cpoint: adaptation

[NuclearTeddyBear]

Detonator^CSC wrote..

LOL I find this cpoint really sad and geek-like, what a subject to talk about, please.

Oh, I know. Art! Who cares about that thing anymore, I mean really, emotions? HA!

It's not the kinda thing you would see the average teenager talking about. Better cpoints in the future plz.

So you want C-Points to be about what the average teenager talks about? Then it really would be sad and geek-like. You, sir, are an idiot.

[quix`]

Gaming, at least the single-player aspect, is art. The ability for a mapper to create a world for you, under his control, is almost the pinnacle of art. Books and movies do this in a way, but in video games you are the main character, not some Hollywood douchbag. You are inserted in a whole new world that has been carefully crafted by devolopers. Ideally, a game can send you on a rollercoaster of emotions, and should do so. It is my opinion that gaming is just the next evolutionary step of art.

[Dick Champion]

As this is my first post, I thought I'd just say well done for making these sorts of discussion possible. Kudos on the topic.



It's interesting that you quoted Andy Warhol asspenies. A good choice of artist, seeing as he struggled to understand the complexities of popular culture and find the art inherent in it. The quotation you have chosen is somewhat misleading, however. Indeed, "everything is art", but without following that sentence with any sort of justification it is, as you were getting at, a cop out. It needs elaboration, something I am probably at a loss to give, but I'll try anyhow. Here goes:



Some other quotes by Warhol would be appropriate here, I feel.



"An artist is someone who produces things that people don't need to have but that he - for some reason - thinks it would be a good idea to give them." - AW.



This definition of an artist is one of the best I have come across to date - at least in terms of concise, witty explanations. Although pretty much everything Warhol said was 'tongue-in-cheek', the reason they are so witty is because they contain more than just an element of truth in them (as is the case with other famous wits like Wilde and Twain).



Indeed, Andy Warhol has also been quoted as saying "All art is completely useless" (Or words to that extent).



Taking these two statements together gives us a definition of art that (to my mind) encompasses every accepted art form around today. Music isn't required for society to function, but few people would dispute that music is (on the whole) art. The same goes for literature, theatre and cinema, painting, sculpture et al.



Computer games would be included in this definition, and therefore Counter-Strike.



However, Warhol was interested primarily in popular culture, commercialism and entertainment as art forms. In doing so, he overlooked the most fundamental function of art, or at least left it to other people to explain. It is, indeed, intangible (as someone said back there, I forget whom. My apologies). Art is not _entirely_ useless.



The fact is, we as a species have enormous cognitive abilities that far surpasses any needs we have to survive. We simply don't need imaginations capable of conceiving of the astounding technologies we have today. And yet we have aspirations: genetic aspirations; built into the very fibres of our beings is the incentive to utilise our extraordinary cranial capacities in the pursuit of things beautiful and wonderful that extend far beyond our basic human requirements. Such things are, on one level, entirely useless.



The same person who said that art is 'intangible' said that art is judged on whether or not it stands the test of time (I should really go and have a look, but I'm getting into this argument too much. Suffice to say your post inspired me to write this, as did the initial Counter Point article. Bravo to all three of you). Warhol had an answer for everything, it seems: "I don't think art has any lasting value." And this is (on one level) true. It doesn't. The definition of standing 'the test of time' in terms of art, of course, is whether or not the work has the same connotations to the masses of the future as it did at the time of it's conception. I am of the belief that no work of art does. Times change, people have different outlooks on life, the detail that holds all the significance in a great work eventually descends into the annuls of obscurity.



Take Shakespeare, for example. It would not be hyperbole to say that he was the greatest playwright that lived (well, maybe so. The introduction of the word 'arguably' in the relevant place wouldn't go amiss), Yet much of the artistry in his works would be missed by anyone who isn't an expert in the culture of Elizabethan England (or had it pointed out to them). Even then it wouldn't have the same significance, in much the same way as a joke is not even slightly funny if it has been explained to you. Jokes are funny because of the absurdity of them: We know what the normality of a situation is, and when that normality is skewed or twisted we realise it and laugh. Our reaction to art is much the same. It is almost instinctive.



My point here is that art inspires emotion, and indeed, the one thing that has remained constant throughout the changing history of our civilisation is human emotion. One cannot fail to be taken by Hamlet's wonderful soliloquy in which he ponders the meaning of his very existence (you all know the one — "To be, or not to be."). One must surely be humbled the enormous scale of Michelangelo's painting of the Sistine Chapel, or the intricate curves and astounding structure of the Guggenheim museum. One cannot but be inspired by Pollock's simplistic, yet deeply spiritual masterpieces of hidden form and abstract meaning. It is against our very nature as human beings to not be awed (if that's not a word, it should be. For those pedants amongst you: "Words should be our servants, not our masters" - Richard Dawkins) by these masterpieces.



Of course, these are examples of the pinnacles of artistic achievement, to which every piece of art must aspire.



'Art for art's sake' was an intriguing, but fundamentally flawed argument. - There is no doubt that these particular works of art were done with the full intention of being 'art'. However, there is something much more fundamental in art. Beauty



If something is beautiful, it is art. Beauty inspires emotion. In a sense everything is beautiful to somebody or something. So everything must be art to someone. By my reckoning this is what Warhol meant by "Everything is art". I could be wrong, but it works for me.



I realise I've waffled on for quite a bit here, but I do have a point to make, honest. It's getting late, so I shall conclude forthwith.



Basically my belief goes thusly: Couter-Strike works on many different levels. On the one hand it is sheer unadulterated entertainment — Unashamedly so. It is clear that the selfless philanthropists that gave up their time to produce such a wonderful game did not have the intention of making a work of art, but _why_should_that_matter? It is beautiful in many ways and appeals to many people. The developers clearly set out to produce a platform for players to create scenarios that they couldn't possibly have thought of. Think of the pride you had in your first kill. The camaraderie between you and your fellow team-mates when an intricate plan comes off. The frustration of a dying streak. The horror of turning a corner to be faced by a veritable army of enemies, each capable of dispatching you with a single shot. The exhilaration of planting the bomb or leading a hostage to safety whilst the opposition close in on you with the intention of causing your destruction. The fear when you see your friends drop like flies around you, and it's up to you and you alone to bring the team to victory.



Even though all of these things are a product of the individuals playing the game and not of the programmers who made it, it took a lot of skill and (here's my point) _artistry_ to provide such a balanced and engaging platform for these things to occur.



I don't like the idea that Counter-Strike (as a representative for the entire computer games industry) is not considered art. Furthermore, _art_at_it's_MOST_successful_. If indeed this was the case, then I have already wasted a considerable amount of time on an incredibly shallow pursuit. Computer games, when made properly (as Counter-Strike has been), allow people of our generation and beyond to express themselves in new and exciting ways and can be almost as engaging and inspiring as reading Dickens. That could hardly be called shallow.



Art is an elusive abstract concept, and one that is difficult to pin down. I hope I've put something of my feelings about it across.



As an afterword, to the philistines in the back row (if you're still reading, which I severely doubt):



I don't know what teenagers you've hung around with, but during my adolescence discussions such as this were commonplace. If you cannot appreciate the value of debate and striving to better yourselves intellectually, I pity you. You must lead a very sad existence.



'Nuff Said



Ed.

[speaker]

GG Champion. But your pawn is unprotected.



Rizzuh, to answer your question (and in the same thought process repond to Champion): Art, in it's form, must be done successfully with skill and to be nothing but art. To do otherwise is (dramatic pause) to do something else. Would you disagree?



I could draw an x on a piece of paper, and people would say it's not art, but I could argue for days on end that it was and it was done by the x maestro- speaker. Is it good art (ie. a masterpiece?) No, it's a horrid two lines in pencil. But it could be art to me.



When someone says "is CS art?" you aren't asking me about my opinion, you are asking if it is art. The answer is no. It's a game (a game I love more than any other since they handed out the source code to Quakeworld Team Fortress btw so don't think I'm knocking it). It's a software program designed with the desire to have people play it and enjoy it and maybe "go gold" someday if they like it. Think of comparisons. If I create an automated prorating spreadsheet or rating worksheet for my office and everyone likes and uses it, is it art? What is the difference?

[Dick Champion]

Edited by [user="155831"] @ [time="1057893445"]

speaker wrote..

Art, in it's form, must be done successfully with skill and to be nothing but art. To do otherwise is (dramatic pause) to do something else. Would you disagree?

I couldn't disagree more.



You're saying that art has to be undertaken intentionally by an artist in order for it to be "Art". What is an "Artist"? Someone with the skills to produce art? Someone with a working knowledge of what art is?



Furthermore, you're saying that if something is something else, it cannot simultaneously be called "Art"?



