Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dias Ex Machina" data-source="post: 5163047" data-attributes="member: 58907">God I love this conversation....If the comic was presented as is, I would not have been upset.&nbsp; It was the blog.&nbsp; I found the comic funny.&nbsp; I know I have said this before; I just need to stress it.&nbsp; &quot;The wrong side of history&quot; is misleading.&nbsp; It is also incredibly arrogant.&nbsp; By claiming &quot;the wrong side of history&quot; one is saying, &quot;I am right in this and in the future, where I am vindicated, you will be condemned.&quot;&nbsp; Beyond the fact that the future is not certain by any means, this also brings up an interesting point.&nbsp; Ebert claims games &quot;will never be art&quot; which is an equal arrogant presumption.&nbsp; His point is that it would have been made by now.&nbsp; It is not like the days of Pong.&nbsp; The graphics have reached a point where this &quot;game&quot; which is an example of art would have been made.&nbsp; Now, I think the game has been made (Flower) but Ebert doesn't see it that way.&nbsp; Now, I do have a problem with the statement, &quot;Sun orbits the Earth&quot;.&nbsp; The earth revolving around the sun is a scientific fact.&nbsp; It can be measured and proven by the scientific method.&nbsp; The judgment of art is opinionated and subjective.&nbsp; You can't rate every potential work of art in every format on a universally accepted scale of &quot;one to ten Picassos.&quot;&nbsp; What is considered art and what is not is based on personal opinion and cannot be overridden by public opinion.&nbsp; Yes, some overwhelming public approval will class a work of creation as art but there are voices still holding back in the video game debate.Here is another point to consider.&nbsp; I was at work when I posted the earlier message.&nbsp; I asked my coworkers what they thought.&nbsp; I am 35 years of age.&nbsp; My many staff members range in age between as young as 19 and as old as...21.&nbsp; Upon being asked, I was shocked to find half of them felt that video games were not art.&nbsp; They contained art, but as one said, &quot;I don't consider board games art.&quot;&nbsp; Being old is no reason to discredit an argument.&nbsp; I am having this same debate with a friend of mine that insists that Norman Borlaug is incorrect in his views of agriculture, and said his wife was correct because she had done the research for her thesis and that Borlaug was out of date.&nbsp; I have explained to him that when his wife has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal, and the National Medal of Science, I'll put her above Norman Borlaug.&nbsp; Until then, Norman wins.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dias Ex Machina, post: 5163047, member: 58907"] God I love this conversation.... If the comic was presented as is, I would not have been upset. It was the blog. I found the comic funny. I know I have said this before; I just need to stress it. "The wrong side of history" is misleading. It is also incredibly arrogant. By claiming "the wrong side of history" one is saying, "I am right in this and in the future, where I am vindicated, you will be condemned." Beyond the fact that the future is not certain by any means, this also brings up an interesting point. Ebert claims games "will never be art" which is an equal arrogant presumption. His point is that it would have been made by now. It is not like the days of Pong. The graphics have reached a point where this "game" which is an example of art would have been made. Now, I think the game has been made (Flower) but Ebert doesn't see it that way. Now, I do have a problem with the statement, "Sun orbits the Earth". The earth revolving around the sun is a scientific fact. It can be measured and proven by the scientific method. The judgment of art is opinionated and subjective. You can't rate every potential work of art in every format on a universally accepted scale of "one to ten Picassos." What is considered art and what is not is based on personal opinion and cannot be overridden by public opinion. Yes, some overwhelming public approval will class a work of creation as art but there are voices still holding back in the video game debate. Here is another point to consider. I was at work when I posted the earlier message. I asked my coworkers what they thought. I am 35 years of age. My many staff members range in age between as young as 19 and as old as...21. Upon being asked, I was shocked to find half of them felt that video games were not art. They contained art, but as one said, "I don't consider board games art." Being old is no reason to discredit an argument. I am having this same debate with a friend of mine that insists that Norman Borlaug is incorrect in his views of agriculture, and said his wife was correct because she had done the research for her thesis and that Borlaug was out of date. I have explained to him that when his wife has been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the Congressional Gold Medal, and the National Medal of Science, I'll put her above Norman Borlaug. Until then, Norman wins. [/QUOTE]

Verification