Are games art? Is it okay if games aren't art? Developers including Kellee Santiago and Alex Evans debated what it would take for the medium to get there -- if it hasn't already.
After the Sony press conference at Gamescom, the company assembled a panel of its developers on both sides of the question.
Sony feels a strong need to promote artistic development, said its president of Worldwide Studios Shuhei Yoshida, who sat on the panel of creators. "I really admire those types of creative process, and I understand that it's really hard," he said.
Perhaps the more interesting observation was brought forward by game director Gavin Moore, a 14-year veteran of the company who works at Sony's Japan Studio in Tokyo.
Games are not art, he argued. "Games are craft, and it's a skill that you learn."
However, that's not a negative view, he says -- particularly in Japan, where people spend their entire lives devoted to very specific forms of craftsmanship, it can be a very good thing.
"Especially after I spent the last 10 years in Japan, and they have a thing called 'kodawari', where someone spends the whole of their life perfecting a skill," he said. That's how he sees himself and his team -- whom he immensely respects. He suggested, in fact, that the rest of is team would consider the question of whether or not they are artists, rather than craftsmen, offensive.
Alex Evans, co-founder of LittleBigPlanet developer Media Molecule also considers himself a craftsman, not an artist, and doesn't see anything wrong with that distinction.
However, Moore conceded, "I think we will [become artists] exactly when we start growing up a little bit more, and we stop chasing that technology bubble to some extent -- we start thinking more about the emotions of our users."
One such developer is Thatgamecompany co-founder Kellee Santiago, whose recent Journey was designed specifically to evoke new emotions in players.
She sees the drive to art arising naturally out of the way designers look at the creative process these days. "Especially, as game makers, we're having conversations about how what we do in our games is affecting our players, and talking about it, and taking responsibility for it, and evolving through that process, and trying new things in games, and seeing if they work with our players."
She said that today's indie games prove that these kind of emotions could have been evoked in the games of 20 years ago -- it wasn't technology that held people back, it was the maturation of the medium. "The conversation wasn't happening," said Santiago.
Staunchly on the "art" side of the debate was Adam Volker, of animation and game house Moonbot Studios, which is working on a title for Sony's AR-driven Wonderbook called Diggs Nightcrawler. He said the question of whether games are art is simple for him to answer, personally, as he looks within himself.
"Why you do it is what makes it an art form," he said. If you create games "because you can't do anything else", then you're there.
In fact, he's reached the conclusion that "this medium is worth the rest of my life's exploration," he said, and that's what makes him confident it's an art form.
However, said Evans, "it's so easy to lose sight why you started at the beginning" -- and Media Molecule had to have an internal game jam to find its inspiration again. That's where the idea for its newly-announced PlayStation Vita game, Tearaway, came from.
On the other hand, he does feel that drive. LittleBigPlanet originally grew out of "a vision of explaining to everyone how games are made, like the Lego of games, before we even know what LittleBigPlanet was," he said.
"The more we can demystify how games are made, the more people will connect with them," he said.
"We're all creators whatever nationality we are. We live this, breathe it; we've been doing it for a long time and we love it," said Moore. "It's your personal drive that keeps you going."
Whether or not games are art, why you create them, said Santiago, is clear. "There's no other reason than 'just because' -- because you love it, because you feel it's the right thing to do and this game needs to be made."
Gamasutra is in Cologne, Germany this week covering GDC Europe. For more GDC Europe coverage, visit our official event page. (UBM TechWeb is parent to both Gamasutra and GDC events.)
|
The whole craftsman thing is the same as film though. The majority of people who work on a film would not consider what they do as art. Maybe the director, writer, and actors would, but a film doesn't get finished just by those people.
You are wrong, because there is a very good reason why the words art, (and game etc.) have been causing problems for people and humanity in general:
The rules of language that applies to such a word for what it represents have never been fully and truly recognised and understood. Unfortunately, the word game also suffers from a similar problem, (as does puzzle and competition etc.).
The biggest problem for the word art - is that its application has been confused for its definition...
For the English language, (at least), however, it's merely a symptom of a far bigger and deeper problem with the recognition and understanding of the basic rules of the language itself.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20110311/6174/Contents _NEW.php
I guess I'm not highbrow enough for this discussion, sorry....I'll get my coat.
Art wise, we're not having too many problems - but games, puzzles and competitions, especially when using a computer, still have some way to go before reaching their full and true potential.
