Right. We're all art critics now.

[Sixcess]

The Tomb Raider series is an examination of the decline of the upper class in the modern age. Lady Lara Croft resides in her ancestral mansion aloof from society, and in her adventures outside those walls her only encounters with the lower classes are bloody gun battles in which soldiers, mercenaries and security guards - in a word, working men - are slaughtered with as much dispassion as she slaughters the wild beasts that, a hundred years ago, her class hunted almost to extinction for sport.

Lara refuses to engage with the modern world except with violence. Her goals are always backward looking, digging into and revelling in the ancient past. It is implied that Lara is only at ease when she is surrounded by the relics of earlier ages, when the peasantry knew their place, amidst the ruins of kings and emperors. Like the once mighty British Empire, Lara spans the world, and yet she leaves nothing in her wake but death and destruction, and like Lord Elgin, robs the world's great historical sites for her own gratification.

Fundamentally then, Tomb Raider is about class struggle, and the violent efforts of a doomed ruling class to assert themselves over the increasingly rebellious proletariat.

 

[Soviet Heavy]

Tetris is the video game representation of the proletariat struggles against the bourgoisie regime. Each block is representative of a mass of people. As a line of blocks is connected, it is then removed, here showing the lines of people cut down by machine guns as they rushed towards the capital buildings, thereby proving that Tetris is the most depressing game ever created.

Or it could just be about shifting blocks.

 

[00slash00]

Yes, I would argue that Uwe Boll and Michael Bay are art.

Bad art does not make it not art.

The Qualifications for art IS the objective part of art. It's the judging of good and bad which is subjective.

i disagree with this. the fact that its in a movie, game, book, etc does not automatically make it art. i feel like it cheapens art to call a michael bay film art, where its mainly just mindless action and flashy explosions. theres no meaning behind it, no expression. its just a stupid summer movie intended to kill time

 

[zehydra]

Well not all games are art. Much like the movies. Just because something can be art, doesn't mean that it by necessity, is. While some might argue that the qualifications are subjective, it's important to stay objective. Nobody would argue the Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll compendiums are art. In the same fashion, trying to defend every game with the art banner only serves to stretch the banner thin and weaken credibility.

Yes, I would argue that Uwe Boll and Michael Bay are art.

Bad art does not make it not art.

The Qualifications for art IS the objective part of art. It's the judging of good and bad which is subjective.

I knew somebody would say "Yes they're art, they're simply BAD art." And while you're entitled to your opinion no, in my opinion something made completely devoid of soul or according to forumlae for the sole purpose of material gain, while it may utilize the process of an art form is not art. A coffee mug and a fine vase are both sculpted clay. That does not make the coffee mug art.

The difference of course is that the coffee mug has a specific primary intention other than being admired. (A mug CAN be considered art though).

Movies, however, have only one purpose: to entertain. When something is created which exists for the sole purpose of entertainment, it MUST be art, because it has no other purpose.

I realize you said that you believe that the purpose behind the creation of the movies is for money, but money is not actually related to the Art itself, but to the selling of the said Art. What one does with an Artistic object is not related to what the Artistic object actually is. If you use a piece of art as a hammer, it doesn't prevent it from being a piece of art.

 

[Julianking93]

how can you forget the economic commentary

Oh damn it, of course! That's one of the main themes! That and about socialism and the price of it ;P

 

[Gametek]

And I was thinking this thread was some flame thread over the fact that everyone say thy opinion about videogame... I was really preparing myself to scream at the trolls...


In any case, gentlemen, I would love to point out at Elephant quest. I fine and light flash/free game, that tell the tale of a sad elephant, to who the evil force stole his hat.
And also beam.

[No, seriously, try it out guys]

 

[zehydra]

Yes, I would argue that Uwe Boll and Michael Bay are art.

Bad art does not make it not art.

The Qualifications for art IS the objective part of art. It's the judging of good and bad which is subjective.

i disagree with this. the fact that its in a movie, game, book, etc does not automatically make it art. i feel like it cheapens art to call a michael bay film art, where its mainly just mindless action and flashy explosions. theres no meaning behind it, no expression. its just a stupid summer movie intended to kill time

Art is not determined by subjective quality, it is determined by a list of Objective qualifications. When a work of art fails to meet subjective expectations, then it must be labeled as "bad art", because it does not meet its purpose.

A chair that one finds uncomfortable is still a chair, just a bad one.

 

[PrinceofPersia]

The Tomb Raider series is an examination of the decline of the upper class in the modern age. Lady Lara Croft resides in her ancestral mansion aloof from society, and in her adventures outside those walls her only encounters with the lower classes are bloody gun battles in which soldiers, mercenaries and security guards - in a word, working men - are slaughtered with as much dispassion as she slaughters the wild beasts that, a hundred years ago, her class hunted almost to extinction for sport.

