Videogames as Art
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
I always wanted to know how that dirty bed was considered art. It rather reminds me of a piece of art in the Seattle Art Museum--imagine nine glass bottles, arranged in a 3x3 square, sitting on their bases. On top of them, originally balanced, now cemented, are nine others, stuck neck to neck. On top of those, base to base, are nine more, with nine above that. It strikes me of something you'd wake up to after a night you don't really remember, hungover as hell, sitting on your table, still sticky from the occasional spilled bit of booze. Sure, it's flounted as "art", but it's more a drunken act that someone framed. It's not anything profound, or inspiring, but its still called art. Any one of us could do it, and no one did because it never seems like art. To us, it's not, but to him (and the Seattle Art Museum) it most definitely was.
Well said, Yahtzee. And I will openly admit that I was teary-eyed when I saw Aeris die in Final Fantasy VII, because it was a character that I felt invested in to care enough about (ignoring the Phoenix Down joke). Hell, she was the second character in fiction that I've ever cared about to the point it made me sad when they were killed. The first being Dinobot from Beast Wars. (Yes, I know he was later revived, but his second sacrifice was nearly as good as the first.)
[HEADING=1]THANK YOU[/HEADING]
Good god, why can't people get that simple little fact? AN OPINION IS AN OPINION
This whole Ebert thing has just demonstrated that people like to shout at others to make themselves feel bigger and smarter
Good god, why can't people get that simple little fact? AN OPINION IS AN OPINION
This whole Ebert thing has just demonstrated that people like to shout at others to make themselves feel bigger and smarter
As much as I'd hate sound like a mindless drone who just agrees with Yahtzee on every single article, this is essentially what I thought after reading Ebert's article (I, too, enjoy the man's reviews, even if he talks up a bad movie or downplays something great). The only thing that upsets me about the whole thing is that it is doubtful that most of those who raged over it probably didn't read anything after the headline of his blog post, much like no one ever reads the words of a review and instead just looks at a ranking or number of stars to tell them what is and is not without realizing there is more to entertainment than a simple arbitrary ranking system and the person reviewing such a piece is at least human. Well, only some game critics are real human beings, but you get my point.
I think my problem with Ebert's statement is not so much his opinion - it's how everyone else considers his opinion. He's never played a video game, but most of the video game-hating masses will take his word as gospel anyway, using it as fodder for their arguments that we are all overgrown psycho children all waiting for the right moment to start the massacre.
He can have his opinion if he likes, I just wish he had the common sense to keep it to himself. Like you said - I would not go to you for a professional review of a movie, and even if I did, you presumably have the presence of mind to see the thing before you review it. He didn't, and that's why he outraged me so much with his statements. He's completely unqualified but because more than two people know his name, he's going to be credited with all the qualification in the world.
He can have his opinion if he likes, I just wish he had the common sense to keep it to himself. Like you said - I would not go to you for a professional review of a movie, and even if I did, you presumably have the presence of mind to see the thing before you review it. He didn't, and that's why he outraged me so much with his statements. He's completely unqualified but because more than two people know his name, he's going to be credited with all the qualification in the world.
Films are people doing what a director tells them to do, and the director is being guided by the writer.
A game is an entity within itself, being guided by the production team, but essentially being controlled by you. Games are films equals in every way, perhaps better, as I am yet to see a game with Sarah Jessica Parker's horsy face in it.
A game is an entity within itself, being guided by the production team, but essentially being controlled by you. Games are films equals in every way, perhaps better, as I am yet to see a game with Sarah Jessica Parker's horsy face in it.
This was a very professional and well-reasoned response to Roger's claims. I think it's some of Yahtzee's finest commentary on the subject.
I find the problem with his argument against video games as art is the nature of what he defines as art. The Mona Lisa is just oil, pigment, and cloth until you look at it and experience it, the Ode to Joy is just ink on paper until someone takes an instrument, plays it, and it is heard. The interaction between object and person shows the real reflection of art, so I'd agree that the rules and pieces of chess are not art but I find the representation and the act of Bobby Fisher and everyone else strategics and the movement and the thrill of the activity is an art and can hush the crowd as well as a movie, a song, or a painting. So interaction is whats important, and without that theres not much else to do. Comments?
In listening to this discussion, I've realized that I have two in my mind working definitions of art.
1. Art is what artists do (which I mentioned a few posts up).
2. Any production whose outcome varies based on the character of the individual doing it.
If I'm walking through a Museum of Modern Art, I'll use the first definition. Sure it conjures emotions: usually alternating between boredom and laughter. But my opinion isn't what matters here, is it?
Regarding the second definition, if say someone works creatively with blowing glass bottles, few would disagree that is art. Being a good golfer though, sure that requires talent, but still it is all about getting the ball in the hole and there is little room for variation other than to do it in fewer strokes than others. But the Harlem Globetrotters, that would be art again. Stacking crates would not be art since all crates stack the same way, unless they are different sizes and one puts them together eloquently, then that might be considered artistic. Doing a pole dance, if one works by routine it isn't particularly artistic, but if an exotic dancer mixes it up a bit it can be.
By definition #2, singing opera is not an art, not usually, but producing one is. Making a videogame is certainly an art form. Playing a videogame might sometimes be.
1. Art is what artists do (which I mentioned a few posts up).
2. Any production whose outcome varies based on the character of the individual doing it.
If I'm walking through a Museum of Modern Art, I'll use the first definition. Sure it conjures emotions: usually alternating between boredom and laughter. But my opinion isn't what matters here, is it?
Regarding the second definition, if say someone works creatively with blowing glass bottles, few would disagree that is art. Being a good golfer though, sure that requires talent, but still it is all about getting the ball in the hole and there is little room for variation other than to do it in fewer strokes than others. But the Harlem Globetrotters, that would be art again. Stacking crates would not be art since all crates stack the same way, unless they are different sizes and one puts them together eloquently, then that might be considered artistic. Doing a pole dance, if one works by routine it isn't particularly artistic, but if an exotic dancer mixes it up a bit it can be.
By definition #2, singing opera is not an art, not usually, but producing one is. Making a videogame is certainly an art form. Playing a videogame might sometimes be.
again y do anyone care what a film critic says about videogames? Oo
if u think videogame is art good for u, he obviously doesn't. Congratulations, the world still goes round. <.<
if u think videogame is art good for u, he obviously doesn't. Congratulations, the world still goes round. <.<
Slightly disappointed with this Extra Punctuation, the TL/DR seems to be able to sum it up, which is not a good thing.
Really, I don't see why it should matter. I'll play a game because I want to, not because it's labeled as 'art'. I'll play a game and if it triggers a strong emotional response, good for me. I might even play it again sometime. What I wont do, is call it art. I wont not call it art either. I might go on an internet forum and tell people that it was a good game, if I can be bothered, but it shouldn't really matter.
Why do we need to get this 'art' status? Are we so desperate for approval from the non-gamers? If they don't get to play it too bad for them, but why should we care? When I look for a game to play or a book to read, I don't automatically go for the best seller, or the top rated. I'll read a book because I might like the cover, or what's written in the blurb. I love looking for obscure pc games that were released years ago in my local game shop, partially because they're cheap, and my computer's pretty archaic, but mostly - 'just cause'.
My advice. Spend much less time listening to other people, it'll make you happier.
Really, I don't see why it should matter. I'll play a game because I want to, not because it's labeled as 'art'. I'll play a game and if it triggers a strong emotional response, good for me. I might even play it again sometime. What I wont do, is call it art. I wont not call it art either. I might go on an internet forum and tell people that it was a good game, if I can be bothered, but it shouldn't really matter.
Why do we need to get this 'art' status? Are we so desperate for approval from the non-gamers? If they don't get to play it too bad for them, but why should we care? When I look for a game to play or a book to read, I don't automatically go for the best seller, or the top rated. I'll read a book because I might like the cover, or what's written in the blurb. I love looking for obscure pc games that were released years ago in my local game shop, partially because they're cheap, and my computer's pretty archaic, but mostly - 'just cause'.
My advice. Spend much less time listening to other people, it'll make you happier.
Had a chuckle at your TL/DR 
But indeed. Everyone's definition of art is different. Some don't understand why the mona lisa is declared as art. And some don't see rap music as an art form.
Mankind is a wonderful species.
But indeed. Everyone's definition of art is different. Some don't understand why the mona lisa is declared as art. And some don't see rap music as an art form.
Mankind is a wonderful species.
No and no. First of all, the question is more relevant today than it was 4 years ago, given better graphics and sound capabilities. Second, someone recently asked if he still held the same opinion and he said that he did, and restated his point in a recent article.PapaJupe said:
Gotta agree on one thing, That people shouldn't be bother so much about other people's opinion. Thing I agree partly with and disagree with is the part that when someone talks about his own field of expertice he has a stronger opinion. While that is true, it still remains an opinion to me. If a game-producer says gaming isn't an art, why would you be concerned? Does it take away the overal fun that you have in gaming? Does it really matter that much to you what other people think of what you do?
My point here is that people have their opinions and you have to respect them, but you by no means have to follow anyone's opinion. Of course other peoples opinions can be very handy when trying to make an opinion of your own on a matter, but atleast think for yourself and don't immediatly be afraid of what other people think.
Ebert's believes that gaming isn't an art, so what? I could likely say movies aren't an art (I believe some movies could be art, not all). I don't think he would have restless nights about it, even if I was a moviemaker.
I believe he would have restless nights, if the majority of the people believe His movies aren't art. Then he would be concerned, else it doesn't matter.
My point here is that people have their opinions and you have to respect them, but you by no means have to follow anyone's opinion. Of course other peoples opinions can be very handy when trying to make an opinion of your own on a matter, but atleast think for yourself and don't immediatly be afraid of what other people think.
Ebert's believes that gaming isn't an art, so what? I could likely say movies aren't an art (I believe some movies could be art, not all). I don't think he would have restless nights about it, even if I was a moviemaker.
I believe he would have restless nights, if the majority of the people believe His movies aren't art. Then he would be concerned, else it doesn't matter.