As an academic and indie developer who wishes to push games as a medium for self-expression, I do.
When discussing a craft, you ask 'How can I make this better?'. You look towards more direct assessments of quality, and you create new products as improvements over existing products. You end up focusing on quantitative values.
When discussing an artform, you ask 'How else can I do this?'. You look for untouched ideas, and focus on what else could be done with the form. You look for and value uniqueness and sideways innovation (as opposed to progressive innovation). You end up focusing on more qualitative values.
While it is definitely the case that the majority of the industry is focusing on the craft of game making, and constantly iterating, evolving, and improving existing concepts, it can be important to remember the artistic side, and to continually seek out new and different ways to approach the medium, even if they are not finely tuned.
So I don't think "are games Art?" is an important question, but I do think that it is important to recognize that we are a medium of both artists and craftsmen, and will be best able to advance the medium with both of these elements intact(one to innovate, and one to iterate).
The only reason for this debate to exist, is the lack of recognition and understanding of what the words art and game represent, especially in relation to each other.
And yet the relationship between games and art is EXACTLY the same as EVERYTHING WE CREATE that is defined by a specific function that is not art itself.
Are puzzles art? Are competitions art? Are cars art? Are microwaves art? Are televisions art? Are houses art? Are tables art?
The answer is NO.
Why?
Because all of these things are defined by a FUNCTION that is different and distinct from that the word art itself represents.
That the creation and design of these things is what the word art represents, (from a specific perspective), has nothing to do with their definition, only their application, which is generally described as other words in combination.
By getting confused between the two, however, we're not fully recognising the function and behaviour that either the words art, game (or even puzzle and competition) happen to represent in a manner that is both consistent with how they are used, or the basic rules of the language itself.
All of the problems we have are ultimately a failure to understand basic cause and effect, not just of what language is used to represent, but also for the rules of the language itself.
http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/DarrenTomlyn/20110311/6174/Contents _NEW.php
Surely some games can be art, some don't have to be and some will never be regarded as such. We don't all have to be in the same boat.
The same applies here, depends where the game is shown, who made the game and in what context.
It's a craft, it's art, and sometimes it is FINE ART...
The opposite question also applies, is FINE ART also Entertainment?
Wise words sir.
Games like Journey or Passage are almost universally considered art (but not by everyone!), because they were designed to elicit emotional reactions from their players, and were mostly successful at it.
Farmville is not art because its designed to entertain and addict players. Most players don't feel sad or happy when playing it, because the game is designed to have no significant consequence for any action other than not playing/paying.
In short: "Are games art?" (from my perspective) Not yet. At least not by common standards of what society/we consider art.
Is a chef an artist? certainly, but to find the best food you usually have to find that indie talented chef who can stay true to their own vision.
so my take is, are games art? yep, but unfortunately large corps aren't good at allowing for inspired art, they are good at mass production and compromise. IE. The Olive Garden, it will feed a lot but not much more.
What defines something as art is completely separate from it being a car/microwave/house/table/game/puzzle/competition etc..
Although certain media used to enable a game can also use various forms of art as a condition of it's use - (pictures for board games/playing cards etc., sculpture for dice etc., and many different forms of art for computer games), because it's part of the medium used, it has no place in defining it AS a game, itself. (Computer does not define game, any more than wood defines table).
Saying games are art is like saying furniture is a type of material - they're related and compatible, but not the same thing - which is why we use two different words in combination to describe both of these elements where related and applied together, when applicable.
A race is one of the basic games. Is a race a form or type of art? No. So games are not a form of art themselves.
A table is an item of furniture. Is a table a form or type of material? No, so furniture is not a type of material.
We can use different materials to make furniture with, but the two are not the same thing.
Creating a game can be seen as art, and different forms of art can be used in its subjective application, but they have no place in its definition.
Getting confused between art and game is to get confused between cause and effect.
Unfortunately, the very perception and understanding of the word itself, is also clouded by such a problem - subjectively defining behaviour as and by its perception, instead of what is being perceived, (mainly because we don't understand that (an application) of such behaviour is the type of concept the word art represents/belongs to). If I see a person jumping up and down, what am I doing to define the act of jumping, myself? Nothing... All I'm doing is applying such a definition upon what I perceive, hopefully, in a consistent manner.
