Metal Gear's Hideo Kojima: "Games are Not Art" [Archive] - Indiegamer Developer Discussion Boards

soniCron

01-27-2006, 09:02 AM

What a load of crap.

He's clearly unfamiliar with things like Treasure Box (http://219.101.39.52/~nanahiro/main.html), Samorost (http://www.samorost2.net/samorost1/) (sequel (http://www.samorost2.net/)), or Things Came to My Brain Museum (http://219.101.39.52/~nanahiro/tcb/main.html). No, they're not art because they're kah-RAZEEE! looking, but art because a tiny world was created. A world created to be explored, to shed its layers and mystery. To be discovered.

By his definition ("Games aren't art because...videogames are made to be more accessible to more people.") film, writing, music, I-could-go-on wouldn't be considered "art" either. Oh, look! He's created a world in which art doesn't exist, except for the guy sitting in his bathroom painting with shit.

No. Madden is not art. Grand Theft Auto? No. Killer 7? Uhm. Electroplankton?

I love Kojima to death, he's great, but I think his head must be burried there in retail-land.

tentons

01-27-2006, 09:30 AM

Assembling cars at a factory is not art. Designing the look and functionality of a car is an art (aka "design"). I don't see how game design/development is any different, but then opinions are like assholes.

And, honestly, which people deem games art or not isn't going to change the subjective experience of playing games. Either you find beauty and creativity in games or you view them as puerile masturbation. There's room for both.

Meh, I'd rather go work on my art than argue about whether it is art or not. :) Art that doesn't exist is definitely not art!

Jack Norton

01-27-2006, 11:27 AM

Games are not art? LOL

Leper

01-27-2006, 11:39 AM

Um a ton of games are nothing but clones with a new skin. How is that artistic?

soniCron

01-27-2006, 11:51 AM

A ton of movies are Hollywood crap, but that doesn't negate the existence of other films as art.

Leper

01-27-2006, 11:54 AM

Yeah.. but if you go to far left-field for the sake of "art" you end up making crap that nobody would ever buy. Because of capitalism, and because people like certain types of games, games aren't art but are manufactured to be something people enjoy. I can say that games do have an artistic expression, but themselves, are not art.

soniCron

01-27-2006, 11:56 AM

What about the examples I cited (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?p=77711#post77711)? Invalidated because they made a Prince of Persia sequel?

Leper

01-27-2006, 12:00 PM

Those don't even seem like games to me. I suppose that they are, but they seem more like interactive widgets at some kind of museum :P - They're not entertaining either, that's a perfect example of going left-field expiremental.

But you do bring a point across, and now I think I just might have changed my mind about games. But let me say that MOST games, games that most people play and enjoy, aren't art.

soniCron

01-27-2006, 12:04 PM

Those don't even seem like games to me. I suppose that they are, but they seem more like interactive widgets at some kind of museum :P - They're not entertaining either, that's a perfect example of going left-field expiremental. They are 100%, full-fledged games, my friend. There is interactivity and a goal. Perhaps you didn't enjoy those games because you weren't aware there was a goal?

Sybixsus

01-27-2006, 12:04 PM

I remember reading an article about literature which was discussing the literary value of various authors and their work. I particularly remember the section about Mickey Spillane ( because I'm a big fan ) where the article's author explained that Mickey Spillane himself had said that all his Mike Hammer books were written purely to make money and had no literary value. The author of the article begged to differ, adding that the motives of the author were not relevant to the literary value or lack of. In the same way that a bloody awful author who had tried to write a novel with a lot of literary value could write one with absolutely none, the same could happen in reverse, and in his opinion it had.

The same applies here, including but not limited to Kojima's games. Art will be perceived ( or not ) by the viewers/listeners/readers/whatever and they will decide, not the author/artist/creator/whatever. It doesn't matter what they're trying to do. If enough people perceive it as art, it's art.

Leper

01-27-2006, 12:11 PM

They are 100%, full-fledged games, my friend. There is interactivity and a goal. Perhaps you didn't enjoy those games because you weren't aware there was a goal?

Games that most likely wont ever be mainstream hits because they're too far left-field.

