Art is someone else's portrayal of a reality. It is not yours.
There's an art to everything.
Videogames are a way to immerse yourself in an alternate reality that someone has dreamed up and created, painstakingly rendering it to the best of their ability. Like a 3-D version of a painting, you could say. Or rather, I could say.
Saying that no artist would ever create to cater to the general public is really just complete and utter ignorance. You're giving far too much credit to the average artist. An artist creates so as to embody their vision for the pleasure of one's self or others. A game designer has taken it past the boundaries of a traditional sequence of images and scripts and has combined them to envelop the gamer in the world created.
It is a combination of many arts in some cases, while you could argue that some are just the total lack of art altogether, the talents of someone writing, another illustrating, and yet someone else using their art in the technical aspects of fusing together visuals, sounds, motion, interaction and accesibility.
Does an artist work only to bore people?
I doubt it, for the most part. Art is meant to interest, to entertain. Perhaps it is not intriguing to everyone, but you can't define art so narrowly.
I can't do it justice anyway, but I do try.
Video games are like art for the masses. Not everyone has the time to walk into a museum to stand in awe of the masterpieces.
But there's also some crap hanging in galleries that somehow qualifies as art that look like a two-year old took just took fingerpaint.
Art is not so easily defined. Art is something appealing or aesthetically intriguing. Not something a scholar or curator or thespian can define alone.
I'm a person with a pretty well-rounded appreciation of the arts (the daughter of an artist, as a matter of fact,) and I see nothing wrong with enjoying video games.
being relatively new to slashdot, I suppose it would help if I posted enough to really care about karma. I'd rather build up good karma IRL, thank you. Pardon my curiosity as to what others think, anyway.
Sad that I could see that really happening. Now I want to make a shirt that says that.. As I've said before - You can't be honest when you talk about the meaning of your work, because people are more likely to buy something when you tell them it epitomizes human struggle rather than tell them truthfully that you wanted to make something someone would buy to hang above their couch.
Ironic, isn't it? America was founded for many reasons, and freedom of speech was one of the rights granted back then. Why doesn't it apply now? Let's do a history lesson, hm? The first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fourteenth Amendment, section one: Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It is unlawful to inhibit the free speech of any citizen of the US. Honestly, let him have an opinion. If they arrested *everyone* making derogatory comments on the internet, half the nation might as well be in jail.
Downloading music over the internet has gotten me to buy more cds than I'd like to admit. Using Napster, Morpheus, Scour, Audiogalaxy, etc, I've discovered a wealth of great bands that would not have been known to me otherwise.
A big gripe about the music industry is that they do not promote talent as much as image, which is a pity. While a company is busy shoving their newest plastic idol down the throats of the public, an earnest, talented band is being completely under-marketed and unheard by many who could appreciate them.
A while ago (quite a while ago,) a friend sent me a link to an article written by Courtney Love about her opinion of Napster, mp3s, filesharing, etc. I am not really much of a Courtney fan, myself, but I read it anyway. It remains one of my favorite arguments for filesharing today.
Essentially, it said that,
1- Buying a cd does not directly promote the artist. They rarely see the money.
2- mp3 quality is often encoded so that the sound is not as good as what you could buy in the store.
3- If you like a band, you can go out and buy their cd, and now own higher-quality versions of the tracks you already have enjoyed, instead of mediocre rips.
A good example of utilizing the possiblities of mp3 is what quite a few smaller bands do. Rosebud (http://home.mindspring.com/~macnab/) offers lo-fi (but still listenable) full-length versions of the tracks on their cd. On another site (unfortunately, I can't think of the name of the band for the life of me,) they had used streaming audio in such a way that, while on the site, you could listen to all of the group's releases in their entirety.
It's too bad that the RIAA doesn't see the potential of the filesharing phenomenon.
Slashdot Mirror
Art is someone else's portrayal of a reality. It is not yours.
There's an art to everything.
Videogames are a way to immerse yourself in an alternate reality that someone has dreamed up and created, painstakingly rendering it to the best of their ability. Like a 3-D version of a painting, you could say. Or rather, I could say.
Saying that no artist would ever create to cater to the general public is really just complete and utter ignorance. You're giving far too much credit to the average artist. An artist creates so as to embody their vision for the pleasure of one's self or others. A game designer has taken it past the boundaries of a traditional sequence of images and scripts and has combined them to envelop the gamer in the world created.
It is a combination of many arts in some cases, while you could argue that some are just the total lack of art altogether, the talents of someone writing, another illustrating, and yet someone else using their art in the technical aspects of fusing together visuals, sounds, motion, interaction and accesibility.
Does an artist work only to bore people?
I doubt it, for the most part. Art is meant to interest, to entertain. Perhaps it is not intriguing to everyone, but you can't define art so narrowly.
I can't do it justice anyway, but I do try.
Video games are like art for the masses. Not everyone has the time to walk into a museum to stand in awe of the masterpieces.
But there's also some crap hanging in galleries that somehow qualifies as art that look like a two-year old took just took fingerpaint.
Art is not so easily defined. Art is something appealing or aesthetically intriguing. Not something a scholar or curator or thespian can define alone.
I'm a person with a pretty well-rounded appreciation of the arts (the daughter of an artist, as a matter of fact,) and I see nothing wrong with enjoying video games.
being relatively new to slashdot, I suppose it would help if I posted enough to really care about karma. I'd rather build up good karma IRL, thank you.
Pardon my curiosity as to what others think, anyway.
Did you even look at the article?
"Yeah, XBox is a computer game, man!"
Sad that I could see that really happening.
Now I want to make a shirt that says that..
As I've said before - You can't be honest when you talk about the meaning of your work, because people are more likely to buy something when you tell them it epitomizes human struggle rather than tell them truthfully that you wanted to make something someone would buy to hang above their couch.
Are they going to have certain developers contributing? If so, who do you think would appear?
Ironic, isn't it? America was founded for many reasons, and freedom of speech was one of the rights granted back then.
Why doesn't it apply now?
Let's do a history lesson, hm?
The first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Fourteenth Amendment, section one:
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
It is unlawful to inhibit the free speech of any citizen of the US. Honestly, let him have an opinion. If they arrested *everyone* making derogatory comments on the internet, half the nation might as well be in jail.
But you know that's it's probably too good to be true. Most things like that are.
Downloading music over the internet has gotten me to buy more cds than I'd like to admit. Using Napster, Morpheus, Scour, Audiogalaxy, etc, I've discovered a wealth of great bands that would not have been known to me otherwise.
A big gripe about the music industry is that they do not promote talent as much as image, which is a pity. While a company is busy shoving their newest plastic idol down the throats of the public, an earnest, talented band is being completely under-marketed and unheard by many who could appreciate them.
A while ago (quite a while ago,) a friend sent me a link to an article written by Courtney Love about her opinion of Napster, mp3s, filesharing, etc. I am not really much of a Courtney fan, myself, but I read it anyway. It remains one of my favorite arguments for filesharing today.
Essentially, it said that,
1- Buying a cd does not directly promote the artist. They rarely see the money.
2- mp3 quality is often encoded so that the sound is not as good as what you could buy in the store.
3- If you like a band, you can go out and buy their cd, and now own higher-quality versions of the tracks you already have enjoyed, instead of mediocre rips.
A good example of utilizing the possiblities of mp3 is what quite a few smaller bands do. Rosebud (http://home.mindspring.com/~macnab/) offers lo-fi (but still listenable) full-length versions of the tracks on their cd. On another site (unfortunately, I can't think of the name of the band for the life of me,) they had used streaming audio in such a way that, while on the site, you could listen to all of the group's releases in their entirety.
It's too bad that the RIAA doesn't see the potential of the filesharing phenomenon.