tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2208890564265615027.post1131603269700686929..comments2024-03-08T19:47:41.485+11:00Comments on Ascii Dreams: Prototype theoryAndrew Doullhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11099404183952971291noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2208890564265615027.post-27502722073825590302012-05-06T13:27:51.533+10:002012-05-06T13:27:51.533+10:00Max: That's a lot more sensible approach than ...Max: That's a lot more sensible approach than arguing semantics.Andrew Doullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11099404183952971291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2208890564265615027.post-48435796567875881842012-05-04T21:01:07.072+10:002012-05-04T21:01:07.072+10:00I know how old this article is, but I found it int...I know how old this article is, but I found it interesting. I think we need to not look at what games or art have in common, because it's been shown there isn't a lot. What we instead need to look at is how the person reacts to a game, or to art. The things that games and art have in common is that they appeal to some form of core emotion. They make us happy, they make us sad, they make us think. And that's why we love them!Maxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09192883214053940846noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2208890564265615027.post-54546076749481255572008-06-18T12:53:00.000+10:002008-06-18T12:53:00.000+10:00Ok, here's what I read your argument as saying. Y...Ok, here's what I read your argument as saying. You start off by arguing that games are not art, and when we get to asking "What is art?" you fall back on Prototype Theory. Prototype Theory as you presented it seems to say that whatever first pops into people's heads when you mention 'art' is what art is. Therefore, paintings are art, sculpture less so, and computer-based new media artworks are even farther down the scale than Duchamp's urinal.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that almost every trained artist in the world would disagree with this definition.<BR/><BR/>My reaction would be that you can either follow up by saying that, well, okay, it's "art from an artist's perspective" but not "art from the public's perspective", setting up some kind of dual meaning and ultimately coming right back to both of us being right/wrong depending on which one you pick. Or, you can devalue the opinion of specialists in the field. If you go down the road of ignoring specialists, I'd love to see how you apply Prototype Theory to the definition of, say, any technical terminology such as that used in the I.T. industry on a daily basis.<BR/><BR/>However, if you do choose to value the specialists' perspective, well, you're wrong. Trained, educated artists understand that there is a huge landscape of art across many different mediums, including sculpture, paintings, drawing, 3D modeling, generative art, reverse graffiti, etc.<BR/><BR/>So I'm not really sure how this application of theory actually helps get us any closer to a sane discussion.josh g.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04191156181690351006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2208890564265615027.post-14053379035227000982008-04-24T08:03:00.000+10:002008-04-24T08:03:00.000+10:00"It completely ignores the possibility of recogniz..."It completely ignores the possibility of recognizing the value in anything new or novel."<BR/><BR/>How does it do that? You're making some fairly large extrapolations here from a fairly intuitive argument that happens to be backed up by a body of academic evidence. I think you're bringing some preconceptions to the table that you haven't stated in your comment.<BR/><BR/>Prototype theory suggests that people will attempt to place anything new or novel within their existing framework of meaning. It doesn't make judgements about whether or not something fits easily. The most likely reaction for something completely novel is going to be along the lines of 'Well it's not art, but I don't know what it is.'<BR/><BR/>One of the key points you're appearing to miss is that prototype theory doesn't value the gradients. It can say things like "its more art-like" or "less art-like" but doesn't offer anything about whether being art-like is a good thing in the first place.Andrew Doullhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11099404183952971291noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2208890564265615027.post-24298626800214436282008-04-24T00:21:00.000+10:002008-04-24T00:21:00.000+10:00This is kind of a long-old response that I didn't ...This is kind of a long-old response that I didn't want to bother making before, but it's been annoying me when I think about this so I guess I should just get it out of my system.<BR/><BR/>This argument is so completely wrong and (worse) counter-productive that it boggles my mind. It completely ignores the possibility of recognizing the value in anything new or novel.<BR/><BR/>I mean, what the hell. By this argument you're not a game developer. Almost no one even knows what a roguelike is, never mind thinking of it first when someone asks them to define the category "game".josh g.https://www.blogger.com/profile/04191156181690351006noreply@blogger.com