|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On 05/12/2010 02:08 PM, Warp wrote:
> Roger Ebert has famously stated that in his opinion video games can never
> be art.
As far as I can determine, "art" is anything excessively miserable or
unpleasent. (Therefore something depressing like Shakespear's Macbeth
would be considered "art", while the cheerful up-beat Crazy For You does
not.)
Similarly, anything excessively cryptic, bizare and/or pointless
qualifies as "modern art". (For, for example, if I spent the next 40
years becoming a master painter and I paint a stunning landscape, this
is not "modern art". If, however, I take a photograph of the dust at the
back of my cupboard, that is "modern art".)
In summary: Who gives a **** about what is or is not "art"? I care only
about what is or is not /enjoyable/.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |