Crysis 1 looks dated? Killzone 3 looks better?

So I finally got my new pc and can max crysis out with no problem. I showed the game to a friend of mine and he said "The game looks dated". Then he put a video of killzone 3 and he said "Dude just look at the water". What do you guys think?

Note: I do not have any mods on the game, I want to finish it vanilla style.

the water was disgusting in KZ3....comparing water in Crysis to water in KZ3 isn't even close

Crysis is still king to this day

KZ2 looks better than KZ3 to me

KZ3 was worse in every way IMO.

i think its the art style that hurts Crysis.... good looking game non the less could have used better animations though.

i think its the art style that hurts Crysis.... good looking game non the less could have used better animations though.

GTSaiyanjin2

Some people have intresting tastes in graphics. The water in Killzone 3 is much more animated and in-your-face than Crysis so it's far more noticable.

No and no.

[QUOTE="GTSaiyanjin2"]

i think its the art style that hurts Crysis.... good looking game non the less could have used better animations though.

TailBlood

Well the art direction not a fan of it at all.... its a very boring game to look at.... forgettable if you will. Sure technically its still a behemoth if not still the best looking game out right now, but technical aspect aren't everything when it comes to how good a game can look.

So I finally got my new pc and can max crysis out with no problem. I showed the game to a friend of mine and he said "The game looks dated". Then he put a video of killzone 3 and he said "Dude just look at the water". What do you guys think?

Note: I do not have any mods on the game, I want to finish it vanilla ****

TailBlood

If you have Crysis truly maxed out, swim under water and look up at the sun. See the specular effects and refraction? Killzone 3 is a pretty game, but I've never seen anything like the refraction of water in Crysis 1. It makes little rainbows.

the water was disgusting in KZ3....comparing water in Crysis to water in KZ3 isn't even close

Crysis is still king to this day

KZ2 looks better than KZ3 to me

chikenfriedrice

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

[QUOTE="GTSaiyanjin2"]

i think its the art style that hurts Crysis.... good looking game non the less could have used better animations though.

GTSaiyanjin2

Well the art direction not a fan of it at all.... its a very boring game to look at.... forgettable if you will. Sure technically its still a behemoth if not still the best looking game out right now, but technical aspect aren't everything when it comes to how good a game can look.

If you have Crysis truly maxed out, swim under water and look up at the sun. See the specular effects and refraction? Killzone 3 is a pretty game, but I've never seen anything like the refraction of water in Crysis 1. It makes little rainbows.

Really odd when I look at a shooter and say "Wow that's looks beauitiful"

Edit: To the other poster. I tried that lol. When I was in the water apperantly the sun was hitting it. Jesus it looks beautiful!

Guess I'll post a pic of Crysis just because I can :P And yeah it does look better than killzone.

Guess I'll post a pic of Crysis just because I can :P And yeah it does look better than killzone.

GTSaiyanjin2

That's actually something I'm into right now. In an age where shooters look drab and collorless (gears, duty, and killzone), crysis lush jungles... ice... water... and such was very impressive. I do agree techinical aspects aren't everything, but crysis both has a great art direction+visuals.

Really odd when I look at a shooter and say "Wow that's looks beauitiful"

Edit: To the other poster. I tried that lol. When I was in the water apperantly the sun was hitting it. Jesus it looks beautiful!

TailBlood

Crysis looks great, but it's art direction isn't terrifically inspired. It was powered to be the most technically impressive. Crysis 2 on the other hand, has incredible art direction.

Killzone, despite being an absolute bore to play through campaign-wise, has an unforgettable look. I admire GG's artistic direction throughout all the KZ games.

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

That's actually something I'm into right now. In an age where shooters look drab and collorless (gears, duty, and killzone), crysis lush jungles... ice... water... and such was very impressive. I do agree techinical aspects aren't everything, but crysis both has a great art direction+visuals.

Really odd when I look at a shooter and say "Wow that's looks beauitiful"

Edit: To the other poster. I tried that lol. When I was in the water apperantly the sun was hitting it. Jesus it looks beautiful!

FrozenLiquid

Crysis looks great, but it's art direction isn't terrifically inspired. It was powered to be the most technically impressive. Crysis 2 on the other hand, has incredible art direction.

Killzone, despite being an absolute bore to play through campaign-wise, has an unforgettable look. I admire GG's artistic direction throughout all the KZ games.