Imagine what would happen if every single word in the language was only ever defined as and by someone else's perception of it...
I largely agree, but I think emphasis belongs on what games are for and not how they apply to our language~ necessarily.
Language seems to be the overarching theme of how people interact, it also seems to envelope forms of expression ~ art. I think games fall into a different type of "behavior" or really better stated "playing games" are a behavior more than they are an 'activity'.
It's a very tough distinction to make however because people have been calling everything from Monopoly to footraces "games". the term "game" seems to be the misleading idea, because when you think of game your first reaction is to go , oh yea I know games~ you know like pac man or hopscotch~ but really gaming is a behavior applied to those .."parameters" we set for how we interact with the prospective subject ...
So for hopscotch it would be drawing the lines, drawing the numbers in the boxes and then applying rules to our behavior with those things. Which is not just "hop,skip,jump", but how we percieve the ideas about the boundaries we artificially created ~ and how that relates to how we percieve ourselves. and much of this is subconscious.
I think gaming goes 1 idea subset further however in that they are about how we prove our honor.
You can certainly apply different "meaning" to hopscotch. It could be a simple work task, or something to kill time with. but games I believe imply something deeper, a cost for losing.
I think it's intrinsic to our desire to be appreciated, but I suppose you could say something like it's ego.. or material value.
Now are games art?
Art is expression~ I think. Photos, are a xerox of other personal expression, but not really yours. You can cut the photos into tiny bits and express them differently, but an imitation is an imitation and not an expression. The expression is how you convey it, not a camera.
Games can be an artistically rendered or 'crafted' if you like, you can express or craft the parameters in a personal and meaningful way.
But the "idea" of gaming/gameplay/to game, is not expression nor is it how your monopoly board allows demonstration for use with rules. It's really proving honor.
The language makes a distinction between:
Things that happen.
Applications of things that happen.
(Doh - edit:) To define the former as and by the latter, is one of the reasons we have the problems we do - because they are not the same thing.
For the latter, there are further distinctions that can, (and must) be made in order to understand any particular word's place, (and therefore the underlying concept it must represent, based upon the rules of the language):
Whether it's an event or a state.
If it's an event, then whether or not it's an action, or an activity.
Your problem is that you're no longer making a distinction between an action and an activity when, where and how it really matters.
A game is an:
Application of behaviour/event/activity.
The act of playing a game merely describes the action of taking part in such an activity - not what happens within the activity itself - (you're describing the act of playing in relation to the word game, not the word game itself) - which is what the word game represents the "container" of and for.
Perceiving the word game as representing an individual action is inconsistent with its use, and therefore wrong.
All of the problems we have are because the basic rules of the language are not being recognised, understood and obeyed in relation to this particular group of words - which your reply merely demonstrates.
What other subjects could you reasonably assert breaking them down to understand better?
like could you apply this reasoning to music?
or have descriptive examples?
the part I have trouble coming back to and maybe this is me...
Is why there needs to be a distinction between naming applied behavior and simply behaving in manner.
If I play an "applied behavior" (if I conventionally recognized this as an application of behavior) what's to distinguish it from my "best guess of how to execute this "behavior flavor" in how I manage to perform it.
As best as I can recognize I am only mimicing through learning but the application of my performance isn't necessarily "in category" of such application.
If a "game" must be an application of this behavior, then what is to say the applied subject is deemed an activity of the application.
different possible uses.
Music is a form of art - its function is to enable such an application of behaviour to exist - (creative story telling).
Most/all forms of art are based upon the media used to tell such creative stories, which tend to be linked to certain senses they affect:
Acting. Everything a person does can be used to tell a creative story - (perceived as such by someone else).
Sculpture. (Every object we create can be seen as a work of sculpture). (Both visual and tangible (touch).
'Organised sound'. Everything from speech, to music to sound effects, (and songs etc.) can be used to tell a creative story. (Hearing).
Note that some spoken languages (including English, obviously), also have other forms derived from this, involving symbols (written language) or gestures (sign language). (Visual.)
Pictures. Everything involving such a thing that has been created - from drawings to paintings etc. (Computer graphics could be seen as a combination of this and 'virtual' sculpture. Animation, video/film etc. is simply a further application of this. (Visual.)
Creative food/culinary can be used to tell a creative story - (both through taste and appearance).
Then of course we have things like perfumes etc. that use smells to tell a creative story too.
