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

[Timbydude]

You can look at his blog post [a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html"]here.[/a]

So, what do you think about what he says in that post? Personally, I think that games are most certainly art; they have artistic visuals, orchestral soundtracks, and moving/deep stories (Persona 3's story is so deep that it could probably be republished as a work of literature as it is).

It seems to me that Ebert just refuses to accept the fact that a medium which once consisted of solely a bunch of little pixels running around for no purpose has evolved into a form of expression. He also basically says that because he doesn't like video games as much as books, music, movies, and paintings, they can't be art.

Your thoughts?

 

[FinalDream]

As much as I respect Ebert, this is bull. How are some games these days different to movies? What makes Heavy Rain any different to a thriller movie?

 

[Shynobee]

I've never liked Ebert, or any of his opinions for that matter, and this one is no different. He has limited his definition of art to include virtually everything other than video games. I see art as anything man made, and beautiful.

The Eiffel Tower, Empire State Building, Mona Lisa, A Song of Myself, Great Expectations, Gran Torino, Psychonauts, all of these things are art in my mind. They encompass a cariety of mediums, be it architecture, poetry, movies, novels, or even video games, they are all beautiful in their own right, and thus, they should all be considered art.

 

[The_Deleted]

Roger Ebert can fuck off.
Some games are considered art by those that see it. But why does every form of entertainment need to be quantified as art to have any supposed value. If you don't like it fine, but don't dictate to those of us who do appreciate it what is and isn't of merit.

I would probably be more open to his opinion if he had any worth within a gaming community, but he's an old man who see his beloved cinema being, rightfully, over taken by another form of entertainment.
Cinema, like books and theatre before it will always have a place as part of a varied and open minded culture. If only narrow minded individuals like him would afford us the same consideration.

 

[AngryMongoose]

Snobbish, self righteous douchebag says some crap, I find it hard to care anymore.

 

[ShakesZX]

He does have a point that video games, as a medium of art, cannot be compared to other works of art. But my question is how can you actually compare the art of a novelist with the art of a painter, or carpenter, or musician? These mediums are extremely different, and many people have even taken to calling those who are excellent in their professions artists. (Architects, athletes, etc.)

Also, isn't it kind of pointless to ask these questions here? Who is really going to honestly say on a video game forum that video games are not art, or at least have their own artistic basis?

 

[jamesworkshop]

I don't even think its a question of quality games are always defined by rules, its an activity not an Art

 

[faceless chick]

..because ebert's opinion is so important to me..wait, no, it isn't.

 

[ragestreet]

Who is this man and why should I care about anything he says? Or should I say types into a creepy-sounding voice box.

 

[swordless]

Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?...

Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?"

Why are stick-up-their-ass art critics so intensly concerned anyway that games are not defined as art?

Do they require superiority? In attacking gamining do they want to be able to look down from their self elevated platform on works that they decry as inferior but are no less capable of engaging emotions, making people think and imitating nature than any piece of "art" that they enjoy.

Lets face it compared to an artistic award winning empty room with a couple of flashing lights [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1698032.stm] pretty much any video game could be considered a fucking masterpiece.

 

[Turtleboy1017]

I honestly don't give a shit that "No one in his profession considers it art"

Well I don't consider of any one of Roger Eberts opinions worth shit either. Does he lose sleep over it? Doubt it.

He said it best himself, why do us as gamers need someone with influence to say that "games are art"? If we truly believe that they can be, there is no reason we should have to convince anyone else that it is as well.

 

[ShakesZX]

Don't hate me, but I agree w/ Ebert.

I don't think games should be called art because art is non interactive in my opinion. Movies music and anything you can hang on a wall is art. Any artist who makes you work/play something is being lazy. Screen shots from games could be considered art, but it's only a game you are playing. Cut scenes from a game could be artful, but a game in it's entirety isn't art in my opinion. This is all just silly word play I'll admit, but that's just what I think.

Games are games, art is art.

If art is non-interactive, does that mean that the Museum of Modern Art is wrong in calling many of the collections it houses every year "art"? The exhibits I mention are all interactive pieces with artists such as Tim Burton.

And what do you mean by "interactive" anyways? Don't you actually have to interact with a movie by watching it? Or look at a painting? or listen to music? or have to play that music if you don't have a recording? Everything is interactive in one way or another.

 

[Subzerowings]

I like Gene Siskel better anyway, maybe we should ask what he thinks about the situa...oh wait.
Who cares about Ebert's opinion anyway?
He's a movie critic!
If you've watched the videos in the "treasure" section of God of War 3, you'd know that someone who actually creates art (Stan Lee!), thinks videogames are awesome.
That's good enough for me.

 

[reg42]

I respect Ebert and all, but he's just wrong, plainly and simply.
Videogames and just as much art as films (perhaps even more so?). If I wanted to really dumb things down, I could say that videogames are interactive movies, and movies are considered art, so why does interactivity make them less artful?

 

[ShakesZX]

I don't consider looking at something interactive.

Well, how about this? http://www.geekologie.com/2007/12/interactive_cooling_fan_art_ex.php

This exhibit is clearly interactive AND is considered art. Does the fact that it is interactive now mean it's not art?

Just to clarify, I am not saying this is art one way or the other. I am simply wondering, if based on this example, is anything that is interactive immediately to be considered not art?