On 06/12/2010 10:29 PM, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> 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.

But you are a renowned ignoramus.

> (Therefore something depressing like Shakespear's Macbeth
> would be considered "art", while the cheerful up-beat Crazy For You does
> not.)
>


is the nature of tragedies. I bet a pound to a penny even you quote 
Shakespeare.
Knock, knock?

> 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".)
>

Not if *you* do it. It has to be a *Name*, so fools can invest in it. ;-)

> In summary: Who gives a **** about what is or is not "art"? I care only
> about what is or is not /enjoyable/.
>
No one except a pedant would disagree, IMO.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message