There's "art" that is about skill as well as subject matter and there's "art" that is about the artist asking the viewer to think about things in a different way.
If one were to look at the other end of the spectrum, say Jackson Pollack, criticism could be made that what he did took no "talent" as a kid could do it.
But if you watch the videos of him painting one gets the sense that he truly meant what he painted. And what he painted was a sort of visual representation of his improvisatory movements as well as his choice of color, texture, etc.
Not to say everyone can or should appreciate or even like this stuff but understanding what is going on is part of understanding why some consider this "art."
Sorry, but I have to point out how lacking in substance these arguments are. This "asking the viewer to think about things in a different way" is intellectual claptrap. What they are doing is coming up with an idea for you to think about, and because the art elite buy into this it has to be amazing. If you don't "get it" you must somehow be of lesser intelligence, not able to master the ability to see beyond what you see. It reminds me of the fable of the Emperors clothes.
The Emperor has tailors who prepare for him the most amazing costume made from a fabric so fine that only those who are intelligent enough can see the fabric. If courtiers cannot see the fabric surely they are not fit for office. But as he parades around the courtiers do see it and admire the outfit. The tailors were con artists and the Emperor was naked, but to not see the clothes, well that would make you stupid wouldn't it?
It seems this sort of con has been around a rather long time.
You get thousands of ideas thrown at you in a book, but somehow we are to believe the idea above is special? Come to the gallery, put on your face of studied thought as you look at the painting, think your great thoughts, you to can be a courtier and see what cannot be seen.
Pretentious nonsense.
It sort of is what it is. It's true, there is a cadre of intellectuals, artists, critics, curators etc. that have made a living around the idea of "art."
What can I say other than you can either take a look and have a say, pro or con, or just write it off.
I personally love art as I have Artists in my family. Art is a huge part of my life.
And it's true, one does have to always be conscious of "The Emperor's New Clothes." But, it's also ok, in my opinion to stretch one's conceptions of Art in all its forms.
But then again, one is either interested or not.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Robert Rauschenberg, White Painting [three panel], 1951
You can't make this up.
It sort of is what it is. It's true, there is a cadre of intellectuals, artists, critics, curators etc. that have made a living around the idea of "art."
What can I say other than you can either take a look and have a say, pro or con, or just write it off.
I personally love art as I have Artists in my family. Art is a huge part of my life.
And it's true, one does have to always be conscious of "The Emperor's New Clothes." But, it's also ok, in my opinion to stretch one's conceptions of Art in all its forms.
But then again, one is either interested or not.
Take a look at music Sovrath where is the elite deciding what is good music? Now you have your classicists of course but are they deciding what is good music? You have the charts, are they deciding what is good music? What is "good" is much more open than Art.
Modern Art is rather like opera, an elite get to say what is good and what is not. Also art as "visual ideas" is coming rather late to the table. It is almost as if artists said "we can do ideas too, not just poets and the like." Yes they can, but give me real art with your ideas not just an unmade bed and I will appreciate it.
What do I mean by real art? The ability to draw, sculpt, make your vison come alive in a medium. I know I am philistine, the Emperors court would say I was so it must be true. But if you want to give me an idea as well then fine, just some real art too. I know many modern artists can do that but chose not to, sorry but I need more than you putting a shark in a tank and expecting me to have an epiphany.
I just noticed a tweeter discussion regarding the matter. Of course, being tweeter and all, the discussion was hard to follow and one of the members eventually chose to block the rest, because ...
Anyway.
What do you people think?
Are games art?
Are they merely products?
Or they start as products and have the potential to become art, given the test of time?
Also:
Are people working on these projects artists?
Or they are they just making a very good product?
just think like this are films art? if you belive yes then games are, they have a lot of teh same estructure only the story have the player input on it, and the action is defined by the player
for your second part, are producers of films artists? a film is not make by artists only
and if they are making good product? depend, most are crap, some are worth the time, and even less can be considerated good
Take a look at music Sovrath where is the elite deciding what is good music? Now you have your classicists of course but are they deciding what is good music? You have the charts, are they deciding what is good music? What is "good" is much more open than Art.
