First, I’ve never studied art history. Now, it’s my impression from visiting museums and normal exposure and such that the works from the fine arts touted as the finest are generally irrelevant to society at large. With the exception of a few superstars such as ‘‘The Mona Lisa’’ or ‘‘Romeo and Juliet’’, few people know the work and it has changed nothing about history. It seems to me that only mass, commercial-oriented art has had any effect on society. Could anyone more versed in art history show me otherwise?
What, exactly, is “society at large,” except a collection of individuals?
Art (including literature, music, sculpture, film, etc.) has the power to transform and inspire people. What more do you expect of it?
By society at large I mean those individuals who don’t frequent art galleries, operas, etc.–throughout most of history, then, those who aren’t of some wealth.
I’m not disparaging art, really–I studied painting for years and it interests me personally, but I haven’t seen it as being at all important to society at large (or looking at contemporary art, of any relevance to people seeking transformation and inspiration) and I’d be curious to hear arguments against that view.
Many of Shakespeare’s historical plays could be regarded as Tudor propaganda.
Art, in past centuries, wasn’t the high-brow " cultural" semi religious thing it is now. Nowadays, there is a distinction between “unique” art of which there is just one, (a painting, a sculpture, a church, a play) and art that is mass produced (artwork in print &photography, design, modern architecture, movies). The latter, by it’s very nature, is much more relevant to society “at large” as you put it, then the " unique art now on sale in galleries. In the evolution of art, the art in galleries that never leaves the gallery is the species doomed for extinction. However, this vey distinction between “unique” and massproduced art is a very, very recent developement, only 50 years old or so where art itself is several tens of thousands of years old.
For the greatest part of all those thousand years, to many owners of art and artisanal things, art was luxury. It gave people a wealthy feeling to see little carved and painted saints&angels when there could also have been a cheap servicable plaster and wood wall. It gave people a rich and secure feeling to be part of a community that could afford beautifully decorated townhouses, churches or castles.
Also, before massmedia made images available to everyone in beautifully printed color, the famous paintings and sculptures were simply the best of their kind. We all know how to play soccer and we can run fast, but when we see the Soccer World Cup or the Olympics, we notice the difference in skill and talent and some of us become inspired to strive to become as good. In the same way, the great works of art were an inspiration to every aspiring artist or artisan, and there were a great many of them, as it was a profession like any other.
Great works have an strong emotional appeal, and can become focal points of revolutions and morals. Think of all the scenes depicting the Bible, serving the purpose of keeping people in the Church; think of the book " Uncle Tom" or the picture of Che Guavara as art that fired societal changes.
Etcetera…
As long as commercial artists frequent art galleries and keep up with contemporary art, the themes therein will be incorporated into commercial art for mass consumption, albeit in a pureed, commodified form.
Obviously this can work in reverse, such as when Pop Art assimilated/subverted commercial art themes.
Or so I reckon.
As Staggerlee touched on, fine art and commercial art frequently borrow from one another. There were periods, such as the Art Nouveau period where they were practically one and the same.
If you live in any society, you cannot open your eyes without seeing something created by graphic designers, illustrators, product designers, industrial designers or architects (or filmmakers, musicians, etc, etc.), these creative-for-a-paycheck types (like myself) went to the same schools and studied the same subjects and influence and are influenced by “fine” art past and present.
Just an aside…
I saw a compelling TV promo about a new art series to run on PBS starting in the spring. It’ll feature artists such as Michaelangelo, Picasso, Van Gogh and a number of others.
I hope this comes as good news to all of you.
If it has a heavy frame and is swung with enough velocity it can have quite an impact.
…what?
I’ve read an argument relating to movies and gaming that serious art to an extent, legitimises the frivolous art and allows for society to accept it as an enriching experience. Movies were treated as a corrupting influence until the rise of the art house film and gaming is going to be similarly relegated into this ghetto unless serious games are made.
What is “fine art,” anyway? Is there a generally accepted academic definition of “coarse art”?
I’d say that “fine art” is any art whose immediate effect is designed to be primarily through aesthetic impact. This happens to include most commercial art such as TV shows and movies, because they can just as well stand alone as artistic statements without the advertisements.
It would not include, for example, most ads, speeches and documentaries since they are designed to be persuasive and informative. Even though I think Churchill’s and MLK’s speeches show finer artistry than most modern poets.
There can be a fine line between advertisement and art, of course. For instance ads that don’t really mention to product at all, and I can’t really make up my mind on that.
Define “serious game”. Once you have done that, explain why you think no extant game qualifies as “serious”.
The OP’s initial premise is completely flawed. From architecture to very public use of music in, for example, religious settings, there’s been many situations where ‘fine art’ (I agree it’s an awful term) was very accessible.
Would fine art as defined by the OP include local cultural art-such as oh, say embroidery by peasants, and local costume? You can learn a lot about a culture through their artwork.
I’ve aways thought “fine art” refered to the complexity of technique, not that folk arts are bad, but Neil Young is a “great artist,” and John Coltrane is a “fine artist.”
Having said that I would suggest that the impact of art is an incredibly difficult thing to quantify.
‘Complexity of technique’ is equally difficult to measure!
Well, I’m a bit biased seeing as I work very closely with some people involved in the Serious Games Initiative but to me, a serious game is one that is designed for something other than mass appeal and commercialism.
Of course serious games exist, Food Force and Peace Maker are probably the two most visible examples of serious games but it’s a growing if still niche area of the market. What the original article was arguing, IIRC, was that serious games needed to find a legitimate role within the studio system in the same way that large movie studios nurture independant film. Nearly all the large movie studios have a art house branch, Fox Searchlight for example who’s primary goal is to not make a profit, but to nurture great examples of film making which wouldn’t neccesarily survive in a mainstream market. They spend the money to do this because they realise that, without the existance of the art house movement, the entire genre of film would be greatly impoverished and they owe it to craft to make some great unprofitable movies rather than merely only profitable ones, great or not.
Uh-oh, that’s two independant thought alarms in one thread. Willie, remove all the colored chalk from the classrooms!
[/skinner]
It seems to me that the Serious Games Initiative is focused on games used as tools to raise awareness or provide training on some specific real-world problem. If so, the analogy to independent films is quite flawed. Great films don’t necessarily have some specific agenda, even if they are satirical in nature. What great films do accomplish is leaving a lasting emotional or intellectual impression, beyond just the simple enjoyment of the moment. For lack of a better term, I shall use “art game” to define a game that tries to accomplish such a thing, as opposed to just running around shooting things.
There have certainly been art games; some of them have been commercial successes and some haven’t. Probably the most obvious example of this is Planescape: Torment, a roleplaying game with a deeply weird and complex storyline that could change depending on your actions. I believe it made a profit, but it was never destined to be a smash hit, and isn’t particularly well known even among gamers. Still, in terms of sheer ambition of storytelling it’s hard to beat. I think the closest film equivalent would be stuff by David Lynch.
My personal favorites are Fallout and Fallout 2. These explore the ethics of a postapocalyptic society, with a large dose of retro-future aesthetics, pop culture references, fatalism, and misanthropy thrown in. While Planescape’s story is fairly introverted and focused on revealing the main character’s history and purpose, the Fallout story is more about the fucked up world and how the main character deals with it as things happen. You can gain fame or infamy depending on your actions, and eventually your reputation will preceed you into new areas. Especially in Fallout 2, you can get entangled in some pretty interesting moral quandaries that can have far-reaching effects.