Art

[DW]

I was talking with my girlfriend a week ago, accompanied by a lot of googling and wiki'ing as usual, and we came across this statistic: This is the amount of money that countries spend on Fine Arts every year, per person.

USA: $0.46
Canada: $46.00
UK $36.00
Sweden $57.00
Finland $91.00
Germany $85.00
France $57.00
Netherlands $46.00
Australia $25.00

I am ashamed.

[Hi no Seijin]

Hmm, yeah, about that.  Should the opportunity ever come up, I will not hesitate to move to Ireland, or maybe New Zealand.  If I remember correctly, the US is also the fattest and stupidest country.  It's just getting too shameful to live here.

[DW]

I just can't believe less than a dollar a person...this includes theater, concerts, art exhibits, etc. And since people who DO go to them spend way more than one dollar a year...yeah. That's a lot of people who spend nothing on art.

[MagmarFire]

And what makes fine art more notable than, say, movies or video games? They're just as much art as the so-called "fine" art.

(Of course, you may not actually be saying such; that was just an implication I detected, so I may just be paranoid.)

[The Glamour Nazi]

I always thought of Shadow of the Colossus to be art, and very fine art at that, so they should change what they call "fine art" since it's all sorta becoming obsolete.

Yes, I know how bad it sounds, but that's why I'd rather become a graphic novelist than a professional painter.

[DW]

The thing is, most video games and films are entertainment, done more for profit than art. There are a few exceptions, but on the whole its not a fine art.

[MagmarFire]

^Intent does not define a medium. All because something was built to entertain others does not mitigate the fact that they're ways of expressing the human mind. Come to think of it, isn't that one of the reasons why humans create art? To create things others can enjoy? With this in mind, what defines "fine" art, anyway? Some kind of traditionalist mentality that says the old ways are better? Because !(older => better). I think I'm with the Chozo on this one on combining old and new ways...

While I agree with you on the fact that video games and films are mostly made for profit, that does not mitigate their artistic factor by any stretch of the imagination. All because something is meant to be profitable doesn't mean it's not meant to be "fine" (do substitute "fine" for "more civilized" or, for lack of a better word, "better" where most appropriate). Quite the contrary, actually. It's in most developers' and filmmakers' interests to create something that people will enjoy. If they create something enjoyable, then it's more likely to be profitable. I am not counting the ones that are out to rip off the next most popular thing to make a quick buck; those I'm sure we can all agree to be outliers not fit to be bothered with.

Besides, aren't there are loads of pieces of "fine" art whose original intents were for profit? For example, Charles Dickens' classic story A Christmas Carol? It was written mainly to pay off a debt. So...yeah. Personally, I think that categorical mindset gives certain mediums, while certainly great in their own right, a bit too much of a superiority complex, if you ask me.

(Please forgive me if it seems like I'm attacking you guys. That is not what I am trying to do. )

[The Glamour Nazi]

I also see calling something "fine" art makes it seem stuck up and rude.

Sorta like "My art is better than yours."

[Twilight Wolf]

I think calling anything "fine art" is completely subject to your own opinion. Heck, "art" is just a matter of one's opinion in itself.

I bet they don't count things like buying CDs or stuff from online stores like iTunes (music is art, isn't it?), or movies (I think they could be considered an art form), and definitely not video games, even though I've played plenty of games that I'd consider artful. If they included all that, the numbers would probably change drastically.

Makes me wonder what exclusive group of medium is considered "fine art".

[The Glamour Nazi]

They included "concerts" but do those include rock concerts and music festivals?

I doubt it does.

"Fine art" is all just antiquated forms of the new stuff that's coming out now.

[DW]

Fine art or the fine arts describes an art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than practical application.

'Fine' doesn't mean 'superior', it's not a superiority thing. It's a classification thing.

Fine Art is created as expression. Video games are very, very rarely created as a person's form of personal expression, if at all. Movies are typically held to a tight schedule, run completely by money for the purpose of making money. I think independent films could get more into the aesthetic aspect, such as Ingmar Bergman's films and such. The primary, overriding reason behind most video games and most movies is to make money. If it's going to be a loss of money, they don't do it. Theatre is performed to express a message. Very rarely does anyone get rich from theatre unless they are incredible. Most people do it for the love of the craft and the aesthetics.

That's one of the reasons a rock concert is different than a classical concert. People don't do Mozart to get rich, or for self-promotion. They're performing someone else's personal expression. A rock concert is a promotion for the band, to make money, to encourage CD sales, that sort of thing.

Very rarely does an artist get rich. They don't make art to get rich, they do it to express themselves and share a message with the world.

[MagmarFire]

I also see calling something "fine" art makes it seem stuck up and rude.

Sorta like "My art is better than yours."

I certainly agree, hence the superiority complex.

Fine art or the fine arts describes an art form developed primarily for aesthetics and/or concept rather than practical application.

'Fine' doesn't mean 'superior', it's not a superiority thing. It's a classification thing.

Then I return to my original point: What's so shameful about being in a region that spends more on "not fine" art than "fine" art? While I'm not trying to downplay the notability of "fine" art, I am wondering why underdog comparisons to other regions make the concept unacceptable.

