Forbin

Roger Ebert rehashes old debate even indie hipsters are tired of

Recommended Posts

I have ABSOLUTELY no intention of pulling an Ebert here and judging shit as Worthy or Not. I do think I may have more of a granular historical perspective on this than other people here who want to participate. I may be able to give a TLDR version of theory since I may have a lot of this information internalized or a more direct line to relevant literature.

Alright, sorry I misunderstood the tone of the post.

But if you do get time, I certainly wouldn't mind reading the TLDR version (which is what I was banking this whole thread would turn into, if the mods are okay with that). Any well thought out opinion on the art world is interesting to me.

Also, what I've always found strange about all of Ebert's opinions, even though the last time I brought this up I was accused of making Ad hominem attacks, is that Ebert regularly takes a stance on what is art or not, even though the movies he has written were just ridiculous and naked B-Movie type affairs. I listened to portions of Ebert's commentary on Beyond the Valley of the Dolls DVD that I had borrowed from a friend and he seemed to take pleasure in stating that he was typing away the script as the movie production was started without much thought on where the story was going or why.

I'm guessing he probably wouldn't even call the movies he wrote art either, but I would bet there's someone out there who thinks Beyond the Valley of the Dolls is a work of subversive genius (Not to say it isn't, I found it entertaining at the very least) and would call it art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Before we get too far into a discussion on art history and art-tastic things.. I'd just like to make the obvious statement that it's really always been Ebert's implication that video games arent a legitimate, potentially meaningful form of media as a whole that makes me personally enter nerdrage.

Thats how I've always interpreted him using the phrase 'not art'... Which is kind of the wrong way (though more immediately inflammatory way) of making that point but whatever..

I think we're all on the same page with that already. Just felt like in this point of the thread it needed to be restated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If Ebert pointing out particular game titles as not being art proves games cannot be art, wouldn't this prove that cinema cannot be art?

Good point. If fact, Kotaku has wrote an open letter to Ebert which included a picture of that Valley of the Dolls movie which Ebert wrote and which was directed by Russ Meyer. I'm not saying that being responsible for shlock automatically makes someone's opinion moot, but I'd think he'd be a little more open-minded about this. I mean, does he think that his work on B-movie trash as a young man made it impossible for him to have had a valuable and distinguished career since then (I'm guessing the answer is no). Why does he think...even if stuff people are making right now is not high art...that this somehow proves no one could make a high art Video game in the future. Also...where the fuck does he get off trying to definitively decide what is and is not art? I know he's made a career out of sharing his opinion...but does he really think that means it is in any way definitive? Hasn't he been involved in the world of art/entertainment long enough to know that one man's art is another man's bullshit and vice versa? If Jackson Pollack or Marcel Duchamp get to be art, why not Stephen Lavelle?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find Kingz' response actually pretty cool and I appreciate it. Though, I guess, now I'm roped into the discussion, so let's do this thing.

Now first off, I think there's way more to it than the oval-story. My complaint about the term art is way more legitimate. It's pretty clear what an oval is, you'd have to get insanely anal to get to an argument about whether something is an oval or a circle (despite it being a fantastic anecdote, Pavlov was apparently a really cool guy). When it comes to art however, it IS a clusterfuck of massive proportions. Like I said, I have never, ever come across someone who could give me a proper description of what it was, without any caveats, that didn't contradict with what was actually happening or every other description. And yet everyone uses the term as if it is perfectly clear (to them?) what it means.

So yes, I am fighting windmills here. It is a supremely academic attempt to expunge the term art from our culture. Very futile. But just because it's unorthodox and plain bizarre doesn't mean that it's stupid. I'm not trying to be pretentious about art or anything, I am way less pretentious -especially nowadays- than people generally think I am. I'm genuinely baffled by the term art.

Now, I know a fair bit of art history, and I also know that the lines used to be much sharper in the past (in the West at least), when it was obvious that art was an aesthetic principle that applied to such things as painting, sculptures and architecture. The 20th century, with its pop-art, dada and fluxus, destroyed those boundaries. I think I described the problem pretty well in my rant.

