ontheotherhand
Sure.. but then don't go mixing those two things up. There is work (entertainment or otherwise), and there is art. That some people cry unfair because they want their pie and eat it isn't really my concern.
I didn't argue that the game creator is somehow evil, I just actually feel my brain hurting from dumbness intruding when I read people talk about "artistical merit" in the context of this "game" (the gameplay mechanics are a bit limited to call it that, but that's a whole other can of worms). The response to that? "Yeah, but" and downmoderation. Oh well, oh lol. What else is new.
Well duh. However, I see what you did there. Why the arbitrary qualification? Why does it have to be a professional artist, why not an albino one, or someone who only has 8 fingers, or an artist period? Oh right, because then your argument kinda falls on its face.
Who is talking about commerce? It's about using emotion to lead people to make irrational choices. If you need rice and I farm rice, and I sell you some rice, that's commerce. It has however NOTHING to do with anything Bill Hicks ever ranted about. So don't flatter yourself I'd say, your insight isn't really one.
"The other thing to remember is that art-with-a-capital-A was largely an invention of the Romantic movement"
The idea that washing your hands is a great idea for doctors and in general is also fairly recent; so?
"in fact it creates a fictional view of the Artist"
No, it simply raised the bar. How can it be fictional if people existed and exist that fit the description? That's just wishful thinking on your part so you don't feel too bad for going back to sleep.
doesn't constitute an argument either, does it. So there's not really anything there to argue against; just an assertion. Meanwhile, to me it's "fairly obvious" that this ain't art, and therefore "the fuck" is perfectly sufficient.
"Quoting a comedian is not really an argument."
Oh yeah, because a comedian is by definition funny, and not ever insightful.
Good thing people don't react in a butthurt, predictable fashion, or anything. Haha.
On another, the motivation and goal of the creation, at least to me, outweighs such considerations by order of magnitude. And on that level I don't consider that, or much anything really, "art" by any stretch of my imagination.
Which means yes, I would consider the exact same thing art or not art depending on by whom, why and how it was created and presented.
That may not be fair, but it's my firm opinion anyway. Yeah yeah, people gotta eat. I know that. (I do think that technically even that is a decision, but I'll accept that in this in context.) But what people do NOT "absolutely have to" is to consider themselves as artists, or to be considered by me as such. They'll have to settle with mediocre.
"Here's the deal, folks. You do a commercial - you're off the artistic roll call, forever. End of story. Okay? You're another whore at the capitalist gang bang and if you do a commercial, there's a price on your head. Everything you say is suspect and every word that comes out of your mouth is now like a turd falling into my drink."
- Bill Hicks
I have no problems with coming up with something better. More like 3 a day before breakfast; I'd just have problems making people actually go along with whatever I would come up with. But you know what? If people are so fucked that even I can't magically solve it, that doesn't mean I can't say they're fucked. It just means they're gonna pout and roll their eyes, none of which is news or unexpected.
"There hasn't been a single political system that hasn't been corrupted."
What's your point? That therefore criticism isn't allowed? That naive believe in cynical manipulation is not an issue?
Also, was I talking about a "system"? No, I was talking about specific circumstances, an actual situation, and individuals and their responsibilitie.
But of course, it's easier to just throw some mud into a completely different direction, not hitting anything, and then deluding oneself into having dealt with the issue just nicely, than to actually address any of it.
That ain't accountability, that's a joke. If you pay me 5000$ to do a job, and I don't lift a finger, and your "punishment" is that we won't do that a second time, then I have free money and you're a fool. It doesn't hurt the party one bit either; that's the whole point of corporatism, you can swap out individuals while the "brand" rolls on, saying "whoops, bad apple" every 5 seconds, with people forgetting after 2.
"It's more about making sure the winner cannot become a despot."
Correction: it replaces a single despotic individual with a tag team of people who basically can do whatever they want - within boundaries, sure, they at least have to be somewhat slick about it, and know how to make a puppy face, too; but certainly not within boundaries defined by the actual will of the people who handed their power as souvereigns over to their representatives. Having despotic entities control you is not one iota better than despotic humans, not in the long run.
Despotism is marked by the control going only down, accountability going only up -- period. Not by angry men on podiums necessarily, and not by bloodshed. (Not that there isn't plenty bloodshed, but that's besides the point) If you seriously see a huge difference or improvement there, you've fallen for it I'm afraid.
How does that follow from "solid marketing doesn't make it a hack"?
"I think SEOs understand how people and the Internet work"
Yet you don't even understand the difference between "every ford is a car" and "every car is a ford" ... huh? What did I just read?
I guess the keyword is "similarly" here? VLC is the only player that plays all video clips from crappy digital cameras I owned over the years; out of the box, or with a million codec packs, neither VirtualDub nor Premiere nor other video players can parse them. I don't really care about those clips, and they sure are shoddy quality; but it always impressed me, VLC is quite the omnivore. It plays stuff even GSpot can't make heads or tail of. This might not matter for videophiles, who by definition would want their movies to be in a good and modern format, but still, yay VLC :)
Though it's kinda hard to talk about this with a straight face on a "hacker" "news" website where one out of three links is a blog post by some over-excited, under-developed yuppie kid (not talking about age here; consider Bill Gates, who never grew pubes and is getting grey already) about something that happened in, before or after their startup.
I think I'd rather stop reading FUD articles on Wired written by noobs, than give up passwords.
They can, it just would break those old links. A dumb decision ages ago doesn't force you to stick to it as you seem to imply.
How about "no"?
And so is the image that is part of the private document which supposedly was deleted, but can still be accessed even today, more than five years later. Therefore the content of that article, and the evidence contained therein, actually matches the title perfectly. So what "trap" are you talking about?