"Every one of [our shiatty movies] breaks my heart."


Yeah,I really feel for ya.

"We make a lot of shiatty movies. Every one of them breaks my heart wallet."

FTFY

In related news,Hayden Christensen and Keanu Reeves have bad actors.

Apos: In related news,Hayden Christensen and Keanu Reeves have are bad actors.

Better.

gunga galunga: gshepnyc: Hot Rod Zoidberg: gshepnyc: Fano: Vash's Apprentice: minitrue noram: FTA: "...but your first obligation is to make money and then worry about being proud of what you do."

sounds like the soulless world of work. why not just admit that you're too greedy to produce art?

Define art.
/Take all the time you need

Not a video game
/channeling Ebert

Actually, yeah. To my above personal attempt at a definition, I'd add that what unfolds has to be strictly the artist's intent and not the audience's. That "strictly" part would exclude video games. Video games, to me, seem to be "craft" rather than "art". I'd say that means that they employ some of the techniques that are also employed for the creation of art, but the end result is something to be used rather than just viewed/listened to.

(I'm willing to accept counter arguments - I'm attempting to come up with a definition, not claiming I have the end-all of one.)

I would call it video games architecture. While it can be artistic, it's more utilitarian than transcendent.

I agree, it falls under craft in the art vs. craft dichotomy. Same as a woven basket, on the much less elaborate end of the craft spectrum. It's pleasing, decorative, and you can use it do something with.

Wow. This is actually the first intelligent dicussion I've read since Ebert made that statement.

Up until now, it has been mostly "Ebert is a fatty fat old fart that doesnt have a clue video games are art ebert has no jaw wharrgarbl poops his pants.

well, "what is art?" is a ridiculous question that has plagued aesthetics since human civilization began.

fortunately, the Sp Ct has said that video games should be treated like art for the purposes of 1st amendment protection. However, a legal classification does not a philosophical category make.

I tried to explain what art does, as opposed to what it is, for its forms are many, and new media are likely to be developed before the end of humanity. I draw a lot from Tarkovsky in this assessment. but, art is some construct in some medium that aspires to tell some truth, perhaps by metaphor (in the greek sense, meta/ and phor/, to bring over). It presents some motion that aspires to bring it from this one place towards something more. It is an aspiration towards truth. of course, I associate terms like truth and beauty. and, furthermore, truth has nothing to do with fact, because fact is mere event, while truth is timeless, and thus, cannot be an event. naturally, this only exists if you believe that there is something like truth in our existence. if there is no truth, then art has little more purpose than to entertain. if there is truth, then art has some purpose beyond entertainment, however, it's not to tell the truth. the truth is unknowable. it is to aspire towards truth. this works better if you believe in god or duality, or a material variant thereof (basically, any metaphysic that recognizes some greater truth), because then there is something towards which to aspire.

the method of this aspiration, be it by word, picture, or sound, becomes its own creation, through which the aspiration occurs. The viewer's reflection through the medium is the result of the aspiration. here is the first part when any real definition comes into play. The construct exists in of itself. the artist is insignificant and the viewer are insignificant. they only matter because there must have been a creator and there must be a viewer, but neither determine its aspiration once it is created (though, they will nonetheless argue endlessly whether it is or is not art -- neither may determine since the truth is unknowable). Since art must stand alone, there is no relative agent that creates the inherent aspiring. therefore, a video game, however close it may become, and however it may include aspects or even artful things within it, cannot be art when viewed as a whole.

of course, all of the above is all crap, because I can only speak well about art when I'm drunk. right here I just truncated everything in the desire not to say anything that matters, and there's little I can do about that desire. I'll call it a desire for privacy (which never exists quite so strongly while drunk).