Indeed, and they all express emotion that the artist felt. The artist has to have experienced the emotion when creating the artwork in order for us to recieve that emotion in good art. For example, Da Vinci may have tried to feel the emotion of the last supper, and thus painted the emotion as he felt it. If he were to paint it without emotion, I would say that it is not a good work of art.

---------- Post added 03-26-2010 at 12:49 PM ----------

Essentially, just because it is commissioned does not always mean the artwork is devoid of emotion

I think many artists, even some great ones, if candid with us, would admit they don't feel much when creating, at least some of the time. I think of session musicians, for instance. To some it's mostly technical.

In that instance it would not be good art, but rather the technical means of stirring emotion, much the same way as videogames. It would not be good art in the sense of conveying their emotion, but rather good craftsmanship, similar to the emotions experienced when looking at something naturally beautiful.

Is there a difference between good crafstmanship and good art that isn't arbitrarily applied to the medium. I have seen furniture makers at work. That is good art. What seems to be happening here is a predjudice against the medium not commentary of the artistry expressed in that medium.

I like your notion of craftsmanship, and think there is truth to it. So good art links the feelings of the creator to the feelings of the consumer (for lack of a better word)? In other words, it's about connecting emotionally?

yep, it's about emotional connection between artist and consumer.

In respoonse to GoshisDead, I would only say that if the furniture the furniture maker produces conveys an emotion that he feels, then it is art. If it does not, then it is not art, regardless of medium.

Then by that means the video game design team if it portrays their emotions through the video game it must be art.

That is in sorts true, but it depends if the player connects with the character or transposes their own emotions into the videogame. Hence a videogame would be good art if the person connects with the character. However, the videogame would not be art singular, but because various emotions would be expressed throughout the game, it would therefore be multiple pieces of art.

---------- Post added 03-26-2010 at 01:47 PM ----------

I concede now that my first reply to this thread was far too brash in rejecting it as single art, but adapted I sort of adapted it in my third reply

I have the feeling that people are limiting this discussion to the visual aethetics of the video game. Most enjoyable videogames have a real time narrative much like good literature, or good cinema. Granted the plots themselves are somewhat limited because of the first person interaction with the environments created, but yet they are real immersive, emotional narratives. One might indeed argue that it approaches the ultimate in high art. And interactive cinematic drama complete with visual, musical, and narrative art media combined with a first person interaction experience that more easily facilitates the tranference of emotion from the designer/artist to the consumer.

I think you're right - it's the whole package.

What would a philosophy video game be like? What would have to go into the making of it? Would there be a market for such a thing?

It would probably start with the question. Do you exist yes or no? You pick and answer and then a game over screen with the whaaa whaaa whaaa 8 bit character dies noise.

I have actually contemplated creating a postmodern third-person-shooter game where the main antagonist (that's right, you are a bad guy) holds an inverted bright plastic yellow gun that shoots cubical fireballs at mimes portraying venomous squirrels. The antagonist regains health through the proper appreciation of institutions of power, and gains ammunition by obtaining copies of Hegel's Phenomenology. The game is over once the mimes begin to portray themselves.

In any event, I take issue to the question of "What is art?" "Is there an aesthetic principle in this?" as this is a matter of cultural variations.

Almost any activity to which one devotes a considerable amount of time and effort inevitably portrays some kind of aesthetic principle to its participants. Even if that principle is absurd, cruel, irrational, primitive blah blah blah it is still an aesthetic principle, the person begins to enjoy it, or perhaps begins to hate it, or enjoys to begin hating it etc. - this is because of the aesthetic sense gained.

Thus discussing something qua art essentially discusses the affinity people have with the object; whether such interests manifest themselves in forms of institutions is yet a different story; while an institution of an art creates in itself a new aesthetic principle of power, it is not the same as its origin e.g. the actual art. An institution of art is rather a support, a kind of grounding with the popular discourse, it reflects a kind of vitality and co dependence on other popular institutions, it is no more an explicit art for the sake of art, but rather art for the sake of culture, and culture for the sake of art.

A work of classic art in itself has this special status of being embedded into the institution of Art in itself, it is no longer a reflection of something else, but rather its own essence of discourse, it does not branch nor fringe, but rather commemorates its own existence qua Art. While perhaps at one point it was intended to represent a reflection of some sort, it now reflects upon itself and loses all relevance of aesthetic and controversy, it is its very own artifact, its own principle, and its own Art. Certainly its beauty is still there, its aesthetic principle, in itself has not been lost, but nevertheless it is in itself more of a status than anything else; it resonates Art, it resonates the Classic, it resonates Culture; it is an icon rather than a portrait, a postcard rather than a statue, and a soundbite rather than a composition.

Wow. I had no idea such a thing was possible. :cool: