Why do I get the feeling someone ahem Tom ahem, met up (forced) with game devs and prods and discussed how...how shall I put it...uhmm...influential the scores are and how devastating the low scores are for the game's publicity (pffftttt that's a mouthful [Leon Kennedy], 2005). After all, politics politics politics lol.
Yeah, like urinals make us more cultured...I mean, unless someone shows us how to actually use one--only then can we be considered cultured. If art is considered only for its sake (art for art sake) it does not really teach or make one cultured but does that it mean, its useless? Ngugi wa Thiong'o said art should be with a purpose--sure, more than it should. But, art in the purpose of being creative does not really say anything. In fact, art does not say anything outright...the ones with eyes and brains say the things that needs to be said. On that note, artist would sometimes splash colors here, display things there and voila--an art--that does not seem to have anything to say unless, of course the artists, themselves would care to explain--what he or she has in mind. But, of course, that's not how it works. Video games on the other hand, are just like any of these stuff--sure it has a lot to say as compared to other existent traditional art but it does not make any less of a creation. What gives a person a license to say his or her work is an actual art? As far as I know, there isn't any. The thing is, everybody can say this is an art or that isn't--or in the extreme, that is junk and this is treasure. The premise here isn't suppose to be whether video games is an art form or not, rather, gauge it in its level of creativity as an art. The academe would say that it should strive hard to become more artistic. How does one make a piece more artistic anyway when clearly artistry is abstract and abyssmal? Art for art's sake or art with a purpose--either way its still an art but is it creative (beautiful or ugly, balanced or unbalanced, etc.)
shyshyshy's comments