艺术推动游戏诞生编辑本段回目录
第一部分：艺术认知所存在的问题
认识并理解艺术一词代表什么，或者至少理解它本身的含义一点都不难。只要人类和文化存在，那么艺术一词，或者其它语言中的“艺术”代名词也将一直在世界持续存在。不论你在地球的何处，这种基本的艺术形式也不会发生任何改变。
但是，我们仍需面对一些问题。
主要来源于我们在意识和理解这种艺术形式过程中借助的一些媒介：
行动（包括跳舞等）。
图片。
声音构成（不只有音乐才能被称为艺术，还有音效等）。
雕塑（不只是视觉感受，还需要触动心灵）-创作一些可看得见/感受得到/用得到（甚至是能穿上）的东西。
对象（几乎我们创造出来的所有可看的见的东西都是有价值的，不论是珠宝，衣服，家具还是建筑物等）。
富有创造性的食物，包括烹饪。
口语（歌曲或诗歌）以及一些其它的文学形式。
（不知道如何描写这一点，但是它们都是通过气味而被创造出来的，如香水等。）
显然，艺术的存在形式和创造形式将会影响我们的各种感觉，它们甚至会同时出现。
但是很显然，问题就在于这些用于表示艺术形式的方法只能体现出艺术应用中的一小部分内容。
换句话说，为了完全理解艺术一词本身的定义，我们可以通过它与其它语言间的关系进行描述，同时我们也需要将艺术一词的应用独立出来进行理解。
就像你所期待的那样，以及我们在开篇中看到的那样，理解艺术一词所存在的问题是因为我们并不能完全按照一个统一的方法看待艺术形式。现在你可能会说，我在这里所说出的几乎所有单词都存在统一的问题，大家会混淆单词定义的应用。
因为这一问题，很多人都在尝试着按照这些应用去定义艺术，我也曾经见过有人是通过观众的行为以及他们对艺术的感受来定义艺术。
就像我之前所说的，我们需要从这些应用中获得关于艺术的一些定义，即清楚这些应用与艺术之间的共同之处以及艺术一词本身代表的意思。
Arts(from digicoll.library.wisc)
一些字典和百科全书都在尝试着定义艺术，例如维基百科的描述：
“艺术是指一种产品或一些具有象征意义，并且可影响欣赏者的感官，情绪和思维的有组织形式。”
但是就像我之前所说的那样，在这里我们需要面对一个问题，事实上来说应该是两个问题，或者说是由语言内部相同或更深层次问题引起的一些“症状”。
意识到并理解艺术代表一种行为应用（即应用一些偶然的事物），这种应用行为是基于如何使用这个单词以及它在语言中的位置等。
所以，为了能够完全定义艺术并完全理解它的含义（包括艺术本身以及它与其它语言间的关系），我们需要找出并发现文字艺术所代表的应用是什么，行为是什么以及涉及了什么人等等。
与人们是怎么看待这一定位的方法类似，上述我们所提到的定义存在的问题便是，它是通过人们的感觉来定义一个人的行为。而事实上，感觉和情感都不等于行为，它们仅仅只是一种副效应，因此不能用于文字定义中。
艺术并不是由观众的行为或特性而定义的。是否我在一个特定的时间或者以一特定的方式看到或者听到的事物就能称之为艺术？如果我不再喜欢一件事物了，那它是否也不再称之为艺术？如果我愿意的话我可以这么定义艺术，但是我却不这么做。（就像我们所创造的任何一件物品或者信息自然都不能称之为一件艺术品，因为几乎没有人能够意识到它们的存在。）
影响我们的感觉自然只是行为应用的一个部分。所以这部分的定义是有意义的，但是如果这种感觉换成是观众的行为或者特性。那么又是怎样一种情况呢？
当一些人（基于他所使用的媒介）察觉到一个物体，一件事或者其他人的行为（如上述所描写）时，他们是否只是主观独断，基于自己所察觉到的一些特性（其他人的行为）而去单纯地定义这些文字？
如果我察觉到一些东西是按照一定特殊功能而产生（不管是有意还是无意），而不是依照其真正的行为或者特有的属性，那么这时候我个人的行为或特性是否要按照这一功能而去定义那些相关文字的使用呢？
意识到并理解文字的意义，如何用文字表现这些意义，基于这些意义如何更好地应用文字，如何利用这些知识帮助人类更好地了解整个世界等等，这些内容对于拓展这篇文章的主题都有很大的帮助。如果人类的感知和理解与他们所使用的语言存在着分歧，那么将可能引起一些难以想象的问题……
第二部分：认识艺术的解决方案
如果观众们不能定义艺术而仅仅只是按照自己的感觉或者他人的行为来使用它，那么这与通过使用来定义艺术存在着什么样的区别呢？
这种方法的最大影响力便是基于如此情况而帮助解决艺术本身所面对的最大问题：
使两个看起来毫不相干的文字趋于一致，更不用说那些原本就一样的东西了。
维基百科：
“传统意义上，艺术用于指任何技术或才能。这一概念在罗马时期发生了变化，那时候艺术被当成‘人脑中的一种特殊才能’，归纳于宗教和科学行列中。一般来说，艺术是由一些刺激性的想法和情感推动而成。”
照例，人们会因为不解文字的应用以及定义而不懂得如何掌握并使用这种艺术形式。
根据艺术一词的使用（包括在整个范围内的使用），我们将其定义为：
