Games as Art

[WTF]

I think we need to stop having a discussion on whether games should be art or not till the gaming crowd as well as the industry matures. The reason why games aren't really considered art today has less to do with content but more to do with the attitude of those who enjoy the content and those who create the content.

 

 

Gamers are the ones who create the core, casual, etc division. Gamers are the ones who want to celebrate gaming as niche and want games to be less accessible to the public. Gaming is an enthusiast hobby. You have to compare the gaming crowd as the general sports crowd. Do we really treat sports as art? A general answer would be no. Can sport be an art? Yes it can.

 

Games are quite similar to sports in that sense and very much so. Mostly because most games just like sports bring out the competitive side. It's not that music, film, traditional art and the like can't be competitive. It's that games and sports thrive on competition and interaction. As a result, tribalism sets in quite clearly in this. Why have sports which have existed for millenia not been treated as art? Because of what the crowd is like, what the training is like, what the experience is like. Are there sports for everyone - that one and all can play? There are. But what do you consider to be core sports are far different from that and are not inclusive. Gaming pretty much is quite similar right now. I'm not saying that video games can't or won't mature. But as a whole games won't be treated as art. We will treat certain aspects of games as art and perhaps certain games as art. But the whole of gaming will not find a spot in the art world easily just like sports doesn't. Human interaction, tribalism, competitiveness and a few other things are key to this.

 

It is easier for an observational activity to become art more than for a non-observational one. Gaming however can evolve into a better craft - that is something we can aspire for it to become. In that process it could move away from the things that make it similar to sports and become an art.

[Hot Heart]

Not read this yet but figured as it's a response to Roger Ebert it was appropriate.

 

http://blogs.suntimes.com/foreignc/2011/04/video-games-are-art.html

[Thursday Next]

I think we need to stop having a discussion on whether games should be art or not till the gaming crowd as well as the industry matures. The reason why games aren't really considered art today has less to do with content but more to do with the attitude of those who enjoy the content and those who create the content.

 

 

Gamers are the ones who create the core, casual, etc division. Gamers are the ones who want to celebrate gaming as niche and want games to be less accessible to the public. Gaming is an enthusiast hobby. You have to compare the gaming crowd as the general sports crowd. Do we really treat sports as art? A general answer would be no. Can sport be an art? Yes it can.

 

Games are quite similar to sports in that sense and very much so. Mostly because most games just like sports bring out the competitive side. It's not that music, film, traditional art and the like can't be competitive. It's that games and sports thrive on competition and interaction. As a result, tribalism sets in quite clearly in this. Why have sports which have existed for millenia not been treated as art? Because of what the crowd is like, what the training is like, what the experience is like. Are there sports for everyone - that one and all can play? There are. But what do you consider to be core sports are far different from that and are not inclusive. Gaming pretty much is quite similar right now. I'm not saying that video games can't or won't mature. But as a whole games won't be treated as art. We will treat certain aspects of games as art and perhaps certain games as art. But the whole of gaming will not find a spot in the art world easily just like sports doesn't. Human interaction, tribalism, competitiveness and a few other things are key to this.

 

It is easier for an observational activity to become art more than for a non-observational one. Gaming however can evolve into a better craft - that is something we can aspire for it to become. In that process it could move away from the things that make it similar to sports and become an art.

 

So what about the usual "Games = Art" suspects? Like Flower. How is that not art?

 

Games may thrive on interaction, but not necessarily with other people. You have to interact with the medium. When you look at a book you have to read it. The words don't leap into your mind. You have to translate the words into images, sounds, smells, feelings. Books are hugely interactive in that respect.

 

You compare them with sports, specifically with competitive sports and for a lot of games this is true. Sports games (obviously), FPS, RTS, basically any game with competitive online elements could be classed as not art, but just because a piece of art requires interaction does not make it "not art". Maurice Benayoun's The Tunnel under the Atlantic required that one person be at each end to "work" as the artist intended. Did the requirement for interaction render it not art somehow?

 

Also, you seem to neglect art-sport duality. Dancing is I believe considered art, but what of competitive dance? Ballroom dancing where rules are strictly applied and followed? The art becomes a sport does it not?

