266: Videogame Myths Debunked

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

...

Okay, this article can continue to confusedly contradict itself, I'll continue having fun matches of games over the internet with people that I know.

Socially.

Suck on that, article.

Scrumpmonkey:
"Videogames make you smarter"

Well videogames have never really been fully exploited as the powerful learning tool they could be, there is this weird disconnect between 'learning' games and regualr games like there was some kind of schism in the mid 70s and they have been evolving in completely different directions.

Playing a game won't make you more smart but playing the right game can teach you a lot even if you don't realise it is.

Thanks to Mass Effect 2 many gamers will know what Irridium and Pladaium are. Thanks to the STALKER series many gamers will have looked up the incident, it's long term effects and have some knowledge of the vast areas still effected by the ecological disaster.

I know what you mean. Civ 4 gave me a lot of information that I could know. BUT that is not the definition of smart (for me at least). "Smart" is being able to figure things out logically or illogically if needed. Someone who is really smart and someone who is stupid could know the same amount of information but that doesn't mean the stupid person will know how to use that info. Because if just having info to make you smart then everyone with photographic memories would be the smartest people on the planet period, which they are not.

OK, so about art. Games are not and are art at the same time. Just as with, music, movies, comics, etc. A whole genre is not defined by one simple word. Examples: Porn is not art yet pictures of flowers are, The Expendibles is not art but Its a Wonderful Life is, Disturbed is not art but Beethoven is. Art is completely based on what ever the subject is, not what the medium is. A game like Unreal Tournament is not art but Braid is. Games just need to decide which parts are art and which are not. Unfortunately this means sacrificing the freedom that many games offer. One difficulty with games being art is that Board Games are NOT ART. And board games are the only real comparable things with Video Games. This really will get resolved in 20 years. I'll check back on the futuristic Escapist to find out what happened.

Captain Booyah:

More OT: That thing about around 40% of the gaming market are girls. Is that entirely accurate? Because I'd imagine that for some girls, qualifying as a 'gamer' would be mostly playing games like FarmVille, Wii Fit, etc.

That umm seems alittle sexist and insulting.

It wasn't intended to be, particularly as I am female myself, and said some girls; I can think of at least five or six girls off the top of my head I know in reality who think that being a 'gamer' equals purely Facebook games, and I've seen a couple on the Internet too. Also, about 60-70% of the casual gaming market is meant to be female; I can't find the source again, but I can promise that it wasn't Wiki.

Jiraiya72:

40 percent of gamers are women (42 percent in an online capacity)

I've said this before and I'll say it again. This is false. These statistics include girls who sit on facebook all day and play farmville as "gamers". If they sit around and play wii fit and sometimes play bejeweled online that they are a "gamer". These people are not gamers.

I agree with this. Also, I'm confused about gaming not being social. Granted, I don't play much multiplayer myself, but don't other people find online multiplayer akin to socialization? Heck, didn't some meet their significant others/friends this way?

gee i agree because i have bought games that suck so much,i keep them to remind me not buy such crap and learned to stay away from the discount bin when i go on a buying spree

Hey now, I stake a lot of my identity on the idea that a video gaming lifestyle can make you smart, and that Navy study you linked seems to support that, those "certain skills" apparently encapsulating "problem solving" and "quick thinking" which are, lets face it, the overall whole of what potency in human intelligence means.

The catch is that it's not going to work in a "Brain Age will make you smart" marketing ploy sort of way. However, that doesn't mean "video can't contribute towards intelligence" it means "marketing ploys are marketing ploys." The test that refuted Brain Age basically tested it against other activities involving computer interaction, after all.

It makes sense games would help with intelligence. After all, regularly engaging in mental exercises (which games more certainly are) is certainly better than not engaging your mind at all. Yes, there's other mental pursuits which can test you just as much or more, but would they be as fun?

...where are these mysterious girl gamers hiding? Seems like something I would be more aware of.

Who is saying PC gaming is dying? I see a bunch of counter arguments, but none of the original argument. That and the gaming PC I built myself plus the ~30 games I have, not much dying there.

On the video games make you smarter topic i learned stuff about football (both versions)....

Last time I checked, some games do make you kinda smarter. If helping you drive is...

nelsonr100:
Good article. I agree with you on many of the points you raised, both against the bad myths and sometimes the good myths. However, there is one point where I disagree. "Gaming is not social".

True, single player gaming is the cornerstone of gaming as an entity, and yes, it does not need to be defended to people citing the old "antisocial" stereotype. However there are so many examples of gaming as a social medium. First off, later in your article you mention how WoW is one of the most popular games ever. I'm sure thousands of those users will testify to how they have met some really good friends while playing, with friendships that endure in the real world as well.
Secondly theres the whole aspect of console multiplayer. Theres nothing like a great evening in with 3 other mates, 4 controllers and a console with a rack of multiplayer games.
Finally theres the aspect of gaming culture which being a gamer allows you an insight into. These forums for example are social and active and all of this thanks to gaming. This can easily be applied to real life situations and conversations when gaming is often a great topic to chat about and compare experiences.

For these reasons I think gaming is social, and I hope some people will agree with me. Other than that though I enjoyed the article :)

this. regardless of single player games, me and my friends all go out and buy those games, then immediately (i can't believe im gonna use this word) gossip it up about those games and how awesome certain parts were. and that was all stimulated by the SINGLE PLAYER GAME. so added on to what the poster said that i quoted, gaming is a very well social medium if you accept yourself as a gamer and dive right in.

Flac00:

Scrumpmonkey:
"Videogames make you smarter"

Well videogames have never really been fully exploited as the powerful learning tool they could be, there is this weird disconnect between 'learning' games and regualr games like there was some kind of schism in the mid 70s and they have been evolving in completely different directions.

Playing a game won't make you more smart but playing the right game can teach you a lot even if you don't realise it is.

Thanks to Mass Effect 2 many gamers will know what Irridium and Pladaium are. Thanks to the STALKER series many gamers will have looked up the incident, it's long term effects and have some knowledge of the vast areas still effected by the ecological disaster.

I know what you mean. Civ 4 gave me a lot of information that I could know. BUT that is not the definition of smart (for me at least). "Smart" is being able to figure things out logically or illogically if needed. Someone who is really smart and someone who is stupid could know the same amount of information but that doesn't mean the stupid person will know how to use that info. Because if just having info to make you smart then everyone with photographic memories would be the smartest people on the planet period, which they are not.

this for sure. video games didn't raise my IQ, but they put me in unrealistic worlds with problems that i have to solve myself, by myself, on the spot (usually). that causes for stimulation of my brain and causes lots of thinking when i could be just sitting down watching a tv/movie or reading a book, which is all just watching/reading, not interactively being involved in it. so on that point i gota disagree, even though you did mention that smarter people tend to flock to gaming..which is mostly true from what i have observed in my years so far.