1.创造过程：（艺术性或者艺术）
2.一些富有创造力的事物影响或者想要影响人类的感觉：（包括艺术的形成，以及各种媒介）。
3.这些可被应用的创意所体现的性能或理论。
上述引自维基百科的任何一点都能够体现艺术一词的含义。
文字主要是以一种较为主观的方式呈现出来。如果基于其它东西或者概念（如艺术）去使用文字定义，那么这种定义将区别于其他的定义。换句话说，一些人创造了一件类似艺术品的东西，也不意味着我一定得用“艺术”一词来描述它。
的确，在地球上有许许多多这样的“艺术品”（即使我并不认可它们），但是它们的存在却不是什么坏事，因为正因为这些“艺术品”我们才能真正地使用语言。
但是因为艺术一词的应用让很多人感动困惑，而且文字的应用及其意义都显得较为主观，所以艺术的定义自然也是一种主观存在。
这时候的问题依然围绕着“如何才能让上述所提到的三种艺术一词的使用趋于一致？”
当然了，最重要的是要意识到并理解我们在第一部分所提到的，行为是指一切简单的应用，包括如何应用以及为何要这么做。
第三部分：艺术的定义
这样一来问题也就变得非常简单了：
如何结合第二，三部分的内容来描述这种行为？
显然，维基百科正在尝试着解决这一问题，但遗憾的是它更多的是解释艺术的应用而非“艺术”一词的定义。
所以我们应该如何解决这一问题？
这里我们必须清楚一些与该词故事相关的基本行为：
人们为自己做的事=书写自己的故事
人们为其他人做的事=讲故事
发生在其他人身上的事=他们所讲述的故事
以下是我们在描写这些行为（甚至是一些个别行为）时所面临的“共同”限制问题：
艺术不能被描写成“为别人”而做的事，因为这就带有目的性，与艺术的应用相违背。我们之所以会面对这一问题，是因为人们总是把艺术当成是一种发生在人们身上的事，虽然这并没有错，但是却与艺术应用所代表的行为相违背。艺术也不是人们为自己做的一些事，所以我们应该如何描写这种行为呢？
通过使用文字故事简化所有问题并让其趋于一致，能够帮助我们更好地描写这种行为，因为这时候目的已经不再是任何阻碍因素了。
因此艺术有可能会被描述为人们在讲故事。我们可以不带任何目的性，甚至未意识到这种行为而向其他人讲述一个故事（就像在玩扑克游戏或纸牌游戏）。重要的是，其他人能够因此察觉到我们所讲的故事。
在这里艺术一词所面临的主要问题便是因为人们不理解讲故事的人和听故事的人有何区别，但是显然的，这是两种不一样的行为，是由不同的人所进行的不同的事。
当然了，一个人能够同时扮演写故事和讲故事两种角色，但是却不能同时并以相同方式听到一个相同的故事。即兴演讲就是用于描述同时写故事并讲故事的情况，如果一个人在进行即兴演讲，那么他的这种行为也将引出“艺术”这一字眼。但是即兴演讲仅仅只是一种艺术类型，或者说是对于艺术本身的应用，写故事并不能代表艺术。
显然的，从艺术的使用来看，讲故事属于文字艺术的一种表示方法。
所以这时候我们还需要解决一些问题，即艺术能够表现何种行为的应用？这种行为与艺术一词的三大应用有何关联？
1.创造东西的过程
在涉及艺术的定义时（就像维基百科中所列出的那样），我们将面临一个主要的问题：即如何将创造过程（游戏邦注：即出于某种原因创造或制作一些东西）与讲故事结合在一起？
简单：我们所创造出来的故事都具有创造性。因此我们所创造出来的所有东西都可以被当成是艺术品（正是这样的创造过程）。
关于这种行为的艺术应用是我们创造性的一种表现，我们只是在创造性地讲故事而已。
但是，为何艺术一词不能用于描写我们所创造的任何东西呢？就像我们在讲故事一样。
这个问题也很简单。因为并非我们创造的所有东西都是以讲故事为目的，即使它是以这种形式表现出来的。我们所创造的很多东西都是用来实现一特定功能或目的，或者帮助其他人更好地创造他的故事，即讲故事的人通常不是创造这些东西的人（当然了这些东西的功能适用于任何人，包括创造者），而这些功能能够被定义，标记并感知。如果讲故事能够融入这一创造过程，这些东西也可以算是一种艺术品——但却只能算是一种额外标记或者主观应用（游戏邦注：即指那些不是用于描写或定义的东西）。
除了游戏，谜题（甚至是竞赛），家具，汽车，家用电子产品以及建筑物等都可以被当成是一种艺术品，还可以通过它们的功能和目的做定义。
这同样也意味着我们所创造的东西并不带目的性或者包含一定的创造性。在这里，创作和创造性并不相同。创作行为仅仅只是制作东西的一种行为，或者在没有人类干预的前提下发生的任何事。而创造性和创意则与艺术有关，包括了个人的想象。而这种区别是因为人类根据自己所下的定义去做理解，即他们自行判断什么东西足够具有创造性或者什么东西属于艺术品。在这里我们可以讨论什么样的东西属于艺术品而什么样的东西不是，而这也是为何我们可以在此畅所欲言的原因，但这并不是这篇文章的主题。但是现在看来，主要的问题在于，这些观点与所谓的客观定义并未达成一致，而且这些观点本身也存在着矛盾。
