http://www.next-gen.biz/
Nice. Next-Gen still stands as probably the best example of good journalism in a videogame magazine, at least in the US, imo.
Printable View
http://www.next-gen.biz/
Nice. Next-Gen still stands as probably the best example of good journalism in a videogame magazine, at least in the US, imo.
Looks like it's a website only. Did you see where it says anything about a magazine, because that'd rock.
Welp:Drats, but this could still be cool.Quote:
Future Network USA has no current plans to launch a print version of Next Generation. The company currently publishes the following market-leading games publications in the USA: Official Xbox Magazine, PC Gamer and PSM: 100% Independent PlayStation 2 Magazine.
Good news, mostly.
I still remember the "Next Gen is anti-Sega" controversy. They then put out a special Saturn issue to quell the outcry.
This will be good news if they can get the original mag's feel back.
original feel from about the first 30 some odd issues i think...
maybe less even. started going down hill after that...
It was the best game mag, bar none.
Better than Gamefan.
They at least need someone who knows how to do a review. NG has a rep for degrading anything that isn't state-of-the-art graphically.
Sir could you please turn your controllers in.Quote:
Originally Posted by Korly
Their reviews were horrible. The mag's best aspect were the articles. Gamefan had and always probably will have the best reviews, ie...artwork, layout.
My favorite part of Next-Gen was the interviews.
They're still some of the best gaming interviews done. A website with those kind of hard-hitting interviews would raise the bar for website interviews, which are currently horrid.
I wasn't a big fan of their reviews at all... they always felt like graphics whores to me.
I bought the odd Next Gen here and there, but I don't think I read enough to see what made them the best in the biz. I definitely liked GameFan better, but hey, I was stupid when I was younger.
You only liked GF back then because you had taste, hopefully you hadn't lost it by now.
Reviews in NextGen were just something to glance through, the real point to buying an issue was all the stuff that came before. I generally got my issue's worth of entertainment out of it.
If this web site is worth reading, great. Thing is, NextGen is dead. They can do what they want with the name, I suppose, but the magazine has been dead for several years now and launching a new site with the name doesn't make it the old magazine.
James
I don't personally recognize the names, but a few guys at work say it's the same crew that ran Next-Gen Online back in the day before Daily Radar.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
Magazine was awesome, website was awesome (in its heyday).
This is the best news to happen in videogaming all year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NG.com
The reviews said everything a person needed to know about the game: whether it was worth your time and money or not. No fucking 6 page sprawls, annoying click through marijuana leaf ads, and awful, high school quality writing. The same goes for GameFan, which was shit too.Quote:
Originally Posted by James
I always thought the reviews were pretty superficial. It often felt like everything was measured against big budget releases. So if the graphics weren't as detailed as Metal Gear, regardless of the quality of art direction, then they were knocked.
But the editorial content was second to none, and if they can keep the same tone, this is a very good thing.
wasnt Next Generation basically the U.S version of EDGE in europe(UK)?
anyways, good to hear they're coming back!
I believe that they valued innovation and bold game design more than anything else. Thats why Neo Geo games never got over 4 stars, because every game on the platform was either a generic 2D fighter (lets face it, it was) or a generic 2D shooter. Different levels of competence, perhaps, but again, thats not what NG valued. They purposely awarded games that moved game design forward. I just pulled a random old NG off my shelf and saw that they gave Nanotek Warrior and Rocket Jockey 4 stars, for example, and neither of those games were top-shelf production value type stuff.Quote:
So if the graphics weren't as detailed as Metal Gear, regardless of the quality of art direction, then they were knocked.
Next Gen gave friggin' Turok 2 a perfect score. I hated their reviews. They were excellent for interviews and various other info. I liked how they combined console, arcade, and computer gaming although the downside is that there were often many games they didn't cover at all. At least with EGM or Gamefan they covered virtually everything coming out, for consoles anyway.
I dunno, nine times out of ten it seemed to me they were only really interested in a game if it had better graphics than the last one. They really did seem to value visuals and technology tricks in general over solid game design. And they usually had no time for anything that was a solid genre entry - fighters, shooters, what have you.
But they were cool because they could get an interview with anyone, and asked them grownup questions.
i dunno, "the way games ought to be..." articles (the later bunch anyway, when
they changed writers) never did sit well with me. The Interviews were nice...
i remember reading that crazy one where Kelly Flock made fun of the
madden crew and the then popular "liquid AI". the Trip Hawkins
interview was fun too.