Leper

01-27-2006, 12:12 PM

Art will be perceived ( or not ) by the viewers/listeners/readers/whatever and they will decide, not the author/artist/creator/whatever. It doesn't matter what they're trying to do. If enough people perceive it as art, it's art.

That's a thought-provoking answer :) I think this makes a lot of sense!

soniCron

01-27-2006, 12:24 PM

Games that most likely wont ever be mainstream hits because they're too far left-field. I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream," but compare the number of search results for Samorost (http://www.google.com/search?q=samorost) versus that of, say, Chuzzle (http://www.google.com/search?q=chuzzle). Now, I'd consider Chuzzle to be a mainstream hit (9 weeks in Real's Top 10), and for Samorost to be getting half the results as Chuzzle? Not a mainstream hit?

Leper

01-27-2006, 12:30 PM

I'm not sure what you mean by "mainstream," but compare the number of search results for Samorost (http://www.google.com/search?q=samorost) versus that of, say, Chuzzle (http://www.google.com/search?q=chuzzle). Now, I'd consider Chuzzle to be a mainstream hit (9 weeks in Real's Top 10), and for Samorost to be getting half the results as Chuzzle? Not a mainstream hit?

I would like to point out that using search results to prove that the game is in mainstream is a fallicy. How does, say, being in the search engine by a whole lot prove that the game would do well for sales? Also, isn't it fair enough to consider the spiders can't crawl the php files involved with chuzzle? Or perhaps the fact that chuzzle is on real arcade, and the other game is nowhere to be found unless you know it's name?

Jack Norton

01-27-2006, 12:31 PM

Games are art because they incorporate all the form of art.
Music is art.
Drawings (graphics) is art.
Literature (in the games that have a plot) is art.

I played some games like Vampire: Bloodlines or Max Payne 2 that have a plot better than many of the so called masterpiece movies of Hollywood.

Leper

01-27-2006, 12:40 PM

Honestly, I can say that if the human being was not creative, and was not into art at all, video games would not exist.

So this topic is very interesting for me, and I do feel that I have changed my mind about how I view game as art.

At the same time though, I can still think that just because you throw media in something it doesnt make the whole, art. If I put a tattoo on my arm, I'm not art, my tatto is. I think that is the same for games as well.

The games that Dan posted I woudl definately view as art. But I wouldn't say they're fun games. I also think if games went on the mentality of always being extremely different, then games would never be as fun as they are today.

soniCron

01-27-2006, 12:41 PM

How does, say, being in the search engine by a whole lot prove that the game would do well for sales? So the decisive factor of its art is gauged by money?

Also, isn't it fair enough to consider the spiders can't crawl the php files involved with chuzzle? Or those of Samorost?

Or perhaps the fact that chuzzle is on real arcade, and the other game is nowhere to be found unless you know it's name? Nowhere? One hundred and fifty thousand pages. That's somewhere. Real Arcade, while cool, isn't the only place to get games. Just because it hasn't swum in your circle doesn't mean other people haven't heard of it. One hundred and fifty thousand pages.

The games that Dan posted I woudl definately view as art. But I wouldn't say they're fun games. That has no bearing on anything. Heck, a lot of people disagree with you. (One hundred and fifty thousand pages.)

Leper

01-27-2006, 12:46 PM

Dan, what does it matter how many times something pops into a search engine if you've never even HEARD of it? Futhermore, I would feel that it is safe to assume that most casual people probably never HEARD of it either. Since it's not being picked up by any of the mainstream portals (where most people go) then that tells me SOMETHING.

Also, why do you keep comparing a game that is a casual hit to a game that pops up alot in search engines? What point are you trying to prove exactly. That's comparing apples and oranges to me.

And how would something that has 150,000 mean that all 150,000 pages are praises to it's name? You can get a lot of pages from the name "George Bush" and not everyone will be praising him. Also, how can you be safe that all 150,000 refer to the game itself? Or perhaps there could be something else that is associated with the word?

g666

01-27-2006, 01:01 PM

Anything can be art:

http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2005/simonstarling.htm

I didnt realise there was a samorost 2 :)

soniCron

01-27-2006, 01:06 PM

Dan, what does it matter how many times something pops into a search engine if you've never even HEARD of it? These one hundred and fifty thousands sites presumably have visitors?

