i love counter strike and italian job. you can call me a tasteless, uneducated, uncultured oaf if you want because im not ashamed of my tasteslacktheknack said:
imagine if we all had the same taste
extra credits: my thoughts
- Thread starter shootthebandit
- Start date
Recommended Videos
imagine if we all had the same taste
But that's how YOU define art. Everyone has their own idea of what art is. Some people would argue that muscle cars can be art as much as anything else that takes skill to create. Art is not something with a set definitionshootthebandit said:
There was a case a while back about some "artist" who chained up a dog in an art gallery to starve to death, and obviously some group of people came to the consensus that it was "art" or else they wouldn't have put it in an art gallery. There can be no greater proof than this that art is subjective, and that anything can be considered art by someone.
Or alternatively, Red Dead Redemption.Naheal said:
Really, that's is art. There's no two ways about it, (some) games are becoming art.
you raise a good arguement and i think that the games you mention still arent what id define as "passive". you still have to solve the puzzle and RPGs are a great example of how a game is about player actions.lacktheknack said:
ive just realised this arguement has too many factors. your definition of art, your definition of a game and what you want from a game
yeah read my next post, ive highlighted a few of the complications with this debate. one of which is the definition of art. i wouldn't define art as passive its really hard to explain what i meanFargoDog said:
What is it about people and the sound of cars? I never understood that.
I mean I get a chuckle out of calling it a 'purr' but really, is a car engine supposed to sound good? All the expensive car engines I heard sounded like shit, kinda like
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRARRHRHHRHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRRRRR rum rum rum RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
I mean I get a chuckle out of calling it a 'purr' but really, is a car engine supposed to sound good? All the expensive car engines I heard sounded like shit, kinda like
RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRARRHRHHRHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRRRRR rum rum rum RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
ive just had a thought. to consider a game an art then board games and sport must also be art as that is where video games are derived
The interactivity of a player is the main difference between movies and books. Having the player craft the story themselves makes them more involved in whats going on in the game. If you could change the outcome of a bad slasher film by making a smart choice wouldn't you feel better about the ending, knowing that you were the one to save the day? And RPG's are all about the character creating a story for themselves. Games like Fallout 3 let you just run around and do what you wanted. Re-telling an event that happened to you could be just as compelling as any book. That is, if you are seriously roll-playing and not just killing everything for funzies.shootthebandit said:
Number 1: Extra credits is a show not a person, You should refer to the guy/s who actually make the show. Notable Daniel Floyd who is the voice-over guy and voice of the show.
Number 2: Your definition of art is too narrow. No, serious, its too narrow. Art is not a bunch of painting from dead guys or pieces that are on display, art is the anything that conveys some sense of meaning or idea. Writing conveys a story and evokes emotion. Painting evoke feelings and emotions. TV shows do the same, as do cars. Games do this as well. Anything that is crafted and put together in a refined way to express something is art in some form. If you think art is narrowly defined then look up some of the junk from Da-Daisum. If you think its only something to be displayed then look and never touched then you need to examine all the things around that are beautiful and well crafted. From the construction of skyscrapers to the printing of circuits the elegance and intricacy of many modern items is beautiful and functional. Games are art. They convey emotion and are are crafted using human imagination and emotion. If that doesn't make them art, then I don't know what art is. Even then, every part of a game is art. The music is an art form, the writing is an art form, the modeling is an art form, The art style is an art form, hell even the programming can be precieved as an art form to the discerning eye. If every part of a game is art how can the whole not be art? When we add art and art does it cancel itself out? Doers a movie have more artistic merit because its linear as opposed to changing? The only thing that seems to disqualify games as being art is being throwing up bullshit reasons or defining art so narrowly that it eliminates whole fields of art in order to spite games.
Anyways, in short if you think art is only some stuffy old thing that is mean to be seen and not touched and can't be functional then your idea of art is ancient and decrepit needs an update. If my method of conveying an idea is less valid as art simply because it does something then art is invalid and useless. It's simply a grouping of particular objects and entirely pointless and inconsequential as all labels are. But, if my art is simply about its meaning and the ideas it represents and not about how it is conveyed, if art is truly an essence and not a concrete thing, then art lives and art becomes a deep part of the human experience. I choose to live in a world where art is part of the human soul and is expressed thought the shackles of material objects in an attempt to convey its true beauty. Art takes many forms and limiting it is limiting our own selves.
Number 2: Your definition of art is too narrow. No, serious, its too narrow. Art is not a bunch of painting from dead guys or pieces that are on display, art is the anything that conveys some sense of meaning or idea. Writing conveys a story and evokes emotion. Painting evoke feelings and emotions. TV shows do the same, as do cars. Games do this as well. Anything that is crafted and put together in a refined way to express something is art in some form. If you think art is narrowly defined then look up some of the junk from Da-Daisum. If you think its only something to be displayed then look and never touched then you need to examine all the things around that are beautiful and well crafted. From the construction of skyscrapers to the printing of circuits the elegance and intricacy of many modern items is beautiful and functional. Games are art. They convey emotion and are are crafted using human imagination and emotion. If that doesn't make them art, then I don't know what art is. Even then, every part of a game is art. The music is an art form, the writing is an art form, the modeling is an art form, The art style is an art form, hell even the programming can be precieved as an art form to the discerning eye. If every part of a game is art how can the whole not be art? When we add art and art does it cancel itself out? Doers a movie have more artistic merit because its linear as opposed to changing? The only thing that seems to disqualify games as being art is being throwing up bullshit reasons or defining art so narrowly that it eliminates whole fields of art in order to spite games.
Anyways, in short if you think art is only some stuffy old thing that is mean to be seen and not touched and can't be functional then your idea of art is ancient and decrepit needs an update. If my method of conveying an idea is less valid as art simply because it does something then art is invalid and useless. It's simply a grouping of particular objects and entirely pointless and inconsequential as all labels are. But, if my art is simply about its meaning and the ideas it represents and not about how it is conveyed, if art is truly an essence and not a concrete thing, then art lives and art becomes a deep part of the human experience. I choose to live in a world where art is part of the human soul and is expressed thought the shackles of material objects in an attempt to convey its true beauty. Art takes many forms and limiting it is limiting our own selves.
'shootthebandit said:
Just to play devil's advocate here, some board games might qualify. Monopoly back in the day was quite a work of creativity, mouse trap was pretty darn visually dynamic and axis and allies has almost as much care and precision as a painting.
Ok, so maybe a function of art has to be that it intends to provoke a reaction or feeling from the participant/viewer. Even in that context I think many games could still be considered "works of art". I know I felt something while playing Silent Hill for instance. Even the Final Fantasy games have scenes of pretty breath taking beauty that could be said to be enhanced by the immersive experience....
Maybe I am over thinking this. ;-)