| bdbdbd said: @Reasonable: Thanks. Sometimes i even surprise myself. I should have been more specific on what i meant by rules. Naturally the rules of a medium or a genre are challenged, bent, changed all the time. If we think about videogames, for example the entrance of cinematic games made some new rules into videogames, just like MMO's or life sims did, or more recently, games like Brain Training and Wii Fit where your achievement in the game effects your real life. But what i was talking about was certain rules of a certain game/movie/book, that the makers set in them. Think about the three Matrix movies, where the rules kept changing. The first movie was good and consistent, and it was a fresh take in "we're all just cattle to be harvested". And the movie ended to a new rule: Neo became invincible. Starting from the second movie, it was just breaking the rules and making exceptions to rules made in the first one. Every game of football has the same rules, but just because you score in basketball and golf, doesn't mean the two sports have anything in common. When a developer creates a game, the dev creates rules for the game just aswell. Donkey Kong and Killzone have very different set of rules, just like Wii Music and Kabuki Quantum Fighter. The rules itself are in the content and what's allowed to do with it. I think the Picasso example fit the best what i was thinking about. Though, i don't disagree with your Kubrik and Welles examples either. On a side note, one big reason for Picasso coming famous, was that he did business exceptionally with his art. I talk about creative guys largely because i don't see a big difference in principle between an engineer on R&D department inventing new products and a painter painting paintings by his/her own. We could think about Leonardo as an example of this, who wasn't just painter but an inventor as well. |
Both Basketball and Golf are both sports, that's something they have in common. They both use balls, though with different sizes. They have both have sets of rules for their games, and have equipment necessary to play the game. And actually, if the 2 share a concept, such as the concept of point-scoring, that means they do have something in common. Since you're relying on a lot of semantics, I shall too =)
With the new "Brain training games are useless" and "Wii Fit won't actually make you fit" studies, I don't think the "achievement in the game effects your real life" has much merit. In the case with the Wii Fit, yeah it's "better than nothing" but that doesn't mean it actually has an impact on your life.
I think I missed your previous post about this whole rules thing, so I'll look it up, but I'm not sure what rules of a medium have to do with art? Art is hard to define, but the definition I like the Wikipedia definition: Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. Though to extrapolate, I'd like to say that art MUST affect emotions to be art, senses are merely a part of the medium or device to elicit those emotions. So when you see a painting, or hear a piece of music, and you are moved, then for you, that particular piece is art. So I'm not sure how rules would work into that. As I said, I'll look for your previous post because I really want to understand what you're getting at. After lunch break though =)
