AWKWARD ZOMBIE

Videogames = Tasty
Sandwiches = Tasty
So,
Videogames = Sandwiches

The definition of art to me is exactly that. "To me", because whatever follows will be that persons own personal view point on what art is. Art is an expression, purely. You have people who take pictures of a urinal, starve a dog, make a pile of trash, paint a picture, create a movie, craft something out of wood or metal, splatter paint on a canvas, arrange lights, make clouds int he sky with an airplane, or in this case, make a video game. Are all video games art? No, but you could say the same for movies. Art is hard to say whether its art or not because if someone does something that is an expression then I'd think its art. Do you think it is? Maybe, maybe not. That's your definition being different than theirs.

Also, Ebert is full of shit. I can put a video game between two pieces of bread and call it a sandwich.

Exactaly. There is nothing I can say the The Big Cheese has not said. Respect + 10

I'm still not getting you that toy.

Awww.... But I saw it on sale!

Darkin wrote:Videogames = Tasty
Sandwiches = Tasty
So,
Videogames = Sandwiches

JUST ME AND MY
SAAAAAAANDVIIIIIICH!

Shigeru Miyamoto said Games can't be art, also.


But, then again art comes down to what it does for the viewer. If something invokes emotion in a person, whether that be laughter, anger, sadness, I'd call it art. Of course, it's certainly possible for there to be BAD art.


I.E.- I find all movies,videogames, paintings, drawings, etc. To be art.

Oops a rich guy said something


they must be right

Art is a difficult thing to define these days because art is different things to different people.

Some would argue that the best kind of art is interactive.

Video games are interactive.

Badfish wrote:Shigeru Miyamoto said Games can't be art, also.

Might be one of those complex things where artists don't ever consider their own work to be good enough to be classed as art.

games arent art, theyre made for fun, artsy games that hardly have any gameplay never really sell well

its like that incident with Flower, the developer actually removed aspects of the game because they were too fun and people werent 'getting' the artsiness of it all

WouldYouKindly wrote:games arent art, theyre made for fun, artsy games that hardly have any gameplay never really sell well

its like that incident with Flower, the developer actually removed aspects of the game because they were too fun and people werent 'getting' the artsiness of it all

That Half Life 2 mod would like to have a chat with you.

daisies I wish I could remember the name of it.

Badfish wrote:Shigeru Miyamoto said Games can't be art, also.

He also doesn't like story in video games, though. He's actually keeping people from making a LoZ game with a more complicated story.

I think I was told in art class once that the classical definition of art is that for something to be art, it must convey an emotion and be permanent.
By the classical definition, a sculpture made of sandwiches isn't art because the sandwiches will eventually rot and the sculpture will fall apart.
I was also told that that definition was abandoned because it was too strict.

Personally, I see art as something that conveys an emotion, no matter of what kind. Doesn't mean I have to like it, though.

Crush Bandicoot wrote:That Half Life 2 mod would like to have a chat with you.

daisies I wish I could remember the name of it.

Dear Esther, maybe?

Art.
Art.
/thread

I guess you could say videogames are art because they can show pictures too (well they are pretty much pictures), albeit an interactive one. If they can make you feel emotion, that's art. I wouldn't say a shoot up or something is though.

I think those Prince of Persia games are really pretty. I've only seen a newer one, where you climb up walls and shit and click a few buttons.. BUT IT WAS ART I TELL YOU

And also Ebert is a closet sandwich.