Slashdot Mirror
Fun is Fine - Toward a Philosophy of Game Design
David Kennerly writes "The Entertainment versus Art debate flares perennially. These participants may be having fun, but the dichotomy is uniquely inappropriate to games. By the end of this article, we may disentangle the faulty dichotomy. After reconsidering what we think we know about a game, fun, and art we may come to discover that Nomura and Costikyan are correct: 'If you were to write a Seven Lively Arts for the 21st century, the form you'd have to mention first is clearly games.' --Greg Costikyan"
and for most of us games are the only form of art we'll ever come accross.
having worked in the industry and having known many games designers and programmers, art does not come into it. pizza, sure, trash novels, sure, cheap sci-fi and pseudo philosophy, sure, but art? forget it. john
All I Want For Christmas Is My Constitutional Rights
How true this is, let's see a list:
Popular/Good Games - Awful Movies
Good/Popular Movies - Awful Games
And yet, these trends will probably never stop. We keep hearing rumblings about a Duke Nukem Movie, a Doom movie, and we're already getting another Tomb Raider flick. But as long as people keep buying these games, and going to see the movies we'll keep being exposed to this dreck.
Why can't we see more games like GTA that skirt the fine line between movie and game?
Mike
I find, as a graduate English student, that I can't really think of any generation or era where the intellectual art has really lasted well. The popular stuff tends to be what survives, largely because it was actually designed for people to enjoy, rather than praise.
If, in 100 years, we look back at any games as great works of art (And we may not - games are so dependent on the technology they run on that they may fail one of the basic tests of art, which is survivability), I do not think it will be deep and contemplative games. I think it will be things like SimCity, Zelda, and other games that were designed, first and foremost, for their players.
Philip Sandifer's academic website
What is the Sound of One Hand Designing?
"[Do not] mistake yourself for an 'artist.' Our goal is to create newer and more fun games. Art is not our goal." Tetsuya Nomura, Final Fantasy character designer[1]
The Entertainment versus Art debate flares perennially. These participants may be having fun, but the dichotomy is uniquely inappropriate to games. For example among MMORPGs, to Jessica Mulligan, fun subsumes art[2]; whereas, to Raph Koster, art subsumes entertainment.[3] I will challenge the dichotomy itself. Crafting fun is the art of the game.
To paraphrase Stephen King: Put your game design desk in the corner to remind yourself every day that Art supports Life, not the other way around.[4] By the end of this article, we may disentangle the faulty dichotomy. After reconsidering what we think we know about a game, fun, and art we may come to discover that Nomura and Costikyan are correct:
"If you were to write a Seven Lively Arts for the 21st century, the form you'd have to mention first is clearly games." Greg Costikyan[5]
To begin disentangling, we need to come to terms with the game as a unique medium.
A Unique Medium
"Unfortunately, as similar as the two media are, the differences are real and compelling and the superficial similarities can actually make people LESS effective in new, game-oriented roles." Warren Spector[6]
Games are not like other forms of art. To define a game: if it uses points, has players and rules, it's a game. Of course a game may be part of a service or a world or a community, too. To keep a game, as I use the term here, from being confused with all the disciplines that game theory has been applied to (economics, psychology, politics, empirical analysis), call it "a parlor game," if the reader must. But Joe and Jane at the checkout counter call it a game.
As the sound designer for the Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers video game wrote:
"It is unproductive to think of games as âinteractive movies,â(TM) although many people tend to think of games in those terms. Let's be clear: games and films are different media. The techniques, processes, and skills involved in the creation of each are unique and not interchangeable. The metrics by which each is judged are also different, meaning that many of the properties that make for a good film would lead to a lousy game, and vice versa."[7]
Narratives, which includes most films, and games differ dramatically, because games donâ(TM)t tell stories, players tell stories. A narrative is a passive experience. One watches and feels but does not do. The audience is not the actor. In a game, the audience is at once the actor, also. Herein is a conflict of purpose. The author of a narrative must control the lives of the actors. Whereas, the designer of a game must abdicate control. To paraphrase Will Wright's first advice for a budding game designer: Games are about players having fun; not about writers solving the narrative problems they want to solve.[8]
Part of the problem is that an intellectual property rarely links a fine narrative to a fine game. Dungeons & Dragons is not J.R.R. Tolkien-in-the-medium-of-a-game. American McGee's Alice is not an adaptation of Lewis Carroll-in-the-medium-of-a-game. Go or Eleusis, which are puzzling, logical, and playfully deep, offers better comparison to Lewis Carroll. Reiner Knizia came closer with his cooperative board game of "Lord of the Rings," which retains the spirit of the novel. But still "Lord of the Rings" is more of a novelty than a fine game.
Many game-movie crossovers, such as Tomb Raider or Mario Brothers, failed and so did movie-games, such as Atariâ(TM)s E.T.[9] or Braveheart. Their lesson: satisfy an audience for a movie, a player for a game. A bleak road lies before one who seeks a movie experience in a game or vice versa~$?ugh the fine game invokes something powerful inside the willing player, don't look for J.R.R. Tolkien or Lewis Carroll in a game. He's not there. Equally, there
I wouldn't be so sure about that. If gaming is an art, I'd consider it at the bottom of the art ladder. I've bought and played many PC games over the years, and I even bought a PlayStation 2 after a friend bugged me enough to get one. I'll play a game on my computer for a day, if that, before uninstalling it. The graphics are fine, but I find the plot and gameplay severely lacking in every graphical game I've tried. Then it was suggested to me that I try Dark Age of Camelot and the Sims Online, that maybe I'd enjoy an on-line multi-player game more than the regular games. They were both dull, boring, and felt like more along the lines of watching paint dry than enjoyment. I uninstalled both and canceled both accounts within three days.
Since then, I realized that most, if not all, of the computer and video games made the past ten years or so are utter crap. I even sold my PS2 and all my games. I haven't played a graphical game in months. But yet, every day I come back to playing MUDs, which are text-based on-line games. Using a simple telnet client, I find more plot and imaginination in text lines than I do in stunningly beautiful graphical games. Plus, I find that they rely more on intelligence and ingenuity than graphical games, which seem to primarily rely on eye candy and a gamer's reflexes.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
*boggle*
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
Alright, did anybody else cry when then got to the third level of Homeworld by Relic? You know, the one where um... something bad happens.. (no spoilers wanted).
Alright, I didn't actually cry, but for some reason it affected me alot more than most of those 'tearjerker' movies out there. Maybe I was just starting to really 'get into' what turned out to be a really awesome game.
Umm... I hope this didn't sound *too* pathetic...
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
if it's considered "art" or "fun" or even "monkey vomit", so long as it (the game) holds my interest.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
Ive always thought most games were an art form, in their design aspect at the very least. I write areas and encounters for Homeland MUD and the sheer volume of unique descriptions of rooms, areas, NPCs, and objects that have been written be me and our staff is astounding. Each one is like a short story in and of itself. This is no different from the guys that toil for hours in order to create the graphical artwork for graphical games instead of text-based ones.
I also contend that the code used in these games, or any creative code for that matter, is a form of art. Especially if it's well formatted and commented!
I'd also go as far as to say that certain players of games engage in an artform. Surely it is art the way a top Quake3 player frags their foes. And it is art to watch from above as some of the players on Homeland use their strategies and skills to accomplish what they and I never though possible.
Duris MUD - The best pkill MUD. Ever.
This guy makes the mistake of equating "art" and "good." This is a common mistake among people who don't know much about art history and the art world. "Art" is a type of thing, not a value judgement. So, at best, his essay makes a case for making Good Games by taking inspiration from Fine Art. This is a totally different thing from suggesting that Games have a place in Fine Art ie: that Games are a type of Art. I'm certainly not saying that games are not Art, I'm saying that that is a completely different subject.
All in all, this guy's lack of understanding of the art world, and especially contemporary art, makes this essay just about worthless.
Art is something that should be thought provoking and challenging, right? Great art is that what makes you challenge your assumptions. It makes things interesting.
I once read an interview with Sid Meyer of Civilization fame. He said the way to make a great game was the give the user interesting choices. Great art does the same thing.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I read in a recent interview with Shigeru Miyamoto that he doesn't consider video games to be art. He considers them to be products, made to entertain people and - well - make money.
He drew a comprison to opera - long ago, opera was not considered art, it was made to make money. The operas had to follow the fashion or people wouldn't pay. It's only recently that we've started considering opera to be an artform.
