![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Angel Headed Hipster
Posts: 37,942
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
I neg repped you because you're clearly trolling. The definition of art you give in this thread reinforces that nicely. That, or you actually are this dumb. It's sort of a toss up at this point.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 |
Pelvic Sorcerer
Posts: 64,762
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Blitz, you are dumb and can't string valid arguments together ever. All you ever seem to do is call people trolls when you disagree. How about instead of just going with the side that has the most people agreeing you put your mind to work and give a valid argument. I am not trolling here, I just wanted to have a conversation that is more than EA sucks or Cammy is hot.
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Angel Headed Hipster
Posts: 37,942
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Quote:
According to you, the definition of art is twofold. 1) art must have a respect for itself and not just be about making money or "being a joke", and 2) Art must be accessible to anyone. Now, it's pretty much impossible to discuss art without first asking what you personally consider art. Your logic makes no sense. You consider some movies art, but seemingly not TV shows. What's the difference, besides slight format changes? Is an Adam Sandler movie more artistic than any or all episodes of The Sopranos simply by virtue of being a movie? What are some movies that you consider art? What are some other things that you consider art, for that matter? According to your theory, all video games were designed simply to make money (I'm going to ignore the part about being a "joke", because I don't know how you mean that), and are inaccessible to the average person (since video games are not art, and that is your definition of art). This is stupid on a number of levels. First of all, how on Earth are you sure what was solely designed to make money? How about games like Shadow of the Colossus, or Ico, or Okami, or Heavy Rain? All high concept games, risky game ideas. You're saying that these ideas were all for the sake of making money? If that was the case, why didn't the designers just design a knock off of Call of Duty or Rock Band or something? Now your second tenet of art: accessibility. This is where I was sure you were trolling. Video games are incredibly accessible. How can you say they're not? Like, do you find Mario games overly complicated? Does Pac Man tax your brain a little too much? Look at the Wii, a system that is as successful as it is largely because it draws in people who aren't gamers. Even more complicated games, like RPGs can be learned relatively easily and quickly. And ah yes, classical music, clearly easily accesible, populist art. Which is why Justin Bieber probably sold more than the latest Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven recordings. Combined. In one day. I mean Jesus, what is this definition of art? Is a kid playing soccer at recess art? He's not doing it for money, and anyone can join him or merely look and know what is going on. You're like "the media as a whole is not art, but some games have come close". What is that? Like, "oh, this game is so close to being art, but the controls are a little bit too tricky, and I detect a faint whiff of commerce in the design. Sigh, maybe next time." Come on. |
|
![]() |
![]() |