 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 12/5/2010 1:52 PM, Warp wrote:
> Patrick Elliott<sel### [at] npgcable com> wrote:
>>> Roger Ebert is full of BS. Watching games is not the same as playing them. I
>>> first realized games could be art when I would not pay attention to the score
>>> anymore...
>>>
>>> He's like one of those late 1800's drama critics dismissing cinema as a cheap
>>> toy medium...
>>>
>>>
>> He has, fairly obviously, never a) played games that have real stories
>> (which could stand as movies, if you yanked out the player interaction),
>> or b) gone to/heard of interactive art exhibits.
>
> He says: "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a
> game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and
> poets."
>
> Even if that were true (which is debatable), it still doesn't make sense.
> Is the requirement for something "being art" that it has to be comparable
> with great examples of other fields of art?
>
> Is he, basically, saying that "if it's not great art, it's not art at
> all"? That sounds like snobbery to me.
>
Snort. Worse, I had to read a lot of the "great whatnots" in school, as
I am sure a lot of other people did. As near as I could tell, "great"
meant wordy, weak plotted and boring, mixed with a bit of, albeit
understandable, confusion, delusion, bigotry, and/or cluelessness. The
worst "junk" Sci-Fi often at least *attempted* to ask questions about
whether or not the reality the people where it made sense at all, and
give reasons why. The best of the "classics", like Hemingway, spent 10
pages describing drapes billowing in the wind. You could SDL the damn
things in less lines than it took for the man to describe one damn room.
The actual book, if you removed all that stuff, would have been 2 more
pages. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> 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. (Therefore something depressing like Shakespear's Macbeth
> would be considered "art", while the cheerful up-beat Crazy For You does
> not.)
are you sure you come from the United Kingdom?
there's also plenty of examples of very aesthetically pleasing art out there,
it's just that tragedy and drama have much more punch.
It's also funny that you can remember painful moments very well, because it's
unpleasant and your organism doesn't want to ever make you forget those moments
so you don't go through the same process. But enjoyable moments... those are
about as brief and faded in memory as an orgasm...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
> To my ignorant peasant taste, it just looks like a badly used piece of toilet
> paper... I'll take Mario Bros. any day for higher art...
I agree. On the other hand, some of the stuff Piet Mondrian does looks
simple but really isn't.
Also, there's all kinds of nifty stuff that was cool and cutting edge when
it was done and is now much closer to trash-anyone-can-do. Someone with $100
of software and some time on the school's computer today can put together
special effects to shame Star Wars. Submitting a signed urinal to a modern
art exhibit was fabulously inventive, the first time. Just like with Myst
clones, the first one was a great innovation in the art form engendered by a
radical technological invention, and the knock-offs were knock-offs.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott <sel### [at] npgcablecom> wrote:
> The best of the "classics", like Hemingway, spent 10
> pages describing drapes billowing in the wind. You could SDL the damn
> things in less lines than it took for the man to describe one damn room.
> The actual book, if you removed all that stuff, would have been 2 more
> pages. lol
Now you're being quite unfair. "The old man and the sea" I have in high regard.
Behind all those vivid fisherman daily duties descriptions lies really an
allegory for life itself, a bold and dramatic one.
I like structures, textures, carefully plotted details. The beauty of it all
may even surpass any story or melody alone for me. Which is why I love dense
literature as "Swann's Way" or thick contrapuntal Bach fugues.
Much of today's artworks are much too plain and shallow in their attempt to
quickly grab the short span attentions of today...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 06/12/2010 10:21 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Is Shakespeare a better writer than Ebert? What objective criteria do
> you use to show that Beethoven's music is superior to Def Leopard?
I think that we will need to wait a couple of hundred years to find out.
Let's see who survives the test of time.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> > What objective criteria do you
> > use to show that Beethoven's music is superior to Def Leopard?
> one is the high watermark of its art, the culmination in technical flawlessness
> and sheer thematic scope and development and a damn good representation of its
> time; the other is
You should have continued that with: "the other is a classical music
composer from the early 1800's."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> Similarly, anything excessively cryptic, bizare and/or pointless
> qualifies as "modern art".
That means Haskell qualifies as modern art.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Snort. Worse, I had to read a lot of the "great whatnots" in school, as
> I am sure a lot of other people did. As near as I could tell, "great"
> meant wordy, weak plotted and boring, mixed with a bit of, albeit
> understandable, confusion, delusion, bigotry, and/or cluelessness.
This is what I was talking about, in part. Some of these novels were the
first to explore the themes they spoke of in a way that contemporaries could
understand. But, being the first, they weren't always the best, nor were
they particularly written to survive the ages.
But they're culture. If I say "Godot is expected shortly" or "We're not in
Kansas any more" or "sour grapes", you have an entire cultural background of
associations to draw on.
Video games will be art when I can refer to someone as a Paul Denton and you
know what I'm saying about that person. We're not there yet, but it will
eventually happen. We've only had maybe one generation of people growing up
with video games being common. I was in high school or so when Pong was
cutting edge, in college when Pac-Man was cutting edge.
(Indeed, we're almost there. I think that if you saw some fat lady shopping
for donuts and I made the "wacca-wacca-wacca" noise, you'd probably
understand instantly what I'm saying.)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> nemesis <nam### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
>> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>>> What objective criteria do you
>>> use to show that Beethoven's music is superior to Def Leopard?
>
>> one is the high watermark of its art, the culmination in technical flawlessness
>> and sheer thematic scope and development and a damn good representation of its
>> time; the other is
>
> You should have continued that with: "the other is a classical music
> composer from the early 1800's."
That's exactly what I was expecting as I read it, yes. :-D
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Serving Suggestion:
"Don't serve this any more. It's awful."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