Hey, I find a well-rendered explosion or the graceful arc of blood spraying from a flesh-eating zombie to be a very powerful statement of man's... um... insignificance in the face of the world's indifference... um
Ah, hell, just give guns, cars, and innocent bystanders, I'll make my own art: six wanted stars with a chainsaw.
[SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
And maybe after the Philosophers come up with a game philosophy SOMEBODY will define a common set of key controls so that I don't have different throttle and weapons key templates for all of my flight sims!!!!
And speaking of flight sims whatever happened to the Jane's/EA gaming colaboration? Am I ever gonna see a flight simulator better than F-18???
--Richard
That's completely understandable from a game developers perspective. I wish it were not true. I'm big on pushing games as an artistic medium, but I don't believe any publisher in the US considers the same route.
Development in the US is geared towards pushing games as profit, and profit is generally in direct conflict with artistic creation. This is why independant publishers need more coverage. There are many out there who are not on the corporate bankroll and want to push further in the field of intereactive medium to create something new and bring new concepts into light in a way that can only be done using games.
The main issue with this is the general public handing over their cash for whatever the media and marketting tell them to. Unfinished, buggy titles that are blatant rip-offs of previous games, but with pop-licenses slapped on the cover. Rarely does a unique title get through the gauntlet of marketting, and if it does it's because it is a potential money-maker, and it's immediately cloned by countless other developers upon release. Cloned, not for it's creativity and what it brings to the table in terms of unique ideas, but for the posibility to cash in on it's "newness".
Hopefully we can push independant designers to the forefront someday (not likely, but it's a personal goal), and we'll see the more artistic side of the industry. For the time being, however, I believe this really *will* mimic the US movie industry, and most titles that try something new will find themselves in the game-industry equivalent of independant film festivals- few and far between, small coverage, but golden.
I love a deep and complex simulation, but I also love a good platformer. If you still have access to a PS2, try out Sly Cooper. It's possibly the best and most fluid platformer ever created. There's levels that I finished and went back to replay simply because they were that damn fun.
Other platformers to consider are Ratchet & Clank, Jak & Daxter (both have upcoming sequels). It's just a different type of gaming rather than better or worse. To be honest, I have a job that is deep and intellectual, so I make no excuses if I generally seek out the lighter side of gaming.
I also like FP shooters, third person shooters, turn based RPGs, non-turn based RPGs, action RPGs (Zelda, Kingdom Hearts-ish games), puzzle games, SimCity like stuff, and whatever the hell Monkey Ball was. Above all else, I want VARIETY more than anything.
But, yeah, there are a lot of crappy games. There's a lot of bad movies and books and TV shows and whatevers. Nothing new there.
--- Ban humanity.
According to Raph Koster the Art Vs. Entertainment arguement is inherently flawed. I could sumarise the essay for you but I am lazy.o rart.ht ml
Go read "The Case for Art" before you start arguing about being a puppet in a game designers show.
http://www.legendmud.org/raph/gaming/casef
Geez... Don't forget LOTR.
LOTR and the other Tolkien stuff that goes with it are great books... plus they were made into great movies (so far).
I would have to say that D&D spawned largely from Tolkien fantasy.. and thats a game.
And a great number of video game RPGs spawn from D&D. Nice lineage of Written Art -> Games -> Video Games -> Movies.
Do you want plot and depth? Look in a book. If you want fun, innovative gameplay, try a game! Games should be judged on their gameplay first, and on their ambience second - and you have to look at the whole picture to see the game's true value.
As for your assertion that no good games have been developed in the last ten years, I advise you to consider the output of Shigeru Miyamoto. The man continues to create fun, engaging games. For example, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time is widely considered to be one of the best games produced.
Art is creatively overcoming the limitations that the artist sets upon him or her self. It does not matter what the limitations are, but if the artist can successfully express more than what the limitations should logically allow, then I think it is successful art.
For example, if I had to convey the mood in the park next door to my house I could bring you here. But that is not possible. So, I can decide to express the mood in the park to you only via words, no sight, no sounds, no smells. Then I am a writer.
If on the other hand I choose the limitation of being only able to express in colors, then I am a painter if only through the medium of colors I can convey the mood in the park to you.
Or if I accept the limitation to be just using sounds, no sights, no colors, no smell, then I am a musician.
I can even choose to express the mood in the park by using only matchsticks, or some other arbitrary limitation. As long as I can overcome the "self" or "else" imposed limitations to convey more than what the limitations should logically allow, I think I am a successful artist.
I think gaming is the same way. By accepting limitaions on the medium of the computer screen, keyboard, joystick, the game attempts to transport the gamer into another world, another reality. If it can do that, it is succesful art. It is almost like movies where you suspend disbelief and enter the world of the movie. If you thought about it, all it really is just colored light flickering on a screen in a darkened room, with a bunch of speakers around. If with just these things the flickering light and sound can transport you to antoher world, it is art.
And so, Game Design is an art. Maybe coding by itself is not art, just like an artist can use artisans and craftsmen, but the game design aspect, I believe, is definitely art. It is art because it is able to creatively able to overcome limitations.
And using my definition of art, we can apply it to life too. The limitation of our lives is that they will end. The limitation of life is death, and so if we can live our life in such a way that we can transcend our physical death, our lived life itself then becomes art. So, I guess, in some ways I am saying the way we live our lives is the art of our life.
I understand that in a strange way I have come around to define just about anything as being possibly art, and so maybe I am taking away from the exclusivity of the art. But, not really. because for it to be successful art it has to transcend the limitation, whether the limitation is real or arbitary. Thus, though everything has the potential to be artistic, it becomes art only if it overcomes the limitation. And it requires creativity to achieve that, and not everything is creative. So, not everything is art. Whatever is left, is then definitely art.
Anyway, let me get my fourth cup of coffee. My head is spinning, and maybe if I could do something by overcoming that limitation, I could be an ... artist (?) (!)
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
If you're jaded about most of the shallow games over the past decade, you might be interested in Planescape Torment to provide something deeper. It's a role-playing game from Black Isle that came out a few years ago. It's not up to par graphically anymore, but the storyline more than makes up for it. There's a typical isometric top-down perspective of your characters and the world they're in, but nearly all of the game is conveyed to you through richly worded written descriptions of people, places and objects. Most of the game is dialogue, and there are scores of interesting branching dialogue options that develop your character in whatever way you choose, even so far as to be purely evil, which, surprisingly, doesn't impede your progress in the game at all! There are MANY, many different ways to play it that almost playing experience is different. All the dialogue in the game is enhanced by an extremely talented cast of voice actors that lend credibility to their characters. All of the main characters you'll meet in the game are very unique and well-written and there are scores of interaction options that you have with them.
:P It's the closest I've ever come to actually reading a good book while still playing a game. It's currently my favorite game out of all that I've played. If you're frustrated with all the shallowness then I'd highly recommend giving this game a try. It's $10 and up on Amazon, and you can find this in practically any given Wal-Mart or Target for $9.99 in one of those little two-game bundles. For a game that good, that well-written and that interesting for so low a price, it's hard to go wrong.
:)
It's incredibly difficult to adequately summarize this game, but I have to say, the real thing is better than I've described.
I'm going to go install it again.
Half the crap that passes for art nowadays isn't art. I know people are "pushing boundaries" and crap, but when you get stuff like this passing itself off as "art", then the whole fucking concept of art doesn't mean any more to me than a bunch of industrially sealed cans of someone's piss. (Which a British museum paid $35,000 for.)
Art is a joke. People use the term to describe things they don't understand and think are cool for no apparent reason. True art, like sculpture, paintings you don't have to be high to come up with a meaning for, orchestrated music, good writing, poetry that rhymes, and isn't just someone pulling stream of consciousness shit out of their ass and wiping on a piece of paper for you to read...this...THIS is art.
Unfortunately, art's been so diluted by utter crap that the public uses it to describe any and everything. "Look at that goal!" screams the unwashed mass, "That is art!"
No, it isn't.
Don't get started on that, "well, it's art to me" shit, either. If that's all that it needs, then Everything == Art, and the discussion is still equally useless because there isn't anything that can be claimed to not be art.
The only Art is see anymore, if the guy who works across the hall from me. He isn't a game, and games aren't him.