Video games are very, very rarely created as a person's form of personal expression, if at all.

Try writing game code sometime. You'd be surprised of the creativity involved with writing game algorithms to improve game performance while keeping information permissions to a maximum. Nay, the creative thinking required to write code. For some programmers, or even many programmers, including me, there is aesthetic pleasure in deriving code that's efficient, effective, and/or actually functional. I certainly found pleasure in the AI script I wrote for a Flash game I helped to make.

Try drawing concept art or crafting a well-thought-out story. (I'm 100% sure you've done the latter before.) If those aren't forms of personal expression, I don't know what is.

Very rarely does anyone get rich from theatre unless they are incredible. Most people do it for the love of the craft and the aesthetics.

That's one of the reasons a rock concert is different than a classical concert. People don't do Mozart to get rich, or for self-promotion. They're performing someone else's personal expression.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't actors and other performers depend on acting and playing music for a living? Therefore, wouldn't one of their motives be for money for food and recreational purposes? And how is a rock concert not performing personal expression?

Plus, Shigeru Miyamoto certainly doesn't make games to get rich. If that were so, he wouldn't have adamantly requested modest wages.

...That's what I heard, at least.

[DW]

Then I return to my original point: What's so shameful about being in a region that spends more on "not fine" art than "fine" art? While I'm not trying to downplay the notability of "fine" art, I am wondering why underdog comparisons to other regions make the concept unacceptable.

I'm not saying it's that we spend more on entertainment. I enjoy entertainment, it's entertaining. I just wish we spent more on the fine arts because that's culture, it deals with humanity and provides a fulfillment that video games and movies can't. I'm not saying it's superior, or that it should be our only focus. I'm just saying it's an important part of culture.

Try drawing concept art or crafting a well-thought-out story. (I'm 100% sure you've done the latter before.) If those aren't forms of personal expression, I don't know what is.

By themselves, they could be expression. But they're put together into a large project which is supposed to make money.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't actors and other performers depend on acting and playing music for a living? Therefore, wouldn't one of their motives be for money for food and recreational purposes?

Very rarely do they make enough to live off of, they usually have another job. If they do live off of just acting, they don't live very comfortably.

Anyways, the point isn't "video games and movies are stupid we need to just spend money on theater", it's that there's an incredibly decline in people's regard of the fine arts and I wish there wasn't. There have been numerous studies done that show the benefits of artistic expression, the way it stimulates parts of the brain that almost never get used. Not to mention the stories that get passed down through it, the lessons about society that are learned, and such. It's important to preserve.

[The Glamour Nazi]

"Fine" art also depends on the area you're in.

Such as Japan, here in America most manga and anime are called "those japanese cartoons"

But in Japan it's known as fine art, they have a 70-something volume series on the history of Japan in manga form.

So what's saying that movies and games can't be considered "fine art" if "fine art" has no real definition?

I say movies also provide quite a bit of culture. How many times have you heard a line quoted from a movie today?

[MagmarFire]

I'm not saying it's that we spend more on entertainment. I enjoy entertainment, it's entertaining. I just wish we spent more on the fine arts because that's culture, it deals with humanity and provides a fulfillment that video games and movies can't. I'm not saying it's superior, or that it should be our only focus. I'm just saying it's an important part of culture.

Okay, I think I understand now. With your later point of a decline of interest in mind, this makes more logical sense to me. This I can agree with.

By themselves, they could be expression. But they're put together into a large project which is supposed to make money.

This, however, I cannot.

As I said before, intent does not define a medium. All because there have been people who have profited on this medium--and believe you me, every single medium has been profited on in some way or another--doesn't mean that the medium itself has to be excluded from the "fine" arts category. I bring you back to my example of A Christmas Carol.

So does this mean that any medium that gets melded for profit as one motive instantly denies it of others' consideration as "fine" art? Then by that logic, theatre itself should be excluded. It combines both acting and music, depending on the play in question. And also, because there have been people who used profit as a motive, that shouldn't do well for the medium's inclusion, either. Personally, I feel your argument here is invalid because you appear to be using one similar to the ignoratio elenchi fallacy.

Besides, there are loads of games and movies not made for profit. Look at all the Flash games on Newgrounds. They may not all be great, or even good, but does that make them any less worthy?

Very rarely do they make enough to live off of, they usually have another job. If they do live off of just acting, they don't live very comfortably.

Okay, I see. Thanks for informing me.

Anyways, the point isn't "video games and movies are stupid we need to just spend money on theater", it's that there's an incredibly decline in people's regard of the fine arts and I wish there wasn't. There have been numerous studies done that show the benefits of artistic expression, the way it stimulates parts of the brain that almost never get used. Not to mention the stories that get passed down through it, the lessons about society that are learned, and such. It's important to preserve.

Yes, I agree that the stories and lessons should be passed on. I'm sure we all agree on that. The studies you mentioned sure ring a bell, too.

Another question, though: Is it inconceivable that artistic expression through other mediums does not do the same things that were shown in the studies?