Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP
Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7230
|
videogames are art
people have to create characters, environments, stories
people have to put them together as a whole piece
what you see ,what you play, is something created from peoples imagination
playing through a well made game is just like reading a great book, but you experience it by playing it through visuals CREATED by artists
its fucking art
what is so hard to understand |
Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:53 am |
|
|
Sage Francis
Self Fighteous
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 21332
|
Jeez, someone hasn't taken the time to read the opposing argument.
Oh well.
I side with Ebert. Because I like him more than I like video games. If Ebert eventually folds, I will fold with him. Whatever Ebert says. Love the Ebert. |
|
Fri Jul 02, 2010 11:57 am |
|
|
Neuro
A champion of Kurtis SP
Joined: 19 Jul 2002
Posts: 7230
|
art is also inspirational
video games are inspirational
when i play gta 4, when im done, im inspired to get in my car and fuck some shit up, put in my mariyln manson album (also art that inspires) and go ape shit on people
when i play skate 3, after i play, i get on my skateboard and do kicklfips down 5 stairs, and 50-50's on that ledge over there
after i play sonic the hedgehog , i go outside and run like the greatest track star in the universe and roll down hills |
|
Fri Jul 02, 2010 12:23 pm |
|
|
Jesse
Joined: 02 Jul 2002
Posts: 6166
Location: privileged homeless |
Sage Francis wrote:
I side with Ebert. Because I like him more than I like video games. If Ebert eventually folds, I will fold with him. Whatever Ebert says. Love the Ebert.
Where do you stand on the Garfield films? |
|
Fri Jul 02, 2010 2:48 pm |
|
|
breakreep
homophobic yet curious
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem |
I'm glad Ebert at least admitted that he started with a conviction and tried to match the data to that conviction, rather than even attempting anything vaguely resembling good philosophy or science.
I mean, I hope it was obvious to everyone that he was doing that before he admitted it, but at least he did, finally, admit it.
What a wank. |
|
Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:21 pm |
|
|
Mikal kHill
Joined: 29 Jun 2002
Posts: 6818
Location: http://mikalkhill.com |
I love Ebert, but...
Videogames>Ebert.
His ranting about shit he doesn't fully understand is sort of a "VV2" moment where I have to re-evaluate how much I felt him on some things previously. I dunno. Still love the guy, but he's painfully off base with this shit and it's his total disinterest with knowing WHY that I find so irritating.
Meh. |
|
Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:23 pm |
|
|
Mark in Minnesota
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 1895
Location: Saint Louis Park, MN |
Months later I'm still amazed by that kind of reaction. I really feel like a ton of the people who lined up against Ebert are responding to the headline rather than reacting to the argument he actually made.
Especially with his follow-up "retraction" where he kind of defends his original thinking while acknowledging that his personal preferences don't put him in the place he would need to be to validate his assumptions through direct experience...
Dunno. The valuable thing here is not that we all agree with Ebert, or not, or like Ebert, or not. Rather, the valuable thing here is the discussion itself; that's been going on since before he weighed in and it will continue long after he has said his last word on the subject. I think the discussion is better for the arguments he brought to it. |
|
Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:38 pm |
|
|
breakreep
homophobic yet curious
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem |
He admitted, directly, to doing the exact opposite of the scientific method.
That is not part of a good discussion. It may instigate a good discussion, but any further participation on the part of the person with that nonsensical mindset is not good discussion. It is, at best, intellectually dishonest, and at worst, stupid. I think Ebert is the former, but because I don't have a fan fetish or childhood nostalgia for his movie reviews, and I don't subscribe to the concept of the appeal to authority, I won't rule out the latter, either.
You're definitely right about what the valuable things here are not, Mark. But don't defend Ebert's upside down methodology for that. You're way too smart for that. |
|
Wed Jul 07, 2010 7:53 pm |
|
|
breakreep
homophobic yet curious
Joined: 27 Sep 2004
Posts: 6627
Location: Fifth Jerusalem |
|
 |
|
I mean, let's be clear what happened here. Internal argumentative inconsistencies, non-sequitors, emotional appeals, and red herrings aside, Roger Ebert did the following, in this order:
1) Declared games to be not only not art, but fundamentally incapable of being art.
2) Began the search for a definition of art.
This is not just bad logical form, it is, as I mentioned in my last post, either intellectually dishonest, or simply stupid. Take your pick. I'm not aware of anything else that these two things, in their given order, could constitute.
There is plenty that I could argue about with his statements at large, but given that I neither particularly care what Ebert says about most things nor have the time to indulge in my most minute whims--both leading to the conclusion which Mark posited vis-a-vis importance and the lack thereof--my goal here is only to do my part in exposing this fundamental inadequacy in this somehow ascribed as definitive statement by the god of movie-review-watchers. I know a lot of people here have a thing for the appeal to authority--however questionable the authority to begin with--so I have to do my part. |
|
Wed Jul 07, 2010 8:02 pm |
|
|
 
|
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 14, 15, 16
All times are GMT - 6 Hours. The time now is Wed May 22, 2013 8:54 am
|
|
|
|
| |