这就是为何其它艺术应用也应该包含讲故事这一行为的原因所在。
2.可影响或者想要影响人类感官的事物。
3.展示或传授这些作品的行为。
观点2仅仅只是在说艺术一词的应用与其定义（创造性的讲故事行为）相一致的关系。任何以讲故事为目而产生的东西——具有讲故事功能，或者被当成讲故事行为，都能够被定义为一种艺术品，或者可以使用艺术一词来表示这些东西。但是，如果把艺术代表一件事物，或将其当成这件事物的应用或定义，那么这对于很多人来说这也是一个困扰的难题。这就是为何这些应用总是先于艺术形式（用于讲故事的基本方法和媒介）出现，以及为何人们会因为艺术一词的不同应用而困惑的原因。
显然，在观点3里，展示和传授也包含了讲故事的行为。艺术一词的应用方法远不止我在这里所提到的这些。只要我们认为这种展示和传授行为具有创造性，或者带有一定的创意，那么它们便可以被当成艺术，或者一种艺术形式。
“技术和才能”可以用于描述不同的艺术创造过程，特别是当你使用了不同的媒介或者面对不同的目标之时。武术正是受到这种富有创造性的讲故事行为影响，并将其体现出来。
使用各种艺术的行为，如武术或者表演艺术（演戏/唱歌/跳舞等），虽然在表演过程中没有向观众直接倾述故事，不论这种行为是有意还是无意，都被认为是一种实践行为。
第三部分：艺术的应用，以及艺术与定义间的关系（小结）：
我认为最好让所有读者都能够清楚艺术一词与上述定义之间的关系，单独来说的话：
艺术=创造性的讲故事行为
1）基本的创造过程（创造东西的行为）一般来说就是一种艺术的表现。（我们所创造的所有东西，不论是看得见还是看不见，都在讲述着这样的一个过程）。但是它却甚少以这种形式出现，因为人们经常会把这一过程当成是使用一些概念的过程。但是这却是一个不容改变的事实。
2）以下将列出上文提到的艺术使用或定义的两大应用：
a）在观点1中明确指出的创造性过程所体现的两大艺术应用，可以说是艺术（创造东西/一定的创造过程）中的艺术。
b）感觉到这样一个过程（一些人在讲述并创造着一个具有创造性的故事），想要或者不想要成为这种应用行为（技巧性或创造性的体育表演就是个典例）都将会影响另外一种艺术应用，这时候艺术这一词便具有一些巧妙的特性。
3）利用媒介进一步使用这些创造过程，并讲述一些创造性的故事——即艺术形式，艺术或者表演艺术（武术就是这样一种存在，与其它应用相关联，就是观点2中的b以及观点5里表示的那样）。同时还包含那些被创造出来的且具有行为能力的东西。
4）观点3中关于创造过程应用的一个特殊例子，即不论它是否有意展现出艺术形态，或者只是被当成一种艺术品而已。拥有创造过程应用这一功能的东西或行为都可以被当成一种艺术品，否则将只是被感知成为一种艺术品而已。一些同时被创造并执行的行为（即兴表演）可以用观点2的b以及观点4加以解释。
在这些例子中我们所面对的其中一个问题便是（特别是在视觉形式下），它们只能称之为“艺术”，而不是一种创造过程。显然这并不能帮助我们更好地理解艺术与创造过程间的关系。
5）观点2的a和观点3，4中的传授行为也可以视为一种艺术，而因为传授本身就是一种讲故事行为，所以它也可以称之为一种艺术（只要它本身具有创造性）。
现在，艺术一词存在的主要问题是，我们总是未能完全认识并理解观点1，便想直接跳到观点2与观点3，4，显然这种做法一点都不可行。
第四部分：艺术和游戏
这两个词的定义因应用而被混淆，对许多人来看，根据它们的用途认识并理解这两者的关系，也是一个不小的问题。
艺术和游戏间的主要问题便在于，游戏既可以被当成一种艺术品（就像我们所创造的其它东西），也可以用各种不同的艺术形式呈现出来并推动游戏本身活动的发展。
但是就像我们在前面说到的，游戏如果并不属于我们所创造的东西，那么也不能被定义为艺术或者一种艺术形式了。游戏的功能并非讲述故事，所以它们与艺术的定义并不一致。游戏使用竞争和规则推动了故事的形成。游戏可运用的各种媒介已经被标识和定义，并作为一种艺术形式而存在（例如视频，音乐，照片或者雕塑等），它们是独立于游戏的艺术。游戏本身并非艺术的媒介，因为它们并不能影响艺术形式的存在。相反它们只能间接地作为一些真实媒介或目标的存在条件（例如桌游、扑克和电脑等），所以对电脑游戏来说，与艺术联系更为紧密的是电脑而非游戏。
因此，游戏本身并不具备任何艺术的意义或定义，它们只是利用现有的东西去推动着另外一种行为罢了。
游戏是由那些对其功能具有重要意义的书面故事而定义的。如此看来，书面故事的类型以及所使用的媒体都很重要。因为对于游戏来说，艺术只是一种媒介条件（游戏邦注：例如图片，动画，视频，雕塑或者音效，音乐等），它不能用于描述任何游戏类型。
下面我们来说说视频游戏。
视频游戏的术语与游戏一词在语言表达上就存在着差异性，视频一词所代表的艺术类型，仅仅是指媒介的使用条件。同理，图片也是许多游戏所使用媒介的一种艺术形式。