THESE are the basic forms of art. Just because they can be used to enable some OTHER function, or be part of something that enables another function, does NOT define or change the other functionality itself.
If that were the case, then there would BE no other function, other than art itself!!!!!!!
Is EVERY word used as a verb, (representing a thing that happens), DEFINED as art when applied to and by a person's behaviour?
NO. But this would HAVE to be the case if all behaviour is a form of art, which is the ONLY possible side-effect of defining every available function, as a form of art.
At which point, the word art itself becomes meaningless.
Confusing different functionality - different behaviour/things that happen - with what the word art represents, is, as I have pointed out elsewhere, a symptom of not obeying the rules of the language.
Game, art, puzzle, competition, work, play, etc. all represent DIFFERENT applications, of often DIFFERENT behaviour that may just be COMPATIBLE - but not the SAME THING.
Story-telling and game are two completely separate things, which is why you're using them as different words in combination.
If story-telling = game, then using them in such a manner would be superfluous. (Like story-telling picture/painting etc.).
Since game != story-telling, the only way they can exist together, is either to be used in combination, when applicable, (using artwork to ENABLE a game - (usually as a condition of the medium, such as a picture on a board, for a board game) - or interleaving such artwork with the game itself, (REPLACING a game) - (cut-scenes/FMV etc.)), or a third party perceiving such an activity taking place - a game being played (by others) - as a work of art in itself.
All of these uses are ONLY about how such words (game and art) are APPLIED, FOR what they represent, and have no affect upon their actual definitions, which is, unfortunately, what people are trying to do, and even have done - defining words as and by their application, and breaking the rules of the language in the process.
Are games art - (defined as)? No.
Can an individual game be perceived as a work of art - (a SUBJECTIVE application of art for what it represents upon something else)? Yes.
Can games use works of art to exist (as games), or contain or display works of art as part of their existence - again a SUBJECTIVE APPLICATION? Yes.
But so can (almost?) every other thing we create. Do we define tables as works of art, just because we can make a table with the Mona Lisa on top of it? No.
Existing as a work of art, and having a different USE, is entirely normal and typical for most things we create. When that happens, things are DEFINED by such a USE - their function. Since art can ALSO be a function, it is possible for things to be defined in such a manner when applicable.
Therefore EVERYTHING is DEFINED BY IT'S FUNCTION - even if it's to exist as a work of art.
There are NO EXCEPTIONS.
Games are NOT APPLICABLE to be defined as art, as it represents a different function.
Games will never reach their full potential until everyone understands not just what they are, but also how and why - but it has to be done in that order - without understanding what games are, nothing has any consistent context within which to exist.
There are a lot of people who merely 'think' they want a 'story-telling' game, when in actual fact, based on the language we use independently of computers, what they're really looking for is a puzzle - maybe a particular type and application of such a thing, (think of a 'choose-your-own-adventure book in video form) - but a puzzle nonetheless.
Since puzzles and games are not the same thing, failing to understand and recognise that in a manner that affects both in an inconsistent manner, nearly always to their detriment, has to be a problem.
(Warning: imperfect analogy coming up ;) ):
If you wanted to buy a piece of furniture, say, a table, made out of wood, because there was a particular use (you thought) you had for it, and then someone sold you a chair, just because they're both made out of wood, instead, would you not complain? Even though the chair may be able to be used as a table, they are not the same thing, are they? Imagine what might happen if people didn't understand the difference between a chair and a table, because they didn't recognise the difference in function they are designed to fulfil...
Do you think we could make the best possible tables and chairs, if:
a) No-one knew what functions either was defined by and intended to fulfil.
b) People only thought they could be made out of wood - (even though if we've been making them out of metal for just as long, and just haven't recognised that they are tables and chairs in the first place - (because of 1)).
Do you understand why:
a) telling people that these items have a specific function, and showing how they differ and are related to and by such a function
and
b) Explaining why they can (and are) being made out of different materials - (because their functionality and definition exists independently of such a thing, based on the rules of the language)
Would be very important for the design and manufacture of chairs and tables, and then allow us to design and make them to a degree not otherwise realised, (or even thought possible)?
I think a lot of people agree that there is a splinter in their minds' eye so as to speak, of the missing game element in video games. Roleplaying in particular requires that fundamental story-telling aspect from the individual.
