The depletion of imagination

Here me out.
I know everyone is into gqaoming and things these days but I would like just to point out something i have seemed to notice.

The use of video games. --of coarse it takes skill and memory for levels hand eye coordination blah blah.
The animation derived from a computer. Again there is talents involved.


I am not really arguing any case here just considering what I have seen.
The youth I have been associated with cannot entertain themselves on their own. Give them a preexisted video and they can go to town.
The same for computer animation. All kinds of tools at their disposal. Give them a blank canvas and all they can do is stare.

True creativeness. Is it being ruined. It is changing no doubt, but for the better?

The saying kill your TV - Kill your PC. Maybe they are on to something.

What do you think?

I think you're right :shock:

TV kills imagination like nothing else in human history. And the problem with TV is inherent in the technology itself - it doesn't matter what the content is. It is a 'push' technology where you sit back and the thing pushes the content at you. Sure you can flick between this channel and that, but at the end of the day you have virtually no choice. You don't engage your imagination when you watch TV because you don't get a chance. You are already doing enough processing in your brain as you turn the bright dots into meaningful data so that the content is absorbed unfiltered.

Why do they call them programs? Because you are being programmed by someone. Every program has an inherent bias and, as such, cannot be objective. They are always subjective. Brainwashing if you will. The influencing machine is designed soley to brainwash you - for good or bad. And how much entertainment does a person need anyway?

I think PC technology has some fundemental differences. It is essentially a 'pull' technology where you pull what you want and even push your own media onto it. The internet is a prime example of this - although there are obviously a lot of marketing people (commercial and political) vying for your eyeballs on here also. But, being democratic, I think it has more to offer (in the way of developing imagination and innovation) than TV ever will. The big networks don't do democracy.

Gaming doesn't do much for your imagination, afterall you're just engaging with somebody elses imagination, not using your own.

Just my opinions of course....

Books are the way; all the way. :goodjob2:
Nothing better to train imagination than reading a book; nothing better to train creativity than writing one.

Actually, if you are seeking to become a video game designer, or something in Multimedia, you are really into imagination more than you think.

After all, in order to take such classes, you have to learn how to draw really well, then the music, ADDIE, and more! Plus, being a multimedia designer is a lot like being in a Lucid dream, since there are no boundaries unless you assign them (for all we know, in private, Nintendo could have made Mario chase after Peach in one of the designs that was edited out, or maybe Pikachu secretly ...?s at night and hangs out with Haunter and Gengar), and you know when creating such is all in your mind, and thus it makes it much easier to do so.

What I am trying to say is Multimedia is pure imagination, and it can almost be considered a LD.

I think you missed his point nesgirl. I will agree, yes those that design the games have wonderful imaginations. However, those that play the games are "substituting" the designer's creativity for their own. As a result, they lose touch with their ability to create things, and as Howe said, just stare at the blank canvas.

I think I have a better than average creative ability, and that daydreaming is a good way to keep the imagination alive.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Distant Clone
I think you missed his point nesgirl. I will agree, yes those that design the games have wonderful imaginations. However, those that play the games are "substituting" the designer's creativity for their own. As a result, they lose touch with their ability to create things, and as Howe said, just stare at the blank canvas.

I think I have a better than average creative ability, and that daydreaming is a good way to keep the imagination alive.

---

Well, yes in a way, but sometimes those games you play (if you are a video game designer) can help inspire you to make better ones.

Video games are really fun to do as a hobby, but I think it is far better to make one.

wow nesgirl...your ability to associate any topic with pokemon is amazing. :-P But yes, video game designing is an entirely different matter, and it does take creativity, so I would agree with you on that.

However, I think that the point Howie was trying to make is how all teens are lazy! :wink: And that they can't think for themselves. Actually that's probably correct for the majority of teens.

Good thing you aren't part of this generation eh, Howetzer? :lol:

You forgot to mention obesity, lol.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines
wow nesgirl...your ability to associate any topic with pokemon is amazing. *:-P But yes, video game designing is an entirely different matter, and it does take creativity, so I would agree with you on that.

However, I think that the point Howie was trying to make is how all teens are lazy! :wink: *And that they can't think for themselves. *Actually that's probably correct for the majority of teens.

Good thing you aren't part of this generation eh, Howetzer? :lol:

You forgot to mention obesity, lol.

---

I wasn't associating this topic in particular with it. Mostly, I associate more with Fire Emblem.

