new graphs, old rhetoric

“invisible” arts.

April 19, 2010 at 4:44 pm (Uncategorized) (art, gaming, internet habits, rhetoric & comp, strange tone)

We think art. we think monet. we think seurat.

we don’t think comic books, video games, or graphic novels. ha! these are only public art, not meant to admire for their beauty or whatever it is culture says to us. We would only dare to lump in a graphic designer or a video game artist with a person with a paintbrush!

in high school, we would have discussions on art, and i can remember distinctly bringing up the notion of text (in novel sense) as art. after all, it’s created through a very similar process, just with a significantly different medium. if we all text art, how can we say other art is not just that?

ok, bigger question. how is hanging out with someone online not “meeting” them. let’s assume you skyped with them: you saw their face, their expression, maybe the inside of the room or office – and i bet people wouldn’t qualify this as “meeting.” this, i feel, is the way that people view some more modern art (like comic books and video games) in the sense of art. there’s something missing, they’d like to say. it doesn’t go all the way.

ah! because you are attached to all your old standards. there is no possible way that game art can be as significant or beautiful as art-art. art for art’s own sake is the best, after all!

for that, i give this piece of evidence:

discuss.

strange point of view and tone in this post brought to you by nonstop working and a lot of interesting internet stuff.