I think it's a social problem though first and foremost. I think there are a lot of people that simply think "the experience" is everything and maybe the answer is that in focusing on "just being" we have forgotten to mature and give our own stories? Part of it, the worst part is the commercial aspect, no room to play a role that trulely expresses our own autonomous contribution. But I think the other part is the loss of the importance of such activity.
Your right it's clouded and your right its a language issue, but I think it stems from a desire to just not be troubled. Giving your own story takes effort.
Very few, but some games are offering a more story-driven experience.. what do you think of the game mods like Skyrim and Dragon Age offer? And is that more of what you are interested in?
The problems are FAR more fundamental than that, though.
We're talking about a very basic failure to recognise and understand the relationship of cause and effect in regards to basic human behaviour, (and its application).
And the (applications) of behaviour most of these words represent (game, art, competition and probably puzzle aswell) are EXTREMELY OLD, almost certainly pre-dating most languages we have that are currently used to describe them, and highly consistent throughout humanity itself.
The problem is not with humanity - it's with PEOPLE not fully understanding and recognising what humanity has already defined, created and decided on its own behalf.
Why?
Because they're simply not being taught any better, by people who fail to understand, themselves.
And, even more unfortunately, modern technology and society has given far more power and influence to such people.
A lot of the arguments people are having are also old, precisely because people have never truly recognised and understood what these words (and equivalents in other languages) represent, in accordance to what humanity has already decided by their existence and use.
Inconsistent study->inconsistent teaching->inconsistent use->inconsistent study etc..
And it's been that way for a few millennia - and probably a lot longer for what some of these words represent.
-----------------------------
As to role-playing - again, it's a matter of recognising and understanding cause and effect. Unfortunately, the term has become used to represent a few different, inconsistent, things in relation to the use of computers, which is also part of the problem.
The term role-playing, in describing a type of game, SHOULD be a label according the medium being used - (the players themselves). The fact that using this medium in such a manner involves telling the story as it is being/that has been, written, is simply an affect/condition of the medium itself - and the fact that such role-playing can only truly exist (at present) in multi-player games.
(All multi-player games involve telling stories between the players as an effect of the stories being written.)
Game = writing stories != telling stories.
Unfortunately, there are two other, separate, elements that have become confused by the use of this term, in relation to the use of computers as the medium, instead, that is causing problems.
Although it is possible for both a player AND a computer to be used as media for a single game, in a compatible manner, and as such is the only consistent manner in which computer games can involve role-playing, this is not really how the term is being viewed and used.
There are two other ways in which the term 'role-playing' is used, inconsistently, in relation to computer games, (one of which is fairly drastically affecting the perception and understanding of the overall capability of such games in general):
1) As a game which involves the player(s) controlling a character - usually in relation to certain specific options or properties of such a character, that often has little to do with it being a game itself.
Any kind of character or object that is controlled by the player in any game, usually as a condition of the media being used, is labelled as something called a 'playing piece'. Computer games are NO exception. Although computers can give the player a wide-range of different playing pieces, due to them not having to physically exist - (people/monsters/cars/spaceships etc.) - they are all, functionally, the same thing.
Note: the line between playing pieces and the medium itself is blurred - sometimes they're the same thing. Playing cards or dice, for example, can be seen as both depending on how they are used. Likewise, a computer game in which the player directly controls the action, rather than a specific piece 'within' - (e.g. a game played in the first-person instead of a third person perspective of such a character/playing piece) - can be seen as both.
Games, however, are NOT DEFINED by any playing pieces used. At most they can be LABELLED, (as a type of game when applicable), by such pieces IF, (and only if), they also happen to form the basic medium itself, (as in the examples above).
But if a computer is the medium used, then any playing pieces that are also used as a condition of its use, have no impact upon the definition of ANY and ALL games that happen to use them.
(Does using chess pieces for a game of draughts, define it as chess? No.)
Games are ONLY EVERY DEFINED by one thing: What the player(s) DO - (NEVER what they USE to do it - because that is always optional).
Since art itself can merely also form part of what is used, it too has no impact upon their definition in such a manner.
The act of controlling a character in a computer game, therefore means nothing whatsoever for its definition.
What does, however, is what they player(s) DO with such a playing-piece, which is also part of the problem with the term 'role-playing' in relation to computer games:
2) 'Character development' - the development in properties/capability of a character used when playing a game.