Video Game playing might be considered lazy for some, but for designers, it is perfect, as they will see what exactly happens, and what reactions are used, etc.

I seriously find Multimedia to be a lot like a LD, since you can do anything you desire in it, and you know you are in your imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Inverting_world_lines)</div>

Quote:

---

wow nesgirl...your ability to associate any topic with pokemon is amazing. *:-P But yes, video game designing is an entirely different matter, and it does take creativity, so I would agree with you on that.

However, I think that the point Howie was trying to make is how all teens are lazy! :wink: *And that they can't think for themselves. *Actually that's probably correct for the majority of teens.

Good thing you aren't part of this generation eh, Howetzer? :lol:

You forgot to mention obesity, lol.[/b]

---

I hate to label are youth like that. It is a generation of instant gratification. When people grow up in that environment, this is an inevitable outcome.
Also as pointed out, of coarse there are aspects of the video game world that bolsters creativity. The general idea was also stated.
<!--QuoteBegin-Distant clone
I think you missed his point nesgirl. I will agree, yes those that design the games have wonderful imaginations. However, those that play the games are "substituting" the designer's creativity for their own. As a result, they lose touch with their ability to create things, and as Howe said, just stare at the blank canvas.

I think I have a better than average creative ability, and that daydreaming is a good way to keep the imagination alive.

---

Most of you have made good points.
I was expecting to get ripped to shreds by viewing my point about this.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Merlock
Books are the way; all the way. :goodjob2:
Nothing better to train imagination than reading a book; nothing better to train creativity than writing one.

---

Missed this one Merlock!

Just think. When we read a book. Is anyone ever satisfied with the movie afterward? No. Nobody is going to equal your own imagination.
You create, in a book what you want for a good portion. Ofcoarse a good writer is descriptive also. Which highlights your point about writing one too.

Quote:

---

I was expecting to get ripped to shreds by viewing my point about this.[/b]

---

I don't think you are unjustified by saying these things about today's youth. I would definitely agree with what you've said. I may have been joking about it in my thread, but I think you're right. Creativity and imagination is something we could all use.

...and nesgirl...I've never played Fire Emblem, but I hear good things about it. You Nintendo fangirl you. :lol:

And yes, Multimedia requires imagination.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inverting_world_lines


...and nesgirl...I've never played Fire Emblem, but I hear good things about it. You Nintendo fangirl you. :lol:

And yes, Multimedia requires imagination.

---

Yeah, it is the coolest game, and most of my avatars are of Lyn from it, who is my fav VG character (and hopefully going to make it into SSBB).
Why do you think my username is nesgirl119 (I don't think you need to know the 119 part)

You'd better believe that. Do you think MM is a lot like a LD? In my opinion, MM=LD, so usually when I do it, I think I am dreaming.
After all, just like a LD, you can do whatever you desire. There are no limitations unless you assign them.

I beg to differ. A large amount of artistic appreciation is needed to fully appreciate a video game today. Level designs, story (especially for RPGs), and especially music are all things that are looked for in RPGs and a higher demand has increased over the years (the beeping noises of the Atari would not be accept for music today nor would a simple "save the princess" story in an RPG). Indeed, observing some of the landscapes and character designs in video games has inspired my current artistic works. I fail to see how witnessing what could be described as art could numb ones own creativity. When children are taken to an art museum my first concern isn't that they'll be attempted to "substitute the artists' creativity for their own".

Quote:

---

Why do they call them programs? Because you are being programmed by someone. Every program has an inherent bias and, as such, cannot be objective. They are always subjective. Brainwashing if you will. The influencing machine is designed soley to brainwash you - for good or bad. And how much entertainment does a person need anyway?[/b]

---

I don't quite understand what you're trying to say. There is no such thing as an objective work since not only is a piece of art being created by a human being who by very virtue of their species cannot see the world from a objective lens but not only that, all works of art are open to subjective interpretations by the viewers. I don’t quite understand what you were trying to say. How’d we go from the philosophical limits of human perception and creation to brainwashing?

Quote:

---

The influencing machine is designed soley to brainwash you - for good or bad. And how much entertainment does a person need anyway?[/b]

---

Humans don’t need any form of entertainment but I don’t fancy we destroy all animation, literature, theater, and games either. What is the purpose?

Quote:

---

Gaming doesn't do much for your imagination, afterall you're just engaging with somebody elses imagination, not using your own.[/b]

---

This could be said for all works of art and yet such things as the Sistine Chapel continue to inspire artists to this day.

