Shyon Baumann, “Introduction: Drawing the Boundaries of Art”

In Baumann, Shyon. Hollywood highbrow : from entertainment to art. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007.

Where exactly are films situated in American pop culture?
Active debate throughout their history about their merits
Changes in production, reception and in the films themselves
“the creation of an understanding of the medium of film as a legitimate and serious artistic medium, and a body of film works as being legitimate and serious works of art.”
Change in perception of Hollywood films for a certain segment of the population – art, not light entertainment
Intellectually engage, experience Hollywood films as art
Historically, aesthetically, sociologically interesting
Film as unintelligent, moral deterioration – drastic turn from this perception
“the legitimation of Hollywood films occurred mainly during the 1960s and was a process driven by three main factors”
Opportunity space for an art world of film opened up – changes outside the field of film
“social climate in which the cultural contradictions of film's claims to art were reduced”
Changes within Hollywood brought it closer to established art worlds
Festivals, academia, etc.
Director-centred production, arthouses, relaxed censorship
Creation of a discourse of film as art
Reviews, criticism based on film as “a sophisticated and powerful form of artistic communication”
Social, collective nature of artistic production and consumption
Howard Becker, Art Worlds (1982)
Development of art worlds “is connected to the opportunities afforded by the wider social context”
Not only organizational, institutional achievements, but also intellectual achievements
Sets of ideas that explain and justify film as art (criticism is key)
Absence of clear principles for what is art or not
Authority of “cultural experts” (but they don't all agree)
No guarantee the general public will accept these ideas (abstract art)
“the question of how we decide what is art, and why their judgements are accepted or resisted by the wider public” (and vice versa?)
Tolstoy – art as the communication of emotion
Stephen Davies:
Functionalist definitions (what art does – Michelangelo)
Procedural definitions (process by which art is crafted, rules – Duchamp)
Not seeking definition or an airtight case for Hollywood film as art
Certain films are widely recognized as legitimate art (for diverse reasons)
Beauty (visual usually); innovation/perfection of conventions; communication of messages; personal expression (usually directors)
Art possesses high status and bestows high status on creators and audiences (cultural capital)
Hollywood films can now aspire to this
“How did a body of Hollywood films (though not all) gain this recognition as art?”
Could be a philosophical or a sociological question (quality VS context of art)
“the coalescence of a novel perspective among a large group of people is a social process that lends itself more readily to sociological analysis than aesthetic analysis”
For games, not yet a coalescence – more of a multiplicity of perspectives
“the story of film's valorization as art”
The whole history of commercial American cinema is part of this story
Nickelodeons – working class entertainment
Censorship (MPPDA)
DW Griffith – film grammar
Acceptance of film as art in Europe by intellectuals – conditions of film production and consumption were similar to other arts (not true of Hollywood films)
Mass entertainment (fun, not challenging)
Increasing popularity after sound – middle-brow: picture palaces, prestige, epic scale
For games a this point, the question may be as much about becoming middlebrow art as highbrow, “fine” art;
Breakdown of vertical integration, First Amendment protection – end of censorship
French intellectual attention to Hollywood as an art form (auteur theory), imported via Sarris
1960s: economic uncertainty, social upheaval, different kinds of films being made
Idea of Hollywood film as art gains wide currency
Hollywood films could be approached with an open mind (rather than prejudged as entertainment)
Status of “film literature”
Explain this shift, change in attitude
European scene paved the way for intellectualization of Hollywood films
“Status vacuum” created by TV, drop in film-going – links to working/middle class weakened
Possibility for a cultural redefinition – art world for film developed
Feedback – filmmakers encouraged to create artier films (market)
Blockbuster strategy, conglomeration
The social construction of art
“the categories and definitions we use to perceive and to understand the world are molded by cultural forces” and social processes
Not a denial of objective reality
Art exists even if it happens to be socially constructed
Question the “taken-for-granted” nature of art/not-art
Judgement of quality is normative, not logical (set of arbitrary standards)
Hierarchies are also constructed
Look beyond context to conditions of creation, distribution, production, consumption
“the production perspective”
Peterson: the “aesthetic mobility” of films
“three main factors that sociologists of culture rely on to explain the public acceptance of a cultural product as art”
The Legitimation Framework: opportunity, institutions, ideology
1) an opportunity space
2) institutionalized resources and activities
3) intellectualization through discourse
[Does this preclude un- or anti-intellectual popular aesthetic discourse? Or is this a palpable difference between film-as-art and games-as-art?]
1) “the creation of an opportunity space through social change outside the art world in question”
DiMaggio: “preexisting discursive and organizational resources available for imitation” or adaptation
Film pushed theatre out of the popular middlebrow towards higher status
An already established space by opera, museums, symphonies
Outside factors, new contexts
Likewise, TV pushed film higher
Young people in college – the “film generation” in the 1960s
“Because society had evolved in certain ways, film-going had become a significant cultural activity.”
2) “the institutional arrangements underlying the production, exhibition, and appreciation art, as well as the various activities and practices carried out in those institutional settings”
Becker: creation of art (and thus art worlds) as a collective action
Independent/arthouse theatres
Distribution networks
Academic programs
Changing economics of production
3) “the grounding of value and legitimacy in critical discourse” [and in popular discourse?]
Development of a “cultural field”
Without this third aspect, the other two could apply to any number of other fields/practices
When a field becomes distinct, offers a distinct form of cultural capital
“The development of a field-specific aesthetic both provides a rationale for accepting the definition of a cultural product as art and offers analyses for particular products.”
“academics and aesthetes [and critics] developed a sacralizing ideology to legitimate various forms of high culture” (not usually empirically investigated)
“Intellectualization by cultural specialists helps to legitimate cultural products that entertain as art.”
Content analysis of ideas and linguistic and critical devices that these experts employ
“Masters,” interpreting messages, genres/oeuvres, etc.
Legitmation framework can apply to other media as well
“organize the historical forces at play so that we can understand their respective contributions to the art world for Hollywood film.”
A “researchable phenomenon”
Complex, diverse, wide-ranging – no one single shift
Upward status of all film; canonization of Old Hollywood; differentiation of different kinds of productions; critical communities for “cult” genres; etc.
Historical accidents as well as deliberate efforts play a role
Analysis, not history

Tobey Crockett, “The Computer as a Dollhouse [Exceprts]”

In Andy Clarke and Grethe Mitchell, eds., Videogames and art (Bristol, UK; Chicago: Intellect, 2007).

Dollhouse metaphor opens an avenue for discussing interactivity, digital media in relation to play, imagination, creativity – conjunction between games and art
Play as a creative, artistic act – aesthetics of play, emphathy
Long history of miniatures, models, enclosed spaces with cultural significance
Prefiguring screen entertainments
Automata, Wunderkammer, dollhouses (virtual)
“cabinet-like housing for complex machines with programmatic functions”
Playing with avatars, building worlds – dolls and blocks
Blurring of subject/object when playing one avatar among many (do something to differentiate oneself)
Identity construction in infants (substitute non-differentiated mother's breast with toy as transitional object)
Avatar/VW as transitional object for embodiment in cyberspace
“We use the avatar, like the baby uses the toy, to understand what is subject and what is object as we create our foundation about how [virtual world/cyberspace] reality works”
Avatar is inseparable from the VW as the place of transformational play
Must take place in a social (ie: multiplayer) context – presence of others (rather than human-computer interactions)
Zimmerman: interface as a (social) activity zone
Meta-gaming (Sims family albums, etc) – social context surrounding single-player games
Sims fan objects – dollhouse/doll furniture crafting (but what about the more sinister side of fan production as a marketing strategy?)
Pearce: “emergent authors”
“Participatory play”
Play in free-form VW as artistic self-expression – craft, decorative arts
Different kinds of VW; different kinds of dolls/toys (Barbie VS home-made ragdoll, etc.)
“lay authors are utilizing digital tools and digitized materials to self-express and, perhaps, coincidentally, subvert the status quo” (de Certeau, Practice of Everyday Life)
Escape/release
New technology prompts “urges towards a type of technologically mediated transendence”
Cyberspace/VW should be seen as practical, contemporary, everyday, “down here” social/public spaces, not “out there”
Computer as dollhouse – identity construction + imaginative empowerment
“Substantial social work” taking place in “seemingly innocuous realms of gameplay, persistent environments, MMOs, VW

Laurie Taylor, “Networking Power: Video Game Structure from Concept Art”

In Andy Clarke and Grethe Mitchell, eds., Videogames and art (Bristol, UK; Chicago: Intellect, 2007).