(Note: this is really what my blog is for, and where I'm ultimately heading (and beyond.))
There are three very large/massive problems we have with this use of the term 'role-playing':
A) That such development can be applied to ANY AND ALL playing pieces used in a computer game, not just 'characters'.
Again, NO other medium limits its playing pieces in such a manner. This is like saying that only counters can ever be used as playing pieces in a board game, even if it's chess - (which has it's own, specific types of pieces based on the rules of the game).
That fact, of course, is that other games ARE using such a thing in relation to other pieces - (cars/spaceships etc.) - in a consistent manner, but are not being recognised as being the same type of game (even if they must be).
The fact is, is that the term 'role-playing' has NO CONSISTENT USE, in labelling this type of behaviour, whatsoever, because it has nothing to do with 'role-playing' at all.
B) That such development has to be part of the PLAYER'S behaviour (as a written story) in order to affect its DEFINITION as a game.
(I know I'm using a lot of CAPS here, but recognising and understanding the difference between a definition, and an application is paramount, and is a large reason for our failure to understand these words at present.)
If any/all development of such a playing piece within a game is merely a story that is TOLD to the player(s), then it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with it being a type of game.
(The character development system in Lord of the Rings Online is of this nature - as soon as the player's character reaches a certain point, it can and will develop in a specific manner - the player has no real choice except to accept the upgrade (usually a new ability of some sort) or not.)
If the only choice available to the player is to play, or not to play - (to take/gain something for the piece or not) - then it's not a written story that can be used to define the game. (Note that this can have an impact upon the definition of poker, too).
(As a another post recently pointed out, the two main methods by which such development is implemented, are as unlocking an additional capability, and developing a capability that is already present).
But what really matters, however, is WHY such 'playing piece' development exists in the first place - C) - and just how much, and the ways in which, a game can be affected by it...
Which is what my blog is ultimately for ;)
---------------------------
The problems with the term role-playing therefore stem from people being confused between a medium, a playing piece, and the type of game they are used to play - the difference and relationship of which is a large part of what games are, and how they are applied, in a very fundamental way.
Which should give you some idea of just how bad the problems we have, really are...
Are these 2 characters playing a game?
Based on the way it's written - no, it's a competition - (competing to be told whether or not they have won or lost).
There are certain conversations that are repeated endlessly and uselessly. Are games art? How important is story in games? Do games have to be fun? What is a game? What is fun?
These sound like heady questions but are in reality completely irrelevant and the "discussion" surrounding them is just each person taking their turn repeating their opinion. You can make a fun game without a formal definition of "fun" or "game", or make a compelling but not fun non-game if you so choose. Regardless of how important you think story is in games someone has made a great game with virtually no story and one that is almost all story.
The correct answer to all these questions is either "depends" or "who cares?"
These discussions are so rote and tedious, I don't understand why anyone finds them the least bit compelling. Are games art? Some people think yes and some no. Exciting!
While these discussions can be rote and tedious, I actually find them to be quite an effective means to 'activate' the minds of fresh games design students. When they are first confronted with these well-trodden discussions, they are forced to consider video games from various unfamiliar perspectives and gradually develop their own opinions on the topics. Then from there they are primed to consider the more interesting discussions that swirl around game development.
That is a fair point.
One problem I see is that every person who discusses this subject has a slightly different interpretation about both the meaning of "game", and "art", and we are always stuck in an endless loop of trying to define both these words strictly. But with the evolution of our culture, these words have wandered away from their original concept in so many directions that a good definition would be so broad that it wouldn't be a plausible source of discussion.
But, is hard. Really hard. First of all because there's not even a good definition of art that can be applied to video games. I like the idea that the medium has moved forward from just simple "fun" games, there's nothing wrong with that thou (I love Battlefield!). Personally I like more the word "Entertainment" than "fun" when it comes to games. For example Braid isn't exactly fun but, it can be entertaining in a deep emotional and/or intelectual level.
I hope for more debates like these, is really cool :)
Just like the definition of wood has nothing to do with the definition of the word table.
The problem is that people are constantly confusing how these words are APPLIED, from what they're DEFINED as and by - and therefore breaking the most basic rule of the language.
All the problems we have are simple consequences of such a thing, happening.
And the reason it has happened in the first place, is because the rules that apply to such words are not fully recognised and understood.
Paint and sculpting are crafts, they are skills you learn.