C J Davies:
if you're flunking college, it really won't help to take John Marston on a jolly jaunt around Mexico every night.

Well, if you're flunking college to begin with, then the educational system isn't saving your smarts, either. Does this mean that school can't make you smarter? No, it doesn't. This logic applies to video games as well. The concept of games as a learning tool doesn't mean that playing a video game is equivalent to taking some magical pill that instantly makes you a genius. But people whose brains can analyze puzzles or extrapolate stories are very likely to benefit mentally by playing these games as a brain exercise.

Some people don't learn effectively from classes or lectures or tests. Likewise, certain people don't advance their intellect through video games. However, classes or books or games, depending on the person, can make a person smarter.

SonicWaffle:

Scobie:
Try living in a house of game nuts. You'll find that while one person is playing a game, other people are watching him play and everyone's talking, often about the game being played. This seems to me far more social than reading a book (which no-one else can share in) or listening to music or watching a movie (you need people to be quiet).

My housemate and I are both gamers, though not really 'nuts'. A week or so back we had great fun on a game together without even playing multiplayer; he stuck Civilization: Revolution in his PS3 and we spent several hours strategizing, planning our moves and builds, discussing combat tactics etc. The current shift in multiplayer gaming seems to be more towards WoW or Xbox live style multiplayer rather than some friends sharing a sofa, but as you say you can have fun with a game even when you aren't the one playing it.

I think the trouble here is that the argument being made by either side is flawed. A single player game can be played entirely alone, certainly, and a multiplayer game offers at least a measure of social interaction. Of course, the problem is that one can often choose to experience either type of game in a fundamentally different way. I played through Heavy Rain with a group of people for example and often, if I don't have any friends online, will play a multiplayer game without ever once communicating with other parties. There is a measure of choice in determining if the medium is a social one or not.

Of course, this implies something telling I'd say: that the medium is not intrinsically social. One cannot play a team sport without partaking in social interaction or attend a party without at least engaging in some manner of human engagement. These are activities that are by their very nature social experiences. Removing the social portion of such endeavors changes their character entirely. A party without people is hardly a party, a game of baseball without a team is just a lonely person throwing around a sphere.

Of course, I can agree with the larger point being made: that gaming need not be ashamed of the fact that it is a personal experience. Art and its consumption is a solitary experience by default. One can pull in a social element in any such experience but that doesn't change the result. One can read a book alone and discuss it with friends. One can watch a movie in a theater and never once speak to another person about the experience. There is nothing inherently wrong with the fact that such things are personal or solitary.

The problem we have is not that gaming is a solitary experience but rather the simple perception that this is somehow a negative factor. The trouble I suspect lies in the simple fact that some visible portion of the population engages in gaming at the expense of any number of social endeavors. Such behavior would be considered suspect no matter what activity one was engaging in. A parent might be concerned if their child never left their room because they were constantly reading books in much the same way that they might be concerned that people never leave their room because they have to play Fallout 3 for another two dozen hours.

I agree with you.

I'd really like to see someone back up these stats. Go to a library and ask each person if they play games. Go to mall and ask. Go to a college and ask. Go to a bus stop and ask. I seriously doubt you'll find the number of girls that play even close to the number of guys.

Otherwise, everyone I know must live in some alternate reality because in my world, about 1 out of 20 women play games and about 1 out of 4 men play them. Every time I'm introduced to a new group of people I don't find those stats change at all.

greggman:
I agree with you.

I'd really like to see someone back up these stats. Go to a library and ask each person if they play games. Go to mall and ask. Go to a college and ask. Go to a bus stop and ask. I seriously doubt you'll find the number of girls that play even close to the number of guys.

Otherwise, everyone I know must live in some alternate reality because in my world, about 1 out of 20 women play games and about 1 out of 4 men play them. Every time I'm introduced to a new group of people I don't find those stats change at all.

I'd like every study made to reveal what their unique interpretation of "plays games" is. Do we count the casual gamers or the facebook gamers? What about the kids that play snake on their dad's phone?

Also, gaming might not make you smarter but playing games does require certain skills. Since people are more likely to be better at games they like and vice versa, playing games can reveal what kind of person you are.

For example, someone who can't get enough of JRPGs is likely to be a meticulous person whereas an adventure gamer would be someone that enjoys solving (obscure and often infuriating) puzzles. (I'd be very interested in a study on this sort of thing, especially if it screened for people who consider themselves "real gamers")

While gaming might not have a direct effect on intelligence, I know that my love of puzzle solving started with Ocarina of Time.

Oh and games as art, as the consensus now seems to be, is in the eye of the beholder.

Eclectic Dreck:
A single player game can be played entirely alone, certainly, and a multiplayer game offers at least a measure of social interaction. Of course, the problem is that one can often choose to experience either type of game in a fundamentally different way.

...

Of course, this implies something telling I'd say: that the medium is not intrinsically social.

The key word there is choose. If video games were not intrinsically social then there would not be a choice - there would merely be solo play. You can play them alone or with others, or play alone while surrounded by others, but that is your choice.

Eclectic Dreck:
One cannot play a team sport without partaking in social interaction or attend a party without at least engaging in some manner of human engagement. These are activities that are by their very nature social experiences.

Some sports are played as teams, some sports are played alone - you don't need anyone around to play darts, or squash, or golf for fun. Equally, some games are played alone while some - Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, WoW - can be seen as equivalent to team sports. Going on raids or getting together to murder a ton of zombies is just as social as getting some friends together for a game of football. These games are designed as social experiences, and I don't think it's fair to say that just because some games aren't that the medium as a whole is not a social one.

Eclectic Dreck:
The problem we have is not that gaming is a solitary experience but rather the simple perception that this is somehow a negative factor. The trouble I suspect lies in the simple fact that some visible portion of the population engages in gaming at the expense of any number of social endeavors. Such behavior would be considered suspect no matter what activity one was engaging in. A parent might be concerned if their child never left their room because they were constantly reading books in much the same way that they might be concerned that people never leave their room because they have to play Fallout 3 for another two dozen hours.

I half agree with this, but I think the level of concern would differ, largely based on media perception of gamers. If a child spends hours alone reading they are a little odd, yes, but what parent complains of a child reading too much? Reading improves the mind and vocabulary, and frequent reading for pleasure is still seen as the domain of intelligent people. Gaming, on the other hand, is viewed as something problematic and unhealthy for the child; the (frankly idiotic) idea seems to be that seeing blood and gore on a screen is obviously much worse for a child than reading about it in a book.