Since it's not being picked up by any of the mainstream portals (where most people go) then that tells me SOMETHING. That it's not for sale?

Also, why do you keep comparing a game that is a casual hit to a game that pops up alot in search engines? What point are you trying to prove exactly. There are a lot of eyes and interest in both games.

And how would something that has 150,000 mean that all 150,000 pages are praises to it's name? You can get a lot of words from the name "George Bush" and not everyone will be praising him. Well, they made a sequel and, again, wouldn't the same befall Chuzzle?

Also, how can you be safe that all 150,000 refer to the game itself? Or perhaps there could be something else that is associated with the word? I did a scan of the top results and the bottom results, and they were all for the game. I can only assume the ones in the middle are too. Er, wait...isn't "Chuzzle" in the same boat?

Leper

01-27-2006, 01:10 PM

Yes, put a game that has no instructions out there that shows up as a huge peice of art, and you have to click on it and things happen. That to me, wouldn't be very user friendly, and wouldn't sell well. I think that game you're touting is more of a "cult-hit"

Also, any game that makes it in mainstream doesn't do so by getting 150,000 web pages. You still have to know the word to search for, but yes, the game you are mentioning is spreading by word of mouth.

Chuzzle didn't have to spread by word of mouth, chuzzle just had to be a fun package that anyone can enjoy. Chuzzle did well because it is fun, this weird game does well because it probably does good for art-freaks.

You're saying there are a lot of interest in this game because it has 150,000 hits, but you can't compare its hits to chuzzles because chuzzle doesnt get it's popularity by how many hits it has.

soniCron

01-27-2006, 01:24 PM

Yes, put a game that has no instructions out there that shows up as a huge peice of art, and you have to click on it and things happen. That to me, wouldn't be very user friendly, and wouldn't sell well. One hundred and fifty thousand people thought it was not only fun enough to play, but fun enough to talk about.

You still have to know the word to search for... Or be a visitor to any one of those one hundred and fifty thousand websites.

Chuzzle didn't have to spread by word of mouth, chuzzle just had to be a fun package that anyone can enjoy. Ironically, Samorost spread by word-of-mouth because it was a fun package that many people enjoyed.

Chuzzle did well because it is fun, this weird game does well because it probably does good for art-freaks. You've obviously spent no time with Samorost. Might I suggest you play it before making that assessment? Samorost is a puzzle game, and it's a pretty fun one at that.

You're saying there are a lot of interest in this game because it has 150,000 hits, but you can't compare its hits to chuzzles because chuzzle doesnt get it's popularity by how many hits it has. If not numbers, how then does it get its popularity?

mhuang

01-27-2006, 01:30 PM

Kojima is not the only one who feels this way:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN&date=20051127

look at question #3.

soniCron

01-27-2006, 01:43 PM

Kojima is not the only one who feels this way... "To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers."

You could have said the same thing about the first 20 years of film, drama, poetry, composition, authoring. That's a horrible reason to believe video games aren't art. We've explored only the tiniest fraction of what is possible in interactive entertainment, so to think that it's impossible is indicative of a jaded, old mind.

"Everything that can be invented has been invented." --Charles H. Due, U.S. Patent Commissioner, 1899

mhuang

01-27-2006, 02:02 PM

one of ebert's underlining reason for why games can't be art is:

"Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."

I personally think Games are not art in the same sense as film and literature, but an unique artform onto itself.

Savant

01-27-2006, 02:05 PM

Just curious - How is this thread helping anyone develop their games faster/better?

I can't stand "let's define art" discussions. They drag on and on and on and on with no hope of resolution.

soniCron

01-27-2006, 02:09 PM

"Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control." Out of This World (http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/out-of-this-world)

Vorax

01-27-2006, 02:09 PM

"To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers."

Games can't be art? Games can't have great stories or tell a tale visually?