Modern Art is rather like opera, an elite get to say what is good and what is not. Also art as "visual ideas" is coming rather late to the table. It is almost as if artists said "we can do ideas too, not just poets and the like." Yes they can, but give me real art with your ideas not just an unmade bed and I will appreciate it.
What do I mean by real art? The ability to draw, sculpt, make your vison come alive in a medium. I know I am philistine, the Emperors court would say I was so it must be true. But if you want to give me an idea as well then fine, just some real art too. I know many modern artists can do that but chose not to, sorry but I need more than you putting a shark in a tank and expecting me to have an epiphany.
Actually, when I went to school for music there really were professors, critics, etc who had a say on what "good music" was.
Heck, one of my college professors wrote in a more thorny, sort of 70's (classical) style. Later on in my schooling, he played us something with *gasp* melody. I asked him about it in class, right then and there and his response was that he always wanted to write music with melody but it just wasn't acceptable when he was young.
Which of course goes to my point, there are all sort of pockets of people who cherish different art, music, movies, literature, etc. And they really do help define what is considered "good" for the time period and their own circles.
We also have to remember that something that is considered "bad" at one time might be considered good at another. Pre-Raphaelites for example. They were considered avant-garde of all things. Now you find posters of some of the more prominent works everywhere.
One of the reasons I hesitated going on for higher degrees in music was because I worked primarily with melody and at the time that was still a bit frowned upon in certain circles.
As far as putting a shark in a tank and having an epiphany (great example); I would say that that would be up to you as the viewer.
An artist can ask you to stretch your perception and belief and acceptance of their work but that is entirely up to you.
Once, I went to a modern dance performance with my Uncle (think "Frasier" but less suave) and one of the pieces of Threnody to The Victims of Hiroshima by Penderecki:
Now, I love this piece. But it's NOT something you put in while you are unwinding from work or playing for a fun "get ready for the weekend" montage. My Uncle stated he hated the piece. I then said, because of the dance element, listen to it as a soundtrack to what was going on, the horror, the sadness of the performance and NOT as a piece with a melody. To essentially listen to it as a horror movie soundtrack. others would disagree with the request but "meh."
At the end of the performance he was almost in tears. He then said to me "ok, I like Penderecki."
For him, all it took was a paradigm shift.
As for the Shark in the Tank? It depends on what it's trying to say.
I sort of think this is great art (and Zorgo beat me to it - nice job Zorgo) and not because of its pleasing, competent likeness.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There's "art" that is about skill as well as subject matter and there's "art" that is about the artist asking the viewer to think about things in a different way.
If one were to look at the other end of the spectrum, say Jackson Pollack, criticism could be made that what he did took no "talent" as a kid could do it.
But if you watch the videos of him painting one gets the sense that he truly meant what he painted. And what he painted was a sort of visual representation of his improvisatory movements as well as his choice of color, texture, etc.
Not to say everyone can or should appreciate or even like this stuff but understanding what is going on is part of understanding why some consider this "art."
Sorry, but I have to point out how lacking in substance these arguments are. This "asking the viewer to think about things in a different way" is intellectual claptrap. What they are doing is coming up with an idea for you to think about, and because the art elite buy into this it has to be amazing. If you don't "get it" you must somehow be of lesser intelligence, not able to master the ability to see beyond what you see. It reminds me of the fable of the Emperors clothes.
The Emperor has tailors who prepare for him the most amazing costume made from a fabric so fine that only those who are intelligent enough can see the fabric. If courtiers cannot see the fabric surely they are not fit for office. But as he parades around the courtiers do see it and admire the outfit. The tailors were con artists and the Emperor was naked, but to not see the clothes, well that would make you stupid wouldn't it?
It seems this sort of con has been around a rather long time.
