
Justin, Dan, and Chaz have a lively discussion this week about movies such as
Kick Ass,
Glory, and
Helvetica and games like
Mass Effect 2, the
Left 4 Dead 2 DLC and
Starcraft 2 Beta. Then everything gets a bit crazy when the three talk about art and whether video games fit the bill. Chaz and Dan think they do and Justin disagrees. No
LOST conversation, but we throw down the top 5 Kills.
Check out some funny movie reviews by this guy on you tube... you'll laugh your butt off!
http://www.youtube.com/user/RedLetterMedia
I'll start, from the web-- Art is:
--the creation of beautiful or significant things (wordnetweb)
--Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions (wikipedia)
--Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions (dictionary.com)
If you agree with those, then clearly games are art. They may not all be high art or art that I like, but they are art. One argument I heard, was that since they are winnable they are not art. How do you win WoW? Don't games have replayability? What about multiplayer? There are nuances that can only be discovered upon multiple playings (similar to multiple readings of a book or multiple viewings of a movie or painting).
If you can't agree on the definition (or rules, if you prefer Justin), then the discussion is akin to asking "What is the best ice cream?" or "What is love?" or other abstract questions with no absolute answer, just different opinions dependent on individual definitions.
Constructive criticism. I would have cited Ebert's article or whatever sparked this discussion, since I had no idea what was said.