Lionhead Studios - Interview with Peter Molyneux @ GamesIndustry.biz

[magerette]

GamesIndustry.biz has posted the second part of their two part interview (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29420) with Lionhead Studio's Peter Molyneux. The discussion is about Molyneux' views on games as art, and what he'd like to acheive in Fable 2 :
GamesIndustry.biz: You've always been outspoken in your beliefs about what games have the potential to offer and where they could go. What's your view on the question of whether games are an art form?
Peter Molyneux: Of course they are.
Why would you say that is?
Why would you say they weren't? I'm very glib about that because this is a philosophical question. Before I really answer it, you have to define what art is to you. If art is described as something which promotes a reaction in you and lets you glimpse something that's more than reality - then yes, of course they're an art form...
...I will say this: if this industry doesn't start waking up from the slumber it's in at the moment and realising we're not making people go 'Wow!' any more, we are going to become increasingly niche.
We need to look at the sense of wonder everybody has when they see a screen, and how many computer games are really getting that. That is art because it pulls people in, just like a piece of great art.
I want to play Spider-Man 3, of course I do... But what I desperately want I don't see very often these days: that moment I had when I first saw computer games. When I first saw Street Fighter, my eyes were glued to the screen. You look back at it now and it looks really rubbish, but it was incredible at that time.
We have to get that sense of wonder back into this industry, and that's a real obsession of mine at the moment.

Part 1 (http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page.php?aid=29187) of the interview, which deals with Fable2's combat approach, may be found here.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=6765)

[zakhal]

I think the best reason why games can be considered as art is the fact that you cant produce them on assembly line.

Just look at EA. EA tries to find an assembly line formula for games. Creativity can't thrive under those conditions. Art is too elusive and personal to be churned out like a factory product.

[Reyla]

I think the best reason why games can be considered as art is the fact that you cant produce them on assembly line.

Just look at EA. EA tries to find an assembly line formula for games. Creativity can't thrive under those conditions. Art is too elusive and personal to be churned out like a factory product.

Art can be churned out on an assembly line.

Television series and movie sequels are perfect examples. EA is trying to emulate this creative process.

This interview is about semantics anyway. Now that I wrote this, someone will reply telling me soap operas, sitcoms and courtroom dramas are not "art"

[DArtagnan]

Find an objective definition of art, then debate.

Since there is no objective definition of art, the debate becomes pointless, where as it really should be an exchange of opinion.

When Ebert said games weren't art, he was really talking about his own limited opinion. Limited as all opinions are, yes, but most gamers have more things around which to base their opinions related to games on.

[Prime Junta]

Art can be churned out on an assembly line.

Television series and movie sequels are perfect examples. EA is trying to emulate this creative process.

This interview is about semantics anyway. Now that I wrote this, someone will reply telling me soap operas, sitcoms and courtroom dramas are not "art"

Well, they're not.

Not in their original context anyway.

Not everything that takes creative effort to produce is art. We just released a piece of software on Friday. I wrote a significant chunk of it myself. The process of producing it was every bit as intensive and creative as the process of producing art.

But calling that piece of software art would be a very... long... stretch. The reason is that the intention isn't artistic -- it's instrumental. We set out to do something that fulfills a specific need in a specific market, not to create something that people would experience as art.

Similarly, courtroom dramas and soap operas aren't artistic in intent. They're intended to engage audiences enough that they'll stick around for the commercials. So they're not art.

Of course, it's possible that someone will make an artistically ambitious soap opera episode, or someone will appropriate a soap opera episode into a work with artistic intent, or any of a number of other things. That would mean that the soap opera becomes art, but it doesn't mean it was it originally.

Re computer games? Some are IMO comparable to soap operas (or the software we just released). Colin McRae Rally is an impressive technical achievement but I don't think that it's quite right to call it "art." On the other hand, titles like Psychonauts, Planescape: Torment, and Bioshock clearly have artistic intent built-in as well. Peter Molyneux has artistic intent by the bucketload, but whether he actually manages to achieve what he intended is another question.

So, my take is that "are computer games art?" is the wrong question, just like "is TV art?" or "are movies art?" or "is photography art?" are wrong questions. Computer games, TV, movies, and photography are media. All of them can be used for utilitarian, documentary, educational, entertainment, or artistic purposes. So, while "is TV art?" is a dumb question, "is Sopranos art?" is not.

[DArtagnan]

Again, with the subjective.

Maybe YOU don't consider the software you write art, but some people might. Art doesn't have to be about aesthetics or emotional intent.

Some people consider a well-crafted piece of work art, simply because it's so well done. Others don't.

There is NO objectve definition of art that can't be interpreted a million times over.

I know this approaches semantics, but it's primarily based on what I get from your words. If your intention was to explain your own perception, and nothing more, then I apologize. But it sure sounded to me like you were trying to tell people "the way it is".

[Prime Junta]

There is NO objectve definition of art that can't be interpreted a million times over.

I maintain that there is no objective definition of anything that isn't open to interpretation. Yet meaningful discussion is possible. What do you make of that?

[DArtagnan]

I maintain that there is no objective definition of anything that isn't open to interpretation. Yet meaningful discussion is possible. What do you make of that?

We're talking about degrees here.

Art is not a rectangle, which we can define easily. Nor is it a first person shooter, which is less clear but still relatively easy to define objectively.

Art is something that is entirely subjective, and indeed I think that's my personal definition of it. But speaking about it as if there was some objective truth to what you're saying is a bold thing to do.

That is what my point was about.

[Prime Junta]

We're talking about degrees here.

Art is not a rectangle, which we can define easily. Nor is it a first person shooter, which is less clear but still relatively easy to define objectively.

Art is something that is entirely subjective, and indeed I think that's my personal definition of it. But speaking about it as if there was some objective truth to what you're saying is a bold thing to do.

That is what my point was about.

If art is entirely subjective, that means that there's nothing meaningful you can say about it at all, since any meanings you want to attach to the word only exist in your head. It would fall under Wittgenstein's "wovon man nicht reden kann, davon muss man schweigen" rule. In other words, the definition cannot carry any meaningful information, and is therefore completely useless.

However, here you are, saying things about art. In other words, you're in cognitive dissonance -- saying that one thing is false but behaving as if it was true. Don't you think it might be interesting to try to resolve that dissonance?

Personally, I believe we can arrive at a meaningful intersubjective definition of art -- which is as much as we can hope for in defining any subject. Hell, we can even adjust the definition depending on context.