You get thousands of ideas thrown at you in a book, but somehow we are to believe the idea above is special? Come to the gallery, put on your face of studied thought as you look at the painting, think your great thoughts, you to can be a courtier and see what cannot be seen.
Pretentious nonsense.
It's true though that certain artists, after building a corpus of work, earn greater artistic license. I'll read basically anything William Gibson puts out because the man's a genius and a poet. Tastes may vary.
I'd never consider someone to be of lesser intelligence because they don't appreciate Gibson or the... painting?... pictured above. Just of different taste.
and have it not be great art, Joyce gets away with "bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnbronntonnerronntuonnth
unntrovarrhounawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!" and it's genius. However, Joyce had to earn it. It doesn't mean everyone will appreciate it, and that's no marks against the ones that don't.
If you make it past the intro, the rest of that soundtrack is surprisingly chill. Ironically blissful at times, even. Take "Hall of Souls":
Someone like @Sovrath could do a better job than me, taste notwithstanding, but it starts out with a faint kind of ambient buzz, almost like an air-conditioning unit droning in the background. Numerous voices are whispering unintelligible phonemes. The synth begins to come in slowly at around 0:48, then unexpectedly moves up a major third, I believe. Unexpected, because the atmosphere is already unsettling; a minor chord would be more along the lines of the setting. This tension between what is expected and what is presented is artistic. However, as the synth sustains, it bends or decays rather into the minor chord; the reprieve cannot last.
I could go on and on about this track... needless to say it won't be everyone's cup of tea but the thing about NIN is that there usually is a lot more going on than what's presented on the surface. Like great horror, Reznor is a master of slowly ratcheting up the tension while playing with the listener's expectations.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Actually, when I went to school for music there really were professors, critics, etc who had a say on what "good music" was.
Heck, one of my college professors wrote in a more thorny, sort of 70's (classical) style. Later on in my schooling, he played us something with *gasp* melody. I asked him about it in class, right then and there and his response was that he always wanted to write music with melody but it just wasn't acceptable when he was young.
Which of course goes to my point, there are all sort of pockets of people who cherish different art, music, movies, literature, etc. And they really do help define what is considered "good" for the time period and their own circles.
We also have to remember that something that is considered "bad" at one time might be considered good at another. Pre-Raphaelites for example. They were considered avant-garde of all things. Now you find posters of some of the more prominent works everywhere.
One of the reasons I hesitated going on for higher degrees in music was because I worked primarily with melody and at the time that was still a bit frowned upon in certain circles.
As far as putting a shark in a tank and having an epiphany (great example); I would say that that would be up to you as the viewer.
An artist can ask you to stretch your perception and belief and acceptance of their work but that is entirely up to you.
Once, I went to a modern dance performance with my Uncle (think "Frasier" but less suave) and one of the pieces of Threnody to The Victims of Hiroshima by Penderecki:
Now, I love this piece. But it's NOT something you put in while you are unwinding from work or playing for a fun "get ready for the weekend" montage. My Uncle stated he hated the piece. I then said, because of the dance element, listen to it as a soundtrack to what was going on, the horror, the sadness of the performance and NOT as a piece with a melody. To essentially listen to it as a horror movie soundtrack. others would disagree with the request but "meh."
At the end of the performance he was almost in tears. He then said to me "ok, I like Penderecki."
For him, all it took was a paradigm shift.
As for the Shark in the Tank? It depends on what it's trying to say.
I sort of think this is great art (and Zorgo beat me to it - nice job Zorgo) and not because of its pleasing, competent likeness.
But unlike music, a wave of what is "good" has taken over art, there are professors of music but are they deciding what the whole of our society thinks of as good art? An elite behind modern art has hijacked our concept of what good art is, other forms of artistic expression have far more leeway in being great works in their own right.
So we have old classical still making great film music, classical concerts with new compositions while pop rules the charts, a mixture of music rules festivals. But what top artist now paints and gets shown using something like the Pre-Raphaelite style? Anything before modern art is consigned to history and museums. That's what I am getting at, art is being held hostage by an elite.