If a child reads a lot, this is a positive thing. Their parents may be concerned that they are not outside playing with the other kids, but there is still the positive association of 'books = good'. If a child spends the exact same amount of time playing video games, even if they are playing socially with other children, the parents would be far more concerned. They'd start to use words like "addiction", and attempting to restrict the child's gaming time. Have you ever read a news story about a kid who lashed out at a parent when the parent took away the source of their reading addiction? Seen a book rehabilitation centre? The problem remains in the perception: video games are bad, books are good.

SonicWaffle:

The key word there is choose. If video games were not intrinsically social then there would not be a choice - there would merely be solo play. You can play them alone or with others, or play alone while surrounded by others, but that is your choice.

I fundamentally disagree. If one can choose to not play a game in a social setting then it is not intrinsically social given that the word intrinsic implies something fundamental to the very nature of the thing. I can play a game with other people certainly and choosing not to ever once communicate with others does not fundamentally alter what it is I am doing. By contrast, if I choose to play an organized team sport without participating in the social aspect, the very nature of the game is altered.

SonicWaffle:

Some sports are played as teams, some sports are played alone - you don't need anyone around to play darts, or squash, or golf for fun. Equally, some games are played alone while some - Team Fortress 2, Left 4 Dead, WoW - can be seen as equivalent to team sports. Going on raids or getting together to murder a ton of zombies is just as social as getting some friends together for a game of football. These games are designed as social experiences, and I don't think it's fair to say that just because some games aren't that the medium as a whole is not a social one.

That is why I specified team sports. Fencing, for example, is fundamentally an individual sport. While I certainly fence with a team, once I'm on the strip there are but three parties involved in the outcome: myself, my opponent and the judge. Such a sport is social in the same way that a game is social: I can choose to talk with the parties present between matches for example. Communication will happen even if I do my best to ignore it as much of what I am going to do is based upon what I can learn about my opponents habits.

That a given experience can be made more entertaining with a friend is not terribly relevant as this just goes back to the fact that one has a choice in the matter. I might have more fun watching a bad movie with a group of friends than if I suffered through it alone, but that does not mean that the act of watching a movie is intrinsically social.

SonicWaffle:

I half agree with this, but I think the level of concern would differ, largely based on media perception of gamers. If a child spends hours alone reading they are a little odd, yes, but what parent complains of a child reading too much? Reading improves the mind and vocabulary, and frequent reading for pleasure is still seen as the domain of intelligent people. Gaming, on the other hand, is viewed as something problematic and unhealthy for the child; the (frankly idiotic) idea seems to be that seeing blood and gore on a screen is obviously much worse for a child than reading about it in a book.

If a child reads a lot, this is a positive thing. Their parents may be concerned that they are not outside playing with the other kids, but there is still the positive association of 'books = good'. If a child spends the exact same amount of time playing video games, even if they are playing socially with other children, the parents would be far more concerned. They'd start to use words like "addiction", and attempting to restrict the child's gaming time. Have you ever read a news story about a kid who lashed out at a parent when the parent took away the source of their reading addiction? Seen a book rehabilitation centre? The problem remains in the perception: video games are bad, books are good.

I'd say you nailed the point that I failed to make: that the problem is simply one of perception. People don't see a value in a game thus they are less willing to accept a person playing a game at every opportunity than they are to accept the same person reading books instead.

Eclectic Dreck:
I fundamentally disagree. If one can choose to not play a game in a social setting then it is not intrinsically social given that the word intrinsic implies something fundamental to the very nature of the thing.

Football is intrinsically social, however one can spend a while kicking a ball against a wall. You are still playing football, just in a way that is less social. A party is intrinsically social, but if nobody turns up and you're all alone, you can still get drunk, eat the food and dance like a twat. I'm over-simplifying, I know, but many activites we see as intrinsically social can still be performed solo.

Eclectic Dreck:

That is why I specified team sports. Fencing, for example, is fundamentally an individual sport. While I certainly fence with a team, once I'm on the strip there are but three parties involved in the outcome: myself, my opponent and the judge. Such a sport is social in the same way that a game is social: I can choose to talk with the parties present between matches for example. Communication will happen even if I do my best to ignore it as much of what I am going to do is based upon what I can learn about my opponents habits.

And this is why I specified certain games. Let's take Team Fortress - AFAIK, it has no single-player mode, and is entirely based around multiplayer. This is fundamentally social, as the game cannot be played without interacting with other people. Maybe the interaction is limited to shooting them in the head, but you will not be as good at the game as someone who communicates and works with his team. Apply the same to football; a player can ignore the rest of his team and keep attempting to do everything himself, but as long as other people are playing with him it's still a social experience.

Eclectic Dreck:

That a given experience can be made more entertaining with a friend is not terribly relevant as this just goes back to the fact that one has a choice in the matter. I might have more fun watching a bad movie with a group of friends than if I suffered through it alone, but that does not mean that the act of watching a movie is intrinsically social.

My point is that some games are intrinsically social. Not all of them - many are designed for single player only - but there are other games designed purely for multiplayer. A movie is different, it does not have a mode that is explicitly designed to encourage you to interact with other people. You can choose to watch with others or not, but if you want to play an explicitly multiplayer game you are going to have to be social whether you want to or not.

Eclectic Dreck:

I'd say you nailed the point that I failed to make: that the problem is simply one of perception. People don't see a value in a game thus they are less willing to accept a person playing a game at every opportunity than they are to accept the same person reading books instead.

I shall now snigger, because you said 'nailed'. Hurhurhur.

This just in - gamers are better than software at solving science problems, based on a University of Washington study to compare the results of videogamers and software algorithms when it comes to the complex protein folding puzzles.

So much for videogames not making us smarter!

*smug*

http://fidgit.com/archives/2010/08/when_it_comes_to_science_video.php
(follow through to The Times for full article:http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/10/science/10gamers.html)

Kellerb:
[quote="Scobie" post="6.224769.7620622"]
only 7 percent of conversation is the words themselves, the rest is tone of voice, body language, facial expression and the like.

Some people asked where this came from and I didn't see it answered. So:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Mehrabian

"[W]ords account for 7%, tone of voice accounts for 38%, and body language accounts for 55%" when it comes to liking / disliking the source. There has been some criticism of that ratio, but overall the research generally indicates that non-verbal and verbal cues are a lot more powerful than the information that might be communicated.