[DArtagnan]

If art is entirely subjective, that means that there's nothing meaningful you can say about it at all, since any meanings you want to attach to the word only exist in your head.

I'm not sure I follow this logic.

First of all, I never said art should be entirely subjective. That was taken out of context, because I was speaking about the definition of art, not art itself.

Secondly, even if I did, I don't think talking about it necessarily has to be meaningless. I'm sorry I can't find a suitable academic reference or quote to back this up, but I'm just a guy with an opinion.

However, I actually DO believe that art should start as something subjetive. It doesn't have to BE subjective, but whatever you want to create should be done for entirely subjective reasons.

This is, again, semantics.

What I'm really talking about is art versus commercial products. Most games (if not all) are made today with a commercial interest weighing a lot throughout creation. That itself lessens the art, in my opinion.

Still, all that has little to do with my point.

Of course we can discuss what art is or what it should be. But I simply don't think it's particularly beneficial trying to objectively define art, seeing as there can be no such thing.

I took you words as an attempt to do just that, and as I already said, I apologize if that was not your intention.

[Prime Junta]

I'm not sure I follow this logic.

First of all, I never said art should be entirely subjective. That was taken out of context, because I was speaking about the definition of art, not art itself.

I was talking about the definition of art as well. If you find that the definition of art is completely subjective, the word becomes perfectly useless since it can no longer carry any meaning from one person to another. You might as well say "SKNX is perfectly subjective" or "Smurf smurf art smurfs smurf." You may attach meanings to "SKNX" or "smurf," but if these meanings are completely subjective, there's no way you can communicate anything about it.

Of course we can discuss what art is or what it should be. But I simply don't think it's particularly beneficial trying to objectively define art, seeing as there can be no such thing.

I think it's pointless to try to objectively define *anything* -- even concepts as simple as "rectangle." What we can do, though, is agree on a provisional definition that we can adjust and refine as we go, if necessary. Sometimes we have to, in order to be able to carry on a meaningful conversation.

And I happen to believe that defining art by intent is a fairly useful way of doing it -- I find that most things most people would say are definitely art would be included in the definition, while most things most people would say are definitely not art, wouldn't be... and exploring the boundaries of art based on this definition can lead to some useful insights as well.

I took you words as an attempt to do just that, and as I already said, I apologize if that was not your intention.

Apology not necessary; if everybody had to apologize every time there was a misunderstanding, there would be no room left for actually saying anything.

[magerette]

It's difficult not to define subjectively, since our thoughts are filtered that way, at least in the primary loop. IMO, any useful definition has to have both elements, subjective and objective--not just "what is art," but "what is art for you?" before it makes much sense. Somewhere in the mix, you have a place for discussion.

I don't want to take your words out of context, D'artagnan, but if as you say here:

Art doesn't have to be about aesthetics or emotional intent.

I'm curious as to what you think it does have to be about.

If you remove aesthetics (for which I'm going to use the objective definition (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=aesthetics&x=48&y=10)) and emotional intent, I think you are left merely with craftsmanship.
Yes, a simple object created for functionality can possibly become art through exquisite craftsmanship, but doesn't that imply that it is existing at the aesthetic as well as the functional level? A spoon is a spoon; a Mayan carved spoon in translucent jade that sits in a museum case has transcended its function as a spoon and now exists to be admired; yes you could break the case and eat soup with it if circumstances so decreed, but at this point in space and time, because it encorporates the aesthetic element of beauty, it has become art.

I'm not trying to be difficult and split hairs, I am interested in your view. What are you picturing in your mind as art that has no aesthetic content or emotional intent?

[Moriendor]

To me (note that we're in subjective territory now :biggrin: ) video games per se are entertainment products, not art. They are, however, entertainment products that are made up of individual acts of art (i.e. the creative process of designing a world, landscape, building, character or even story, dialogue = art but the end result is merely an entertainment product in my opinion).
I'd say the same is true for e.g. soap operas on TV. The jingle that plays as the opening music = art (since composing it involves a creative process) just like the making of set items usually involves an individual act of art but the end result is once again "only" an entertainment product.

All of the above is strictly only "IMHO", of course ;) .

[abbaon]

Junta, could you please define artistic intent without using any declension of the word "art"? I assume you're not saying that creative product only becomes art when the creator explicitly thinks "Art!" But I don't know what you are saying.

[DArtagnan]

I was talking about the definition of art as well. If you find that the definition of art is completely subjective, the word becomes perfectly useless since it can no longer carry any meaning from one person to another. You might as well say "SKNX is perfectly subjective" or "Smurf smurf art smurfs smurf." You may attach meanings to "SKNX" or "smurf," but if these meanings are completely subjective, there's no way you can communicate anything about it.

No, I can't agree.

Just because it's subjective, doesn't mean people can have no common ground. My personal definition can be entirely unique, and yet have things about it that can be communicated and understood. Therefore, it could make a lot of sense to discuss it.

I might even be able to convince others enough to make them see the light ;)

I think it's pointless to try to objectively define *anything* -- even concepts as simple as "rectangle." What we can do, though, is agree on a provisional definition that we can adjust and refine as we go, if necessary. Sometimes we have to, in order to be able to carry on a meaningful conversation.

Semantics again.

But I think we agree overall here.

And I happen to believe that defining art by intent is a fairly useful way of doing it -- I find that most things most people would say are definitely art would be included in the definition, while most things most people would say are definitely not art, wouldn't be... and exploring the boundaries of art based on this definition can lead to some useful insights as well.

I'm not sure what you mean by defining by intent, except if it's a fancy way of saying, simply, defining.

In any case, we're left with semantics and I don't particularly feel like a verbal fencing match with no worthwhile goal in sight, as my point has been made.

Whether you call it an objective definition or a provisional definition is not really important. Because my point was about trying to determine what art is as truth, rather than as a personal perception.

I'm not trying to be difficult and split hairs, I am interested in your view. What are you picturing in your mind as art that has no aesthetic content or emotional intent?

No, I appreciate what you're asking.

But, I wasn't talking about my own perception of art, but the possibility of what others might consider art.

Let's say a person is cooking dinner, and he has a certain standard that he wants to achieve. A certain taste. It's something that HE likes and therefore he is willing to perform certain meticulous tasks to complete the meal.

The creation of this meal could be said to be devoid of emotional intent and it wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing as I understand it. Such a thing could be a work of art to some people, because it requires a level of dedication and creative ability to achieve that particular taste. In fact, it would match my own personal perception of art, because the creation is based on entirely subjective wishes and intents.

However, I'm aware of the circular nature of this point, because how can we exclude emotions entirely when dealing with any kind of craftsmanship. We're not robots, after all, and as such maybe emotions can never be removed from the equation.

But still, I think my point is relatively clear.

Also, regarding the soap operas, I'm pretty sure there are people working on "The Bold and the Beautiful" that consider the show art, or at least parts of the show art.

It is, as I said, entirely subjective.

If we look at an official definition from Webster.com:

the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

We can note that it's a relatively widespread understanding that a simple use of skill and creative imagination is enough to fit the definition. However, that's not a definition I find thorough, and indeed it lacks some aspects I personally deem vital to achieve the "status" of art.

As I said, I personally believe that art must be made without consideration for what others want or what might be of commercial appeal. I won't recognize seeking popularity as art, no matter the motivation. But that's just me.

[magerette]

D'Artagnan wrote:
Let's say a person is cooking dinner, and he has a certain standard that he wants to achieve. A certain taste. It's something that HE likes and therefore he is willing to perform certain meticulous tasks to complete the meal.

The creation of this meal could be said to be devoid of emotional intent and it wouldn't be aesthetically pleasing as I understand it. Such a thing could be a work of art to some people, because it requires a level of dedication and creative ability to achieve that particular taste. In fact, it would match my own personal perception of art, because the creation is based on entirely subjective wishes and intents.


Thanks for explaining what you had in mind. I do see your point though I don't completely agree; I can see this meal as art, but to me it also has emotional intent--the pride of the cook, the desire to create an effect with the meal in the diner--and aesthetics- since it involves the senses and so may appear and/or taste sublime or terrible and can only achieve its purpose in this way. But obviously you foresaw my argument:

However, I'm aware of the circular nature of this point, because how can we exclude emotions entirely when dealing with any kind of craftsmanship. We're not robots, after all, and as such maybe emotions can never be removed from the equation.

Exactly. Though there is art I'm sure that begins as a pure intellectual experience, I think as it is assimilated by our senses by it's nature it awakens an emotional response, or at least an appreciation that is more than just an abstract buzz across the synapses. Otherwise math would be art (and under an entirely subjective definition, perhaps to some it is.)

I think there are a lot of ways to look at art, and that any definition that is too exact becomes rigid and exclusive. And I do agree with the spirit of your last statement that
... art must be made without consideration for what others want or what might be of commercial appeal. I won't recognize seeking popularity as art, no matter the motivation..
though I'm sure we could find plenty of examples of art that was created to order or in the hopes that it would be commercially successful, beginning with the Sistine Chapel all the way to the houses of Frank Lloyd Wright or the works of Mozart.
However, I think when you talk about anything that's produced with the primary object of making money, and lots of it you're talking about the bogus product that is marketed as art and really is only a parody of something genuine, whereas the artists in the examples above produced what they had according to their own vision, and were trying to find ways to use that vision to survive.

And that brings us right back to video games. ;) When they are created to a commercial template, scrutinized for popularity and highest sales, generically executed and funded and approved by bean-counting middlemen, art is the last thing that happens. When a developer has a great game that carries the force of art, it's seldom something that can come through this kind of draconian assembly-line paradigm intact.

I'm not contending games can't be art, but not under those conditions.

[Geist]

I think you pretty much nailed two of the more important characteristics that an object is likely to have if people are to categorize it as art.

1. It should be unique or original in some way. Or, if it is based on an existing prototype it should at least add something new or appreciably different. Our senses are less likely to be stirred by something which they have already experienced many times over to the same extent that they would react to a novel experience. Of course, simply being unique is not enough for a creation to become art. I could arrange a group of sticks in a forest in a way that is entirely unique, but if it's just an ad-hoc pile of sticks no one would consider it art.

2. The creation should elicit an emotional response from those experiencing it (whether it was the creator's intent to evoke such a reaction isn't particularly relevant, imo). I'm not talking about the kind of emotional response that a user of Prime Junta's newly developed piece of software might have when he thinks, "yippee, this is going to save me so much work in the future!" or the reaction that a passer-by might express after tripping over my elaborately arranged pile of sticks ("Where's that #$@%! lunatic who put those god damn branches on my walking path"). The emotion I'm referring to is that sense of wonder, awe, or wistfulness that sometimes strikes us when we are particularly moved by something. It's impossible to define precisely, but usually we can recognize it when it hits us and differentiate it from other emotions.

I'm not saying that the two attributes above are unique to art, or that an object needs to have one or both of them in order to be classified as art. But if it does possess them, there is a chance that a fair number of people will deem it to be a work of art.

[Prime Junta]

No, I can't agree.

Just because it's subjective, doesn't mean people can have no common ground. My personal definition can be entirely unique, and yet have things about it that can be communicated and understood. Therefore, it could make a lot of sense to discuss it.

In that case, it's not completely subjective -- only partly.

I'm not sure what you mean by defining by intent, except if it's a fancy way of saying, simply, defining.

Nothing fancy about it. It just means that if I create something with an artistic intent in mind, the resulting artifact is art. Conversely, if I create something with no artistic intent, the resulting artifact is not art.

Whether it's any good as art or not is another question.

Of course, "creating" is a very wide concept -- it could mean anything from chipping out a sculpture from a block of marble to appropriating an artifact not normally considered art and exhibiting it as such (Duchamp's pissoir being the classic example).

In any case, we're left with semantics and I don't particularly feel like a verbal fencing match with no worthwhile goal in sight, as my point has been made.

I hate arguments about semantics. They're utterly pointless. What we can (and sometimes should) do is discuss semantics in order to agree on a definition for the purposes of the discussion so that we understand what we're talking about. For example, if I have the "intentional definition" of art in mind and I talk about it, while you have, for example, the "art as craft" definition in mind, we will certainly be talking at cross-purposes -- for example, the Leica M3 would fit your definition but not mine, while Duchamp's pissoir would fit my definition but not yours.

Whether you call it an objective definition or a provisional definition is not really important. Because my point was about trying to determine what art is as truth, rather than as a personal perception.

Art is a concept. There's no "truth" to concepts. Only meanings.



If we look at an official definition from Webster.com:

the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects

We can note that it's a relatively widespread understanding that a simple use of skill and creative imagination is enough to fit the definition. However, that's not a definition I find thorough, and indeed it lacks some aspects I personally deem vital to achieve the "status" of art.

