Quote:
Originally Posted by Krylo
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.
04-25-2010, 02:20 AM
Threaded Mode