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

[UberNoodle]

FUCK YOU [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Half-Life_2], Mr Ebert. Fuck you [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassins_creed] fuck you [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeworld] fuck you [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starcraft].

Yeah .. that's really productive. In those links, what does it say about the emotional, spiritual and philosophical worth of those games? How do those games affect us in ways that trancend the medium on which they are rendered? Besides looking awesome and kicking ass, and of course being technically acomplished, what is their cultural, emotional and spiritual value? What do they communicate about the people that made them and view them, and the worlds in which they live?

If you've played those games, you'll know the answers. But I'm not gonna waste my time explaining colours to blind people. If the "art" designation entails spending more time navel-gazing than playing the games in question, you can fucking keep it.

Wow, relax. I have played those games, and I still don't see that they are art. They have been created via methods that demand artistry, but as a whole, I don't see how they are art, and for the reasons I have already stated. Does that make me stupid or a 'navel gazer' or something? Whatever, if that helps you get through the day. Regardless, I am content not being someone who thinks that just by saying something is so, it makes it so.

 

[Fire Daemon]

There is no agreed upon meaning for the word 'game' and no agreed upon meaning for the word 'art' so arguing about games being art which is essentially games = art is pretty fucking pointless. How can you say that one thing is another when you don't know what the two are. You can have your own personal meanings for both terms and hence draw the conclusion that games = art but that argument is pretty pointless because it will be your own meaning, your own definition.

I could quite as easily say that the sky is a piece of cake because for me the meaning of both 'the sky' and 'a piece of cake' is '1 atom of hydrogen'. A stupid argument that would have me laughed at, yet this is exactly what all of you who say that games = art are doing. It's pointless, annoying and stupid.

Even if you go into precise detail things don't get much better. Say you use the term 'Video-game' with a more precise definition and use one of the most commonly associated terms for art, some games are art and some are not. Nimrod [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimrod_(computing)] isn't considered art but Ico is without any sort of defined reason for the separation. Is it the aesthetics, the animations, music and story that make Ico art and not Nimrod? If that's the case than games aren't art but rather the things connected to them meaning that games are not art. If game 1 is art while game 2 is not art we are in fact saying that the things added to the game such as music or animations are art, not the game itself. For games to be art than we have to assume that all games are but when we do that...

Well lets say then that you classify every video-game as a piece of art, you will find yourself in a situation in which everything is art and hence art will have no clearly labeled definition apart from 'everything', hence saying that 'this games is art' is no different than saying' this chair is a part of the universe'. It will be completely pointless and carry no weight behind it, the term art will have no meaning and had might as well not exist. When a term or word has no meaning you can't use it in a proper and definitive way. Saying that 'this game is art' would then become 'this thing is a thing' which means nothing. What is the point of saying a game is art when it means absolutely nothing?

As said before; 'art' and 'game' have no clear definition so how about we forget this nonsense and move on with our lives.

I find myself agreeing with Ebert's last points. It seems that this games are art bullshit is nothing more than quelling the fear that games are looked down upon by many others for being juvenile.If you call something art it stops being an idiotic waste of time for you and you can now hold your head high and act better than what you are. 'I'm not some loser man child who wastes most of his time with video-games, I spend my time with art. I'm an edgy intellectual!' I wager many of you games art folks tell yourselves which is quite wrong because an intellect doesn't need to constantly remind himself of that and a decent person doesn't need to create flimsy justifications for their actions, likes and hobbies.

 

[Semitendon]

This should have been a poll thread.

But, as to my two cents, I agree with Ebert.

As much as I love playing my videogames, I have never been inspired, emotionally influenced ( with the exception of mild happiness in beating a level) or particularlly impressed on a cultural or social statement level.

While I agree that some video games are visually well done, and some may have impressive storylines, it does not qualify them as "art".

At best, videogames are a poor attempt at art. I don't know whether it's the medium, or the games that have been developed so far, but I am hard pressed to think that videogames will ever be eligible for "art" consideration.

Alternatively, I can compare Schindlers List, Van Gogh's paintings, and the works of Mark Twain, as "art" on various levels. No videogame I have ever seen, played, or heard of, comes close to being in the same catagory as the examples I listed.

