Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Then obviously I disagree with him on that measure, because I did not make the statements he claims I made. No matter how much he lies about it, I still did not say anything about philosophy.

""experts" in a field of subjective study,"

Ok if the field of study you are referencing here is Aesthetics then I understand where Lordofhats is coming from.

Melissia wrote:Then obviously I disagree with him on that measure, because I did not make the statements he claims I made. No matter how much he lies about it, I still did not say anything about philosophy.

Forth time. This is your post. Quoted word for word:

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Yes. You can't deny the position and knowledge of an expert just because you disagree with them

Yes I can. They are not an expert in a scientific endeavor. They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.

Did you not bother reading anything I said prior to this? Do you just respond blindly without at all considering what has been said? Read before you speak. And actually read what I say before calling me a liar.

""experts" in a field of subjective study,"

Ok if the field of study you are referencing here is Aesthetics then I understand where Lordofhats is coming from.

Aesthetics is what I've been talking about this whole time.

Whenever new artforms emerge, people claim that they are not actually art and go on and on about the preservation of meaningful art. It's the same mediocre, anti-art response every time.

Also kudos to Nurglitch for the link, Kant's definition for art was in here:

“a kind of representation that is purposive in itself and, though without an end, nevertheless promotes the cultivation of the mental powers for sociable communication.”

This is a fairly good description I would say. Sometimes I find myself wholly agreeing with Kant and sometimes I hate him. But not more than Hume! Get that foo out of your sig!

Also, moving to OT. This is not really about video games any more.

Manchu wrote:Whenever new artforms emerge, people claim that they are not actually art and go on and on about the preservation of meaningful art. It's the same mediocre, anti-art response every time.

No one is saying that, I think most people have agreed games can be art or will eventually. Just nothing has done so yet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Aesthetics is what I've been talking about this whole time."

I meant what field Melissia was referencing, which seems to be anything that isn't a science

"Not yet" is a shade less arbitrary than "never"?

Go to bed, Mr. Hats. I fear for your health.

The Dreadnote wrote:

Go to bed, Mr. Hats. I fear for your health.

I'll live. My reading skills are actually sufficient to you know. Read. As long as I have that, I'll be okay, because the instructions on the life support machine make sense

I'm still trying to figure out how this happened twice in one day. I admit I probably read into whatwhat's post too much, but THIS is ridiculous.

Manchu wrote:"Not yet" is a shade less arbitrary than "never"?

Not really I think most people can look at the history of cinema and even comic books as have been mentioned in this thread, and see how they evolved into what they are today. Or hell, look at cave scrawlings and what's in museums now, albeit the cave scrawlings are probably there too.

LordofHats wrote:I don't want to live on this planet anymore... Very few things piss me off more than people saying something and then acting like they never said it.

Oh, you get used to it in one of "these" threads.

Step 1: Make patently false, outlandish claim.
Step 2: When challenged, deny saying it even when quoted. Accuse people pointing out your inaccuracy as "derailing the thread."
Step 3: ...?
Step 4: Profit!

Manchu wrote:Whenever new artforms emerge, people claim that they are not actually art and go on and on about the preservation of meaningful art. It's the same mediocre, anti-art response every time.

I totally agree. I've heard art experts denounce everything from comic books to web design as either not being art at all or even more condescendingly, low art. It seems to fly in the face of everything that I would imagine that these "experts" would consider art to represent.

The whole basis of hat guy's arguement is that we said art is subjective. Then he's like well art falls under Aesthetics a "branch of philosophy" so all philosophy is sunjective. We don't accept that.
Just because all Xs are Ys doesn't mean we ment all Ys are Xs. That's the last I'm going to participate in this faux debate.

Monster Rain wrote:

Manchu wrote:Whenever new artforms emerge, people claim that they are not actually art and go on and on about the preservation of meaningful art. It's the same mediocre, anti-art response every time.

I totally agree. I've heard art experts denounce everything from comic books to web design as either not being art at all or even more condescendingly, low art. It seems to fly in the face of everything that I would imagine that these "experts" would consider art to represent.

Indeed. It seems that when people do this, it's less about what art actually is and more about the snobbish idea that something new cannot be art, precisely because it's new. This is always what I glean from people who have made this argument, with the exception of Asimo back there.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The whole basis of hat guy's arguement is that we said art is subjective. Then he's like well art falls under Aesthetics a "branch of philosophy" so all philosophy is sunjective. We don't accept that.
Just because all Xs are Ys doesn't mean we ment all Ys are Xs. That's the last I'm going to participate in this faux debate.

Well the quote said "they are experts in a field of subjective study, yadda yadda yadda" the field in question is not subjective.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:The whole basis of hat guy's arguement is that we said art is subjective. Then he's like well art falls under Aesthetics a "branch of philosophy" so all philosophy is sunjective. We don't accept that.
Just because all Xs are Ys doesn't mean we ment all Ys are Xs. That's the last I'm going to participate in this faux debate.

Did you bother reading anything? I brought up Asethetics awhile ago. Before the 'experts' in a subjective field thing even came up.

See this post:

LordofHats wrote:

Melissia wrote:

asimo77 wrote:Being a picture, drawing, or simply pretty isn't what art is about. If a comic isn't good then it hasn't made any meaningful impact upon society.

If that's your definition, then almost nothing is art.

That's actually the most formal definition of art, and probably the most useful for aesthetics.

Your argument has no basis. You plug your fingers into your ears going no no no no, and apparently seem incapable of reading. I've been talking about the field of Aesthetics for awhile. I've been talking about the people who work in the field, the experts in art you both claim do not exist because their field is subjective. Far as I can tell, neither you nor Melissa even bother reading what I said, or lack the capacity to understand it and would rather blabber on with your fingers in your ears than produce a valid response.

EDIT: The fact you're trying to apply a false association fallacy only makes it sadder, because I've gone over this a half dozen times now, and you're still incapable of realizing what happened.

Just as an aside, it's probably not a good idea to start using insults in your posts.


Oh, and Melissia is female. I don't know if you were referring to her as "that guy," but remember that you're meant to refer to women as "she," if you aren't referring to them by name.

Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:Just as an aside, it's probably not a good idea to start using insults in your posts.

It's probably not, but in all honesty, this has gone beyond ridiculous and into the absurd. And I've been called a lying manipulator long before now.

Just because we said experts in the subjective field of art aren't worth listening too doesn't mean we said experts in all subjective fields aren't worth listening too. I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over.

I had to go back over my post and delete a lot of stuff about you Lordofhats that I realized would get me banned.

I've never had to use the ignore function before. You shall be the inaugural press. Be proud of that.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Just because we said experts in the subjective field of art aren't worth listening too doesn't mean we said experts in all subjective fields aren't worth listening too. I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over.

How do you think I feel? I keep talking about an objective field of philosophical study and you keep calling it subjective while at the same time claiming you never did so which you've just managed to do both in a single sentence. Bravo.

I've never had to use the ignore function before. You shall be the inaugural press. Be proud of that.

I guess you still have your fingers in your ears. They do say ignorance is bliss.

Just because we said experts in the subjective field of art aren't worth listening too doesn't mean we said experts in all subjective fields aren't worth listening too. I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over.

You're claiming it's subjective right here. The second bolded part is a bit confusing. What are these other subjective fields? You don't mean philosophy do you?

This thread has been reported, and for once not about me.

Dakka Rule #1 is in effect here people. Politeness on this thread is required. Lets play nice now.

asimo77 wrote:

Just because we said experts in the subjective field of art aren't worth listening too doesn't mean we said experts in all subjective fields aren't worth listening too. I'm tired of saying the same thing over and over.

You're claiming it's subjective right here. The second bolded part is a bit confusing. What are these other subjective fields? You don't mean philosophy do you?

Philosophy was never even mentioned by me or Melissia. That guy whose name I can't remember just came out of the blue and said we attacked philosophy or something and then debated himself. As she said: a strawman.

asimo77 wrote:Half Life 2's story: shoot the aliens

Deus Ex's story: shoot the conspiracy theorists.

