Fallout 3 at E3 - NYTimes

[Sander]

Tell you what, you come up with a clear and simple definition of art that is all encompassing and that all people agree with, and I'll let that opinion has some merit.
otherwise its just as subjective "fuck-you" to everyone who disagrees and I'm going to see it that way,

That's neat. You do realise that usually art is decided by art critics, not by random people just touting their opinions on whether or not something is art. And people who go 'you can't decide what is art because it all could be art' are either being facetious, or have no clue whatsoever about art.

 

[xdarkyrex]

Tell you what, you come up with a clear and simple definition of art that is all encompassing and that all people agree with, and I'll let that opinion has some merit.
otherwise its just as subjective "fuck-you" to everyone who disagrees and I'm going to see it that way,

That's neat. You do realise that usually art is decided by art critics, not by random people just touting their opinions on whether or not something is art. And people who go 'you can't decide what is art because it all could be art' are either being facetious, or have no clue whatsoever about art.

well I am an art major... :/

Trust me when I say that the defining line between an art and a craft is very very thin and blurred. Some things are clearly not art. Such as, oh, taking a shit.

But see, art relies on a manner of things.

1. Intent of the creator.
2. Psychological appreciation from people (or potentially just a person)
3. Cultural/historical value

and there are more qualifications, but those are the main ones.

A ballet is an art.
A movie is an art.
A painting is an art.
A sculpture is an art.
A murder can be an art.
Conversation can be an art.
Writing can be an art.
Building a boat can be an art.
Engraving a gun can be an art.
Making a poster for an advertisement of something can be art.
Computer programming is an art, oddly enough, despite its rather dubious and erroneous name of "computer science".
Drafting is an art (in many cases).

Guess what?
I'm pretty sure a video game is a piece of art.

In any case, when we get to complex mediums like film and video games, they are an art in and of themselves, and are also an amalgamation of smaller arts. It's a sort of "compound-art" that works on structuring itself on balance and complexity.

But who decides what is and isn't art when it comes to these things? well, simple. We do. Everyone. Critics are there to assess the cultural and historical connotations of art, and compare their significance and break them down into categories and try to delve into the mind of the creator. But they do not by any means define it any more than you or I do.


from Wiki-

Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and/or spirit; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.

 

[Sander]

Guess what?
I'm pretty sure a video game is a piece of art.

I'm pretty sure a video game *can* be a piece of art. This does not make every video game a piece of art, and to contend that something like Unreal Tournament is art is absolutely ridiculous.

But who decides what is and isn't art when it comes to these things? well, simple. We do. Everyone. Critics are there to assess the cultural and historical connotations of art, and compare their significance and break them down into categories and try to delve into the mind of the creator. But they do not by any means define it any more than you or I do.

And in taking that approach you've just declared that any and all assessments of art are completely useless, essentially degrading the concept of art to a meaningless term.
Good job, you've just invalidated your own study.

from Wiki-
Quote:
Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and/or spirit; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.

Please stop touting wikipedia as a source, it's retarded and makes you look like an idiot.

 

[analord]

anyone ever play heart of darkness?

 

[xdarkyrex]

I'm pretty sure a video game *can* be a piece of art. This does not make every video game a piece of art, and to contend that something like Unreal Tournament is art is absolutely ridiculous.

Did I not specifically state that art also requires intent?
Something tells me that the makers of Unreal Tournament were not trying to make a piece of art
Although, on the subject, Unreal Tournament CONTAINS art, but is NOT art in and of itself.

And in taking that approach you've just declared that any and all assessments of art are completely useless, essentially degrading the concept of art to a meaningless term.
Good job, you've just invalidated your own study.

Well art isn't easily definable at all, wtf do you think art critics spend all day bickering at each other about?

Please stop touting wikipedia as a source, it's retarded and makes you look like an idiot.

