[ SECRET POST #2799 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2799 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.







Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 058 secrets from Secret Submission Post #400.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: OP Here

[(Anonymous)]

Let me ask you something though…is my definition really all that different from Merriam-Webster's? Because I don't see a huge difference.

Moreover, I hardly see how I'm abusing language when there are people -- respected people -- such as Roger Ebert who stated that video games aren't art.

The point of my secret was just to say why I consider Spec Ops: The Line to unequivocally be art and what art means to me on a personal level.

If you disagree, feel free to but I don't see how I'm "abusing" language.

Art isn't objective anyway. Even experts disagree. TS Eliot, for one, considered Hamlet to be an artistic failure. Doesn't he have the right to express that opinion?

nyrt

[(Anonymous)]

the words 'everything' and 'intended' change the definition quite a lot, actually

a piece can express feelings or messages or themes without everything about it being intentional

did Monet's paintings stop being art when his eyesight got shittier and his brushstrokes became about 5 times fatter and blurrier? of course not, but he had no control over his own visual deterioration, it wasn't an artistic decision that he made on purpose, and it completely changes the appearance and impact of his later work

although I'm not sure what Monet's central theme would be according to you anyway - 'light is beautiful?' 'color and effect are more critical ways of seeing than photorealistic detail'? that seems bizarrely dry, though. it seems to me much more like that he was just trying to share beauty the way he *saw* it. Perhaps a theme needn't be verbal - but that makes it bizarrely broad in addition to bizarrely narrow to exclude advertisements and, like, essays, where literally every word should theoretically contribute to your thesis. A philosophy paper would even do this in regard to Big Questions About Human Nature, but not be anything we generally consider art.

it sounds to me like your definition is what you consider GOOD art - is it possible to have bad art? even mediocre art? where most elements form a cohesive message but a few are extraneous or contradictory? your definition seems like it would preclude that possibility