Now, since my problem is with the term art (not with the existence or appreciation of meaningful works falling under its category), it might be a good idea to start by asking: what is the definition of art?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something being difficult to define doesn't make them not exist. I've done a bunch of translation and I can tell you dictionaries are mostly useful for spellings... Definitions tend to break down quickly. We can make efforts to define terms in prose but they'll never really fully reflect how those terms exist in our minds or the cultural consciousness.

Defining art is a lot like defining love. Words can't really explain them, but the terms exist because we have a need for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

did anyone else notice the difference between "art" and "fart" is only one letter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^

Best

I would like to liken art more to something like god, or any other Lewis Caroll-like nonsense term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now, since my problem is with the term art (not with the existence or appreciation of meaningful works falling under its category), it might be a good idea to start by asking: what is the definition of art?

If you buy into the premise of Fountain, then pretty much anything that anyone wants to (I would argue, sincerely, rather than just having a laugh) call art is art. And as recently as 2004, a lot of "art experts" seemed to be buying into the premise of Fountain.

The real quibbling is just over what is "good" or "worthwhile" or otherwise significant art.

edit: a lot of people would probably argue that it needs to have had some sort of human intervention to qualify. I'd posit that if you take the Dada-ist project to its logical conclusion simply pointing at a thing and saying "that's art" is sufficient human intervention in and of itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, took me a while to boil stuff down to bare bones. I am open to amendments, questions, booing, hissing:

• Art is an alchemical process wherein a complex idea, an emotion or a feeling is conveyed to an audience.

• The medium of art is arbitrary. Art does not have to be aesthetically pleasing or technically proficient.

• Any value given to art is a social construct.

• Art never exists in a vacuum. The audience brings its own context. Society applies another. History yet another.

A corollary to the first bullet: An art that falls in the forest doesn't make a sound.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think before this recent comment, Ebert had said before that does not count because the end product is still not art.

Which I guess to him, art means something that's has a statement or is moving. I don't know why it has to mean that, because I just figure it encompassed all sorts of human creation whether it was worthwhile or not.

I still more agree with Rodi on whether the term is even useful, but had it not been used to easily to draw lines in the sand, I would be okay with it. Thinking back to the cave paintings, I wonder if a caveman who drew better than the other guys ever stood up and gloated about his drawing of a buffalo was art while the other guy's wasn't.

I personally think art should be more about communicating your idea sufficiently so it that it doesn't become some kind of obscure self indulgent thing, but that's just me and I doubt more than 1 in 10 people would even agree with me on that. I also see what Kingzjester is saying about getting rid of the word pretentious in reference to art. It's extremely common to throw that around now for whatever reason and I'm guilty myself. I think it usually gets used when someone's artwork comes off as intensely hard to understand and obscure, but like Kingzjester sort of said, they should just communicate it better, since it seems like just name calling something pretentious doesn't really help the artist get better or the outsider understand any more.

Buh, I guess I just mean to say, I don't understand why something isn't art whether it's unsuccessful or not. When we eat bad food, it may be hilarious to yell, "THIS IS NOT FOOD! WHAT IS THIS SUBSTANCE?!," but we all know it's still food even if it's soylent green.

That's like saying something make with ingredients by a chef isn't food... chefs can do more than food, but it's THEIR JOB to make food, so if they were hired to make it... it's bloody food dammit! :getmecoat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My first input in this thread, as I try to avoid debate of this nature and find them generally a futile waste of time. Just going to throw this out here though:

Why can't we just say that art has a kind of "promiscuous realism," as John Dupre said about the concept of natural kind?

Let me lay out the rationale really quickly through one of Dupre's examples. What do an onion, a clove of garlic, asparagus, and a lily have in common? They are all, by scientific standards, classed as members of the family "lilies." These things all being lilies has its uses in botany but if you were to bring this to the attention of a chef or a person running a flower shop, they would be incredibly far out of the range of things that person would care about. Dupre used this to make the claim that species are a kind, but not a natural kind. There is no such thing, to him, as a natural kind. Only a lot of different, equally valid, types of kinds.