I don't find that definition particularly useful, since it would leave out e.g. Duchamp's pissoir -- which was, I might remind you, recently voted as the most influential work of art of the 20th century.

[ http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm ]

As I said, I personally believe that art must be made without consideration for what others want or what might be of commercial appeal. I won't recognize seeking popularity as art, no matter the motivation. But that's just me.

By that definition, Michelangelo, Mozart, Verdi, or Charlie Chaplin wouldn't be art. IOW, I don't find it a very useful one either.

[Prime Junta]

Junta, could you please define artistic intent without using any declension of the word "art"? I assume you're not saying that creative product only becomes art when the creator explicitly thinks "Art!" But I don't know what you are saying.

I could try, but I doubt it would make things any clearer.

I am actually saying that a creative product only becomes art when the creator explicitly thinks "Art!" However, keep in mind that "the creator" could be any number of things -- to bring up Duchamp's urinal again, it wasn't art when it came out of the porcelain factory, but it became art when Duchamp thought "Art!" and hauled it to the gallery, put a rope around it, and attached a label saying "Fontaine."

[Prime Junta]

I'm not saying that the two attributes above are unique to art, or that an object needs to have one or both of them in order to be classified as art. But if it does possess them, there is a chance that a fair number of people will deem it to be a work of art.

The problem with this definition is that perceptions are subjective and contradictory, whereas the creator's intent isn't. For example, Van Gogh painted a pot of flowers. Most people at the time who saw it thought "Meh." In other words, by your definition, Van Gogh's sunflowers would only have become art after he died and some folks thought "oo, art!"

OTOH, suppose I set out to create a work of art, with the intent to stir the emotions as you describe them. Then suppose it fails to do that for my intended audience. Does that mean it wasn't art? IMO no, it doesn't -- it could mean that I was way ahead of my time when creating it, or it could mean that it was a lousy artwork, or it could mean that I was exhibiting it to the wrong people. But even if it's any or all of these things, it's still art.

[DArtagnan]

Thanks for explaining what you had in mind. I do see your point though I don't completely agree; I can see this meal as art, but to me it also has emotional intent--the pride of the cook, the desire to create an effect with the meal in the diner--and aesthetics- since it involves the senses and so may appear and/or taste sublime or terrible and can only achieve its purpose in this way. But obviously you foresaw my argument:

I don't mean to be pedantic, but I used the word "aesthetic" because it relates directly to beauty or an appealing appearance. That's actually, if I'm not mistaken, the exact definition of the word. So it's not about pleasing the other senses, like that of taste.

However, I still take your point, and it would seem that we agree overall.

though I'm sure we could find plenty of examples of art that was created to order or in the hopes that it would be commercially successful, beginning with the Sistine Chapel all the way to the houses of Frank Lloyd Wright or the works of Mozart.

Oh, I don't doubt that.

I'm not saying that those things aren't art, obviously. What I'm saying is that if they did indeed create those works of art with popularity as a goal, then the result is most likely less art, rather than more art. That would probably make some people go a bit nuts, but that's how it works in my odd little world.

In the same way I would consider the Lord of the Rings movies works of art, only much less than what they could have been without the ridiculous way they handled certain elements of the book for commercial reasons, like Gimli's behaviour and apparent purpose of being the comic, or Legolas skating on shields, etc.

Note, however, that I'm not a Tolkien fanatic or anything, I just don't like changes for commercial reasons.

This is, naturally, merely based on my own perceptions and might be factually wrong. But I don't have any way of knowing why they made certain changes, and I doubt they'll admit to severely modifying characters to sell more tickets if I just asked them. It's also possible that Jackson, whom I believe to be responsible, just likes those things and put them in there for purely subjective reasons, in which case they must be recognized as art. I just happen to strongly doubt that, and even it that was the case, it would be art not to my tastes.

[DArtagnan]

In that case, it's not completely subjective -- only partly.

No, that's not true.

Something subjective is something as it is perceived, not as it is - independent of perception.

There is no reason that two people couldn't perceive the same thing in similar ways.

Even if they couldn't, it would still be possible to start as something "entirely subjective" and then change by way of communicating. Perceptions change, like so many things do.

Art is a concept. There's no "truth" to concepts. Only meanings.

Art is many things, and a concept is one of them.

If we're talking about objective definitions, then we are actually talking about truth. If I objectively define something, it's basically the same thing as saying "this is truth". Of course, I'm not talking about an ultimate truth that exists independent of the mind - meaning it's not objective in the strict sense, but a truth that should be recognized as such by many because it fits with accepted and established rules. Maybe that's what you call a provisional definition.

Just like, for instance, the rectangle example.

By that definition, Michelangelo, Mozart, Verdi, or Charlie Chaplin wouldn't be art. IOW, I don't find it a very useful one either.

You're thinking in extremes, which is not helpful if you want to understand me.

I'm not saying that anything influenced by those things (commercial reasons, seeking popularity) can't be art. I'm saying the result is less "artful" than it would have been without those influences. It's the very goal that I won't recognize as art, not the end result as a whole.

[abbaon]

I could try, but I doubt it would make things any clearer.
Alrighty. Just wanted to note that you seem to have defined art as that which is created with artistic intent, and artistic intent as the decision to create art. And that if a possible artist doesn't declare himself one way or the other, your standard can't be employed by anyone without psychic powers.

Here's how I define art: it's a collective term for some categories of creative output. Those categories are arbitrary, and chosen by general consensus. Sculpture, music, and film are art. Videogames are not art, but may become art in the future.

This definition fits the common use of the word, which allows me to use it in conversation. It ignores the expert-defined "art" of the last century, which is an elaborate taxpayer-funded scam. It also prevents me from becoming entangled in discussions like this one, which I will now exit.

[Geist]

The problem with this definition is that perceptions are subjective and contradictory, whereas the creator's intent isn't. For example, Van Gogh painted a pot of flowers. Most people at the time who saw it thought "Meh." In other words, by your definition, Van Gogh's sunflowers would only have become art after he died and some folks thought "oo, art!"

Note that I wasn't attempting to create a definition. I merely listed a couple of characteristics that are often (but not necessarily) present in works that are widely considered art. The reasons why we find something unique or why it evokes a sense of wonder that leads us to think "oo art!" are manifold, and they differ greatly depending on location, culture, time period etc. Objects that were created for purely functional purposes in one era of human history (a sword, a suit of armor perhaps) may, in another era, elicit the sense of awe and wonder that cause people to see them as art. So, to address your example of Van Gogh's flower pot, yes an object can be a piece of art in a certain time or place, and not in another. Just as the perception of what is an RPG changes over time so does the perception of art. I believe it was abbaon who said, "We assign meaning to words, we don't derive it from them". Those meanings are in constant flux, but if we are to understand each other in conversation we have to accept them as they are understood by the majority of others (or as is often the case, by the majority of "experts"). If each person invents his own definition, the result will be confusion.

Your contention that art is only art if the creator intended it, is far less ambiguous. If everyone accepted this premise, we would have a pretty clear foundation on which to base our discussion of art. Unfortunately, we are about as likely to reach that consensus as we are to reach a consensus that an RPG is only an RPG if it has turn based combat.

[abbaon]

I believe it was abbaon who said, "We assign meaning to words, we don't derive it from them".
Seeing that again, I immediately think of a dozen exceptions which didn't apply when I happened to say it. It's far from a general rule, and I won't defend it. But thank you for remembering.

[MudsAnimalFriend]

It's difficult not to define subjectively, since our thoughts are filtered that way, at least in the primary loop. IMO, any useful definition has to have both elements, subjective and objective--not just "what is art," but "what is art for you?" before it makes much sense.
An objective assessment is based on verifiable attributes for a given context. In art appreciation’s case subjective opinion provides the context on which an objective claim may be made. This dependency exists because many of fine art’s attributes are the product of intellectual perceptions rather than physical realities.

For instance, it's objectively true to state that a painting is functioning as fine art if it provokes a non-trivial intellectual or emotional response from an observer. It’s also a completely redundant assessment because it can’t be decoupled from the subjective perceptions of the observer – it merely asserts what has been perceived in an objective manner.

[Prime Junta]

No, that's not true.

Something subjective is something as it is perceived, not as it is - independent of perception.

There is no reason that two people couldn't perceive the same thing in similar ways.

Even if they couldn't, it would still be possible to start as something "entirely subjective" and then change by way of communicating. Perceptions change, like so many things do.

But once these two people share their experiences and define a concept around this overlap, the concept is no longer "entirely subjective." That's how language works -- no two people may have exactly the same meaning in mind when thinking of a word, but if there's sufficient overlap in the meanings, communication becomes possible.

I guess my real point is, why single out art? Art is no different from any other reasonably complex concept, as a word, concept, or set of meanings.

If we're talking about objective definitions, then we are actually talking about truth. If I objectively define something, it's basically the same thing as saying "this is truth". Of course, I'm not talking about an ultimate truth that exists independent of the mind - meaning it's not objective in the strict sense, but a truth that should be recognized as such by many because it fits with accepted and established rules. Maybe that's what you call a provisional definition.

Close enough. I don't like the idea of "truth" when discussing meanings -- I prefer "utility." Definitions can be useful or useless, but it's nonsensical to declare them "true" or "false."

You're thinking in extremes, which is not helpful if you want to understand me.

Fair enough. Then how should I think when trying to understand you? The trouble (from my POV) is that you *speak* in categorical terms -- "something is not art if it's commercial." How am I supposed to know that you actually mean "commercial intent detracts from the artistic merit of a work" if you don't say so?

I'm not saying that anything influenced by those things (commercial reasons, seeking popularity) can't be art. I'm saying the result is less "artful" than it would have been without those influences. It's the very goal that I won't recognize as art, not the end result as a whole.

Always, most of the time, or just sometimes? See, you're talking in absolutes again, and I have a hard time understanding what degree of relativity I should apply.

If you mean that sacrificing artistic integrity for salability generally detracts from the artistic merit of a work, I agree entirely. (It's also a bit tautological IMO.)

[Prime Junta]

Alrighty. Just wanted to note that you seem to have defined art as that which is created with artistic intent, and artistic intent as the decision to create art. And that if a possible artist doesn't declare himself one way or the other, your standard can't be employed by anyone without psychic powers.

Quite. Fortunately (?) most artists are pretty explicit about their intent -- or they leave enough cues for us to be able to go "ah-ha, art!" when we see whatever it was they did.

But yeah, I am saying that without cues that let us know that an object is intended to be "read" as an artwork, we really can't read it as an artwork. Take Duchamp's urinal again: in a toilet, it would just be a urinal, but roped off and labeled in a gallery, it is unambiguously art.

In a way, art that's not "labeled" art -- "labeled" in a very loose sense of the word -- isn't art, because we won't perceive it as art. So if that kind of tree falls in the woods and there's nobody there, there really isn't a sound.

Here's how I define art: it's a collective term for some categories of creative output. Those categories are arbitrary, and chosen by general consensus. Sculpture, music, and film are art. Videogames are not art, but may become art in the future.

I would call these categories media, not art. Not all sculpture is art (e.g. garden gnomes), not all music is art (e.g. an advertising jingle), and not all film is art (e.g. your basic detergent commercial).

This definition fits the common use of the word, which allows me to use it in conversation. It ignores the expert-defined "art" of the last century, which is an elaborate taxpayer-funded scam. It also prevents me from becoming entangled in discussions like this one, which I will now exit.

But there's the rub -- it *doesn't* fit the common use of the word. By that definition, a Tide commercial, a garden gnome, and the BBC World News jingle would be art, although I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people (general public and "experts" included) would say that they're not.

[DArtagnan]

But once these two people share their experiences and define a concept around this overlap, the concept is no longer "entirely subjective." That's how language works -- no two people may have exactly the same meaning in mind when thinking of a word, but if there's sufficient overlap in the meanings, communication becomes possible.

We agree here, which I suspected all along which was sort of my point regarding the verbal fencing match.

I guess my real point is, why single out art? Art is no different from any other reasonably complex concept, as a word, concept, or set of meanings.

I'm not sure how I've singled out art, so please remind me.

Close enough. I don't like the idea of "truth" when discussing meanings -- I prefer "utility." Definitions can be useful or useless, but it's nonsensical to declare them "true" or "false."

I agree completely, which is why I made my original comment about the way you seemed to word your opinion as "true".

Fair enough. Then how should I think when trying to understand you? The trouble (from my POV) is that you *speak* in categorical terms -- "something is not art if it's commercial." How am I supposed to know that you actually mean "commercial intent detracts from the artistic merit of a work" if you don't say so?

I don't always make myself clear, and I regret that. However, I take great care in my choice of words. That said, english is not my first language and I make mistakes.

I don't expect you to understand everything I say, but know that I generally don't think in extremes even if my words sometimes imply that. So if you stumple upon something you consider extreme about my opinions, then take a second and consider if there could possibly be another interpretation of what I said.