Gee, thanks for actually giving a reasoned argument rather than just ridiculously simplifying things and dismissing them out of hand. Explain to me how Half-Life is such a success when from a purely gameplay perspective both installments are run of the mill FPS's with graphics that are just par for the course when they're released. The only thing either installment of HL have had going for them that separated them from the rest of the games out there was setting and story. That's it. Look at the trends in the industry. You get companies that go out and develop game engines and create a simplistic game with them, decent enough for what it is but forgettable. Then another company comes along, licenses the engine and instead of blowing dollars reinventing the wheel they sink that money into the artistic aspects of the game like story, setting, environments, etc. and those games are hits. Quake was a decent, fun, game. Half-Life, using the quake engine sold 9.3 million copies because it took the gameplay aspect and then took it farther by giving it more than just shooting an endless stream of bad guys.

As for the ranting of the last three pages, LoH, it's fairly easy to see how Melissa's statement might have nothing to do with Aesthetics specifically. Be it on purpose or by missing that addition its fairly obvious she might very well have still been speaking of art in general which is what she and asimo were discussing. You're the one that brought Aesthetics into it. Should she re-read it and either amend or clarify what she said? Probably? does it necessitate the three page jihad of smashing your face into a brick wall that the last couple pages were, not really. TL;DR, you're both equally wrong and obstinate.

Oh yes video games, what this thread was supposed to be about!

You're asking why any shooter is succesful really. It's ideally due to AI, slick controls, variation in gameplay and so on. All the CoD's are practically the same and yet they are succesful, it's not because of their Tom Clancy knock-off plots. You also seem to be confusing style and presentation with story. HL doesn't have a meaningful story but it gives a purpose and motive to the characters, like an entertaining action film.

As for the second part, if we're talking about art how is Aesthetics not involved? It's like saying that "experts in the study of existence are losers". Then when someone says "how can you claim ontology isn't a respectable field?" People go "but I never said that!"

Also sorry for keeping things terse, I have an exam in a little bit so my posts are probably not too well thought out, what with being pressed for time and all.

To be honest, Asimo, I lost the plot a long while ago.
Anyway, video games. I would have to agree in the case of the CoD series; the storylines, though enjoyable, aren't exactly classics. It's more about the way the game plays that makes the series a success. Indeed, this is probably the case with many games, though occasionally you will get a series of games, or even just one game with a really good plot and story (which technically aren't the same thing) which really adds to the game. Sure, they're uncommon, but they do exist.

MW2 was an awesome game and a lot of fun but had one of the worst storylines I've seen in a long time.

Still haven't played Half-Life 2. I should check it out.

asimo77 wrote:Oh yes video games, what this thread was supposed to be about!

You're asking why any shooter is succesful really. It's ideally due to AI, slick controls, variation in gameplay and so on. All the CoD's are practically the same and yet they are succesful, it's not because of their Tom Clancy knock-off plots. You also seem to be confusing style and presentation with story. HL doesn't have a meaningful story but it gives a purpose and motive to the characters, like an entertaining action film.

And again, I'll point out that HL was a purely run of the mill FPS that didn't significantly innovate anywhere in terms of gameplay of the genre. The COD/MW franchises keep cranking out new iterations of the same game because the people who play them are after flashy graphics and the ability to shoot another guy online with a rifle. They have to keep making new iterations of the same game with minor improvements because if they don't the person who does will capture market share quickly because there's nothing holding the gamers to that title. They don't care about it.

And I'm not confusing style and presentation, I'm adding them to the discussion. I'm not trying to say that the storylines in HL or Deus Ex were equivalent to War and Peace, they are at their heart just extra long action movies, but there is a story there that is far more complex than, "Shoot the XXXX" and that's one of the things that separates them from the games that are actually just, "Shoot the XXXX" style games like Doom or Quake. Style and presentation were brought in because this seems to have morphed into a discussion about art and at least in the case of HL the production values were one of the things that set it apart from its roots in Quake but far from the only thing.

As for the second part, if we're talking about art how is Aesthetics not involved?

Read what Melissa wrote, consider that her entire argument had been about art to that point. Hats brings in the specific field of Aesthetics. It is entirely possible that Melissa did not catch the Aesthetics inclusion and continued talking about art. I pointed out that Melissa probably needs to re-read what he wrote and consider it and is no more right in this case than Hats. It went from a somewhat interesting thread about characters, and artistic value of games to Melissa and Hats smashing their faces against their respective brick walls for three pages over one rather simplistic misunderstanding.

KamikazeCanuck wrote:Philosophy was never even mentioned by me or Melissia. That guy whose name I can't remember just came out of the blue and said we attacked philosophy or something and then debated himself. As she said: a strawman.

And now I demonstrate my lack of a life. Lets go back through the thread and take a looksie at the conversation that Canuck here has never bothered reading!

LordofHats wrote:That's actually the most formal definition of art, and probably the most useful for aesthetics.

Aesthetics is a field of philosophy. If you're asking what is art, you are asking a question that falls under this field. Asethetics is clearly the subject being discussed.

Melissia wrote:IE, noone that really matters?

I don't know if this has been made clear enough, but I honestly couldn't care less what the art community thinks.

Obviously someone is participating in a discussion they know nothing about, as the art community was never mentioned. The field of aesthetics was. That's an actual straw man for those of you who like throwing around things you don't understand. Nevertheless, I attempt to rectify this confusion here:

LordofHats wrote:That's essentially claiming that in regards to physics you don't care what a physics professor thinks. I know their douche bags, but their douche bags who specialize in this kind of talk. It's their life. They'll probably keep saying video games aren't art even after they've achieved that status (some people still argue films aren't artistic). But that doesn't mean their knowledge is invalid. Their meanies but their meanies who happen to be correct (EDIT: eh, probably most correct). This is assuming everyone agrees with that given definition, which all don't.

Which definition? Probably the one being discussed. The one that comes from Aesthetics.

Melissia wrote:Unlike art, physics is a science. Art is entirely subjective. The laws of physics are not (at least outside of quantum physics, but that's a subject most people don't even remotely understand anyway until they get a masters).

Here we see a blatantly ignorant statement, made by someone who still doesn't know what their talking about. Still. My patience remains and I attempt to correct the mistake:

LordofHats wrote:People should stop that. Art being good or bad is subjective. Being Art is less a matter of subjective value judgements and more defining what the attributes of art are, and those attributes can be objectively determined.

And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.

Obviously these experts are in the field of Aesthetics, the only experts that I have discussed or mentioned, and regardless of Milissa's lack of understanding for what these people do, who she is ignorantly talking about.

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:And yes. Denying an experts opinion in their given field is basically the same thing no matter what the field is.

No.

Art is subjective. Even what makes up art is poorly defined

This is the part where fingers go into ears.

LordofHats wrote:No. Art is complicated to discuss. What makes it up is very difficult to determine because it is a vast and varied field and unlike math, not easily quantifiable. That doesn't make it subjective. This is basically philosophy 101. Not being emperical does not make something subjective, just bones hard confusing.

At this point, it's getting a little annoying, as certain people, I forget her name, apparently lacks reading comprehension and can't figure out what someone else is talking about. So, we fall back on the age old answer to these problems, saying something blatantly incorrect!

Melissia wrote:

LordofHats wrote:Yes. You can't deny the position and knowledge of an expert just because you disagree with them

Yes I can. They are not an expert in a scientific endeavor. They're "experts" in a field of subjective study, where one person's art is the next person's trash.

And here is where the third party enters, apparently not bothering to read or understand the previous discussion and simply blindly agrees with incorrect statement:

KamikazeCanuck wrote:No she's right.

I would argue that one cannot be an expert of Art. You can be an expert in the history of art.

Still don't get it Canuck? Meh. Doesn't matter. *Hands in resignation* I hereby resign my position as one capable of intelligent conversation and will now only respond to individual sentences that exist in the black void of space blindly without any consideration for the context of the discussion they exist in. And giving a reason for my conclusions? Why bother? I can just stick my fingers in my ears and go no no no no sounding like a broken record and become instantaniously correct!

In the words of some band I heard on the radio once, "So long and good night!"

Warnings have now been given. Further violations will result in suspensions. Thank you.