 

Suggesting that games are not art because they are niche is hardly fair either. Games are the biggest selling entertainment medium going, they are the opposite of niche. "Arty" games on the other hand are very much a "niche", but how does this differ from written media or cinema or music, where the massively popular content, Dan Brown, Wyan brothers, Hannah Montana is snubbed by those who consider the medium to be an artistic one and see no artistic value in what they are shown?

 

I do agree with this bit though (with a minor amend):

 

We will should treat certain aspects of games as art and perhaps certain games as art. But the whole of gaming will not find a spot in the art world easily just like sports doesn't.

[WTF]

So what about the usual "Games = Art" suspects? Like Flower. How is that not art?

 

Games may thrive on interaction, but not necessarily with other people. You have to interact with the medium. When you look at a book you have to read it. The words don't leap into your mind. You have to translate the words into images, sounds, smells, feelings. Books are hugely interactive in that respect.

 

You compare them with sports, specifically with competitive sports and for a lot of games this is true. Sports games (obviously), FPS, RTS, basically any game with competitive online elements could be classed as not art, but just because a piece of art requires interaction does not make it "not art". Maurice Benayoun's The Tunnel under the Atlantic required that one person be at each end to "work" as the artist intended. Did the requirement for interaction render it not art somehow?

 

Also, you seem to neglect art-sport duality. Dancing is I believe considered art, but what of competitive dance? Ballroom dancing where rules are strictly applied and followed? The art becomes a sport does it not?

 

Suggesting that games are not art because they are niche is hardly fair either. Games are the biggest selling entertainment medium going, they are the opposite of niche. "Arty" games on the other hand are very much a "niche", but how does this differ from written media or cinema or music, where the massively popular content, Dan Brown, Wyan brothers, Hannah Montana is snubbed by those who consider the medium to be an artistic one and see no artistic value in what they are shown?

 

 

Well I knew you'd disagree but there's a clear difference here. With a book, you don't have the voices, you don't have the images most of the direction is done in your head. You imagine the setting. One person's interpretation of a book is entirely different from another person's interpretation. This is easily witnessed when you take a book and make it into a game or a film. It's because the source material is adapted.

In films you have devices via editing that enable you to evoke the emotion such as showing someone on a bed and then showing a withered tree or flower and you know the person is sick. This is association which basically stems from semiotics. This semiotics was in fact why RE5 was perceived to be racist in the west when Japan didn't quite view it as so.

 

With a game especially a linear narrative without cut-scenes we are pretty much driven through an even more linear experience than what was designed.

 

A film is less free than books and music and a game is even more so that a film. Not to mention interactivity plays key here. You're taking individual controlled interaction and equating it with uncontrolled interaction in a game. Gamers don't like their hands to be held and need more freedom usually. When given that freedom, the experience changes depending on the individual but at the same time it's not quite so like a book. Do you follow that statement? A good example would be enslaved - a game that people said had good visuals but was mostly derided by most gamers for not having good gameplay and hand-holding far too often (not to mention to be fair it wasn't a good adaptation of journey to the west). A game can't work that way but everything about the world in a game is already there like in a film. The only interaction one has is the gameplay but that's the one that gives the most freedom and makes it competitive and in that way it becomes similar to sports because gameplay like sports is defined by a concrete set of rules.

 

There are 6 billion people out there in the world. Games are still niche outside of puzzles and casual games which are derided by the same gamers who want to keep it niche. I mean a when game makes a billion it is because it's quite expensive when compared to the price of a ticket (though we know that going to the cinema is costly to the individual a film doesn't make money off of popcorn and drinks sold). How many people would have seen a popular film and how many people would have played a popular game? I believe the numbers don't overlap as much one would assume. We're seeing it far too much from the western viewpoint. But the world isn't the west. 1/3rd of the world's population is India and China. Games that are definitely not more popular than movies in those parts and it isn't going to change soon. Yes casual games will be popular but proper games not as much.

 

There's a lot of issues to consider here. 1) Global reach. 2)Skewed perspective because most people who write and comment on sites and blogs are actually seeing it from the Western perspective.

 

Yes even art has a limited audience but the audience that appreciates art generally transcends borders. Games are less so. I mean it's clear your mind is set into believing that games should be art. But it's not the most important function a game serves. Films evolved via art, the evolution of games as art can't be compared because games didn't evolve via art but rather via software and hardware.

