If videogames are art, then why is Call of Duty NOT art?
And if videogames are art, why is blowing away virtual soldiers with grenades NOT art?
And if it is art, why does it NOT deserve federal funding?
Fox news may be targeted to the lowest common denominator, but I think these are legitimate questions.
Legitimate questions that were never asked. The purpose was sensationalism, I thought that was pretty clear, especially when you consider that they chose that ridiculous bald guy for counter points that were never actually counter points.
It should be noted that nobody asked those questions. They should have because that would have been an interesting conversation to listen to.
If movies are art then why is Ultra Violet NOT art?
And if movies are art, why is a shooting a gun not art?
And if it is art, why does it NOT deserve federal funding?
A good combat scene in a videogame could be art, just like a good chase scene could be considered art. But does the second matrix movie deserve to get federal funding as an art film? That’s what you’re asking, realize how stupid it is.
You should have played to the audience more. Point out how Video games are now primarily an American industry. Made in America by Americans.
The argument is not “Are all video games art?” The medium does not define whether a thing is art or not.
The argument is “Can a video game be art?”
It’s a stupid debate because no committee determines the definitions of things like this, so there is no right and wrong. Art is whatever you want it to be. But the number of views where no video game can be art are limited, mostly based on the idea that it’s too new and scary. Or just plain ignorance.
For me I think of art as being a lot about intent of expression. A linkin park anime music video can be art depending on what the person is trying to say, even if it’s a stupid notion or naive or whatever. Alternatively I think pottery can be art, even if it’s for utility only. For example if the person is trying to make a statement about the way people use cups or something by making a cup that has to be used in a certain way? I don’t know that much about pottery. But I think many sort of engineering/design disciplines are artistic.
I would consider a platformer that was a subtle commentary on platforming level design to be art. Absolutely. Assuming the whole game really supports it. Otherwise the designer may have been an artist, who contributed their art to a piece of entertainment.
And fuck any son of a bitch that goes on Fox and Friends expecting a fair discussion. How do they keep finding suckers for their clown show?
I don’t think Brian’s a sucker. I think he took an opportunity to try to make his point, but to keep with their sensationalist “government screws taxpayers again!” agenda they picked that other asshole to spout bullshit regardless of how good an argument Brian made.
What opportunity? How does one go on Fox News, or any cable news, and expect an opportunity to make a point? As the ancient wisdom says, don’t feed the troll. Brian obviously tried to arm himself with counter attacking barbs in order to fight in the hostile environment of Fox News but failed to recognize that it’s their show and they control the “discourse” as it were. Nothing was served by his appearance, sadly, and his presence allowed the media to claim a balanced debate when none was ever intended. His refusal to engage in such spectacle would make a better point.
Christ, quit with the melodramatics. It’s just a dumb TV show. This is what happens when P&R spills out into the other forums.
Actually I believe the argument is that videos can never be high/great art. The positions underlying it are well reasoned. Brian Moriarty’s article that was linked above gives a pretty good, if long, explanation that is a certainly not an argument born out of ignorance.
Of course, this is not really related to the “discussion” that took place on Fox News.
Yeah I’m sorta starting to agree with you.
I don’t agree with the sentiment. FOX is going to get someone to argue the point whether Brian is that guy or not, and for all we know that person could end up doing a lot worse. Brian held his ground, got in at least two SOLID jabs at FOX (He called them entertainers, on-air! That’s an epic burn!), and got a chance to raise his own profile and rep the site he runs.
I don’t feel like he’s enabling them to be perceived as balanced. No one who believes that is going to be convinced they aren’t balanced by any measure regardless.
Taking jabs at Fox and grabbing attention shouldn’t be the points one tries to make. There was never a possibility to discuss whether the scope of the NEA should include games. Saying the task would just fall to someone less capable of making a point is still not a reason to participate, since there was never the possibility of point making. If you just want to see people take shots at the morons in front of the camera, then you are essentially buying Fox’s entertainment and legitimizing their model.
Calling them entertainers was nice, though. I almost expected them to reply with “sir, this is a quality objective news program. Are you a liberal socialist?”
I’m sorry, but Moriarty’s essay & what I’ve read of Ebert’s ramblings on the subject, does not strike me as well-reasoned.