I wonder if half of the problem with what people are arguing about here is of a similar nature. Rodi wants there to be a natural definition of art, something that is a universal quality which can be used to distinguish between "art" and "not art." Kingz is trying to give the definition as he sees it, and as is relevant to him, but this is unsatisfying to Rodi as he does not see it as a natural "art" separation. Rodi takes that "art" is subjective and differs by discipline to mean that "art" is nonexistent. I wonder if instead we could say that "art" is promiscuously real, and its reality in one area is not undermined by its non-existence in another. After all, the chef would not deny that onions and asparagus are lilies, they simply would not care. I would like to agree with Rodi that art is a nebulous and likely impossible to pin down term, but not make the leap to say that it does not exist. Rather, what is art changes its definition depending upon the discipline the term is used in, but remains real in every possible sense despite this. Kingz definition is then very real and very correct, but nonetheless irrelevant to those who do not share his interests.

On the surface, that may just seem like a "art is in the eye of the beholder" statement with a lot of wanky follow-up, but I do think it's something a bit more than that. "Art is in the eye of the beholder" is most often used as a premise against the realism of art, not for it, so hopefully I've provided something to think about?

Also, Forbin I was going to say that that story was really cool and worth posting, but then you edited it into oblivion while I was writing. Oh well. Good story, anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
STUFF!!

I don't think this is necessarily a futile debate. I am enjoying this particular thread more than I would a comparable thread on, say, Shacknews or something.

I really like the idea of promiscuous realism, but I am not sure that is what is happening here. I guess I am having a hard time looking at the purple bullet list above as arbitrary and subjective and personal. I could more easily look at it as awkwardly comprehensive—or, for that matter, entirely nebulous—than simply a kind of projection that Rodi doesn't care to acknowledge because it doesn't fit his scope of interest. We're not trying to ignore an existing category (lilies) in our own unique ways (cook vs. flower peddler), so much as come up with a satisfying definition for something scattered and hard to pinpoint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My 2 cents...

I tend to think of "art" as more of a discipline of study, much like science and math (though sometimes they cross over, like discovery of perspectives). The actual artwork is an end product of the study. Looking at most major art movements through history, they're trying to solve a specific problem that hadn't been solved. They often collectively pursue a common goal. Some are supremely successful (eg impressionism, which revolutionized and birthed many modern movements). some are just dead-ends (eg a lot of post modern movements).

I mean, it's very easy to question the nature of art when you see a painting like this (thanks elmuerte) and it could've just as easily been done by a child. But without understanding what problem it's trying to solve, yo're only seeing half the story. For example, post modern movement, abstract paintings specifically, is trying to solve an impossibly difficult problem. That is: "You don't need lyrics in music to like or hate it - it can provoke emotion without any sort of context. Can we do the same thing with fine art? Can it strike emotional chords in its audience without any sort of actual subject matter?" None have really succeeded as you can imagine, but they're still at it, trying all sorts of things, good lord. But knowing that, I say "wow, what terrible work" rather than "wow, I can't believe this is called art"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't think this is necessarily a futile debate. I am enjoying this particular thread more than I would a comparable thread on, say, Shacknews or something.

Well, to be fair, I did sort of mean in general. This thread is doing a decent job of staying fairly level-headed. In that respect, good job to all involved.

I really like the idea of promiscuous realism, but I am not sure that is what is happening here. I guess I am having a hard time looking at the purple bullet list above as arbitrary and subjective and personal. I could more easily look at it as awkwardly comprehensive—or, for that matter, entirely nebulous—than simply a kind of projection that Rodi doesn't care to acknowledge because it doesn't fit his scope of interest. We're not trying to ignore an existing category (lilies) in our own unique ways (cook vs. flower peddler), so much as come up with a satisfying definition for something scattered and hard to pinpoint.

I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. I'm not saying that your list is personal, and the last thing I would accuse it of being is arbitrary. Subjective, maybe, but only in a specific sense. It is not subjective to you as subject, but to the group of people who share or approximately share your views on art. What I'm saying is that to people in your circles, who share your interests, and who work in the same mediums that you do, you are providing the most objective account of art possible. The problem is that there are multiple, equally real, definitions of art that other people could propose.

(I feel bad putting words in Rodi's mouth here, so keep in mind he is only being used as an example of a general view) I think that people sho make statements like Rodi's are looking for a more general view. One that all types of people could accept. The lack of this is what I think is leading him to the claim that no real definition of art can exist. It is not that he is interested in a different definition of art, as I understand it, it is that he is looking for someone to give him the only definition of art. This does make the promiscuous realism thing relevant, I believe.