If the games and films industry actually realise this it would be better. Games are trying too hard to emulate what works for films and losing it's own identity. Not that games can't be art. Just games can't be art right now because of the audience because of what people in the industry want from games and because it is an enthusiast hobby that likes to appeal to it's own niche crowd (who don't seem to like it appealing universally - which is more to do with agegroup).

 

When people bring games like Flower and say they're arty isn't it the exception rather than the rule? In terms of film art films, pulp, commercial and all kinds stand side by side. Games don't do that yet mostly because there's fewer auteurs, games did not have a chance to mature (it's too soon), gamers didn't mature well enough (If they did we wouldn't just be churning out sequels year after year). At least with most films there's a longer break. Games need that break too. I do understand that people are impatient. People were impatient that GRR Martin took so long to write each volume of ASOIF but it works better that way. Games however rarely get that break because it's a tech oriented industry and people want to capitalise on R&D and current tech before it becomes obsolete. Something none of the other industries have to deal with as often. Well software does but it's rare when people call general software art.

 

I think you're equating Ballroom dance as a sport when it's not really a sport in the traditional usage of the word. Granted that sport comes from leisure and sport refers to recreational activity. But it isn't a competitive sport in the general sense of the word until recently. I mean by that definition you can make a sport out of everything including games, debating, writing, etc. For an art to become a sport and for a sport to become an art there are differences. Sport becomes an art when it breaks rules and invents new ones, and art becomes a sport only when it follows strict rules which then breaks the freedom of the art. It's a complex thing when you sit down and think about it.

 

The biggest issue with calling games as art so soon is that games just came barely came out of it's crawling stages and we want games to fly like an eagle. Walk a bit first, experience the ground and what it feels to stand on 2 or 4 feet. It's because of the way the industry wants to grow, independent developers and artists who get into the industry can change it. TGC is an example of people from different aesthetics coming together to make something different. Developers from the early era too were similar but now it's far more tech specialised. It's not going to change so long as it is tech oriented. Two things that will hold it back are being too tech oriented+futureproofing and following a model that clearly isn't working great for films in the modern era. Vertical Integration is a bad thing and the sooner they get out of that the better. Of course it does mean certain people will lose jobs but it's worth it in the long term.

Also the biggest thing is everyone who speaks for games to be art is either a gamer or most likely someone who works in the industry. Let people outside of gaming start calling it art. Give them a chance. People who work in an industry will obviously have some bias that helps their cause. Things got better recognised as art when the public start to appreciate the value. Right now it isn't quite that.

 

edited for coherence.

Edited April 4, 2011 by WTF

[Hot Heart]

And now this:

 

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/EvanJones/20110404/7363/Stop_Debating_quotGames_as_Artquot.php

[Thursday Next]

@WTF:

 

Interesting article: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/helen-lewis-hasteley/2011/04/game-writing-naomi-character

 

Speaks well to your point "Everyone who speaks for games to be art is either a gamer or most likely someone who works in the industry."

 

Why don't the artistic aspects of video game writing get taken seriously in the mainstream media?

 

NA: Basically, you need to sit down and put in 50 hours learning how to use a console in the same way that you would sit and bloody learn enough about opera in order to be able to understand an opera.

 

I think you and I agree on more points than we disagree. I think we both agree that not all images, written works, etc. are Art and I also think we agree that some games are Art (at least you seem to agree that Flower is Art). I certainly wouldn't disagree if you said that CoD is not Art. I agree with you that the mainstream doesn't consider games to be Art yet, I could produce a handful of Gamey / Arty installations but we both know that they are somewhat novelty pieces and would probably be described by the majority as "a game turned into Art", rather than "a game as Art", in the same way that a Campbell's soup tin is not art on its own.

 

I just think that more games could be considered Art than are currently. The medium does not prevent games being Art, generally the execution does.

 

P.S. According to Wikipedia ballroom dancing has been a competitive sport for over 100 years (just), so it depends on how you define "recent".

[RockyRan]

Games are now legally recognized as Art in the US:

 

http://nohighscores.com/games_are_art

 

EAT IT EBERT. EAT IT.

[TheMightyEthan]

Well, recognized by the National Endowment for the Arts, anyway.

 

But yeah, that's going to really help the anti-government-regulation argument in the courts. "See, the NEA recognizes it, therefore it's art, therefore it's protected by the first amendment, therefore you can't regulate it."