Quote:

---

I hate to label are youth like that. It is a generation of instant gratification. When people grow up in that environment, this is an inevitable outcome.[/b]

---

Since at least the times of Aristotle, people have always criticized and forecasted doom upon the next generation. If we are to trust this than we could all agree that every generation is a “generation of instant gratification” and sin. This is partly because there have always been ways to become instantly gratified from sex, to eating, and yes, videogames. This is far from a new trend and none of these things has yet to cause the collapse of Western civilization. This is the typical knee jerk reaction to every form of media or entertainment. Jazz had its time in this spotlight and video games shall soon leave it as well.

LunarMoon, I think your resemblance argument here is a failure. There is one giant thing you are overlooking. Music and painting, are not so interactive. You listen to it or view it, then it's done. Sure it might cause you to think, but not necessarily. Video games on the other hand, require quite a few hours of gameplay typically, to complete. A CD or a painting can be "consumed" in one sitting, without having to skip lunch. Video games give you tasks, objectives, things to do. Does a CD bark out instructions? Does a painting tell you what to do? No.

Now, why don't you define what an art is, then create a categorical argument of why playing video games is just as much an art as listening to music, or viewing a painting. You may also want to consider watching a movie, or reading a book as well.

Quote:

---

You'd better believe that. Do you think MM is a lot like a LD? In my opinion, MM=LD, so usually when I do it, I think I am dreaming.
After all, just like a LD, you can do whatever you desire. There are no limitations unless you assign them. [/b]

---

well my brother is always saying how all kinds of things are like an LD. Personally, I think he's just obsessed with metaphors, but he always says writing to him is like a lucid dream because it is a manifestation of his subconscious....or something like that.

I'm not really much of an MM person myself, but I guess I can see why you could compare that with an LD.

My opinion is simply: i dont care about the other part of the youth anymore. Let them brainwash themselves. It is outstanding individuals with extreme talents such as music production, art, playing an instrument, singing... whatever it is that makes you a creative individual. I think you all have valid points...Now heres mine.

Video Games: Will your favorite game be recognized in 100 years, what about 1000 years?

Art: We still have art on display from hundreds of years ago.

Literature: We have books that date back over 1000 years...

Music: People still listen to old music, hence oldies station.

My point is Video games are a temporary distraction that offer no real benefits in any real life situation. The only video game thats helped me out was shooting games, helped my hand eye coordination in paintballing, which in turn is just like video games, quite pointless and probably not going to be around in the next 100-1000 years. Video games are played untill everything has been done on them, then another version or another game thats similar with better graphics come out, and we do the same time consuming task over and over again to reach the end of it.

We need to stop depleting our imaginations and create for ourselves, before it is too late and were sucked into the brainwashing of governmental controlled television and unrealistic games. I could go on and on but i have to go to work in the morning so, theres my view.

-Nick

Quote:

---

LunarMoon, I think your resemblance argument here is a failure. There is one giant thing you are overlooking. Music and painting, are not so interactive. You listen to it or view it, then it's done. Sure it might cause you to think, but not necessarily. Video games on the other hand, require quite a few hours of gameplay typically, to complete. A CD or a painting can be "consumed" in one sitting, without having to skip lunch. Video games give you tasks, objectives, things to do. Does a CD bark out instructions? Does a painting tell you what to do? No. [/b]

---

Amazing, I’ve never found that the definition of art stated that it can never involve an element of interactivity. Let us check the definition shall we: n 1: the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art" [syn: fine art]. Indeed, I fear that I do not see your definition in this entire dictionary page.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art
By the way, I beg to differ that something cannot be considered art if it takes a large amount of time to take in its message. If you honestly believe this than you’ve just logically stated that all literature, texts, and other such writings that often can’t impatiently be consumed in one sitting are not art. I greatly disagree and I feel that books are some of our most important modes of artistic expression.

