Grahamhsu said:
Obvious that you don't see the point I'm making, because without sound or visuals it's still a story, and any story is visually stimulating whether that story be played out in real life or not. The project with windwaker, how is that related? I'm trying to say a game can exist without those functions and as such means they are expendable. Not preclude, expendable. I'm getting tired of this arguement, I have orchestral auditions for jobs coming up and don't have time for this, all I can say is I never read Ebert's definition, I don't give a rat's ass about it, but if I were to entrust you with violin students using your definition of art I know they would only become musically confused. My perspective is as valid and needed as yours depending on the situation, although my occupation forces me to accept said perspective. Our perspectives differ in our definition of art and as Metallicube said if I let anything be art than it would be slippery slope, and my job as a musician would be a lot more difficult. @kasz Ok I'll say Ebert is an elitist dick in that case. I haven't read the article at all, my view still doesn't change however for it to be art there must a set of rules it must follow, most importantly it must stimulate senses. Culinary, painter, musician, graphic designer, fashion, writers, etc all these people are artists in my definition and view because they use a medium that directly stimulates senses. |
It is impossible for a story to be visually stimulating without visuals. Or, if you prefer, to the blind. Any one aspet is always expendable, it just means that art is experience differently by different people.
And your perspective is a valid one, sure, but it's still needlessly narrow. My view of art comes from art in literature, and similarly I would not leave a bunch of literature students in the hands of someone whose entire concept of art is based around the whole of sensory inputs.
