Re: [dev] Suckless design in Games

From: Robert Ransom <>
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:12:05 -0700

On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:57:08 +0200
lordkrandel <> wrote:

> Art also has an objectively undefinable function, so you can't decide
> what a functional art form is. Simplicity is one arbitrary choice.

I'll let Uriel describe the value of the idea that ‘art [] has an
objectively undefinable function’; his vocabulary is better suited to
that task than mine.

I will, however, point out one consequence of that idea: the most
noticeable difference between abstract art and abstract mathematics is
that abstract mathematics has some aesthetic value. Abstract art can
now consist of a canvas painted one color, or mere splatters of paint
(or other substances) on a surface; contrast that with the Mandelbrot
and Julia sets, or the Hilbert and Peano space-filling curves and von
Koch snowflake, or the elegant complexity which arises from the simple
axioms of group theory. A pure mathematician does his work to satisfy
his curiosity; an abstract artist does his work merely to see what he
can get away with.

I will also point out that a game does have a function -- to be fun.

> I like Mozart and Minimalism just as much as I like Dadaism or free
> Jazz, even if they have different forms and subjective functions.

I hope you aren't suggesting that Mozart *is* minimalist.

Robert Ransom

Received on Wed Aug 11 2010 - 08:12:05 CEST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Wed Aug 11 2010 - 08:24:01 CEST