Khuutra said:
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.
|
Ah, it is good to know that we are in agreement.
And yes, you are right in that the academia's definition of art is the only culturally authorative one. Our definitions only have meaning to ourselves, and I only expressed my own rather liberal views on art in order to juxtapose them with Resonable's (and Ebert's).