Uhh... well, it seems to me that you are wrong.Quote:
I dunno, nine times out of ten it seemed to me they were only really interested in a game if it had better graphics than the last one.
They really didnt have any time for those games, and it wasnt a secret, they said it countless times in their letters section. Like I said they were looking for innovative, bold games, and they probably hated uninspired-but-competent games more than anything else (even more than just bad games).Quote:
And they usually had no time for anything that was a solid genre entry - fighters, shooters, what have you.
This doesnt mean that it was all rosy, though. They didnt really care for a game like Guardian Heroes because they were fairly enamored with 3D (but they did give games like Rayman, Worms, Castlevania:SOTN, and The Last Express great scores), but IMO the end justified the means, they just wanted to see gaming advance.
That Kelly Flock interview really was the absolute best thing I have ever--EVER--read in video game journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by amitavc
Can't argue that, their reviews were to the point and all, but my opinion of what's great and theirs differed often enough that I couldn't use their opinion to help me make a gaming purchase. I'm not going to argue whether a game deserved 4 or 5 stars, but when they gave games I really liked three or less (and Turok 2 5 stars?)then it's pretty obvious that my views on good gaming and theirs don't match up in a way that makes their reviews any help to me.Quote:
The reviews said everything a person needed to know about the game: whether it was worth your time and money or not.
It's the original online editors doing the new NextGen site? I've got to admit, my opinion of them just went up a few notches.
James
i hate 1-5 ratings/reviews. it reminds me of techTV reviews which used to piss me off.The difference between 4/5 and 90/100 is not the same! i much rather 1-10 reviews(ofcourse 10 being the highest number)
James, not to put too fine a point on it, but you like a lot of stupid garbage. Im really not surprised Next Gen's opinions didnt gel with yours. But even if I dont agree with a reviewer's opinion, I still respect them as long as they stick to their guns and have a clear vision of what they think is worthwhile and not. IGN, EGM, etc., they dont have that clear vision, NG did though.
NG's approach to game reviews was correct. Pretty much every other game review reads like a Car&Driver review...what's under the hood, how it handles, whether it's worth my money. That's great. If games are just going to be a hobby.
If gaming is to become an art, reviews should resemble this.
art-The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty
Anyway, ASIDE from that (because that's been done to death), who really cares about games as art? It is a hobby. An artful hobby.
What part of Halo, Counter-Strike, Doom, Tony Hawk, Street Fighter or Sonic meets this criteria?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
An artful hobby? Pardon, but what the heck is that? Art has something useful to say about the human condition. Until videogames start doing that, they are nothing more than diversions.
I can say a game is beautiful. It looks beautiful, sounds beautiful, is put together beautifully, etc. I don't need an external review to validate that (maybe you do).
"Art has something useful to say about the human condition"
I don't see that anywhere in any definition.
People call this art:
http://www.harley.com/art/abstract-a...er-(small).jpg
"Art" is a pretty broad concept.
Exactly ;p
Just because something is beautiful doesn't make it art.
If you want to argue that something doesn't have to shed light on what it means to be human in order for it to be considered art...well...be my guest. You'll be left arguing that Tic-Tac-Toe is art but don't let that stop you. :p
If I remember correctly (looks it up), I think it was Trevor Bell that said, "Art condenses the experience we all have as human beings, and, by forming it, makes it significant."
Trevor Bell isn't Merriam, Webster, or the rest of society though. And even so, games can fit that criteria.
edit: and he is standing next to a piece of crap...I bet that says a lot about the human experience.
I used to deride things I didn't (attempt to) understand. Then I grew up. But I won't discourage you from arguing abstract art is not really art. It will be hard to take you seriously, but go ahead.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
You've just made an appeal to the larger society for deciding what is (and what is not) art. If (part) of what makes something art is whether society accepts it as art, videogames are emphatically NOT art. They are playthings. Toys. Even tools. But not art.
Joust is saying art is a broad category, not one that excludes. At least I think so.
You haven't given any reason why videogames aren't art. Other than some definition you made up.
Granted, this is Devil's Advocate, because I don't consider the definition of "sport" to be sufficient.
Oh great, a "what is art" debate. These are always fun.
Architechture, on the whole, generally doesn't have much to say about the human condition. However, that doesn't mean it's not art.
Piercing dissonance isn't particularly beautiful, but that doesn't mean it can't be art.
Sorry, but claiming that all of videogames are not art because of Tony Hawk, Sonic, et al is like claiming that music isn't art because commercial jingles exist. The existence of commercial products does not preclude the existence of art within the same medium. And since no two people agree on what "art" actually is in the first place, it's a meaningless debate.
