To kick things off, a couple of (mostly) open questions about the topic at hand:

How do you think art and entertainment relate? Is the overlap limited to particular media, such as novels and film? Can video games be considered art? What are the criteria? Are the old distinctions between high(brow) and low(brow) art still relevant in some ways, or have the lines been blurred entirely?

Does "real art" require acknowledgement by people with authority in the art world/their respective field? 

Does art require intent? In other words: can something be a piece of art when it was not created as such?

To complicate this question: If art is created to be art, can circumstantial/unintended outcomes add artistic merit? I once read an interiew with a psychiatrist who considered himself a poet. He was dismissive of a poem by a patient,, since he considered the way the sentences were formed an outcome of a mental disability, not of artistic choice. Is this reasonable, or petty and elitist?

What do you think of pretentiousness in creating and/or evaluating art? Are there degrees to this and if so, is it a net positive or negative?

Do you have any favourite artists? What do you like about their work? 

Have you ever made art yourself? What was your purpose? Did you like what you made?

Yes to pretty much all of your propositions.

Art is an expression of soul. I don’t use “soul” here in any kind of religious context but rather to mean that ineffable quality that makes us us. Art can be accidental and still be art. Spilled creativity can result in some pretty amazing things.

As far as pretentious snobs, they can take their opinions and shove them somewhere deep and stinky on their own person. I had an English lit teacher once who killed in me any possibility of ever liking poetry because he made me (and everyone else) feel like I was doing it wrong because my interpretations were not his interpretations. That guy was a dick that should never have been allowed in a teaching position. He gave me poetry PTSD!

My favorite painter is Van Gogh because of the way he makes little squiggly marks on the canvas that resolve into something extraordinary.

Wow, Bob! Tricky questions!

How do you think art and entertainment relate? Is the overlap limited to particular media, such as novels and film? Can video games be considered art? What are the criteria? Are the old distinctions between high(brow) and low(brow) art still relevant in some ways, or have the lines been blurred entirely?

I'm one of those people who thinks that 'art' is created intentionally for the purpose of only being art. It is created solely to make you think about something or question something. Anything that serves a useful purpose is not art. There are lots of 'edge cases', like the films of Peter Greenaway, the writing of Gerald Murnane, the Bayeux Tapestry, etc, etc

It is okay to label something as artistic or like art, if it is very beautifully executed. But that doesn't make it art.

I don't think art is high or low brow. A lot of what is now considered 'high art' was created by very simple people with simple motives - for example, the sculptures of the Renaissance. They were just very talented at marble and stone sculpting. They mostly did it without really thinking, for money.

Does "real art" require acknowledgement by people with authority in the art world/their respective field?

Tricky. It can help in terms of popularity for the artist, or to explain possible hidden meanings in work, but it's probably not a requirement.

Does art require intent? In other words: can something be a piece of art when it was not created as such?

Yes, intent is nearly always required. However, it is possible for another artist to create intent out of someone else's accidental creation, for example through photography or using 'readymades' (like Marcel Duchamp did).

To complicate this question: If art is created to be art, can circumstantial/unintended outcomes add artistic merit? I once read an interiew with a psychiatrist who considered himself a poet. He was dismissive of a poem by a patient,, since he considered the way the sentences were formed an outcome of a mental disability, not of artistic choice. Is this reasonable, or petty and elitist?

That's tricky. I'm a big fan of what's known as Art Brut (French for ugly art, I think) and 'outsider art' which is generally attributed to the mentally disabled or those who for one reason or another are not able to reason at a level which means they are consciously creating what is considered art. It's a difficult topic and can result in exploitation, but there's no question beautiful things have been created by these people.

What do you think of pretentiousness in creating and/or evaluating art? Are there degrees to this and if so, is it a net positive or negative?

I think it's best to be as inclusive as possible, and don't assume you know something someone else doesn't. I really hate mental masturbation about art (forget where that phrase comes from, maybe Woody Allen).

Do you have any favourite artists? What do you like about their work? 

So many - Cezanne, Joseph Beuys, Malevich, Barbara Hepworth, Basquiet,

Have you ever made art yourself? What was your purpose? Did you like what you made?

I have a website of just a few things if it's ok to drop it here.. pieroserra.com
I currently have an exhibition of drawings (which are an art 'edge case' for me) at a gallery in England.

Wow, great questions!

1. I think art and entertainment absolutely relate, but a lot of the time the art side can get watered down by the business side, especially in films and music. Video games can definitely be art. Even if you’re going by just a “graphical” or “musical” definition of art, King’s Quest 5 is one of the best looking and sounding games of all time. From a story perspective I think “Journey” reaches art. The bottom line to me is that art is something that stirs “something” in people, even if we don’t know what it is. Novels, films, video games, highbrow and lowbrow can all make us feel, think, cry, laugh, be uncomfortable. Even a dumb comedy can be art. “The Jerk” is one of my favorite movies, and as dumb as it is, it reaches a level of artistry in my opinion. Is “The Room” art? It’s one of the worst movies of all time, but the story of its creation is so bizarrely pure that on some level it actually is art.

2. No. A lot of the best art has been dismissed by people with authority at the time of its creation, maybe because it was ahead of its time or they were afraid of it, or just didn’t get it.

3. Not necessarily. I don’t think art can be labeled as having one requirement or another, because it’s not a science. It’s based on soul, emotion, gut instinct, feelings, and sometimes serendipitous accidents. Most art is created through intent, but even giving a brush and canvas to an elephant can produce some amazing results. It becomes art by what happens to us when we respond to it, rather than by the intent of the elephant. Or that really botched restoration of the painting of Jesus by an elderly woman about 10 years ago. It’s sort of become art in its own way, despite her opposite intentions.

4. Yes circumstantial/unintended outcomes can add artistic merit. Maybe part of that is the artist being open to suggestions from the universe, or just coincidence, but those little details can help elevate something to a higher level. If the shark in Jaws had worked, we would have seen more of it in the movie, and it wouldn’t have gone on to be one of the most iconic horror films of all time. “A Confederacy of Dunces” was written by a person with mental issues and could have been dismissed as not having artistic merit, but thankfully it wasn’t. You could also say “The Diary of Anne Frank” is circumstantial, because she wrote it as her own private diary, never meant to be read by anyone else, but the insight and “soul” she poured into it have gone on to touch millions of people.

5. There are tons of layers of pretentiousness in creating/evaluating art. To me if they’re based on critique, fine, but if they’re based just on ego, then it’s horrible and wrong.

6. Van Gogh. His art is so pure and from his heart. You can feel him desperately trying to convey “something.”

7. I’ve never been a professional artist, but I’ve created art my whole life. I studied architecture and film in college, and worked in the film industry for about 10 years, sometimes in the art department. As a hobby I love painting, illustration, and photography. I don’t know if Estória qualifies as art, but I do think it came from a place of me trying to communicate “something” that was in my heart.

The bottom line is, I think art isn’t limited to just one definition. It’s malleable and personal, and what is art to me might be considered worthless to someone else. Great questions!

Wow! I love these reactions. I'd like to take some time to respond to each one. In the meantime, I hope people feel free to share their own thoughts and questions as well.

@Jen: Yeah, totally. I think my personal assessment shone through with the example of the psychologist. Vanity drives a lot of human behavior. It can be funny, helpful as a motivator, but it also makes people act like your teacher. Sorry to hear he (almost?) ruined poetry for you.

Van Gogh is wonderful, I saw many of his works in the Kröller-Müller museum in Otterlo, and several museums in Amsterdam. 

@Piero and Estoria, I'll get back to your thoughtful replies next week!

I argue strongly for the loosest possible baseline for what is or isn't art, so long as it's a creative expression of ideas or emotion. Everything else is just skill and/or artificial cultural expectations (aka, pretentiousness). It's arrogant for anyone to think themselves worthy of declaring someone else's art NOT art, which happens all too often.

It's hard to put it much plainer than to say that even a child's potato painting is art. Full stop. No caveats, no qualifiers.

So yes, of course video games are art! I'm always perplexed why that's even a question. The fact that they're also "entertainment" (another completely nebulous word) is irrelevant. In fact, they're many kinds of art all rolled into one, often contributed to by multiple artists. And I mean everything, from graphics to music to foley to writing to puzzle design.

And I know that first-hand, because I've written/designed some, and am doing so again. If anyone told me that the script I'm currently working on isn't artistic expression, I'd be more inclined to shove their HEAD somewhere deep and stinky on their own person.

Art doesn't even need to be original. Probably the best drawing I've ever done was a recreation of a black-and-white post-war photo that appealed to me on multiple levels. Obviously my "art" in that case scored 0% on the originality scale, but the act of recreation in another medium, and all the time and energy and dedication I poured into it was still genuine artistic expression.

I think all art requires intent, but "intent" can mean different things. It certainly doesn't need to mean "I'm intentionally creating a piece of art." It just generally means "I'm trying to express myself creatively." But even accidents can result in art, so long as YOU are the one who perceives it as such. If you spill a bunch of paint that ends up in an interesting pattern, and YOU recognize something in it that reflects something within you, that recognition becomes the intent.

I don't really have any favourite artists. There are so many good ones, across all mediums. I will say that I lean more to realism than abstraction. A certain amount of creative stylization is okay, but more than that, forget it. It's still very much art (if they say it is); I just don't get it personally.

