Khuutra said:
Helios said:
Khuutra said:
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).
|
You would be somewhat surprised: the academia's response is slow, but their definition is ultimately reactionary rather than authoritative: it will take time, but if the people take games seriously for long enough as pieces of art, then the academia will be forced to do the same, and Super Mario Bros. will be treated with the same awe and respect as something like Metropolis.
|
Yes, this process works both ways, though. Once something is accepted within academic circles, we as "laymen" can always refer to their body of thought when debating the artistic merit of a work of art. In that sense it has an authority. For example, Aristotele is still relevant amongst today's dedicated dramaturges as well as scholars.
Granted, this authority is limited to what is currently considered art, rather than what will potentially be considered art, but on that matter I believe we are in agreement.