Jade Empire - Bioware (http://jade.bioware.com/)

Better story, suspense, action and interest then 99% of anything holywood produces.

Ebert can take his elitest and outdated views and shove'm up his ass

Kojima may know how to make games, but he hasn't got a clue what art is if he can't see that games are art.

Anyone here old enough to remember the debate back in the early 80's if computer graphics were art? Same attitudes back then from elitests and they were also just as wrong... and finally admitted it. Now a great deal of modern art and illustration involves computer graphics.

GBGames

01-27-2006, 02:14 PM

I believe games can be art. I also believe that there have been games that could be considered art.

Whether or not it becomes famous or popular shouldn't determine how artistic something is. How many people went to see Dekalog (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092337/)? Now compare it to the number of people who saw Kangaroo Jack. Are we seriously going to argue that Jack is more artistic?

Also, is the fact that my friend's amateur short wasn't marketed or sold to movie theaters enough to invalidate any amount of artistic value in the short itself?

No, obviously not. The MPAA doesn't need to be involved to assert the value of a film. So why does it matter that Chuzzle sells while Samorost doesn't?

I agree that not all games are artistic. Doom, Unreal Tournament, and a number of other games are just games. On the other hand, I could argue that The Illusion of Gaia was artistic. Yes, you could argue that it had a lot of non-artistic gameplay elements, but it didn't change the fact that the game made me think. I don't mean strategy or tactics. I mean even when I stopped playing the game, I was thinking about the issues it brought up, such as "Why DO we eat other creatures when we don't have to do so?"

I believe that games have the power to bring up important dialogues with the player. Maybe most games are made exclusively for the royalties, but I don't think that completely makes games into non-art.

When I play through Final Fantasy 7 this year, I'll be able to comment on whether it can be considered art. For now, I only have The Illusion of Gaia, a game most people didn't hear of. That fact doesn't mean that it is any less artistic for me.

GBGames

01-27-2006, 02:19 PM

I also don't like the assertion that because games are interactive they are no longer artistic. Aren't there works where the whole point is to allow the viewer to take away their own perceptions? The artist won't say what the work actually is because part of the point is to think about what you think it is supposed to be. That sounds interactive to me and is still part of the "strategy" of the artistic work.

Anthony Flack

01-27-2006, 04:00 PM

Of course. None of these assertions have a leg to stand on when compared with other forms of art... many of which are interactive and accepted as art without question. Even a simple sculpture could be said to be interactive, as you choose what side to view it from, and it will look different depending on where you stand.

Me, I have a much broader acceptance of "art", anyway. Art doesn't have to mean "great art masterpiece". You can have crap art. And anyone who's made a game should realise that it's an artistic undertaking. Get over it; it's not so bad.

I would argue that play-balancing and devising game mechanics is art as well; part of the art unique to game design. So I wouldn't exclude Doom either for example. Nor would I exclude the most shameless rip-off from being art - just as we see shameless rip-off painters whose work should rightly be considered art, just as it should rightly be considered a load of crap.

Leper

01-27-2006, 04:31 PM

I've read a lot of good points, and I now believe that games are art afterall. I especially find Anthony's perspective, as well as others citing the history of films, very good points...

Nexic

01-28-2006, 05:15 AM

On your Samorost VS Chuzzle arguement,

Pages indexed is irrelvent, what matters is how many people per month search for it (ie. have played it or have heard of it).

According to overture:

Chuzzle - 20,000 searches
Samorost - 2,600 searches

There are also many many variations on chuzzle, such as 'chuzzle game', 'chuzzle cheats' and 'chuzzle review'. Samorost has these variations aswell but in MUCH smaller numbers. I would estimate that Chuzzle is well over 20 times more popular than Samorost.

Anthony Flack

01-28-2006, 05:20 AM

True. But most of us have seen Samorost before, right? I suspect most people don't know it's called Samorost, and they find it by following a link like: Check out this cool flash game (http://www.samorost2.net/samorost1/)! And afterwards, they tell people about "this cool flash game". The name doesn't seem to have taken hold.

So who knows. It certainly seems to have done the rounds, and a lot of people have good things to say about it.

