Official Off-Topic Thread

[The B.O.B.]

I've said my piece with the religion topic already.

other:
Out of curiosity, how many people here are familiar with Raymond Briggs's "The Snowman"
I must've seen it at least a hundred times throughout my childhood, and it's probably the thing that can take me back in time the fastest

Oh snapz! I remember first watching this in music class when I was in, I think, kindergarden or first grade. I liked how soft it was. I remember the girls in my class giggled when the boy would put on his pants, and his crack would show. Immature skanks...

Speaking of that, I remember back then they tried playing a Barney tape for us to sing along one time in class. It was horrible, and the majority of the kids didn't participate. I guess even though we were young, we still had the brains to see that it was lame. Was any one else scared of those Pee Wee Herman dolls when they were younger? Or those antique clown dolls, or puppets?

[ndchristie]

helm : yeah, I get you now (mostly ).  And yeah, the point of looking for truth is that it cannot be found so long as we are trapped in physical bodies, so plainly speaking it will kill us, but over the course of many years and i think that's necessary as part of this life.  As is, as mentioned, actually living outside your brain.

i haven't read ebert's separation but i feel there is a tremendous difference between art primarily made to decorate or to impress, and art made to make a statement (where the statement is not LOOK AT ME I'M XXXXXX!!!).  There's also art which exists purely to be a process or spirit of art, which does not necessarily make a statement or impress or decorate but isn't inherently "higher" or "lower."  Many brilliant artists, from Monet to Freud, fall into this last category.  Many brilliant artists like Donatello and Michelangelo fall into the first, and that does not make them worse (it's a product of the times), but if someone made a david today most people would be like "yup....it's a guy.  standing.  got it."
now here's a fun question, i wonder which david came to mind first?  Donatello's bronze, Donatello's marble, or Michelangelo's marble?

Most videogame art is driven by a very small number of needs, and they are mostly marketing followed by technical prowess followed by "because something has to fill that space."  Great art in games that come once every so often, like SotC for a recent example, still fall somewhere between wanting to impress, wanting to create an atmosphere, wanting to do a lot with an outdated platform, and that last ambiguous section of wanting to capture an essence.  In all though, does this further anyone, or is it pure enjoyment?  I think it's the second mostly.  Is there anything wrong with pure enjoyment?  No, in fact it's necessary.  But it seldom gets into galleries in the last 100 years because "art" has generally moved away from that.

I will agree that the format does not limit games to non-art, but the public and the producers sure tend to.

And yeah, many films are not art, many films are.

[AdamAtomic]

The idea that video games are the only interactive art form is patently ridiculous.  If novels, paintings, film and theater were not interactive we would not enjoy them even a little bit.  The fact that you as the audience or reader are constantly reconstructing and reorganizing the narrative, judging the characters, wondering what will happen next...these are all the things that make these art forms what they are.  Video games merely extend this process into the literal.

[ndchristie]

The idea that video games are the only interactive art form is patently ridiculous.  If novels, paintings, film and theater were not interactive we would not enjoy them even a little bit.  The fact that you as the audience or reader are constantly reconstructing and reorganizing the narrative, judging the characters, wondering what will happen next...these are all the things that make these art forms what they are.  Video games merely extend this process into the literal.

by that logic, a bird in flight, completely beyond my power, is interactive.  I can wonder where it came from, where it's going, condemn it as unintelligent or worship its freedom from human "rationality."  This doesn't make the bird interactive, it only means that I am alive and that my perception of the world's output is subjective.

videogames, on the other hand, are one of few art forms (there is an excessive amount of interactive installation and performance art that was forgotten in the list) where the users input changes the output.  That is a dramatic and vital difference and it's both an expanding and a limiting factor depending on the context.

[Xion]

b
by that logic, a bird in flight, completely beyond my power, is interactive.  I can wonder where it came from, where it's going, condemn it as unintelligent or worship its freedom from human "rationality."  This doesn't make the bird interactive, it only means that I am alive and that my perception of the world's output is subjective.

but you can interact with it. With a gun. Or maybe a bow or another long-distance interactor. Maybe even a knife if you wait for it to land.

[Feron]

discussion or whether or not video game art is art:  http://www.wayofthepixel.net/pixelation/index.php?topic=2871.0

[Zolthorg]

video game is game

video game art is art

[ndchristie]

sorry, i wasn't around for that thread.  Should have done some homework!

some good points made 

[sharprm]

I know the discussion has moved on but ...

By the way, I'm not trying to say that religion and science can't live together harmoniously. I think that's nonsense. I'm just using science for lack of an opposite to religion

Actually it's impossible that they can for real. It can only happen if people just play dumb about where they clash. Like 'umm we need science for flying cars, but I am not ready to abandon my divine daddy yet so let's pretend there isn't any contradiction in there'. Here's the thing: if people KNOW they are doing this and they don't mind, it's alright. If they suspect but try not to show it to not appear 'hypocritical' then it's the sort of thing that slowly makes you unbalanced.

Forget about science, consider cakes. Whenever a birthday cake, or anything, is cut up into smaller pieces, when you
add the pieces together, it is equal to what you started out with (ignoring crumbs). You do this every year, so you are pretty sure about.

But then Jesus breaks bread and fish and ends up with MORE. You say that's impossible. But you've assumed that your law that you derived from all those observations (cutting stuff ends up with same amount of stuff) can't be broken.

How could not making this assumption be "playing dumb"?

You should still be able to believe in Santa claus and be a researcher.   

[Conzeit]

Meh, too bad...everyone went off in their own tangent and in the end there's no continuity to the arguement, people just drop in with their "two cents" without following on what was said before and in the end the whole thing just smothers up and dies  =/ too much talking and not enough listening.

MOVING ON!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leH7IU4yOWE Poor Mario. it was a good NORMAL child, thought it's jumps were for stomping baddies and avoiding obstacles...but then came this sick individual and changed all that, violated it so far that it did things to poor mario it didnt even know existed. I just hope Mario can get back to being a good, normal child after all this abuse.