这些类型的游戏所使用的真实媒介，当然就是电脑（或者其他形式的媒介）。
设计和创造游戏行为是一种艺术，但是，这种行为所创造出来的产物，即这里说的游戏，却并不能定义为艺术，但却可能被主观地视为一种艺术。个体玩家可能会把游戏当成是一件艺术品，但是这却与我们通过物品的功能而定义的艺术品是不同性质的。也许我会把一辆车当成是一件艺术品，但是这却不能同时意味着所有车都是艺术品。
因为存在不一致性，所以把电子游戏等同于艺术也就是把橡木桌等同于木头一样，毫无根据。
不管怎样，游戏并不等同于艺术：相同类型的文字代表不同行为的应用，而如果是以特定的形式或面向不同的人群进行使用，那么这种应用行为将可被兼容。
虽然游戏可以利用艺术，而且创造游戏的过程也是一种艺术表现，但是这并不能意味着游戏本身就是一种艺术，就好像建筑，家具，家用电子产品等等。
当我们在玩游戏的时候不一定要使用到任何艺术，而在游戏创造过程中，这些艺术却能帮助推动游戏的诞生。当然了，在一些基本的游戏中，很多玩家会觉得这种创造性是微不足道的，但是这仍然是他们的一种主观看法。“我将和你比赛跑向那棵树”也许是一款游戏，但是也会有许多人认为这是一件艺术品也说不定呢。
不同人对游戏的认识，及其艺术性的看法也会有所不同，即使是同一个同在玩游戏，其对游戏及艺术的定义也未必一致，因为人们对游戏的认识和应用是来不同人的定义。
参与制作游戏行为的人应该知道的重要概念：
你所创造的东西也许是一种艺术品（或者只是你准备把它当成一种艺术品），但是这却不能推动游戏的诞生，这只是一种吸引玩家的行为。
对于玩家来说，电脑游戏就是一种艺术品。但是问题就在于，很多人仅仅只是凭借单纯的“交互性”而理解玩家对于这种艺术的使用，并因此认为这是推动游戏产生的因素。但是文字的交互性本身却不足以描述游戏一词所表现出的应用行为。谜题和竞赛能让人们接触艺术，更别说工作和纯粹的玩耍了，但是这种简单的想法以及所使用的语言都不足以描绘这种活动的本质属性。
游戏应该让玩家能够做一些事，如按照原有的框架（竞争环境内）自行创造一个故事（当然了，这种环境本身也可以被当成一件艺术品，如果可能的话）。
第五部分：艺术与其它行为应用的关系
因为艺术涵括了讲故事行为，所以，它自然也包含了叙述行为和其它相关文字行为。尽管叙述可以被描述成一种不带创造性的讲故事行为，仅仅作为一种真实存在的行为，但是艺术一词可以用来表示叙述过程中的所有应用行为。因为文字叙述和故事并非完全按照它们之间的关系体现出来，所以导致很多人混淆了它们的使用和应用行为。
游戏可能会包含艺术，但是也有可能只是包含叙述本身——为玩家呈现一个拥有情节的故事背景，这既可以代表游戏本身，也可以用来表示其他玩家。游戏中的基本书面故事本身并不是一种叙述行为，同时，相同的一个故事不能同时由一个人书写并陈述。正因为如此，游戏本身并不能称得上是艺术，虽然很多游戏个体先可能已被其创造者视为一种艺术品，或者被其他观察者主观地定义为艺术。
竞争和谜题也是不同的。原因很简单，它们都不是为了存在而存在的，简单地来说就是，它们的存在都是基于一些自然的行为，即玩家间或者实体间，甚至是宇宙本身的交互性。
竞争和谜题可以按照艺术一词所代表的意义形式呈现出来，它们可以被创造（描述这种创造行为），并落实这种行为应用。但是，与游戏领域相同的是，这些概念需根据其代表的应用行为，即功能而下定义——这与艺术一词的概念不同，即使它们能像游戏一样与艺术共存也不例外（游戏可通过艺术形式体现其存在）。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，作者：Darren Tomlyn）
Part 6: Art And Its Relationship With Games
by Darren Tomlyn
Part 1: Recognising The Problem With The Word Art
Recognising and understanding what the word art represents, at least in and for itself, should simply not be a problem at all. The word art, and/or its equivalents in other languages, has been used in a consistent manner for as long as our records and culture has existed, worldwide – the basic forms of art are consistent regardless of where you happen to travel on our planet.