LOL Crysis is dated. It only looks good in downsampled pics. It was great for 2007 but now its being extremely overrated.Basically the people that praise Crysis have a fetish for grass and foliage and the people that get off seeing high-end hardware choke. Never knew what was the big deal with this game and everybody brings it up as the end-all arguement to superior graphics, when it just doesn't actually look that good while playing it.

crysis never really impressed me

LOL Crysis is dated. It only looks good in downsampled pics. It was great for 2007 but now its being extremely overrated.Basically the people that praise Crysis have a fetish for grass and foliage and the people that get off seeing high-end hardware choke. Never knew what was the big deal with this game and everybody brings it up as the end-all arguement to superior graphics, when it just doesn't actually look that good while playing it.

Jebus213

Well it's all relative when it comes to it. I enjoyed kz2's visuals, but the art direction was not it. I actually thought the original gears had fantastic art direction (second that year after okami).

TailBlood

I'll keep it succinct, coz this isn't art history cIass: art is not subjective :P.

But yeah, Gears also has fantastic art direction.

LOL Crysis is dated. It only looks good in downsampled pics. It was great for 2007 but now its being extremely overrated.Basically the people that praise Crysis have a fetish for grass and foliage and the people that get off seeing high-end hardware choke. Never knew what was the big deal with this game and everybody brings it up as the end-all arguement to superior graphics, when it just doesn't actually look that good while playing it.

Jebus213

I doubt you've ever played it. It looks stunning when you have the settings turned up. With a few tweaks to the configs you can make the game look even better...

That's how it looks for me with some ToD and config tweaks. Runs better too.

the water was disgusting in KZ3....comparing water in Crysis to water in KZ3 isn't even close

Crysis is still king to this day

KZ2 looks better than KZ3 to me

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

LOL Crysis is dated. It only looks good in downsampled pics. It was great for 2007 but now its being extremely overrated.Basically the people that praise Crysis have a fetish for grass and foliage and the people that get off seeing high-end hardware choke. Never knew what was the big deal with this game and everybody brings it up as the end-all arguement to superior graphics, when it just doesn't actually look that good while playing it.

Wasdie

I doubt you've ever played it. It looks stunning when you have the settings turned up. With a few tweaks to the configs you can make the game look even better...

That's how it looks for me with some ToD and config tweaks. Runs better too.

Yeah, it looks good in a downsampled pic. All you need to do is put in a couple of commands so screenshots are twice that of your resolution and downsize it in gimp.

.

Done it plenty of times.

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

Well it's all relative when it comes to it. I enjoyed kz2's visuals, but the art direction was not it. I actually thought the original gears had fantastic art direction (second that year after okami).

FrozenLiquid

I'll keep it succinct, coz this isn't art history cIass: art is not subjective :P.

But yeah, Gears also has fantastic art direction.

Art is subjective..

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

LOL Crysis is dated. It only looks good in downsampled pics. It was great for 2007 but now its being extremely overrated.Basically the people that praise Crysis have a fetish for grass and foliage and the people that get off seeing high-end hardware choke. Never knew what was the big deal with this game and everybody brings it up as the end-all arguement to superior graphics, when it just doesn't actually look that good while playing it.

Jebus213

I doubt you've ever played it. It looks stunning when you have the settings turned up. With a few tweaks to the configs you can make the game look even better...

That's how it looks for me with some ToD and config tweaks. Runs better too.

Yeah, it looks good in a downsampled pic.

Right-click -> View Image. You'll see the picture at the resolution I took it in.

Also, like with any game but really applies to Crysis, the game looks the best in motion. The leaves blowing in the wind, trees falling during fightfights, some amazing particles during gunfights... it's awesome. I guess if you've never played it, you would have no idea what I'm talking about.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

LOL Crysis is dated. It only looks good in downsampled pics. It was great for 2007 but now its being extremely overrated.Basically the people that praise Crysis have a fetish for grass and foliage and the people that get off seeing high-end hardware choke. Never knew what was the big deal with this game and everybody brings it up as the end-all arguement to superior graphics, when it just doesn't actually look that good while playing it.

Wasdie

I doubt you've ever played it. It looks stunning when you have the settings turned up. With a few tweaks to the configs you can make the game look even better...

That's how it looks for me with some ToD and config tweaks. Runs better too.

doesn't really look that good imo

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I doubt you've ever played it. It looks stunning when you have the settings turned up. With a few tweaks to the configs you can make the game look even better...

That's how it looks for me with some ToD and config tweaks. Runs better too.

