^Sorry, maybe that wasn't the best word. I'm not native english sorry. I meant don't expect me to be able to follow with comparisons to NSMBU ;)
| Jay520 said: I don't have to demonstrate that gameplay can be objectively qualified because I didn't make the argument that gameplay can be objectively qualified. But you made the argument that art can be objectively qualified, so you have to support your argument. As for classes, that proves nothing. Art is to express and communicate feelings between the artist and receiver. That's it. If the artist had expressed himself/herself adequately then its successful art. If the receiver feels he/she has felt new feelings then it is successful art You are right that there are some elements that can be studied which have shown to be desired by most people; but these elements are by no means objectively correct. They are still subjective but are very well regarded. Just as a chef may advise his students that a certain amount of a certain ingredient is ideal; his advice may be true for most people but it's still not objective. Other people may prefer more or less ingredients but their preference is not wrong or incorrect. |
You're just playing the devil's advocate. Really, if we take two figure skaters, one with skill & talent and one without skill & talent, most trained to see the quality in the art will be able to discern which is a good performance and which is not. I'm not talking about two performers with a comparable skill & talent but different expressions, I'm talking about different capabilities and how people can identify that discrepancy.
I realize that much of art is subjective, I play music myself. But the point I was trying to make is that "Art is subjective" is a blanket statement that, in the context of this topic, I can't appreciate. I'm sorry.
As for showing that art is objective... until you haven't shown that gameplay is purely objective, I have no pressure to show the contrary, as I am challenging the status quo, while you are not.
