Great episode as always, gents.
I don't think James knows what his own definition of "art" is. Having said that, as an artist myself, I've come to my own definition over the years. It is a modified form of Scott McCloud's excellent, though overbroad, definition in his seminal "Understanding Comics." To him, art is anything that requires creative thought. At first, this sounds like an odd definition--he essentially states that art is anything that is NOT related to reproduction or survival.
As a naturalist, I wholly disagree that the three categories can be segregated from each-other. Creative thought is often but into trying to reproduce, or to make money for one's survival.
No, I rather prefer to think that "art" is anything that requires creative thought beyond practical means. Let's say you make clay pots for a living. Clay pots require some creative thought, some problem-solving, and improvement in design over time. But their purpose is entirely practical. You carry things in pots. However, let's say that you start carving symbols into the pots. Maybe you charge a little more per pot. However, they are still used primarily for carrying things. Well, one day you carve very intricate designs into a clay pot, then put it aside. It is distinctly NOT used for carrying things. Its value is too great--what if the pot breaks? All the work you put into it will be lost. Because of the added effort, that pot has more value, and that value is emotionally determined.
So, under this definition, all video games are art by their very existance. Creative thought went into even the worst games. They are, in themselves, entirely IMpractical. The same goes for literature, film, and television. Quality does not equal art. It is the process of creating something inherently creative--not practical--that warrants the term "art."
James is advocating a sort of rubrik that can never be realized. Author's (or creator's) intent is NEVER apparant unless you have the creator right there, and you ask what their intent was regarding whatever it is they created. Often, you'll find that creators have multiple intentions or, more rarely, they cannot pinpoint what their intention was. What is great art comes from drug-induced euphoric states, as sometimes happens? The next day, the artist might not even remember making the piece of art, much less what the intention was.
Let's look at it another way. I am a paleoartist. In order to achieve was I consider a successful product, I actually try to remove all creative licensing from my pictures. If I can't get ahold of valid, first-tier references for, say, Dimorphodon macronyx, I probably won't restore it. The knowledge has to be there first, and if some crucial aspect of the anatomy is unknown (like the skull of Masiakosaurus), I will not restore it. Is my work "art?" No, not especially. It's informative, and the purpose is to educate. My paleoart may require a creative mind, but the end result is not art. I am drawing practical representations of extinct animals. Were I to stylize my dinosaurs for the hell of it, that would be art. But a Tyrannosaurus rex based on skeletal references and studies of its integument and A&P is not art--it's informative.
Topic: Radio Free Nintendo: Episode 180 (Read 15656 times)
