No, since the topic is mostly illegal actions, which should be obvious from the reference to the Patriot Act and requests by authorities.
And ever if it wasn't, that does still does not equal "internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide". No part of that statement talks about not worrying.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
That is the actual quote. I am pretending nothing.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
Perhaps you can point out where in that he's saying "internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide"?
It is also not at all the argument he was making. But it's much more fun to just believe everything we hear on the internet rather than look up what he actually said!
No, and that is why he said that. It was a statement of fact: Police can and will request that information, so you shouldn't be providing it if you want to hide it.
Actually, Schmidt's quote can be better worded as saying "If you have something to hide, you shouldn't show it to the internet, because police can and will request that information from any provider, including Google".
But that doesn't sound at all as threatening, so let's just pretend he said something else!
Yes, I agree with most of that. I mostly meant what you said in the latter part there, but all of what you say is pretty much correct.
I'm not so much interested in arguing against Ebert here, I am more frustrated by the poor arguments made in response to him. Me, I don't think games can never be art, but I think it is crucial to admit that mot games are not art in any useful sense of the word.
No, you're just mixing up different questions: "Is this work art?" in answered by looking at the particular things it does and how it affects people. "Is this medium art?" is answered by looking at whether people make art using it. And "Can this medium be art?" is answered by finding an example of art in that medium.
Note that the answer to the two last questions need not be the same.
Everything on the planet can evoke feelings unrelated to it for someone. That is a useless definition of art, because it makes everything art.
No, it would have to communicate the same feeling to some reasonable amount of people for it to count. The fact that some guy makes bad pretentious art does not invalidate the concept, either.
And Tetris still does not really communicate anything beyond the obvious, so no, I'm still excluding it.
It is not so much a "deeper meaning", although that is a common way of doing it, but just subtlety. I think that is a reasonable definition, and I don't think "what impacts the viewer" is particularly reasonable, because as you say, then you suddenly include natural phenomena under the definition of "art", and that makes the term useless. It seems clear that if your definition for "art" includes things that are not created by man (or some other sentient entity) it is useless. (If you're religious and want to include your god as an artist, I suppose I'd have to accept that that definition is internally consistent, though.)
So, no, I can't accept that argument. I'd say that a piece of art made with absolutely no intent of anything but perfecting your craft is, in fact, not art, no matter if it is very pretty. It is craft, it is beautiful, it has great value, but it is just plain not art. This seems a better approach than broadening the term "art" to the point of uselessness.
You know, you make a good argument there, but when you try to enter an argument about art with lines like "Sorry... fail" you just come off as immature and nobody will take you very seriously except those who already agree with you.
Learn to state your argument in a mature fashion and you will have much more success making people listen to you.
It is a very important difference if you want to make the argument that your medium is artistic, as opposed to it having the possibility of being artistic. There are plenty of things that could possibly be used artistically, but are generally not, and that does not make those things particularly interesting or special.
In short: If you want to argue that games have merit because they are art, you have to actually have games that are art.
No, most of those can not be thought of as art under any reasonable definition. They are craft, certainly, finely made objects, produced with creativity and skill. But that is not art.
Art has a deeper meaning than what it directly presents. Art uses its medium to make a subtler point that is separate from the medium. I think such a definition does include Shadow of the Colossus, because it communicates a deeper point about choices and consequences, and it does it using conventions of the medium.
However, Tetris does not. Tetris has a single obvious purpose, and no underlying message. The same is true of almost ever other game on the list. I haven't played all of them, but out of the ones I've played I'd grant that Grim Fandango is a borderline case, but it's hard to say for sure: For instance, would it have any less impact as a movie than as a game? And if it doesn't, can it be cited as an example of a game as art? Is it just not a movie with some game put on top of it that adds nothing to the art itself?
Now, Shadow of the Colossus and Ico are some of my favourite games, and you can certainly make the argument they are art. But on the other hand, they expose a big flaw in the argument:
Apart from them, what other examples of games that could count as art are there? You might come up with some suggestions, but the list is very, very short. It's a pretty sorry state of affairs.
Maybe you can make games that are art, but is anyone actually doing it? Not really.
Actually, all they want to do is hold off the crackers for long enough that the people who must have the game right away have to buy it. Most of the sales happen right after release. At least, that's how they imagine it going.
Yes, Flash is horrible, but it is widely supported. And if you hate it, which you have every reason to, you should be unhappy about the way Mozilla is helping it thrive by refusing to use h.264.
Slashdot Mirror
No, since the topic is mostly illegal actions, which should be obvious from the reference to the Patriot Act and requests by authorities.
And ever if it wasn't, that does still does not equal "internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide". No part of that statement talks about not worrying.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
That is the actual quote. I am pretending nothing.
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place, but if you really need that kind of privacy, the reality is that search engines including Google do retain this information for some time, and it's important, for example that we are all subject in the United States to the Patriot Act. It is possible that that information could be made available to the authorities."
Perhaps you can point out where in that he's saying "internet users shouldn't worry about privacy unless they have something to hide"?