As far as I know, the word "Art" was first used in the sense we mean it in during the 15th - 16th century or thereabouts. The Renaissance period, anyway. It's a relatively recent term that lacks any satifactory definition. At the time it was coined to encompass Painting, Sculpture and Architecture before being expanded to include Music and Literature in the late 18th century. What about all the works of art that have been produced before the concept of "Art" or "Artist" were conceived of? If the people who produced "Art" before the Renaissance were unaware that what they were producing was "Art", then by your definition, it was not, in fact, "Art". Would you denounce all the Music, Literature, Paintings, Sculptures and Architecture before that period as being not "Art"?



No, that doesn't wash with me.



If an "Artist" has the skills to produce "Art", what is it that he or she knows that 'laymen' don't? Do they have a satisfactory definition of "Art" that everybody who hasn't labelled themselves an artist doesn't have?



Look at Seurat's Pointillism. He created Pointillism to prove a point about colour and the way the human eye perceives light. Surely that is as much 'colour science' as it is art. By your definition, it cannot be anything but art to be "Art" with a capital A.



Einstein's theories of general and special relativity are often treated as extremely important modernist works of art, and yet he didn't set out to create "Art".



Look at Marcel Duchamp and his Dada movement. They threw the whole notion of the term "Art" into disarray by the abolition of traditional culture and aesthetic forms. Part of the reason for the movement was to throw the art world into disarray. Again, by your definition, Duchamp could not have been creating "Art".



Going back to Andy Warhol again, he redefined what we think of as "Art" by producing enlarged brillo boxes, pictures of coke bottles and campbell's soup cans. They are widely accepted works of art, and yet they are normal, everyday objects.



If you label yourself as an "Artist" and an object in a frame with the intention of creating "Art", have you in fact done so?



William Blake saw nature as a form of "Art" as well as the spiritual and the divine. If nature is "Art", then is it's only purpose an aesthetic one?



Pottery is a form of fine "Art". The idea is to merge form and function. If it has both form and function, is pottery "Art"? The same goes for Design and Architecture.



An author is not an "Artist", and yet Literature is a form of "Art".



"Art" is a horribly inadequate term. There are no absolutes in art. You cannot define with absolute certainty that one thing is art whilst another thing is not. It's a subjective minefield.



My answer, as Warhol's was, is to label everything as "Art" with a capital A and be done with it.

[Mistah Kurtz]

Ah, yes, here we go with yet another round of intellectual table tennis. A point I'd like to add is the fact that anything can be anything. By this, I mean that Jenna What'sherlastname (you know, THAT Jenna) can be deemed a horrid, ugly whore, a piece of crap utterly stunning to the eye, good Samaritan deeds worthless, and torture can be a delightful family pasttime. What I'm saying is this; it's not the "art", if it can be referred to as such, that makes it "art".



It's the community that the "art" is created in, and sometimes, for, that makes it art.



If people believe something is something, like all lawyers are jerks, then that is what it/they is/are. Now, some of these things can be proven to be definites, as science has done with so many things (how heredity works, the way the tides moves, the phases of the moon), certain things such as "art" are still shaped by the community. Mabye sometime in the future, science will prove even more of these insubstantial things to be definite, but that is moving into the realm of quantum mechanics (I know that's really nerdy, but there you go anyhow). For all you who have not reached that level yet, and believe me, I only have a smattering of knowledge about the subject, quantum mechanics is partially based on the theory that some things can be two or more different things at once (like, in binary, a unit being a 1 and a 0 at the same time, see quantum computing), although they become only one thing when we percieve it, as reffering to the theory that the act observation changes the nature of things.



For example, when you put a cat into a box that allows absolutely no output from anything inside while allowing the cat to survive. Now, when you leave that box alone for several years, the cat will most likely be dead, but since you have no way of knowing unless you observe it, it can be both alive and dead at the same time.



Before I blather on further,all of these theories are linked together in one form or another; the theories of quantum anything, whether a robot with perfect A.I. that melded into society is truly intelligent, Art, Good, Evil, it's impossible to try and explain and/or argue any of these things without including the others. Such conversations as this are interesting, but would most likely take too long to finish (i.e. much longer than you will live to see), they are unsolvable, for the time being.



