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

la-le-lu-li-lo

New member
Jun 1, 2009
1,558
0
0
D_987 said:
la-le-lu-li-lo said:
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.
Dante's Inferno had pictures. Is that not art? Graphic novels, are they not art? And I beg to differ about them being more subjective. I'd say they're equally subjective. You can form your own answers about either of them just as easily.
 

Often

New member
Apr 18, 2010
36
0
0
Ebert chooses to classify as art: beautiful visual media such as paintings, well written stories, and well crafted music. Any argument that these media, when combined, cannot be art is invalid because he accepts movies as art. So by his own definition of what he accepts as art, regardless of what he set out to say, video games are art. What he means to say, is that he does not like video games, nor understand them. Fair enough. I don't like his opinion as a critic. Does this mean he's not a critic? No, it just means he's a bad one.
 

Plurralbles

New member
Jan 12, 2010
4,611
0
0
"Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.

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?" Then let them say it, if it makes them happy.

I allow Sangtiago the last word. Toward the end of her presentation, she shows a visual with six circles, which represent, I gather, the components now forming for her brave new world of video games as art. The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. I rest my case."

I can't respect someone who insults and creates such a stupid example. Where the fuck does MahJOng come into play when we're talking about Mass effect and Heavy Rain and Bioshock?

The things are NOT the same. And film and television is art so... I don't understand whre he's going with any of his reasoning.
 

la-le-lu-li-lo

New member
Jun 1, 2009
1,558
0
0
D_987 said:
la-le-lu-li-lo said:
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.
Dante's Inferno had pictures. Is that not art? Graphic novels, are they not art? And I beg to differ about them being more subjective. I'd say they're equally subjective. You can form your own answers about either of them just as easily.
Ericb said:
One thing that would really improve the discussion is for people to stop using the term "art" as an adjective of quality.

Art is intention and execution, not a grade of excellence. There is good art and bad art.
A very good point. And "good" and "bad" are subjective, after all, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Often said:
Ebert chooses to classify as art: beautiful visual media such as paintings, well written stories, and well crafted music. Any argument that these media, when combined, cannot be art is invalid because he accepts movies as art. So by his own definition of what he accepts as art, regardless of what he set out to say, video games are art. What he means to say, is that he does not like video games, nor understand them. Fair enough. I don't like his opinion as a critic. Does this mean he's not a critic? No, it just means he's a bad one.
An ignorant critic.

I don't know why a movie critic thinks he can evaluate art as a whole to begin with. He's biased anyways, he said it himself.
 

Z(ombie)fan

New member
Mar 12, 2010
1,502
0
0
ShakesZX said:
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.) (1)

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? (2)

(1) i agree. also, what the fuck? i am so assassinated this worthless douche


(2)hilarously, the guy above you.
 

jthm

New member
Jun 28, 2008
825
0
0
That's funny, I still maintain that Roger Ebert's opinions on ANYTHING stopped being relevant back in the mid 80's when he started two thumb upping every fucking movie produced, written or directed with any 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon association to Stephen goddamn Spielberg. Funny how that is about the same time video games started seeing mass sales as viable home entertainment.

And even less relevant after Gene Siskel died.
 

The_Deleted

New member
Aug 28, 2008
2,188
0
0
Sober Thal said:
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.
That's a silly thing to say. Art should evoke an emotional response. And have you never danced to music? Or been to a gig? Smiled like a twat during an exciting movie or just had to finish a chapter of a book? I'd say that's pretty interactive.
 

Plurralbles

New member
Jan 12, 2010
4,611
0
0
Sober Thal said:
I can see comparing walking through a museum and seeing art, to playing a game and seeing art. You may say what you play contributes to that art, and you have a point. But I don't think it's the same as reading a book, or listening to music. I don't understand the interacting at a live show as being art in itself, nor do I think the act of reading is an art form if you skip pages.

I think the lesson I've learned (from everyone I am to lazy to respond to personally) is that all is art, if we choose to respect the art or not, is up to the individual.

Thanks for not beating me up cause of earlier everyone!

... if art can never be interactive... then what use does it have?

If all it is and ever can be is a thing to look at, or to hear, then my opinion of art is drastically lowered. Movies have been defined as an artform. You hear and you view a story taking place. Surely adding interactivity to your experience, changing it slightly, shouldn't disqualify its label. It's all about the execution though. It's how the developer strings you along the ride, like a great director or novelist. If it is poorly done and no one is any better for playing it, then sure, you can consider it to not be art but what about the game that does? What if it takes you along a wild, enthralling ride that moves you deeply and challenges your notions of reality, morals, everything you knew the day before is drastically reshaped by your experience in the world they created? Surely that game would be art. Though in the current form, these games made by these industry heads, these corporations, I can admit might not ever be art because they're not aiming for this kind of ride. No, they'd rather just give you an avatar with a gun and tell you shoot the guy opposite you.
 

StayPuff

New member
Apr 11, 2010
19
0
0
Isn't bio shock kinda like Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in that it question whether humans should play god? The difference being bio shock is good.
 

wax88

New member
Sep 10, 2009
226
0
0
basically a narrow minded opinion from a narrow minded writer. cant be bothered with what he thinks.
 

karpiel

New member
Apr 18, 2008
141
0
0
I personally agree with Roger Ebert; Games are ultimately just collections of rules that dictate how they're supposed to be played, just as films are sequences of images and books are series of words. All other things that are in games are accouterments added to this, and are irrelevant in terms of evaluating artistic worth. If a set of game rules can be construed as art, then let games be art, otherwise, it is just not so.
 

bob-2000

New member
Jun 28, 2009
986
0
0
He is obviously an utter fool. I'm not quite sure why people pay so such attention to his ignorant, idiotic opinion.
 

Panda Mania

New member
Jul 1, 2009
402
0
0
Yeah, even Ebert himself admits his total bias in this area. His prejudiced points just don't hold up against common facts about many videogames these days (they can be very similar to movies/they appeal to the senses/etc.), as previous posters have all mentioned.


But then again, "art" will always, always leave room for this kind of thing. "Art" is biased. "Art" lies in perception. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, one man's trash is another man's treasure, if you wanna be cliche.
 

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
And why do we care what that miserable senile old fuck thinks? At best he's a movie critic and what does a movie critic know about video games? Esp a miserable old one that passed his expiration date 10-15 years ago.
 

JourneyThroughHell

New member
Sep 21, 2009
5,010
0
0
No, Roger, no.
You're wrong.
We don't even need to prove that you're wrong because to make the claims you make you have to have a deep knowledge and understanding of the industry. And you don't.
 

demoman_chaos

New member
May 25, 2009
2,254
0
0
I could finish reading his elitist bullshit.
He claims caveman sketches are art, but video games are not. Considering how many things in gaming requires a form of art he accepts as art, it is odd to see him say it isn't