As a definition of art, I would propose that the value of art is in how it makes us feel and what it makes us think, not in utilitarian concerns. This isn't a definition of art unto itself, but I think moves in the right direction.
I like this way of defining art, I think I'll write this down somewhere.
My definition of art is very subjective and context sensitive. Thus, the exact same activities could be art or not art depending on the context. Moreover, I've never considered the notion of art to have crisp delineation like a logician would demand; whether or not something is art is very much dependent on the intentions of the creator and the perceptions of the audience.
Who were these art critics? A bunch of hacks claiming to be art critics I would imagine. I very much doubt that any reputable critic concluded someone is a genius based on one drawing, or concluded anything at all about a drawing without any context. This story of yours sounds very much like an urban legend.
I've never played a game that provided noteworthy insight into the human condition nor into the world in which we live. Neither have I ever played a game that is content to just be. Games have two purposes: to entertain and to make a profit, and the latter is more important than the former.
I like this way of defining art, I think I'll write this down somewhere.
These people can not be true artists. If they were then evey teenager who's bed room is a mess and mortician on the planet would be artistic geniuses.
My definition of art is very subjective and context sensitive. Thus, the exact same activities could be art or not art depending on the context. Moreover, I've never considered the notion of art to have crisp delineation like a logician would demand; whether or not something is art is very much dependent on the intentions of the creator and the perceptions of the audience.
A group of scientists gave some drawing to some art critics, who when viewing these drawings called the artist(s) a genius and tried to interpret what these artist(s) were trying to convey to the viewer.
Who were these art critics? A bunch of hacks claiming to be art critics I would imagine. I very much doubt that any reputable critic concluded someone is a genius based on one drawing, or concluded anything at all about a drawing without any context. This story of yours sounds very much like an urban legend.