Quote:

---

Now, why don't you define what an art is, then create a categorical argument of why playing video games is just as much an art as listening to music, or viewing a painting. You may also want to consider watching a movie, or reading a book as well.[/b]

---

I’m sorry but this is simply an immature ad hominem argument (if you could call it such a thing) and a poor cop out typically used when one runs out of logical arguments (“Your opinion differs from mine so you must be stupid and uneducated!”). Indeed, did you honestly expect me not to quickly deflect that? Nowhere did I ever demonstrate that I was unfamiliar with some of the two largest forms of media. However, on to my main points. The concept of video games as art isn’t exactly a new or rare idea so I’ll provide you with a few sources (I’ve actually already explained why video games are art though you’ve insisted that I explain again) and of course, I’ve already given you a page full of definitions.
http://www.autofish.net/clysm/art/writing/...gamesasart.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art#Art_forms
Lastly, I shall provide a few questions. If I were to create a video game that communicated several philosophical, political, and emotional points that I believe in, would you not define this as art? Tell me, if a story is art, graphical design can be art, and music is art how can video games, composed of all these things, from a logical following not be art? If Lord the Rings were to be made into a video game, having all of its dialogue and scenarios translated into the game almost perfectly, would it suddenly lose all artistic value? Of course not; this is because its artistic value is due to the creativity and messages it expresses, not by its level of interactivity.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by LunarMoon

Quote:

---

Now, why don't you define what an art is, then create a categorical argument of why playing video games is just as much an art as listening to music, or viewing a painting. You may also want to consider watching a movie, or reading a book as well.

---

I’m sorry but this is simply an immature ad hominem argument (if you could call it such a thing) and a poor cop out typically used when one runs out of logical arguments (“Your opinion differs from mine so you must be stupid and uneducated!”).[/b]

---

Actually, what I was incinuating is that your resemblance argument is not strong enough for me, why don't you argue from a stronger approach (i.e. persuasively or categorically).

I have a better idea now of what I want to require. I'm willing to give up all other points except for this one. A piece of art should be static, and unconditional in nature. Every person should be subjected to the same experience. When something changes, due to user interaction, then it's no longer the same piece of art.

I'm willing to say that the music, the levels, the storyline (if fixed) is all art. If you want to take a snapshot of the current video game screen, I would consider that art, but the very next frame, assuming it's not identically the same pixel for pixel, is a different piece of art.

Regarding your Lord of the Rings comment, LunarMoon, you would have to precisely define what a video game is. I am assuming it would require a video game controller, and be driven by user input. In that case, the game itself is not art, but could be used to create art. It's really no different than a computer program that renders art scenes.

What about the human body? Is that art? I mean the physical body that you inhabit from birth until death. I don't think it is, but I do think that any picture of the body, video of the body, as long as it is static, is art.

I think that the extent of the corrosive properties of TV, computer and console games etc., completely depends on the person who is being subjected to it.

All my life, from a very young age, I have avidly and frequently watched movies, played games, read hundreds of books - and they have all constantly fuelled my imagination. For as long as I can remember I've been creating imaginary universes and worlds in my own bedroom, drawing precise diagrams for space crafts, writing stories, and making short films.

To re-state; TV and other such media may well be damaging to the imagination, but it totally depends on the person.

I don't guess that anyone can define what art is for someone else.
One person may get more out of one thing than another. But like most arguments the category as a whole should be what is taken into consideration. There are exceptions to every topic.
:|

Quote:

---

Actually, what I was incinuating is that your resemblance argument is not strong enough for me, why don't you argue from a stronger approach (i.e. persuasively or categorically). [/b]

---

Sorry about that.

Quote:

---

I have a better idea now of what I want to require. I'm willing to give up all other points except for this one. A piece of art should be static, and unconditional in nature. Every person should be subjected to the same experience. When something changes, due to user interaction, then it's no longer the same piece of art. [/b]

---

A static state in art is not in the dictionary definition of it. The same argument can be made for animation, of which video games have the most in common with. Each frame of animation is in itself art though the entire piece is art as well. Also, due to the non-static nature of animation, I could receive a completely different experience from watching an animation piece 30 minutes into it than I'd get if I had seen it from the beginning.

Quote:

---

What about the human body? Is that art? I mean the physical body that you inhabit from birth until death. I don't think it is, but I do think that any picture of the body, video of the body, as long as it is static, is art.[/b]

---

There are several people who do believe that the human body is art, something that is often debated in arguments that address the religious or even Victorian view of the body. However, this is a completely different discussion altogether that could easily result in theological discussion, of which I'd prefer not to get into (I've found that they typically become mere flame fests).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Distant Clone+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Distant Clone)</div>

Quote:

---

What about the human body? Is that art? I mean the physical body that you inhabit from birth until death. I don't think it is, but I do think that any picture of the body, video of the body, as long as it is static, is art.[/b]

---

<!--QuoteBegin-Lunar Moon
There are several people who do believe that the human body is art, something that is often debated in arguments that address the religious or even Victorian view of the body. However, this is a completely different discussion altogether that could easily result in theological discussion, of which I'd prefer not to get into (I've found that they typically become mere flame fests).