Lost in my earlier post was a question. No one touched it and it may just irrelevant, but here it is all alone:
Why do people want to call games "art?"
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Lost in my earlier post was a question. No one touched it and it may just irrelevant, but here it is all alone:
Why do people want to call games "art?"
I think if something is worthy of the name we should call is as such. But creative people do like to call everything they do art, its in their pretentious genes I think.
Lost in my earlier post was a question. No one touched it and it may just irrelevant, but here it is all alone:
Why do people want to call games "art?"
Because it is art. Not all of the games, some of them are just purely functional. But for most of the games it's a major component that the devs have crafted a certain graphic style, one or multiple stories that they use to tell, music, and other elements into an experience for others. If art is a major component of something, then that is art, and most games pass the threshold.
Like anything else whether it be Movies, Music, Painting, Hell even Martial Arts some games are in fact ART and some are garbage. I think the word ART when used in the context OP refers to is basically just a adjective to describe something that evokes strong emotion & admiration in a person when Playing,Listening,viewing or performing anthers creative work.
Actually, when I went to school for music there really were professors, critics, etc who had a say on what "good music" was.
Heck, one of my college professors wrote in a more thorny, sort of 70's (classical) style. Later on in my schooling, he played us something with *gasp* melody. I asked him about it in class, right then and there and his response was that he always wanted to write music with melody but it just wasn't acceptable when he was young.
Which of course goes to my point, there are all sort of pockets of people who cherish different art, music, movies, literature, etc. And they really do help define what is considered "good" for the time period and their own circles.
We also have to remember that something that is considered "bad" at one time might be considered good at another. Pre-Raphaelites for example. They were considered avant-garde of all things. Now you find posters of some of the more prominent works everywhere.
One of the reasons I hesitated going on for higher degrees in music was because I worked primarily with melody and at the time that was still a bit frowned upon in certain circles.
As far as putting a shark in a tank and having an epiphany (great example); I would say that that would be up to you as the viewer.
An artist can ask you to stretch your perception and belief and acceptance of their work but that is entirely up to you.
Once, I went to a modern dance performance with my Uncle (think "Frasier" but less suave) and one of the pieces of Threnody to The Victims of Hiroshima by Penderecki:
Now, I love this piece. But it's NOT something you put in while you are unwinding from work or playing for a fun "get ready for the weekend" montage. My Uncle stated he hated the piece. I then said, because of the dance element, listen to it as a soundtrack to what was going on, the horror, the sadness of the performance and NOT as a piece with a melody. To essentially listen to it as a horror movie soundtrack. others would disagree with the request but "meh."
At the end of the performance he was almost in tears. He then said to me "ok, I like Penderecki."
For him, all it took was a paradigm shift.
As for the Shark in the Tank? It depends on what it's trying to say.
I sort of think this is great art (and Zorgo beat me to it - nice job Zorgo) and not because of its pleasing, competent likeness.
But unlike music, a wave of what is "good" has taken over art, there are professors of music but are they deciding what the whole of our society thinks of as good art? An elite behind modern art has hijacked our concept of what good art is, other forms of artistic expression have far more leeway in being great works in their own right.
So we have old classical still making great film music, classical concerts with new compositions while pop rules the charts, a mixture of music rules festivals. But what top artist now paints and gets shown using something like the Pre-Raphaelite style? Anything before modern art is consigned to history and museums. That's what I am getting at, art is being held hostage by an elite.
yeah but the world has sort of moved on from the days of top composers/top artists.
Now, if you hear of a top composer it's most likely in conjunction of film music. "Art" doesn't have the same weight now as it did back "in the day."
This is a different world.
There is still an "art world" it's just for a smaller group of people. "Classical music" is really more about being a museum for music.