This insistence on attempting to pigeonhole crap that someone throws onto celluloid, canvas, hard disk, etc. is such bullshit. There's no such thing as art as a separate entity from everything else that people create. Art is strictly a matter of opinion, and since everyone's opinion differs, there can be no definition. Video game renders are as good as anything that some sweaty old man smeared squished plant matter all over.
This is just more of the same ignorant elitist shit that keeps that stupid art vs. pornography debate alive and kicking, frivolously pissing away time in our courts. If you create something and someone else likes it, then good on you. If they don't, throw that crap away and try again. Its bad enough that we've gotten so fucking stupid as to require the government to tell us what we find acceptable and what we don't; we sure as hell don't need these jackasses wasting anyone's time by trying to elevate their chicken scratches to a higher level of being through some arbitrary decision to promote it to the mystical realm of ART (cue angelic choir).
Shawn
Because you gotta bitch
I think we are talking about the same thing, but what we differ in is the "role" of limitation. An artist could arbitrarily choose a limitation but they seldom do. The limitations emerge from the nature of things, the primary being that the artist cannot "transfer the entirety of (the artist's) understanding" but the aim still remains to transfer a sufficient amount.
So the artist would like to approach "transferring the entirety," but of course cannot do, because the communication with the audience can only be done by some medium. The moment a medium is chosen limitations are imposed because no medium can transfer the sounds, the colors, the temperatture, the taste, the humidity ... et al. So, the game becomes transferring "a sufficient amount" despite the limitation of the medium. Of course, now, the artist is going to choose a medium that he or she is comforatble with so that the task of overcoming limitations is feasible for him or her based on the talents or capabilities that the artist has.
And then the artist, despite the limitations of the medium, is able to transfer a "sufficient amount," which also implies that the non-artist could not have transferred a "sufficient amount."
Now the limitation that was accepted and overcome by the artist was real, and pretty peculiar to him or her. But, the same limitation is pretty arbitrary from the audience's point of view. Because if another artist had been trying to convey something similar they would have chosen a different medium, and hence different limitations.
From the audience's point of view, it would not have mattered what the medium was, as long as they were "able to get into the mental state of the composer." And so, here we have all the elements of communcation, limitation, talent, expression, real, arbitrary, ......
To see a world in a grain of sand, and then to step back and see the beach where the sand lies
Games are a very complete form of expression, as such, they're able to convey or express complex messages or feelings to many of our senses simultaneously, but as I'm afraid happens with most other forms of expression, it just depends on who is trying to express something, how it is expressed and who is willing to receive it.
Many games are really complete works of art, you need people working in the plot and gameplay, music and graphics, so you practically have writers, musicians, painter and sculptors all working in a project, plus the coders and engineers to create an environment where all these elements can be merged. And on top of it, it's interactive, no other medium can ever give you that level of immersion.
Someone here mentioned having a bad experience playing PC games. Sure, I myself would say most FPS are just overrated pieces of crap, but I'd never underestimate the perception of those who are willing to appreciate a single element of the game that attracts them the most. Being the music or a single texture map.
I dare anyone to ever play Xenogears, FFVI, Metal Gear Solid, Zelda, Metroid and many other beatifully crafted games to the end, and not come out compelled on the powerful experience they can provide you. Some of them even make you question your own beliefs, some others will make you reflect upon your behavior. When an author is able to make you truly feel something, that's definitely art.
That said, I'm not pretending that ALL GAMES are art. Not all paintings, not all music, not all writings and certainly not all games are masterful pieces of art. But the subjective differences between those that can and those that can't be considered as art are what make our "art appreciation" skills meaningful.
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
I think there is a distinction between entertainment and art that lies in the interaction of the person with the artwork, not in the artwork itself. Games are required to be entertainment and have the potential to be art.
An entertaining movie/game/book/whatever stimulates the imagination as you consume it, pulling you in to a temporarily vivid world. But if it's only entertainment, an hour later you're hungry again. Art, OTOH, remains with you, changes you somehow, provides you a hook to hang future thoughts and emotions on.
Sure, if you play a game for X hours, you'll dream about it and find a thousand ways in which it is a metaphor for the events of your daily life, but how rich is the metaphor? how flexible? Does the extension of the game into your psychic life narrow your field of view, or expand it? If the game is multi-player, does it encourage social interaction along the single dimension of the game's progress, or does it provide a jointly formed framework for exploring many dimensions of social interaction?
I have a higher bar for the term "interactivity" - any shoot-em-up can absorb you and provide you with choices which impact the game, but a richly interactive game will also keep on interacting so that after the pixels have faded from the screen or the last stone has hit the Go board with a satisfying thunk, it will contnue to generatively engage you on multiple levels.
Fine art is not only the ceiling of the sistine chapel, but also the gazillion portraits painted of the virgin and child, still life and scenic meadows. Fine art is not only Beethoven's ninth and Miles Davis' solos but also the minor works of Saliari and the Spice Girls. Fine art contains Gone with the Wind, Schlindler's List, and Freddy Got Fingered. Fine art is Shakespeare, Vonnegut, and silly romance novels. The creative use of media on a professional level to entertain is fine art.
Fine art CAN have a philosophical point, be deep, meaningful, emotionally wrought, thematically interesting and all that, but it can be and often is quite shallow and trite. Every see Andy Warhol's Campbell Soup can? Ever listen to modern pop music? Have you been to a movie lately? Have you ever tried to delve into the meaning of Christopher Wren's St. Paul's Cathedral?
Sure the history of painting and sculpture contains masterpieces, same with music, architecture, literature, movies, and even TV. I'll tell you this for nothing, the history of video games is going to contain masterpieces as well, and because the medium is interactive and popular, it has the potential to produce more of them in the future than the other media combined.
Sigeru Miyamoto is arguably the most influential game desginer alive today. He's responsible for the Mario and Zelda franchises and is renowned for his quality. Try miyamotoshrine.com for more info.
To define art in terms of what you consider traditional forms, such as painting and sculpture, is to cut its balls of. Art is the combination of skill, intuition, and creativity to show people something, usually about humans, or how the universe relates to humans. Nothing less will do, and nothing more is required. The medium you choose to express yourself must fit the meaning. The reason for much of the dreadful "modern art" hanging in galleries is due to people trying to use traditional artistic media (such as oil on canvas) to express things it is not really suited for. Usually, when I walk through those sections of a museum the message I get is merely the artists frustration at trying to express what is certainly a very real feeling to them onto a 2 dimentional canvas.
On the other hand, non-traditional media are frequenly much better. For instance, the industrial sealed can of excrement is (at least to me) a statement about how we are frequently commercially driven to the point that we would buy almost anything if it were packaged in a nice way and well marketed, even a "turd in a can". The fact that a museum in fact paid a large sum of money for it only makes it more delightful.
Another example of modern art I heard about recently was a goldfish swimming in a blender, the idea being to force the people seeing it to confront the power they have of life or death (ie, they could switch on the blender and kill the fish). The great thing about that is that it engages the observer much more directly than any painting can. In fact, without a person there, it is just a fish tank.
To me, you sound like an old rich curmudgeon who was taught way back when you were a kid that certain things are art and certain things are not, and are unwilling to reconsider. Free your mind.
Art
is what stops
your
thoughts,
makes you see
the world
in a different light
and perspective.
Nobody can own
Art belongs to everybody.
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
no. not at all. art is creation through creativity of the mind.
Very nice post. I'm glad you expressed yourself here.
Beauty is very good Quality, so it is completely dependant on the viewer and the viewer's current state besides the object and it's state.
If you (or other readers) haven't taken read it already, I suggest Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig.
8-PP
no. not at all..
:-)
Be careful what you say and how you say it! "no. not at all"?? Am I completely off?
art is creation through creativity of the mind
EVERYTHING can be said to be creation through creativity, if you don't believe in a bigger thought than man-mind, you might restrict this to "everything man-made".
However, alot of creation is accidental, or not something done out of love and estetique. Lots of creativity can go into the creation of office-spaces, but that is the "Art of creating lots of office-spaces", not the kind of art we're talking about.
So the very term "Art" is relative, as everything in this world seems to be. So discussing it can really be a pointless excercise in ignorance, because the language is not rich enough to express the totality to make it absolute.
Also, Art does not exist without the observer. So Art is relative to the observer too. To minds usually have different opinions of what is Art, what is important in art, and they also have different defintions of art! But still they argue as if they talk about the same subject!!
Mind-boggling?
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/