What I was trying to say is that the problem isn't that we have no real definition of art, but that we have a wealth of definitions and that conflict arises when one person is arguing in terms of, say "critic's art" against another who is arguing in "sculptor's art." They talk past each other because they are really not arguing on the same terms. In that respect, I believe you to be providing a general, non-arbitrary, and objective account of what art is, as much as objectivity is possible in any situation. The conflict with Rodi is coming from the fact that what you are giving is not the account, which I think would be impossible.

EDIT: Added a clarificatory sentence and separated the wall o' text into paragraphs for easier consumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
• Art is an alchemical process wherein a complex idea, an emotion or a feeling is conveyed to an audience.

• The medium of art is arbitrary. Art does not have to be aesthetically pleasing or technically proficient.

• Any value given to art is a social construct.

• Art never exists in a vacuum. The audience brings its own context. Society applies another. History yet another.

Ooh, that's a very elegant and interesting definition. I really like it.

If I boil it down a little crudely, am I right in saying art is more about the process, rather than the end product? It's more about the thought that went into it than the actual result? That does make it difficult to decide what is art and not (so in the actual discussion the definition is still a tricky one), but at least it does make it clear what the distinction is between art and 'craft' or something that might not reach it.

Another problem (and I'm not trying to knock the definition here, just testing it out) is that a lot of things that are made as entertainment sport complex emotions and deep thoughts at their base as well. A series like Battlestar Galactica wrestles with deeply human conflicts and feelings. Even Pirates of the Caribbean is an exploration of man's desire for greatness and adventure (as are 99% of all movies). I will grant a person like Ebert that a lot (but not all) games are made on a more technical level, not exploring something from a human perspective, but rather from a gameplay-technical one, which according to this definition would make them not art.

Worse perhaps is that a lot of crap drawings on Deviantart might fall under the category of art as well, unless you might review the 'depth' of the emotional process that went into its creation and draw a line somewhere there.

So, I'd love to hear what you think about this, Stevan. So far it's been incredibly elucidating.

(As a sidenote, one of the reasons museums often hold no interest to me is in their consistent failure to provide some context to the paintings. Ideally, I'd like a few paragraphs with every object explaining (or perhaps hinting at, so as to leave some room for interpretation) intentions, background, history.)

(Miffy, I think I agree with Stevan on the matter, in the sense that I see his definition as actually quite objective, quite impersonal. So it makes perfect sense from my viewpoint as an outsider trying to grapple with the term art.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Also, Forbin I was going to say that that story was really cool and worth posting, but then you edited it into oblivion while I was writing. Oh well. Good story, anyway.
Yeah I realized this forum actually has a great deal of google juice. I know there are a few journalists covering the event, so I want to give it a few days before reposting. I've still got it saved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
• Any value given to art is a social construct.

• Art never exists in a vacuum. The audience brings its own context. Society applies another. History yet another.

These two are my personal favorites. I had gotten into a friendly argument with someone I went to school with who sent me some nice animation someone made, well designed and moving well with nice colors, but it basically boiled down to characters turning on a radio and dancing, which is the most asinine thing I could think to animate. Not that I have a problem with dancing but it sure helps if there's some kind of story or construct behind it instead of HAY I JUST ANIMATED A DANCE CUZ I LIKE THEM DANCES.

To me it seems like it was made by someone who never really got out in the world or maybe never experienced pain if that's all he has to say. My friend, of course was angry at me for being cynical as usual, took of objection for me going against artists for doing things for themselves just for fun. It didn't really come off as a test so this piece was looking for an audience.

And I think having an audience is a big part of what you are trying to say or do. It's essential to creating something worthwhile. In a way a lot of my sketches just simply don't exist if no one has seen them. Just as unseen as the other ideas floating around in my head. They could be good or bad, but it wouldn't matter. What you choose to create would be saying something about what foot you want to put forward and what you feel you need to say.

So all of the levels of scrutiny something publicly goes under adds or detracts it's value, but I would agree it's not really art if not one person has set eyes on it.

