From the post you said that games are like a logo for the website not the whole website. In any event Art is subjective. I could call my iPhone a work of art lolHalo Fanboy said:
Roger Ebert still maintains that video games can't be art.
- Thread starter Timbydude
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Ebert is a pompous asshole who thinks he is better than all those around him. I don't care what he fucking thinks.
I fully agree. Personally games can be works of art, be it in that they play very well (aka well designed or are visually stunning (look very artistic...Okami comes to mind) or have brilliant stories...or the holy trinity of all three. I mean if music, film, literature, visual art and physical art are considered art then Video Games should too since they have the same things as the other mediums (sometimes aspect of all of them are combined) and they also have interactivity.Shynobee said:
And I don't like Ebert or his opinions as well. He seems...well a little archaic and stubborn. Its like he's actively protesting any change in opinion or advancement in terms of media. But then again I just don't like the guy for what he said here and what he said about Kick-Ass (cuz I love Kick-Ass) so I might just be biased.
I hate this argument, but I will say this: Ebert is no lightweight, dismissing him outright will get you nowhere. He is probably the best and most influential film critic of recent American history and his opinions have weight, just dismissing him with "You're wrong Braid/Bioshock/Pong is art" is, well, an insufficient tact to take.
So, I've read this article and I might blow your mind because, while I don't necessarily agree with him I can see where he is coming from. Really, I can see why he said what he said about Braid, it's easy to say "of course it's art, look at all that creative prose and those impressionistic backgrounds and beautiful soundtrack", but that doesn't make it a game that is art, that makes it a game that has art in it. For the game to be art, the actual act of playing it has to be artistic...as in if you stripped out all the beautiful art and great soundtrack and "great" prose and played it with stick figures on a black background would that be an artistic communication...to that end I wouldn't necessarily disagree that Braid doesn't really communicate the idea of "time, decision, and the human condition"
IMO, what Ebert is really saying is that the game part of this, the interaction with the work, is not reaching a point of art. If you see art as a communication of a point to an audience, well, I don't think gaming has necessarily learned how to do that yet...games like Braid and Silent Hill 2 are on the right rack, but are still more accurately described as gameplay connecting pieces of art.
That said...I think he's being overly strict. Sure, you could say that movies aren't art because you have to be able to communicate with just the camera angles and screenwriting and acting are separate mediums that just happen to be featured. Still, I can see where his point was coming from, and if there's something I really disagree with it is his connection that we're nowhere near reaching that point.
So, I've read this article and I might blow your mind because, while I don't necessarily agree with him I can see where he is coming from. Really, I can see why he said what he said about Braid, it's easy to say "of course it's art, look at all that creative prose and those impressionistic backgrounds and beautiful soundtrack", but that doesn't make it a game that is art, that makes it a game that has art in it. For the game to be art, the actual act of playing it has to be artistic...as in if you stripped out all the beautiful art and great soundtrack and "great" prose and played it with stick figures on a black background would that be an artistic communication...to that end I wouldn't necessarily disagree that Braid doesn't really communicate the idea of "time, decision, and the human condition"
IMO, what Ebert is really saying is that the game part of this, the interaction with the work, is not reaching a point of art. If you see art as a communication of a point to an audience, well, I don't think gaming has necessarily learned how to do that yet...games like Braid and Silent Hill 2 are on the right rack, but are still more accurately described as gameplay connecting pieces of art.
That said...I think he's being overly strict. Sure, you could say that movies aren't art because you have to be able to communicate with just the camera angles and screenwriting and acting are separate mediums that just happen to be featured. Still, I can see where his point was coming from, and if there's something I really disagree with it is his connection that we're nowhere near reaching that point.
Except none of the types of things he considers art are without science. Writing can be reduced to a type of science as can drawing, or photography. He has to contradict himself in order to even have his own definition of art.UberNoodle said:
The roof of the Sistine Chapel was painted for a comission...darthzew said:
Here is where I really can't agree. If people don't want games to be dismissed as inferior non-art than that means they have to accept the medium as a whole...saying "Bioshock is art, Halo is not" is as bad as saying "Painting is art, Movies are not"
Who says all games are all about money. Some painters can be all about money as can writers and directors. I myself have dreams about the games I would make if I was a developer and all of them are mostly about creating something truly enjoyable.darthzew said:
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?CmdrGoob said:
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.
I read it, and it made lots of sense. I'm guessing that half the people came in here huffing and puffing. I'm betting they didn't even read it. As he said, he doesn't believe that games are art. Its an opinion. That's it.
Take example the first poster. Your telling me he read the entire thing and came up with a post withing 3 minuets? Unless he's superman, I'm not buying.
Take example the first poster. Your telling me he read the entire thing and came up with a post withing 3 minuets? Unless he's superman, I'm not buying.
I don't know, everyone has their own definition.
For instance, I still consider art as anything to do with visuals, an artist is someone that deals with painting, drawing, sculpting, whether with real tools or on the computer.
Movies, books, and video games might have art in it, but they're something entirely different.
Now the definition can also be for example what was brought up in that article, "Art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions,"
in which case just about anything done imaginable can be considered as art.
As for Roger Ebert's opinion, it's obvious he doesn't like video games in general. You look at the first picture in that article and you see a nerdy kid holding a controller you get the complete impression of how the man feels about the medium. He doesn't like them, and there for his opinion is bias and doesn't matter.
It's like my opinion about sports, it's fun when you participate, but a complete and utter waste of time to watch other people do it. So another words, the super bowl and the Olympics for me are a complete waste of time and I don't understand peoples fascination over it.
Actually, I think I sorta do, it's all about envy...>=)
For instance, I still consider art as anything to do with visuals, an artist is someone that deals with painting, drawing, sculpting, whether with real tools or on the computer.
Movies, books, and video games might have art in it, but they're something entirely different.
Now the definition can also be for example what was brought up in that article, "Art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions,"
in which case just about anything done imaginable can be considered as art.
As for Roger Ebert's opinion, it's obvious he doesn't like video games in general. You look at the first picture in that article and you see a nerdy kid holding a controller you get the complete impression of how the man feels about the medium. He doesn't like them, and there for his opinion is bias and doesn't matter.
It's like my opinion about sports, it's fun when you participate, but a complete and utter waste of time to watch other people do it. So another words, the super bowl and the Olympics for me are a complete waste of time and I don't understand peoples fascination over it.
Actually, I think I sorta do, it's all about envy...>=)