And don't get me wrong, there are great film score composers but those scores just don't have the depth and detail of a full on "classical" (for lack of a better word) piece. And they shouldn't. They are not about that. They are about highlighting or augmenting what is happening on screen.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Lost in my earlier post was a question. No one touched it and it may just irrelevant, but here it is all alone:
Why do people want to call games "art?"
Mostly so it's afforded the same protection as other artistic mediums. Without getting political there have been very public, somewhat influential people who feel the world would be a better place if video games didn't exist.
This isn't a value judgement on any individual title or the medium as a whole; I just prefer to live in a world with books than a world without them, for example.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Lost in my earlier post was a question. No one touched it and it may just irrelevant, but here it is all alone:
Why do people want to call games "art?"
Mostly so it's afforded the same protection as other artistic mediums. Without getting political there have been very public, somewhat influential people who feel the world would be a better place if video games didn't exist.
This isn't a value judgement on any individual title or the medium as a whole; I just prefer to live in a world with books than a world without them, for example.
While I agree, protection of artistic expression is only as good as the prevalent culture and government, and we've all seen how those attitudes can ebb and flow. In the US, we can't go very long without some school district banning a book or two from their libraries and curriculum. Just recently, some place stopped teaching To Kill a Mockingbird because "it makes people uncomfortable." Yeah, that's kinda the point.
But unlike music, a wave of what is "good" has taken over art, there are professors of music but are they deciding what the whole of our society thinks of as good art? An elite behind modern art has hijacked our concept of what good art is, other forms of artistic expression have far more leeway in being great works in their own right.
So we have old classical still making great film music, classical concerts with new compositions while pop rules the charts, a mixture of music rules festivals. But what top artist now paints and gets shown using something like the Pre-Raphaelite style? Anything before modern art is consigned to history and museums. That's what I am getting at, art is being held hostage by an elite.
yeah but the world has sort of moved on from the days of top composers/top artists.
Now, if you hear of a top composer it's most likely in conjunction of film music. "Art" doesn't have the same weight now as it did back "in the day."
This is a different world.
There is still an "art world" it's just for a smaller group of people. "Classical music" is really more about being a museum for music.
And don't get me wrong, there are great film score composers but those scores just don't have the depth and detail of a full on "classical" (for lack of a better word) piece. And they shouldn't. They are not about that. They are about highlighting or augmenting what is happening on screen.
Has the world moved on from classical music? Top composers are not just in film, such as John Adams. From what you have said Sovrath, I get the feeling you know many more and have heard more of their work than me. Classical music is still alive with great new pieces being done, while every form of Art before modern art is dead, consigned to museums.
The world has only moved on in modern art, because as I said it is held hostage by an art elite. Sure classical music is not as popular as it was, but that's not the same thing as being considered something only fit for the past.
The music you choose is another example, "Avant-Garde" classical music is popular but has it replaced new classical works? Music lives along side each other while painting, sculpture etc are ruled by those who "know best".
I have to say, I would not have thought we could such an interesting discussion outside gaming on here.
It reminds be the old geezers who didn't want comics to be labeled as art, and who only consider classical music as "true" art too...
I say f*ck them.
It has always been and it will always be that way: if you like it it's art if you don't it's crap.
It's why this ancient Mike Myers SNL bit just never gets old for me:
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
Video games contain art but are themselves consumer products.
Where do we draw the line?
We could also classify packaging or the lines and curves of a toaster as art.
Take old cars from the 40's 50's and 60's.
They are consumer products which leaves the art elite nonsense at the door. Many aspects of video games are widely regarded as art, so the whole is an artform. To me that's a truer test than the Turner Prize.
Games are designed products. Their design heavily relies on story, art style, the quality of the art assets, sound and music to reach the design goal, which is making a successful product. Thus games are products that rely heavily on their artwork.
They are not fine art though. Devs can't just randomly express themselves with their artwork. Games are more like commercial art. Goal oriented but artistic.
