- May 28, 2009
But how about these artisti games [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100326-Art-Game-Guru-Brings-Collection-to-DSiWare]? :/
The artist/collaborators do not need to have a total stranglehold on the text of a performance to ensure that the 'play' conveys/explores the pre-determined theme. In many ways the work can become more persuasive by moving away from dogmatic monologue to quasi-dialogue. There is some evidence that Shakespeare's plays were 'aware' of the audience when they were originally performed, although to a lesser extent.ostro-whiskey said:But not through the audience, please put more thought into what you say.Uncompetative said:Improvisation Theatre is considered art and that is interactive.ostro-whiskey said:This is the first time Yahtzee has made himself look like a moron, I think hes ego has gotten the better of him.
Videogames are not art for one simple reason, videogames are directly participatory, as such they are entertainment. If an artist relinquishes his art to free tampering by the audeince he is no longer an artist.
When an artist creates a piece of work everything has an implication and the audience simply observe, this immutability allows us to enter the mind and world of the artist.
Videogames remove this immutability, allowing the audience to interact with the world and story, cheapening them by revealing that they are an illusion we can manipulate. As such videogames kill the connection between character and story.
Magical, no. Elusive, yes. Impossible to properly define, yes.derelix said:What's wrong with explaining what it is? Do you really think "art" is some magical elusive thing that can never be defined?oktalist said:Good article, but fails for the same reason Ebert failed: made the mistake of trying to define what art is. Okay, so he (Yahtzee) qualified it by saying it was his "personal" definition of art, but it's still a definition.
Words do not need to be well-defined in order to be words. A dictionary is just a list of words in common usage, with flawed attempts to define their meanings.derelix said:If it can't be defined, how is it even a word?
Which also covers frozen yoghurt.derelix said:
Thanks for the backup there. Also, there is such a thing as non-dairy ice cream I don't get flustered by being put on the spot, it's just not as easy as you think.oktalist said:
No, nothing was proven by that. What I wrote was a small example not based off of any scientifical fact. It was an example to show you that perspective is everything.The Deadpool said:A human is better equipped to find out what bugs are good to eat than a frog. Frogs live limtted lifespans, in limited areas, with a limited choice of bugs to eat, and they pick which ones they want on instinct.Cryofthewolf said:or on what bugs are good to eat smart?
Humans have access to the entire world, meaning several thousand more bugs to examine than any one frog would have, and we're far more capable of determining nutrional value than a frog's instincts.
So to bring your red herring back to the original point via illustration: Your opinion is wrong.
Edit: And for the record, I didn't mention comparing frogs to HUMANS, I said comparing it to every other animal on the planet and judging them the smartest. slightly different.