Next Generation magazine returning.

[Joust Williams]

But you just said "All I'm saying is art has to say something. Anything"

So what is the other condition?

[rezo]

What did Pollock's paintings(pick your favorite) say about the human condition that was so important?What is this piece saying?

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.

Most commentary in paintings aren't particularly deep either. And even in the instances where they are, that probably isn't the reason why they're appreciated. Revealing something about color, lines, or form is more important in painting that some brand of social commentary. You'll find much better commentary on the human condition in philosophical essays and psychological or sociological studies than you will in some guys painting of a white diamond on a white canvas.

[sethsez]

But you just said "All I'm saying is art has to say something. Anything"

So what is the other condition?

Whatever happens to work at that point in the conversation, duh.

[Master of 7s]

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

Interesting discussion, tho.

You just COMPLETELY contradicted yourself. Make up your damn mind.

And answer me this. What the hell does a bunch of melting clocks say about the human condition other than the fact that Dali was royally fucked up from eating his own feces?

[The_Meach]

You just COMPLETELY contradicted yourself. Make up your damn mind.

And answer me this. What the hell does a bunch of melting clocks say about the human condition other than the fact that Dali was royally fucked up from eating his own feces?

I've contradicted myself? Can anyone here tell me what the difference is between a SUFFICIENT condition and a NECESSARY condition?

If you want to reduce the work of Dali to "a bunch of melting clocks," well, be my guest.

[sethsez]

I've contradicted myself?

From what I can see. But at this point I'm having trouble figuring out what your definition of art is beyond the vague requirement (at least I think it's a requirement) that it says something about something somehow.

Can anyone here tell me what the difference is between a SUFFICIENT condition and a NECESSARY condition?

Maybe nobody here is understanding your point because you're doing a bad job of communicating it. Your definition appears to change from post to post.

[The_Meach]

I think I've made it abundantly clear that 'saying something' ALONE is not enough for something to be considered art (this is why a lecture/sermon is not art).

If something is sufficient, it is enough. If something is necessary, it has to be there but is not enough on its own. Make sense?

Maybe nobody here is understanding your point because you're doing a bad job of communicating it. Your definition appears to change from post to post.

Please, show me where I've contradicted myself, so I can fix that. I think you guys don't understand what the differences are b/w sufficiency/necessary and THAT is where this is getting lost in translation.

[sethsez]

I think I've made it abundantly clear that 'saying something' ALONE is not enough for something to be considered art (this is why a lecture/sermon is not art).

So (and this has been asked before) what else is required?

[The_Meach]

So (and this has been asked before) what else is required?

If (part) of what makes something art is whether society accepts it as art, videogames are emphatically NOT art.

I think reasonable people can agree that art comments on the human condition AND is accepted as art by society.

I'm curious who, of those who have 'devoted lifetimes to this very discussion', would argue that art is NOT defined by commenting on the human condition and that art is NOT defined by society.

I say (artistic) intent, purpose (the purpose of the work is to say something) and consensus (society agrees it is art) are NECESSARY (or at least should be considered)

Fair enough?

[sethsez]

And considering much of what we consider art was NOT considered art in its day, I still stand by the idea that social acceptance has nothing to do with it.