And yet, we still have a problem.
The reason for this, is because of the focus on just forms of art, that are recognised and understood by the media used:
Acting (including dance etc.).
Pictures
*Organised sound* – (does not necessarily have to be considered ‘music’ to be considered art (sound effects etc.)).
*Sculpture* – (not just for sight, but also touch) – making something to look at/touch/use (or even wear) that is a tangible object – (nearly every tangible object we create would count under this, from jewellery to clothing to furniture, architecture etc.).
Creative food, including *cooking*
Spoken language (song/poetry) and additional literature.
(Not sure how to describe this one – but anything created specifically because of how they smell – such as perfumes etc.).
It should be obvious that forms of art exist and can be created to affect all of our senses – even simultaneously, in combination.
The problem, as should be fairly obvious and expected by now, is that as these media are used to represent forms of art – they merely form part of the application of what the word art itself must represent.
In other words, in order to fully understand what it is the word art represents in isolation, that can then be described in relation to the rest of the language, we again need to be able to separate the application from what it is that is being applied.
As you should expect, and as we have seen with the dictionary entry in the first part of my blog, the main reason the word art is causing problems, is because this is not being done in a fully consistent manner. As you can probably tell by now, this is the consistent problem found with nearly all the words I am looking at here, in my blog – people mistaking applications of words for their definitions.
Because of this problem, many people try and base their definitions of art upon these applications – I’ve seen people on this very site, again, who have tried to define art based on the audience’s behaviour or how it made them feel, for example.
But that is not how the English language functions.
So, as I said before, and as seen with the word game, we need to derive the definition of art from such applications – to see what it is they have in common and therefore what the word art itself represents.
Some dictionaries and encyclopaedias appear to have managed to do just that, such as Wikipedia:
“Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.”
But we have a problem with this, as I said before, or, in fact, two problems, or symptoms, caused by the same, deeper, problem within the language. This particular problem should now be familiar and understood:
Recognising and understanding that the word art represents an application of behaviour – (an application of things that happen) – based on how the word is used and its place within the language.
Again, in order to fully define the word art, and understand what it represents, both in isolation and in relation to the rest of the language, we need to find out and recognise what application of what behaviour of who, it is used to represent.
Again, the problem with the above definition, in a similar manner to how some people think on this site, is defining the behaviour of one person, by how it makes someone else feel. Feelings and emotions, however, are not behaviour, and therefore have no place in this word’s definition, since they are merely a side effect of its application.
Art is not defined by the behaviour or properties of its audience. Is something a work of art simply because I happen to be looking at it, or listening to it etc. at a particular time or in a particular manner? Does something cease to be art if I don’t like it? No. I can apply the definition of art in such manner if I so choose, but I do not define it as such. (A piece of art, just like any other object or piece of information we create, does not, of course, cease to exist in an absolute manner just because no-one currently perceives it.)
Affecting our senses is, of course, part of what this application of behaviour does. This part of the definition therefore makes sense, but again, is it not part of the audience’s behaviour or properties?
When someone perceives an object, thing, or even someone else’s behaviour as described above, (based on the media used), as being art, are they not simply applying a/the definition of such a word based on the properties of what they perceive, (that have been therefore created by someone else’s behaviour), in a subjective manner?
If I perceive anything that has been created in a manner that is consistent with a particular function, even if merely intended or possible, rather than actual behaviour or a property it has, what has my own behaviour or properties got to do with any such applications of relevant words (for their definitions), based on such a function?
The recognition and understanding of what words represent, how they are used to represent what they do, and how they are then applied based on the information they represent, and how this all then relates to people’s own perception of the universe around them, is therefore the matter that is central to everything being discussed here. Any inconsistencies between people’s perceptions and understanding of such matters, in any way, in relation to the language being used, even to think, will cause problems…
Part 2: Recognising a solution
If the audience has no place in defining the word art, merely applying it based on what they perceive of, ultimately, other people’s behaviour, then what ramifications does this have for its definition, based on its use?