Naturally, you don't have to do that, and I will likely be here to correct any false interpretations regardless. It's just a suggestion to save time in potential future debates.

Always, most of the time, or just sometimes? See, you're talking in absolutes again, and I have a hard time understanding what degree of relativity I should apply.

I have yet to see an example where I could detect such an influence where it did not lessen the art. So, for the moment, it's always. This also happens to be why I'm talking about this as part of my personal definition for "true" art.

If you mean that sacrificing artistic integrity for salability generally detracts from the artistic merit of a work, I agree entirely. (It's also a bit tautological IMO.)

It would seem to be tautological, and yet I've seen countless examples of developers or movie makers claim that the choices they've made for practical reasons (i.e. to make the game/movie a sufficiently big hit) have had no detrimental effect on the end product.

[Prime Junta]

It would seem to be tautological, and yet I've seen countless examples of developers or movie makers claim that the choices they've made for practical reasons (i.e. to make the game/movie a sufficiently big hit) have had no detrimental effect on the end product.

There's a subtle distinction there, I think: if their improvements to salability did not, in fact, cause them to trade off things they would have liked to do artistically, how would the change detract from the artistic merit of the work?

Take Director's Cut editions of films. Blade Runner, for example. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the original release version of Blade Runner is actually better -- artistically -- than the Director's Cut. Yet most of the differences between the two are due to either having to cut the film to a predetermined length, or the producer wanting to make the film more accessible (i.e., more salable).

[DArtagnan]

There's a subtle distinction there, I think: if their improvements to salability did not, in fact, cause them to trade off things they would have liked to do artistically, how would the change detract from the artistic merit of the work?

It would depend on your personal definition.

It's not about what the individual perceiver enjoys, but what the artist wants to convey.

As I said, I have yet to see a decision based solely on commercial reasons or the desire to be popular enhance the artistic quality of the end product. That doesn't mean it can't be more enjoyable or even "better", it simply means it's farther from the original artistic vision than it would have been without such influences.

A crude analogy would be the translations of books. Books need to be translated to reach a larger audience, and indeed, if you can't read the language of the author, you won't be able to enjoy anything about his work. However, the end result is pretty much certain to be something other than what the artist intended, by nature of faulty translations and the general incompatibility of different languages.

Translations are obviously made, primarily, for practical and commercial reasons, and as such they're less true to the original vision, and as per my definition lesser art.

This is also why I only read books in their original language, because I prefer the true art, rather than "what I can get". Naturally, my own ability to read a specific language is just as influential in determing how true to the art I can get, which is why I only read books written originally in either danish or english, because those are the only two languages I feel sufficiently well versed in.

Take Director's Cut editions of films. Blade Runner, for example. I don't think I'm alone in thinking that the original release version of Blade Runner is actually better -- artistically -- than the Director's Cut. Yet most of the differences between the two are due to either having to cut the film to a predetermined length, or the producer wanting to make the film more accessible (i.e., more salable).

This is where we differ.

I saw the original version as a young boy, so I don't remember much about the subtle differences. However, I do distinctly remember the voice-over by Harrison and how I missed it in the Director's Cut.

However, as I said, I prefer the artist's original vision, and having read the reasons for the removal of the narration, I now clearly prefer the version closer to Scott's original intentions. It's not about my personal enjoyment, but about wanting exactly what the author intended to give me - or something as close to that as I can get.

[Prime Junta]

As I said, I have yet to see a decision based solely on commercial reasons or the desire to be popular enhance the artistic quality of the end product. That doesn't mean it can't be more enjoyable or even "better", it simply means it's farther from the original artistic vision than it would have been without such influences.

If that's the case, what reason is there to prefer the original artistic vision?

This is also why I only read books in their original language, because I prefer the true art, rather than "what I can get".

Your choice, of course, but it sounds rather bizarre to me.

One of the books that made the biggest impression on me was Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. I first read it in (a very good) translation.

Eventually I discovered a lot of things about the society in which it was written, and even learned Russian. Then I read it in the original.

My perception of the work certainly changed -- the original did have nuances and dimensions that the translation(s) didn't.

However, to put it into crude quantities, reading the original added maybe 15% to the experience I previously had of it. That is, 85% of the experience is available to anyone with access to the translation. Therefore, I would heartily recommend that you read the book in whatever language is available to you. It would be sad if you deprived yourself of the experience simply because you don't speak Russian.

However, as I said, I prefer the artist's original vision, and having read the reasons for the removal of the narration, I now clearly prefer the version closer to Scott's original intentions. It's not about my personal enjoyment, but about wanting exactly what the author intended to give me - or something as close to that as I can get.

So, you prefer the director's original vision even if it's worse than the producer's version?

Now it sounds to me that you're allowing your definition of "art" to dictate to you what you should or should not prefer -- which, I think, is the exact opposite of your original intent -- that art is a highly personal thing and nobody should be able to dictate to you what is art and what isn't.

[DArtagnan]

If that's the case, what reason is there to prefer the original artistic vision?

Because that's what I would want the audience to see or experience, if I had created something artistic. If you like or even love the work of the author, I consider it detrimental to prefer certain changes if it means compromising the author's vision. Without the author, there would have been nothing to experience in the first place. That said, I'm very much a firm believer of criticism, and I have no issue with criticising things I love to death, in the hopes that the authors will take note and by so doing, create something closer to what I want WITHOUT feeling compromised. They would have to agree with me artistically.

I crave "truth" in most things, and I consider something that hasn't been compromised more true than the alternative.

I use quotation marks because I'm not talking in extremes, for your benefit.

Your choice, of course, but it sounds rather bizarre to me.

One of the books that made the biggest impression on me was Master and Margarita by Mikhail Bulgakov. I first read it in (a very good) translation.

Eventually I discovered a lot of things about the society in which it was written, and even learned Russian. Then I read it in the original.

My perception of the work certainly changed -- the original did have nuances and dimensions that the translation(s) didn't.

However, to put it into crude quantities, reading the original added maybe 15% to the experience I previously had of it. That is, 85% of the experience is available to anyone with access to the translation. Therefore, I would heartily recommend that you read the book in whatever language is available to you. It would be sad if you deprived yourself of the experience simply because you don't speak Russian.

First of all, there are exceptions. But they are very few and far between, and they are because of a particular piece of work that, for some reason, I simply must experience even with all the compromise I know will have to be a part of that experience.

