NSFW Best Thread Ever [No SJW-related posts allowed]

To you art obviously has a definition, and needs to be confined within certain parameters for you to enjoy it as art, that's fine but I feel no need to restrict myself that way looking at creation proces, intent and result.

 

To build on what you say, what does make sense about this inane drivel is that the graphics engine in most computer games is very important. Where the rules and outcomes are handled externally from the players, there needs to be a way of communicating them to the player. "Graphics" generally speaking are necessary to games in the genres mentioned. cRPGs (and adventure games) can work very well in text format, too, but it's not always the most efficient means of communicating information. I think that the Codex in general doesn't often make good distinctions between "graphics aren't aesthetically pleasing" and "graphics don't serve the game well" types of criticisms... Usually I just hear "graphicswhores lol."

That said, I think the original is just a great troll post.

 

Words have meanings. You don't get to make up your own just because you feel a certain way about something. I mean you can, but it's just play pretend at that point.

 

Prosper mods and plays Half Life

 

Nah, this is better. Nothing can beat Hartman cockroaches.

 

at "Nazi Germany"

 

I'm pretty sure that Hotline Miami's devs are pleasing their target audience.

This has nothing to do with "desired effect". Feminists are trying to have control over what a game developer can do (purely for political reasons). Naturally, this includes conditioning of consumers and threats against the producers.

Like?

Good luck trying to create 'art' when you have a bunch of sheeps and lunatics trying to sabotage your work.

 

They could easily ignore them if they wanted. Clearly *some* people were more upset about the content than the creators intended. Then they probably asked themselves, "what is this scene adding to the experience?" Their answer was "not enough," and they cut it.

I can't say that I particularly want to play a game where I go around raping or witnessing rapes personally.

 

No, they were facing the risk of losing their jobs due to political backlash.

Yes, some morons.

More like: "we need to remove this scene to save our jobs"

Me neither, but I don't see why these games should be banned.

 

I agree with this generally, but I would say an artist can do something intentionally without being able to articulate why they are doing it - it's intentional, but its an expression of something that may be happening at an emotional level and, consequently, isn't totally amenable to the application of logic-based criticism or judgment.

But, as per the ridiculous custom of contemporary art, the artist will be obligated to write a blurb for the gallery wall trying to explain what they are trying to accomplish. This will inevitably make them sound retarded because what they are trying to explain can't be explained. If it could be, then they wouldn't have needed to making the painting, they could have just written the blurb.

So I think there are at least a few artists who come off as charlatans because they can't really articulate what they are trying to do and, when forced to do so, fall back into the language they think they are supposed to use.

Although, art school is pretty rigorous on the technical side so I would wager that there are also quite a few actual charlatans with the technical capacity to make good art, but who lack the creative ability.

 

Not really the case since they are indie, but pretty common still.

 

So give a perfect definition then ?

 

Another case of a site like Reuters publishing a screed to position themselves as The Only Outlet Worth Trusting.

 

It's an anonymous post on /v/, the likelihood pf the guy actually working for Reuters is not good. On the other hand, shitting on IGN is always good.

 

Well, okay, then I think it's dishonest for this guy to write a post saying that no commercial games journalism outlet should be trusted because he had a few bad experiences auditing them and their business practices and I hope that readers don't blindly believe what he has to say. Many writers work hard to ensure that they're reporting fairly and honestly and accurately.

 

They do. Just not the ones that report on video games.

 

My advice would be to trust the people who are totally candid about what they see and how they feel about it, like the prestigious Kotaku. Journalism isn't about conflicts of interest or good investigative practices, it's about being open about how you feel and stuff. After all, all perspectives are biased, so no number of precautions can really address the bias problem.

 

Not to spoil the joke or anything, but http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=670049

 

Of "art"? If you're talking about an art-object or work it's an object or work (to include arts that don't produce objects, like music pre any known recording device) conceived and crafted by an intelligent being in response to stimuli. That's simple and broad, maybe too broad, but its a definition and I'm trying to be diplomatic as possible. Maybe only humans can really create an art object, and maybe stimuli should be limited to the outside world and inner ideas, but who knows what goes on inside the heads of elephants when you give them a brush,
so I'm future proofing my definition in case the animal singularity happens

Now, we may not actually have that big of a disagreement since you haven't given any examples of what you consider random, unintended art that defies definition (and they may not be as unintended as you think), but for instance, I've heard people say that a thought can be art. Um, no. Nor is a messy bed, a decaying shark in a tank, or undercooked pasta. You probably didn't have this kind b.s. in mind, but this is the internet, so I take no chances.

I wonder if you took monetary gain, validation, and an audience concerned with appearing different or ahead of the curve out of modern art, if people would still submit their unmade bed as an art object? I tend to believe that artists of the past were more honest about what they were doing. "Artist" was a trade for them, or a role they took/were given within the group, and as such they had to have an intention and an ability to bring that intention into physical (or oral,aural) form through a method of craft. Artwork was a form of communication as well as a personal pre-occupation.

Anyway, I can't think of any known works that fall outside the basic definition. Whether it's cavemen paintings in France, Hokusai woodblock, Rodin scultpure, Bach composition, Dante poem, Bacon painting, or Bergmann film, they share the common bond of "holding the mirror up to nature" through crafted works.

 

This thread is a work of art.

 

I think Jashiin is the person who asked that.

I think your definition is pretty good though. I also agree that elephants may be capable of making art - they are, after all, one of the only non-human species that engages in ritual expressions of grief.