Lara refuses to engage with the modern world except with violence. Her goals are always backward looking, digging into and revelling in the ancient past. It is implied that Lara is only at ease when she is surrounded by the relics of earlier ages, when the peasantry knew their place, amidst the ruins of kings and emperors. Like the once mighty British Empire, Lara spans the world, and yet she leaves nothing in her wake but death and destruction, and like Lord Elgin, robs the world's great historical sites for her own gratification.

Fundamentally then, Tomb Raider is about class struggle, and the violent efforts of a doomed ruling class to assert themselves over the increasingly rebellious proletariat.

Wow...I'm loving this already. Do you have one for say Call of Duty or Dragon Age? OOOOH what about Minecraft?

 

[Folksoul]

Right I'm a critic now, on with the bitching!

"The Graveyard" is the most useless, pretentious, tedious, waste of time to ever exist and be called a video game.
10 minutes of an old lady walking in a straight line to a bench with a completely random 50/50 change of dying upon sitting down. This was published by effing VALVe. Heres the kicker, It's too long. You play as an old woman who limps along at the pace a handicapped snail made out of concentrated syrup. What were they thinking?

Superman64 was better. Big Rigs was better. The former had at least attempted to do something that could be considered fun and the latter was quite literally so bad its awesome. No max speed in reverse, impossible to lose, capable of driving up a 90 degree vertical cliff and off the level geometry completely pre beta awesome.

 

[Ghengis John]

Movies, however, have only one purpose: to entertain. When something is created which exists for the sole purpose of entertainment, it MUST be art, because it has no other purpose.

Ah but who said Art had to entertain? Does a holocaust memorial entertain? Likewise all entertainment is not art. Is cock fighting art? I hope in the least if you disagree you can at least understand my logic.

What one does with an Artistic object is not related to what the Artistic object actually is. If you use a piece of art as a hammer, it doesn't prevent it from being a piece of art.

You see for this point to be valid I would have to recognize the object as art in the first place. Which in the case of Mr. Bay or Mr. Boll, I don't.

 

[00slash00]

Art is not determined by subjective quality, it is determined by a list of Objective qualifications. When a work of art fails to meet subjective expectations, then it must be labeled as "bad art", because it does not meet its purpose.

A chair that one finds uncomfortable is still a chair, just a bad one.

yes but while a craftsman can make a well built chair and call it art, someone who makes a chair poorly due to lack of skill is still making a chair, but they are not making art.

 

[Cousin_IT]

The Tomb Raider series is an examination of the decline of the upper class in the modern age. Lady Lara Croft resides in her ancestral mansion aloof from society, and in her adventures outside those walls her only encounters with the lower classes are bloody gun battles in which soldiers, mercenaries and security guards - in a word, working men - are slaughtered with as much dispassion as she slaughters the wild beasts that, a hundred years ago, her class hunted almost to extinction for sport.

Lara refuses to engage with the modern world except with violence. Her goals are always backward looking, digging into and revelling in the ancient past. It is implied that Lara is only at ease when she is surrounded by the relics of earlier ages, when the peasantry knew their place, amidst the ruins of kings and emperors. Like the once mighty British Empire, Lara spans the world, and yet she leaves nothing in her wake but death and destruction, and like Lord Elgin, robs the world's great historical sites for her own gratification.

Fundamentally then, Tomb Raider is about class struggle, and the violent efforts of a doomed ruling class to assert themselves over the increasingly rebellious proletariat.

I disagree. To me, Tomb Raider is a tale of a bourgeois female striving to break through the glass ceilings imposed on her by the male dominated world of tomb raidery. In all the backstories, but especially the original Lara Croft is forced to make it on her own as a female adventurer, her family having either died or disowned her at some point in the past. While she has money, she is unable to rely on others to give her a leg up on the path of stealing other cultures history; she must make it on her own, through her own guile & wits with the odds stacked against her.

Not only must she rely on herself to make it as a plunderer, but she is forced to face repeated murder attempts by her male counterparts in the business of pillage. This is a brilliant analogy of the struggles women face in the workplace every day, struggling against both the attempts of male superiors to keep her in "her place," but also those men whom she might wish to consider her equals, but view her as unworthy job competition. It is only through her feminine qualities of inner strength, agility & multitasking solving a puzzle while leaping off platforms & shooting possessed monkeys simultaneously, that Lara is able to rise above the machinations of her male oppressors & make off with King Tuts head.

