NFL players going crazy and dying young...
- Thread starter HoboNinja
- Start date
- Status
A
Armadillo
I'm a fanatical hockey fan, play fantasy football, tailgate for football and hockey games, follow the Minnesota Twins religiously, and yet I also possess a 145 IQ and two college degrees. The tailgate group I hang out with is populated by engineers, scientists, architects, and the like. So when people make the mistake of saying sports fans are "dumb" or "uncultured," they're being willfully ignorant at best, outright prejudiced at worst.
Then how about you don't go to the games? We don't need your kind.
K
Kitty Sinatra
But he'll fit right in at a Toronto Bills game.
(yeah, I know I'm beating this Bills-moving-to-Toronto shtick into the ground, but this time I'm doing it to also make fun of Toronto sports fans as boring, lifeless and even a little hateful)
(yeah, I know I'm beating this Bills-moving-to-Toronto shtick into the ground, but this time I'm doing it to also make fun of Toronto sports fans as boring, lifeless and even a little hateful)
This.
ElJuski
Staff member
Shadow of the Colossus and Ico are the two most often cited examples of "Games as Art", probably because of the minimalistic nature of both and how both ask you to fill in the blanks of the story yourself. This results in a story that is mainly driven by what you imagine it to be, instead of what you are told it is. It looks like The Last Guardian is going to follow in both games footsteps.[/QUOTE]
The difference between "Shadow of the Colossus" and "The Tempest" being one is part of the literary canon, the other is a video game. Not saying that video games can be moving and transcendent; I'm saying, for the most part, they are not, and play their role in pop culture. The examples you cited would still be considered pop culture, as well. Perhaps one day...but I doubt it. The chasm between high culture and pop culture grows as more cultures and hobbies fill our entertainment needs.[/QUOTE]
These are genre defying masterpieces that are almost universally held up as the perfect example of what a game should aspire to be. People in other fields of art have looked at them and sang their praises as bright spots in a genre otherwise filled with consumerism and tripe. But by your own words, those games can't be high culture explicitly because they are games? That seems awful petty of you. In a world where someone can place a toilet in an art gallery or throw feces on a picture of the Virgin Mary and have it be called art, it seems to me that the barrier for entry isn't as high as you claim it is.
Yes, 90% of games are definitely not what I'd consider enduring pieces of art, but by that same measure, 90% of movies and books are crap as well... and yet they don't ever have to explain themselves. This seems arbitrary and purely vindictive.
And don't use Shakespeare as an example of high art... even by his own time's standards, his ideas weren't original. He literally cribbed almost everything he wrote from other, earlier sources and only endures to this day because of misaimed fandom and because he had the ear of the English Royals in his time. He is quite frankly, undeserving of the praise he gets. Next time, use someone like Dante Alighieri as an example.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like somebody got hurt because I'm not calling the game he likes a "high art masterpiece".
Shakespeare and Dante are both part of the high-culture literary canon. They're both exemplary of the division between the two aspects of culture. And no, feces in a toilet isn't an example of "high culture" either. Whereas Vangogh would be.
Obviously these lines divide and cohere through time. But the "high culture" canon is very selective and very much ingrained in the history of art and culture politics.
The whole argument, regrettably, is pretty inane. Culture is a fluctuating thing, relative to the age, and relative to the consumer. I do believe that there is a definitive scale to good versus bad; I do think that certain arts are more accessible to the matters of the human soul more than others. I think videogames as a story-telling channel can be moving--but I think even the best video games pale in comparison to certain forms of art that have persisted throughout humanity. Not to mention the plenty of awesome new art forms which are pop-culture now (say, comic books) but are slowly forming into the oeuvre of mankind's creative world.
That does not mean, however, that it fits into the prescribed notion of the forms of culture that we have now. Or, necessarily, that it ever will, although I'm not throwing that notion into the trash bin all together.
Finally, I'm not even going to bother with your whole Shakespeare example. I heard he was a flaming homosexual, too, from this guy, like, once. And it was totally on this website this one professor, like, wrote! Again, it sounds like you just got personally offended. If you think that Shakespeare is overrated...heh, that's unfortunate. Your loss, man! Not to mention that the comparison to Dante is laughable; Dante, whose major body of work is completely based in political brown-nosing and vindication.
You guys do realize that Shakespeare really only became considered "high art" after his death, right?
During his life, its generally accepted that he was respected, to be sure, but he was known more a the popular writer and producer of stage performances for the masses than anything else.
It took years of consideration, and scholarly recognition of his contributions to culture and the English language, for his reputation as an artist to reach the point where it is today.
You can debate the artistic merit of video-games all day, but the discussing separation between high-culture and low-culture art is anything more than aggregate cultural impact over time is pretty meaningless.
For all we know, in 200 years, scholars will look back on Pokemon, recognizing it as high-culture for its contributions towards the cultural melange of the English and Japanese languages into "Nipponish".
During his life, its generally accepted that he was respected, to be sure, but he was known more a the popular writer and producer of stage performances for the masses than anything else.
It took years of consideration, and scholarly recognition of his contributions to culture and the English language, for his reputation as an artist to reach the point where it is today.
You can debate the artistic merit of video-games all day, but the discussing separation between high-culture and low-culture art is anything more than aggregate cultural impact over time is pretty meaningless.
For all we know, in 200 years, scholars will look back on Pokemon, recognizing it as high-culture for its contributions towards the cultural melange of the English and Japanese languages into "Nipponish".
Shannow
Staff member
Then how about you don't go to the games? We don't need your kind.[/quote]
Because I love watching nfl football, and when I went to college at UB, it was right there? Also, being in Syracuse, it the closest NFL team to me? And so damn cheap to, compared to some other teams.
And based on tickets..you need anyone you can get
Engrish. It'll definitely be called Engrish.
Engrish. It'll definitely be called Engrish.
[/QUOTE]I didn't pick "engrish" because was have that now, but on second thought, what we have now could just be re-classified as "Old Engrish"
K
Kitty Sinatra
O'd Engrish you mean.
I stand collected.
K
Kitty Sinatra
"Ricky Williams, Polite with the block"
Just heard that during today's game. Makes the game sound so gentlemanly. Cultured, even
Just heard that during today's game. Makes the game sound so gentlemanly. Cultured, even
ElJuski
Staff member
Hence me calling it an inane argument. Although I think that there are still differences between posthumous recognition of an author's work, and pop-culture getting subjugated into high-culture. Both require a different perception than what's given at the current time; one, however, requires that the material truly transcend its contemporaries in its aesthetic.
Either way, I confess: I welcome my moon-english speaking progeny.
M
meyoumeyou
- Status