The largest impact this has, is to solve the biggest problem facing the word art itself, based upon how it is, and has been, used:
Reconciling two uses of the word that are currently seen as not being related, let alone the same thing.
Wikipedia:
“Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as “a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science”.[1] Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions.”
As usual, what has happened is that people have confused the application of a word and what it represents, for its definition, and therefore lost touch with what it is that is actually being applied.
Based how the word art is used, in its entire scope, we therefore appear to have a few definitions:
1.The process of creating something – (the art of/an art).
2.Something that has been so created that affects, or is intended to affect, the senses – (including forms of art, involving various media).
3.The performance or teaching of such creations where applicable.
One of the problems with the above quote from Wikipedia, is of course the word intent.
Words are intended to be used and applied in an individually subjective manner. It is possible, therefore, to apply definitions of words upon and regarding other things and concepts, such as art, in a manner completely at odds with anyone else. In other words, just because someone created something to be a work of art does not mean I have to apply the word as such, to and upon such a thing, myself.
Indeed – there are many such ‘works-of-art’ on this planet that I do not perceive as being such a thing, but that is fine, since that is exactly how the language is supposed to work!
But because the word art has become confused for its application, and applying words and what they represent is supposed to be subjective, it should be no surprise that, again, the definition of the word art has also become so subjective too.
So, the question still remains, how do we reconcile the three main uses of the word art above?
The most important thing is, of course, to understand and recognise that the behaviour described as 1 is what everything else is simply an application of, along with how and why.
Part 3: Deriving a Definition of Art:
So, the problem then becomes very simple:
How to describe such behaviour in a manner that is consistent with what is then described in 2+3.
This is, of course, the problem Wikipedia is trying to solve, even if it’s not recognised. Unfortunately, it goes too far and becomes more of an application, again, rather than a definition of such a word, (though not as far as my little Mini Oxford English Dictionary).
So how do we solve this problem?
Well, remember the basic behaviour we can use in conjunction with the word story?
Things people do for themselves = writing their own stories.
Things people do for others = telling stories.
Things that happen to people = stories they are told.
Here is where we run into the limitations of the ‘normal’ method to describe such behaviour, even when used in isolation:
Art cannot be described as something people do ‘for others’, since it implies intent, which is not consistent with how the word is used and applied. The reason we’re having problems, is because people are focusing on art as something that happens to people, which of course it does become, eventually, but is not consistent with the actual behaviour the word represents an application of. Art is also not consistent with being something people do for themselves, either, so how do we describe such behaviour?
Although the normal method of describing such behaviour presents problems, using the word story makes things far easier and more consistent, because intent ceases to be a problem.
It would therefore appear that art can simply be described as involving people telling stories. We can tell a story to someone without intent or even any awareness of such behaviour – (also see ‘tells’ in poker/cards etc.). The only thing that matters is that other people perceive the story we happen to be telling.
The primary reason for problems with the word art is therefore because of people confusing the behaviour of telling a story, with that of being told a story, which of course it becomes, but they are different behaviour, of different people, and therefore cannot be the same thing.
It is possible for one person to both write and tell a story, simultaneously, but not be told the same story at the same time in a similar manner. The term improvisation is used to describe the act of both writing and telling a story simultaneously, especially in relation to art as it is being performed and also created. Since improvisation is merely a type or application of art itself, writing a story is not what the word art represents.
It should be obvious that, based on its use, the word art represents an application of telling stories.
So, the questions therefore become, what application of such behaviour does the word art represent, and how does such behaviour relate to the three uses of the word art?
1.The process of creating something.
This would appear to be the main problem in regards to the definition of the word art, as also seen its entry for Wikipedia. How does the simple process of creating something – (the art of designing or making anything (for any reason)) – involve telling stories?
Simple – everything we create tells the story of its creation. Everything we create can therefore be seen as being a work of art – (a work of such a creative process).
The only application the word art therefore represents, in relation to such behaviour, is that it is of our own creation, nothing more – creative story-telling.
So why isn’t the word used in such a manner to describe everything we create, as it appears that it can be?
This is, again, simple. Nearly everything we create is not created for the purpose of telling a story, even as it does so. Most things we create are intended to fulfil a specific function and purpose, to usually enable a story to be written by someone else, other than its creator, separately from the story that it tells, (of course it’s possible for anyone to use such things for their function, even those who have already created it), and so such functionality is how they are defined, labelled and perceived. It is still possible for such objects to be perceived as works of art – results of such a creative process that tells a story – but it’s merely an additional label, (also) subjectively applied – a subjective application of the word art, upon and in addition to what the thing itself happens to be described and defined as.
Furniture, cars, consumer electronics, buildings etc. in addition to games, puzzles (and even competitions), can therefore all be recognised as being works-of-art, in addition to what they are defined as, based on their function and purpose.
