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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dias Ex Machina" data-source="post: 5160510" data-attributes="member: 58907"><Something I wrong in the PA forum>I am incorrect (though no one has pointed it out) comparing Tycho's final remark about artwork and my counter about monkeys at a typewriter. Art is a directed intent and Monkeys at a typewriter is an example of finding patterns in chaos. I am incorrect in that one.I will then stress that artwork is the intent by a creator or creators to present something which can be interpreted by another. I want to emphasize "interpret". If it is a directed to someone with only one opinion by the creator, it's more an essay than an expression to be pondered. Artwork's validity as art is entirely based on the viewer. In which case, everything can be art but it is a narrow field confined to the viewer. Also remember that art can be a closed loop intended just for the artist. It is still art if the artist feels it is and shows it to no one.Games can be art, as can automobiles or houses, but this is my opinion. In fact, trying to define artwork as a term can also be considered offensive. Ebert's point about games being interactive is also questionable as artwork is interactive but not in ways readily measured. Some performance artwork have been directly interactive. What you get from the experience is why it becomes art. Roger then pushes the point by saying you complete a game, and artwork refuses such confines of "completion". This is valid but once again stems from his view of artwork. Is your time viewing the Mona Lisa not "complete" when you walk away from it? Games can have resonance for hours after you walk away from it, as can any movie, book, or painting.My defense of Ebert derives from his intelligence and my respect of his opinion. My criticism of him comes the fact that I simply disagree with him this time. I understand PA also disagrees with him but to go on such a venomous attack--disregarding him like they did--I feel devalues the worth of their argument.I will clarify my criticism on the record. I found the comic hilarious. Absolutely. The first two frames are exactly what I expect from PA. The last frame was Jerry making his valid point. Now if the comic stood on its own, I wouldn't have spoken up. It is the blog I responded so disapprovingly over. They direct as much fervor and firepower as their attacks against Jack Thompson. I mean "reeking ejaculate"? "Wretched, ancient warlock?" This is Roger Ebert. He adores science fiction, loves anime. He supports avant-garde filmmaking and has rained praise on some of the most controversial works in history. Yes, I have disagreed with him in the past and disagree with him here, but he doesn't deserve those words.Art defies definition. It is, by its very nature, opinionated. Determining the artistic value of a work ranks up there as one the most vocal debates in history, placed just below religion, sovereign territorial rights, and our favorite transformer.When I watch Jon Stewart, he does likewise ("Go F$%& yourselves" just last week) but he goes after people who are morally and ethically my opposite. We cheer on PA when they went after Thompson. Is my opinion manipulated because of my respect of Roger Ebert?Yes.I admit I am...but that is because I value his opinion. I respect both Jerry and Roger so I was bothered to see them in discord. I do give a s$%&# what Roger Ebert says, because he is not a creature.Roger Ebert...is an artist.</blockquote>

Verification