Finally, it is worth noting that the overwhelming number of expeditions Lara goes on are in search of the treasure of ancient kings. These kings have filled their tombs or caves with a whole variety of clever & cruel traps with which to thwart Lara's attempts to relieve them of their booty. This is no coincidence. It is symbolic of the fact that she not only has to struggle against the prejudices of men in her own time, but the weight of hundreds, if not thousands, of years of female oppression at the hands of the patriarchy. That she succeeds against all the odds is testament to the indomitable spirit of the modern bourgeois woman, & should serve as an example to all those of the fairer sex who strive for equality on whichever career path they seek to travel

 

[zehydra]

Movies, however, have only one purpose: to entertain. When something is created which exists for the sole purpose of entertainment, it MUST be art, because it has no other purpose.

Ah but who said Art had to entertain? Does a holocaust memorial entertain? Likewise all entertainment is not art. Is cock fighting art? I hope in the least if you disagree you can at least understand my logic.

What one does with an Artistic object is not related to what the Artistic object actually is. If you use a piece of art as a hammer, it doesn't prevent it from being a piece of art.

You see for this point to be valid I would have to recognize the object as art in the first place. Which in the case of Mr. Bay or Mr. Boll, I don't.

For your first paragraph:

I do understand your logic and I disagree, but I also think you misunderstand me. Art does not necessarily have to "entertain", but something that is only supposed to "entertain" must be art.

For second paragraph:

Why? What would you consider the basic necessities for something to be art?

 

[Beardly]

Movies, however, have only one purpose: to entertain. When something is created which exists for the sole purpose of entertainment, it MUST be art, because it has no other purpose.

Ah but who said Art had to entertain? Does a holocaust memorial entertain? Likewise all entertainment is not art. Is cock fighting art? I hope in the least if you disagree you can at least understand my logic.

What one does with an Artistic object is not related to what the Artistic object actually is. If you use a piece of art as a hammer, it doesn't prevent it from being a piece of art.

You see for this point to be valid I would have to recognize the object as art in the first place. Which in the case of Mr. Bay or Mr. Boll, I don't.

A couple years ago I took an art history class. The teacher gave us a loose definition of art, the most important part of which was the idea that art is something made by a person. He then asked the class if a rock that just happened to look like a human face was art. Over half of the class said yes.

The point is, when it comes to art people are retarded.

 

[Thaius]

Well not all games are art. Much like the movies. Just because something can be art, doesn't mean that it by necessity, is. While some might argue that the qualifications are subjective, it's important to stay objective. Nobody would argue the Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll compendiums are art. In the same fashion, trying to defend every game with the art banner only serves to stretch the banner thin and weaken credibility.

They're all art, some are just much more kitschy than others.

Like comparing Monet to a ceramic garden gnome.

Been a while since I quoted you, Erana! You are absolutely right about this. A lot of people don't want to give the status of "art" to something they don't like, but they forget that this position means there is no such thing as bad art. And there definitely is. Some art is good, some is bad, and all involves creativity and application of skill.

 

[Ninonybox_v1legacy]

Well not all games are art. Much like the movies. Just because something can be art, doesn't mean that it by necessity, is. While some might argue that the qualifications are subjective, it's important to stay objective. Nobody would argue the Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll compendiums are art. In the same fashion, trying to defend every game with the art banner only serves to stretch the banner thin and weaken credibility.

This makes perfect sense, a gif for your post sir.

 

[The Epicosity]

The Halo franchise portrays Hitler's war in a very nice and comical way, showing to the world how right he was.

(I for some reason think saying he is right non-seriously will earn me hate, so, I don't actually agree with Hitler.)

 

[Baneat]

Pokemon is a jolly good, spiffing tale of animal cruelty.

But how does one be cruel to that which hasn't the function of reason? Tally ho!

But if the one being cruel has the capacity for reason, & being cruel is said to be an unreasonable thing to do, surely it stands to reason that they shouldn't be cruel even if the cruelty is towards something incapable of reason? Is it only cruel when the recipient recognizes it as such, or the perpetrator? What if an external party to the action recognizes it to be cruel? Is cruelty relative? Am I cruel to make my magikarp fight, knowing it cannot defend or attack, on the basis that doing so may in future lead it to evolve into the much more powerful Gyarados?

However, good sir, recognize that it is a straw-man to apply the concept to pokemon, who are not animals in the worldly sense as they have demonstrated a capacity of reason. Thus, we may not consider it an argument against animal cruelty, rather, a damnation of animal cruelty as an invalid term!

Cruelty towards that which is incapable of reason is impossible!

 

[Ghengis John]

Well not all games are art. Much like the movies. Just because something can be art, doesn't mean that it by necessity, is. While some might argue that the qualifications are subjective, it's important to stay objective. Nobody would argue the Micheal Bay or Uwe Boll compendiums are art. In the same fashion, trying to defend every game with the art banner only serves to stretch the banner thin and weaken credibility.

This makes perfect sense, a gif for your post sir.

Oh? An animated Holo gif? This is quite a reward indeed! I will treasure it always. Thank you sir.