That concludes my first ever post on CS-Nation. Thanks to rizzuh and asspennies for attempting, and in some cases, succeeding in stimulating the minds of CS players all over the world (mostly... maybe...), and for your time and effort. After all, this is all just to fiddle about with all these brain cells we have, right? Thanks to you, and perhaps sometime, I'll donate, become a CS-Nationalist, and become as an integral part of the site as both of you are (my, what big ambitions I have! Hehe!).



Oh, and there's perhaps a topic for the next Counter-Point, so you don't keep bitching aboutnot getting suggestions; Are hackers truly just cruel, evil little miscreants who hack for the sheer purpose of destroying the gaming experience of others, or are they victims, reaching out for a power they don't have in real life? Or, perhaps, for acknowledgement? Remembrance?



Kudos to all those who commented with dignified, intelligent responses, and to the makers of this site (especially rizzuh, for making Counter-Point), and to asspennies for mentally sparring with him.



Maybe I'll do this again sometime. Peace all.



P.S. If it's not too rude, I'd like to know what you all think of this comment (yes, even the idiots, so I can laugh at your ignorance; for them, I say this... if you've even read THIS FAR: *Ahem* Uh, boy bands suck, Angelina Jolie is hot, Shigeru Miyamoto is on 'shrooms, and you all suck.)

[-:Nighthawk:-]

I kept thinking of American McGee's Alice while reading this. That game had serious artistic appeal. Amazingly strange and mysterious environments, by far the best use of the Quake III engine I've seen yet, and it told a strange, twisted story. Character development was almost zero, yet my overall impression was still ultimately "this is art."



I guess I recoil back from trying to come up with standards to judge art. Art to me is the set of things I consider to be artistic. Yes, that's circular logic, but it simply isn't meant to be logical. It's emotional, it's a feeling, a sensation, nothing more statistical than that. Yet by claiming that, it's almost like I have a standard for art.



So yeah, I guess it's more than I don't agree with a universal standard of art, but rather have my own personal interpretation of what is and is not art. Frankly, I don't give a damn whether anyone else agrees with me or not. :)



If you really must have some sort of general concept to go by, though, I think broadly art is often that which is created in the attempt to express something.

[Katana]

Whats ART??

Art is what inspires you... I mean who doesnt ever strangled someone like Metal Gear Solid or started screaming "Hurt me, make me feel alive again!" and so on (like hopping bugs as in Mario).

So yes games like CS.. its art it keeps ppl inspired even when theres new games with more possibilites and look more realistic.

[bgrd]

Detonator^CSC wrote..

It's not the kinda thing you would see the average teenager talking about. Better cpoints in the future plz.

not everyone here is an arrogant angst ridden adolescent, some of us got out of that rut years ago. It's good that CSN can bring up different topics that appeal to different groups among the CS Community, not just the pale-faced red bull drinking anti-social teen.

-:Nighthawk:- wrote..

If you really must have some sort of general concept to go by, though, I think broadly art is often that which is created in the attempt to express something.

I think this is probably the root of the discussion - art is individual. My personal opinion is that art is that which is created in the attempt to express nothing, and yet expresses everything. Art, to me, is mindless. If someone sits down and draws a picture with the intention of creating a masterpiece that millions will adore, then all it is a picture that people like.

If someone draws, just because they like to draw, and isn't drawing with the intention of making people happy, or sad, or anything else, then that is art.



As art exists on an individual level, this is probably one of those discussions that will only finish with an 'agree to disagree'

[mouth]

Anyone who actually puts some thought and gusto into their post loses the right to apologize for the length of it. Those comments are what makes Counter-Point a worthwhile feature for the site and everyone involved. Without them, we're left with this:

SALAMIjedi wrote..

SANDWICHES ARE ART! for shizzle nizzle

It's not a shallow topic that requires people to merely pull comments out of their ass. It needs people to actually go a little bit deeper to try and say something useful towards figuring something out. Why? Because you can. Go nuts.



Pronunciation: 'ärt

Function: noun

the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced



Which tells us jack.



So, we have music and painting as the prime examples of art. But we'll notice that in the top examples of both of those, we see that it's not just meandering about jacking off and going on about emotion.



For music, the examples of "high art" would be Bach, Mozart, and Chopin, to take 3. But with these examples, we can clearly see that there is a science behind what they were doing. As far as i'm concerned, you can listen to a Bach fantasia and be fairly certain that there's more there than just an intent to create art for some pretense of making art.



For art, you've got your Da Vinci, your Picasso, your Monet, and your Van Gogh. Here we can clearly see that they're not just dicking around and that there's clearly a heaping amount of technique involved.



This isn't making much headway, but both cases here suggest to me that you don't start slapping the label of "art" on anything and everything unless you're spouting off to some avant garde vibe. And we know what happens then: Yoko Ono albums.



The word that keeps sticking in my craw when i think about art is "refinement", which is something the above cases share. Of course, a child's crayon drawing may evoke emotion in one person or another, and Britney Spears is technically making music, but they both lack the refinement of the things above, which people universally accept as art.



Also, the only thing that i can really pin down is that the "artist" really doesn't have to answer to anyone. In this sense, "art" IS useless in that it has no practical or functional requirements to meet. When we get over into the area of architecture, if building isn't structurally sound, people inside are fucked. Summer movies or broadway or the actors in either have the requirement of needing to entertain the audience. When you make a pot, it had damned well better hold stuff. I don't know if i'm making any sort of connection here apparent, but i'm thinking that these things are well into the area of being crafts. This is where i think games fall into place. Except, "art" and "craft" are more or less interchangeable, so i've figured out a grand total of nothing. But there's still the vague connotation that the word "craft" has.

bgrd wrote..

There are different forms and different meanings of "art" and you mixed and matched and argued, all the while taking 'art' into different contexts.

There isn't much more to be expected when there's no concrete definition of the term in question.

If someone plays and loves counter-strike only for the way it makes them feel as though they are fighting this battle in their own personal lives, with their team of friends helping them through it, then CS can be art to that person. They have interpreted the artform to be something other than what is strikingly obvious, and made it meaningful to themselves.



Who plays CS, or any game in that manner?

Anyone who's playing a game that doesn't suck. Part of a great singleplayer game is being drawn into the world it provides.

Detonator^CSC wrote..

LOL I find this cpoint really sad and geek-like, what a subject to talk about, please. It's not the kinda thing you would see the average teenager talking about. Better cpoints in the future plz.

The average teenager knows fuck all and loses the ability to dictate what's cool and what's not when they get out of highschool.



And you're posting on a website DEDICATED TO A GAME, retard. The "geek" ship has already sailed. Sit down and shut your butthole.

witemouse wrote..

Wow, that was incredibly boring. I lost interest after the first email.

I lost interest in anything you have to say in the future after that comment. Isn't it funny how those things work out?

[speaker]

Edited by [user="33007"] @ [time="1057926195"]

Yoko Ono albums... lol!!



Kurtz and Champion... I agree that in technical, rigidly defined terms you are speaking of the absolute. CS is art. My pencil scrawls on old paper in the shape of an X is art. The eloquence of this post or lack thereof are art.



By the same measure you are moving at tens of thousands of miles per hour right now, however due to the perceptible world around you you cannot measure it that way. You are probably sitting still, in a chair unable to know that you are crashing through nothingness and dust at a speed that would make your hair stand on end. Which is the absolute? Obviously, scientifically, the latter is true.



But when someone asks you what speed you are going, do you say "tens of thousands of miles per hour?" Certainly not something you want to answer correctly to the nice officer that wants to know if you realize how fast you were going.



In ABSOLUTE, yes, anything done creatively is art. But just as you answer to the nicely uniformed gentleman that you thought you were going at a reasonable speed... CS is not art. And neither is Yoko Ono. Yoko Ono is the pain of childbirth occuring in rubbing alcohol put into the form of sound :)

------------------------

/edit - Was just telling my better half about this post and she advised me when I said emphatically "YOKO ONO ISN'T... F#$%ING... ART" she reminded me that at one time, Yoko Ono did.



Long live Mr. Lennon.

[asspennies]

Edited by [user="713"] @ [time="1057930110"]

I think what it all comes down to is the distinction between art and great art.



Let's face it, it's all an artistic endeavor when it comes right down to it. Anything creative is. The design of a car. Web advertising. Throwing a 99 mph fastball.



It's all a form of artistry, 'cause it's not a science. A science, in this sense of the word, is something that is rigidly defined and absolute. The science of making gasoline. The science of manufacturing a transistor. The science of water filtration. These aren't arts because they're perfected and machine-like in their application. It's an art when it hasn't been perfected and diluted into an idea that can be rubber-stamped and mass-produced.



In this line of thinking, the writing in a book is an art. The development of Gutenberg's printing press is an art. The final product, the books rolling off the assembly line, that's a science.



Ok, so what are we left with? Gaming by necessity is therefore an artistic endeavor. And yet that's somehow not really satisfying, because when many of us think of art, we think almost solely of great art, and I don't think any game really comes close to Shakespeare or Picasso or what society in general would consider the greats. At best they've achieved art to the level or Warhol or Hirschfeld - popular recognition and indeed admiration but not a true universal acknowledgment of greatness.



And on that level, the level of artistic merit only, I think CS fails miserably and a shiny new coat of paint won't help things at all. CS is, by our earlier conclusion, art, sure, but it's not the art that know and love when we first think of the word. It's not the high echelon of artistic value. It's in the highest echelon of gameplay and enjoyment, however.



If the argument is that being in the highest echelon of gameplay and enjoyment means it is necessarily great art then I must wholeheartedly disagree. I believe, and will continue to believe unless I'm presented with a REALLY GOOD argument to the contrary, that while gameplay is necessarily an art because it is not a science, the importance of a the whole cannot be denied. Where Counter-Strike succeeds in pure, unadulterated gameplay, it fails in many other areas that would qualify it to be considered among the great art of our, or any other, time.

[Tuxedo]

Here's my 2 penny's (I'm from England :P):



From what i read some people here think art depends on its audience, contemporary or otherwise, in order to be art. Does this mean if we took the Mona Lisa and placed it among a bunch of monkeys (without any homo sapians seeing it other than the artist) it would cease to be art ? And



Dicks comment: "What about all the works of art that have been produced before the concept of "Art" or "Artist" were conceived of? " is irrelevant because art is, almost by definition, undefinable (heh). So even if the artist didn't regard him/herself as an "artist" is has no relevance to what they produce as art is based on emotions. To truly appreciate art, we must look at both the process and the end result (in my humble humble opinion).



Anyone read "the history of the world in 10 1/2 chapters" ? It spends one of those chapters analyzing a painting, and more importantly, the decisions the painter made, and by the end i was looking at the painting in a completely different way. So if we look at a computer game, and look at the decisions made, maybe they (or some) are art. (although i doubt Generic Blaster 5 is, but Deus Ex is, IMHO).



Finally, like computer games, most works of art (at least the classical ones such as the Mona Lisa) were commissioned by the rich and famous, and similarly, the artist had limited control over what the end product was, like the developer/publisher relationship we have today.



I know I'm not really going anywhere with what I'm saying, but there you go, sue me. Very glad to see a proper intellectual discussion can be made about computer gaems, rather than the usual "Are lara's breasts bigger in tomb raider 28???!?!" that I see on some sites.



Me out.

[Dick Champion]

Nicely put asspenies.



The only thing is, I think my argument is that "the highest echelon of gameplay and enjoyment means it is necessarily great art."



I don't have the time today to put forward an argument for this case, I've got work in an hour or so and need to get ready. Tonight, perhaps.



To put my feeling concisely, I think there is something intrisically beautiful about the way the game has been put together, refined and balanced. It is, indeed, a relatively new art form. One which has yet to achieve the status and grandeur that we afford other pursuits, but I still firmly believe that as an example of this new art form, it is surely amongst the greatest works.



Something is niggling in my brain and asking to be put forward, but I can't seem to get at it right now. I'll have to come back when it reveals itself.

[Chickenleggz27]

I like the article, well put on both sides, RzE was himself as usual, and asspennies has a good point. I feel that art is only art to those that think in such terms. If it's not art to the person who thinks that, then there right, it's not. This is why were human. Asspennies has every right to say CS is not art. I used to think so as well. But then you have to take a deeper look into, or at least I had to (yes I'm a newbie at the game, but I'm attempting to learn everything I can, this site's helped massively). What I figured out in my peanut sized brain is that it takes a creative mind to decide how a map will turn out, or to animate a draw feature on a replacement skin for a glock. It maybe be all done with computer programming, but when the finished product is viewed, people will decide whether the skin, or map for that matter, was even worth the author's efforts.



I guess what I am saying is that art, to me, is any creative idea that is put into a medium, regardless of what that medium is. There are computer generated pictures hanging in world renown art museums, are they really art? It is all based upon ones personal definition of "art" and ones own personal liking. Certain people may despise pieces of "art" but that's why we have art critics :-).



I guess I'm not quite sure where I was going with this other then it is based upon perspective, but oh well. Have fun with it :-) And I happen to enjoy Rizzuh's sarcasim.



Peace,

OAS, LLS, LLS!