I'm not one for long, continuous discussions, but here are my personal opinions:

How do you think art and entertainment relate? Is the overlap limited to particular media, such as novels and film? Can video games be considered art? What are the criteria? Are the old distinctions between high(brow) and low(brow) art still relevant in some ways, or have the lines been blurred entirely?

Art and entertainment overlaps quite a bit. First off, there are the facts that a lot of entertainment(movies, music, novels, dance, etc.) are generally recognized as art forms in and of themselves. Many of these art forms are also combinations of multiple art forms, such as movies and video games, which is just as much art as film is. It's mixed medium art, incorporating any of illustration, film, animation, writing, acting, music, etc. into a piece. And any art can be made for mainly entertainment purposes, because entertainment is one potential end result of artistic expression. But not all entertainment is art. For example, I wouldn't say a football match is art, but lots of people think it's quite entertaining to watch.

I also don't think all games are art. Just like I don't think all illustrations, all films, all music, etc. is art. I think that in addition to intention, there has to be artistic expression (a nebulous thing to define). I personally don't think f.ex. Pong has any artistic expression, but I think Thomas Was Alone does. I'd also say that this is a spectrum, not a binary thing, and different people will have different views on where the line is in this spectrum for whether something is art or not. And even different views on where on that spectrum any particular work of art should be placed. Because we all experience art differently.

Does "real art" require acknowledgement by people with authority in the art world/their respective field? 

No, because "art authorities" are for the most part either artists or art curators. Both of which are groups of people made up of individuals where views, tastes, and motivations can vary greatly from person to person. They might have more experience with (and more insight into) art than a lot of people, which does account for something. But also, two curators can have completely antithetical views from each other on what constitutes a piece of art. Hence there will always be certain art authorities that think "X is not real art because of Y", while others completely disagree.

At the end of the day, I think my personal definition of art is that it's any form of creative expression. I think there are degrees of quality and expressiveness to any sort of art, because I believe there is skill to be honed in every form of art, which goes beyond just whether you "get the art" or not. But that doesn't mean less skillfully executed art is not art. It is. And it's usually the start of a lifelong journey.

Does art require intent? In other words: can something be a piece of art when it was not created as such?

In my opinion, yes. I would say art is an act of creativity, which is an intentional thing. If there is no intention, no creativity, then I personally wouldn't define it as art. Whether that intent comes from the mind or the heart is also irrelevant. I also don't think skill decides whether something is or isn't art, but generally improves the quality of it.

On the other hand, I think creativity with the wrong intent can take away from the artistic expression, resulting in something that is "less art" than it would've been. This is why people often experience illustrations or the like that just feel bland and "soulless". One such "wrong intent" would be creating something for the sake of money, if it comes at the expense of the work's expression and quality.

To complicate this question: If art is created to be art, can circumstantial/unintended outcomes add artistic merit? I once read an interiew with a psychiatrist who considered himself a poet. He was dismissive of a poem by a patient,, since he considered the way the sentences were formed an outcome of a mental disability, not of artistic choice. Is this reasonable, or petty and elitist?

Yes, circumstantial or unintended outcomes can add artistic merit. Not because the unintended thing in itself is the art, but because when it happens and the artist sees it, they incorporate it into the overall intent of the piece. A work of art is almost never the same in the result as it was as an idea. The creative process is a continuous thing that always changes based on, amongst other things, the artist's external input.

What do you think of pretentiousness in creating and/or evaluating art? Are there degrees to this and if so, is it a net positive or negative?

I'd say there obviously are degrees of pretentiousness, but also I think sometimes people call people pretentious because they hear people speaking lingo they don't understand, or having deeper or more abstract thoughts about art. Pretentiousness comes when someone tries to emulate that to elevate themselves in social circles. Ie. they are pretending(hence the name) to seem more insightful than they actually are.

Do you have any favourite artists? What do you like about their work? 

Probably too many to name, but let's just say that for my art folder back in "high school"(11th-12th year, art specialization) I incorporated hand drawn copies of both da Vinci's "Vitruvian Man" and his self portrait on the front.

Have you ever made art yourself? What was your purpose? Did you like what you made?

I consider myself a highly creative individual. As mentioned in the previous answer, I studied art in my country's equivalence to high school. I've not done a lot of art professionally, but I've done a lot of drawing and painting using different traditional and digital mediums. I've had a couple short comics/graphic novels published in indie anthologies, and once self published. I once made digital illustrations for a local theater production of Alice in Wonderland. I was once contacted by the local art association to do an installation for a festival, but there was way too little time so I declined, and I've made a video game(technically a few, and I'm also redesigning the one I'm counting ). If you also count painting miniatures, I've also done a lot of that. And probably more that I can't recall right now.

My purpose has always been to just create things for others to experience. And for myself to enjoy the process of creation. As for whether I like what I've made? I'm never completely happy with any of it, because I can always see ways I could've improved on it. But at some point you've got to call it done.