I've had the privelage (or perhaps not so privelage) of working in retail for most of my adult life. First Wal-Mart and now Target. So I hear the back and forth quite a lot and it really makes me sick. Maybe it's because this reminds me of similar arguments I had with teachers and cousilors as a child. Trying to desperately validate my very existence as a human being simply because I loved Dungeons & Dragons and the thought of killing a Cyberdeamon made me cringe with anticipation. I don't know. But too often I hear stupid people (usually biased parents) bring up an issue like the Colombine Shootings and comparing that to gaming. Then an equally idiodic "gamer" will jive in about "hand-eye coordination" or the social values of playing on X-Box live. ARG! Should I really bother explaining to these people that the LONG trouble youths in that incident had been making pipe bombs in their rooms and their parents just had NO idea. DURR. How about telling them that, without access to the ten computers in our house, my three little, adopted, Haitian sisters would never have been able to learn how to read and write our language, let alone stay in contact with their friends from Haiti. Anyone who talks about the social quality of gaming is probably that same person in WoW you see at 3am hovering over the well in Dalaran or trying to get into the alliance section without being teleported. I hear these same types of guys at work claim their 24/7 addiction to Medal of Warfare X is "healthy" because they play online together. PLEASE! You see each other for maybe five seconds in the midst of a hectic firefight and barely have time to talk between shouting obsenities at enemy players.

All these people on both sides have come together to manufacture a minority of people within the American sub-cultures that, by rights, never should have existed in the first place and both sides on strive harder and harder to make us actual game lovers look worse in the eyes of the public. As an honest-to-god game lover, not just of the video kind, I think I feel even more stereotyped and misunderstood now than I did as that scared, lonely, little boy almost 20 years ago....

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

So in your opinion, something is art if it is creative and possessed of 'vision', as long as you can't interact with it, it isn't combined with any other work of art (or, heaven forbid, something that isn't artistic), and didn't require hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence to craft.

That definition is fucking atrocious. I seriously think, without a hint of hyperbole, that that is the worst definition of art I have ever heard from any source in my entire life. It is so horribly arbitrary and restrictive, so useless and inapplicable, that I have difficulty understanding how you could possibly defend it.

What is art under that definition? It couldn't be the Pietà, as though I'm sure there was creativity and vision behind that, but I'm afraid Michelangelo simply put too much hard work, careful though, skills and intelligence into it for it to fall under your definition. Notre Dame Cathedral isn't art, as although it is a beautifully, magnificently and intricately crafted spectacle, it was done so by more than one person, and it also includes things that are not art, such as doorknobs and shelves, so it's disqualified. All of the performing arts are exempt, of course, as even if they're done solo, they remain entirely too interactive. You've already explicitly excluded movies, so we'll skip that. Books require way too much hard work, careful planning, skill and intelligence so they've got to go.

Wait! I can think of something! You know in grade school art class, where they gave you coloured pencils, crayons, pastels and such? And then you drew whatever was in your young, inexperienced, creative mind? Some pretty creative stuff came out of those years, and it was almost entirely devoid of hard work, careful thought, skill and intelligence! So, your definition seems to include grade school level doodles and nothing else. Congrats.

Creativity and vision are cheap. They're really really really cheap. The skill, the talent, the devotion, the care required to take an idea and craft it into its fullest potential is what separates the serious artist from your three-year-old doodling on your cabinetry.

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Not G. Ivingname:

Nincompoop:
snip

While I do agree with you that just spouting examples without giving them context or further explanation, I also disagree with your idea that something isn't art just because it has utility use and "clams us down" (I can think of tons of calming music).

Music that is calming is not art, by being calming, if that makes sense. If you would create a tune which would invoke a certain feeling, I wouldn't call it art. Neither is music art by definition, and using that, combined with examples of music that can be used as an application, isn't a valid argument in my opinion.

I would argue my self, but since your argument was the same as Roger Ebert's ill fated reasoning, and I don't think I can word this better, I will post the Game Overthinker's (aka moviebob's) respounce to him as my counter argument. http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

After watching the video, I can only say that I simply don't think of art the same way. I wouldn't call a movie art, and I am partially to the side where there shouldn't be a collaboration of talents and minds when it comes to art.

Having said that, I do find that, perhaps, one specific idea in a game could be called art. Like a specific model (where it comes down to sculpture), or maybe a specific gameplay mechanic, or soundtrack.

But I will never see an entire movie or a game as art. And frankly, it's not as if I put art above anything. In no sense is it derogatory when I say that I don't think games are art.

Also, if I were to publish a big game, and people referred to it as art, I would feel insulted, as art (for me) implies creativity and vision, more than hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence.

So in your opinion, something is art if it is creative and possessed of 'vision', as long as you can't interact with it, it isn't combined with any other work of art (or, heaven forbid, something that isn't artistic), and didn't require hard work, careful thought, skills and intelligence to craft.

That definition is fucking atrocious. I seriously think, without a hint of hyperbole, that that is the worst definition of art I have ever heard from any source in my entire life. It is so horribly arbitrary and restrictive, so useless and inapplicable, that I have difficulty understanding how you could possibly defend it.

What is art under that definition? It couldn't be the Pietà, as though I'm sure there was creativity and vision behind that, but I'm afraid Michelangelo simply put too much hard work, careful though, skills and intelligence into it for it to fall under your definition. Notre Dame Cathedral isn't art, as although it is a beautifully, magnificently and intricately crafted spectacle, it was done so by more than one person, and it also includes things that are not art, such as doorknobs and shelves, so it's disqualified. All of the performing arts are exempt, of course, as even if they're done solo, they remain entirely too interactive. You've already explicitly excluded movies, so we'll skip that. Books require way too much hard work, careful planning, skill and intelligence so they've got to go.

Wait! I can think of something! You know in grade school art class, where they gave you coloured pencils, crayons, pastels and such? And then you drew whatever was in your young, inexperienced, creative mind? Some pretty creative stuff came out of those years, and it was almost entirely devoid of hard work, careful thought, skill and intelligence! So, your definition seems to include grade school level doodles and nothing else. Congrats.

Creativity and vision are cheap. They're really really really cheap. The skill, the talent, the devotion, the care required to take an idea and craft it into its fullest potential is what separates the serious artist from your three-year-old doodling on your cabinetry.

Listen a**hole, take your f**king attitude and shove it somewhere else. First of, this is my personal definition of art, which means it's what comes to mind when I think of art you got that? Okay??
Secondly, how f**king dare you take one bit of a discussion and think you know my position. I DON'T LIKE ART! That's the whole f**king point! I take intelligence, hard work, talent and ingenuity as something above what I think of when I think art. This is why I don't want games to be called art, as I find it distasteful and lacks respect.

