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

[Oomii]

I don't really see how its different then a movie. The purpose of a movie is to keep people entertained for a while and the art is the style of filming/script. Video games are essentially the same thing, but instead of filming its designing game-types and environments.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Okay, the point that video games aren't art because they're interactive....

Has anyone ever BEEN to a museum, with constructions that encourage interaction. What about the Vietnam War Memorial - it was designed to be interacted with, and is considered a very popular piece of art by the artist Maya Lin.
As an animator for games, maybe I'm a little biased, but games can compel you just as much as a movie or well-written story - what about in Fallout when you FEEL BAD about killing an NPC? Or Fable? And those are just the obvious examples. That emotional play defines art - the game doesn't exist for a reason besides "entertainment" - the goal of art.

A sexually crazed rhinoceros bearing down on you can compel you, but it isn't art (unless you get caught with it on your computer and you need an excuse for the missus).

Games interactivity preclude them from being art because the interactivity is about entertainment, not about the message or emotion the game is trying to convey. Shoot-gunning people in Mass Effect is not art, or is the use of VATS in Fallout 3. Aspects of games certainly can be art, but a medium which is a conglomerate of art which seeks to do nothing more than entertain isn't art.

Although movies entertain some of them can be considered art because they are not interactive, thus the elements are arranged in the manner which the artist intended in order to make the statement. Games don't do this, they are arranged in the manner which makes the game possible to play.

 

[Nico4]

Everything can be some form of art, no matter what it might be, and video games is no exception. Persona series, Killer 7, Silent Hill 2 & Shattered Memories are just some of the many games that can be discribed as art, especially Silent Hill. I think Ebert is wrong on that part, but I respect his opinon

 

[D_987]

I just don't understand how being part of the story excludes it from being art, if anything that only adds more depth to the environments. but I guess we just see it differently, under a technical definition though video game environments are art.

Using a technical definition everything is art - because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and a definition of art is something of extraordinary beauty. You have to draw the line somewhere.

 

[Katana314]

The inherent problem with the debate is that everyone has a different definition of 'art'. Trying to reach that 1-0 toggle between "Are games Art" or not is like trying to define "Is this cheese tasty or not" because the definition is so loose it might as well just be an opinion thing.

 

[lukemdizzle]

I just don't understand how being part of the story excludes it from being art, if anything that only adds more depth to the environments. but I guess we just see it differently, under a technical definition though video game environments are art.

Using a technical definition everything is art - because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and a definition of art is something of extraordinary beauty. You have to draw the line somewhere.

no it has to be crated expressing some theme or tone. beauty can be anything though art isn't always beautiful. It just must express something

 

[Markgraf]

This comes from the guy who said he preferred the Death at a Funeral remake over the original. Enough said.

 

[Giest118]

snip

Your position is that something is art IF AND ONLY IF people can have different opinions on it (as that is the meaning of the word "subjective" you've used eighty bajillion times so far).

Unless you can point me to a single game that everyone agrees on every aspect of, then by your own meaning, any video game ever made is art.

Unless you wish to change your meaning of art so as to suit your needs as far as replying to this post... but that would be dishonest, wouldn't it?

 

[AnonymsWarrior]

As previous posts have indicated, whether something is art or not is completely subjective, depending on the person who experiences it. Take Jackson Pollock's Blue Poles. To me it looks like a bunch of paint splats, but then others come along and herald it as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Obviously this guy didn't have a very artistic gaming experience (if any), though we have. In the end, this guy is trying to define what art should and should not be for everyone, and while being impossible due to subjectivity, in my eyes, it makes him sound like a pompous asshat.

 

[D_987]

I just don't understand how being part of the story excludes it from being art, if anything that only adds more depth to the environments. but I guess we just see it differently, under a technical definition though video game environments are art.

Using a technical definition everything is art - because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and a definition of art is something of extraordinary beauty. You have to draw the line somewhere.

no it has to be crated expressing some theme or tone. beauty can be anything though

I'm pretty sure you could make up a theme or tone for just about anything - example:

 

[Timbydude]

I'm interested in a point you gave...

So why are books considered art then?

Because they create an experience without the need for pictures and are much more subjective than a game could ever be.

Pictures can actually increase subjectivity in anything. In fact, seeing a visual depiction of an event can elucidate symbolism and meaning that would either be made too obvious or not obvious enough were words used to describe the event instead. This is why movies and plays (paintings as well, though those aren't really in the same storytelling category) are two popular art forms.

 

[lukemdizzle]

I just don't understand how being part of the story excludes it from being art, if anything that only adds more depth to the environments. but I guess we just see it differently, under a technical definition though video game environments are art.

Using a technical definition everything is art - because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and a definition of art is something of extraordinary beauty. You have to draw the line somewhere.

no it has to be crated expressing some theme or tone. beauty can be anything though

I'm pretty sure you could make up a theme or tone for just about anything - example:

as long as you create it yes and this is why there is bad art. if some stupid meaning is just tacked on than there is no purpose to the art. artistic skill also comes into play but there are many different factors. you can state that video game environments are bad art but not that they are not art at all. If games aren't your preferred medium thats perfectly ok. also I don't consider your example as art because nothing is being created.

 

[Wrds]

It may have been mentioned here already, but I like how his entire article is based on a speech that some other woman gave. And not based on his experience playing any of the games.

I could go on about him and his opinions for days but it's not worth it. Suffice it to say he just doesn't get it.

 

[Steindorh]

I have to say that I agree with Mr. Ebert, but the reason I do is because I say games cannot be art because they are interactive. They can contain art, and be artistically designed, but because they are interactive, they are, in fact, MORE than art.

 

[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.

 

[D_987]

snip

Your position is that something is art IF AND ONLY IF people can have different opinions on it (as that is the meaning of the word "subjective" you've used eighty bajillion times so far).

Unless you can point me to a single game that everyone agrees on every aspect of, then by your own meaning, any video game ever made is art.

Unless you wish to change your meaning of art so as to suit your needs as far as replying to this post... but that would be dishonest, wouldn't it?

What exactly are you talking about? A game that everyone agrees on every aspect of - like what such aspect?

If the game is good?
If the games music matches?
If the gameplay is smooth?

Those are subjective - but that doesn't mean games are art because the game itself is not trying to portray a message (you know, one of my points right from the start). The game is not attempting to divide opinion on those areas.

Games are merely interactive playthings - they do not exist on a higher level because they do not attempt to portray a message. Thus they do not create subjective opinion about a topic - which has been my point all along - you've just failed to grasp that...

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

Didn't he kind of miss the point of his own article at one point? He expressly says that the cave painters of old were:

They were great artists at that time, geniuses with nothing to build on, and were not in the process of becoming Michelangelo or anyone else.

So by making something from nothing you area genius, how then when you create your own definition of art by:

but then you are creating your own art object from the materials at hand.

Are you not doing exactly the same thing? If what the cave painters did was art because they took nothing and made it something, then if we take the same approach in our definition of art, we must also be geniuses. Thanks Mr Ebert, but I think you may be confusing yourself.

Also, as a linguist of sorts, I take exception to the view that Roger Ebert thinks he can define art to any reasonable standard. That's not his prerogative, and I have just as much backing as he does to be able to deem something art as well.

In short, he's elitist and I don't agree with him.

 

[D_987]

as long as you create it yes and this is why there is bad art. if some stupid meaning is just tacked on than there is no purpose to the art. artistic skill also comes into play but there are many different factors. you can state that video game environments are bad art but not that they are not art at all. If games aren't your preferred medium thats perfectly ok. also I don't consider your example as art because nothing is being created.

So what is the meaning in video-game environments? I've already explained why areas such as Liberty city aren't art - they exist merely to force the player to follow the storyline - there is no alternative purpose.

You're point still seems to be that everything is art - can you not see that? You're now going as far as to say "you can state that video game environments are bad art but not that they are not art at all.", despite the fact that you said you could "see where I was coming from" when I explained that game environments have no real purpose from an artistic standpoint.

You're doing the very thing you accused Cuddly Tomato of doing and are just repeating an argument that has no basis behind it - if you're right then everything is art...

 

[Reaper69lol]

Imo, games are art in their form, I mean look at Bioshock.