That has less to do with the quality of the art, though, and more to do with the societal view of Picasso. In fact, if you asked most people to think about their impression of famous painters, musicians, etc., you'd find most of them realise that they think of these people as brilliant primarily because they have been told they are, not because of any personal analysis or breakdown of their work. That was something that became even more abundantly clear during my time teaching. Many of Picasso's simpler works, for example, wouldn't raise an eyebrow if they were brought home from art class by a ten-year-old kid; their value lies in the fact that they were created by Picasso, not any intrinsic worth of their own. Many of these you could show to somebody without identifying the artist, and that person would see them as childish or "bad" - again, something borne out in class. I doubt you could point out what in these pictures is objectively "great" about them, without simply referencing the artist. Van Gogh's work was viewed with a range of responses from contempt to indifference until he died; much of his work was simply seen, at the time, to be "objectively" uninteresting or bad. We don't think that way now, so where does the disconnect lie? This would seem to indicate that "objectivity" in art is subjective, and changes according to time and culture. The phenomenon of an artist/writer/musician being unappreciated in their lifetime is also hardly an isolated one; were all these works "objectively" great all along, but it was just that nobody could see this until after their creator died? That would seem a little strange, surely. Not really. Art stems from the individual, environment, the age, culture, history, and any other number of factors. "Bad art" can only come from the failure of the artist to live up to their expectations or their perception of their ability; artwork that actually depicts or represents what the artist wants it to must be successful by definition, whether or not you find it personally acceptable or agreeable. That's not the same as being objectively bad. Think of those people who enter shows like American Idol. You get those who try to sing and can, those who try to sing and can't, and those who try something weird and pull it off. The first case is "good art", the second is "bad art" (failure to meet with perceived ability), and the third is "good art" that is simply unsuitable for the forum in which it appears, which is a subjective matter. You very rarely see people with limited ability who are actually aware of it, and aren't simply taking the piss in order to be on TV. Actually, the pretty glaring fallacy here is your claim that only a few are qualified to identify "real art", while the majority are not; that is a textbook argument from authority (considering you're stating that only these few people are qualified to comment, not just that they're knowledgeable in their field) and, especially given the nature of the subject in question, doesn't make sense. In my experience, those who make such assertions are usually philosophy students - or art majors, naturally. The phrase "I don't know art, but I know what I like" is an ironic one, because knowing what you like is exactly how art "works", i.e. it is subjective. When people say "You can like it, but it's still bad", that simply doesn't make sense, because personal value necessarily overrides any perceived "absolute" value. The alternative is the fallacy of argumentum ad populum, claiming an objective truth because of the number of people who believe it to be so. If you want to contribute a list of indisputably, "objectively" great paintings and songs and explain why they are so, however, I think that'd be a fun activity. Some people point to Citizen Kane as the pinnacle of filmmaking. Some point to it as being mindnumbingly tedious and overrated. Which group is "correct", and why? Both? Neither? During the course of my career, I've had the unfortunate occasion to meet with several of these rare "qualified" people who are well-known and well-regarded as having the capability to tell "real art", and in reality these people comfortably fit the stereotype of the largely pretentious who can point to a red square on a white background and state, without irony, that it perfectly demonstrates the struggle between man and nature, and is clearly worth $500k. We really don't need people encouraging that kind of behaviour.
Hey FPE, that was a great game we just had! Although I lost.. Once I saw that you have enough firepower to bring down Avatar of the Fallen at the last round, I know you have got me because you would definitely acquire Hedron Link Device. Damn, I am aiming for Hedron Link Device too but never manage to gather enough runes to acquire it!
That was a very close one! I could have took it earlier, but did not. Cards were funny ... I could buy only one construct *the ygg staff* ... an I would have been trashed without it!! \PS: I see you want a rematch ... can't do now (my lunch break is over :-() but I will accept for a later moment, ok?
No problem, you accept the game when you are free. I like the ygg staff too, one of the cards which I will definitely try to acquire almost every games.
Well argued! Back to Ascension: does anyone know if the developers have any any promises for future updates, and, if so, what? (There is a distinct lack of ability to communicate that could be adressed, for one thing )
@Appletini I don't have the time to adequately address all of your points but I do feel compelled to only point out a couple of things you appear to have misinterpreted in what I wrote above: Firstly, I never said that only a few people are qualified to define "real art." I said that only a few people are qualified to judge art as being good or bad from an objective viewpoint. Two entirely different things. Secondly, I never meant to imply that academic achievement is a necessary qualification. In fact, just as often as not academic training can serve to make one utterly incapable of objective judgement. I suppose my main point is quite simply that it is possible to like something and be aware that it's "bad." And likewise possible to dislike something and be aware it's "good." You mention having worked in publishing so I expect you should be able to understand this, though it may depend on what area of publishing. I worked as an editor for around ten years. On numerous occasions I have accepted work I wouldn't spend my leisure time reading because I recognized it still had literary value.