 

[-Datura-]

Wow, relax. I have played those games, and I still don't see that they are art.

By my heel, I care not.

Some of the defining moments of my youth were facilitated by games and gamer culture.

You feel free to stay here and argue the "emotional, spiritual and philosophical worth" of these games, I'll be over there riding Wave Of The Future.

 

[Typhusoid]

Given the fact that what is and isn't art is totally subjective, I'd say he's entitled to his opinion. However, I disagree.

 

[Vaccine]

Art is a form of selfexpression from ones self, Video games would not exist without Art since the design of concept art, lore and other forms of adaptation to the games setting is the same thing, the ideas and expression of ones self, just on a much larger scale with more people on a development team.

And to people saying stuff about famous paintings from hundreds of years ago, that's the fucking point, they have had hundreds of years to grow on society, compare the amount of time those paintings have been around as compared to the last 30 years of videogames and compare the impact they've had.

 

[captaincabbage]

I've got one word for ya Roger Ebert; Psychonauts.

 

[The Fork of Truth]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, I suppose. Can't say I really care whether games are art or not, although I wouldn't agree with Ebert on the matter. He puts his point across well, though.

 

[UberNoodle]

I find myself agreeing with Ebert's last points. It seems that this games are art bullshit is nothing more than quelling the fear that games are looked down upon by many others for being juvenile.If you call something art it stops being an idiotic waste of time for you and you can now hold your head high and act better than what you are. 'I'm not some loser man child who wastes most of his time with video-games, I spend my time with art. I'm an edgy intellectual!' I wager many of you games art folks tell yourselves which is quite wrong because an intellect doesn't need to constantly remind himself of that and a decent person doesn't need to create flimsy justifications for their actions, likes and hobbies.

Indeed. And I also agree with you about 'art' not having a murky definition, or at least a watered down and confused one. And as for intellect, I rarely see much of it. Today, a debate is apparently a forum for disissive sarcasm, or just saying 'I disagree' and more often than not, afixing an insult to the end of it. It seems that most poeple any statement has only two possible options for response - agree or disagree. No enlightent has ever been reached by such a simplistic binary thought.

It is as if opinions today are frozen solid and not allowed to change, be modified or evolve into wider more complex forms. 'You are wrong,', 'I disagree,': no effort is ever put into finding commonality or how two disparate ideas can be reconciled, or together expose the 'truth', not that such a think really exists. IT is like two people saying 'this is what I'm saying' and never actually listening to eachother except in order to execute their binary responses.

 

[insertclevernamehere]

One month ago I would've argue games were merely entertainment not art. Then I played Shadow of the Colossus for the first time. That REALLY got me thinking about the concept of games as art. I started by conceding that SOTC is art and some other games (such as Braid or Odin Sphere) were as well, but in the end I decided all video games are an art form, as are all movies and all music. People point out that something isn't artsy enough to qualify as art, but they forget: there is a such thing as bad art. If I smear brown all over a canvas, it is technically art. It's horrible art, but it's art. Video games are often mediocre art, but the truly great ones, particularly those designed with artistic style in mind, can be classified as great art. In 1,000 years, people will look back on the video games we play and see them as ancient works of art. Some they will say are bad pieces of art, but they will be art nonetheless.

Honestly it fits the definition PERFECTLY, I don't see how you can't say it's art.

 

[UberNoodle]

One month ago I would've argue games were merely entertainment not art. Then I played Shadow of the Colossus for the first time. That REALLY got me thinking about the concept of games as art. I started by conceding that SOTC is art and some other games (such as Braid or Odin Sphere) were as well, but in the end I decided all video games are an art form, as are all movies and all music. People point out that something isn't artsy enough to qualify as art, but they forget: there is a such thing as bad art. If I smear brown all over a canvas, it is technically art. It's horrible art, but it's art. Video games are often mediocre art, but the truly great ones, particularly those designed with artistic style in mind, can be classified as great art. In 1,000 years, people will look back on the video games we play and see them as ancient works of art. Some they will say are bad pieces of art, but they will be art nonetheless.

Honestly it fits the definition PERFECTLY, I don't see how you can't say it's art.

