Jump to content

  • Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account
Photo

The Game Thinkers Debate 01


  • Please log in to reply
8 replies to this topic

#1 Hal

Hal

    Site Owner

  • Administrators
  • 8,091 posts
  • Amazon Wishlist
  • LocationHouston, TX

Posted 18 April 2011 - 02:45 PM

A group of RPGMP3 folks discuss the deep connotations of games and gaming...

The Game Thinkers Debate 01

Filesize: 63MB

"I don't know if it's art, but I know we can argue about it."

Several weeks ago, a few of us had an idea: assemble the most intelligent and erudite thinkers and philosophers within the gaming community and let them have a round-table panel discussion on deep topics related to gaming. Unfortunately Vin Diesel, Mister T, and Zack Sabbath didn't return our calls so we had to go with who we had.

So in this inaugural installment, the Game Thinkers tackle the thorny quandry of, "Is roleplaying art?"


The Game Thinkers are:
Danny
Steampunk Dragon (though there are some who call him..."Tim")
Thistledown John
Matt

When it comes to deep thinking, we are The Best of Those Who Turned Up!


Community Podcast Updated!

Hal :hal:
  • 0

#2 Haxxx

Haxxx

    Raven

  • Members
  • 41 posts

Posted 18 April 2011 - 04:35 PM

Great discussion guys :D
Very different from the usual RPG discussions around.
One advice for the future please try and edit out sighing and heavy breathing when people think.
  • 0

#3 steampunkdragon

steampunkdragon

    Goblin

  • Members
  • 148 posts

Posted 19 April 2011 - 02:09 AM

Yeah as someone who has an audio degree and as the cluprit of most of that(which was mostly fixed i think later on by mic movement) I was cringing on the re-listen.....twas mostly painful. I'm really sorry about that one.
  • 0

#4 Daniel

Daniel

    Gelatinous Cube

  • Members
  • 2,825 posts
  • LocationYork

Posted 19 April 2011 - 02:15 AM

Yeah as someone who has an audio degree

Remind me why I'm still the unlucky sod who gets to edit all of the Pantsless Stuff again? :P
  • 0

#5 Ieqo

Ieqo

    Lantern Archon

  • Members
  • 1,090 posts
  • LocationIts pronounced CHATT-uh-NOO-gah.

Posted 19 April 2011 - 05:03 AM

Yeah as someone who has an audio degree

Remind me why I'm still the unlucky sod who gets to edit all of the Pantsless Stuff again? :P


Um...because you're the one with OCD?
  • 0

#6 steampunkdragon

steampunkdragon

    Goblin

  • Members
  • 148 posts

Posted 19 April 2011 - 11:10 AM

Yeah as someone who has an audio degree

Remind me why I'm still the unlucky sod who gets to edit all of the Pantsless Stuff again? :P


Um...because you're the one with OCD?

that and he's never asked :P granted neither have i offered, also I'd be curious to know what software Mr Illiani uses to edit.
  • 0

#7 Daniel

Daniel

    Gelatinous Cube

  • Members
  • 2,825 posts
  • LocationYork

Posted 19 April 2011 - 11:27 AM

Adobe Audition 2
  • 0

#8 steampunkdragon

steampunkdragon

    Goblin

  • Members
  • 148 posts

Posted 20 April 2011 - 11:23 AM

okay, cant say i have any experience with that. My editor of choice back in the day, was sound forge.

Also I've probably never offered since Danny probably has waaaay more experience with audio editing than I do. Since I haven't used that degree in about five years. Also, too his credit the man is a prefectionist :)
  • 0

#9 popper

popper

    RPGMP3 Patron

  • Patrons
  • 136 posts

Posted 28 June 2011 - 08:58 AM

I was listening to the podcast this morning and I have a small bone to pick with Danny about his idea of Art. The definition of art that Danny proffered was ". . . Art is anything that stems from the self; primarily for the self. Created as a personification of something within the self. It must be created purely to be art. It cannot be created for money. It cannot be created to evoke a feeling in another, unless that feeling is to be created through the art . . . [every aspect of the art must be definable by the artist and essential to the work] . . . It cannot stem from a collaboration."

This definition presents several problems when used as a definition of art. The primary problem with this definition is that it has eliminated nearly every piece of art made since the first awakenings of civilization. If we remove any piece of art created for money, or for some returned service such as food, then every artisan who has ever made his living through his craft is no longer an artist and nothing sold could be considered a work of art. In turn this would mean that the only thing that could qualify as art would be such works as street graffiti (under very limited conditions), cave paintings, and works done at home by individuals too poor in their crafts to make a living. The great standard bearers of art (Rembrandt, Picasso, Pollack, Michelangelo, Steinbeck, Ginsberg, Dickens, Mozart, Beethoven, Williams, et al) are all eliminated and what we are left with to consider as art is utter shit.

The definition also creates problems when it eliminates collaboration. Most of the great works of fresco (such as the The Last Supper and The Sistine's famous ceiling), sculpture, and many of the large paintings from ancient times forward were done with the aid of apprentices. All the great architectural and musical works of art that exist in the world are the product of collaboration (I should point out that there is a slight exception to that last statement as those works that exist purely on paper are the sole product of an individual, but when brought to life - i.e. built or played - they become collaborative works). So this aspect of the definition would essentially only recognize efforts of individuals who are capable of producing a product without any aid, such as a Pollack. Groups, such as the London Symphony Orchestra or the Beats (Kerouac, Ginsburg, Burrows, ect.), who perform together or use each other to build and create their works of art are immediately eliminated.

These two limitations have provided us with a definition of art that only recognizes the works of individuals who are too poor at their craft to make a living doing it. It has eliminated all music, architecture, dance and performance art.

If we then attempt to enforce the idea that the artist must be able to define the aspects of the work to the artists we have left after our previous eliminations then we find we have no art left at all. At that point we are essentially dealing with incompetents in their fields. Men and women who are still learning their craft and who have not learned how to properly define themselves creatively - because once they achieve that level of competency they begin to sell their works and are eliminated by another aspect of the definition.

A better definition of art would have been: Art is any creative work produced by an individual or group that evokes an emotional response from its audience. This definition is broad enough to allow for all forms art while at the same time eliminating false echoes from the conversation.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Gravityscan Badge