And? That doesn't make it wrong, and that is an ad hominem attack on Wikipedia without a logical cause. Dismissing something simply because you don't like the source doesn't make the statement untrue by default. Would you rather I use another source to get the SAME answer?

http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartists.html
there ya go

EDIT
also, here's another good link from the same site. This one is more relevant to modern art.
http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartiststoday.html

 

[analord]

Art is a reflection of a person or persons. I'd say an orchestra produces art, so why can't a group of artists developing a game? They're contributing to one vision.

Music and literature have only been around for as long as mankind, and videogames are what... 50 years old?

There has been no prodigious hive mind game companies that can reflect a vision of one person.

It's like the stone age for videogames.

Also what that other guy said. "Art is intent," yea that too.

Edit: I can also dig that work of art schematic. Music \ picture \ writing is art, while Futurama, a movie or a video game is a work of art. It's target is to entertain, but a lot of art goes into making it.


Ofcourse lines begin to blur with abstract.

 

[Sander]

Well art isn't easily definable at all, wtf do you think art critics spend all day bickering at each other about?

This is something very different from saying 'art is irrelevant anything can be art weeeee'.

And? That doesn't make it wrong, and that is an ad hominem attack on Wikipedia without a logical cause. Dismissing something simply because you don't like the source doesn't make the statement untrue by default. Would you rather I use another source to get the SAME answer?

I'm sorry, did I attack your statement? No, I didn't, I attacked your using wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is a constantly edited, very instable and very unreliable source of information. Furthermore, all of its statements are supposed to have source. So use *those sources* instead of wikipedia.

 

[xdarkyrex]

I'm sorry, did I attack your statement? No, I didn't, I attacked your using wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is a constantly edited, very instable and very unreliable source of information. Furthermore, all of its statements are supposed to have source. So use *those sources* instead of wikipedia.

I consider that fair...kind of

usually though I just expect people to look a the sources on the wiki on their own.
why give them one source when I can give them a list of 20 and a summary of the sources?


And in any case, wiki has shown to be uncannily accurate on most accounts.

Would you like a link to a report about it, as compared to encyclopedia britannica? (which is the industry standard for encyclopedias, btw)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4530930.stm
http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_11/chesney/
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/The_Independent_questions_Wikipedia's_accuracy

See, the real problem is that with wiki you don't get enough depth. It isn't wrong all that terribly often, but it is true that the potential is there.

 

[Sander]

Wink I consider that fair

usually though I just expect people to look a the sources on the wiki on their own.
why give them one source when I can give them a list of 20 and a summary of the sources?

Why do you expect people to want to sift through a dozen possible sources when *you* are the one who is supposed to be coming up with the sources?

 

[xdarkyrex]

Wink I consider that fair

usually though I just expect people to look a the sources on the wiki on their own.
why give them one source when I can give them a list of 20 and a summary of the sources?

Why do you expect people to want to sift through a dozen possible sources when *you* are the one who is supposed to be coming up with the sources?

well I generally consider wikipedia to be an appropriate source, and if someone feels it is inaccurate, they typically have all the resources they need to verify it.

It's just more comprehensive...

 

[Sander]

well I generally consider wikipedia to be an appropriate source, and if someone feels it is inaccurate, they typically have all the resources they need to verify it.

It's just more comprehensive...

You mean easier for you.
Really, wikipedia is incredibly unreliable, and saying 'just look it up on wikipedia' amounts to pretty much 'go google it', which is ridiculous as again *you* are the one who is supposed to provide the source, not the means to look up the source.

 

[xdarkyrex]

well I generally consider wikipedia to be an appropriate source, and if someone feels it is inaccurate, they typically have all the resources they need to verify it.

It's just more comprehensive...

You mean easier for you.
Really, wikipedia is incredibly unreliable, and saying 'just look it up on wikipedia' amounts to pretty much 'go google it', which is ridiculous as again *you* are the one who is supposed to provide the source, not the means to look up the source.

Did you read any of those studies

 

[Brother None]

It's amusing how people think studies on overall reliability reflect on reliability of individual articles.

Here's a hint: they don't.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is widely vandalized, hence it is inherently not a good source. If it refers to good sources, use them instead.

 

[xdarkyrex]

It's amusing how people think studies on overall reliability reflect on reliability of individual articles.