Uh...except that I've already done just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Listen to this man, he speaks with intelligence.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
Architecture has plenty to say about mankind's place in nature and the individual's place in society.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
Give me an example of a videogame that is art (there are a handful that have come dangerously close).Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
I'm just waiting for Bandit to post a free subscription link in his thread.
Video games I've played recently that have artistic qualities:
ICO, Rez, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, Gran Turismo 4, Killzone, Metal Gear Solid 1/2/3, Zone of the Enders, Siren, Street Fighter 3, Metroid Prime 1/2, Zelda Wind Waker, DOOM 3, Legend/Sword of Mana...
Videogames have plenty to say about mankind's competitive nature and our neverending struggle to acheive complete mastery of our surroundings.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
^________^
I can't, because we haven't actually definied what art is yet. Personally, I consider Ico, Syberia, Planescape, Ikaruga, THHGTTG (text adventure), etc. to be art to varying degrees. But then, there are those who think "art" is defined by the creator, and those who think it's defined by the observer. There are those who think it's defined by the form (in visual art, this would be the actual colors, shapes, etc) and those who think it's defined by what the form conveys.Quote:
Give me an example of a videogame that is art (there are a handful that have come dangerously close).
Define what art actually is, in a manner that everyone agrees with, and then we'll talk. Until then, it's just arguing in circles about something that we don't even define similarly.
This argument is over. Eveyone shut the fuck up now.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
sethsez has summed up nearly everything I have learned in art school in 3 years in the matter of 2 posts.
:tu: :tu: for you!
I think it's a matter of whether or not I want to pay 4.99 an issue to read one's blatherings about the epiphany on life he had while playing Wipeout Pure.
I could give a shit less.
I agree that many games exhibit artistic qualities.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
On what basis?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Incidentally, "art" is not a measure of quality. Things don't go "shite, awful, bad, mediocre, good, great, amazing, ART". Saying something is art doesn't inherantly imply that it's good.
But once again, this is all assuming that we're working from a common definition of art. Which we aren't.
So, is high school football an art? Of course it is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
Ah, so until we all see eye-to-eye, why bother? What are the chances we'll ever decide on anything if we never discuss anything? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
I think reasonable people can agree that art comments on the human condition AND is accepted as art by society. A hammer is not art. Neither is Hungry Hungry Hippos.
Interesting that Master of 7s posted a screenshot of a next-gen game. Next-gen will (hopefully) bring us games that take gaming in the direction of art.
Of course we agree on this.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
How can you have a discussion about whether something is art if there's a fundamental disagreement on what art actually is? Without that, there's not a single common element for the conversation to be grounded in and both parties just spin their wheels. It's like arguing about whether the sky is blue without first defining "blue."Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Actually, we (and many other people who have devoted lifetimes to this very discussion) do not agree on this.Quote:
I think reasonable people can agree that art comments on the human condition AND is accepted as art by society.
This art debate is stupid. I don't know why people try to judge if a game is art or not based on how it looks or its style. Games are the only medium that is interactive and is meant to be played so shouldn't that be factored into its art? Who fucking cars if a scene in a game looks pretty that is what movies are for. A Street Fighter 3 fight is art. 4 player Virtua Tennis is art. Doom is art. Tetris is art.
This very well sums up how they operated and why they kicked ass.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I'm curious who, of those who have 'devoted lifetimes to this very discussion', would argue that art is NOT defined by commenting on the human condition and that art is NOT defined by society.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
Because I can't think of anyone, outside of the poet-laureates on TNL, that seriously believe those two aspects are NOT a part of how art is defined. I should clarify that statement by saying that I cannot think of anyone, aside from the most radical of post-modernists (who would argue from the perspective that definitions are meaningless), who would agree with you.
I am not saying my criteria is SUFFICIENT. I'm just saying my criteria is NECESSARY. And I'm (very) open to hearing convincing arguments that show why my conditions are not necessary. Or why there ought to be other considerations taken into account.
Sam Tramiel's interview was pretty damn funny as well. He was comparing videogame consoles, to VCR's.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
Is Hungry Hungry Hippos art? Is Risk? Monopoly? Tiddlywinks? Interactivity =/= art.Quote:
Originally Posted by piku
Videogames have the potential to be the most powerful artform ever. They just aren't there yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
I read that one. Great stuff. I liked their Peter Moore interview too, but it was no where near the SOE one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
I trimmed your listed appropriately. I will add Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Saga and Orta.