---

Not a work of art? :P

^^ That's my quote, not Lunar's.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Distant Clone
^^ That's my quote, not Lunar's.

---

Sorry about that.

I am not clear in either of your views if you feel the body is in fact a work of art or not.
Is it more a work of art than any of natures creations?
In defense that it is, the human figure combined with the countless body gestures and facial expressions I feel does set it aside from the rest.
I also am biased towards the woman's figure. What a work of art. :bravo:

IMHO, if you can get your hands on a really good video game, you will find that it actually increases your imagination and creativity skill. Well designed video games are innovative and not repetitive. They challenge the player to find out new ways to beat the level. The latest games that are coming out have complex physics engines which can allow players to beat challenges in ways even the developers did not think of. multiple souloutions to problems give players freedom to express their creativity.

I said that the body we encompass from birth to death is dynamic and changing, therefore not art. A single picture, video, or some other media of the body, that can be presented over and over and over, just the same as it was the first time, is art. A dead body typically decomposes, that's dynamic, so that's not art.

If we could somehow clone physical bodies and let them grow and develop exactly the same as the original, and later generations the same as their previous clone, sure that would art. Of course, that is really stretching the original definition, as most see it, but I'll count it.

You see, its like in Bugs Life, when the ants realize that they truely are a great and powerfull bunch. They realize that it is they, not the grasshoppers that.....wait, what are we talking about? Sorry I have no original thought of my own to add here so let me quote the television. "15 minutes can save you 15% or more on car insurance".

Clone, does live music come under your definition of art? Do two different live shows constitute two different pieces of equally valid art, or since there are two dissimilar representations of the same idea (the music), can it not be art? If Fan A hears Show A and Fan B hears Show B, can they both say that they've heard the same music? Is it the same for a comedy routine, a ballet, or a circus act?

How static does art have to be? The paints on the Mona Lisa have decayed over time ever so slightly, so arguably it's not the same piece of art as it was when Da Vinci framed it. The Cistine Chapel is more old and more beat-up than it was when it was painted - someone viewing it today might see the cracks and the faded paints and wrap that up into a completely different interpretation than its original viewers had, simply because it has aged. And didn't showgoers to the world premiere of Wagner's opera Lohengrin get a different performance than one played today, one characterized by the excitement and the novelty and unexpectedness of something brand spanking new? You say that something must be static to be art, but time always flows forward and always changes art's circumstances.

Hmm...it's like you are adding a different dimension to the argument. Maybe we need to distinguish the art from the presentation of the art.

I think the comedy routine is the best example. Write the comedy routine down on paper, then one may call it art. Perform the comedy routine, and then one is presenting the art.

To an extent, everything is going to decay over time. I'm not sure how helpful that will be. My main intention is that art should not change dramatically. After more consideration, I think art is more the idea, the intention.

Music has lyrics, and different instruments which can be tabulated (if that's the right form of the word). Write all that down, that's the art. Press many CD with the same performance call that art too, but not the same art as the ideas put on paper. However, performing a live show, which will in some form or another change every performance, that is a presentation of the art. If one records and makes a DVD of the band's performance, then it becomes again reproducible, and again is art.

More or less, everything will be art or a presentation of art. It's really just a categorical distinction, nothing much to argue over, as far as I'm concerned.

Art as an idea or collection of immutable ideas, I can certainly associate with and agree with - but the presentation of the art is incurably tied up in that. Art can't be conveyed without a medium, and ultimate it's the medium that people experience and develop opinions and sentiments about, and the medium always has an effect, from neglible to mind-altering, upon the viewer/listener/(sense-appropriate verb)er. Even in your example of written-down lyrics as a pure form of art, the interpretation might change depending on the size and face of the font, color of the paper, or gloss of the ink. The words themselves, which are pure ideas, are the art. But if you write them down, if you say them, if you sing them, arguably even if you transmit them telepathically, then the medium flavors the dish.

Since all art needs a physical medium for it to be conveyed and since physical mediums are subject to physical forces which, over time, change the composition of that medium - no, it's not just a categorical distinction, it's an essential connection. Art is ideal, untouchable, immutable, and, yes, static. Representation of art is none of those things, and is unavoidable.

