The Warring States of NPF - Roger Ebert claims "video games cannot be art"; molests children.

The Warring States of NPF (http://www.nuklearforums.com/index.php)

- Playing Games (http://www.nuklearforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=5)

- - Roger Ebert claims "video games cannot be art"; molests children. (http://www.nuklearforums.com/showthread.php?t=37703)

One time I arranged all the chess pieces to spell 'poop'.

You're gonna make me do this, aren't you?

Fine. Chess, etc. are not art because they do not exist to make socio-political commentary, they do not exist to bring beauty, they do not exist to express ideas, they do not exist to create emotion.

A well played game of chess could be loosely defined as art, in the playing itself, much as commentators will often call athletes poetry in motion, or say that their movements have a particular art to them in and of themselves, in that anything done well enough can capture emotion, and express beauty.

These simple games themselves, however, can not.

On the other hand, just to pull something out of thin air here, Lunar can express social ideas on the importance of love and song, God of War can show human pathos of all sorts, and Katamari Damacy can exist as a thing to show and create beauty and emotion. They do these things regardless of how well (or poorly) they are played.

This is where things become different. And those aren't even particularly artistic games.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo (Post 1033933)

It's not legitimate, however, because no one is claiming that a simple game such as chess, checkers, solitaire, poker, etc. is art. They are JUST a game and nothing else. I know I don't have to actually explain the differences to any of the members here, so I won't do so in detail.

The point, however, is that many video games make socio-political points, express ideas, exist to create beauty, etc. etc. all those things which the art community defines as the actual purpose of art.

If he had done some cursory research he'd know these things are inherent to art and that there are no things which EXCLUDE something from being art. There for he would not be making ignorant definitions of art.

If he had played some games he'd know that video games include those things and therefore not have removed them from the purview of art/artistic endeavor.

As that he's done NEITHER he can have no legitimate point.

Much as if he did a movie review and admitted half way through that he had never seen the movie but the trailers are pretty shit, no one would accept it, no one should, either, accept his ideas on video games vis a vis art, until he has educated himself on both matters.

He's, frankly, not worth the time.

Adam Sessler was because he has some idea of what he's talking about for at least HALF of the equation.

Opinions don't have to be legitimate, though. Though who's to say his opinion is unjustified? He believes that the direct interactivity aspect of games separates them from art. I don't know whether he has or not interacted with a game before but if he has then his opinion on that particular matter (which is the one matter he states as his argument) is legitimate. Frankly, if he had a reasonable statement that movies aren't art because X inherent quality is not art and is found in all movies, then his opinion is at the very least justified, if considered silly by others.

He's just an old guy with an unpopular but well worded opinion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo (Post 1033942)

Fine. Chess, etc. are not art because they do not exist to make socio-political commentary, they do not exist to bring beauty, they do not exist to express ideas, they do not exist to create emotion.

Chess does literally all of those things. Proverbially speaking, it was explicitly created to do that first thing you said.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend (Post 1033935)

Answer:

Not this fucking season it ain't.

Adam was back for like one day and I was all "Where did this go I want the show that was good back." When the best person is someone who forgets the lyrics to a really popular Beatles song then well it's this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesden (Post 1033943)

Yeah, sure, by I took offense to your use of 'legitimate reason'.

Like I said, I don't give two shits about his actual opinion because it has no legitimacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend (Post 1033944)

Chess does literally all of those things. Proverbially speaking, it was explicitly created to do that first thing you said.

Care to substantiate that claim?

'Cause I can't actually find any information on why Shatranj was invented, and the closest I can find to an actual reason for playing chess was nobles during the rennaissance period (at which point Chess had been around in various form for centuries), using it to study tactics.

Which is a lot different, in and itself, from making socio-political commentary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo (Post 1033929)

Yup.

Start here, proceed through all the cited works, maybe take an art course.

Come back when you're done being ignorant and obstinate just for shits and giggles.

And stop trolling.

I'm sorry if I don't quite buy that people really believe that 'all things described as Art is Art." Everyone draws a line on what is and is not Art. To say that they don't is either naive, or decietful. Naive, because they never really thought about it, probed thier limits. Decietful, because they are hiding the truth to make thier point.

Everyone draws a line.

In much the same way as I don't argue with doctors, so long as there is consensus in the field, as to the best way to treat appendicitis, I do not argue with art critics, professors, etc. etc. on what is defined as art.

You can draw arbitrary lines if you want, but it's about as ridiculous as arguing with Hawking about Quantum Mechanics.

They know more than you, you are wrong.

You don't have to like all art, you don't have to find it tasteful or particularly valid. However, to say that it ISN'T art, still makes you wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo (Post 1033948)

It is interesting that you picked this, because Quantum Physics is one of the fields where there is currently a lot of change in definitions and understanding. Arguing with Hawking about Quantum Mechanics may very well be one of the best things you can do.

Even with scientific understanding, nothing is absolute, and relies on assumptions. Is it wrong to challenge those assumptions if it might lead to a better understanding?

It is if you have no idea what you're talking about, yes.

Because it won't lead to a better understanding.

If you're Kyriakos Tamvakis, then, by all means, disagree with/argue with Hawking.

Now, again, stop being ignorant and obstinate just to be such and/or trolling.

Seriously, you're incredibly obvious.