It can also be said, that some things we create, are not intended, or are perceived as involving ‘creativity’. Creation and creativity, in this manner, do not represent the same thing. The act of creation, merely describes the behaviour of making a thing, or even a thing that happens, that would not otherwise exist without our intervention. Creativity and creative, even in relation to the word art, involve the use of a person’s imagination. But again, the difference all depends on the perception of the person applying the definition themselves, as to what they feel is ‘enough’ creativity for anything to be labelled or defined as a work of art. This is a legitimate area of argument about what is a work of art and what is not, and is the main reason why it will always be argued about regardless, but is not the focus of this blog. The main problem at this time, however, is that such arguments are not being fully based on a consistent, objective, definition, and so the arguments themselves are not entirely consistent either – (and is also affecting other words, such as game). (This, of course, can then lead into arguments and discussions of copyright and patents, which is also beyond the scope of this blog…).
It should hopefully be obvious why the other uses of art also involve telling stories:
2.Something that has been so created that affects, or is intended to affect, the senses.
3.The performance or teaching of such creations where applicable.
The whole point about 2, is that it is simply an application of what the word art represents in a manner that is fully consistent with its definition – creative story telling. Anything that is created to tell a story – has storytelling as its main function – and is perceived as such, can therefore be defined as a work-of-art, and just using the word art itself to represent such things, again, isn’t helping, since recognising the use of the word to represent a thing that is therefore an application of its main use and definition, is also a problem for many people. This is how such applications listed earlier therefore represent forms of art – the basic methods and media used in telling stories, and why people get confused between the different uses of the word art, itself.
It should also be obvious for 3, that performing and teaching also involves telling stories. It should also be obvious that the use of the word art in such a manner can go beyond what is written there. The act of performing or teaching anything again, so long as it is perceived as being created, and/or possessing such creativity, can be recognised as art, or even an art (form).
“Skills and masteries”, can be used to describe the different creative processes art represents, especially in relation to different media used and things being created. Martial arts also simply fall under such creative story telling being performed.
The act of using many arts, such as those recognised as involving martial, or performing arts, (acting/music/dance etc.), when not actually telling a story to anyone else at that time, or intending to, (whether intended or not), is considered to be practice.
Part 3A: The Uses of Art and Relationship To Such A Definition (summary):
EDIT:
I think that’s it’s probably best to show how all the main uses of the word art are related, to and by the definition I’ve given, in a single part:
Art = creative story-telling.
1) The basic creative process, (the act/behaviour of creating anything), is what the word art represents in general. (Everything we create, tangible or not, tells the story of such a process). It’s rarely used as such, because it’s mainly perceived by how such a concept is applied, but it’s still what it must represent, based on the rest of its use.
2) There are two main basic applications of the use/definition above:
a) Two applications of art that represent a more specific creative process in 1, (one of which can be seen on this web-site), as in the art of (creating something)/(it is (a specific creative process)) an art.
b) Perceiving such a process, (a creative story someone is both telling and creating), directly, that may, or may not be intended to be such an application – (creative/skilful play in sport would be an example) – which can also lead the use of another application of art, this time as a property something/something that happens, possesses – the word artful.
3) A further application of such a creative process, labelled by the media, (all or some), being used to tell such creative stories – art forms, the arts, performing arts, (martial arts can be perceived as such too, but, (like performing arts), also have relevance in other applications, such as 2b and 5). This may involve both things that have been created and behaviour.
4) A specific example of such an application of a creative process in 3, whether intended to be, or merely perceived as such – a work of art. Things or behaviour that have such an application of the creative process as their function, can therefore be defined as a work of art. Things that do not, may merely be perceived as works of art. Some examples may be both created and performed at the same time – (involving improvisation) – and can therefore be seen as a combination of 2b and 4.
One of the problems we have is that such examples, (especially in visual form), are also merely called ‘art’ itself, without any reference to the creative process. This is obviously not helping people understand the relationship between the two.
5) The teaching of 2a, 3 & 4, can also be seen as art, and since teaching is also, naturally, about telling stories, teaching may also be seen as art, or an art, in itself, if perceived to be ‘creative’.
The main problem with the word art, today, is therefore because of people trying to reconcile the uses of the word art in 2 (a specifically), with 3 & 4, without always fully recognising and understanding, and therefore involving, 1, which is impossible.
Part 4: Art and Game(s):
Since the definitions of both of these words have become confused with their applications, recognising and understanding how they are related to each other, based on their use, is also a problem for many people at this time.
The primary reason for any and all confusion between art and games, is because games can be both viewed as works of art, (like anything else we create), in addition to being able to use many different forms of art to enable and promote the activity itself.
But, as said before, games, like many, if not most of the things we create, are not defined by their art, and are not therefore a type of art in themselves. The function of a game is not to tell a story, so they are not consistent with being such a thing. Games exist to enable a story to be written, using competition and rules. All the forms of art – the media games may use to enable such a thing – are already labelled, defined, understood, and exist as forms of art (based on the media that is further being used to enable the game) – such as video/music/pictures and sculpture – independently of games. Games are not a medium for art itself at all, since they do not affect how such forms exist – it’s the other way round, though only indirectly, as a condition of any true media or objects used in a/the game itself – (boards/playing cards/computers etc). So for computer games, it’s not the game that means anything for art, but the computers.
