| Helios said: Khuutra: "Nobody, I should think, claims that the act of playing games is an art." Playing games? No, that is an occupation. But the act of playing a game? I don't know about that. You mentioned performance arts. Is, then, the act of playing (a game) not a kind of performance art? Whatever vision is exercised through the design of a game, the artistic essence of an interactive medium ultimately lies with the hic-et-nunc nature of the player experience. Or do you think I am wrong in my assertion that game design is an art form concerned with the expression of ideas through player experience? There is also art created by using games, but I think we can all agree that is something different altogether. Reasonable: So, what is your criteria for art? Me, I consider any sort of expression of human creativity to be art. And yes, that includes Michael Bay. My own (admittedly poor) opinion of his filmmaking is simply a matter of personal perspective. |
You make a solid point: I realized, partway through the conversation, that I was wrong on the previous point, but did not say so.
You and I are in agreement, actually. Art lies in the experience, and the ability to induce a specific experience, or allowing people to experience the same thing in multiple ways.
I believe that what Reasonable - and Ebert, now that I think about it and which infuriates me - is saying is that "art" is a question of quality rather than definition, of interpretation of both meaning and import, usually handled by the academia. He can correct me if I am off on that point, though.
