3 ms·

Reminds me to when Ebert argued video games can't be art. https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/video-games-can-never-be-art https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-

• deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
• surgical_fire 2y ago
  The problem with this discussion is not only that the definition of "art" lacks a consensus. The main issue is that instead of being a descriptive, a lot of people call something "art" as a compliment. Which is utterly silly, by the way. Because at that point "art" becomes sinply something that is "aesthetically pleasant", and that will change from person to person. "Art" as a compliment is useless. If we try to use "art" as a descriptive, then we would need to draw a hypothetical Venn diagram, and define things that are art and things that are not, so we could try to categorize videogames, or whatever AI produces. This implies a lot more agreement than there is currently.
  • bookofjoe 2y ago
    'Art completes what nature cannot bring to a finish. The artist gives us knowledge of nature's unrealised ends.' — Aristotle (284-322 BC) 'The true work of art is but a shadow of the divine perfection.' — Michelangelo (1475-1564) 'Art is a mediator of the unspeakable.' — Goethe (1749-1832) 'A work of art is a corner of nature seen through a temperament.' — Emile Zola (1840-1929) 'Art has absolutely no existence as veracity, as truth.' — Marcel Duchamp (1887-1968) 'Art is science made clear.' — Jean Cocteau (1889-1963) 'Art is anything you can get away with.' — Andy Warhol (1928-1987)