Games therefore bring nothing whatsoever to the meaning and definition of the word art itself, they can merely borrow and use what already exists, to enable and promote another type of behaviour.
Games are defined by what is important for their function – the written story. The types of story written and the (usually physical) media used to enable such a thing, are therefore all the matters in such a manner. Art has no place whatsoever in describing any type of game, since it is always nothing more than a condition of the medium being used, be it pictures/animation/video, sculpture or even sound/music.
Nearly every type of game is described in such a manner, except one, and this is causing problems. This ‘type’ of game is not labelled by the medium or written story it represents, but by a form of art the relevant medium usually uses. The use of art in such a description is therefore inconsistent with the definition of games, and is therefore causing problems.
I am of course talking about the label, video game.
The term video game is inconsistent with how the word game is used elsewhere in the language for a simple reason – the type of art the word video represents, is merely a condition of the medium being used, in the same manner that a picture is a type of art that many other media use for games, (such as a board or playing cards).
The true medium by which these types of game should be labelled, is, of course, a computer (of whatver kind or type).
Now, the act of designing and creating a game is (an) art, but what is being created, in this case a game, is not defined as such, but may simply be perceived as such, subjectively, on an individual basis. An individual game may therefore be recognised as a work of art, but will not, must not, be defined as such a thing, in a similar manner to any other thing we create that is defined by such a function. I may view a particular car as being a work of art, but that doesn’t mean all cars must be defined as such!
Because of the inconsistent label, asking if video games are art, is like asking if an oak table is wood – the question and answer mean very little.
The word game, however, is not the word art – it is an equivalent in itself: a word of the same type, representing a different application of different behaviour that just so happens to be compatible when related and applied in a specific manner to and/or by different people.
Just because games can use art, and the process of creating a game is (an) art, (‘the art of making games’ is perfectly consistent), does not mean that games themselves are art, anymore than buildings, furniture, consumer electronics, or anything else we create that is defined by a different function…
Games do not require art to be used when being played, even if it can be perceived as an art to create a game in order for it to be played. Of course, for some of the most basic games, many people may feel that such creativity is negligible, and so even that is still subjective. ‘I’ll race to you to that tree’ may be a game, but I doubt many people will consider it creative enough to be a work of art in itself.
The act of perceiving a game being played by someone else, as being art, however, is, of course, different and separate from it being a game itself, even though it involves the behaviour of the same person, since it’s the perception and application of such words by different people that then defines them as such.
The most important concept for anyone involved in the act (and art) of making games is this:
What you are creating may be a work of art – (or just art if you prefer) – but that’s not what makes it a game – it’s the behaviour it is used to enable from the people who choose to play your game, that defines it as such – not your behaviour in making it, or even the game’s behaviour on your behalf.
Computer games can therefore be seen as works of art for people to use to play a game. A problem, is that many people merely think in terms of simple ‘interaction’, to describe uses of such art by the players, that enables a game to take place. But the word interaction, in itself, is not precise enough to describe the behaviour the word game represents (an application of). Puzzles and competitions can both involve people interacting with art, let alone merely work or play, and so this type of simple thought and language used, is not really suitable to describe the nature of such an activity and product used to enable such a thing.
Again, games should be created to enable one thing – a written story by a (the) player(s) – within a structured, competitive environment – (and of course, the environment itself may be perceived as a work of art in itself, if and when applicable).
Part 5: Art In Relation to Other Applications of Behaviour:
Because art involves telling stories, it also, naturally, involves the behaviour of narrating and all other related words. Although narrating can describe telling stories that are not creative, merely factual etc., since this is the behaviour the word art represents an application of, all art involves narration of some kind. Since the words narrate and story are not fully recognised for what they represent in relation to each other, at this time, however, many people can get confused between the use and application of the two.
Games can involve art, of course, but may also include merely narration itself – a story told to a player within whatever setting it takes place within – either on behalf of the game itself or another player. The basic written story of a game, however, is not in itself, a narrative – again, the same story cannot be both written and told to and by the same person, simultaneously. For this reason, games are, again, not art themselves, even if any individual game may be perceived in such a manner, either as a basic work of art, on behalf of it’s creator(s), that is then defined as a game, or because it is being subjectively perceived as such by another observer.
Competitions and puzzles, however, are different. The reason for this is simple – competitions and puzzles do not have to be created in order to exist, (in general), they can merely be perceived to exist based on the natural behaviour and interaction between people and/or other entities or even the universe itself.
They can, however, of course be applied in a manner that is fully consistent with what the word art represents – being created, (and telling the story of such creation), to enable such applications of behaviour instead. Again, however, just as with games, such concepts must be defined by the application of behaviour they represent – their functionality – which is different from the word art, even if compatible in the same way as games – (using art to enable such a thing to take place).(source:gamasutra)