And I fail to see how video games fall short of being art. An instance of art needs to be the same thing to many people, yes - and video games are precisely that. Everybody picks up the same package when they play a video game, and just because the game ends up providing a different experience to different people doesn't mean that somewhere along the line authorial control has faltered. Any combination of scenarios that a single person experiences throughout the course of a video game is a combination of things that the developer put in one by one, and just because people experience those in a manner not explicitly planned out by the artist doesn't diminish its ability to perform as art. The artist controls the material, but doesn't control the experience.

For example: a developer might design Area A, Area B, and Area C, but not necessarily plan for the player visiting those areas in any particular order, and can't control in what order they visit them. Similarly, Da Vinci painted a portrait containing a lady's face, folded hands, and a gloomy background, but has no control over how or in what order people experience those elements of his painting.

I don't think player input is even a factor to consider. As long as each possible outcome of a player choice has a definite response designed by the programmer of the game, then I fail to see how his message is perverted or subjugated. Superficially, artists with multiple works give you the same choice, just before you begin viewing at all - to listen to Album X or Album Y (or just listen to coldplay's X & Y and get both!), each giving a different meaning, but each meaning crafted by the artist. If playing a videogame is an artistic sin, then viewing a series of art pieces is even more sinful!: Not only are you subjugating the artist's intent by drawing conclusions and making impressions based on an order that somebody else might not experience, but it's not even an order that the artist planned for at all!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Spamtek
For example: a developer might design Area A, Area B, and Area C, but not necessarily plan for the player visiting those areas in any particular order, and can't control in what order they visit them. *Similarly, Da Vinci painted a portrait containing a lady's face, folded hands, and a gloomy background, but has no control over how or in what order people experience those elements of his painting.

---

Wow you are willing to put in a whole lot of thought. What I meant here, was that, suppose Player 1 does really good on a level and gets to go a BONUS round. Player 2 barely makes it through a level, and the bonus round is skipped. Each player does not see Areas A, B and C. Player 2 didn't get to see Area B. Similarly, what if there is a mutual exclusion between areas? One or the other? Some part of that statement does not seem right. Requiring some conditional interaction that enables an extra dimension to the art, you have no problem with that? I guess I can understand that.


I do think art inspires more art. However, kids today seem to be using it as entertainment instead of inspiration. I think that was the initial argument.

What's the saying? "A book is the projection of the imagination"

Actually I'm designing a game myself, an RPG that I'm going to orchestrate using the NWN2 Toolset when it comes out, so I am willing to put in a lot of thought on the matter. I wouldn't be as motivated if I thought that all my hard work would amount to nothing more than a charlatan's cheap parlor trick, with no artistic merit involved.

I'm pretty open-minded about it. Ultimately, as long as the artist has accounted for whatever it is the viewer/player experiences while interacting with his piece, then it's art as far as I care. Like I said, I don't explicitly disagree with you when you say that art has to be static, but I just don't see why you can't have a static array of choices, even mutually exclusive ones.

There's one potential kind of game that I'm not sure if I would classify art, and that's the class of games that are coming out today that feature procedural generation. Basically, the game is given a bunch of advanced scripts and based on player input creates new content, content that hasn't necessarily been explicitly thought up by the artist. For instance in Will Wright's game-in-development Spore, a player gets to design a species of creatures, and then based on how the player placed the skeletons, muscles, etc the game invents on the spot animations for that creature model so that it walks and runs efficiently, among other things. I'm not even sure if that distinction is meaningful though, because even though the artist didn't explicitly design that animation he did design the game itself to have that element of improvisation in it... hell, I don't know. But suffice it to say that in games where all content is handmade, I don't have any problem calling it art.


As far as art inspiring art, I think it's just a matter of input and output. Needless to say, making art requires considerable creativity, but the kind of art one creates is going to captivate the imagination to varying degrees. A book forces you to invent all the props for the story while a movie gives you everything up front, but if we're judging art based on its meaning and message you can't really call one inferior to the other.

And while art can be entertaining, you also have to account for the fact that there's a hell of a lot of entertainment that just isn't art. Art needs to convey a meaningful message, and I'm pretty sure that Britney Spears's hottest new single doesn't accomplish that, nor do many (probably the majority of) books, movies, and video games. The form of the medium allows it to be art if someone skilled enough crafts it into something timeless and worthwhile, but it's not a guarantee.

And then naturally people will disagree on where the line gets drawn on what is mass-marketed trash and what is timeless art, which is part of the fun of it all.