Roger Ebert still maintains that video games can't be art.
- Thread starter Timbydude
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I'm sorry to get on your bad side. I was simply wondering if something, by virtue of it's being interactive (whatever that means) immediately disqualifies it from being considered art. Disregard that display i mentioned.Sober Thal said:
Is something that is interactive not art BECAUSE it is interactive?
An ex fat guy who recently recovered from throat cancer expresses the bias inherent in all children of the 20-60's... and why does anybody care? He might've been a popular critic for as long as anyone bothers to remember, but he's ignorant and unaware of the things that have been done with the medium already. Until Ebert plays Prince of Persia and Portal from end-to-end, he's just another bigot with a fanbase.
It's his opinion, he's entitled to it, however moronic, ignorant and stubborn it may be.
Edit: I read that, he is very, very full of himself isn't he.
Edit: I read that, he is very, very full of himself isn't he.
Who's Roger Ebert, and why should I care what he thinks about video gaming as an art medium?Timbydude said:
seemed to me that he just doesn't like video games. that kind of bias kind of makes for a poor judge of their artistic merit.
I don't like rap but I certainly don't go around claiming to be an authority on raps artistic value.
it's like asking a racist for objectivity on the subject of other cultures.
I don't like rap but I certainly don't go around claiming to be an authority on raps artistic value.
it's like asking a racist for objectivity on the subject of other cultures.
Time has a way of making things look more like an art form than they were when they were made.
I have seen games I consider to be more of a work of art than many famous paintings, and I bet if they are properly preserved, future generations will agree.
I have seen games I consider to be more of a work of art than many famous paintings, and I bet if they are properly preserved, future generations will agree.
I think he was brought up with the idea that games are something you play, art is something you look at. A lot of people think video games are games, the things children do but grow out of. We are not an art because somebody who was not the master that designed it is contributing something to it. Comic books went through the same thing, not ever getting respect as an art form till Watchmen and Return of the Dark Knight came out and called them selves Graphic Novels.
Though how somebody who is put behind the controls of Flower and say it is NOT art really needs to have their art critic crodentials taken away.
Though how somebody who is put behind the controls of Flower and say it is NOT art really needs to have their art critic crodentials taken away.
IMO videogames cannot be an art form until we get the graphics bullshit out the way. By this I mean we have to get to a stage where the development of graphics is so lifelike that we no longer quibble over their level of realism.
I think we're a long way off that.
Of course, with reference to Ebert, many people now still don't see film as an art form even though it has been around for over 100 years. But the growing acceptance of film as art form over the past 50-60 years means that videogames will eventually be taken seriously. But I don't think videogaming has produced original artists on the level of Tarkovsky, Bergman, Ford, Ozo or Mizoguchi...yet.
I think we're a long way off that.
Of course, with reference to Ebert, many people now still don't see film as an art form even though it has been around for over 100 years. But the growing acceptance of film as art form over the past 50-60 years means that videogames will eventually be taken seriously. But I don't think videogaming has produced original artists on the level of Tarkovsky, Bergman, Ford, Ozo or Mizoguchi...yet.
