next »

[gimymblert]

I'm not into star trek either, I know just has much as you.

But I don't think it's purely logical, I react when I feel something, when it does not feel right I react. Maybe we are better at reflecting on what we feel to put word on them. I'm not thinking too deep when I speak here, I'm just saying what I feel. I don't read as much as paul eres for exemple, I'm pretty uneducated about pure book content.

You aked me if my knowledge came from animu, the truth is that it came from people and looking around me. I care for people, my knowledge about animu is one passionate friend I met who gladly share and introduce me to many works until I was fluent enough, it's the same guy who introduced me to the rpg making community, the jap quirky little game and jap dating sims mechanics. The kind of guy who can't stop talking about what they like and sharing it, like you ask one episode he send you all the series and spin off and expect you to have see them all in one weeks.

The same here, On tigs I learn a lot about aspect of game culture I wasn't part of, And take part on thread like this is also a way to learn how people think and point me to new knowledge. A lot of people confuse me for an introspective person, i'm not. Most of the time my knowledge is incomplete but address part not usually covered because of that, I'm always having the differing perspective wherever group i'm assimilate to.

Also because my knowledge come from sharing with people, it's better integrated together instead of having expert analysis segregate from other field. I think this last part, cross referencing multi field give people a strong impression of knowledge and logic which is just an illusion, it's observation through sheer repetition, a lot people don't care much about more than their field of knowledge. Also because I also practice with people I have a bit of knowledge that came with experience. Sharing knowledge is also sharing ritual and culture, things that are intangible with a books or other storage device.

I'm not limited to myself, but I tend to have some assurance (believing in myself) that is characterized by people with ego. If sharing is just patting on my back I don't like it, I would rather see you standing fiercely for you value, showing that they are important tou yo to me. Thankfully this board is full of people I can respect for that.

[Nix]

I used to get really into this discussion, but I realize now that I don't give a shit. games are games and I like them and you should too

[XRA]

 

[im9today]

but are theys art 

[cystem glitch]

Data was crafted... is he art?


And was his creator independent, or did he have intrusive financial backing? Android construction can't possibly be cheap.


Spock is half human, and Data has an emotion chip that gets installed. It causes him to say 'Shit' when his ship gets blowed up, I know, I seen it. So this begs the question, does Paul Eres have a yet uninstalled Emotion Chip? Does it run on Atari hardware? Will it make him a real boy?


If you installed it in Gimmy would he suddenly speak coherent English? If you installed it in David Caruso would he outgrow games that lack depth?


This thread raises too many questions, questions that the powers that be don't want answered...

[gimymblert]

The plot thickens, or maybe just chickens

[DavidCaruso]

This thread's balance is shifted too much away from games. To remedy this I think we should talk about the games that don't lack depth, and how they are more artistic than the cheeseburger Rohrer and Fish had at that restaurant where the lights are always off (but not more artistic than the ensuing romance and one-night stand which followed in the darkness.)

[s0]

this thread wasn't even about games until just now.

[anonymous]

this thread wasn't even about games until just now.

   

[moi]

arts and crafts
more crafts=more art

[mirosurabu]

There's no such thing as objectively bad art but there are more or less intelligent subjective standards. Subjectivity doesn't mean everything is equal.

There are so many problems with this.

1. If there are intelligent standards then there is objectively bad art. It is the art that exclusively appeals to less intelligent standards.

2. People do not agree as to what is more and what is less intelligent. You cannot tell if a person who does everything by himself is more intelligent than a person who does exactly the same by making other people do it for him.

3. Tastes are subjective which implies they are equal. In theory, you can make objective standards (though nobody ever has) which determine whether art is good or bad relatively to them. However, you cannot then tell which standards are more and which standards are less intelligent because it would directly involve subjectivity.

[s0]

1. If there are intelligent standards then there is objectively bad art. It is the art that exclusively appeals to less intelligent standards.

yeah but it would be objectively bad according to a subjective standard.

[anonymous]

being on two sides of the same fence

[DavidCaruso]

1. If there are intelligent standards then there is objectively bad art. It is the art that exclusively appeals to less intelligent standards.

Not "objectively." Objectivity implies a universally shared perspective. If I say that something is "objectively" bad then I'm essentially saying by definition that its badness is a quality which should be readily apparent to every human with functioning eyes and ears, in the same way that the sky is "objectively" blue. However, obviously this isn't the case with any art. Transformers 2 isn't an objectively bad movie, it's just a movie which appeals mostly to people with bad taste and/or low standards, and it's perfectly good (even great) for said people. I could tell a person who loved the movie all day about how bad I thought it was, their opinion isn't going to change unless their tastes change (if they ever do.)

2. People do not agree as to what is more and what is less intelligent. You cannot tell if a person who does everything by himself is more intelligent than a person who does exactly the same by making other people do it for him.

Why do people need to agree?

3. Tastes are subjective which implies they are equal.

Wrong. All people are obviously not equal. Why should their tastes (which are linked to, and in fact are a core part of who they are) be equal?

However, you cannot then tell which standards are more and which standards are less intelligent because it would directly involve subjectivity.

You can't tell universally (i.e. objectively.) However, you can rank standards subjectively, from your own perspective. And here the value of your own perspective to other people, of course, depends on how intelligent and experienced you are.

[XRA]

 

[gimymblert]

Sorry the sky isn't blue, that's a fact  
They are equal in difference, when everything is different, nothing is

/forever contradicting

[anonymous]

A nice article
http://www.stylus-monkey.com/advice

[mirosurabu]

Objectivity does not imply universally shared perspective. What objectivity implies is the ability to replicate results. However, replicating results is often not an easy task as it requires elaborate steps to come to the same conclusions, as well as giving up on your emotions. In the case of simple things such as "sky is blue" the replication process is so easy and painless that it guarantees universal agreement. However, there is a great deal of objective knowledge that people do not universally accept and the reason for that is because some of them can't be bothered to examine the available evidence and because happy-ending fairy-tales are always more fun.

In short, something does not cease to be objective because it's not universally accepted.

A lot of your arguments are presented as facts and it's hard to take them as something else mainly because your arguments would cease to be arguments and would just end up being opinions. You're implying that there is objectively bad taste; and at the same time you're saying that there isn't such thing as objectively bad art; and that's a contradiction right there.

You can't tell universally (i.e. objectively.) However, you can rank standards subjectively, from your own perspective. And here the value of your own perspective to other people, of course, depends on how intelligent and experienced you are.

You're implying that intelligence and experience are observable, but they are not.

You're also relying on argument from authority fallacy which is so common among snobs and pseudoscientists these days.

[mirosurabu]

Wrong. All people are obviously not equal. Why should their tastes (which are linked to, and in fact are a core part of who they are) be equal?

Even if people are not equal, their tastes are not necessarily equally inequal.

Art that embodies primitive or undeveloped cultures is not necessarily bad art, unless you choose to hate on it because it represents primitive cultures. But that's a choice dude, a choice based on some random emotions you have that you're not even aware of.

Besides that, art that embodies supposedly more intelligent ideas is not necessarily better than art that embodies less intelligent ones. Games that embody quantum theory in great detail are not more intelligent than games that embody supposedly primitive ideas such as combat.

Of course, you can now come up with all sorts of justifications but that's not the point. The point is that intelligence is subjective as well as decision whether embodying primitive and even wrong ideas is really hurting art.

[Nix]

equal != equivalent