And with that, I'm done reading Touch Arcade reviews. The amount of praise they heap on utter garbage, mixed with the spittle dribbled on true gems, is astounding.
I'm hooked! Being a board/card game fan, this is a great find. I still have to play an online game, but I'm certain to buy the physical card game to my collection! (just wondering how boring will the card shuffling be )
Yes, I chose one word over a more appropriate one, but that was the argument I was making (I had simply made the assumption that, in your eyes, "bad art" wasn't "real art"); let me just fix and reiterate the part in question, then, to express what I intended without confusion: Actually, the pretty glaring fallacy here is your claim that only a few are qualified to identify "good art", while the majority are not; that is a textbook argument from authority (considering you're stating that only these few people are qualified to comment, not just that they're knowledgeable in their field) and, especially given the nature of the subject in question, doesn't make sense. Regardless of the terminology, my point stands: that is still an argument from authority, and it is still wrong for the same reasons I gave. If you want to make this assertion, you need to be able to back it up with examples of actual people, what qualification they have that the "vast majority" do not, and why they have it. You'd need to do the same regardless of whether we were talking about "good art" or "real art". If you're not able to provide this evidence, then I'm not sure why you made the claim in the first place. I think you misinterpreted my post; that clearly wasn't the argument I was making, and I don't believe I claimed you made that argument either. If you're referring to the "art majors" bit, that was me being facetious. You haven't established what "good" and "bad" actually mean though, which is rather important considering the argument you are making, so such statements are, by definition, meaningless until you do so. In fact, it is not at all uncommon for people to be of the belief that they wouldn't like something if it were "bad", or dislike something if it were "good", so they view things they like as being good, and things they dislike as being bad. Regardless, this is getting a bit off-topic; even the review debate was a stretch, and this is even further afield.
Both the expansion and the promo cards released thus far are in the works for the iOS version. No news about the release date for either of these yet, but one would hope that developer silence equals developer hardworkingness. ^_^
Art can never be objectively good or bad. It is inherent in the expression, and part of the reason we use the term the way we do. It is not a matter of personal viewpoint, but of the etymology, popular meaning and formal meaning of the word. The methods used to create art, however, can have technical qualities, or lack thereof. If those are what you are referring to (and much of this discussion the product of, as is so common, misunderstandings and lack of shared semantic foundation), then I agree that some people are considerably more qualified to judge the qualities of those techniques. Just as they would probably judge me as being just a tad semantically nitpicky right now Let's be naive and assume that is always the case It is strange, that developer support and the promise of future patches should be so important to the enjoyment of an already finished product. But I admit myself quite the sucker for it
what's up guys n gals... back from work and time for some good ol' Ascension fun, hope I didn't miss much apart from a couple of interesting debates bout the game thus far..
Alright fools. Let me end this stupid art discussion that is holding us back from discussing the actual game. I graduated from the University of Michigan's Art School. I have been studying art my entire life and I currently work as a graphic designer. There is indeed a way to decide what is "good" art and what is "bad" art. Although there isn't a way to decide what exactly art is. Some people don't even consider video games art at all. To me, over the 22 years of exposure and critique of all different types of artworks, my opinion is that this is great illustration work. This is my OPINION. Everyone is entitled to think what they want. This conversation isn't as deep as everyone makes it out to be. There are guidelines that make art "good" or "successful" but obviously beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Now shut up and talk about the game. I have been enjoying it so far. Does anyone have any true successful strategy mechanics? I agree with the review that the game is a bit TO random and it is difficult to build a working strategy.
I have been playing it daily (even driving my car ) and my conclusions is that there are only two strategies: stay flexible and hope you can have a flexible deck for the first of of the game and adopt a variety of tactics in the second half. Second strategy is banish banish and banish ... otherwise you are in the hands of luck. Now add me to GC Update: this is a tactical game, but in order to play instead of react to fate ... lots of games are needed. I mean I now already by middle of the game if I have lost. And I am normally right.
What type of cards do you typically banish? I start banishing my militia and Apprentice first with the idea that I am getting the resources I need from Heros, Mystics and Infantry. And what reason is there to banish cards from the center? If they are bad and you rather have something else to choose?
you start from there and focus on the ones you want to have that support your tactics and the current cards. Also you might want to banish banishing cards sometimes ..... the goal is to have a deck that get the cards you want out of your deck in your hands in order to reduce the randomness without banishing to its extreme.
Since we aren't in a court room, but are in fact merely engaging in a civil discussion, I believe I can in fact make all sorts of claims without providing evidence to back them up. And so can you. Besides, I did actually mention that delving into that very area would open up a whole other can of worms, and since you did state that we're already way off topic, perhaps we should just leave it sealed.
