Originally Posted by Chyron8472
Therefore, I disagree with Ebert. I would say I define art as something which is created with the intention of evoking or imparting an emotion, thought, or imagination. The medium used to convey such is irrelevant (which makes the point about having rules and objectives moot.) This then would expand art to include such things that are used together to form a narrative. A story can be told in such a way to be equally as thought-provoking as a painting or scuplture, even as such to have different meaning for different people. Suffice it to say, I think that to say stories themselves can not be viewed as an art form is folly and untrue.
This makes me think.
that is created with the intention of evoking or imparting a thought be considered art?
Take the Bible. Compare it to Sim City.
These are both created with the intention of evoking thought(s), moreso than actual feelings.
I'm not saying they're not art, I'm just saying... they're more... logically inclined (in the case of the Bible; more religiously inclined) than something that contains stuff designed to form a narrative (the Bible forms a narrative, but it is documental in nature rather than... fantastical)