Remember how several months ago many gamers were in an uproar after movie critic Roger Ebert notoriously blogged "video games will never be art"? Well, in today's New York Times it was brought to my attention that a certain Brazilian theme of art heavily incorporated games, not necessarily of the video variety, as to "blur the distinction between creator and viewer."
Can anyone explain to me how this does not prove that interactive medium, like video games, cannot be viewed as art?
Here is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/arts/design/22neuen.html?ref=arts
Also, I have read Yahtzee's article on the subject and I agree that the reason that Roger Ebert's blog post annoys me so much is because I have some insecurities on the matter. But the other reason it grates me is that a man of Roger's position among critics is high enough that any number of people who don't particularly use their brain will agree with him offhandedly and use his post to back up any condemnations of video games that they may think up in the future, which has already happened to me.
Can anyone explain to me how this does not prove that interactive medium, like video games, cannot be viewed as art?
Here is the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/22/arts/design/22neuen.html?ref=arts
Also, I have read Yahtzee's article on the subject and I agree that the reason that Roger Ebert's blog post annoys me so much is because I have some insecurities on the matter. But the other reason it grates me is that a man of Roger's position among critics is high enough that any number of people who don't particularly use their brain will agree with him offhandedly and use his post to back up any condemnations of video games that they may think up in the future, which has already happened to me.