Jebus213

Yeah, it looks good in a downsampled pic.

It looks even better in full size.

That thread about downsampled crysis images has made you crazy,man:P

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

LOL Crysis is dated. It only looks good in downsampled pics. It was great for 2007 but now its being extremely overrated.Basically the people that praise Crysis have a fetish for grass and foliage and the people that get off seeing high-end hardware choke. Never knew what was the big deal with this game and everybody brings it up as the end-all arguement to superior graphics, when it just doesn't actually look that good while playing it.

Harisemo

I doubt you've ever played it. It looks stunning when you have the settings turned up. With a few tweaks to the configs you can make the game look even better...

That's how it looks for me with some ToD and config tweaks. Runs better too.

doesn't really look that good imo

You're entitled to an opinion...

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

Well it's all relative when it comes to it. I enjoyed kz2's visuals, but the art direction was not it. I actually thought the original gears had fantastic art direction (second that year after okami).

sSubZerOo

I'll keep it succinct, coz this isn't art history cIass: art is not subjective :P.

But yeah, Gears also has fantastic art direction.

Art is subjective..

Nope. Well, not in the way you think it is. If you would like me to present you with a tertiary level paper on the philosophy of subjectivity/objectivity (and its relation to art and opinion), I will be happy to provide it for you.

There is objective value in art, it is what has caused art to evolve (not simply change, but evolve) over the ages. The subjective reception of art differentiates each individual's relations to a particular work (causing a person to like/dislike things), but it does not affect the objective value of the art itself.

Nope. Well, not in the way you think it is. If you would like me to present you with a tertiary level paper on the philosophy of subjectivity/objectivity (and its relation to art and opinion), I will be happy to provide it for you.

There is objective value in art, it is what has caused art to evolve (not simply change, but evolve) over the ages. The subjective reception of art differentiates each individual's relations to a particular work (causing a person to like/dislike things), but it does not affect the objective value of the art itself.

FrozenLiquid

How is that true at all? If I think a piece of art is crappy, I'll think it's crappy. It's subjective to my own personal views on what I believe makes good art. Also there is a lot of "art" out there that isn't art and is subjective to our opinions of what makes art.

You can't just call something art and it instantly is art in the eyes of everybody. Maybe yours, but not everybody else. That is what makes it subjective.

In video games it's much more clear cut. Any 3D model, texture, and shader combination is a form of art each peice requiring some sort of talent we usually classify under artistic qualities and each adding value to the end result.. Weather you like that particular art styIe is a personal opinion formed from your own beliefs.

[QUOTE="Jebus213"]

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

I doubt you've ever played it. It looks stunning when you have the settings turned up. With a few tweaks to the configs you can make the game look even better...

That's how it looks for me with some ToD and config tweaks. Runs better too.

Wasdie

Yeah, it looks good in a downsampled pic.

Right-click -> View Image. You'll see the picture at the resolution I took it in.

Now it looks like trash...

In my opinion Killzone 3 looks better then vanilla Crysis maxed out and its not even close.

Not sure why - maybe because KZ3 has way better animation, way better particle effects, way better lighting and i think it has even more polygons in environments.

Crysis has way better textures and can run at higher res, but thats just not enough.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

I'll keep it succinct, coz this isn't art history cIass: art is not subjective :P.

But yeah, Gears also has fantastic art direction.

FrozenLiquid

Art is subjective..

Nope. Well, not in the way you think it is. If you would like me to present you with a tertiary level paper on the philosophy of subjectivity/objectivity (and its relation to art and opinion), I will be happy to provide it for you.

There is objective value in art, it is what has caused art to evolve (not simply change, but evolve) over the ages. The subjective reception of art differentiates each individual's relations to a particular work (causing a person to like/dislike things), but it does not affect the objective value of the art itself.

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

Art is subjective..

TailBlood

Nope. Well, not in the way you think it is. If you would like me to present you with a tertiary level paper on the philosophy of subjectivity/objectivity (and its relation to art and opinion), I will be happy to provide it for you.

There is objective value in art, it is what has caused art to evolve (not simply change, but evolve) over the ages. The subjective reception of art differentiates each individual's relations to a particular work (causing a person to like/dislike things), but it does not affect the objective value of the art itself.

The fact that you didnt get it doesnt mean that its subjective. Art has objective quality in it and it has nothing at all to do with whether you like it or not. Mozart or Smetana music is genius whether you (or anybody) like it or not. Its all about going through the artistic perseverance, to be humble enough to accept what the given piece of art is trying to offer you...... uh, I guess my English isnt good enough to really point out what Im trying to say, but I a huge art lover and I feel offended when somebody thinks art is subjective. Its not and people with taste know it.

I think it has every right to be dated, it's a 4 year old game.

What's disturbing is that it isn't. More important, it's gameplay still is top-notch.

My only big complaint with it is the AA and CPU support.

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Nope. Well, not in the way you think it is. If you would like me to present you with a tertiary level paper on the philosophy of subjectivity/objectivity (and its relation to art and opinion), I will be happy to provide it for you.

There is objective value in art, it is what has caused art to evolve (not simply change, but evolve) over the ages. The subjective reception of art differentiates each individual's relations to a particular work (causing a person to like/dislike things), but it does not affect the objective value of the art itself.

BlbecekBobecek

The fact that you didnt get it doesnt mean that its subjective. Art has objective quality in it and it has nothing at all to do with whether you like it or not. Mozart or Smetana music is genius whether you (or anybody) like it or not. Its all about going through the artistic perseverance, to be humble enough to accept what the given piece of art is trying to offer you...... uh, I guess my English isnt good enough to really point out what Im trying to say, but I a huge art lover and I feel offended when somebody thinks art is subjective. Its not and people with taste know it.

But it is. You can't just assume everybody is going to think everything is art. You have the popular opinions on what is art of course. Your traditional musicians, painters, and those kind of mediums of art are accepted among our society as artists and their works art. That's where people get confused. Our society has accepted certain things as norms.

However if I am not apart of our society, I'm going to have a very different view on what is art and what is not. If I came from a society of scientists and mathematicians who have no upbringing in the crafts that our society deems art, I may believe that art is actually a very complex algorithm that solves several problems. That person from that society will never truly understand why our society thinks music and painting/drawing (just as examples) are art and we don't consider our math as art. They may actually believe what we call art to be more like what we believe math is.

If you leave the cultural bounds of our society you'll realize that art is extremely subjective. The beauty of art is that it is subejctive and one can find art in pretty much everything. However you may be the only one who finds art in certain things.

[QUOTE="TailBlood"]

[QUOTE="FrozenLiquid"]

Nope. Well, not in the way you think it is. If you would like me to present you with a tertiary level paper on the philosophy of subjectivity/objectivity (and its relation to art and opinion), I will be happy to provide it for you.

There is objective value in art, it is what has caused art to evolve (not simply change, but evolve) over the ages. The subjective reception of art differentiates each individual's relations to a particular work (causing a person to like/dislike things), but it does not affect the objective value of the art itself.

BlbecekBobecek

The fact that you didnt get it doesnt mean that its subjective. Art has objective quality in it and it has nothing at all to do with whether you like it or not. Mozart or Smetana music is genius whether you (or anybody) like it or not. Its all about going through the artistic perseverance, to be humble enough to accept what the given piece of art is trying to offer you...... uh, I guess my English isnt good enough to really point out what Im trying to say, but I a huge art lover and I feel offended when somebody thinks art is subjective. Its not and people with taste know it.

Killzone 3 is a nice looking console game, but man the water is fugly.

How is that true at all? If I think a piece of art is crappy, I'll think it's crappy. It's subjective to my own personal views on what I believe makes good art. Also there is a lot of "art" out there that isn't art and is subjective to our opinions of what makes art.

You can't just call something art and it instantly is art in the eyes of everybody. Maybe yours, but not everybody else. That is what makes it subjective.

In video games it's much more clear cut. Any 3D model, texture, and shader combination is a form of art each peice requiring some sort of talent we usually classify under artistic qualities and each adding value to the end result.. Weather you like that particular art styIe is a personal opinion formed from your own beliefs.

Wasdie

Now, it is true that everyone's entitled to their own opinion. The fact of the matter is, quite frankly, not everyone's opinion holds the same weight. This is because opinions are formed on the observation of objective data, and the measure of an opinion's weight is how well it aligns itself to the truth. This problem was questioned, solved, and cleared in the time of Plato and Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics). It was elaborated upon by the Catholic Church during the Middle ages (it's the reason school and universities exist in the western world).

How the crap 'everything is subjective' has diarrhoea'ed itself into the public sphere is beyond me. But the idea is understandably lucrative (i.e 'I can never be wrong!'), so it's been hanging around like weed.

You're right in saying that you cannot simply say 'art' and such a thing exists as 'art'.The mistake you've made, and what everyone else is made, is the idea that 'This is my art, and that is your art'. Untrue. If such was the case, the video game community wouldn't have their knickers in a twist trying to convince the world their play things are art. Now, you try answer that one :P.

Art is identified through the philosophies of metaphysics and aesthetics*. Note that I say 'identified'; it exists of its own accord, independent of the witting or unwitting artist who brings it into creation (should the art be brought into creation by human hand), and independent of the witting or unwitting viewer who initiates the experience of viewing art. To make the idea clear, if John Doe was never born into this world, art would exist without him, and the value of the art exists without his proper engaging so. If John Doe was 7 years old, and cannot comprehend art, while he may know it exists, the value of the art still exists without his proper engaging so. If John Doe was an adult who knew of the existence of the art, understood it, but personally found it distasteful, the value of the art still exists without his blessings.

The personal disposition towards art is of course considered the 'subjective experience'. It is true that viewing art is subjective. That does not exclude the art from having objective value. Subjectivity/objectivity are not mutually exclusive, and I will provide a link at the end of my reply**. The subjective experience is dependent on environmental factors of the person. A person not born in this world cannot have the subjective experience of the art. A young person below the age of reason can have the subjective experience of art, as well as persons above the age of reason. You can possibly understand that a person above the age of reason will hold a more informed opinion (an observation dependent on objective truth) than a person below the age of reason, thereby making his opinion better than the other.

The complexity of the subjective experience is far greater, however. For example, many western people will find mainland Chinese movies corny, over-acted, and melodramatic. While it is an accurate observation, the resulting subjective experience will not have an affect on the objective value of a Chinese movie. Because China has had a set of different environmental factors to the western world e.g the critical and consensual popularity of Chinese opera, the resulting art produced in China will be different from what most western civilizations will experience. In the same manner a 7 year old cannot comprehend the value of jazz, an American may not understand the reasons for melodramatic Chinese acting. In the same manner the 7 year old's subjective experience does not affect the objective value of jazz (which can be discovered and discussed better by the opinions of jazz enthusiasts), the subjective experience of a western audience viewing a Chinese movie does not affect its objective value (which can be discovered and discussed better by the opinions of Chinese art critics).

So no, art is not subjective, at least not in the way many people understand subjectivity to be. There is objective value to art, and this is why it has fascinated us for over several thousand years. None of this 21st century relativist crap is going to bring it down :P

*Bonus question: How many people who discuss art have backgrounds in either metaphysics or aesthetics (aesthetics can be learnt in art history)? Very few, apparently, and it has caused distressed amongst philosophers and art historians. We're trying to discover truth here, world, not muddle things up!

**Thinking Critically about the Subjective-Objective Distinction

Here's another article I've found

[QUOTE="Wasdie"]

How is that true at all? If I think a piece of art is crappy, I'll think it's crappy. It's subjective to my own personal views on what I believe makes good art. Also there is a lot of "art" out there that isn't art and is subjective to our opinions of what makes art.

You can't just call something art and it instantly is art in the eyes of everybody. Maybe yours, but not everybody else. That is what makes it subjective.

In video games it's much more clear cut. Any 3D model, texture, and shader combination is a form of art each peice requiring some sort of talent we usually classify under artistic qualities and each adding value to the end result.. Weather you like that particular art styIe is a personal opinion formed from your own beliefs.

FrozenLiquid

Now, it is true that everyone's entitled to their own opinion. The fact of the matter is, quite frankly, not everyone's opinion holds the same weight. This is because opinions are formed on the observation of objective data, and the measure of an opinion's weight is how well it aligns itself to the truth. This problem was questioned, solved, and cleared in the time of Plato and Aristotle (Nicomachean Ethics). It was elaborated upon by the Catholic Church during the Middle ages (it's the reason school and universities exist in the western world).

How the crap 'everything is subjective' has diarrhoea'ed itself into the public sphere is beyond me. But the idea is understandably lucrative (i.e 'I can never be wrong!'), so it's been hanging around like weed.

You're right in saying that you cannot simply say 'art' and such a thing exists as 'art'.The mistake you've made, and what everyone else is made, is the idea that 'This is my art, and that is your art'. Untrue. If such was the case, the video game community wouldn't have their knickers in a twist trying to convince the world their play things are art. Now, you try answer that one :P.

Art is identified through the philosophies of metaphysics and aesthetics*. Note that I say 'identified'; it exists of its own accord, independent of the witting or unwitting artist who brings it into creation (should the art be brought into creation by human hand), and independent of the witting or unwitting viewer who initiates the experience of viewing art. To make the idea clear, if John Doe was never born into this world, art would exist without him, and the value of the art exists without his proper engaging so. If John Doe was 7 years old, and cannot comprehend art, while he may know it exists, the value of the art still exists without his proper engaging so. If John Doe was an adult who knew of the existence of the art, understood it, but personally found it distasteful, the value of the art still exists without his blessings.

The personal disposition towards art is of course considered the 'subjective experience'. It is true that viewing art is subjective. That does not exclude the art from having objective value. Subjectivity/objectivity are not mutually exclusive, and I will provide a link at the end of my reply**. The subjective experience is dependent on environmental factors of the person. A person not born in this world cannot have the subjective experience of the art. A young person below the age of reason can have the subjective experience of art, as well as persons above the age of reason. You can possibly understand that a person above the age of reason will hold a more informed opinion (an observation dependent on objective truth) than a person below the age of reason, thereby making his opinion better than the other.

The complexity of the subjective experience is far greater, however. For example, many western people will find mainland Chinese movies corny, over-acted, and melodramatic. While it is an accurate observation, the resulting subjective experience will not have an affect on the objective value of a Chinese movie. Because China has had a set of different environmental factors to the western world e.g the critical and consensual popularity of Chinese opera, the resulting art produced in China will be different from what most western civilizations will experience. In the same manner a 7 year old cannot comprehend the value of jazz, an American may not understand the reasons for melodramatic Chinese acting. In the same manner the 7 year old's subjective experience does not affect the objective value of jazz (which can be discovered and discussed better by the opinions of jazz enthusiasts), the subjective experience of a western audience viewing a Chinese movie does not affect its objective value (which can be discovered and discussed better by the opinions of Chinese art critics).

So no, art is not subjective, at least not in the way many people understand subjectivity to be.

*Bonus question: How many people who discuss art have backgrounds in either metaphysics or aesthetics (aesthetics can be learnt in art history)? Very few, apparently, and it has caused distressed amongst philosophers and art historians. We're trying to discover truth here, world, not muddle things up!

**Thinking Critically about the Subjective-Objective Distinction

Here's another article I've found

Oh and btw the article falls flat, because I started to listening to mozart, and jazz (thanks to my grandpa) when I was 6. I totally understood it, yet I didn't understand rap. Which is why I'm so differnet from people here (luckly I defend myself by not talking about my interests, instead pretending to be interested in what people say :roll:)

One thing is to do an article, but apprently the person hasn't lived in a non-subjective society.

KZ3 was worse in every way IMO.

lundy86_4

Nice written article, but that's were it ends. Got a question for you. If I were to call movies in my country crap, yet many consider it art... does it mean that I am wrong? Or the music listened here? After all I do love arthouse films and listen to instrumental scores. Yet you do realize that art in my country isn't that. It's everything that is mainstream. I like many others find it extremely crappy, yet you'd be suprised that some people I've talked to in the U.S actually like it here.

Oh and btw the article falls flat, because I started to listening to mozart, and jazz (thanks to my grandpa) when I was 6. I totally understood it, yet I didn't understand rap. Which is why I'm so differnet from people here (luckly I defend myself by not talking about my interests, instead pretending to be interested in what people say :roll:)

One thing is to do an article, but apprently the person hasn't lived in a non-subjective society.

TailBlood

If you were to call movies in your country crap, yet many consider it art, it doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong. To believe something to be true because many people believe it to be so is committing the fallacy "argument ad populum" (appeal to the people). For example, the notion 'art is subjective' is today's current argument ad populum.

Like I stated, art is art whether people believe it or not, and that goes for the person who created it. The caveman doing the art drawings probably could not reason that his drawings were art, but in hindsight, we can reason (I'll repeat the word, "reason"), it is art. Likewise, you would have to critically analyze a work to conclude whether it is art or not. I don't want to get into the argument now, but all movie is defined as art, both good art and bad art (art isn't necessarily good, as you imply). The other thing is that video games are not art, but I'll make sure everyone understands that when I'm in a position of power :P.

If you listen to Mozart and jazz and understand it when you're six, that's fine. But in the same manner, your subjective experience (however well informed) does not necessarily make Mozart's music art. Likewise, if you didn't understand rap, your subjective experience does not necessarily make rap unartistic.