102 réponses à ce sujet

[Kordras]

[Twitchmonkey]

ImperialOperative wrote...

Dissection is most definitely an art.

Kind of a different way of using the word. One refers to needing a skilled hand to be able to do something, the other refers to the quality of a created work.

Dissection does require skill, so there is an art to it, and a well-dissected body can be very impressive to look at, but I'd find that as hard to call art as a pretty flower or something like that. It is just what exists, and it is impressive, but it says nothing about how the artist uses his skills to bring forth emotions or understanding that without his vision we could otherwise not have grasped.

[Vahe]

I dont fault Ebert for his opinions, he's never played Planescape: Torment.

[insochris]

Cracked.com - Why Ebert Is Wrong: In Defense of Video Games as Art

halfway through is an interesting comparison between Children of Men and Call of Duty 4.

Modifié par insochris, 23 avril 2010 - 12:29 .

[FutureBoy81]

Has he ever played Shadow of the colosus ? that my friend is Art ...

[Busomjack]

My response to Robert Ebert's statement that games can never be an art:



You rated Gigli 3/4 stars.

[NeroSparda]

I am worried how we will be like when we hit that age...

[Lord Thing]

Kordras wrote...

I'll never get to this stage.

As long as they get rid of those stupid noises they call "music"...

And do they call those clothes?!?

Back in my day kids had nightmares about going to school in only their undies!... 

[Reptilian Rob]

Anything spawed out of the human imagination is "art", because that is what imagination is, an expression of the individuals concept of "art".

[Zaxares]

My personal stance on art is: "If you like it, it invokes strong emotions and imparts a deeper message to you, then it's art to YOU." I can understand why someone may not be able to see games as art; I have VERY little appreciation for paintings as art, for example. I've looked at paintings by the masters and, almost without exception, thought them all incredibly dull and boring and wonder why on Earth they're worth hundreds of thousands (if not more) of dollars.



Does that mean I discount the possibility that those paintings are art to somebody else? Of course not. Maybe they're just getting something out of it that I'm not. I disagree with Roger Ebert's position, but he's entitled to his opinion.

[Twitchmonkey]

NeroSparda wrote...

I am worried how we will be like when we hit that age...

By then, games will be old enough to be art, but don't worry, I'm sure there will be something new to marginalize.

[Panderfringe]

Games cannot be art in the same way art galleries themselves are not art. They contain art in them but are not themselves artwork.

[eucatastrophe]

I also don't think he is a very good film critic.

But that is neither here nor there

[eucatastrophe]

OT but: Ugh, what is with that side, anyway? It has more adds than a porn site. Frustrating when I'm navigating to a different link or reading and the page pops to some stupid page.

[addiction21]

eucatastrophe wrote...

I also don't think he is a very good film critic.
But that is neither here nor there

Personally I have never been a fan of critics anyway. "Those who can — do. Those who can’t — criticize"

eucatastrophe wrote...

OT but: Ugh, what is with that side, anyway? It has more adds than a porn site. Frustrating when I'm navigating to a different link or reading and the page pops to some stupid page.

Firefox + addblocker = waffles

Modifié par addiction21, 23 avril 2010 - 03:17 .

[eucatastrophe]

@Addiction21: Thanks for the suggestion, I might just do that. It's funny because I have never been one of those people vehement against adds. The adds on greywarden.com just annoyed me there though ^^

[Twitchmonkey]

Panderfringe wrote...

Games cannot be art in the same way art galleries themselves are not art. They contain art in them but are not themselves artwork.

Well clearly games contain art, but the big difference that makes a game different from a 3d movie is that they can be interacted with. This is not only their unique quality, but also their main way of engaging the player. It's either that interaction that strips them of their ability to be art, because they cannot be a pure expression of the artist's vision in that they are incomplete without player intervention, or it's what makes them so effective as art because they get the player involved in a way they could not be with a traditional medium.

I go with the latter.

[Panderfringe]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Panderfringe wrote...

Games cannot be art in the same way art galleries themselves are not art. They contain art in them but are not themselves artwork.

Well clearly games contain art, but the big difference that makes a game different from a 3d movie is that they can be interacted with. This is not only their unique quality, but also their main way of engaging the player. It's either that interaction that strips them of their ability to be art, because they cannot be a pure expression of the artist's vision in that they are incomplete without player intervention, or it's what makes them so effective as art because they get the player involved in a way they could not be with a traditional medium.

I go with the latter.

Video games cannot be expression. They exist purely as a market, an industry. Would you call the production line a work of expression? The constituent pieces may be art, but the whole itself by definition cannot be called such.

[Twitchmonkey]

Panderfringe wrote...

Video games cannot be expression. They exist purely as a market, an industry. Would you call the production line a work of expression? The constituent pieces may be art, but the whole itself by definition cannot be called such.

Movies are an industry as well, they are the result of many people and need to be profitable for the studio and the studio's shareholders. Does that alone make them not art? If the answer is yes, then no, videogames can't be art, just as no movies that aren't independently funded and intended purely as art and not to be sold for profit can be called art. That's not the view I choose to take, but that's fine if you want to say that, just treat your media equally.

[addiction21]

Panderfringe wrote...

Video games cannot be expression. They exist purely as a market, an industry. Would you call the production line a work of expression? The constituent pieces may be art, but the whole itself by definition cannot be called such.

No they do not. They are not purely "pay some money to play" There are those that spend their time to make totally original games by their own hands and do not ask for a dime but will share them with the world.
They may not be ME2, MW2, or God of War 3 triple A quality games but they are still out there.

Me personaly there are those games that are "product line" consumer items and then there are those that show that the makers were pushing for something more. Something that trancends "this was made just for monetary gain"

[ImperialOperative]

Here's a question:



Does it make a lick of a difference?

[Twitchmonkey]

ImperialOperative wrote...

Here's a question:

Does it make a lick of a difference?

If they chose to rename tires "hguuuulaaaaahstomaki" they would still be the same thing and work the same, it would just be stupid.

[addiction21]

ImperialOperative wrote...

Here's a question:

Does it make a lick of a difference?

No. Not really.
I will still consider some games art and others just a product made solely for a profit a nothing more.

But there is npt fun in that.

For further explanation go back a couple pages and read my response to an obvious troll.

[MOTpoetryION]

you know what i realised playing assasins creed 2 with all the paintings you collect . imo all it is, is pre camera age porn. almost all the famous paintings were nudes just because they were painted makes them art ? its all just porn nothing more IMO