args

Bioshock is a work of art

I have a rebuttal for each one of your points. But, I really am tired of this debate. It was the first debate I accepted, and I should not have acceepted it in the first place. Video games are But, I really am tired of this debate. It was the first debate I accepted, and I should not have acceepted it in the first place. Video games are It was the first debate I accepted, and I should not have acceepted it in the first place. Video games are art. I concede defeat. Thank you for debating, and good job. I will happily debate you again in a subject where I am more knowledgable. P.S. I have never played the game Bioshock.

Art is not a reality it is a concept to people choose to believed in.

Lets first examine your definition "the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture." Breaking it down "the expression of creative skill through a visual medium" This is exactly what my definition is saying that something worth seeing and brings you happiness the other portion of your definition was showing examples but wasn't absolute as to what can be defined as art. Also you said "a set standard or have any one person or level of skill achieved by any one person that would universally be a considered art" Thats what I am saying there are not any standards to art but it ties in with point two where everyone has known happiness so everyone knows art. But all definitions meet this basic standard for art, that everything is art. For the second point its not an assumption, if not now at some point you were happy you found something wonderful that you couldn't take your eyes off. Whether 10 or 20 years ago. On the third point its all personal opinion but everyone knows art, you might think somethings hideous but I might say other wise and vice versa. But yes there are all different opinions but they are all on the same basic standard listed above. For this final point art is existent if only in our minds it still exists. Its proven anytime you see something and you think wow thats cool. To deny that it has never happened would be like saying the sky isn't blue

Video games are a serious art form.