Edited by syntheticgerbil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
They often collectively pursue a common goal. Some are supremely successful (eg impressionism, which revolutionized and birthed many modern movements). some are just dead-ends (eg a lot of post modern movements).
I'd argue that modernism is more rife with dead-ends. Post modernism is just aimless.
I mean, it's very easy to question the nature of art when you see a painting like this (thanks elmuerte) and it could've just as easily been done by a child. .... None have really succeeded as you can imagine, but they're still at it, trying all sorts of things, good lord. But knowing that, I say "wow, what terrible work" rather than "wow, I can't believe this is called art"
How many kids do you know who paint color fields? To be fair, a badly compressed dinky jpeg is hardly representative of what that thing may look like in real life. I've seen some really impressive, humongous color field paintings that seem to bend the space in front of them and do surprising things with subtle shifts of color.
I think you're misunderstanding what I meant. I'm not saying that your list is personal, and the last thing I would accuse it of being is arbitrary. Subjective, maybe, but only in a specific sense. It is not subjective to you as subject, but to the group of people who share or approximately share your views on art. What I'm saying is that to people in your circles, who share your interests, and who work in the same mediums that you do, you are providing the most objective account of art possible. The problem is that there are multiple, equally real, definitions of art that other people could propose.
I think promiscuous realism is useful tool for an outsider to make sense of an observed conflict (i.e. you looking somewhat detachedly at what the two of us are bickering over). There is something unsatisfying and ersatz about this kind of relativism that assumes that neither side is correct and that neither side is wrong. On top of that, as you've presented it, it is a conversation killer wherein no ideas get shared and no minds can be changed. Agree to disagree and fuck all.
(I feel bad putting words in Rodi's mouth here, so keep in mind he is only being used as an example of a general view) I think that people sho make statements like Rodi's are looking for a more general view. One that all types of people could accept. The lack of this is what I think is leading him to the claim that no real definition of art can exist. It is not that he is interested in a different definition of art, as I understand it, it is that he is looking for someone to give him the only definition of art. This does make the promiscuous realism thing relevant, I believe.

What I was trying to say is that the problem isn't that we have no real definition of art, but that we have a wealth of definitions and that conflict arises when one person is arguing in terms of, say "critic's art" against another who is arguing in "sculptor's art." They talk past each other because they are really not arguing on the same terms. In that respect, I believe you to be providing a general, non-arbitrary, and objective account of what art is, as much as objectivity is possible in any situation. The conflict with Rodi is coming from the fact that what you are giving is not the account, which I think would be impossible.

We're not arguing over specific applications of our prejudices and premises. We're defining premises from which to start thinking about things.

If a person's working definition of art involves beauty and virtue and Great Ideas and a decorative object in a museum, I don't buy that they can never recognize my definition, that the two definitions are patently incompatible and mutually unsatisfying. The only difference between the two is that there is about a 150 years of weird thought between them. If this person takes his/her definition, walks through a museum and sees garbage stapled to the wall and a fawning curator ejaculating all over it, I can see how he/she can declare that art is dead and meaningless.

I'm trying to rewind these 150 years to explain how we got here. Either way, the people guilty for getting art where it is now are the tricksters of the art world, the people who looked at the art world around them and declared it to be decadent, depraved and incestuous, dead and meaningless; Impressionists, Dadaists, Duchamp, Pop Artists, Yves Klein, Anselm Kiefer, all the way to Maurizio Catalan today, they all said, fuck this shit and threw a wrench into the machine. The machine said, hmm delicious, and then their work became the defacto avant garde of the day. It is crazy weird that in their constant struggle to catch up with fashion and preempt it, the museums have left the general public behind. I think this is changing, though. All the curators I know are very anxious about appealing on as many levels as possible.

