What I mean is, painting's status as an art form doesn't mean we have to think the guy painting a set background is an artist. But a guy doing a matte background for greenscreening could be.

You seem to agree that if creative vision is present, the work done towards realising it can constitute 'art', so we seem only to disagree about who does and doesn't have 'creative vision'.

(art ignorant thinking out loud)

In most tech fields, there is often more than a single good and acceptable way to do things and the choosing of methodology in those cases often boils down to some sort of creative intuition, typically mastered only with lots and lots of experience. I wonder if, like me, much of the "tech" people's thinking on their craft as possible art stems from this fact, where this creative aspect is seen as a parallel to the creative process of traditional art.

From some of the good posts here I now see a clear distinction based on the lack, in the given technical work, of any sort of "comment on the human condition" or other such message distinct from the purpose of the particular technical goal. In the case where such a message/comment *is* the goal, I could see that being considered "real" art. But in that case I would remove the work from the general technical category and, instead, see the tech merely as the artistic medium.

Yes I think that sums it up and it's good that we're at this point and not (like a lot of this thread) arguing over whether medium xyz is an art form or not, which is a cul de sac.

Now I guess we can argue about what we mean by 'creative vision' instead.

No, now we move on to more traditional and important topics like Vi or Emacs.

Nah, I'm good. Would hate to get excised from the excised thread.

The next step in this discussion is usually "are video games art?"

Not really, and it's always olds who aren't really up to date with the industry who say this.

<- Confirmed old who isn't up to date.

What am I missing out on? I don't mean that as a snarky retort. I'm genuinely curious what's out there. My assumption was that there are plenty of people trying, and some notable examples, but that more often than not games with a high level of artistic merit aren't very enjoyable as games.

Most of the triple-A stuff isn't really art, but The Last Of Us was art imo. Quirky little games where someone had a vision of a game and brought it to life are arguably art, stuff like Braid. There's even some art games for phones, Monument Valley for instance.

Most obvious are the Quantic Dream games, Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy, Heavy Rain, Beyond: Two Souls. I enjoyed Fahrenheit but was incredibly bored by Heavy Rain and quit it a little way in. Reviews for Beyond: Two Souls were lukewarm so I didn't bother. The games aren't for everyone, but they are definitely art and have their following.

ban for inciting violence

If anyone feels like posting a nice picture of their pet I am playing around with some style algorithms and will rattle off a couple renditions. Though I can only promise they will be crafty and not artsy.

I think that was taken for granted.

I think some of the emergent video slots raise to the status of art as well. My favorites are the Beverley Hillbillies, Wheel of Fortune and Cash ****ters.

Sure....I just think its easier to convince people that math is art an programming (can be) dual to math.

This proof itself is a good example of math as art imo. And in general a subject like topology is pretty easy to see as art. So many of these theorems were just discovered because somebody thought it would lead to an aesthetically pleasing result.

OK. I'll take one Sabo styled please.

X-Posted from my dog's blog. Check it out. That Sabo... he's a good guy !!!1!.

PM Sent MissileDog.

Not Art.

Duh?

Not for the reason that you think.

Has this thread defined what "art" is definitively yet?

No, but everyone seems quite sure of what art is not!

Art: item produced by an artist.