If you smeared brown all over a canvass and called it 'art'. I would ask you why you did it, and why brown, and why that technique, and what it meant for you, etc. There is a lot more than how something LOOKS in the matter of creating art. And I mean that in the sense that Ebert means it. HOwever, Art when put in the context of skills and craft, has an entirely different meaning and in all this talk of games, I see THAT definition coming into play - art as the product of skill and craft. Hence, we talk about commercial art, art in the kitchen, and so on.

I don't think that people will look back on games of today and call them 'art' in the same sense they did of religious icons, soul baring portraits and illusrated offerings to the gods. They would identify the artistry that went into making them, and write of the arts that combined to create the whole. When talking of art in the sense that Ebert means it, art is something that serves a purpose beyond itself. Right now, everyone is talking about games are purely physical things - their art and sound and story and so on. That isn't what makes art into 'ART', in the sense that Ebert is using. It trancends the medium and has its true value apart from all technical aspects of itself. Perhaps all that is required is to start looking at how games do or can do that.

 

[Skarvig]

I agree with Ebert. And I agree with his statement that we are the only group who want see their game as a form of art. As someone mentioned before "Games are games, and art is art".

 

[liquidus118]

I disagree with the many people who think games aren't art, but completely understand why they think it because for the most part games are just stupid, silly, shooty violence.

You have to look closely for the SH2's and the...Ok I can only think of SH2 right now but I still reserve that they only think they can't be art because a) They have their heads up their arse or b) they simply haven't played or seen any games that have artistic value, since they probably only see the media's exagerating of GTA, No Russian and whatever crazy stuff the Japanese have come up with (Not that Japanese stuff is bad - I love a lot of Japanese games, just stuff like RapePlay).

But hey at least seeing people who bash games gives me a list of people who are igonrant twats who don't know about the things they talk about.

 

[tzimize]

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.

Cant say I know of this Ebert fellow, but I agree with absolutely everything you said. Art is just a product that is more than entertainment. It is something beautiful.

 

[Hollywood Knights]

If I was to say to Roger Ebert that a movie shot using digital cinematography can't be called a 'film' because no actual photographic film was involved, I wonder what he'd say.

Certainly, it's a point he should consider before claiming that all games have to have contain competition bound by rules.

Ultimately though, this article only serves to show - especially in his dismissal of Braid and Flower - that Ebert simply does not like (or indeed understand) games, and as such, his opinion on them counts for precisely zero.

 

[Carnagath]

This comment by someone on Ebert's article seems to sum up my feelings perfectly:

While video games are not meant to be an art medium, and that few games, if any, will ever be made especially to as an form of art, you will find art in video games, as art is nothing but a concept which finds it's meaning in the soul of every person. As such, anything and everything can be and is, for someone, art.

I believe this ends the discussion right there. Also, I can't shake the feeling that Ebert is trying to be controversial just for the sake of it after reading his article, but I will just ignore that feeling and write it off as just him being an old guy who has forgotten a few very basic things.

 

[RatRace123]

Oh well, the dude hated Kick Ass, so that should be a red flag as to his mental state.

 

[Aidinthel]

I haven't read much of this thread but here is my definition of "art":

"Any sensory experience designed to manipulate the feelings of those who perceive it."

This is intentionally vague because just as no true way exists of objectively quantifying the value of a particular emotion, so there is no true way of quantifying artisticness. The only real restriction is the word "designed". The only universal characteristic of art to my mind is a thinking creator. All other qualifications are elitism.

Or just personal opinion. If personal thought can create art, then personal thought can refuse to recognise it. There is no need to inject elitism into the mix.

I don't think you quite understand what I meant. Each individual's personal definition of art being different was the main postulate of my own definition. I did not mean to say that the statement "I don't consider that to be art" is elitist; I can recognize personal opinion when I see it. What is elitist is "No one should consider this art", which is what I read Mr. Ebert's statements to be. Perhaps I am wrong about that; I admit I did not read it very thoroughly.

 

[magicmonkeybars]

I argee with Ebert games are not art, they are a means with which to create art.
They are brush paint and canvas in one, playing isn't art nor is watching it while you play.
So called "Let's Plays" are art because they are movies or prose not games.