Note to contender: I don't mean for this to sound inflammatory, but since you're expressing admiration for certain video games, always make sure you capitalize their titles. Anyways, in his/her conclusion, the contender defined the video game as not only a serious art, but also the art for a variety of reasons: 1. It is interactive. 2. They combine multiple artistic mediums. 3. They are available to your doorstep/screen. 4. They entertain. 5. They transport the gamer from their life and into the life of the protagonists. So I'll admit one thing: the technical production of a video game is a display of creativity. OK, but I will be arguing against the judgement that the theory of the video game as a serious art is supported by any of the five reasons mentioned above. 1. "It is interactive art" Good enough. We must, however, remember, that if something is interactive, that typically means that whoever is experiencing it can change the outcome. When F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote The Great Gatsby, he was making a commentary on the American borgeoisie. (The following three sentences are typed in vague terms so that nothing is spoiled.) There is a break-up. Then there is an accidental death. Then there is a murder. No matter who read it, and no matter how quickly they read it, the same events occured at the end. When Stanley Kubrick directed 2001: A Space Odyssey, he wanted to warn us, as stated before, about the dangers of AI becoming too advanced. No matter who saw the movie, and no matter over how much time they saw it, the ending would be the same. Games, in a broad sense, are not like this. There are rules, and there is an objective. This is the primary difference between the video game and a high art like cinema or literature. Yes, people play video games with the intent of experiencing the atmosphere and the visuals, but the main motivation (and intended motivation by most game developers) for most people to keep playing is the desire to win the next level or beat the game. If something is expression, then the outcome should not be able to be changed all that much, whereas the way someone plays a video game could, in some cases, affect whether or not the entire game's universe ends. If people could change the ending of The Great Gatsby (like you can change the outcome of a video game by pressing the right buttons or going to the right places), F. Scott Fitzgerald's expression would not be much of an expression, because he would not actually write what it was he was trying to make commentary about. Likewise for Stanley Kubrick if filmgoers could change the outcome of 2001: A Space Odyssey and keep HAL 9000 obedient -- not all of Kubrick's vision would actually have been filmed. If someone could make Romeo not drink the poison by pressing the A button enough times and fast enough, would the ending of Romeo and Juliet have been half as emotionally profound? Video games are literally programmed to change themselves based on what the person playing them wants. 2. "They are a mix and mash and show the co-operation of next to all other artistic medium [sic] available to the common man" [...] "we [sic] have sculpturing [sic], architecture, CGI [...]" Okay, so video games combine music and visuals. Music: has any video game music had much of an influence on separately-released, commercial music? Also note that nearly all video game music is instrumental (if not, there are some vocal chants) and composed only to fit the tone and/or action of the game. In other words, video game music is generally made simply as accompaniment to something else. In addition, none of the music in the YouTube videos linked above compare to a "five-star orchestra piece." The first song linked is not even an orchestra piece; it is a piano piece. Few things grant it any more attention than elevator music. OK, so maybe the last one linked sounds as if it could have been played with five or six different instrumentalists. But this is not "five-star." The great composers of two hundred years ago, on the other hand, were estimated to have often used over 100 people in an orchestra. Visuals: some game designs are quite impressive, but not even the best are comparable to the best paintings or sculptures. Most visuals are made to make the game more visually appealing to gamers. 3. "They offer art right to your doorstep and to your screen" This is not a video-games exclusive; just about all of today's popular arts have some form of availability to one's home. Books/e-Books can be purchased and kept on a reader's bookshelf. Albums can be bought, then shipped to your doorstep and imported to iTunes so you can play any of the songs from your computer screen whenever you want. Movies can be viewed with a Blu-ray/DVD player. 4. "Video games [...] entertain you" So do sports. But nobody calls basketball an art. We all refer to it as a sport, which is something that has rules and an objective, and an outcome that can be changed... 5. "Video games [...] transport you from your life and into the life [sic] of the characters that inhabit them" This goes back to the argument issue of games being "interactive" (mentioned in rebuttal to quoted reason #1). Heavy Rain (2010) was not about teaching the gamer what to do for someone they loved so much as simply seeing what the gamer would do for someone they loved...that's even pretty similar to the game's tagline: "How far will you go to save someone you love?" Rather than making a statement (like art does), it asks a question. The narrative completely changes based on what the gamer wants, meaning it is chaste -- something Pablo Picasso once said art can never be. Oh, and I never said that art MUST influence other art. I simply typed that video games not having as much crossover influence as music, film, et cetera is a sign that the video game is not a high art form. Bobby Fischer wasn't afraid to admit that chess was a sport. As with chess and other sports, video games: 1. are limited by rules. 2. have objectives. 3. have outcomes that can be changed according to what the person playing them wants. The design of a video game may show artistic talent, but video games are called video games for a reason. They are not made to satirize or comment; they are made to be played. Notice how when you go to a museum, you are not allowed to touch the paintings? What about when you listen to an album, and the disc is in the player where you finger can't reach it? Games operate the opposite way; they are made to be modified by people who didn't make them. I won't pull a Roger Ebert and stubbornly say that video games can NEVER be art, but so far it's not impressive enough. No video game designer has made a game worthy of comparison with the masterpieces by Orson Welles, F. Scott Fitzgerald, the Velvet Underground, etc. Maybe the defink this is what makes the average gamer appreciate the games he/she plays. If you took away his/her ability to change the outcome, a gamer's temptation to keep playing for five/10 more minutes than planned would not be half as strong. [1] 2001: A Space Odyssey. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Prod. Stanley Kubrick. By Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, Geoffrey Unsworth, and Ray Lovejoy. Perf. Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1968. Blu-ray Disc. [2] Fitzgerald, Francis Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York, NY: Scribner, 1925. Print. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.ign.com... [5] http://www.metacritic.com... [6] http://www.rogerebert.com... [7] http://www.theguardian.com... [8] Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. District of Columbia: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2004. Print. [9] Wikipedia

Art Challenge (1/2)

I'm very sorry, I didn't mean to ruin it. I was very excited for your art challenge and am just a little spacey and my emails weren't alerting me I did this. Anyway, if any redemption is available, here is my piece on people, it's called "Attacking your Roots." http://www.debate.org...

