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