The Mona Lisa was a commissioned painting of some merchant's wife. You're going to have to stretch reasoning so thin you couldn't use it as a condom to get that to apply to the human condition, yet countless people call it art without even thinking twice on the matter.
By it's very nature art isn't something you can quantify and break down into a simple to follow formula that allows you to judge whether something qualifies for its exhalted title or not. Art is all about it's effect on the viewer/listener in a way that moves them beyond the pure entertainment derived from the piece. Since not everyone is effected the same way, there can never be a clear cut definition.
Is interpretive dance art?
Thanks for shitting all over a good thread, guys.
Seriously. Good grief.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
And you're a big fat stinky-head.Quote:
James, not to put too fine a point on it, but you like a lot of stupid garbage.
Or to put it another way- obviously I disagree. I've got valid reasons for liking every single game in my collection, but justifying that isn't worth the time it would take to type it out.
Also, the "games as art" debate is a waste of time. I just watched and had a great time with Hong Kong Shuffle, and at no point will anyone argue its artistic merit. I'm playing games for entertainment, and if art happens along the way then it's a bonus. In the meantime I really don't need to justify why what I do when I'm kicking back and relaxing is worth the time it takes.
James
Most art is commissioned. Why would that preclude a work from having something to say about the human condition? I could go on for pages about what the ML has to say about Renaissance Italy, humanism and (shock!) the human condition. But enlightened discussion has no place in this thread (see: 'omgshittingalloverNGthreadbytalkingaboutart').Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammadeau
This is the old 'art is personal' argument and I remained unconvinced, for no other reason than it allows situations where an individual can say the plastic spork I picked up at Wendy's is art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ammadeau
No, its that this stupid topic has been done to death a hundred thousand times on ten thousand videogame forums and nobody has ever changed their opinion or convinced anyone of anything. Its a waste of time, and a meaningless argument. And besides, does it really matter what us dorks think about what art is and how it relates to current game design? Is any of us actually designing games? Is any of us actually gonna go out and try to change things? If you are planning to someday, then GREAT! But you already have your opinions and these so-called enlightened discussions arent gonna change them and you know it. Let's face it, art is a nebulous concept and opinions differ radically.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Lets just come to the realization that TNL, like every other internet site, is a big meaningless circle jerk so we might as well drop the pretention and have some fun.
Besides, havent you heard the old adage "the corporate world is a lot like Donkey Kong, no matter how far up the ladder you get there's always a big stupid ape above you"? OMG DONKEY KONG = HUMAN CONDITION = ARTS0R!
Shut up and stop being a pretentious asshat.
Yeah, but I could make those crap paintings in 5 minutes. I can't make the spork that well in an hour. And if art ISN'T PERSONAL, then what you linked to certainly isn't art because it doesn't mean jack crap to anyone other than the artist. OO SOME RED SQUIGGLES AND BLUE SPLOTTERS
I
am an apple
a bus floats next to me
a ant crawls upon me
an apple am
I
That is some art right there...actually, that is some bull
Thank you Captain Obvious. How many times does someone change their mind on a videogame forum? That's right, never. Does that mean having a discussion is worthless? No.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I think it *does* matter what 'us dorks' think about art and how it relates to videogames. If we refuse to grow up and only want to play 'entertaining' games or dead-end games that will never be art (see: old-school 2D shooters), videogames will not become art. I used to play games exclusively to be entertained and have a good time. Like watching football on TV. Now I want something a little more...meaty. I want something I can sink my teeth into and digest. I want something that will satisfy my curiosity about what it means to be human.
I want to make it clear that, althought I think I'm right, the whole point of having this discussion is to see if I really am. I want to talk w/ppl who disagree with me. I want to be convinced I'm wrong (or that I'm right). What a horrible way to go thru life, convinced of one's rightness and never talking with anyone who disagrees with you.
Unfortunately, that is impossible.
How many 2D shooters still come out? Think about it.
Besides, you know, one man against the world, everyone gunning for him, wow, sounds like the human condition and what it feels like to be down on your luck. TWO DEE SHOOTERS R ARTS0R TOO!
And its great that you have figured out the question that has troubled the world's greatest minds for thousands of years - "what is art". Thank you, The_Meach, for answering this question once and for all. Maybe now there can be peace.
Then stop chatting in TNL and start playing some Donkey Kong and 2D shooters.Quote:
I want something that will satisfy my curiosity about what it means to be human.
