Opinion - Games Are Not Art

"Life imitates Art far more than Art imitates Life"

Oscar Wilde

still works for me

Art Is Not Art
(depending on who you talk to)

Wow, the article writer is such a crybaby. "Oh my games can't be art because SJW will demand them to be boycotted". Oh, grow up, man. Also, what dumbs games down is trying to reach mass appeal. Games are mainstream, now, deal with it. There will be always niche games.

Are games art? Fuck yeah, they can be.

To quote Penny Arcade from almost a decade ago:

"If a hundred artists create art for five years, how could the result not be art?"

(https://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2…-the-art-stuff)

I personally don’t see games as art. To me art is cherished and gains value and sentiment as it ages.

Games OTOH are consumed as content and then discarded. Especially by its largest audience which is the mainstream gamer.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
I wouldn't say it's necessarily worthless or useless, but it certainly keeps popping up as some kind of objective standard until it's shot down again

And there is the confusion. It’s true that some might think of “high art” in that way, that it’s somehow “better” or more “worthy”, but that is a very common misconception. I'm certainly not claiming that high art is objectively of a higher standard, or is in anyway superior, just that it’s different, and tends to be enjoyed in a different kind of way. However, high art isn't always accessible in the same way "popular" culture is, and that causes problems.

Many people get put off the idea of high art as something elitist, or threatening, which is really unfortunate because it’s absolutely not about that. It’s open to everybody, and should be encouraged, especially in children. However, it often requires some education or investment to get anything out of it, which can put a lot of people off. It's tough to discuss because many tend to define themselves by the sorts of art they enjoy; no one likes to be told they simply don’t understand or “get” something, even when it’s true. I don't get fine art in the form of paintings because I've never put in the time to educate myself about it, and I probably just don't have the right eye for that kind of thing; I don't feel intimidated by that, however.

The “best” art is the one that affects you the most, in much the same way that the “best” joke is the one that makes you laugh the most; it’s completely subjective. However, some jokes are more sophisticated than others, or stop and make you think, or somehow manage to re-frame things in a way you've never felt before, even if that way is sad and you don’t quite know why… Art can be like that, and high art does that the best; that’s what it’s good at.

To my mind, high art it tends to ask bigger questions, and tackle deeper subjects. Video games just don't occupy that sphere for me. Maybe they will in another 50 years, but not yet.

Originally Posted by Kyrer
And there is the confusion. It’s true that some might think of “high art” in that way, that it’s somehow “better” or more “worthy”, but that is a very common misconception. I'm certainly not claiming that high art is objectively of a higher standard, or is in anyway superior, just that it’s different, and tends to be enjoyed in a different kind of way. However, high art isn't always accessible in the same way "popular" culture is, and that causes problems.

Many people get put off the idea of high art as something elitist, or threatening, which is really unfortunate because it’s absolutely not about that. It’s open to everybody, and should be encouraged, especially in children. However, it often requires some education or investment to get anything out of it, which can put a lot of people off. It's tough to discuss because many tend to define themselves by the sorts of art they enjoy; no one likes to be told they simply don’t understand or “get” something, even when it’s true. I don't get fine art in the form of paintings because I've never put in the time to educate myself about it, and I probably just don't have the right eye for that kind of thing; I don't feel intimidated by that, however.

The “best” art is the one that affects you the most, in much the same way that the “best” joke is the one that makes you laugh the most; it’s completely subjective. However, some jokes are more sophisticated than others, or stop and make you think, or somehow manage to re-frame things in a way you've never felt before, even if that way is sad and you don’t quite know why… Art can be like that, and high art does that the best; that’s what it’s good at.

To my mind, high art it tends to ask bigger questions, and tackle deeper subjects. Video games just don't occupy that sphere for me. Maybe they will in another 50 years, but not yet.

To me, it doesn't really matter if we're making the distinction based on it being more worthy or just "different" - the impossiblity of making an objective evaluation stands. HOW is it different?

Why don't you try to make an objective definition that's true for every single piece of "high art" - and explain all the edge cases you find. Exactly why are all these pieces of art "different" and in what way?

Good luck

As for people being elitists or snobs, that - to me - is just another way of not being rational and not having support for your position.

