Ant
1. you are very creepy, but your technical skills are impressive.
2. you and Neph are already married. I remember because my GOT gif game was 100% on point. What are you playing at?
Dave
YouTube video
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/politics/election-day-story/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2014/2014-midterm-elections
Should I be happy that the Republicans have taken back control of Congress, or concerned that even less shit is going to be compromised on because both parties hate each other? Or should I not even care because the Illuminati really controls everything?
He almost assuredly got it off one of his tumblr blogs, so he probably doesn't know.
It's a dumb argument to make though. One of the pivotal aspects about art is that it is immune to the critical eye. You can depict a picture of a guy decapitating a toddler with a sledgehammer and immunize yourself to criticism by saying "durr its a metaphor".
edit- Also, am doing my homework and what do I suddenly get bombarded with.
Get out of my head, damn it!
Originally posted by psmith81992
http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/04/politics/election-day-story/index.html?hpt=hp_t1http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2014/2014-midterm-elections
Should I be happy that the Republicans have taken back control of Congress, or concerned that even less shit is going to be compromised on because both parties hate each other? Or should I not even care because the Illuminati really controls everything?
Why are Democrats such terrible politicians, Dave?
They're mostly good peoples, but they suck ****ing ass at the Game.
Yeah, that's BS. All art is open to criticism. Just because people can call it subjective and metaphorical doesn't mean that we can't pick it apart, interpret it, talk about how you feel about it and shit.
Games are just as open to stuffy assholes talking about it's representations of women as all those books I studied in university were or the themes in the Dark Knight or whatever.
Originally posted by NemeBroAbstract art's existence.
Based on?
Originally posted by NephthysI've never heard anyone say you can't "pick it apart, interpret it, talk about how you feel about it and shit." in regards to video games, either.
Yeah, that's BS. All art is open to criticism. Just because people can call it subjective and metaphorical doesn't mean that we can't pick it apart, interpret it, talk about how you feel about it and shit.Games are just as open to stuffy assholes talking about it's representations of women as all those books I studied in university were or the themes in the Dark Knight or whatever.
I have heard people say "it's just a game" in response to criticisms, but then people make the exact same appeal for every other art form, which is my point.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
I've never heard anyone say you can't "pick it apart, interpret it, talk about how you feel about it and shit." in regards to video games, either.I have heard people say "it's just a game" in response to criticisms, but then people make the exact same appeal for every other art form, which is my point.
Well not really. People wanted games to be taken seriously as an artform but part of that is that they're open to criticism over the problematic aspects of them. Which people hate. They are saying you can't pick it apart and identify shitty aspects of it. The games culture has been kind of tearing itself apart for a few years partially because of this issue.
Originally posted by TzeentchWhich is analyzed by art critics.
Abstract art's existence.
I mean sure, the artist can try to deflect a scathing review with "Oh you just don't understand it" or to use your words "it's a metaphor", but that doesn't make it immune to a critical analysis, which I admittedly don't think was the point you were making. Was it?
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Nephthys' little picture either. You may recall a certain acquaintance we both had who does indeed want critical analysis (typically feminist or racially charged) to be kept out of gaming. He also doesn't really want games to be considered as art. Which is stupid IMO but not hypocritical.
Nephthys, can you link the kotaku page?
Originally posted by NephthysYou don't need to be "open to criticism" for your work to be considered art, though.
Well not really. People wanted games to be taken seriously as an artform but part of that is that they're open to criticism over the problematic aspects of them. Which people hate. They are saying you can't pick it apart and identify shitty aspects of it. The games culture has been kind of tearing itself apart for a few years partially because of this issue.
George R. R. Martin has probably received thousands of hate-mail over his lifetime complaining about the rampant amounts of violence toward women and children in his books- he also probably has never given a single **** about those criticisms and many of his fans will defend his "art" under the pretenses that "he's just telling a story".
Originally posted by NemeBro
Which is analyzed by art critics.I mean sure, the artist can try to deflect a scathing review with "Oh you just don't understand it" or to use your words "it's a metaphor", but that doesn't make it immune to a critical analysis, which I admittedly don't think was the point you were making. Was it?
