Liberaliter said:
They can only be art until society accepts it as art, until then it's
not.
I find very little confort in leaving definitions of
anything in the hands of society in general.
Masses have a tendency to make very poor judgements.
Sober Thal said:
I don't think games should be called art because art is non interactive
in my opinion
So you can probably throw any music concert of any genre and artistic interactive performance (like a LOT of modern
theater, from the 19th Century onwards) out the window, as far as art is concerned.
Alphavillain said:
IMO videogames cannot be an art form until we get the graphics
bullshit out the way. By this I mean we have to get to a stage where the development of graphics is so lifelike that
we no longer quibble over their level of realism.
You had something going there, but then you mentioned that utopic stage of graphical realism.
This is besides the point, because there is a lot of good art that is very life-like without actually being
realistic.
Alphavillain said:
IMO videogames cannot be an art form until we get the graphics
bullshit out the way. By this I mean we have to get to a stage where the development of graphics is so lifelike that
we no longer quibble over their level of realism.
You had something going there, but then you mentioned that utopic stage of graphical realism.
This is besides the point, because there is a lot of good art that is very life-like without actually being
realistic.
squid5580 said:
I don't consider a painting of a soup can art. I don't consider a bunch
of random splashes of paint art. I don't consider a piece of metal twisted into a pile of junk art. Am I wrong??
Nope because that is my opinion. You may think I am wrong but that is your opinion.
Adding subjecvity to protect your view from criticism is very convenient.
evilartist said:
SoldierG65434-2 said:
The other point I agree
with him on is: why are we so concerned with all this "games are art" stuff? I own Shadow of the Colossus, I love
the game, I don't feel the need to tell all my friends about how artistic it is. I own and love Silent Hill 2 and
feel that it tells it's (beautiful) story in a way that is far more visceral and impactful than just text or film
could ever be. However, I don't need to justify me playing it by calling it art.
I think it's because many of us don't like to think we're being looked down upon by self-proclaimed artistic
elitists. It feels condescending to me, anyway.
That's precisely why I feel the need to defend this, you know?
Because it is not a criticism of such and such creation, it is a jab at the essential validity of the entire medium,
spanning all decades that passed by and all that will come to pass.
And also because there are not that much people out there who would put upt a stand about this. Remembering the case
of the Fallujah game that never was, a lot of people, even inside the industry, turned tail and ran. And that
sounded like an
amazing exploration of what war might actually be like. Not an power fantasy fulfillment, but
an horror in depeht exploration of each moment of the experience.
Or that's what they said anyway, we might never know. Because many people did not find it a worthy medium to express
this, even though most news outlets ignored the fact that the very soldiers who survived that battle asked for that
game.
WestMountain said:
He's just an attention whore and want to say things that alot of
people reacts to so that he can make more money and get more famous.
But maybe he is right. Would one call a board game art? No, because you are mean't to win the game not admire it,
you know what I'm sayin'? :]
And yet, there is
Anti-Monopoly:
"In the original 1973 version the board is "monopolized" at the beginning of the game, and players compete to return
the state of the board to a free market system"
A direct answer to the philosophy behind the rules of Monopoly, and a socio-economical commentary all rolled up into
one.
I think there is something to admire in it all right.
cuddly_tomato said:
The sport isn't. The game isn't.
The throwing of the ball to the team members is not art. The shooting of the corpser in GoW 2 is not art.
The stadium can be art. The music, the packaging, the cgi movies, can be art.
But the sport isn't, nor is the game.
Accidental Fallacy.
I think there is more than one fallacy in your argument right here, but this is the one that sticks out to me.
la-le-lu-li-lo said:
There is nothing beautiful or appealing to me about a blank
canvas. I'm sure the artist had a "vision", but since when did that become an excuse to turn whatever shit they
created into an art form? It is also, not "of more than ordinary significance." It's a blank fucking canvas.
I actually seen a black canvas with a green vertical stripe painted across it. Big difference, huh? =]
At a cost of 5000 bucks, I'd say you'd benefit from buygin the material and do the painting yourself.
Jumpingbean3 said:
In this day and age we like to think that we've abandoned the idea of "high art" but we haven't have we?
Ebert sure hasn't.
High or low, there's truth and honesty to be found if the author(s) placed them there in the first place.