Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Gaming as an Art Form

37 replies to this topic
El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#31

Posted 14 April 2012 - 12:32 AM

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 16:16)
Oh, but it is.

sorry but it's not.

the US Supreme Court is not the authority on the entire world and it's history.

QUOTE
Fine, let's say the idea of having to take a sh*t enters my mind, then I eventually turn that into a physical form in a public restroom.  I leave my pile of sh*t sitting in the toilet to share with others.

you and I both know that that's a very stupid example and a poor attempt at a Straw Man rebuke.

what you just said does nothing to counter my original point.

QUOTE
My whole point is simply that by video games being protected under the first amendment, developers have a right to artistic expression.

and I agree.

but my point is that video games were always art.
they didn't explicitly need 1st amendment protections in the US in order to gain that distinction.

QUOTE
It'd be hard to recognize a medium as an art form if it's being censored or denied public access

this is not true.

many artists from many disciplines (painters, musicians, authors, etc) have had their work censored at various times in various places throughout history.
this never stopped it from being recognized as art both before and after the fact.

just because the state attempts to censor something doesn't mean it suddenly cannot be art.

Tchuck
  • Tchuck

    Grey Gaming

  • Feroci
  • Joined: 20 Dec 2002
  • Japan

#32

Posted 14 April 2012 - 01:05 AM

As a developer, I believe striving for games to become recognized as art is pointless. From a financial perspective, the more games approach the product realm of things, the better they'll become.
As a gamer, it doesn't make any difference to me. It won't make other people respect games any more than they do, and it won't suddenly make games insanely fantastic and deep. In fact, most blatant attempt at "deep" and "meaningful" games come off as ridiculously pretentious, much like much of the Art made today. Occasionally a game comes along, like say Shadow of the Colossus, that hits all the right buttons and could definitely be considered a piece of art, but it wasn't set to become a piece of art, that's why it's good.

However, games can go to a deeper level. Games, not just computer one, belong to a higher level, are an innate part of our culture. While Art is but an expression of the artist's feelings, views on something or what have you, games are part of what we are. And that, to me, is more important than being considered "art".

Xcommunicated
  • Xcommunicated

    A Stitch in Time C9

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2002
  • United-States

#33

Posted 14 April 2012 - 07:33 PM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)
QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 16:16)
Oh, but it is.

sorry but it's not.

Sorry, but it is. Or how about, I know you are but what am I? Like that one better?

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

the US Supreme Court is not the authority on the entire world and it's history.

And the funny thing is I'm not even trying to argue such a thing to be the case.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

QUOTE
Fine, let's say the idea of having to take a sh*t enters my mind, then I eventually turn that into a physical form in a public restroom.  I leave my pile of sh*t sitting in the toilet to share with others.

you and I both know that that's a very stupid example and a poor attempt at a Straw Man rebuke.

Nope, it only serves to exemplify why such a dirty-hippie definition of art doesn't hold up... or should I say, holds up even when you don't want it to hold up. wink.gif

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

what you just said does nothing to counter my original point.

And what exactly was that again? That Video games fit a vague and overly general definition? What's funnier is that I never tried to counter that because lots of things fit that definition just fine.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

QUOTE
My whole point is simply that by video games being protected under the first amendment, developers have a right to artistic expression.

and I agree.

but my point is that video games were always art.
they didn't explicitly need 1st amendment protections in the US in order to gain that distinction.

Yet I wasn't trying to argue that they weren't art before said ruling. The key words I had used were from a political standpoint. That is the "universal context" of my post over which I so foolishly engaged in such childish argument with you.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

QUOTE
It'd be hard to recognize a medium as an art form if it's being censored or denied public access

this is not true.

many artists from many disciplines (painters, musicians, authors, etc) have had their work censored at various times in various places throughout history.
this never stopped it from being recognized as art both before and after the fact.

just because the state attempts to censor something doesn't mean it suddenly cannot be art.

Again, not the point I was arguing. For an art form to prosper and be recognized on a large scale, it helps when political discretions aren't hindering it.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#34

Posted 14 April 2012 - 10:50 PM

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 12:33)
Sorry, but it is.

you can say it is but you're still wrong.

the Supreme Court does not speak for the entire world or it's history that extends thousands of years before the courts creation.
QUOTE
it only serves to exemplify why such a dirty-hippie definition of art doesn't hold up... or should I say, holds up even when you don't want it to hold up. wink.gif

clearly you don't understand what a Straw Man argument is because you've just tried to use it again.

your "example" of public excrement is a poor Straw Man at best and your attempt to classify my definition of art as a "dirty-hippie definition" immediately renders your opinion that much less valid. the definition I gave is one you'll find in virtually every university art course in the world.

I've studied architecture in Versailles and they used essentially the same explanation of art there as I was taught in the States.
the fact that you would label it the "dirty-hippie definition" shows - not only that you're childish - but that you're grasping at straws while your tenuous position erodes under the weight of your ignorance.

QUOTE
Yet I wasn't trying to argue that they weren't art before said ruling.  The key words I had used were from a political standpoint.

yes and that's why I had to remind you that art was never in need of US political protections in order to be recognized as such.

it's not hard to comprehend.

QUOTE
For an art form to prosper and be recognized on a large scale, it helps when political discretions aren't hindering it.

thanks Captain Obvious wink.gif

Xcommunicated
  • Xcommunicated

    A Stitch in Time C9

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2002
  • United-States

#35

Posted 15 April 2012 - 12:33 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 17:50)
QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 12:33)
Sorry, but it is.

you can say it is but you're still wrong.

the Supreme Court does not speak for the entire world or it's history that extends thousands of years before the courts creation.

Stop being so inexplicably dense already. At no point was this the basis of my argument.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 17:50)
QUOTE
it only serves to exemplify why such a dirty-hippie definition of art doesn't hold up... or should I say, holds up even when you don't want it to hold up. wink.gif

clearly you don't understand what a Straw Man argument is because you've just tried to use it again.

your "example" of public excrement is a poor Straw Man at best and your attempt to classify my definition of art as a "dirty-hippie definition" immediately renders your opinion that much less valid. the definition I gave is one you'll find in virtually every university art course in the world.

I've studied architecture in Versailles and they used essentially the same explanation of art there as I was taught in the States.
the fact that you would label it the "dirty-hippie definition" shows - not only that you're childish - but that you're grasping at straws while your tenuous position erodes under the weight of your ignorance.

In no way has my "straw man" example misrepresented such a catch-all definition. But in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't even matter. Art at the most rudimentary level is still totally subjective, so it really makes no difference how it's defined. Still, any dictionary will provide a more robust definition than that.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 17:50)

QUOTE
Yet I wasn't trying to argue that they weren't art before said ruling.  The key words I had used were from a political standpoint.

yes and that's why I had to remind you that art was never in need of US political protections in order to be recognized as such.

it's not hard to comprehend.

I needed no such reminder as I was fully aware and knowing of such.

Look, homeslice, I already understand your argument just fine and I'm really not trying to disagree with you because I personally have perceived games as an art form for a long time. But it's clear to me that you took my original post out of context. It's quite clear I made no implication that government intervention is a necessity for classifying something as art.

El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "Not Santa's balls!"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#36

Posted 15 April 2012 - 01:06 AM

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 17:33)
I'm really not trying to disagree with you

ok then.

user posted image

Xcommunicated
  • Xcommunicated

    A Stitch in Time C9

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 25 Sep 2002
  • United-States

#37

Posted 15 April 2012 - 03:33 AM

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 20:06)
QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 17:33)
I'm really not trying to disagree with you

ok then.

user posted image

Fixed, since this is the second time you've taken my words out of context. Seriously though, enough of this crap. PM me if you still want to argue, otherwise, get back to the topic.

OysterBarron
  • OysterBarron

    You need a Pearl necklace? Hit me up ;)

  • Zaibatsu
  • Joined: 17 Dec 2004
  • United-Kingdom

#38

Posted 15 April 2012 - 10:02 AM

It's mass produced sh*t. Its going to be no more defined than your average toaster made in china.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users