[RockyRan]

Well, recognized by the National Endowment for the Arts, anyway.

 

But yeah, that's going to really help the anti-government-regulation argument in the courts. "See, the NEA recognizes it, therefore it's art, therefore it's protected by the first amendment, therefore you can't regulate it."

 

Indeed. There's no end-all be-all at the end of the day, but this helps the medium advance quite a bit. Like you said, it's quite a bit of leverage to say "NEA recognizes it".

[Yantelope]

I think we're quickly approaching or have already hit that stage that film hit as art. I don't think people consider Transformers 2 art but they might consider a low budget indie film art. Games have kind of gone the same direction where big budget games aren't truly art but there's plenty of college projects or flash games that might be considered art.

[Kovitlac]

I think Strangelove said it really good. How is writing, film, drawing,singing, etc all art, but a combination of these is not? I believe that art is in the eyes and mind of the creator. If they created it as art, it is art. This is why porn is not art - whoever makes it is usually not trying to illicit an 'emotional' response. I see some games as being less artistic as others, but when it comes down to it, I believe all games are art. I don't know one kind of art that was always readily accepted at the get-go. They've always received some sort of discrimination.

[SomTervo]

I'd equate, as I've said before, games to Theatre. Not film, not books, but theatre.

 

- In theatre, the audience watches, and doesn't control or influence, but enjoys and appreciates. An important role.

 

- In theatre, the actor plays the role to his best ability, getting through the material, in his own style.

 

- In theatre, the production group create a simulation of the play- the environment, the clothes of the characters, the makeup, the sound design. A director also tries to influence how the actor will play his role- how the actor will interact with the simulation, and/or audience.

 

Now, when I talk about games:

 

- In games, the player is both the audience and the actor, simultaneously. They're watching something and enjoying it- but at the same time playing out their characters role to their best ability, progressing through an experience, in their own style.

 

- In games, the developer creates the simulation of the game- the environment, the models, the sound, and the interaction (how the player engages as an actor, with the work and simulation).

 

So in that sense, in a game, the player is both the actor and the audience in a simulation. The developers take the middle-man role of the production group. And, uh, I'm pretty sure theatre is considered art, right?

 

 

 

I also believe that if a developer thinks "I've got a great idea for a game that is creative or has artistic merit", and they succeed, it may be called 'art', regardless of what 'the man' thinks.

 

P.S. Nice to see you on here Kovitlac.

Edited May 10, 2011 by kenshi_ryden

[deanb]

I'm still of the opinion that games are just pretty looking versions of Excel. Very pretty looking, but Excel none the less.

 

 

Excel:

 

 

 

 

Video Game:

 

 

 

Games are games, nothing more, nothing less. Haven't been for the past thousand years and I feel that they still won't be for a thousand more. Declaring games as art would change nothing.

 

There seems to be this impression that games like COD would fade away in favour of yearly. high selling Team Ico productions. That gamers would suddenly gain respect from society. Games would be an intellectual pursuit. Ain't happening. That can change, games can become a part of society, they can become more like Ico titles. But that change would have nothing to do with being declared as art.

It's kind of treat as the get out of jail free card. This magical solution that will stop the regular press taking the piss out of you and having to keep your gaming habit off CVs n out of facebook lest people think worse of you.

 

Also I get the legal ramifications in the US, but this recent move by the NEA will mean jack since the case was over 6 months ago and a verdict due in 2. And from what I understand NEA policies aren't law.

[SomTervo]

In most cases, I totally agree with you, but the potential for games to be art is there, and it's been very much developed.

 

What I said at the end of my last post- if a game is made with the intention of working as a piece of art, and it succeeds then it will be art. It's this intention aspect, if a developer just makes a game to be a bit or meaningless fun, like 95% of them do, then you're right, it's just excel- but if a developer makes it to function as art also, it counts as art because of the human thought they put into it.

 

Like, Chess isn't art. You can argue that playing it is, and the models can be nice, but it isn't. The game isn't.

 

However, if you made the pieces extremely ornate, artfully so, you could start to call it art. Then if you wrote a story for every possible movement and situation in the game, like if you made a move a page popped out telling you a story that reflected the move- and this story built up to and overall tale of humanity and reflection of life- it would be art. Right?

 

Then if you started changing the game so that movements would reflect the story more, and vice versa, the art aspect is tied to the game. The game becomes the art.