Video Games are the new art form

I'm not sure which comments to address so I will address all of them. "Answer those questions and you'll understand my argument." First, I will state your questions: "Does literature have a monopoly on expanding people's ideas? Is it the only way that people can learn something? And is it nearly half as effective to read something, as it is to live it?" Now, the title of this is "Video games are the new art" This isn't relevant to the title and to your introduction. Of course I brought it up and thereby you coming to ask these questions but, I don't think you could say I'll understand your entire argument from just those questions. As for each question: "Does literature have a monopoly on expanding people's ideas?" As of now, most people and teachers, will continue to express literature being the prime source of people's ideas. At least this is what they are trying to influence kids. When you read in school, often teachers will tell the kids look for a deeper meaning hence, expanding their ideas. When children play video games, no one influences them to think like that. Whether they should or shouldn't is a debate I would not like to get into. But this must be noted and is a fact for the majority of people. "Is it the only way that people can learn something?" What made you think I said that? Please quote where I said that. I don't think at all literature is the only way people can learn something. And most popular literature books do not possess academic benefit but more spiritual benefit and morals. If you would be able to say what you said above, I could ask you "Is video games the only way that people can learn something?" But of course you meant to say that sometimes you could learn something academically on the side although I disagree with you. "And is it nearly half as effective to read something, as it is to live it?" 1) You are still not living it by playing video games just because of good graphics. It's like saying you're living it because of good imagery. Of course people reading novels will often say, "It's like I'm living what happened" but it's just an expression. 2) That is an opinion and I agree with you but not in all cases. It's good to read about something or maybe even play a video game before you live it. I asked the same thing in my previous debate and opponent made a good point so I will quote him "you probably have never read the book "Desert Flower" but ill break it down for you to the basics. Its about a Somali girl dealing with her genital mutilation by her father who runs away from her home searching for truth. Now when you said 'experience helps you deal with it, not reading about it', tell me Pro, when was the last time you had to deal with your genitals being mutilated? Would reading about genital mutilation still have an impact on how you would deal with? Experiencing it first hand would be far more emotional but reading about it would still have an impact on your perception over the matter, and that cannot be denied..." "'living' it is entirely different." Okay and I will stress the answer to your point again: Playing video games is not living it. Playing video games is not living it I will say it in Spanish jugar juegos de video, no está viviendo get the picture. "when someone enjoys something, they're much more receptive to it." Name me common video games kids "enjoy". I bet you very few of them have academic benefit. No one is their to explain to them what academic topics come up in the video game if there is. The child might not be capable of understanding it. "The potential to teach people with video games is enormous and if ever harnessed effectively, could change how everyone learns on a day to day basis." I'm going to focus on the word "if". As of now they aren't. There are few like leap frog, or jump start but those aren't extremely popular nor do they have benefit for a little older kids over 8. "I challenge you to find a sport that is more strategic than games like Starcraft 2" This is off the top of my head. Basketball: I'll name you zones, which are strategies. 2-3 zone, 3-2 zone 1-3-1 zone, box-1 zone, diamond-1 zone... This is all strategic thinking. Football: The best quarter backs like Aaron Rogers (Best in the league) or Drew Breeze (Good luck on Sunday) are strategic thinkers. They have to think of hundreds of plays. The list goes on and on. "the website of a college only for video games" 1)Okay, there is a football school. Does that mean football has academic benefit? Of course not. 2) I meant in everyday classes. "The people who spend tons of time on video games would have probably been anti-social any way and this just selves as the best means of entertainment." So parents should just give up and not prevent it and try to help their children be more social? A good parent would not give up and I hope the majority of people disagree with you. "being online" dependent on if you're talking to your friends. "playing video games with someone else" In moderation I agree with you but, if you just play video games, that won't make you very social. "TONS of games have puzzle aspects to them," It might warm up your brain this is true, but it doesn't help you with everyday problems. "And this is much better than reading it in books" It's not because books make you think more. "and Don is much more powerful than just simply learning." Right there! Video games do not have "simply learning" Your point on video games helping one work toward and achieve a goal If you need to rescue someone, like you might in call of duty, playing the video game doesn't give you the military training or help you at all. (Aside from strategic thinking which is just a tiny head start in military training), "it will be widely accepted as the art that it is." They don't give as deep insights as the other things I have listed. Some video games give insight this is 100% true. But it is not a primary source of insights nor does it have as much insights as the things I mentioned. "Just because a game is popular don't mean it has to be deep." I said that because you said every game being great is like every song to win a grammy and a grammy is usually won from how good the song is not the insights. So that is why I asked my question. I didn't feel your simile was relevant. "don't really know what you're trying to say here" I'm trying to say that one of the reasons it's not taking over as the new art right now is because most people aren't looking for a deeper meaning thereby rejecting it as an art. The name of this argument is "Video Games are the new art form" meaning currently while you are saying it is going through its process of becoming a new art and you are changing your words at the end of the debate. Currently, it's not the new art. "Yes the majority of game developers..." That's why movies and tv aren't a prime source of insights and neither are video games. This went under the topic Video games give deep insights. "For something to be an art it doesn't take a majority to care about it." Well the majority of the world has to agree that it's an art for it to be an art so if they don't care about it, it can't be an art right now. "and that's enough for it to be considered art." Because the majority of the world agreed on it being an art which is why it is a mandatory class. I thank my opponent for an interesting debate and I hope the saints beat the 9ers. (Please don't not vote for me if you're a 9ers fan. Good look to them too.