Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sunseeker" data-source="post: 6230118">Being a &quot;science&quot; or an &quot;art&quot; doesn't mean something can't progress in a generally upward direction.&nbsp; While there are certainly different styles in art, that doesn't mean that there aren't arguably more skilled pieces within those styles.&nbsp; Even art as a whole has generally improved in technical quality, skill and so on, there are techniques and methods that we never knew about 500 years ago that are used to create art.&nbsp; There is science in art.&nbsp; The idea that art is some kind of wishy-washy &quot;do whatever you want&quot; genre where anything goes because it's art and YOU CAN'T JUDGE ME!! is an obnoxious and totally false conception.Even pure mathematics can be artistic, because a lot of art relies heavily on mathematics.&nbsp; You may not see the math in a great painting as you would in a fractal, but that doesn't mean it's not there.&nbsp; Our definition of &quot;art&quot; and &quot;beauty&quot; are tied to our mathematical perceptions(regardless of if you are aware of them).&nbsp; &quot;Art&quot; and &quot;science&quot; are not a dichotomous pair.Game design improves just as anything does, it &quot;moves on&quot; from what didn't work, what wasn't popular, and just changes over time, people try new things (see: cubism) and sometimes those things succeed in becoming considered &quot;art&quot; or not.&nbsp; So yes, game design has &quot;moved on&quot; because change is inevitable.&nbsp; Whether or not game design has learned from it's mistakes is a better question.&nbsp; Science and art, just as game design, does not always do that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sunseeker, post: 6230118"] Being a "science" or an "art" doesn't mean something can't progress in a generally upward direction. While there are certainly different styles in art, that doesn't mean that there aren't arguably more skilled pieces within those styles. Even art as a whole has generally improved in technical quality, skill and so on, there are techniques and methods that we never knew about 500 years ago that are used to create art. There is science in art. The idea that art is some kind of wishy-washy "do whatever you want" genre where anything goes because it's art and YOU CAN'T JUDGE ME!! is an obnoxious and totally false conception. Even pure mathematics can be artistic, because a lot of art relies heavily on mathematics. You may not see the math in a great painting as you would in a fractal, but that doesn't mean it's not there. Our definition of "art" and "beauty" are tied to our mathematical perceptions(regardless of if you are aware of them). "Art" and "science" are not a dichotomous pair. Game design improves just as anything does, it "moves on" from what didn't work, what wasn't popular, and just changes over time, people try new things (see: cubism) and sometimes those things succeed in becoming considered "art" or not. So yes, game design has "moved on" because change is inevitable. Whether or not game design has learned from it's mistakes is a better question. Science and art, just as game design, does not always do that. [/QUOTE]

Verification