Edited May 10, 2011 by kenshi_ryden

[Hot Heart]

CHESS: RACE WARS

 

In a world of black & white, one pawn saw shades of grey. This is the story of his epic adventure, moving directly forward and sometimes diagonally so but never looking back.

 

COMING JULY 2012

Edited May 10, 2011 by Hot Heart

[SomTervo]

In the face of great adversity- the Black King, a heavy and immobile, yet powerful mass, commands his intricately capable force of teleporting knights and moving castles, to foil... THE PAWN

 

 

LET THE PAWNAGE BEGIN

Edited May 10, 2011 by kenshi_ryden

[deanb]

You could hack away at pieces of rock and call it art. You're looking for aesthetically pleasing. Art doesn't have to be beautiful. And in the same way something that is beautiful isn't art.

 

Also what you've produced is an "instillation". Just because an everyday object is used in an instillation, doesn't make it art in itself. Instillations are also interactive (well, a fair few)

For example this one was on reddit the other day:

The Recovery of Discovery

(bet you're all wishing you were into going to art museums now huh )

Beer is used in the instillation, but beer isn't a piece of art in itself.

My room has artwork hanging on the wall, stories lined along shelves and music echoing off the walls. Doesn't make my room art.

 

One of my main things is that anyone can make art. You can be absolutely bad at it, but if you're struck by a feeling you can hum a ditty, make a story, film a home movie* or do a doodle at the very least. But making a video game at even the basic level of the others takes many hours of training and skill. And it's training in programming to make even the most basic of games. And you can't be creative with programming. Get creative with programming and it won't compile, simple as that.

 

 

Also back to Excel for a second:

 

 

*does anyone else's browser throw up movie as a spelling error?

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

Movie

 

 

No.

[Mr W Phallus]

I don't think you can use difficulty as an argument against art. It is possible to be bad at acting, bad at painting, bad at dancing and so on. Remember before art had its modern meaning it simply meant skill. Although it is possible to create art using incredibly simplistic skill levels (stacking bear crates for example), something does not cease to be art just because it requires a high skill level (for example a photo-realistic painting).

 

Edit: I swear chrome used to flag movie as not a word but it doesn't any more. Maybe I added it to dictionary.

Edited May 10, 2011 by Mr W Phallus

[SomTervo]

I didn't say it has to be beautiful or aesthetically pleasing. I said it should reflect humanity, or reflect the world in which we live. Art can, indeed be anything, it doesn't even need to fit into what I just said, it can be solely beautiful or it can be not beautiful- as long as it is thought provoking, or aesthetically pleasing, in some way, it can be art.

 

Then of course there's the whole issue of who sees art in what, so there's no real resolution to that argument.

 

Also, 'installation' hasn't really got anything to do with whether it's art or not. Something can be a 'water installation', a 'government installation', an 'art installation'. I'd call that image you posted one of an 'art installation', which in the business is just referred to, indeed, as an 'installation'- but it's still an 'art installation'.

 

In that example, yeah, beer isn't the art itself. But I'm doubting the artist made the beer. Like with programming, the artist doesn't need to know the craft of making a beer bottle and the box itself. I bet it 'takes hours of training and skill' to make a beer bottle that the artist doesn't have- he simply got the beer together, and piled it all up for anyone's consumption- as some sort of commentary on consumption itself (it's making me think, so it's clearly art, imho). They arranged it and gave it a thought provoking angle of approach, a perspective. It's hard to be 'very creative' with beer-bottle making at the most basic level.

 

Obviously, right now in the industry, as you said, you have to have hours of training to even start making a game. But that doesn't stop it being art, that just limits who can do it. Say, ten years from now, a software manufacturer made a game engine that can be manipulated using day-to-day english. I, who completely suck at programming, could take this engine, and make an artful, fully crafted game. Nowadays obviously I can't, but that's not the point, the point is that it can still be art. Just now, you have to be trained to be able to start. But it can still be art.

 

You're also arguing about the mathematics of it, that it has to compile etc, but that applies to any form of art. Write a book in English that doesn't have any grammar or correct spelling? It won't compile in people's heads. Make a film and accidentally film all the shots far too dark? It won't work. Anything can be art, bro. Said it yourself. Including games.