And you are absolutely right when you say it's narrow as sh*t. When I think of art, I think abstract paintings and weird shapes and such.

By the way. By the definition everyone uses, which you probably like, makes EVERYTHING CRAFTED BY MAN 'ART'!, why, by all that is holy, do we have such a word then? It can't be used to describe sh*t! Well it can actually, because sh*t is made by man, sort of.

Again, this is a personal definition of a word that is tossed around, and few agree really what it means. And I don't think art is really a good thing, not compared to something else! Don't. F**king. Ever. Forget that.

D*ck.

Nincompoop:

Listen a**hole, take your f**king attitude and shove it somewhere else.

No.

First of, this is my personal definition of art, which means it's what comes to mind when I think of art you got that? Okay??

That's not a definition, it's an impression. When I think of Egypt, I think of pyramids, pharoahs, and the Sphinx, but that is not a good definition of Egypt.

Secondly, how f**king dare you take one bit of a discussion and think you know my position.

What the hell are you talking about? I quoted your first post; I read the whole damn thread; if you think there wasn't enough information in there for me to know your position, maybe you should have posted it. You are on a public forum. Everything you post here is open for discussion. I will comment on what you write whether you like it or not; especially if you do not.

I DON'T LIKE ART! That's the whole f**king point!

OF COURSE YOU DON'T LIKE ART! Your definition of art is art that you do not like!

I take intelligence, hard work, talent and ingenuity as something above what I think of when I think art.

Do you really believe these things to be mutually exclusive? Art and hard work, talent, and ingenuity are not in the same class: art is something you create, something you work towards; hard work, talent, and ingenuity are the tools you use in the pursuit of something, whether it is a work art, a construction, a business deal, whatever. You are trying to compare a table to woodworking, a guilty verdict to law schooling, or an Olympic gold medal to rigorous training. They are not the same type of thing, it's not either or, the former necessitates the latter.

This is why I don't want games to be called art, as I find it distasteful and lacks respect.

And you are absolutely right when you say it's narrow as sh*t. When I think of art, I think abstract paintings and weird shapes and such.

Lacks respect!? Are you for real!? Nobody I have ever conversed with on the subject would consider their work being called art an insult. This is exactly why I'm giving you so much grief over your definition. It's so out of line with everyone else's it seems almost designed to generate ire. It's as if I was talking about pruning and you somehow define that as clear-cutting: obviously that's going to cause confusion!

Everybody has their own definition of art, but at least they tend to be vaguely related. Your definition sounds like one formed second-hand of something you've never actually seen.

By the way. By the definition everyone uses, which you probably like, makes EVERYTHING CRAFTED BY MAN 'ART'!, why, by all that is holy, do we have such a word then? It can't be used to describe sh*t! Well it can actually, because sh*t is made by man, sort of.

What use is your definition, then, when it seems to be merely a concatenation of the definitions of sculpture and painting? Why is everyone always trying to say whether something is or is not art? Why are we drawing lines in the sand? Art is not a physical thing, it is not a law of nature, it is not a mathematical theorem, it is not something that can be rigorously defined. Providing an all-encompassing definition of art is fucking impossible; it's so damn impossible; it's enforcing prohibition impossible; it's discovering the meaning of life impossible; it's (dis)proving the existence of god impossible. Instead of trying to say this isn't art because you can twiddle it, or this is art because it hangs on a wall, or this is art because it's in a museum, or this isn't art because too many people worked on it, why don't we just accept that everything is arguably art and shift our focus to the discussion of these various 'works of art's' artistic merits? What is good art and what is bad art? That discussion alone warrants the existence of the word art.

Again, this is a personal definition of a word that is tossed around, and few agree really what it means. And I don't think art is really a good thing, not compared to something else! Don't. F**king. Ever. Forget that.

D*ck.

Well, I think art is what defines humanity, and I think it's the best thing we have going for us. Don't. Fucking. Ever. Forget that.

Dick.

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Listen a**hole, take your f**king attitude and shove it somewhere else.

No.

First of, this is my personal definition of art, which means it's what comes to mind when I think of art you got that? Okay??

That's not a definition, it's an impression. When I think of Egypt, I think of pyramids, pharoahs, and the Sphinx, but that is not a good definition of Egypt.

Secondly, how f**king dare you take one bit of a discussion and think you know my position.

What the hell are you talking about? I quoted your first post; I read the whole damn thread; if you think there wasn't enough information in there for me to know your position, maybe you should have posted it. You are on a public forum. Everything you post here is open for discussion. I will comment on what you write whether you like it or not; especially if you do not.

I DON'T LIKE ART! That's the whole f**king point!

OF COURSE YOU DON'T LIKE ART! Your definition of art is art that you do not like!

I take intelligence, hard work, talent and ingenuity as something above what I think of when I think art.

Do you really believe these things to be mutually exclusive? Art and hard work, talent, and ingenuity are not in the same class: art is something you create, something you work towards; hard work, talent, and ingenuity are the tools you use in the pursuit of something, whether it is a work art, a construction, a business deal, whatever. You are trying to compare a table to woodworking, a guilty verdict to law schooling, or an Olympic gold medal to rigorous training. They are not the same type of thing, it's not either or, the former necessitates the latter.

This is why I don't want games to be called art, as I find it distasteful and lacks respect.

And you are absolutely right when you say it's narrow as sh*t. When I think of art, I think abstract paintings and weird shapes and such.

Lacks respect!? Are you for real!? Nobody I have ever conversed with on the subject would consider their work being called art an insult. This is exactly why I'm giving you so much grief over your definition. It's so out of line with everyone else's it seems almost designed to generate ire. It's as if I was talking about pruning and you somehow define that as clear-cutting: obviously that's going to cause confusion!

Everybody has their own definition of art, but at least they tend to be vaguely related. Your definition sounds like one formed second-hand of something you've never actually seen.

By the way. By the definition everyone uses, which you probably like, makes EVERYTHING CRAFTED BY MAN 'ART'!, why, by all that is holy, do we have such a word then? It can't be used to describe sh*t! Well it can actually, because sh*t is made by man, sort of.

