Next Generation magazine returning.

[Changeling]

Human condition = what it means to be human. Hungry Hungry Hippos has *nothing* to say about what it means to be a person living in the world. Jackson Pollock's work does. This is partially due to purpose. HHP (or Monopoly or Tetris or Sonic) has no artistic motive. It's not trying to say anything about what it means to be human. It's just there to occupy your time. It's a diversion.

Jackson Pollock was untalented and lucky. So was alot of contemporary artists. Pollock is the worst example I could ever think of for this arguement.

[Clash!]

Next Generation was a great magazine, glad they are back in some way.

[The_Meach]

All of the above are currently hanging in fine art galleries, none have humanity as their subject matter, or even make any sort of overt statement.

I'm not saying art has to have a person as the subject.

All I'm saying is art has to say something. Anything. Can someone give me an example of a world-renowned piece of art that doesn't say anything at all about what it means to be human (or be a human living in a natural, even absurd, world)?

[Joust Williams]

That picture you linked to with the guy standing in front of it

[sethsez]

All I'm saying is art has to say something. Anything. Can someone give me an example of a world-renowned piece of art that doesn't say anything at all about what it means to be human (or be a human living in a natural, even absurd, world)?

Then plenty of games say something. Anything. They're not particularly deep, but many of them do have some sort of point, moral, slice of life, whatever.

It's like you make up a definition that should include games, but then you say it doesn't just because.

Oh, and plenty of art is made purely for the aesthetics of the art. Art for art's sake, in other words. A perfection of the form rather than an attempt to convey any "meaning" whatsoever. It's still considered perfectly legitimate by many people (and considered crap by many others, because as I'd hope would become clear by now, there is not a consensus on what art actually is).

Methinks you're trying to define "fine art" (from your "world renowned" bit) which is a rather different concept.

[Brisco Bold]

Back to what we were originally talking about:

Does anyone have a copy of that Kelly Flock article?

[StriderKyo]

I'm not saying art has to have a person as the subject.

All I'm saying is art has to say something. Anything. Can someone give me an example of a world-renowned piece of art that doesn't say anything at all about what it means to be human (or be a human living in a natural, even absurd, world)?

Okay, sure, but videogames say things too, even if it's "Angry? Hate terrorists or nameless Russian security guards? This army dude looks awesome and could totally kill you, don't you want to pretend to be him for an hour and a half? It's empowering!"

Or maybe something about the state of warfare in the modern world.



And if a visual or aural experience designed to ellicit an emotional response can be art, why not a kinesthetic one?

Surely, this will be a topic for a future issue of Next Generation Magazine.

[sethsez]

Surely, this will be a topic for a future issue of Next Generation Magazine.

Yeah, this seems like it's right on topic for a NextGen thread anyway.

[Hardknock]

Man, I LOVED this magazine growing up. I used to collect them. They always had great interviews and editorials. Plus they always had the scoop on something. I wish I could find out what happened to those mags I had, probably long gone now...

[The_Meach]

Then plenty of games say something. Anything. They're not particularly deep, but many of them do have some sort of point, moral, slice of life, whatever.

It's like you make up a definition that should include games, but then you say it doesn't just because.

For the last time, 'saying something' is not a sufficient condition for something to be considered art.

Interesting discussion, tho.