OK, let me take the learned man's position
The learned man's position is to distrust what he is told by strangers, and check facts for himself.
You didn't do that.
It is also not at all the argument he was making. But it's much more fun to just believe everything we hear on the internet rather than look up what he actually said!
No, and that is why he said that. It was a statement of fact: Police can and will request that information, so you shouldn't be providing it if you want to hide it.
Actually, Schmidt's quote can be better worded as saying "If you have something to hide, you shouldn't show it to the internet, because police can and will request that information from any provider, including Google".
But that doesn't sound at all as threatening, so let's just pretend he said something else!
"If Linux doesn't already do it, you don't need it anyway!"
How about continuing that list? Here's one suggestion: RealMedia.
Well, the problem is that the FA is from the Daily Mail, which makes Fox look like respectable journalism.
You're kidding, but I am this close to buying that argument.
(Imagine me making some kind of finger gesture there.)
Yes, I agree with most of that. I mostly meant what you said in the latter part there, but all of what you say is pretty much correct.
I'm not so much interested in arguing against Ebert here, I am more frustrated by the poor arguments made in response to him. Me, I don't think games can never be art, but I think it is crucial to admit that mot games are not art in any useful sense of the word.
No, you're just mixing up different questions: "Is this work art?" in answered by looking at the particular things it does and how it affects people. "Is this medium art?" is answered by looking at whether people make art using it. And "Can this medium be art?" is answered by finding an example of art in that medium.
Note that the answer to the two last questions need not be the same.
Not quite. None of them suffer anywhere the same kind of dearth of artistic material as games do.
I'm not arguing for Ebert here. I don't really care what he thinks or does not think.
I am merely stating that games, in general, as a medium, are currently not art. I agree that they could probably be, but overall, they are just not.
And I think the argument with Ebert would go much better if people would start by admitting this, and then work from there.
Everything on the planet can evoke feelings unrelated to it for someone. That is a useless definition of art, because it makes everything art.
No, it would have to communicate the same feeling to some reasonable amount of people for it to count. The fact that some guy makes bad pretentious art does not invalidate the concept, either.
And Tetris still does not really communicate anything beyond the obvious, so no, I'm still excluding it.
It is not so much a "deeper meaning", although that is a common way of doing it, but just subtlety. I think that is a reasonable definition, and I don't think "what impacts the viewer" is particularly reasonable, because as you say, then you suddenly include natural phenomena under the definition of "art", and that makes the term useless. It seems clear that if your definition for "art" includes things that are not created by man (or some other sentient entity) it is useless. (If you're religious and want to include your god as an artist, I suppose I'd have to accept that that definition is internally consistent, though.)
So, no, I can't accept that argument. I'd say that a piece of art made with absolutely no intent of anything but perfecting your craft is, in fact, not art, no matter if it is very pretty. It is craft, it is beautiful, it has great value, but it is just plain not art. This seems a better approach than broadening the term "art" to the point of uselessness.
You know, you make a good argument there, but when you try to enter an argument about art with lines like "Sorry... fail" you just come off as immature and nobody will take you very seriously except those who already agree with you.
Learn to state your argument in a mature fashion and you will have much more success making people listen to you.
It is a very important difference if you want to make the argument that your medium is artistic, as opposed to it having the possibility of being artistic. There are plenty of things that could possibly be used artistically, but are generally not, and that does not make those things particularly interesting or special.
In short: If you want to argue that games have merit because they are art, you have to actually have games that are art.
No, most of those can not be thought of as art under any reasonable definition. They are craft, certainly, finely made objects, produced with creativity and skill. But that is not art.
Art has a deeper meaning than what it directly presents. Art uses its medium to make a subtler point that is separate from the medium. I think such a definition does include Shadow of the Colossus, because it communicates a deeper point about choices and consequences, and it does it using conventions of the medium.
However, Tetris does not. Tetris has a single obvious purpose, and no underlying message. The same is true of almost ever other game on the list. I haven't played all of them, but out of the ones I've played I'd grant that Grim Fandango is a borderline case, but it's hard to say for sure: For instance, would it have any less impact as a movie than as a game? And if it doesn't, can it be cited as an example of a game as art? Is it just not a movie with some game put on top of it that adds nothing to the art itself?
Now, Shadow of the Colossus and Ico are some of my favourite games, and you can certainly make the argument they are art. But on the other hand, they expose a big flaw in the argument:
Apart from them, what other examples of games that could count as art are there? You might come up with some suggestions, but the list is very, very short. It's a pretty sorry state of affairs.
Maybe you can make games that are art, but is anyone actually doing it? Not really.
Actually, all they want to do is hold off the crackers for long enough that the people who must have the game right away have to buy it. Most of the sales happen right after release. At least, that's how they imagine it going.
put their piracy statistics through the roof
Clearly the game was a runaway success, but the DRM was just not strong enough.
Yes, Flash is horrible, but it is widely supported. And if you hate it, which you have every reason to, you should be unhappy about the way Mozilla is helping it thrive by refusing to use h.264.
IT'S NOT A BRA!