What use is your definition, then, when it seems to be merely a concatenation of the definitions of sculpture and painting? Why is everyone always trying to say whether something is or is not art? Why are we drawing lines in the sand? Art is not a physical thing, it is not a law of nature, it is not a mathematical theorem, it is not something that can be rigorously defined. Providing an all-encompassing definition of art is fucking impossible; it's so damn impossible; it's enforcing prohibition impossible; it's discovering the meaning of life impossible; it's (dis)proving the existence of god impossible. Instead of trying to say this isn't art because you can twiddle it, or this is art because it hangs on a wall, or this is art because it's in a museum, or this isn't art because too many people worked on it, why don't we just accept that everything is arguably art and shift our focus to the discussion of these various 'works of art's' artistic merits? What is good art and what is bad art? That discussion alone warrants the existence of the word art.

Again, this is a personal definition of a word that is tossed around, and few agree really what it means. And I don't think art is really a good thing, not compared to something else! Don't. F**king. Ever. Forget that.

D*ck.

Well, I think art is what defines humanity, and I think it's the best thing we have going for us. Don't. Fucking. Ever. Forget that.

Dick.

You are absolutely right that it's an impression then. But you treat my posts as if I somehow claim that that is the sole definition of art. There was evidence of objectivity through my entire posts. You can't possibly think otherwise.

Again, the word art doesn't mean sh*t by what you said. You mention good art, or bad art, which is something that actually can be used as something, but good craft, or bad craft (and many other words) can be used just as well. Art doesn't define anything. If you say something is art, it can be anything in the world. Then why f**king rage about games being art and not? If it's already firmly established that art can be everything possible crafted by man?

It's a stupid, utterly vast and f**king redundant word. Please, give me an example of using 'art' where it actually defines what we're talking about, and not just 'art' and the rest.

Nincompoop:

You are absolutely right that it's an impression then. But you treat my posts as if I somehow claim that that is the sole definition of art. There was evidence of objectivity through my entire posts. You can't possibly think otherwise.

Again, the word art doesn't mean sh*t by what you said. You mention good art, or bad art, which is something that actually can be used as something, but good craft, or bad craft (and many other words) can be used just as well. Art doesn't define anything. If you say something is art, it can be anything in the world. Then why f**king rage about games being art and not? If it's already firmly established that art can be everything possible crafted by man?

It's a stupid, utterly vast and f**king redundant word. Please, give me an example of using 'art' where it actually defines what we're talking about, and not just 'art' and the rest.

First of all, in retrospect, I realize my first post was overly confrontational, I probably understood your perspective more than I allowed myself to realize, and for that I apologize.

In your initial post -

Games have no artistic merit. This is something that is up for debate. And mentioning a few games and then claiming your argument to be foolproof is absolutely the worst kind of fallacious argumentation in my honest opinion. It's absolutely ridiculous.

Now, to the actual issue. I don't think of games as art because they are not something you merely gaze at. I don't think art is something you interact with. I would call games a utility or an application of sorts. Even if the point is entertainment. With no practical applications, but maybe mental or psychological applications (we need something to keep our spirits up).

You gaze a pictures, and maybe discuss them. You listen to music. You don't do these kind of things with games.
I would like to stress, however, that this is my opinion on games as art.

- you took issue with the writer's argument on 'games as art' on the basis of his poor reasoning (with which I concur) and your own definition of art (with which, you may have noticed, I do not concur), or at least so I thought. It now seems more likely that your main problem with the writer's stance was his poor defense of it and you merely contributed your own view on art to add to the discussion (need to learn to pay more attention to things in bold).

My problem is not so much in the 'games are art' debate so much as the 'art is this but not this' debates. It's exactly because I feel art is such an all-encompassing concept that it irks me so much when people try to pin it down, so I was more irritated at yet another restrictive definition of art than yours personally (though I still think yours is really weird). We've been arguing over your definition of art, so I feel it is only fair to provide mine:

Art is when man crafts or performs not solely for practicality, but also or exclusively to evoke emotion and contemplation in those that experience the work.

Perhaps not as complete as I would like, but it's what I could come up with on the spot. So yes, I agree that it is a very open definition of art. I consider dance art; I consider theatre art; I consider movies, paintings, books, and sculptures to be art; I consider buildings crafted with aesthetic appeal in mind (whether they are sleek modernistic lines or intricate gothic carvings) to be art.

As an example, consider, say, a desk. If the carpenter just takes some wood he has lying around and slaps together something functional, I wouldn't consider that a work of art. However, if he took the time to carve little details here and there, and constructed it with an overall aesthetic in mind, I would call that a work of art. It's up to the individual to decide what merits the piece has as art, but that is where I would lay the separation.

I usually try to be level-headed and respectful on forums, but when I get worked up I quickly descend into confrontation and sarcasm (it actually took me a couple hours to get to sleep last night, I was so irritated).

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:
snip

snip

snip

snip
..

Art is when man crafts or performs not solely for practicality, but also or exclusively to evoke emotion and contemplation in those that experience the work.

[insert great writer] is rolling in his grave to hide the boner you just gave him.
I respect that definition, and it was well put together (however short time it took).

Alphalpha:
snip
..

As an example, consider, say, a desk. If the carpenter just takes some wood he has lying around and slaps together something functional, I wouldn't consider that a work of art. However, if he took the time to carve little details here and there, and constructed it with an overall aesthetic in mind, I would call that a work of art. It's up to the individual to decide what merits the piece has as art, but that is where I would lay the separation.

Interesting.

Let's take a software example.
So, you wouldn't consider Microsoft Word as art? But games or other software, that have something more than practical aspects? (not writing this in a descending tone, I am genuinely interested)

Alphalpha:
I usually try to be level-headed and respectful on forums, but when I get worked up I quickly descend into confrontation and sarcasm (it actually took me a couple hours to get to sleep last night, I was so irritated).

Lol. I do apologize then. As much as you 'misunderstood' or 'overreacted' or whatever, another feller here on the escapist takes the cake. He actually misunderstood a comment of mine to the exact opposite of my opinion. Partly my fault, though. Bad grammar. But anyways, I hope it helps a bit. He even used several hours to write his insanely long reply filled with hatred.

But bro honest? I don't give a sh*t if someone is writing with a bit more spice than needed. It just makes it a more interested read. It's quite fascinating what people can conjure up with grammar. And you, sir, know how to use yours.

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:
snip

snip

snip

snip
..

Art is when man crafts or performs not solely for practicality, but also or exclusively to evoke emotion and contemplation in those that experience the work.

[insert great writer] is rolling in his grave to hide the boner you just gave him.
I respect that definition, and it was well put together (however short time it took).

Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it. I've gone over your posts again a couple of times and I think I'm starting to develop a better understanding of as well as some respect for your definition. :)

It seems that you think of art as more granular, in that a particular work may contain many examples of art (images, music, et cetera) without itself being art. I have the exact opposite interpretation, where such a work becomes art by default.

