Roger Ebert still maintains that video games can't be art.

[carmar]

Game-making is what 'Art' should be anyway; Game makers are a 'guild' continuously honing thier creative skills whilst employing and training 100's and boosting economies.

High art is a ruling class who have found a novel way of money laundering.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

Despite his very limited view, I agree with him to a degree. The majority of games are made for sales and little else. I honestly don't believe art should ever at all be about money.

"Well, that's certainly a very interesting and skilled painting, but do you know if the painter made a profit from it?"
"What, how the hell would I know?"
"Aw jeez now I don't know if it's art or not."

I find this totally ridiculous.

That's not the point. It's not a question of whether or not the artist made money off of his work, it's a question of what the artist's point in making the work is. Do you see the difference?

For instance, if I painted a picture just to make money, then it's lacking good spirit behind it.
But if I painted a picture, and someone happened to buy it because it's very good art, then that's a different thing entirely.

Art is still art regardless. The motivation behind it makes no difference to me.

 

[boholikeu]

Well it really depends on what you're trying to say and your audience. To use a video games example, Braid is a very difficult game, but that difficulty perfectly matches the main point of the game as well as its intended audience (people that grew up on old platformers).

The core of my point of view is that for some reason far too many people, especially people involved in creative works, feel that for something to be "art" it must have reduced accessability. Something that elevates it above anyone walking in off the street, taking in whatever experience the artwork is offering, and simply getting the entire message (or whatever). People have every right to do that with their own works but what they don't have the right to do is to impose that on other people's works.

That's fine, and I generally agree with you, but you do realize you are imposing your values on other people's art, don't you?

 

[ShinyMagnum]

Well whoever he is he is wrong: MGS1, Eternal Darkness, Half-Life and Freelancer for instance all have better storylines than most books and films. If modern art is anything to go by anything could be art if presented pretentiously enough.

 

[pelopelopelo]

Art is something that elicits a sense of beauty in you. That is all it requires. Anyone who puts absolutes on art is a bit of an idiot.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

That's fine, and I generally agree with you, but you do realize you are imposing your values on other people's art, don't you?

Yes but my hypocrisy is inclusive not exclusive, which makes it better.

 

[boholikeu]

That's fine, and I generally agree with you, but you do realize you are imposing your values on other people's art, don't you?

Yes but my hypocrisy is inclusive not exclusive, which makes it better.

Heh. Well many would argue that it also cheapens the effect of art, so I think it's still up for debate which is better. =)

 

[Timbydude]

I wonder, does Mr. Ebert enjoy Jaws? I sure do.
I'm gonna have to send him Jaws on blu-ray once it comes out, cause I'm sure he misses it.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

That's fine, and I generally agree with you, but you do realize you are imposing your values on other people's art, don't you?

Yes but my hypocrisy is inclusive not exclusive, which makes it better.

Heh. Well many would argue that it also cheapens the effect of art, so I think it's still up for debate which is better. =)

Well they could argue that but it would make them elitist pricks who can be safely ignored if not set on fire for personal amusement. They're like teenagers who hate any band that more than 10 people have heard of.

 

[omega 616]

I don't mean to come across as a brat/douche but who gives a massive a shit? I am sure loads of people think games aren't art, let them think that. Yahtzee even did an article on it

You make this guy sound like he's the grand poobah of art, if he says it isn't art then it isn't. He's a screenwriter and critic, he maybe a legend in both fields, the Albert Einstein of screen writing but he's not the ruling body on art. I don't understand why people seem to giving is opinion so much weight.

Does it effect games if they are considered art? I don't think so. I think it could be a negative thing, games trying to become art will end up just making games as crap as some art.

By crap art I mean that style of "art" were it looks like somebody attacked the canvas with paint brushes, I don't consider that art 'cos it takes no skill. I watched a programme were a 5 year old did this style of painting and it sold for half a million plus, art critics were saying how she was expressing her anger clashing with her joy etc etc, she was actually just making a mess. I don't want games to end up at the same place.

(I say "you" as in the general population, not you as an individual.)

 

[boholikeu]

Well they could argue that but it would make them elitist pricks who can be safely ignored if not set on fire for personal amusement. They're like teenagers who hate any band that more than 10 people have heard of.

Hah, you do realize you are being just as elitist as the people you are criticizing, don't you? Some artists feel the need to make their work complex in order to fully express themselves. It has nothing to do with them trying to be exclusionary. That's just their chosen style. By dismissing them as pretentious you are just as biased the teenagers you mention above. Hating something because it's "too complex" is no different from them hating bands for being "too simple".

 

[Blimey]

To be honest, art is such a subjective genre, that his opinion holds no merit.


For instance, I look at a Picasso painting and think "Wow, that's shit."
However a friend of mine looks at it and says "Wow that's so deep, you can see the emotions blah blah blah."

Point is, we're all different. Where Ebert looks at a game and thinks its not art, other people will look at a game and think it speaks on a deeper level then Ebert does.

So, this is really a pointless debate. Its all subjective anyway.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Well they could argue that but it would make them elitist pricks who can be safely ignored if not set on fire for personal amusement. They're like teenagers who hate any band that more than 10 people have heard of.

Hah, you do realize you are being just as elitist as the people you are criticizing, don't you? Some artists feel the need to make their work complex in order to fully express themselves.

Actually, I'm being Pluralist (or would it be Populist? No... I'm not playing to what's popular so Pluralist it is) which is the opposite to being elitist (but I am being just as much an arsehole about it here). I'm not saying their works aren't art I'm just saying it's pretentious, obscurist art and much of it is a load of old toss (but still art).

Hating something

If you're going to put things in my mouth you can buy me dinner first.

I don't hate it. I don't find it worth the energy it takes to hate something.

 

[boholikeu]

Well they could argue that but it would make them elitist pricks who can be safely ignored if not set on fire for personal amusement. They're like teenagers who hate any band that more than 10 people have heard of.

Hah, you do realize you are being just as elitist as the people you are criticizing, don't you? Some artists feel the need to make their work complex in order to fully express themselves.

Actually, I'm being Pluralist (or would it be Populist? No... I'm not playing to what's popular so Pluralist it is) which is the opposite to being elitist (but I am being just as much an arsehole about it here). I'm not saying their works aren't art I'm just saying it's pretentious, obscurist art and much of it is a load of old toss (but still art).

Really? I thought you were originally saying that something can't be art unless it's simple enough to be appreciated by the masses. If I misread that then we have no argument with each other. =)

Hating something

If you're going to put things in my mouth you can buy me dinner first.

I don't hate it. I don't find it worth the energy it takes to hate something.

Oops, my mistake =) Although to be fair you were doing the same thing. Just because someone sees the value in complex art doesn't mean they are pretentious or dismissive of simple art.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Really? I thought you were originally saying that something can't be art unless it's simple enough to be appreciated by the masses. If I misread that then we have no argument with each other. =)

Yes, really. My point was that I'm against the idea that all art must be exclusive 'high culture' or that mass appeal automatically devalues the artist merit of a work.

Just because someone sees the value in complex art doesn't mean they are pretentious or dismissive of simple art.

Personal bias based on experience, which I'll freely admit to. In my experience there's a high correlation between people openly (and at length) talking up the value of complex art and being dismissive of simpler works and being pretentious twats. Not worth going into it further unless you want a vitriolic dissertation on class war within art circles.