Did any of you guys actually watch what Boomer said in context? He hardly "lashed out at Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning." What he said was that it wasn't fair to blame Manning for the loss, essentially agreeing with what Bernockle said and any thoughtful sports fan would say. Boomer said that Peyton was his generation's Marino because neither could win a game by himself - both need and needed more help from the defense and the running game. Everyone has run with that one provoking sound bite - including Marino himself - instead of looking at what Boomer actually said. Oh well.
To put it another way, novels and films are more about the authors or makers, whereas games and theater are more about the players, the audience, actors, and the tension between them when the rules are enacted.
Expanding further and getting a little meta, I think regular print journalism is more like regular art, monolithic, and more of an object. Blogs and filters like this, on the other hand, are performances, relying on all of us playing our roles and building off one another free-form but still basing our performances on the rules in the faq. And I have to say, the best threads on mofi are certainly up there with the best of journalism imo, but it's definitely a different form.
Shakespeare is probably a good case study on this dichotomy between performance and text, since when his plays are taught in high schools as ART, they are normally not taught as performances as he intended but mostly silently and alone. From what I've read on him, Shakespeare didn't think his plays were art, he was basically playing around, treating them like, yes, games. It was his sonnets - true texts - that he thought were going to make him immortal. (And of course they did.)
jccalhoun's comments have gotten me to thinking about the differences between games and "normal" art like novels, films.
Do you consider performances art? I think the largest difference is that novels and films are objects, whereas games are interactive performances like theater or, to connect with the last question in my original comment, sports, where the audience effects roles and therefore affects the rules.
(This might explain why story isn't necessarily important to a great game, since performances are judged by the live interpretation of the script (the rules) but not necessarily the narrative object of the script itself.)
Am I being at all coherent?
On zedediah's question: The way I define art is similar. Art makes me see the world in a different way. But art the way I want to define it has an added criterion: it's timeless and therefore universal.
Maybe it has politics and sociology and pop culture in it, but those are of little consequence to what makes it art. Non-academics don't read Dante to know what he thought about politicians and popes of his era, although he certainly includes those trifles. People read Dante because his imagery is so vivid and his language is so physical and strangely beautiful, perhaps unmatched in its intensity.
So my question is this: what video games will still draw people's attention and captivate them in 2046, say, or 2500 (assuming we don't kill ourselves before then)? This rules out most of those games that only rely on technological advancements in visual effects and hopefully leaves in those video games that are great because of their strong gameplay and perhaps strong storyline (although that's not as important in a video game, imo).
By the way, I think tetris is timeless. Do y'all agree?
I guess I can somewhat understand shotsy and jccalhoun's reservations about the subject matter of the film. After American Beauty/Magnolia/Punch-Drunk Love/In the Mood for Love/Lost in Translation/all the other arty-encapsulations-of-mood films which have come out in the late 90s, early 00s, the subject has admittedly become cliche. But any trend done long enough will become a cliche.
(Does this mean that non-laugh track, more surreallistically real (if that makes any sense) sitcoms have also become cliche after Sports Night, Bernie Mac, Malcolm, Andy Richter, Scrubs paved the way? Because I, for one, loved Season 1 of Arrested Development.)
The main reason I posted, though, was not to stump for the film, per se, but to prompt a small discussion on how the trailer was so well-done. Honestly, the sensual nature of the trailer is synesthetic, the fusion of image, sound, and idea carefully edited and reinforced by the trailer's makers, and I find that amazing. No one else does?
Did any of you guys actually watch what Boomer said in context? He hardly "lashed out at Indianapolis quarterback Peyton Manning." What he said was that it wasn't fair to blame Manning for the loss, essentially agreeing with what Bernockle said and any thoughtful sports fan would say. Boomer said that Peyton was his generation's Marino because neither could win a game by himself - both need and needed more help from the defense and the running game. Everyone has run with that one provoking sound bite - including Marino himself - instead of looking at what Boomer actually said. Oh well.
posted by derised 19 years ago
In "Awwwwwwwwwwwwww....."