What I still don't understand, however, is how you decide whether a work within these media (painting, music, sculpture, what have you) is a work of art.

Alphalpha:
snip
..

As an example, consider, say, a desk. If the carpenter just takes some wood he has lying around and slaps together something functional, I wouldn't consider that a work of art. However, if he took the time to carve little details here and there, and constructed it with an overall aesthetic in mind, I would call that a work of art. It's up to the individual to decide what merits the piece has as art, but that is where I would lay the separation.

Interesting.

Let's take a software example.
So, you wouldn't consider Microsoft Word as art? But games or other software, that have something more than practical aspects? (not writing this in a descending tone, I am genuinely interested)

Exactly. Following from what I wrote above, games, being a synthesis of images, sounds, music, and virtual sculpture within a framework of code is as much art as its component parts.

A less obvious example would be Microsoft Windows. Before Windows there was DOS, which was text-based and solely functional; then came Windows 3.1 (or whatever), which also pretty much solely functional, simply designed to provide an easier to use interface. Since then, Windows has expanded its functionality, but has also put considerable effort to improving its visuals, its audio cues, and streamlining its overall aesthetic. These changes are not only to make the OS easier to use, but also to make it more pleasant to use. Having formed a solid foundation in its user interface, Windows has since attempted to add artistry to its product to attract more clients. It's certainly not impressive as a work of art, and it is extremely far down on the practicality end of the spectrum, but I would consider it as, to a mild degree, art. (I'm not sure I like this example, I'll have to think about it. I don't want to erase it, though, so here you go)

Allow me one more example, simply to highlight the possibilities of code as art. There is a game called kkrieger(http://www.theprodukkt.com/), which is constructed completely out procedural algorithms with hard-coded inputs. All the music, models, sounds, and textures are generated on the spot based on the algorithms the developers wrote and the inputs they decided on. So basically, they wrote code that could generate something similar to what they wanted, then they tried various inputs until they got something they liked. I believe the finished product is less than a megabyte {swoon}.

Alphalpha:
I usually try to be level-headed and respectful on forums, but when I get worked up I quickly descend into confrontation and sarcasm (it actually took me a couple hours to get to sleep last night, I was so irritated).

Lol. I do apologize then. As much as you 'misunderstood' or 'overreacted' or whatever, another feller here on the escapist takes the cake. He actually misunderstood a comment of mine to the exact opposite of my opinion. Partly my fault, though. Bad grammar. But anyways, I hope it helps a bit. He even used several hours to write his insanely long reply filled with hatred.

But bro honest? I don't give a sh*t if someone is writing with a bit more spice than needed. It just makes it a more interested read. It's quite fascinating what people can conjure up with grammar. And you, sir, know how to use yours.

Oh, I certainly enjoy the occasional 'nasty' post, but I never do so simply to piss someone off (unless they're just trolling, which I never thought you were, and rarely even then), so my response to your... exuberant response was somewhere between mean-spirited glee that I had affected you so and worry that I had actually been enough of a jerk to deserve it.

This discussion has certainly turned out to be much more interesting than I would have initially thought.

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:
snip

snip

snip

snip
..

Art is when man crafts or performs not solely for practicality, but also or exclusively to evoke emotion and contemplation in those that experience the work.

[insert great writer] is rolling in his grave to hide the boner you just gave him.
I respect that definition, and it was well put together (however short time it took).

Thanks for the compliment, I appreciate it. I've gone over your posts again a couple of times and I think I'm starting to develop a better understanding of as well as some respect for your definition. :)

It seems that you think of art as more granular, in that a particular work may contain many examples of art (images, music, et cetera) without itself being art. I have the exact opposite interpretation, where such a work becomes art by default.

What I still don't understand, however, is how you decide whether a work within these media (painting, music, sculpture, what have you) is a work of art.

Well. I think I just mean more spontaneous and creative, if that makes sense. Like, some people just sit down, and start drawing odd shapes, and they never really planned it. It was more improvised than thought through. On the same level, if people draw a weird picture, or sculpt an odd shape (which again, isn't thought through), I would call it art. Well I don't know really how to explain it fairly. But I do know that the impression of a word that isn't firmly defined stays with you. I will always, unless I actually try to rid it off me, think of improvised odd shapes or paintings. When I say odd, I just mean non-conventional shapes (as opposed to simple circles or squares), not saying one has to turn ones head when one sees the shape. The reason I probably won't get rid of the impression of the word, is because what I mean when I say 'art' is something that often resides in creative people. One can be creative and smart, sure, but some just automatically draw beautiful shapes, without carefully planning to. Some even draw a simple circle with enough character to make it look good. Typically it's those who have amazing hand writings. Anyways, as 'creative' isn't a good enough word in my opinion, I have sort of used 'art' to fill in the gap.

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:
snip
..

As an example, consider, say, a desk. If the carpenter just takes some wood he has lying around and slaps together something functional, I wouldn't consider that a work of art. However, if he took the time to carve little details here and there, and constructed it with an overall aesthetic in mind, I would call that a work of art. It's up to the individual to decide what merits the piece has as art, but that is where I would lay the separation.

Interesting.

Let's take a software example.
So, you wouldn't consider Microsoft Word as art? But games or other software, that have something more than practical aspects? (not writing this in a descending tone, I am genuinely interested)

Exactly. Following from what I wrote above, games, being a synthesis of images, sounds, music, and virtual sculpture within a framework of code is as much art as its component parts.

A less obvious example would be Microsoft Windows. Before Windows there was DOS, which was text-based and solely functional; then came Windows 3.1 (or whatever), which also pretty much solely functional, simply designed to provide an easier to use interface. Since then, Windows has expanded its functionality, but has also put considerable effort to improving its visuals, its audio cues, and streamlining its overall aesthetic. These changes are not only to make the OS easier to use, but also to make it more pleasant to use. Having formed a solid foundation in its user interface, Windows has since attempted to add artistry to its product to attract more clients. It's certainly not impressive as a work of art, and it is extremely far down on the practicality end of the spectrum, but I would consider it as, to a mild degree, art. (I'm not sure I like this example, I'll have to think about it. I don't want to erase it, though, so here you go)

Allow me one more example, simply to highlight the possibilities of code as art. There is a game called kkrieger(http://www.theprodukkt.com/), which is constructed completely out procedural algorithms with hard-coded inputs. All the music, models, sounds, and textures are generated on the spot based on the algorithms the developers wrote and the inputs they decided on. So basically, they wrote code that could generate something similar to what they wanted, then they tried various inputs until they got something they liked. I believe the finished product is less than a megabyte {swoon}.