Don't get me wrong, I don't agree with Nephthys' little picture either. You may recall a certain acquaintance we both had who does indeed want critical analysis (typically feminist or racially charged) to be kept out of gaming. He also doesn't really want games to be considered as art. Which is stupid IMO but not hypocritical.
Nephthys, can you link the kotaku page?
I'm not asserting that art can't be criticized, I'm asserting that acknowledging peoples' criticisms and taking it into account when creating your work isn't required in order for something to be art, due to the "muh expression clause." So I don't see why it's surprising that when people point out the lack of equal-exposure for minorities in video games, or the excessive violence etc, the gaming community blows a raspberry in response. That's more or less the typical response from "artists" in response to criticism of their work.
Originally posted by NemeBro
Nephthys, can you link the kotaku page?
Originally posted by Tzeentch
You don't need to be "open to criticism" for your work to be considered art, though.George R. R. Martin has probably received thousands of hate-mail over his lifetime complaining about the rampant amounts of violence toward women and children in his books- he also probably has never given a single **** about those criticisms and many of his fans will defend his "art" under the pretenses that "he's just telling a story".
All of that hate mail is vastly overshadowed by the fan mail he gets for his portrayal of women and children though.
Most of his fans that aren't idiots wouldn't defend his art under the pretense that he is "just telling a story". That's a coward's cop-out response. Most would defend it by highlighting the tone of the work, maybe citing historical precedent, and by rightly pointing out that for all the women and children that die in the books far more men die.
I'm not asserting that art can't be criticized, I'm asserting that acknowledging peoples' criticisms and taking it into account when creating your work isn't required in order for something to be art, due to the "muh expression clause." So I don't see why it's surprising that when people point out the lack of equal-exposure for minorities in video games, or the excessive violence etc, the gaming community blows a raspberry in response. That's more or less the typical response from "artists" in response to criticism of their work.
Sure it's not, but that doesn't make the criticisms go away nor does it make them invalid. If your art can't be adequately defended against criticism, even if you continue to sell well, then the criticisms are probably valid.
And hey, I'd agree that it continues to be art, because art is inherently subjective, which I am pretty sure you believe as well. But if I analyze a work and find it to be wanting, then it still isn't good art. Not by my standards anyway.
Is it really the typical response from artists? I can't recall the last time it was.
I also can't recall the last time that was a typical response from a game developer either. I can think of a few examples (Like Hideki Kamiya's responses to criticism), but overall? Nah.
Originally posted by NephthysDon't give a **** then.
It's a comment from someone called Arden.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
You don't need to be "open to criticism" for your work to be considered art, though.George R. R. Martin has probably received thousands of hate-mail over his lifetime complaining about the rampant amounts of violence toward women and children in his books- he also probably has never given a single **** about those criticisms and many of his fans will defend his "art" under the pretenses that "he's just telling a story".
Well you kind of do, since you can't create a work of art that's free from criticism and when you create a work of art it's open to criticism by default. Theres no need, but all art is open to criticism. Basically everything is. As you said, people sometimes deflect attempts at criticism by saying it's just a game or whatever. In the past, few people considered games worthy of serious examination. Since gamers and games makers have made it so that video games are considered less as childish nonsense and more as a serious medium, people are naturally going to examine it as such. The thing wasn't suggesting that games "need" to be open to criticism to be considered art, just that since they're going to be considered as serious works people shouldn't throw a bitchfit when people apply serious social critical analysis to it.
Who gives a **** about that? The issue isn't about whether Martin cares about his critics, the issue is that people don't want games to be criticized for having shitty depictions of women or promoting negative values or perceptions. You're focusing on the wrong thing and generally missing the point, lol.
Originally posted by Tzeentch
I'm not asserting that art can't be criticized, I'm asserting that acknowledging peoples' criticisms and taking it into account when creating your work isn't required in order for something to be art, due to the "muh expression clause." So I don't see why it's surprising that when people point out the lack of equal-exposure for minorities in video games, or the excessive violence etc, the gaming community blows a raspberry in response. That's more or less the typical response from "artists" in response to criticism of their work.
Artists rarely send death threats to people criticising their works though. They may disregard and poo poo what the person says, but they're not going to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to make those kinds of criticisms in the first place.