So The_Meach, what the fuck is "the human condition" anyway, and how do you manage to justify a building commenting on it while Ico (or Sonic, who cares) doesn't?
And you claim art isn't personal, and then in the same breath go right back to "commenting on the human condition" which is a concept so vague it might as well be meaningless. Who's to say what does and does not comment on the "human condition"?
btw nextgen were graphics whores
Chess or Go, sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Hungry Hungry Hippos is a game in which four hungry hippos square off and try to consume a limited amount of marbles. The hippo that "eats" the most amount of marbles is declared the winner. This feeding frenzy of a limited resource brings to mind the nature of our capitalist society. The results of the game stratifies the players along marble-grab lines, thus enforcing Marx's idea that all of reality is socially constructed. Marbles = power. It is a damning artistic statement, indeed.
However, there is a dealbreaker that gives light to the positive nature of the capitalistic reality. After each round all the marbles are put into play again and the players begin anew. Because of this, a person who ended the previous round in last place could ascend to the winner's circle. This is a statement of opportunity and the possibility for advancement within the capitalistic society, and is a powerful one.
lol.
If you could place Hungry Hungry Hippos in a gallery setting that evoked that context for the game, that would be legitimate. Pretty good, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by diffusionx
I think Meach's definiton isn't really what art is, but what good art is. I can think of like two videogames I'd qualify as good art. The vast majority of gaming is shallow & is a trash medium intended as consumable distraction, not a vehicle for self discovery and dialogue of the human spirit.
Doesn't mean Metroid or whatever isn't still cool, though.
Yup. Bad reviews, great interviews, and very hit-or-miss feature articles from month to month. But when they hit, they hit big.Quote:
Originally Posted by MarkRyan
This is like the argument over comic books as art all over again.
If that's what he's saying then he sucks at communicating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
EA's Madden is art. It says a lot about the human condition, and it ain't flattering.
Next Gen is blah. Wake me up when GameFan is coming back.
Human condition = what it means to be human. Hungry Hungry Hippos has *nothing* to say about what it means to be a person living in the world. Jackson Pollock's work does. This is partially due to purpose. HHP (or Monopoly or Tetris or Sonic) has no artistic motive. It's not trying to say anything about what it means to be human. It's just there to occupy your time. It's a diversion.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
So is my poem art?
No. This is why I didn't put any value statements into anything I've said. Art comments on what it means to be human. Good art communicates something worthwhile about what it means to be human. But there is bad art that says something poorly or bad or non-worthwhile (see: some abstract art). That doesn't mean it's not art.Quote:
Originally Posted by StriderKyo
Videogames have nothing to say.
And again, art must say something in order to be considered art (good or bad).
But you have put value statements into the equation. How do you know what the art says? Art can't talk. If I have someone make a piece thinking a whole bunch of stuff, and then I have someone duplicate it for the sole purposes of selling another copy, is that second piece NOT art?
Is it really your poem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Why do you say you are an apple?
A bus doesn't float. Why do you say it does?
If you're going to be so literal, we cannot have this conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
Does it matter? is the point. If someone answered those questions to your "liking", would it elevate its status to "art"? I could say it's a bunch of nonsense, but then someone may have made this very same piece and said a whole bunch of incredibly deep things. They're both either art or not art. They are identical.
So you're saying that architechture isn't art? After all, buildings (with very, very, very few exceptions) are not built to say something about what it is to be human. The intent most definitely is not there.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
And once again, there are plenty of artists, art lovers, philosophers, professors, whatever who disagree that art is about the original intent.
A shack built to provide shelter (a utilitarian purpose if ever there was one) is not art b/c of the intent. I think we can agree the Eiffel Tower is art. The difference is purpose/intent.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
I'm not saying original intent is SUFFICIENT. It is *part* of how we define what is art and what is not. Otherwise we could say crazy things...like the plastic spork at Wendy's is art.Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
Editing this post so that it no longer says what it said before I edited it.
"A shack built to provide shelter (a utilitarian purpose if ever there was one) is not art b/c of the intent."
But see, if I was a famous artist and threw the same junk up in a heap, everyone would be praising how great a statement I was making about social ladders, class status, etc. That is what people have a problem with (at least, as far as I can see it). My poem is frickin trash. But it's no worse than some of this other stuff that passes for "art".