Here's a hint: they don't.

Anyone can edit Wikipedia, it is widely vandalized, hence it is inherently not a good source. If it refers to good sources, use them instead.

Have you ever vandalized an article on wiki before, or participated in any content control on the site?

All newly edited articles are put into a queue that stays in place until it is looked over by other people to confirm that the edit is okay.

Some slip through the cracks, but go try to vandalise a page right now.

I gurarantee an error you put iin will be removed promptly.

I know, I've done it before as a joke for a friend.
I edited a page and sent it to a friend as a joke.

By the time he clicked the link, it had already been fixed.

 

[Black]

Have you ever vandalized an article on wiki before, or participated in any content control on the site?

All newly edited articles are put into a queue that stays in place until it is looked over by other people to confirm that the edit is okay.

Some slip through the cracks, but go try to vandalise a page right now.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8125/elovz8.jpg

 

[xdarkyrex]

Have you ever vandalized an article on wiki before, or participated in any content control on the site?

All newly edited articles are put into a queue that stays in place until it is looked over by other people to confirm that the edit is okay.

Some slip through the cracks, but go try to vandalise a page right now.

http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/8125/elovz8.jpg

you win an internet.

Let's see how long it stays there, eh?



If you do that more than once though, you will get a ban I beleive.


http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&namespace=0

 

[Black]

This will probably be deleted because it's stupid. Anyway, more stupid things can remain on wikipedia as long as they pretend they're right.

I once saw, on wikipedia, something about Todd being "great game designer"- what the hell?
Needless to say, I edited it right away, we can't have bull like that.

 

[xdarkyrex]

This will probably be deleted because it's stupid. Anyway, more stupid things can remain on wikipedia as long as they pretend they're right.

I once saw, on wikipedia, something about Todd being "great game designer"- what the hell?
Needless to say, I edited it right away, we can't have bull like that.

It's true.

there are certain subjects on wikipedia that I don't put a lot of stock in.

Biographies and Political stuff are the main two.

Most everything else doesn't seem to have a motive for vandalisation.

 

[Joe Kremlin]

Elephants?

 

[Sander]

Have you ever vandalized an article on wiki before, or participated in any content control on the site?

I've corrected vandalism once or twice when it really annoyed the piss out of me. Like the Jim Henson article claiming for at least a month straight that he was killed by flesh-eating bacteria while he died of pneumonia, or the Jeff Porcaro article implying (for almost a year, too lazy to fix that one but someone did) that cocaine traces in his blood did not point to cocaine use in the weeks before his death (which it does, as cocaine doesn't stay in the blood for very long).

All newly edited articles are put into a queue that stays in place until it is looked over by other people to confirm that the edit is okay.

Some slip through the cracks, but go try to vandalise a page right now.

I gurarantee an error you put iin will be removed promptly.

I like how you equate erroneous information with vandalism. Hah.

Also, you're wrong. I recently fixed the Postman (movie) article, which had claimed for at least half a year that the main female character suddenly got replaced with a different character halfway through the movie, which is utter bullocks.
At one point I got into a discussion on Churchill's rise to power and later fall, I foolishly got some of my information from wikipedia and someone else promptly corrected my information with directly contradicting information from one of Churchill's and one of Chamberlain's most prominent biographies.

Simple fact: wikipedia is a publicly accessible and changeable encyclopedia that is not reliable for anything not related directly to pop culture (great for episodes and the like, though). Because of this system it is also inherently tainted by majority opinion, especially on which articles are 'worthy' of being kept as well as how much exposure any one opinion in an article should be given.

It can also not be used a direct source officially, because it is merely supposed to be a collection of sources and paraphrases (note that it isn't that). It is inefficient and also fucking lazy to link someone to wikipedia as a source or cite wikipedia as a source. It means you are either using wikipedia as a direct source (ludicrous), or are expecting that person to do a bunch of work to find out what your specific source is.
The moral hence is: do not use wikipedia as a direct source, ever.

Let's see how long it stays there, eh?

Hah, you immediately edited it out.