Concept art as ideal – the “real” of a game; the superstructure
“that which each game [in a series] sought to portray correctly”
“the superstructure from which each game unfolds and into which each game enfolds itself”
Quantum physics?!
Metastructure for games
Desire to see structure, continuity makes it “real”
Cohere disparate images within a serial
Significance of paratextual elements
Imaginary underlying system
Concept art is seen as “prime mover” (initial, true, real)
May alter with different iterations
Shows which text is authoritative (the planned-for game)
Concept art has moved beyond planning tool and paratext to become a text in its own right
Early games – concept art is more complex than the final product (the “actual” game world)
Interpret the “real” concept art
Fans accept changes in style/character appearance in sequels as long as their true to the original concept art (?)
All iterations of the “real” structure provided by the concept art
All video game cultures are networked
How does video game culture affect the creation of games?
Cross-generation between players and creators
“The cultures of video gaming all share the emphasis on the importance of concept art as an underlying structure for a particular video game world or universe.”
New games in a series can either be similar to the previous game or to the concept art (no other option?)
“trace of the real”
Game merges with concept art in the mind of the player after using it as the one iteration/unfolding of the concept art “real”
FPS games – avatar is only visible in concept art (or cutscenes, or multiplayer...)
Exists in the culture
Metroid's Samus is known only through gameplay, manual text and concept art
Drastic change in GameCube version to first-person, 3D – “no complaints” about Samus' appearance?
Consistent with concept art/advertising
Nintento Power showed the “ideal” world of a game – early example
Holographic theory – any one particle is a trace of the overall structure
“Concept art [...] is holographic because a single image or set of images are used to represent an entire full world.”
“everything is enfolded into everything”
real/ideal cannot be deviated from without angering players (but it can, surely, in some contexts)
Multiple valid iterations of the same from different perspectives
Continuity can be perceived as long as games “hold to the correct underlying order”
Account for different versions – accepted as existing within the same framework
Presumption of the cohesive whole real/ideal (as shown in concept art) allows for variations in different (technological) versions to be normalized, glossed over
Video game culture suppresses gaps and differences
Concept art as a unifying metaphor
Include marginal aspects, actual gameplay experience, and cultures of gaming in game studies
What is taken for granted, accepted without question/complication?
Taylor makes some interesting points, but her overall theory seems to have extremely limited applicability to very specific contexts

William Huber, “Some Notes on Aesthetics in Japanese Videogames”

In Andy Clarke and Grethe Mitchell, eds., Videogames and art (Bristol, UK; Chicago: Intellect, 2007).

Wil Wright: games will follow the same trajectory as other art (realism, technique -> impressionism, aesthetic freedom)
When realism becomes trivial on a technical level, the next glorious phase begins
A powerful but problematic narrative
Japanese aesthetic tradition doesn't follow this trajectory at all
“When mimetic criteria are mobilized is is as a tactic”
Engagement between classical terms of Japanese aesthetics are the Western tradition (Huber acknowledges these are arbitrarily defined, and gloss over much historical dynamism)
Blurry boundaries
Classical Japanese aesthetics:
Mono no aware (pathos/feeling of things)
Yojo (surplus of meaning)
Yugen (transcendent beauty without representation)
Sabi (poetic loneliness)
These are mobilized self-consciously in contemporary practice (including games)
Contemporary Japanese aesthetic concepts:
Masks and faces (mimesis/charicature/abstraction)
“Superflatness” (adapt isometric/surface to current encounter with the West)
Aesthetics of manga, anime, otaku culture
Simulation as “representation of behaviour in a dynamic system”
Mimesis is “a different kind of problem in Japanese aesthetic discourse”
“A simulation-sensibility that is more supple in its treatment of the game-subject”
Static background-settings (Ozu?) - avatar moves through, but they remain
Gaze, masks and mirrors
Mimetic tradition in Japan does not pursue the essential meaning of the thing represented – always a “mask,” capture the “mask-action” as/in an act of mimesis
Simulate the act of representing
Gaze: “What sees itself as a self can only do so by knowing itself as a knowable by another”
Influence of Sartre?
“stylized language of affect, a repertoire of gestures and utterances”
Aesthetic performance integrated as a criterion for success (dance, music, karaoke games)
Collectible sets in RPGs as an aesthetic performance that is rewarded (very interesting)
Aesthetic field as an axis of play
Double nature of motion as operant and visible
Blurry distinction between natural and ritual movement
Play includes elements of aesthetic performance
Isometric landscapes + menu-driven combat/interactions/events
“Exploded view” that includes apparatus and labour that constructs/produces it (exposed apparata)
Resistance to absolute perspective
Flatness, embrace“contradictory boundaries” of mimesis (2D)
Parappa the Rapper – flatness extends into 3D space (3D technology affirms 2D aesthetics)
Synaesthesia in Rez – expressive performance (mask/face)
Reward improvisation over rote imitation
Dating sims – player is visible as well as being a viewer (stats, responses, etc. - under scrutiny)
Define ones own mask
Photorealistic backgrounds with 2D animated characters (spaces persist)
Baroque in Final Fantasy – mask/face
Aesthetics of apocalypse

Axel Stockburger, “From Appropriation to Approximation”

in Andy Clarke and Grethe Mitchell, eds., Videogames and art (Bristol, UK; Chicago: Intellect, 2007).

Relation between contemporary fine arts practice and video games
Museum/gallery shows featuring games, ontological debates
Huizinga/McLuhan: games as a core element of culture
McLuhan: “Games are popular art, collective, social reactions to the main drive or action of any culture.”
Divergence between art and games with literary texts (individual narratives, inner focus)
Both art and games are spatio-temporal zones set apart from the everyday
Rules/Freedom
Boris Groys “On the New,” - differentiation between profane world and art (traditionally, this line is the gallery)
Stable context of the gallery has become changing and unstable
Create contexts, examine/create/transform the rules governing the emergence of art
Duchamp: player as both artist and audience simultaneously (games as entirely individual aesthetic pleasure)
Two ways games are entering the artworld (museums, galleries): as cultural products worthy of exhibition/as components of fine art practice
Relationship between games and fine art is between appropriation and approximation
Back and forth borrowing (how and why?)
Stockburger only really looks at it in one direction (games -> art)
Many different motivations for incorporating games into fine art
Appropriation of game iconography
Pop art – games are an important part of contemporary media/pop culture
Not concerned with rules, game mechanics, etc.
Usually traditional means (painting, drawing, video)
Removes “active choice of what to experience” (?)
Reference to games/game culture
“Without interfering with or relating to the game technology itself” (I disagree, it's not so totally separate. Removing game iconography from a game context or capturing an instance of gameplay could very much be a way of interfering with and relating to the game technology/mechanics.)
Intervention in the form of Mods and Hacks
Internet distribution (patches)
Skinning, maps, models (origins in fan activity)
Infiltrate game culture
Accessibility of mod tools
“Hacker” culture/image/archetype
Deconstruction of game graphics into purely aesthetic abstraction
Transform profane objects into art spaces
Museum in game (rather than vice versa) – Chris Cornish, re-load.org
Artist games
Low budget, often web-based
Newsgames, artgames, etc. - move beyond entertainment

George Dickie, “A Tale of Two Artworlds” (and Arthur Danto, "Responses and Replies")

George Dickie, “A Tale of Two Artworlds,” in Danto and his critics, ed. Mark Rollins (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 73-78.

Respond to Danto's critiques/misunderstandings in “The Artworld Revisited: Comedies of Similarity” and comment on his approach
Different versions of the artworld
How does the prescribing of artistic status take place?
Artworld is not a homogeneous empowering elite of experts
Dickie stresses the role of the artist
“My basic claim is that the artworld is a structure of roles within which artists create art.”
Artworld relations
Danto: “the Art World as the historically ordered world of artworks, enfranchised by theories which themselves are historically ordered.”
Does Danto actually argue that a group confers the status of art, or is he concerned with “what is required for someone to realize that a certain kind of thing can be a work of art”?

Arthur Danto, “Responses and Replies,” in Danto and his critics, ed. Mark Rollins (Oxford: Blackwell, 1993), 193-216.  

“a world consisting of works of art, a self-enriching community of ontologically complex objects, often inter-referential [... intertextual ...] and which above all had a historical vector, so that something could be part of that world at one time but not at an earlier time.”
“Discourse of reasons”
Seeing something as art VS being art
“I don't believe any institutional theory gives us a definition of art, simply a certain account of how something gets to be received as art.”
Also, therefore, a factor in the creation of art: “artist and audience are caught up together in the evolving discourse of reasons.”
Historical /cultural factors
Institutionalism =/= ontology, and Danto is more interested in creating ontologies than sociologies
Dickie, on the other hand, attempts to make his institutional theory also a definition/ontology

George Dickie, “A Tale of Two Artworlds”

George Dickie, “Defining Art,” American Philosophical Quarterly 6, no. 3 (July 1969): 253-256.

Descriptive use of “work of art” indicates that a thing belongs to a certain category of objects
“Artifactuality” as the genus of art (but what exactly is artifactuality? Dickie does not elaborate)
Art can be defined even if all or some of its subconcepts cannot be (painting, novel, tragedy)
In addition to artifactuality, a second, social property – non-exhibited, relational
No guarantee that current conceptions bear any resemblance to historical conceptions
What we do with certain objects (ie: works of art)
“(1) an artifact upon which (2) some society or some sub-group of a society has conferred the status of candidate for appreciation.” [Later version: “A work of art in the classificatory sense is (1) an artifact (2) a set of the aspects of which has had conferred upon it the status of candidate for appreciation by some person or persons acting on behalf of a certain social institution (the artworld).”]
Only a candidate, not necessarily appreciated
Can be conferred by a single person (often the artist)? Perhaps in a preliminary, small-scale sense
More broadly, an artifact acquires status within the system of the artworld
The (aesthetic) appreciation characteristic of experiences of artworks: “in experiencing the qualities of a thing one finds them worthy or valuable” (applies to all kinds of artworks)
“Official” status of candidate for appreciation is conferred by the artworld – authority (however scattered, heterogeneous and ambiguous that authority might be)
A certain institutional setting
Artifactuality is acquired at the same time as status of candidate for appreciation (two distinct properties)
“It all depends what is done with the paintings.”
This theory 1) doesn't presume “good” art (value-neutral); 2) is not overloaded; 3) is not based on any metaphysical/unempirical theory; 4) is broad enough to cover all things generally considered art without strain; 5) accounts for the specific practices of the artworld;
“A work of art is an object of which someone has said, 'I consider this object a work of art.'”

Arthur Danto, "The Artworld"

Danto, Arthur. “The Artworld.” Journal of Philosophy 61, no. 19 (October 1964): 571-584.

- Socrates: reflect; Hamlet: reveal
- Socrates focuses his discussion of art on mimesis because at the time artists were engaging in imitation
- Photography - discarding of mimesis in art
- "telling artworks from other things is not so simple a matter, even for native speakers, and these days one might not be aware he was on artistic terrain without an artistic theory to tell him so."
- Art theory does not just distinguish/identify art, it make art possible
- Changes in art necessitate changes in art theory, or else new artworks would be deemed bad or not-art (expand/revise to include)
- "Non-facsimile"
- "To mistake an artwork for a real object is no great feat when an artwork is the real object one mistakes it for." - how to distinguish?
- A bed cannot not be a bed
- Not a bed with paint on, an artwork made up of a bed and some paint (mistaking the artwork for part of itself)
- Different senses of "is" - "the is of artistic identification" - some property or part of the artwork must be designated by this "is"
- "One artistic identification engenders another artistic identification," requires/precludes others
- Making artworks different from one another even if they contain the same real objects
- (Obviously must be linked to the real objects)
- We must master this "is" in order to understand why a work is art
- "To see something as art requires something the eye cannot decry - an atmosphere of artistic theory, a knowledge of the history of art: an artworld."
- Context
- [Popular artworlds?]
- Why can't the Brillo company make art, while Warhol cannot but make art? (Has the distinction between art and reality broken down?)
- Cannot separate the work from the (gallery) context - mistake the part for the whole
- The differences is in the theory of art, which supports the work (historically specific, "occasionality")
- "The world has to be ready for certain things, the artworld no less than the real one. It is the role of artistic theories, these days as always, to make the artworld, and art, possible."
- Art as a discourse
- The Brillo box of the artworld is distinguished (if by nothing else) by the "is" of artistic identification
- "Retroactive enrichment of the entities in the artworld" - previous works can now be discussed in terms of new predicates/criteria/theories/works
- "Pure" paintings can only exist in relation to impure paintings - the same predicates apply!
- Perpetual intensification of the matrix of artistic possibility that also enriches the entire rest of the artworld
- Importance of institutions in structuring this artworld/matrix of possibilities (For Danto, this is only of sociological interest...)