 

Also, 'installation' is the word

Edited May 10, 2011 by kenshi_ryden

[Hot Heart]

Yeah, and I wouldn't say 'humming a ditty' is art. You have to have some form of musical knowledge to even begin creating music. Just having an instrument, not knowing how to play and being bad at it, is not art.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

You have to have some form of musical knowledge to even begin creating music.

 

Disagree.

 

Just having an instrument, not knowing how to play and being bad at it, is not art.

 

Also disagree, and this also isn't connected to the previous sentence. Art isn't about good or bad to begin with.

[SomTervo]

It's the structuring of things to be thought provoking that makes the art- arguably you could have no musical ideas at all, and still try your darndest just to make something that sounds nice, and it might work, it might be artistic. Your chances are significantly lower though, seeing as you're not trained in how to make it easier.

[TheMightyEthan]

Also I get the legal ramifications in the US, but this recent move by the NEA will mean jack since the case was over 6 months ago and a verdict due in 2. And from what I understand NEA policies aren't law.

That case won't be the last we hear of it. And you're right, NEA policies aren't law, but to say that speech is unprotected under the first amendment you have to be able to say that it has absolutely no artistic, social, or scientific value whatsoever. The NEA saying it's art is very strong evidence in favor of it having artistic value.

[deanb]

I didn't say it has to be beautiful or aesthetically pleasing.

You implied as much saying that the pieces were to be made 'ornately'. Your chess pieces could be rough hewn chunks of rock, doesn't matter to the merit of the work you went on to describe. Just correcting that art doesn't have to look pretty, and something that is pretty isn't art.

 

Also, 'installation' hasn't really got anything to do with whether it's art or not. Something can be a 'water installation', a 'government installation', an 'art installation'. I'd call that image you posted one of an 'art installation', which in the business is just referred to, indeed, as an 'installation'- but it's still an 'art installation'.

I know it's an art installation, didn't realise I had to point out it wasn't a government installation or whatever

 

In that example, yeah, beer isn't the art itself. But I'm doubting the artist made the beer. Like with programming, the artist doesn't need to know the craft of making a beer bottle and the box itself.

And in your example the artist didn't make the chess set. In programming the programmer is making the beet bottle though. You can't just get 3D modellers. No programming, no engine, no game mechanics, no game.

 

Obviously, right now in the industry, as you said, you have to have hours of training to even start making a game. But that doesn't stop it being art, that just limits who can do it. Say, ten years from now, a software manufacturer made a game engine that can be manipulated using day-to-day english. I, who completely suck at programming, could take this engine, and make an artful, fully crafted game. Nowadays obviously I can't, but that's not the point, the point is that it can still be art. Just now, you have to be trained to be able to start. But it can still be art.

One day that programming language may exist, but for now it's a pretty long way off. But in the here and now it is still limited to only a handful of people. It's hardly the greatest form of expression if you can't actually use it.

 

 

You're also arguing about the mathematics of it, that it has to compile etc, but that applies to any form of art. Write a book in English that doesn't have any grammar or correct spelling? It won't compile in people's heads. Make a film and accidentally film all the shots far too dark? It won't work. Anything can be art, bro. Said it yourself. Including games.

A book with grammar badly, art not be, compile he said not? As for incorrect spelling, you seemed to figure out I meant installation easy enough. It would be bad, but it wouldn't mean it won't "compile" in peoples heads. And whose to say you made a film with low exposure on purpose. I didn't at all say that people would be instantly highly skilled at it, just that should anyone strike upon the fancy, there is zero entry level involved. They might be naturally skilled, they probably won't. But with game creation you need to be highly skilled to even be bad at it. If you're not skilled you can't be anything at it.

To get good at say..painting, you can experiment, you can practice, you can get formal training, look at and be inspired by other works. Can't really do anything but the formal training with games. Can't just open up Eclipse, jam in some random words and *poof* minecraft.

 

Just as a quick example but out drawing thread is going relatively strong, we've got a bunch of short stories in literary creativity, I think we've even got a photo thread somewhere. But the make a games thread is stuck at the "we have an idea". There's very little way for the regular Joe to make a VG idea become realisation.

 

Also how come on one hand 'art can be good and bad', but on the other 'oh well if you're not trained it'll suck and won't be art"?

 

 

@hot heart: Punk would disagree with you. And very loudly too