Could someone post a mirror to the song? - the link seems definitively monkeywrenched now, as surlyboi ejaculated earlier (too early).
posted by derised 20 years ago
In "Rockfish"
Where can I get me one of those spacemonkeys?
posted by derised 20 years ago
In "Curious George: So how old are you really?"
ehh, 20, I think.
posted by derised 20 years ago
In "Darren Waterston's"
Beautiful, thanks forksclovetofu!
posted by derised 20 years ago
In "E3 2004 has wrapped up."
silently=silent
posted by derised 20 years ago
To put it another way, novels and films are more about the authors or makers, whereas games and theater are more about the players, the audience, actors, and the tension between them when the rules are enacted. Expanding further and getting a little meta, I think regular print journalism is more like regular art, monolithic, and more of an object. Blogs and filters like this, on the other hand, are performances, relying on all of us playing our roles and building off one another free-form but still basing our performances on the rules in the faq. And I have to say, the best threads on mofi are certainly up there with the best of journalism imo, but it's definitely a different form. Shakespeare is probably a good case study on this dichotomy between performance and text, since when his plays are taught in high schools as ART, they are normally not taught as performances as he intended but mostly silently and alone. From what I've read on him, Shakespeare didn't think his plays were art, he was basically playing around, treating them like, yes, games. It was his sonnets - true texts - that he thought were going to make him immortal. (And of course they did.)
posted by derised 20 years ago
jccalhoun's comments have gotten me to thinking about the differences between games and "normal" art like novels, films. Do you consider performances art? I think the largest difference is that novels and films are objects, whereas games are interactive performances like theater or, to connect with the last question in my original comment, sports, where the audience effects roles and therefore affects the rules. (This might explain why story isn't necessarily important to a great game, since performances are judged by the live interpretation of the script (the rules) but not necessarily the narrative object of the script itself.) Am I being at all coherent?
posted by derised 20 years ago
On zedediah's question: The way I define art is similar. Art makes me see the world in a different way. But art the way I want to define it has an added criterion: it's timeless and therefore universal. Maybe it has politics and sociology and pop culture in it, but those are of little consequence to what makes it art. Non-academics don't read Dante to know what he thought about politicians and popes of his era, although he certainly includes those trifles. People read Dante because his imagery is so vivid and his language is so physical and strangely beautiful, perhaps unmatched in its intensity. So my question is this: what video games will still draw people's attention and captivate them in 2046, say, or 2500 (assuming we don't kill ourselves before then)? This rules out most of those games that only rely on technological advancements in visual effects and hopefully leaves in those video games that are great because of their strong gameplay and perhaps strong storyline (although that's not as important in a video game, imo). By the way, I think tetris is timeless. Do y'all agree?
posted by derised 20 years ago
In "The Colorquiz"
I'll also give 9/10, although I can't help feeling that randomly selecting would have been about as accurate...
posted by derised 20 years ago
In "Tontie "
2 4 4 4 8, crap! Thanks, forks!
posted by derised 20 years ago
In "Anatomy of an Exhibition: Art Nouveau 1890-1914."
How meta. Thanks plep!
posted by derised 20 years ago
In ""My Mind is a Web Browser""
If so, I apologize.
posted by derised 20 years ago
Nostrildamus, I hope my fascination didn't come off as cruel.
posted by derised 20 years ago
In "The gorgeous Garden State teaser trailer"
I guess I can somewhat understand shotsy and jccalhoun's reservations about the subject matter of the film. After American Beauty/Magnolia/Punch-Drunk Love/In the Mood for Love/Lost in Translation/all the other arty-encapsulations-of-mood films which have come out in the late 90s, early 00s, the subject has admittedly become cliche. But any trend done long enough will become a cliche. (Does this mean that non-laugh track, more surreallistically real (if that makes any sense) sitcoms have also become cliche after Sports Night, Bernie Mac, Malcolm, Andy Richter, Scrubs paved the way? Because I, for one, loved Season 1 of Arrested Development.) The main reason I posted, though, was not to stump for the film, per se, but to prompt a small discussion on how the trailer was so well-done. Honestly, the sensual nature of the trailer is synesthetic, the fusion of image, sound, and idea carefully edited and reinforced by the trailer's makers, and I find that amazing. No one else does?
posted by derised 20 years ago
Whoops. I meant, here.
posted by derised 20 years ago
(limited to the most recent 20 comments)