Ebert Re-Emphasizes That Games Will Never Be Art
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
You've been here a while so you should know this already, this comes up a lot. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Whenever someone brings up the fact that a news room story has been covered by someone in the upper forums the response is "Not everyone goes to the upper forums, so it doesn't matter that it was posted there first".ragestreet said:
I still wonder why I bother telling people this you'd think it'd be common knowledge at this point.
I'm certain that if a movie interacted with and challenged the viewer, only to linger in their mind until they watched it again and again, dissecting each frame and angle Ebert would praise this film. This film, Ebert would likely say, is art.
Yet when a game does the exact same thing; prompting interaction and repetition, challenging the player and demanding they become more engrossed in the experience he uses it as definition that the game is not art? Good work, sir.
Yet when a game does the exact same thing; prompting interaction and repetition, challenging the player and demanding they become more engrossed in the experience he uses it as definition that the game is not art? Good work, sir.
Art is not a measure of quality.Onyx Oblivion said:
Example: I think much of Damien Hurst's stuff is shit. It's still art. Just shitty art.
The problem is with the whole "Games are Art" argument is that very few people with this opinion seem to have a preconception of what art is. I'm not saying I do. I just know that Braid being "arty" doesn't make it anymore or less art than say Killzone.
Still art is very much all about perception. I find it a little tiring as an Art student seeing some of the stuff that is conceived as art when many video games are just shunted aside and never considered.
Personally I don't think the "Games as Art" movement isn't that far off. I'd love to see the day when I walk into a room in the Tate and instead of seeing a weird black & white movie or footage of some guy punching himself in the face (no joke) I find a big screen and a controller ready for people to pick up and play...Oh I'm sorry, "experience". I don't doubt it we'll see something like this in the next 50 years or so, maybe less. Maybe of the people in my class would could potentially become critically acclaimed artists play video games too for one thing.
Ebert, I want you to look at this photo from your time.
Quite simply, you are not a gamer and are unwilling to try and be one. I would argue that many games have already broken the boundary of making games art. A game is not merely points, but an interactive experience. This is what has made them already more interesting than any other media form, because quite simply you are the main character and is the closest we the people can become to being the protagonist.
Games such as Bioshock, Modern Warfare, and even Final Fantasy have shown that games can have compelling stories as well as interesting game mechanics. Other games have gone beyond these more mainstream feelings and gone with ambitious attempts at changing our expectations of games. Things like Braid, The Path, and others have changed games profoundly. The Path comes to mind the most in this regard, asking us what it is that makes a game a game.
In summary, shush.
Games such as Bioshock, Modern Warfare, and even Final Fantasy have shown that games can have compelling stories as well as interesting game mechanics. Other games have gone beyond these more mainstream feelings and gone with ambitious attempts at changing our expectations of games. Things like Braid, The Path, and others have changed games profoundly. The Path comes to mind the most in this regard, asking us what it is that makes a game a game.
In summary, shush.
With music videos like that, we won't even be considered a form of enterntainment anymore.Tom Goldman said:
Considering what is considered ... 'art', I am rather happy games aint a art.
I mean, someone's dirty bedroom complete with the her dirty nickers was diplayed in a high profile gallery ... as art.
A whole group of naked arses 'tastefully' arranged recently, was considered 'art'.
... wouldnt suprise me if a famous artist drank too much booze, spewed up his cheap chinese take away and framed it ... more 'art'.
Art is in the beholder, its up to each and everyone of us to decide what we enjoy experiencing... that is art to an individual.
Show a Van Gough picture to a soccer obsessed bloke in the pub, and he would probably use it for a beer coaster... but very carefully settle his prized signed soccer clubs cap away from any possible harm.
If we like games, its our art and screw the world, they can keep thier mouldy old paintings and dirty underwear.
I mean, someone's dirty bedroom complete with the her dirty nickers was diplayed in a high profile gallery ... as art.
A whole group of naked arses 'tastefully' arranged recently, was considered 'art'.
... wouldnt suprise me if a famous artist drank too much booze, spewed up his cheap chinese take away and framed it ... more 'art'.
Art is in the beholder, its up to each and everyone of us to decide what we enjoy experiencing... that is art to an individual.
Show a Van Gough picture to a soccer obsessed bloke in the pub, and he would probably use it for a beer coaster... but very carefully settle his prized signed soccer clubs cap away from any possible harm.
If we like games, its our art and screw the world, they can keep thier mouldy old paintings and dirty underwear.
I'm going to repost what I posted on the other thread because why not.
Also, I have no idea of who Roger Ebert is.The Random One said:
I seem to recall reading that Critics in the early 20th century said that Movies would never be art, that it would only Theater could possibly match it. So Ebert isn't exactly unique in thinking that the Art he chose to dedicate his life to is unique and nothing will ever be able to challenge it.
To be honest I certainly don't consider any game out there to be art. But I don't dismiss the possibility that one day someone will make a game that could be considered art.
To be honest I certainly don't consider any game out there to be art. But I don't dismiss the possibility that one day someone will make a game that could be considered art.
Ebert: 1
Video games: 0
Sorry gents, I'm afraid I have to side with the old movie critic on this one.
Video games: 0
Sorry gents, I'm afraid I have to side with the old movie critic on this one.
For people who don't care, we seem to care an awful lot about what someone else thinks about the artistic merits of our hobby when their opinion is negative. That's, what, twice this weekend we've had a "lets bash on Ebert for not being down with da yuth" news story? Gotta generate site traffic somehow, I suppose.
Roger Ebert's opinions never meant a whiff to me, the only thing that caused me to watch something with him was because Siskel was there. Ebert is the standing gold example of why movie critics are a joke, and their job is completely without merit or use to the world. If they all disappeared, the only thing people would notice is the silence.Catkid906 said:
I find many games to be art, and chess is a very good example. It is no wonder that Ebert picked Bobby Fischer as an example, since Bobby Fischer is himself a self-involved nitwit that many people forgot.
But in the end, Calumon, the answer really is: no one, and no reason. Bert stands by you in your indifference.
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.samsonguy920 said:
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.
It's groups like that Black Out Band who we don't need any help from. Oy vey. What were you thinking, Tom?Not G. Ivingname said:
"Art" can be something that's aesthetically pleasing. Paintings do that. You have movies like that. You have games like that. "Art" can evoke an emotional response from someone. Paintings do that. Movies can do that. Games can do that.
Where's the difference separating games from these?
Where's the difference separating games from these?