Roger Ebert: VIDYA GAEMS CAN'T BE ART!!1

[Paula Tormeson IV]

I hate it too, Robot. It's almost like getting advice from five-year-olds on how to put your penis in a vagina.

Books are worthless compared to life. This truth will hurt if you have no life.

Get over it, or STFU.

 

[Brotherman Bill]

You have to be a pretty banal person to learn anything from a book.

But, nomask, what about all the educational books? Don't you read a book learn stuff like, for example, physi---

Oh.

Come to think of it, I think I just found the key to understanding Paula Tormeson.

 

[Loki]

I'll agree that videogames are becoming more and more infused with artistic elements. More money and talent is going into music, graphics, and writing. But the game itself is no different than sports. The game itself can't be art, but it can be "sexed up" with Art. Videogames are clearly a medium where artwork is expressed, but the game itself.... that's different.

Perhaps. But there are plenty of art forms which include elements that are purely intellectual, and contain little individual expression in and of themselves (for instance, counterpoint in music).

But such music and related art forms are passively experienced, there is nothing to be manipulated, no end goal to work for, no rules, no instance of engaging in competition. And thus, it can be called Art.

Remember how I defined Art - Art simply cannot have the elements I listed above, because if they did, then games like Chess, Sports or Prozac could be considered Art.

I can see how your shtick is a cool response to Lyric Suite's point, on some level. But, at the same time, how can you be that daft? Do you really want to say that music is not art?

huh? Carefully re-read what I wrote, and you'll see you totally misread. I said that counterpoint music is art, and the reason it's art is because the actual music in itself is passively experienced, contains nothing to be manipulated, no end goal to work for, no rules, no instance of engaging in competition. And thus, it can be called Art.

Remember, before the time of computers, there was no music without a PERFORMANCE of music. Think about that really hard for a while. There is no theater without PERFORMANCES of theater. Think about that too. Hard. Stop throwing those cliches around and stop to think for a while.

lol, wow, just wow... My argument so far as been perfectly logically consistent, you just completely misread what I wrote. Your interpretation was a 180 degree turn away from my intended meaning.

You have to be a pretty banal person to learn anything from a book. On the other hand, we have games, from which one may learn Darwinian truths.

There aren't too many instances of human invention that teach Darwinian truths like professional sports. Are sports Art?

 

[Trash]

Books are worthless compared to life.

Hollywood movies seem to work just as well for you as this thread so pointedly shows.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

I'll agree that videogames are becoming more and more infused with artistic elements. More money and talent is going into music, graphics, and writing. But the game itself is no different than sports. The game itself can't be art, but it can be "sexed up" with Art. Videogames are clearly a medium where artwork is expressed, but the game itself.... that's different.

Perhaps. But there are plenty of art forms which include elements that are purely intellectual, and contain little individual expression in and of themselves (for instance, counterpoint in music).

But such music and related art forms are passively experienced, there is nothing to be manipulated, no end goal to work for, no rules, no instance of engaging in competition. And thus, it can be called Art.

Remember how I defined Art - Art simply cannot have the elements I listed above, because if they did, then games like Chess, Sports or Prozac could be considered Art.

I can see how your shtick is a cool response to Lyric Suite's point, on some level. But, at the same time, how can you be that daft? Do you really want to say that music is not art?

huh? Carefully re-read what I wrote, and you'll see you totally misread. I said that counterpoint music is art, and the reason it's art is because the actual music in itself is passively experienced, contains nothing to be manipulated, no end goal to work for, no rules, no instance of engaging in competition. And thus, it can be called Art.

Remember, before the time of computers, there was no music without a PERFORMANCE of music. Think about that really hard for a while. There is no theater without PERFORMANCES of theater. Think about that too. Hard. Stop throwing those cliches around and stop to think for a while.

lol, wow, just wow... My argument so far as been perfectly logically consistent, you just completely misread what I wrote. Your interpretation was a 180 degree turn away from my intended meaning.

You have to be a pretty banal person to learn anything from a book. On the other hand, we have games, from which one may learn Darwinian truths.

There aren't too many instances of human invention that teach Darwinian truths like professional sports. Are sports Art?

I said think, but fuck. You can't do it.

I know what your dull argument was. That's why I wrote I understood your response to LS, before I got to my own stuff, which was that MUSIC IS PERFORMANCE. It has NOTHING to do with anything passive. It's only very recently in human history, in the past couple of decades, that listening to music has become more common than performing it. When Bach was alive, performing music in private was far more common than listening to someone else play it. Don't tell me you can't see the simple one-step implications of that FACT to your "argument", considering your definition of art. The only logical way for you to weasel out of that one is to insist that music is an abstraction and not a real-world thing at all. You're welcome to go into that direction, of course, as you are welcome to cut your own balls off and jump in a lake.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

Books are worthless compared to life.

Hollywood movies seem to work just as well for you as this thread so pointedly shows.

I was still right though. You just never understood my argument.

 

[Trash]

Hush, my dear. Everything will be allright in lalalaland.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

Why would you pick on a dog? It's animal cruelty even if the animal is one that you aren't particularly fond of.