However, we have a very limited time on this earth, and I want my experiences to be as "pure" as they can be. Even if I had a thousand years to live, I wouldn't be able to experience every work of art there is. So, when I likely have less than a hundred years to live, I would prefer to fill those years with experiences as close to what the authors intended them to be, as I can.

So, you prefer the director's original vision even if it's worse than the producer's version?

No, as I said, for me it's more satisfying to know that I'm witnessing what the author intended. Therefore, the overall experience is "better". However, this is pretty academic, because I don't think I've had much experience with this kind of thing. In the vast majority of cases, I've considered the uncompromised choices of the author better in a totally subjective fashion.

Now it sounds to me that you're allowing your definition of "art" to dictate to you what you should or should not prefer -- which, I think, is the exact opposite of your original intent -- that art is a highly personal thing and nobody should be able to dictate to you what is art and what isn't.

No, I'm not letting my definition dictate anything. I'm letting my experiences dictate my definition.

Even in those rare cases where I disagree with the author of a work that I enjoy, I take great pleasure in knowing that I'm witnessing something that hasn't been compromised.

I know it might seem strange to others, but it probably has to do with my nature of despising what I consider "lies", and I'm seen by most of my friends and family as a pretty uncompromising type of guy.

Furthermore, it has been my experience, that the author tends to have a much deeper insight related to whatever art he creates. Therefore, even if certain aspects of the art seem "bad" at first, your perception of them very often changes with more experience.

Another crude analogy would be, say, balance changes to World of Warcraft by Blizzard. It's not uncommon to see a "nerf" to your preferred class as something extremely detrimental to your enjoyment and therfore as "bad", but it has been my experience that the more I play, the better I tend to understand WHY the changes have been made, and even if my personal enjoyment has been lessened, it has meant fairer balance and therefore an overall better experience, as I do NOT like imbalance and feel unable to enjoy a victory under such conditions.

[Prime Junta]

Because that's what I would want the audience to see or experience, if I had created something artistic. If you like or even love the work of the author, I consider it detrimental to prefer certain changes if it means compromising the author's vision. Without the author, there would have been nothing to experience in the first place. That said, I'm very much a firm believer of criticism, and I have no issue with criticising things I love to death, in the hopes that the authors will take note and by so doing, create something closer to what I want WITHOUT feeling compromised. They would have to agree with me artistically.

I crave "truth" in most things, and I consider something that hasn't been compromised more true than the alternative.

I use quotation marks because I'm not talking in extremes, for your benefit.

That makes sense. Thank you for the explanation.

[abbaon]

Quite. Fortunately (?) most artists are pretty explicit about their intent -- or they leave enough cues for us to be able to go "ah-ha, art!" when we see whatever it was they did.
So you know it's art if the artist says it's art, or if something about it gives you the impression that it's art. My definition sucks - music and sculpture are cheats, since their definitions include aesthetic clauses which distinguish them from other kinds of shape and sound, and film really is just a medium - but yours only leads in circles.

It needn't. Identify the artistic impulse by elimination. If "utilitarian, documentary, educational, entertainment" purposes dilute or conflict with it, then what doesn't? What influence can an artist seek to exercise over his audience without compromising his art?

And please, let's not speak for the vast majority of people without asking them first.

[Prime Junta]

So you know it's art if the artist says it's art, or if something about it gives you the impression that it's art. My definition sucks - music and sculpture are cheats, since their definitions include aesthetic clauses which distinguish them from other kinds of shape and sound, and film really is just a medium - but yours only leads in circles.

No, it doesn't. All my definition says is that it's up to the creator to define whether what they create is art or not. That's not circular at all.

There are related questions, of course -- for example, if the creator has not specifically stated "this is art," how can we discern her intent? That's where context and cues come in. For example, if she's submitted her painting to an art gallery where it's hanging on the wall, it's a strong cue that she thinks it's art.

It needn't. Identify the artistic impulse by elimination. If "utilitarian, documentary, educational, entertainment" purposes dilute or conflict with it, then what doesn't? What influence can an artist seek to exercise over his audience without compromising his art?

Yup, that's the kind of process that lets us get an idea of what the creator's intent was, and whether or not it was artistic.

And please, let's not speak for the vast majority of people without asking them first.

As you like, but you did it first:

This definition fits the common use of the word, which allows me to use it in conversation. It ignores the expert-defined "art" of the last century, which is an elaborate taxpayer-funded scam. It also prevents me from becoming entangled in discussions like this one, which I will now exit.

"Common use" means "how the majority of people use a word." Or doesn't it?

[abbaon]

Okay. One step at a time.

"Art" is just a label. A senseless syllable. It means literally nothing except what someone claims that it does. "Art is this and this is art because I say so," says someone, pointing. He's right.

1. The desire to make something "art" conflicts with all other purposes. The extent to which a work of "art" serves any purpose at all is the extent to which it is not "art".

2. The desire to make "art" conflicts with no other purpose. "Commercial art" contains no contradiction.

3. "Art" is incompatible with some purposes - like commerce - but not others.

4. Since "art" means whatever someone wills it to mean, its constraints and demands are likewise decided at the whim of the creator. You can't say that soap operas are not "art", since to any given producer, they could be.

Please identify any point of disagreement, choose one, or write the fifth option for me.

"Common use" means "how the majority of people use a word." Or doesn't it?
It's not what I meant. "Common uses" is closer. People generally refer to sculpture, music, and film as art, but they generally don't refer to videogames as such. If you want to argue, I won't press the issue, but I will be rolling my eyes. My definition fits most of the uses to which people put the word - encompasses them. I don't claim that it's the way "the majority of people use [it]", since there's really no such way; people disagree, and everyone has his own set of edge cases. But it covers enough of them that I can refer to something as "art" and be understood.

[Prime Junta]

Okay. One step at a time.

"Art" is just a label. A senseless syllable. It means literally nothing except what someone claims that it does. "Art is this and this is art because I say so," says someone, pointing. He's right.

Right.

1. The desire to make something "art" conflicts with all other purposes. The extent to which a work of "art" serves any purpose at all is the extent to which it is not "art".

I disagree. I don't think the fact that a work of art can serve other purposes (e.g., entertainment, political agitation, education) necessarily detracts from its value as art.

Examples: The Magic Flute (entertainment), Guernica (political agitation), War and Peace (education).