I don't have the slightest problem with someone being of more value than another - just as long as they can rationalize that value.

Since I've never seen or heard anyone that's been able to do that, I have to say I find it irrational - because it makes no sense.

But I'm not bothered by the notion - because it could be true. I don't believe in God - as I'm an agnostic. But being an agnostic is about acknowledging that you "don't know" - and I honestly don't know if some people have more value than others, and I honestly don't know if God (or any god) exists.

I have to be open to that possiblity.

Originally Posted by sakichop
I personally don’t see games as art. To me art is cherished and gains value and sentiment as it ages.

Games OTOH are consumed as content and then discarded. Especially by its largest audience which is the mainstream gamer.

You are confusing the medium with individual products/works.

Great games are simply not consumed and discarded. Do we not look back at many greats games released 10 or 20 years ago with fondness and respect even now? Do we still not learn from them even now? I have far more respect for the Gothic games or the old Everquest games now than at release. They still have so much teach us compared to the of the modern games. So some of these old games are cherished and they do gain value as they age. How is this different from looking back at great works of art? Is this not what we do when we look at the Mona lisa?


The fact that you are not playing them is completely irrelevant… You can't "play" a work of art as well even when its "new".

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
To me, it doesn't really matter if we're making the distinction based on it being more worthy or just "different" - the impossiblity of making an objective evaluation stands. HOW is it different?

Why don't you try to make an objective definition that's true for every single piece of "high art" - and explain all the edge cases you find. Exactly why are all these pieces of art "different" and in what way?

Terms like "pop culture" and "high art" are just short hands for much more complicated concepts I'm not sure why you are getting hung up on this objectivity thing, as it kind of misses the point. Not only are such terms subjective, but they are also highly contextual; just like the rest of human language.

I'm just not sure I can now give you satisfactory definition of what I originally meant by the term "high art," partly because it's tough to express in the space I have here, and partly because you already seem like you've set your face against acknowledging the term

However, I would humbly suggest that there *is* a difference between art that someone simply enjoys (whatever that may be… games… porn… whatever), and art that (lets say) attempts to expresses something existentially profound about the human condition. Further more, in my *very* humble opinion, Bioshock Infinite just doesn't fall into the latter category. It just doesn't. If you disagree with that, then that is absolutely fine… All I'm saying is… please don't rule out the library idea juuussst yet… there is some really good stuff in there… if you know where to look…

Originally Posted by Kyrer
Terms like "pop culture" and "high art" are just short hands for much more complicated concepts I'm not sure why you are getting hung up on this objectivity thing, as it kind of misses the point. Not only are such terms subjective, but they are also highly contextual; just like the rest of human language.

I'm just not sure I can now give you satisfactory definition of what I originally meant by the term "high art," partly because it's tough to express in the space I have here, and partly because you already seem like you've set your face against acknowledging the term

However, I would humbly suggest that there *is* a difference between art that someone simply enjoys (whatever that may be… games… porn… whatever), and art that (lets say) attempts to expresses something existentially profound about the human condition. Further more, in my *very* humble opinion, Bioshock Infinite just doesn't fall into the latter category. It just doesn't. If you disagree with that, then that is absolutely fine… All I'm saying is… please don't rule out the library idea juuussst yet… there is some really good stuff in there… if you know where to look…

I don't know why you think I'm getting "hung up" because I think something is irrational - and I'm explaining why in an exchange with two participants.

But that's you and your perception.

Personally, I simply disagree and I think I have good reason to disagree.

The fact that you fail to define this "elusive" high art - and what differences would have to be in place to stand out, in that way, would seem to suggest you don't actually know what you're talking about.

Which is exactly my point - and why I think it's a useless concept.

However, once again, if you have a use for it - and you're ok with going around thinking about one thing as "high art" and that another thing is "pop culture" or whatever - without really knowing why or if it's actually so - then that's cool.

That's all it is.

You will find that I'm done here - if you stop responding. So, if you want to avoid me being "hung up" - all you have to do is stop exchanging - or we can simply agree to disagree

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
The fact that you fail to define this "elusive" high art - and what differences would have to be in place to stand out, in that way, would seem to suggest you don't actually know what you're talking about.

However, once again, if you have a use for it - and you're ok with going around thinking about one thing as "high art" and that another thing is "pop culture" or whatever - without really knowing why or if it's actually so - then that's cool.

That's all it is.

Well, I felt I had given enough of an explanation (I even posted a link to wikipedia) However, I guess if you just want to accuse me of being irrational and not knowing what I'm talking about, then I guess that's fine. I'm off to watch some Ingmar Bergman, and read some Robert Walser, I guess.

What were you expecting there?

Originally Posted by JDR13
What were you expecting there?

I just assumed everyone would think I was right

Originally Posted by Kyrer
Well, I felt I had given enough of an explanation (I even posted a link to wikipedia) However, I guess if you just want to accuse me of being irrational and not knowing what I'm talking about, then I guess that's fine. I'm off to watch some Ingmar Bergman, and read some Robert Walser, I guess.

Yes, you've talked about what you, personally, experience as "high art" - and you've told those of us with a different notion to go read books in library.

That's pretty impressive

For whatever reason, you seem to have missed that we're not talking about your experience or my experience.

We're talking about the impossibility of defining "high art" OBJECTIVELY - whether it's better or just different.

The fact that YOU weren't moved profoundly by any game changes exactly nothing about the fact that several people in this very thread have been moved by them.

Meaning, we're back to you thinking your opinion is - somehow - more interesting or valuable as some kind of objective measurement.

That's the kind of arrogance that's extremely normal for many human beings, and the first person to reply to this post of yours is a very good example of someone who considers his own opinion more worthy than, say, yours or mine.

Again, that's what I consider irrational - and I consider it extremely (and I do mean extremely) easy to refute, because very, very few people are willing to let their perceptions of reality be dominated by those of any single individual, with no argument to support the position.

So, I don't even have to argue from a personal point of view - I can just wait until someone appears and refutes that this picture by this artist is "high art" - because they weren't "moved" by it. There, boom - your definition is refuted as anything even remotely objective.

Personally, I've been moved to a much greater extent by games than any picture by Vincent Van Gogh - but I have no need of putting his work down as a result - or making any kind of distinction that makes his art "different" in terms of what it might do to people.

To me, it's all just a piece of work. I can't talk from an informed position about where Van Gogh's work belongs on a spectrum of art - because I don't know his thought process - or how much of his work was about wanting to appeal wide and be recognised, rather than simply expressing himself as personally as possible.

So, if you insist on your definition, the conclusion is simple. You're arrogant and irrational - or both. It's not uncommon - and it's not something I get "hung up" about, or I wouldn't have any time left for anything else.

I mean, even here - on this very site - we can witness exactly the same arrogance over and over again, every single day.

That's hardly productive to invest in.

But, thank you for the exchange all the same.

The article isn't wrong and I certainly agree with most of the analysis of what's going wrong in many gaming media sites, but I don't get how he comes to the conclusion that games cannot be art.

The "Games are not art, because art attracts political interest groups that destroy our beloved hobby." doesn't really work, indeed.

Games can of course be art, and even horrible stuff like EA productions may contain pieces of art.

Originally Posted by lostforever
You are confusing the medium with individual products/works.

Great games are simply not consumed and discarded. Do we not look back at many greats games released 10 or 20 years ago with fondness and respect even now? Do we still not learn from them even now? I have far more respect for the Gothic games or the old Everquest games now than at release. They still have so much teach us compared to the of the modern games. So some of these old games are cherished and they do gain value as they age. How is this different from looking back at great works of art? Is this not what we do when we look at the Mona lisa?


The fact that you are not playing them is completely irrelevant… You can't "play" a work of art as well even when its "new".

I was very fond of little ceasers pizza when I was a kid, does that make it art?

Don’t answer that just having a bit of fun. on a serious note.

the topic was “games” as art to me that means all games. So if you think baulders gate is art then so too is candy crush or similar. Much worse art but still a game so art none the less.

If however, your argument is simply that certain games are art because thier your favorite then OK. I believe art is a personal and subjective thing so if you view them as art, then they are, to you.

Reminds me of a tv show I watched a while back. A guy took random trash and made sculptures out of it in his front yard. He thought it was art. Apparently so did many other people because people would come from far away to see it. All I saw though was a bunch of trash stuck together in his front yard.

One mans trash is another mans treasure and all that, I suppose.

Originally Posted by sakichop
If however, your argument is simply that certain games are art because thier your favorite then OK. I believe art is a personal and subjective thing so if you view them as art, then they are, to you.

This well, slightly different opinion but.

I think certain games can be considered art but not simply because it is my *favourite* but because it has qualities I consider to be defined as *art*.

For example, I didn't really enjoy Planescape: Torment, but I can see it can be considered art due to it's writing.

sakichop hit upon one of the interesting aspects of this debate. Wikipedia has an interesting article about all of this. All this to follow is taken from the Wikipedia article. If you are interested to read more, please go read the article.

This is also brought up by some notable people who don't think games, specifically video games, can be considered as art. Namely, the interactivity of games. This is different than art such as paintings or a movie, or a novel or prose, where you are not being interactive with the art, but just taking part - in a way - of the artists pure vision. Whereas in a game, you are participating actively and there is the heavy presence of an interactive aspect, which to most people, is one of the main forms of the entertainment of playing games.

One aspect that is interesting is one critic says games are more akin to architecture, than to art. "He further explained games as a type of art more akin to architecture, in which the artist creates a space for the audience to experience on their own terms, than to a non-interactive presentation as in cinema."

Even a famous critic like Roger Ebert (leftist approved, by the way) was famous in flatly stating that games could not be art. Not only did he think games, at least the video games so far, are not in the same league or even close to traditional artistic forms such as "the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers." But he also made a point about the interactivity, when Ebert said - "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a [sic] immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_…as_an_art_form

Personally, I think Ebert has a point. I'm not sure if games can ever be considered as art, based on the interactive nature of games. (And I'm excluding games that are not interactive, or that aim to be completely non-interactive and artistic, which is a tiny, tiny percentage of most of them.)

I do think you can have "artistic moments" within a game. For example, the Witcher 3 has some amazing graphics and beautiful vistas in the wilderness, and I can see playing and catching your breath when arriving at a particularly beautiful scene, and thinking that experience is akin to art, in some way. But saying a game overall is art itself, that is something else, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Darth Tagnan
Yes, you've talked about what you, personally, experience as "high art" - and you've told those of us with a different notion to go read books in library. That's pretty impressive

Well, I'm not sure what you mean by “a different notion,” but I do believe that there is more to art than what video games can provide alone, yes. I'm not saying that any medium of art is more or less superior than any other, I'm just pointing out that they all have their own advantages AND limitations. For instance, I'm just not sure it would be possible to convey the subtly of A Game Of Thrones if one were to use only, say, Morris dancing, or interpretive jazz; I'm not saying it would be bad, I'm just saying it would be *different* (and by *different* I do mean bad )

I mean, you are right on one level, it is all just subjective. Maybe Bioshock Infinate really is as profound as it's possible for you to achieve; maybe that is just as deep as the rabbit hole goes for you, artistically speaking. Good for you, I'm glad you found your thing; you've reached your plateau. However, I'm just pointing out that there are other artistic experiences that, for me, simply might not have been covered by that game, or by any game well; not because I think that games are intrinsically crap, but because I believe they just aren't as well suited at conveying certain types of thing.

That only alternative to that viewpoint is to suggest that all artistic mediums are somehow equally suited so serving all types of experience. I guess you are entitled to that view if you really want it, but I can tell you now, there is no way you are going to find me watching your interpretation of A Game of Morris Dancers, no matter how accurate you feel it is

To give an example, I'm quite a fan of existentialist fiction; I'm currently reading a book called “The Melancholy of Resistance” which deals with some quite deep themes that are related to that. To compare my reading of that book to your experience of playing Bioshock Infinate (or to someone else's experience of A Game Of Morris Dancers) would clearly be absurd because they are completely unrelated types of narrative; one asks some really big, deep questions, and the other simply doesn't. I'm not trying to diss Bioshock Infinate, and I'm not trying to invalidate your experience whilst playing it; I'm just pointing out that you can't claim that your experience is the same as mine simply because you really, really liked yours, and despite how profoundly it touched you.

I guess if you really want me to define what I originally meant by “high art” (and maybe it wasn't quite the right term to use) then I guess its art that tries to answer those really big questions about what it is to be human. When art succeeds at doing that, it's like a total “fucking hell” kind of moment, and there is literally nothing else that can replace that. I also had a near death experience a number of years ago which put me in hospital, that was also a kind of big “fucking hell” experience for me; it gave me a totally different view on life, you know?

I would suggest that novels are really good at conveying those types of experience; also films, though in a slightly different way. That is just what they are naturally good at. Games *may* have that potential, though I'm yet to experience anything close; maybe when that genre matures enough, things might change, and I really hope they do. That doesn't mean to say that other mediums of art, like games, can't also make you feel stuff, as quite clearly they can; art can make you laugh, or cry, or be profoundly beautiful.

I'm really sorry if you find my opinions to be “irrational” or “arrogant.” I'm happy to be called irrational, though I'm genuinely not trying to be arrogant or patronising. I'm just trying to put down they way I feel about things into some form of words; if that makes me arrogant, then so be it.

Originally Posted by Kyrer
Well, I'm not sure what you mean by “a different notion,” but I do believe that there is more to art than what video games can provide alone, yes. I'm not saying that any medium of art is more or less superior than any other, I'm just pointing out that they all have their own advantages AND limitations. For instance, I'm just not sure it would be possible to convey the subtly of A Game Of Thrones if one were to use only, say, Morris dancing, or interpretive jazz; I'm not saying it would be bad, I'm just saying it would be *different* (and by *different* I do mean bad )

No one is denying that what's different is different. I've never said that a game is identical to a picture or a book - though there are obvious similarities.

I'm saying you can't objectively define "high art". Well, of course you can, you could say "high art" is everything that gives you a profound experience. But then you'd have to accept your own definition and concede that Bioshock Infinite is high art just as well as whatever book you find in the library. Avatar would also have to be high art - and 99% of all novels would have to be high art - because they're sure to have been profound for at least one person.

Then we're back to "high art" simply being art - because the "high" part is obviously meaningless.

You can, of course, subjectively define it - based on your own personal experiences. In which case, we're just exchanging opinions about what pieces of art had the more profound impact on each of us. That's not at all uninteresting, it's just not an exchange related to the objective.

I mean, you are right on one level, it is all just subjective. Maybe Bioshock Infinate really is as profound as it's possible for you to achieve; maybe that is just as deep as the rabbit hole goes for you, artistically speaking. Good for you, I'm glad you found your thing; you've reached your plateau. However, I'm just pointing out that there are other artistic experiences that, for me, simply might not have been covered by that game, or by any game well; not because I think that games are intrinsically crap, but because I believe they just aren't as well suited at conveying certain types of thing.

Once again, I'm fully aware that YOU have not been moved by games.

I don't believe I've said anything about the level of profundity Bioshock Infinite represents in my life - and I'm not sure you're helping yourself or your point by talking about such a concept as if there's another layer or level of profundity that needs to be achieved.

I mean, you're already in deep waters by talking about having a profound experience in the first place as some kind of high art requisite - and now you're suggesting that there's something beyond - something "extra" profound?

Please make up your mind

That only alternative to that viewpoint is to suggest that all artistic mediums are somehow equally suited so serving all types of experience. I guess you are entitled to that view if you really want it, but I can tell you now, there is no way you are going to find me watching your interpretation of A Game of Morris Dancers, no matter how accurate you feel it is

No, that's not the only alternative to a rational mind. A rational mind understands that you can be moved in more ways than one - and a profound experience means different things to different people.

Having your first orgasm as a teenager is a profound experience for a lot of people, where it's much less interesting when you're jacking off in the bathroom as a married man.

Experiencing anxiety and overcoming it is another kind of profound and very moving experience.

You see? A profound and moving experience doesn't need to be the same thing in the same way.

To give an example, I'm quite a fan of existentialist fiction; I'm currently reading a book called “The Melancholy of Resistance” which deals with some quite deep themes that are related to that. To compare my reading of that book to your experience of playing Bioshock Infinate (or to someone else's experience of A Game Of Morris Dancers) would clearly be absurd because they are completely unrelated types of narrative; one asks some really big, deep questions, and the other simply doesn't. I'm not trying to diss Bioshock Infinate, and I'm not trying to invalidate your experience whilst playing it; I'm just pointing out that you can't claim that your experience is the same as mine simply because you really, really liked yours, and despite how profoundly it touched you.

I'm amused you think Bioshock Infinite isn't asking "deep questions" - because it suggests you missed something about the game. I'm guessing you didn't even play it.

However, I can only repeat what I just said that I don't think having a profound experience must be one particular thing.

I'm sure you think of this book you're talking about as profound - and I'm glad you felt challenged or moved by it.

I haven't read it, so I won't comment on it. But I've read quite a lot of books, and I can only tell you that my experience is that books do different things to different people - especially in relation to where they are in their lives.

I don't know why you think your personal experience is still relevant as an objective measurement here.

Again, that's arrogance or irrationality. It simply can't be anything else.

I guess if you really want me to define what I originally meant by “high art” (and maybe it wasn't quite the right term to use) then I guess its art that tries to answer those really big questions about what it is to be human. When art succeeds at doing that, it's like a total “fucking hell” kind of moment, and there is literally nothing else that can replace that. I also had a near death experience a number of years ago which put me in hospital, that was also a kind of big “fucking hell” experience for me; it gave me a totally different view on life, you know?

Yes, I don't know how many times we have to go over this.

You seem to be incapable of grasping my simple point. I don't mean to be crude about it, but - to me - it's a very simple thing.

I know you think your own personal experience with "art" means that it has to be the same for everyone else. People must be moved or they must have the same profound experience with whatever book or piece of music you're talking about.

If they don't have that experience, then they should go to the library and learn.

I mean, it's not possible that your "high art" is just "art" or meaningless trash to other people, is it?

Sadly, that is very much the case. We all respond differently to these things - and we're all at different stages in our lives. That's why more art is better - and that's why diversity is better.

I would suggest that novels are really good at conveying those types of experience; also films, though in a slightly different way. That is just what they are naturally good at. Games *may* have that potential, though I'm yet to experience anything close; maybe when that genre matures enough, things might change, and I really hope they do. That doesn't mean to say that other mediums of art, like games, can't also make you feel stuff, as quite clearly they can; art can make you laugh, or cry, or be profoundly beautiful.

Most mediums I'm aware of are capable of conveying profound experiences to people. Again, it's a subjective thing - and it always will be a subjective thing.

I'm really sorry if you find my opinions to be “irrational” or “arrogant.” I'm happy to be called irrational, though I'm genuinely not trying to be arrogant or patronising. I'm just trying to put down they way I feel about things into some form of words; if that makes me arrogant, then so be it.

Don't be sorry, it's not a big deal. Arrogant and irrational people are common - and I don't "look down" on them - I just point it out because it's not productive or rational when you're exchanging and if you actually want to make an impression or be convincing in some way.

The arrogant and/or irrational part is not that you're talking about how you feel. It's that you're saying what you feel is what everyone is should be feeling.

I'm not sure you understand this, though. This is why I talk about both arrogance and irrationality - because, logically, both are possible.

To be truly arrogant, you have to actually believe yourself superior - though it can be an emotional position and not just an intellectual position.

Many arrogant people don't intellectually believe themselves superior - but they certainly feel superior. I can say this with reasonable confidence, because I used to be that way when I was much younger - and I know it's mostly emotional, because when you confront arrogant people with logic or rational arguments - they tend to fall apart.

To put it in very crude and basic terms, to be arrogant is to be stupid. Well, not really, it's often to be smart but, by far, not as smart as you think you are - which is, in itself, incredibly stupid. If you ask me, anyway. But do note that just because you're doing something stupid like this, it doesn't mean you are stupid as a person.

We're all stupid in a variety of ways. This is just one way.

However, there are people who appear highly arrogant, but who simply don't understand what they're saying or doing IS arrogant behavior.

I'm allowing for this possibility - in your case.

We're talking about an objective definition. I assumed you understood what that means.

It means you're actually saying that what YOU consider "high art" is what everyone MUST consider "high art".

That's because you simply can't comprehend that games can be profound - and you refuse to accept it on a level where you will concede that they might be "high art" for some people - and that your understanding of "high art" is just different, and that's where the subjective enters the picture.

If you would just concede that your definition is a subjective definition, then you wouldn't have to appear so arrogant or irrational.