I have actually tried kkriger, but I didn't know how they managed to make it happen. But I think I guessed something like that though. It's extremely impressive.

Anyways, I think I understand your view.

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:
I usually try to be level-headed and respectful on forums, but when I get worked up I quickly descend into confrontation and sarcasm (it actually took me a couple hours to get to sleep last night, I was so irritated).

Lol. I do apologize then. As much as you 'misunderstood' or 'overreacted' or whatever, another feller here on the escapist takes the cake. He actually misunderstood a comment of mine to the exact opposite of my opinion. Partly my fault, though. Bad grammar. But anyways, I hope it helps a bit. He even used several hours to write his insanely long reply filled with hatred.

But bro honest? I don't give a sh*t if someone is writing with a bit more spice than needed. It just makes it a more interested read. It's quite fascinating what people can conjure up with grammar. And you, sir, know how to use yours.

Oh, I certainly enjoy the occasional 'nasty' post, but I never do so simply to piss someone off (unless they're just trolling, which I never thought you were, and rarely even then), so my response to your... exuberant response was somewhere between mean-spirited glee that I had affected you so and worry that I had actually been enough of a jerk to deserve it.

This discussion has certainly turned out to be much more interesting than I would have initially thought.

Hehe. Some just automatically take offense if something is written in a offensive manner, and some who are offended never get over it. Unfortunately, there is an abundant of people on the internet who share both of these traits.

But I have enjoyed this discussion we've/re had/having, so... No hard feelings I guess. At least on my part.

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:
snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Well. I think I just mean more spontaneous and creative, if that makes sense. Like, some people just sit down, and start drawing odd shapes, and they never really planned it. It was more improvised than thought through. On the same level, if people draw a weird picture, or sculpt an odd shape (which again, isn't thought through), I would call it art. Well I don't know really how to explain it fairly. But I do know that the impression of a word that isn't firmly defined stays with you. I will always, unless I actually try to rid it off me, think of improvised odd shapes or paintings. When I say odd, I just mean non-conventional shapes (as opposed to simple circles or squares), not saying one has to turn ones head when one sees the shape. The reason I probably won't get rid of the impression of the word, is because what I mean when I say 'art' is something that often resides in creative people. One can be creative and smart, sure, but some just automatically draw beautiful shapes, without carefully planning to. Some even draw a simple circle with enough character to make it look good. Typically it's those who have amazing hand writings. Anyways, as 'creative' isn't a good enough word in my opinion, I have sort of used 'art' to fill in the gap.

That definition is as unusual as the works it describes, but it certainly explains your opinion of 'art'. How about music, then? If a work fell outside the usual structural conventions (chorus, bridge, constant time, repetitive melody, et cetera) and was created more spontaneously would you consider that art?

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:
snip

snip

snip

I have actually tried kkriger, but I didn't know how they managed to make it happen. But I think I guessed something like that though. It's extremely impressive.

Anyways, I think I understand your view.

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:
snip

snip

snip

Hehe. Some just automatically take offense if something is written in a offensive manner, and some who are offended never get over it. Unfortunately, there is an abundant of people on the internet who share both of these traits.

But I have enjoyed this discussion we've/re had/having, so... No hard feelings I guess. At least on my part.

There once were two chaps on a forum,
Who showed a great lack of decorum.
They bandied about,
and worked it all out.
(I still say a new one I tore 'im.)

Quick to anger, quick to forget; that describes me on the in-tor-net. No hard feelings.

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:
snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

snip

Well. I think I just mean more spontaneous and creative, if that makes sense. Like, some people just sit down, and start drawing odd shapes, and they never really planned it. It was more improvised than thought through. On the same level, if people draw a weird picture, or sculpt an odd shape (which again, isn't thought through), I would call it art. Well I don't know really how to explain it fairly. But I do know that the impression of a word that isn't firmly defined stays with you. I will always, unless I actually try to rid it off me, think of improvised odd shapes or paintings. When I say odd, I just mean non-conventional shapes (as opposed to simple circles or squares), not saying one has to turn ones head when one sees the shape. The reason I probably won't get rid of the impression of the word, is because what I mean when I say 'art' is something that often resides in creative people. One can be creative and smart, sure, but some just automatically draw beautiful shapes, without carefully planning to. Some even draw a simple circle with enough character to make it look good. Typically it's those who have amazing hand writings. Anyways, as 'creative' isn't a good enough word in my opinion, I have sort of used 'art' to fill in the gap.

That definition is as unusual as the works it describes, but it certainly explains your opinion of 'art'. How about music, then? If a work fell outside the usual structural conventions (chorus, bridge, constant time, repetitive melody, et cetera) and was created more spontaneously would you consider that art?

I don't know really. I am a musician (sort of, don't perform but I play by myself) and I actually have a hard time classifying music in comparison to the rest. For me, music is above conventional 'art' or the like. It's more magical and universal than entertainment and other forms of art. Oh boy, another definition/impression of something... WHAT EVER! I am a character, and so be it.

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:
snip

snip

snip

I have actually tried kkriger, but I didn't know how they managed to make it happen. But I think I guessed something like that though. It's extremely impressive.

Anyways, I think I understand your view.

Alphalpha:

Nincompoop:

Alphalpha:
snip

snip

snip

Hehe. Some just automatically take offense if something is written in a offensive manner, and some who are offended never get over it. Unfortunately, there is an abundant of people on the internet who share both of these traits.

But I have enjoyed this discussion we've/re had/having, so... No hard feelings I guess. At least on my part.

There once were two chaps on a forum,
Who showed a great lack of decorum.
They bandied about,
and worked it all out.
(I still say a new one I tore 'im.)

Quick to anger, quick to forget; that describes me on the in-tor-net. No hard feelings.

D'awww, a poem?

But seriously that was good.

I don't know really. I am a musician (sort of, don't perform but I play by myself) and I actually have a hard time classifying music in comparison to the rest. For me, music is above conventional 'art' or the like. It's more magical and universal than entertainment and other forms of art. Oh boy, another definition/impression of something... WHAT EVER! I am a character, and so be it.

I play a bit of bass guitar myself, and I dare say music is the most universal medium. I'll have to remember to tread carefully around you when the discussion revolves around definitions.

D'awww, a poem?

But seriously that was good.

It just came to me (except for the last line; I had to stretch a bit for that one). Limericks are fun to write.

We seem to be done here, so good day to you.

Ah, allow me to summarize this article.

MY LARGELY UNEXPLAINED AND OFTEN MINIMALISTIC OPINIONS ARE FAAAAAAACT!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here