2. The desire to make "art" conflicts with no other purpose. "Commercial art" contains no contradiction.

I would add a "necessarily" in there somewhere. Obviously there are situations where bowing to commercial concerns has compromised the artistic integrity (and value) of a work. But if you rephrased this as "The desire to make 'art' does not necessarily conflict with any other purpose" I would agree.

3. "Art" is incompatible with some purposes - like commerce - but not others.

Probably disagree. I can't think of any purpose with which art would always and invariably be incompatible. It's possible you or I could come up with something, though.

4. Since "art" means whatever someone wills it to mean, its constraints and demands are likewise decided at the whim of the creator. You can't say that soap operas are not "art", since to any given producer, they could be.

I disagree. That would reduce the concept of "art" to meaninglessness. I think there are several useful definitions for "art" that are shared widely enough to be worth discussing.

Please identify any point of disagreement, choose one, or write the fifth option for me.

You're welcome.

It's not what I meant. "Common uses" is closer. People generally refer to sculpture, music, and film as art, but they generally don't refer to videogames as such. If you want to argue, I won't press the issue, but I will be rolling my eyes.

Fair enough. However, why are you even participating in this discussion, then? If you define art that way, there's no point to ask "are videogames art" because you've already defined "art" as "sculpture, music, and film but not videogames." The question only makes sense if you use some different definition for "art." (E.g.: "something possessing artistic merit.")

My definition fits most of the uses to which people put the word - encompasses them. I don't claim that it's the way "the majority of people use [it]", since there's really no such way; people disagree, and everyone has his own set of edge cases. But it covers enough of them that I can refer to something as "art" and be understood.

In some contexts, certainly, but in this context, you're not making yourself understood very well. IOW I would suggest that you adjust your definition for the purposes of the discussion (or opt out of it, as you've stated you would a couple of times now).

[abbaon]

Fair enough. However, why are you even participating in this discussion, then?
Secondarily, to clarify my definition, since you misunderstood it (Strawman! Strawman! Say you're sorry!), but firstly and mainly to ask you to elaborate on yours, since it appeared circular at first glance.

In some contexts, certainly, but in this context, you're not making yourself understood very well. IOW I would suggest that you adjust your definition for the purposes of the discussion (or opt out of it, as you've stated you would a couple of times now).
Once. I've no intention of debating my definition. I may have another question or two about yours tomorrow.

Edit: Can't sleep.

integrity
I think the question of which objects are allowed to be art (yes, the topic of the thread) was a distraction. Any purpose, any drive, can be the artistic impulse. Outward goals: the desire to elate, amuse, confuse, challenge, horrify an audience. Internal ones, like the need to reach the pinnacle of your own potential. The purpose of art is whatever the artist believes it to be, and he only compromises his art when he shuns that purpose and embraces a conflicting one. And so no-one ever creates art unless they set out to do so. Is this what you meant?

[Prime Junta]

I think the question of which objects are allowed to be art (yes, the topic of the thread) was a distraction. Any purpose, any drive, can be the artistic impulse. Outward goals: the desire to elate, amuse, confuse, challenge, horrify an audience. Internal ones, like the need to reach the pinnacle of your own potential. The purpose of art is whatever the artist believes it to be, and he only compromises his art when he shuns that purpose and embraces a conflicting one. And so no-one ever creates art unless they set out to do so. Is this what you meant?

Yup, close enough. Sweet dreams. :)

[Squeek]

The difficulty in trying to define art is a lot like the difficulty in trying to create art. All of us can do it to some extent. It's a paradox that folks who have the most trouble creating it are the quickest to be satisfied with their understanding of it.

What about those that are in another league altogether? Van Gogh created art without knowing it while Picasso understood his art so well that he actually had others create a lot of it for him by following his instructions.

IMO, the artistic impulse is inherent in all of us even if we have trouble expressing it. But we don't all run around creating art all day, do we? The artist understands and expresses his appreciation for his subject with conscientiousness and care. It's about making and achieving his best effort to share what he loves.

[Geist]

I've been waiting for a long time to see PJ and abbaon go toe to toe. It's a rare event, since PJ prefers to use his lethal fireballs to roast his opponents in the Religion and Politics forum, whereas abbaon tends to shun politics - preferring instead to use his slings and arrows to pulverize the arguments of Bethsoft bashing Fallout fans. In any case, it's definitely a heavyweight bout worth the price of admission;)


Getting back to art, I don't accept PJ's view (that art is only art if it was so intended by the creator) as a definition, but I do consider artistic intent to be one of many characteristics frequently found in those things generally considered art. This is what I was getting at earlier - trying to find shared characteristics commonly found in "art". It will never lead to a definition, but this is the same approach that the editorial staff of an RPG site would be likely to take when determining what games to include in their coverage (Does the game have certain attributes in common with other games that have previously been thrown into the category, RPG) .

Why do certain forms of creative endeavor (music, painting..etc) come to be seen as art while others generally don't (mechanical inventions for instance)?. There are of course exceptions, but by identifying shared properties of those entities widely considered to be art, we can perhaps predict whether new forms of creative expression (such as computer games) are likely to one day fit the common usage of the term "art" and exclude those that likely won't.

[Prime Junta]

I've been waiting for a long time to see PJ and abbaon go toe to toe. It's a rare event, since PJ prefers to use his lethal fireballs to roast his opponents in the Religion and Politics forum, whereas abbaon tends to shun politics - preferring instead to use his slings and arrows to pulverize the arguments of Bethsoft bashing Fallout fans. In any case, it's definitely a heavyweight bout worth the price of admission;)

Sorry to disappoint. It appears we don't have enough of a disagreement to be able to manage anything hotter than a Flare, or at most a Flaming Hands; looks like those Maximized Delayed Blast Fireballs (or Greater Firebursts?) will have to wait for another time.

[magerette]

No disappointment for me, anyway. It's always a pleasure to watch a professional pyrotechnic display of this caliber.
I'm just glad all I needed was Protection from Energy and didn't have to waste a seventh level Energy Immunity or worse, Etherialness. I need those for the Codex.

[DArtagnan]

Here I was, thinking this was about getting to something interesting, instead of merely a freak show.

Goes to show how naive I can be ;)

[Geist]

Even without the fireballs, it was still a pretty good fencing match. You've obviously invested plenty of skill points into long blade as well. Personally, I'm putting mine into acrobatics - helps to be able to get out of the way when the thunderbolts start flying.
Another battle to mark on your calendar would be Gorath vs Moriendor (if they ever schedule a rematch after their epic 12 round gothic tussle).
Corwin vs Cm, or Roqua vs anybody are also never short on entertainment.;)