Just like many cars heavily rely on their artistic beauty to reach more customers. Artistry is another tool in the toolbox. Usually a very important one.
They can be, but was the Ford model T, art or perfunctory utility design?
I find one of Clackson's quotes particularly interesting though:
"For something to be art, it has to have no purpose other than itself, no function".
So what is a video game? It's basically useless. Just like movies, music, paintings, etc... no other function that itself. To entertain. To be seen and experienced for itself. Like that Alfa Romeo.
Art can have function, and part of my function is to shoot video game bad guys.
Am I Art????!!!!
...sorry just channelling some of the ridiculous pretensions modern art can have.
They can be, but was the Ford model T, art or perfunctory utility design?
I find one of Clackson's quotes particularly interesting though:
"For something to be art, it has to have no purpose other than itself, no function".
So what is a video game? It's basically useless. Just like movies, music, paintings, etc... no other function that itself. To entertain. To be seen and experienced for itself. Like that Alfa Romeo.
But a video game does have a purpose and a function. It's purpose and function is to make money.
It's a mass produced product designed to generate revenue.
Comments
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Modern Art is rather like opera, an elite get to say what is good and what is not. Also art as "visual ideas" is coming rather late to the table. It is almost as if artists said "we can do ideas too, not just poets and the like." Yes they can, but give me real art with your ideas not just an unmade bed and I will appreciate it.
What do I mean by real art? The ability to draw, sculpt, make your vison come alive in a medium. I know I am philistine, the Emperors court would say I was so it must be true. But if you want to give me an idea as well then fine, just some real art too. I know many modern artists can do that but chose not to, sorry but I need more than you putting a shark in a tank and expecting me to have an epiphany.
for your second part, are producers of films artists? a film is not make by artists only
and if they are making good product? depend, most are crap, some are worth the time, and even less can be considerated good
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Raquelis in various games
Played: Everything
Playing: Nioh 2, Civ6
Wants: The World
Anticipating: Everquest Next Crowfall, Pantheon, Elden Ring
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
So we have old classical still making great film music, classical concerts with new compositions while pop rules the charts, a mixture of music rules festivals. But what top artist now paints and gets shown using something like the Pre-Raphaelite style? Anything before modern art is consigned to history and museums. That's what I am getting at, art is being held hostage by an elite.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I think if something is worthy of the name we should call is as such. But creative people do like to call everything they do art, its in their pretentious genes I think.
Aloha Mr Hand !
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
This isn't a value judgement on any individual title or the medium as a whole; I just prefer to live in a world with books than a world without them, for example.
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
The world has only moved on in modern art, because as I said it is held hostage by an art elite. Sure classical music is not as popular as it was, but that's not the same thing as being considered something only fit for the past.
The music you choose is another example, "Avant-Garde" classical music is popular but has it replaced new classical works? Music lives along side each other while painting, sculpture etc are ruled by those who "know best".
I have to say, I would not have thought we could such an interesting discussion outside gaming on here.
It's why this ancient Mike Myers SNL bit just never gets old for me:
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
Video games contain art but are themselves consumer products.
Where do we draw the line?
We could also classify packaging or the lines and curves of a toaster as art.
Take old cars from the 40's 50's and 60's.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Games are designed products. Their design heavily relies on story, art style, the quality of the art assets, sound and music to reach the design goal, which is making a successful product.
Thus games are products that rely heavily on their artwork.
They are not fine art though. Devs can't just randomly express themselves with their artwork.
Games are more like commercial art. Goal oriented but artistic.
Just like many cars heavily rely on their artistic beauty to reach more customers.
Artistry is another tool in the toolbox. Usually a very important one.
Am I Art????!!!!
...sorry just channelling some of the ridiculous pretensions modern art can have.
Joe, Joe made it go
Frank, Frank turned the crank
Art, Art let a fart
blew the whole damned thing apart!
So you see class, Art is hilarious and fun at parties, but horrible around the crafting table!
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
It's a mass produced product designed to generate revenue.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee