Ebert seems to be just another manifestation of the misinformed public opinion on video games.
That song is badass.
That song is badass.
Ebert Re-Emphasizes That Games Will Never Be Art
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm inclined to sort of agree with him. I personally consider a lot of what goes into games to be art, namely the character, prop and level design, as well as writing and music. That said, it probably was more applicable back when games didn't have to be uber realistic, and as a result would have been partially or largely hand drawn. The artist would bring their own style and preferences to the table and what resulted was art. The game itself, which is really just code with the art superimposed on it, isn't art.
If I Spit On Your Grave is a bad movie, and bad movies count as art, and this is is better than a bad movie: Does that make games better than art? Because a movie is like pizza, even when it's bad, it's art. Do you agree, Dan? Do you think games like your's are art?
I define art as a piece of non-essential work (ie, something you spend time on but people have clearly lived without before electricity, canvas, etc. Music, paint, etc are not vital to living, despite their ingraination into all cultures) that has the effect of challenging the human mind in matters of social, political, cultural, or philosophical state. In English, that means it's something that makes people think but isn't vital to life.
Ebert is clearly misguided.
Ebert is clearly misguided.
"Art" is whatever it means to you or me or them. Seriously, applying a definition to art is pretty redundant as many artists free themselves from such definitions as to not hinder their creative prowess in the first place. Sure you can apply your opinions on what is genuine to you, but that is just that, an opinion, not a factual statement. With that said, IMO, I don't think "Art" itself is physical, I think it is any emotional or mental feeling provoked by any physical medium which is only a means for an artist to express. We often say there are "logical" and "artistic" sides to our brain and if we are going as far as to separate ART from LOGIC, than one can conclude it is impossible to define "ART" via "LOGICAL" means. It would seem this is beyond even Mr. Roger Ebert. Although I respect him highly in regards to his position and our shared love for cinema is something we have in common. He is no philosopher.
this^ seriously, respect just went waaaay up for this guy... All of you defending games/ attacking cinema or vice versa are no better than Ebert.DividedUnity said:
(quoted the wrong guy at first T_T")
Art: 1) the products of human creativity
2) the creation of beautiful or significant things
I respect his right to an opinion, but I've played plenty of games that have had just as much of a profound effect on me as any movie(Mass Effect 2, Heavy Rain, Fable)
I can honestly say, that when playing these games, the last thing I was thinking about was winning, I was simply there. I don't remember winning level X by shooting enemy X, I remember pulling my sons limp body from rainwater, I remember knowing that me and my friends may very well be left adrift in the vast vacuums of space, I remember escaping the jaws of imprisonment to take vengeance on the man who single-handily woke me from my perfect dream and thrust me into a world of violence
Gaming has evolved passed the general definition of a "game"
In a way, video games aren't "games" at all, they are, as you say, experiences
2) the creation of beautiful or significant things
I respect his right to an opinion, but I've played plenty of games that have had just as much of a profound effect on me as any movie(Mass Effect 2, Heavy Rain, Fable)
I can honestly say, that when playing these games, the last thing I was thinking about was winning, I was simply there. I don't remember winning level X by shooting enemy X, I remember pulling my sons limp body from rainwater, I remember knowing that me and my friends may very well be left adrift in the vast vacuums of space, I remember escaping the jaws of imprisonment to take vengeance on the man who single-handily woke me from my perfect dream and thrust me into a world of violence
Gaming has evolved passed the general definition of a "game"
In a way, video games aren't "games" at all, they are, as you say, experiences
Roger, there was a time that film wasn't concidered art. Consider that my way of saying "you don't know what the hell you're talking about, shut up."
There were those who said that movies could never be art.
It is moronic to claim that "X is not art", for any value of X.
A toaster is art. A spoon is art. Transformers 2 is art. Tom Clancy's HAWX is art. The da Vinci Code is art. Roger Ebert is art.
It's never a good idea to try to prove an illogical argument using logic.
And if you find yourself trying to define what art is and what it is not, it might be time to take a good long look at where your life went wrong.
[small]* "Having a goal state" is a way of saying "you can win".[/small]
It is moronic to claim that "X is not art", for any value of X.
A toaster is art. A spoon is art. Transformers 2 is art. Tom Clancy's HAWX is art. The da Vinci Code is art. Roger Ebert is art.
Conversely then, taking a novel, play, dance or film and introducing a goal state* for the audience must necessarily turn it into something that is, by Ebert's definition, not art.
It's never a good idea to try to prove an illogical argument using logic.
And if you find yourself trying to define what art is and what it is not, it might be time to take a good long look at where your life went wrong.
[small]* "Having a goal state" is a way of saying "you can win".[/small]