If I boil it down a little crudely, am I right in saying art is more about the process, rather than the end product? It's more about the thought that went into it than the actual result?
Not necessarily. The end product, the result is the evidence of the process and the thought. If it doesn't convey it all itself, no amount of explanation on the wall next to it will do it to it. Often times, if I like a work but don't think it is telling me enough about itself, I would rather look at the artist's wider body of work than read the statement. Really, the only times I go to statements is when the work is about esoteric or political topics I know nothing about. Also, if the work is so bad that reading the statement provides additional schadenfreude value. :tup::tup:
Another problem (and I'm not trying to knock the definition here, just testing it out) is that a lot of things that are made as entertainment sport complex emotions and deep thoughts at their base as well. A series like Battlestar Galactica wrestles with deeply human conflicts and feelings. Even Pirates of the Caribbean is an exploration of man's desire for greatness and adventure (as are 99% of all movies). I will grant a person like Ebert that a lot (but not all) games are made on a more technical level, not exploring something from a human perspective, but rather from a gameplay-technical one, which according to this definition would make them not art.
It happens. Nothing is preventing you from finding something worthwhile and poignant in something that has no higher aspirations than entertainment. I saw the Addams Family movie from the early nineties the other day. I really liked the way they depicted all these murderous, grim satanists as ultimately loving family people. I thought that was something that transcended the promise of an entertaining romp through a cheesy horror house.

Pirates of the Caribbean's story is a lot of fun and you can see everyone had fun making those films. It doesn't do much new, and the Davy Jones story is a kindof paint-by-numbers tragedy, but I don't think it is an irrelevant work of art. It has entered the culture and touched a whole generation of kids and created some neat archetypes that will stick around for a while. It is art. It is just not fine art (fine art, in turn, is defined by sitting in a gallery).

A couple of podcasts ago Chris mentioned a little vignette from the new STALKER game, where he snuck around a dark room with some sleeping monstrosity and being freaked out by accidentally waking it by shuffling through his inventory, then running in circles from it, in the dark, etc. This is a perfectly viable example of how an emergent systems-driven creation can still be art. It is a comprehensive new experience that says something about how humans react under pressure. He wanted to do some sort of slick silent kill, but ended up just flipping the fuck out and shooting a dozen shotgun shells in the dude's face. Now, this game is about shooting things in the face (like most games), so I could see how someone could make a blanket declaration about how dumb games are. However, I don't see anything inherently preventing this kind of system-driven-auteurship from being applied to any interaction other than "shoot in the face". We're making small steps. The first novel was a weird, formless, meandering thing. It took 300 years to get from that to Great Literature Classics of the 1800s.

Worse perhaps is that a lot of crap drawings on Deviantart might fall under the category of art as well, unless you might review the 'depth' of the emotional process that went into its creation and draw a line somewhere there.
A lot of deviant art is sortof tagging things already made by others and existing in the culture at large. The content of this stuff gets seldom beyond, I like Edward Scissorhands, so I will draw him! I also like Final Fantasy VII, so I will draw next to him the chick that just dropped dead in the middle of the story (whatever her name is)! And because this is deviant art, I'll make both of them into humanoid animals! I don't think this kind of thing is unimportant. It is quite important to people who made it, and people who like to be reminded of how much they like Edward Scissorhands and FFVII and sex with animals. The bottom line is, these kinds of arts don't have much to say. And I can see how a good number of video games can also be folded into this category. But there are plenty that do something more.

Ok, so that was a lot of text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haha, I work a street away from the Menil but I haven't been there in a while. I'd be up for an excursion if I still live in Houston by then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Garnett touched on something on this weeks Weekend Confirmed that I think is an interesting part of this discussion. There's an assumption that games are treated as something juvenile, because the people representing the government and media aren't the ones that grew up with them. And that in a few generations, there will be acceptance because they don't understand. But there seems to be a lot of people of our generation that have grown out of gaming and share the same narrow viewpoint as their parents.

I know a lot of people that have simply run out of time to play games, and that's understandable. But a few of my friends who consider the whole thing something for children. They say things you'd only expect 60-year-old newscasters to say. Honestly, I don't think it's a given that games will become accepted. The people that seem interested in going into government and journalism don't seem to be the people that give a shit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is that even if they're not interested in games, they won't buy into the fear scenarios which are absurd to anyone who actually has come into contact with gaming and people who play games. The demonizing bubble will burst eventually out of sheer ridiculousness.

We don't need everyone fawning over games. It's not as if I care one bit about say dance as an artform, but I accept that other people might. That's all we need.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point is that even if they're not interested in games, they won't buy into the fear scenarios which are absurd to anyone who actually has come into contact with gaming and people who play games. The demonizing bubble will burst eventually out of sheer ridiculousness.
I know a few people in their mid twenties that have made comments about games causing violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now