Either way, I don't see the relevance of the whole Chuzzle/Samorost comparison thing anyway.

soniCron

01-28-2006, 05:25 AM

Either way, I don't see the relevance of the whole Chuzzle/Samorost comparison thing anyway. I think Leper was trying to say that Samorost wasn't considered a video game because it's too "artsy fartsy" to be widely accepted, and as such, wasn't an example of video games as art.

@Nexic: Frankly, I'd be willing to bet that a big chunk of Chuzzle's results are affiliate and sales pages, whereas a big chunk of Samorost's results are mentions in blogs and the game itself.

Raptisoft

01-28-2006, 06:15 AM

I think I'd prefer if games were less about art and more about entertainment.

Course, most are about neither. But in the end, I'd rather read Stephen King's "The Gore Slider" than Shakespear's "Thee Boering Tales of Pipper Tipperwaith"

svero

01-28-2006, 06:38 AM

I agree with Anthony's characterization of art. Ie... there is bad art and good art. But I think games transcend images music etc.. as an artform. The interactivity itself is part of the art. And yes I do believe they're an artform. I dont think that games that are commercial are any less "Artistic" than games that are "artsy". In fact in my view a lot of what is considered artsy is just bad. I think things get labeled based on how popular they are. That goes for film and literature etc.. as well. What is commercial vs artsyanyway? Does something become something else because people want to purchase it or like it? If The Police record and album and a zillion people like and want to listen to Roxanne is that music somehow less artistic than if those same zillion people just didnt care about it? It's the same song. I believe that the perception of art is changed by it's popularity and not the other way around.

mahlzeit

01-28-2006, 08:09 AM

I believe that the perception of art is . . .
I believe that art is just that: a perception. If only we had an Art Verifier Oracle robot that you can feed a painting or a song and then it says "bleep bleep this is [not] art". But what would we argue about then. ;)

Anthony Flack

01-28-2006, 08:13 AM

How can a painting or a song ever not be art?

Raptisoft

01-28-2006, 08:46 AM

How can a painting or a song ever not be art?

Here's several examples to get you started, but you can go on from there: http://www.sfmoma.org/collections/collections_overview.html

I think a pretty good rule of thumb is, if the person who creates something is a snazzy dresser, then what he creates is not art. :)

Leper

01-28-2006, 09:00 AM

Just curious - How is this thread helping anyone develop their games faster/better?

I can't stand "let's define art" discussions. They drag on and on and on and on with no hope of resolution.

Everyone has their opinions. Well, I suppose the best thing to do is look at the definition of art itself.

From the American Heritage Dictionary:
# Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
#

1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

# High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
# A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
# A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
#

1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.

#

1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: "Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice" (Joyce Carol Oates).

#

1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
2. Artful contrivance; cunning.

Let's look at the syns:

art

noun

1. Activity pursued as a livelihood: business, calling, career, craft, employment, job, line, métier, occupation, profession, pursuit, trade, vocation, work. Slang: racket. Archaic: employ. See action
2. Natural or acquired facility in a specific activity: ability, adeptness, command, craft, expertise, expertness, knack, mastery, proficiency, skill, technique. Informal: know-how. See ability, knowledge
3. Deceitful cleverness: artfulness, artifice, craft, craftiness, cunning, foxiness, guile, slyness, wiliness. See honest, means

Gasproof

01-28-2006, 09:43 AM

Yes, put a game that has no instructions out there that shows up as a huge peice of art, and you have to click on it and things happen. That to me, wouldn't be very user friendly, and wouldn't sell well. I think that game you're touting is more of a "cult-hit"

Ppl still dig Myst...

It's interesting actually... drawings/paint --> art ...
Take a picture of Myst, paint it on a sheet --> art...

Indeed, what's the sense in having this conversation.

Nexic

01-28-2006, 09:59 AM

Sonicron:

Maybe I'm not getting something, but what does the quantity of affiliate pages vs blog pages have to do with what I said? I was talking about the number of people who searched for either Chuzzle or Samorost last month.

soniCron

01-28-2006, 10:08 AM

Because there's searching for something, and then there's running into something. Since Samorost became popular through word of mouth, it's no surprise that many people aren't searching for it -- they were told about it.