 

[Trash]

Why would you pick on a dog? It's animal cruelty even if the animal is one that you aren't particularly fond of.

Because the mutt pisses on the floor, constantly whines for attention and always tries to hump Cleve's leg.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

Why would you pick on a dog? It's animal cruelty even if the animal is one that you aren't particularly fond of.

Because the mutt pisses on the floor, constantly whines for attention and always tries to hump Cleve's leg.

Pure trash. You are not a man but trash. Incidentally, dogs sometimes eat trash. I'm sure you knew that.

 

[Trash]

Stop whining and get in your basket.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

Stop whining and get in your basket.

I eat you up. You lose.

 

[Trash]

And please do stop eating your own shit and puke. It disgusts the neighbours.

 

[Loki]

I said think, but fuck. You can't do it.

I know what your dull argument was. That's why I wrote I understood your response to LS, before I got to my own stuff, which was that MUSIC IS PERFORMANCE.

But you are confusing the [re]creation process with the actual product to be experienced. When you go to see a musical performance, you are passively taking in the product, which already exists on paper or in someones head. The audience is not manipulating the piece of Art toward some goal or end, and there is no competitive element.

It has NOTHING to do with anything passive.

The music is not meant to be used and manipulated by the audience to progress toward a specific goal. There is a passive appreciation, without any goal in mind, nor any competitive element.

It's only very recently in human history, in the past couple of decades, that listening to music has become more common than performing it. When Bach was alive, performing music in private was far more common than listening to someone else play it. Don't tell me you can't see the simple one-step implications of that FACT to your "argument", considering your definition of art. The only logical way for you to weasel out of that one is to insist that music is an abstraction and not a real-world thing at all. You're welcome to go into that direction, of course, as you are welcome to cut your own balls off and jump in a lake.

Even when it's performed, music is ultimately a product to be experience by somone, and when you are performing it, you are just in the process of recreating it. The process of recreation is different than the actual Art itself.

Now, there is the instance of musicians who like to "jam", "improvise" and noodle, but until you actually decide on a specific form by writing the music out on paper, memorizing it, or recording it, you don't have a tangible piece of Art, you are only in the process of creation. It's no different than doodling on paper without ever deciding on a final form.

In some cases, you could take the Mona Lisa and decide you want to draw a mustache on it, which is the equivalent to what some people do when they cover songs.

 

[Gay-Lussac]

Don't be those guys.

 

[Liberal]

銀 牙

Google translates this as "silver teeth". ?

 

[Lyric Suite]

Those marvelous painting from the 1600's which we call art nowadays were nothing else but fancy portraits back in the day. Art is in the eye of the beholder.

No. The Michelangelo is obvious a work of genius. The Raphael is not. You are a lost hope if you cannot tell the difference.

 

[Trash]

Those marvelous painting from the 1600's which we call art nowadays were nothing else but fancy portraits back in the day. Art is in the eye of the beholder.

No. The Michelangelo is obvious a work of genius. The Raphael is not. You are a lost hope if you cannot tell the difference.

I was actually thinking about the works of Rembrandt and other masters of that period that often painted portraits and did so for a living. This is something a militia ordered as a nice remembrance, yet it is nowadays seen as a marvelous piece of art.

 

[Phelot]

Blah blah, I didn't read the whole thing (and I have no idea what this topic has been derailed into) but the old bastard has a point, at least when considering modern games which are the equivalent to porn, no substance or soul, all just looks to appeal to our more base emotions: lust, wrath, pride. None of them are able to convey anything at all.

But whomever it is that Ebert was responding to in this article, one example that could have been used is the tried and true Torment. That game was pretty powerful and I'd consider a rather good piece of art. The best? No, not when compared to other forms of art, but it's still a shining example of what video games CAN do.

 

[Loki]

But whomever it is that Ebert was responding to in this article, one example that could have been used is the tried and true Torment. That game was pretty powerful and I'd consider a rather good piece of art. The best? No, not when compared to other forms of art, but it's still a shining example of what video games CAN do.

Games can contain a lot of Art within them. But what about the gameplay? Wasn't it standard rpg combat, inventory and spell management, and strategy? That stuff is inartistic, and if you removed it from the game, you wouldn't have a game.

 

[Phelot]

But whomever it is that Ebert was responding to in this article, one example that could have been used is the tried and true Torment. That game was pretty powerful and I'd consider a rather good piece of art. The best? No, not when compared to other forms of art, but it's still a shining example of what video games CAN do.

Games can contain a lot of Art within them. But what about the gameplay? Wasn't it standard rpg combat, inventory and spell management, and strategy? That stuff is inartistic, and if you removed it from the game, you wouldn't have a game.

I suppose then a game is an art gallery with gimmicks? I suppose or it could just be a different way of presenting art.

 

[GeneralSamov]

Given your premises, I'll ask a simple question: can (good) wine be art?

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

You would have C&C and dialogues.

 

[Phelot]

Given your premises, I'll ask a simple question: can (good) wine be art?

Only if it was made by gentlemen with monocles.

Seriously though, no I wouldn't think so.

 

[GeneralSamov]

I wasn't asking either of you two tbh, but Cory.