Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 5648070" data-attributes="member: 8835">how hard is it to fix DA's original statement so it doesn't use the bloody word art twice?  Danny demonstrated with Murder.Just so we can get off the circular reference problem.art is something created with the intent to evoke an emotional response in the viewerthere.  Done.  Does that still match the intended meaning that Danny was trying to say?  I hope so, as that was my intent.I supposed somebody can find some other flaw with my revised statement.Probably on these key words:intentevoke an emotional responsewrecan challenges "intent" as he's found a number of articles that do not use that word.  Intent could mean a lot of things:My intent for this painting was to make you feel the narwhal's plighti Intend to make a piece of artMy intent was to make this both functional and beautifulEvoking an emotional response is a common element of every definition I've read (all 2 of them).  But I suppose somebody could quibble that there's more to it than that.  Primarily so they can exclude certain things as qualifying as art (like hate speech, a poke in the eye).Like the example of a movie, I've seen enough common elements that D&D has with a movie or a video game (which have been recognized as art), particularly RPGs/sandboxes because they play like a movie where the player is the protagonist and thus is in control of the scenes.  How is D&D not like that?Furthermore, if D&D is more like a movie that is art, and Recognized Art considers a urinal to be art, I think it's like trying to tell Rosa Parks she can't ride the bus. Busses carry people, Rosa's a people.  Therefore Rosa can ride the bus.*  The bar is so low that a Urinal can be art, and that's so far away from what people would consider art, that something that actually has many common traits with a recognized artform should therefore merit the same respect.*And yes, I was trying to evoke an emotional response. Not one of disrespect, but of not excludingg because of some arbitrary preference.</blockquote>

Verification