit or not has nothing to do with if something is art or not. people often make the mistake of thinking that if they don't like something then 'it's not art'. but that's just false.

if video games are art in the first place, then pretty clearly demos are art too..

"Everyone is an artist.” --Joseph Beuys

It could be possible to make sculptures, or paintings, made of excrement.
So it would be both art and shit.

Q.E.D.

[quote]are crack-intros art?
are cracks art?
is using crack art?[quote]

SURE!

"teh ancient art of cracktro"

bbcode fail is probably art too.

Funny you should talk about video games.
Sure, on the technical side, they share a lot with games. But considering the viewer experience and the way to embed feelings and ideas (which is what art is about, in the end) they are much closer to animation films than video games IMO.

Hey, surprisingly i had a very similar talk recently. There was someone musician who was permanently whining and bitching that some people didn't like his musics, and he ended up pissing me off so much that i had to tell him a few truths.

I ended up explaining that art is about transmitting an emotionnal message from one person to another. There are usually 3 points that make something "art":

* The artist: it's the one who is sensitive, listens to the emotions of his heart when he is working on the message.
* The message can be in any medium that one human produces and that others can experience. It means that the artist has to be someone who masterizes the technic to give a message in a particular medium, in the other case the original feelings and emotions can be altered.
* The observer is someone who can feel the original emotions and feelings that the artist meant to pass on. Observers are not always open to art. They can be selective and subjective.

I think everyone tries to get the first 2 points, usually the technic is pretty big to learn to make demos, but it's not the only point that one has to develop. When artists try to get the 3rd point it's what we call "crowd-pleasing" or "popular/mainstream art" maybe. ;)

There is the added difficulty for some art forms that the Artist is actually more an Art team, so there basicly is a "leader" who tries to communicate to others how the "message" should be. When people have too strong visions about how things should be it can generate conflicts.

my 2 cents :p

you are speaking about Kaneel?

you didn't have to say it maybe... *facepalm*

anyway yes, in that case we have someone who is master at a technique but who doesn't listen to the heart and doesn't want to please the crowd. so he doesn't transmit anything, kind of awkward. :/

"Art should never try to be popular. The public should try to make itself artistic".
Oscar Wilde in The Soul of Man Under Socialism (1895)

That explain why I'm still doing oldskool intro ;D

nosfe: well you have to be able to say what you think =) I went to some exhibitions recently where I could honestly say 'that stuff over there isn't art'. In my own subjective opinion of course - but when I'm stood in front of a painting and there is zero evidence of any knowledge of composition, or lighting, or rendering, or anatomy, when all there is, is a crude implementation of a half-assed idea, then that isn't art. It's just someone who wants to do art, but who hasn't really succeeded.

To me, anyway.

plaf, even badly done shitty pieces of art are art.

well I guess that's the topic of discussion :)