You've yet to define anything in any meaningful way that most people agree on. You know why? Because this debate has been going on for many centuries and you're not the one who's going to finally see the light and figure out what art really is, once and for all, and how it all ties into the human condition.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
You are going by your own personal definition. It is not a universal definition. Many people disagree with it. Accept it.
what are you talking about? the hippos in Hungry hungry Hippos are shown to be man's place in society and how grabbing the marbles (success) is his way of getting ahead in life by any means neccessary. the hippo that gets the least is less motivated to make his mark in the world, while the one that gets the most is the most dominant and is willing to do what it takes be become successful. it's man's competitive nature at it's finest.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
If the artist is trying to make a statement about what it means to be human, that sounds like art to me. Not necessarily good art. But still art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
We SO agree about what 'passes as art'. I think there is a lot of confusion about what makes for good art and the common man is cowed into thinking he can't talk about art b/c he doesn't think Jackson Pollock is the shit (Pollock's work isn't the best example of 'good' art but it is most definitely art).
http://www.paintinghorse.com/paintin...t-soup_med.jpg
Does this modern art piece, "Alphabet Soup" by Romeo, tell you anything about the human condition? What artistic merit does this have? Isn't it just random paint scrawlings on a canvas?
How about this one, "Campfire," by the same painter?
http://www.paintinghorse.com/paintings/campfire-med.jpg
So you're saying there's no art in a painting that's pure aesthetics?Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
And once again, "commenting on the human condition" is so vague that it might as well be meaningless. One person makes a hammer as a tool. It's not art. Another person makes a hammer as a symbol of humanity's ability to overcome the limits of our own bodies and manipulate our environment for our own means. Is it a more artistic hammer?
I feel like I'm debating religion or politics with someone who "thought really hard about it" and is convinced they've come to an ultimate conclusion.
You haven't provided *any* definition of art, other than, "it's what ppl want it to be" which is about as weak an argument as you can possibly make b/c A) you don't have to actually take a position on anything as you can just throw up your hands and say, 'it's personal, people!' and B) I know of no serious artists, philosophers, curators, arts commission members or anyone else that would agree w/you that I am COMPLETELY off-base when I say intent, purpose and consensus are NECESSARY (or should be considered).Quote:
Originally Posted by sethsez
You are (correct me if I'm wrong) saying my necessary conditions are IRRELEVANT in determining what is art. I know of no-one (no one!) that would agree w/you (again, aside from ultra-radical, anti-definitional post-modernists - one would be hard pressed to find a smaller group of intellectuals).
You're right, I haven't. That's because I have my own personal opinion about what art is. I just don't assume that it's the correct and universal opinion because there is no consensus about the definition of "art," even if most people agree that the Mona Lisa somehow falls under the heading.Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Meach
Of course intent and purpose should be considered (I don't agree on consensus... what was considered trash or pornographic a century ago is considered a classic now). Where I disagree is the whole "human condition" bullshit, and the rather odd stipulations you make concerning what makes a comment on it valid or not (FFVI, trite as it is, makes statements about the human condition, so why wouldn't it count?).Quote:
I know of no serious artists, philosophers, curators, arts commission members or anyone else that would agree w/you that I am COMPLETELY off-base when I say intent, purpose and consensus are NECESSARY (or should be considered).
Look harder, then.Quote:
You are (correct me if I'm wrong) saying my necessary conditions are IRRELEVANT in determining what is art. I know of no-one (no one!) that would agree w/you (again, aside from ultra-radical, anti-definitional post-modernists - one would be hard pressed to find a smaller group of intellectuals).
Despite your frequent claims that you don't consider "art" a measure of quality, you certainly approach it as such.
"you don't have to actually take a position on anything as you can just throw up your hands and say, 'it's personal, people!'"
I would say that it is. BEcause these abstract "pukes on canvas" do not look like anything worthwhile. Why would I hold a select few people "in charge" to determine that is art or not? I made better stuff than this (IMO anyway).
"I know of no serious artists, philosophers, curators, arts commission members or anyone else that would agree w/you that I am COMPLETELY off-base when I say intent, purpose and consensus are NECESSARY (or should be considered)."
One could argue that they are comprised of elitists that want to keep a club of exclusivity. Those people would also say that new music that appels to younger audiences is all noise, etc
Nobody will defend the "pukes on canvas" as being art?
I think it is art. But it sucks. I go with the dictionary on this one. And it isn't like my defintion of "sport", because even if people don't agree with it, it is still pretty clear cut. This alternative definition of art is not, IMO.
I'll defend Pisschrist (probably the most infamous bit of "modern art" that everyone hates).Quote:
Originally Posted by RoleTroll
Pretty much.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
The two paintings I posted above. Are they "art"?Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams