Gaming as an art form

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by gamevet
...storytelling is a form of art,

No, it most certainly isn't. Anyone can reproduce a story, verbatim, if they so choose. Not everyone can reproduce a Vangoh.

Games are as much art, as is film making.

Wrong-O! Film making isn't an art form, and honestly, is too broad a term. Acting is art. But directing? No, sadly.

One of my penultimate piss-offs is the notion that "anything can be art." That's a crock of crap and lessens the value of the skills of a true artist.

[MechDeus]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
No, it most certainly isn't. Anyone can reproduce a story, verbatim, if they so choose. Not everyone can reproduce a Vangoh.

Anyone can paint. Not everyone can captivate an audience with merely a voice.

And for the record, it's Van Gogh. [edit] Your "verbatim" comment makes even less sense considering how easy it is to copy paintings, especially with todays technology.

One of my penultimate piss-offs is the notion that "anything can be art." That's a crock of crap and lessens the value of the skills of a true artist.

Anything can be art. The skills of a true artist can be done in most any form, why does the term artist have to be restricted to certain things? If you feel that someones art is crap, then so be it, I feel that way about a lot of classic art. But to say that there's no way to utilize movie directing as an art form would be limiting oneself.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by MechDeus
Anyone can paint. Not everyone can captivate an audience with merely a voice.

Not everyone can paint with the deft skill that some can. And a story doesn't need to be spoken to be captivating.

And for the record, it's Van Gogh.

Pardon me.

Your "verbatim" comment makes even less sense considering how easy it is to copy paintings, especially with todays technology. Anything can be art. The skills of a true artist can be done in most any form, why does the term artist have to be restricted to certain things? If you feel that someones art is crap, then so be it, I feel that way about a lot of classic art.

If I think someone's art is crap, I'll say so, while maintaining that it is, indeed, art. Anything cannot be art. If limiting the application of the term artist is damaging, as you assert, then so is applying it as liberally as you do.

But to say that there's no way to utilize movie directing as an art form would be limiting oneself.

I know exactly what it is.

[gamevet]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
No, it most certainly isn't. Anyone can reproduce a story, verbatim, if they so choose. Not everyone can reproduce a Vangoh.



Wrong-O! Film making isn't an art form, and honestly, is too broad a term. Acting is art. But directing? No, sadly.

One of my penultimate piss-offs is the notion that "anything can be art." That's a crock of crap and lessens the value of the skills of a true artist.

Sure they can produce a story, but it takes one of art, to make a story that is ageless, or remembered for all times.


Type in Visual arts, in your search engine. You'll come up with links like this www.nyfa.com


In the Websters's New World Dictionary - Artist: "One who does anything well." Artistic: "Done skillfully, sensative to beauty."

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by gamevet
Websters's New World Dictionary - Artist: "One who does anything well." Artistic: "Done skillfully, sensative to beauty."

Miriam needs to be a bit less liberal in the liberties she takes with defining her words.

Originally posted by gamevet
Sure they can produce a story, but it takes one of art, to make a story that is ageless, or remembered for all times.

No it doesn't. It takes one of skill. Skill doesn't equal art, reguardless of what Miriam's spin on modern vernacular reports.

Type in Visual arts, in your search engine. You'll come up with links like this www.nyfa.com

What the Hell does this have to do with anything?!

[gamevet]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable




What the Hell does this have to do with anything?!

That you should spade or nueter your dog.:jest:


I've corrected the link. One of the curriculums, is film making.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by gamevet
That you should spade or nueter your dog.:jest:


I've corrected the link. One of the curriculums, is film making.

AHAHAHAHA!!! That was worth the price of admission.

And I didn't say movies weren't art, I said directing wasn't art. However, of course it makes sence to teach directing at a school that teaches acting, and various other shades of movie making. Movies are a visual art. And so the name of their school makes perfect sence. But, it would seem, not everything they teach is an artform. And that's OK.

[MechDeus]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
Not everyone can paint with the deft skill that some can. And a story doesn't need to be spoken to be captivating.

Not everyone can speak with the deft skill that some can. And a painting doesn't need to be on canvas to be captivating.

If limiting the application of the term artist is damaging, as you assert, then so is applying it as liberally as you do.

Then it's a point that can't be argued either way. If I thought that not everything has the potential to be art, I would then say that most of what is classified as modern art is not art. Of what I've seen, none of it takes any skill and most is so wrapped up in BS statements and interpretations that make no sense, it's less art then building computer printers.

[gamevet]

I look at directing this way. Have you ever heard the same song, performed by 2 different artists? What one interprets, of how the song should sound, is not necessarily going to make both songs equally as great.


The same can be said of a directors view of the script. The director molds the story and characters, the way they see them being portrayed, into how a film is acted and presented. There is a reason why some directors, are far more recognised, than others. Because they have a keen perspective on storytelling, and their films are a direct reflection of what they envisioned, when they started the project. The movie studios would hire just anyone with experience, if that was not the case.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by MechDeus
And a painting doesn't need to be on canvas to be captivating.

Though true, this statement is assanine. You know exactly what I was getting at. A story can be captivating to thousands of people without a word of it having been spoken, ever.

A painting, however, needs to be applied to a surface to be a painting. Describing it verbally or in text would make it NOT a painting.

That said, your initial argument, concerning this point, is moot, as you asserted the "artist" involved in creating the story must speak with some type of captivating voice in order to interest people, and you disreguarded the written story. You were wrong.

It doesn't take "art" to word a story interestingly. It takes intelligence and an above average vocabulary.

Painting takes physical skill.

Then it's a point that can't be argued either way. If I thought that not everything has the potential to be art, I would then say that most of what is classified as modern art is not art. Of what I've seen, none of it takes any skill and most is so wrapped up in BS statements and interpretations that make no sense, it's less art then building computer printers.

I agree on both points. It can be argued both ways, and modern art, isn't.

Originally posted by gamevet
The same can be said of a directors view of the script. The director molds the story and characters, the way they see them being portrayed, into how a film is acted and presented. There is a reason why some directors, are far more recognised, than others. Because they have a keen perspective on storytelling, and their films are a direct reflection of what they envisioned, when they started the project. The movie studios would hire just anyone with experience, if that was not the case.

This is an excellent way of looking at it. I can't say I ever considered directing in this light.

Gotta go. G'night.