Frankly, any of those numbers don't matter. The point is that Samorost is a widely known game that traversed the gaming circles, and not some obscure, only-artists-like-it game.

The fact that it got so far on word-of-mouth says volumes. The fact that it eventually stagnated shows nothing beyond the fact that the developers simply didn't market it. Same thing happens with any game. But this one had the bonus of a huge word-of-mouth push.

Vorax

01-28-2006, 10:45 AM

If this is considered art: modern art example (http://collections.sfmoma.org/Obj25853$27062)

Then this surely is as well: Screenshot (http://media.teamxbox.com/games/ss/770/1102967549.jpg)

Nuff said.

Anthony Flack

01-28-2006, 07:18 PM

This is the conversation I'm doomed to repeat forever, it seems.

I really don't understand why people get so hostile about an innocent word like "art". Programmer types seem to be the worst - it seems that technically-minded people are often extremely conservative in their attitudes?

Raptisoft's examples of "non-art" are all art. What else would they be? It's obvious that the people making them were exercising their creativity. Sure, they're cliched and boring, and not very good. But of course! Those people aren't massively talented. Most people's attempts at music, painting, poetry, writing - and game-making - are going to be cliched, boring and not very good. That's how it goes. But there's no need to be offended by it. You might be irritated when people start acting like they're Mr. Artist because they painted some dumb picture; but they're just overcompensating. I've never known any serious artist to celebrate their own work. Or to call themselves "artists" for that matter.

But when it comes down to it, art is such a simple word. Like "engineering" - why do we never have debates about what is or isn't engineering? And nobody ever gets confused about whether poor engineering should count as engineering or not - it's still engineering, even if the bridge falls down.

Similarly to that screen shot - as a picture, it's pretty horrible-looking. But it's still had artistic thought put into it, and it's still art (well, sort of - a screenshot is a bit different, since it doesn't make much sense out of context. It was never intended to be a picture on its own; it's part of a game). But as horrible-looking as it is to me, I wouldn't go and say it wasn't art.

The "modern art example" is more interesting. That's Duchamp's "Fountain". I guess most people here aren't familiar with it; or we wouldn't be having this discussion... but it's not a typical example of "modern art" at all. It's actually Duchamp's first piece of "anti-art". It's not meant to be beautiful. Programmers should be able to appreciate conceptual art, since it's all about the idea, yeah?

Basically, he was trying to provoke this conversation (90 years before it happened here). What is art? He didn't even make it - it's just a urinal that he tipped on its side and signed. He wanted to get people to examine the hypocracy behind their ideas of what is or isn't "allowed" to be art. What you accept as being art is largely down to your conditioning. Duchamp entering the urinal into an art show was an attack on the conservative notions of "proper" art that still exist today. It's supposed to be absurd. It's supposed to piss you off. That's the point.

Vorax

01-28-2006, 09:05 PM

I agree with your points Anthony, but what bothers me about guys like Ebert saying video games aren't art is that it minimizes the creative effort and value of video games. I feel compelled to defend that art, effort and value, even if among the wrong audience or the deaf ears of closed minded critics.

Raptisoft

01-29-2006, 03:59 AM

My basic thing on art, Anthony, is actually pretty simple. If it's made to send a message, it's a political cartoon. Therefore, artword called "The Oppression of My Minority Group By A Thousand Years Of Hateful Oppression By His Majority Group" is best rendered in black and white, with a little mascot character in the lower corner making an ironical comment.

There was someone-- can't remember who-- who said, of that kind of art (or possibly film)-- "Want to send a message? Write a letter." I believe that wholeheartedly.

So "anti-art" to me is not a valid artform because it is wholely dependent on something else-- and won't be understood or ever regarded by something 100, 200, or a thousand years from now. The Sistine Chapel; it will be regarded as art if the church and everything else we know of ceases to exist forever. But "Urinal to show my parents who's who" will only be considered art as long as there's an unbroken stream of scholars to remind people not to pick it up with the garbage on Tuesdays.