Monday, October 30, 2006


In my ever intriguing travails across seas of cyberspace, certain concepts will never escape my inspective eye. Nor should they escape the view of technologically advanced public; merely because there is nothing better to do with our time. Discussion of philosophically hollow distinctions may begin now: Are video games art?
Are video games a form of art? After seeing numerous products termed "modern art," I am in agreement with the author. The distinction between what is art and what is merely pretty existence is not only objective but wholly arbitrary. Just as in any field where study is required yet often unimportant, the self elevated experts define the conceptual framework. Only they are qualified to make such important and self fulfilling decisions. While video games fill most primary definitions of art, they are often decried as empty shells devoid of meaning. It is a form of hierarchical hypocrisy. Art has survived by incorporating fringe elements into the definition, Picasso and DaVinci outcasts turned masters. So when a video game includes a strong thematic elements with visual imagery that even Degas could barely envision. Also the concept that video games are interactive and therefore not art is absurdity beyond reckoning. Is there not interactive art, or what was that woman in the see through skin suit trying to tell me? There is no greater visceral joy than to wash Leon Kennedy place a bullet in the basal lodge of an Eastern European crazed gypsy.

I have found a new idol which will most assuredly lead to my destruction in some comedic fashion. All you need to know is the supplies necessary are a fire orange Pinto with pink flames and a J-58. Por ejemplo: