Ebert: Video Games Can Never Be Art
- Thread starter UniversalWolf
- Start date
Oerjeke said:
I really think you should stop making these categorizations Oerjeke. Such broad generalizations are foolish. Each work within a certain discipline should be judged for its own artistic merit.
Moreover, how do we draw the line between entertainment and art? It is not as black and white as you put it.
Back to games, people put forth the same arguments about movies back when film was still a young art form... and they were wrong about it. Saying that we won't be alive when games become art is a bit of a bullshit. Our civilization advances exponentially quicker as we move on. Look at how fast film and photography developed in the last century.
If we unquestionably consider some early examples of film -which lacked the theory, craftsmanship and technological aids we have available now- art than it's only logical that we should also consider Super Mario and Tetris as products of a newly emerging yet already well-established art form.
I suppose Puccini's operas and Shakespeare's plays should be viewed mainly as entertainment as well, then? Good to know.Oerjeke said:
Moloch Horridus
First time out of the vault
I think it might be too scary idea for a veteran critic like Ebert to think that video games might be art, if for no other reason than the fact that the interactive nature of this media makes a player as much of a creator as the game makers.
We as players are huge part of making games what they finally can become. If we don't play, the game doesn't really exist, it's just bytes on a physical medium. It can't be art without being played by someone, and if one can't think a player as a creator or an artist (of an experience for himself no less) then surely games can't be art.
That has to be scary for a critic. Who values his opinions about art, if art is depending on ones own experience and what one makes of it. How can critic write a review of your experience he can't see or feel? Good game reviews account only for technical merits of a game, how the game accomplishes its task; delivering the experience for a player. Not a very appealing deal for an old school critic I guess.
Ebert probably isn't a player himself so he can't see this. Games are art, everyday art just like movies. Making people think and feel without having to think about artists motives and influences. In other words, the best kind of art there is.
Of course all art is subjective, but I'd say more traditional art forms are easier to classify and therefore more appealing for critics to process as "art".
We as players are huge part of making games what they finally can become. If we don't play, the game doesn't really exist, it's just bytes on a physical medium. It can't be art without being played by someone, and if one can't think a player as a creator or an artist (of an experience for himself no less) then surely games can't be art.
That has to be scary for a critic. Who values his opinions about art, if art is depending on ones own experience and what one makes of it. How can critic write a review of your experience he can't see or feel? Good game reviews account only for technical merits of a game, how the game accomplishes its task; delivering the experience for a player. Not a very appealing deal for an old school critic I guess.
Ebert probably isn't a player himself so he can't see this. Games are art, everyday art just like movies. Making people think and feel without having to think about artists motives and influences. In other words, the best kind of art there is.
Of course all art is subjective, but I'd say more traditional art forms are easier to classify and therefore more appealing for critics to process as "art".
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
FWIW, my own personal definition of art is this: if a human civilization 10,000 years in the future with no knowledge of current human civilization digs something up out of a ruin and experiences it as it was intended (for example, a music CD requires a CD player to work - so I assume they also find a CD player and can figure out how to hook it up to speakers and run it), and they recognize it as art - whether or not they understand its exact meaning - then it's art.
Some video games would qualify under this definition, but most probably would not. They would be seen as mere interesting diversions.
Some video games would qualify under this definition, but most probably would not. They would be seen as mere interesting diversions.
In 10,000 years people will be calling present day household curtains works of art.
Context, Oerjeke, context. People didn't go see Shakespeare's plays and Puccini's operas for art appreciation, but to get entertained. Our sensibilities are different from those of Shakespeare's or Puccini's contemporaries, so we are more entertained by Avatar and Transformers than by Othello and Turandot. Whether or not audiences view a particular media product primarily as entertainment has no bearing on its artistic properties, however. Movies, plays, music... they are all art. Even when they are not enjoyed as such, or when they are directed by Michael Bay.Oerjeke said:
Oh Ebert, whenever did you become relevant?
Art can be found anywhere, regardless of aesthetic value, and the worth is subjective. If somebody has created something that evokes emotion or senses in you, it can be said to be art. A garden that someone has grown, rich with aromas that force you to recall a time from your past could be art. A simple tune played on a guitar that gets in your head and cheers you up could be art. Even a video game could fill these requirements. Many games are crap, frankly, but so are many paintings and musical pieces.
Art can be found anywhere, regardless of aesthetic value, and the worth is subjective. If somebody has created something that evokes emotion or senses in you, it can be said to be art. A garden that someone has grown, rich with aromas that force you to recall a time from your past could be art. A simple tune played on a guitar that gets in your head and cheers you up could be art. Even a video game could fill these requirements. Many games are crap, frankly, but so are many paintings and musical pieces.
Yeah. People today will go on about the intricate detail of a fabric from hundreds of years ago and the thing could have been a throw-rug.Kilus said:
Professor Danger!
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Leon said:
I believe that was kinda pointed out by that bag in the wind scene from "American Beauty". I don't think the word "art" was actually brought up, but many of the attributes were.
Leon said:
Uh, ever since he was (and still is) a prominent and influential film critic? Really, Ebert is a fantastic human being and his knowledge regarding film and its history is impressive. The man is an expert in his field and attacking his credibility as per his "relevance" is stupid, as long as the man is alive and coherent he'll still be the first quote to show up on the DVD case if he has anything good to say about the film.
Fair point, Eyenixon. Allow me to rephrase my complaint, if you would.
Whenever did Ebert become relevant to determining what is and is not art? Does his experience in one media give him (or anyone, truly) authority with which to deny or grant another media such a nebulous, subjective and overrated classification as "art"? I do not think so, and so I give little heed to what he has to say about it.
And just to reinforce what I had pointed at before: no, I would not call the vast, vast, vast majority of video games "art." Some certainly attempt to be so, though, such as titles by Tale of Tales. But are they? Eh.
Whenever did Ebert become relevant to determining what is and is not art? Does his experience in one media give him (or anyone, truly) authority with which to deny or grant another media such a nebulous, subjective and overrated classification as "art"? I do not think so, and so I give little heed to what he has to say about it.
And just to reinforce what I had pointed at before: no, I would not call the vast, vast, vast majority of video games "art." Some certainly attempt to be so, though, such as titles by Tale of Tales. But are they? Eh.
so beeing a film critic makes someone a expert about videogames and more important about art ?
I have no clue if games are art or not. But I at least admit that I have no clue ...
I have no clue if games are art or not. But I at least admit that I have no clue ...
Professor Danger!
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Crni Vuk said:
Doesn't matter. Here in America, anyone that has a voice has an opinion and is therefore an expert on whatever they talk about, because people will listen. Welcome to the country where fame happens by nothing more than exposure.
UncannyGarlic
Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!
Thus Ebert confirms that he's an art snob who only considers his favorites which adhere to his arbitrary standards art. He seems like a pompous old man wearing a top hat, monocle, and tales talking drying about why those Yankees across the sea are so undignified, having never met one nor been to the US. Ebert is off and on but he really has no idea what he's talking about when it comes to games, having played very few (which I've not seen him name).
Apparently he tweeted this and other similar things so I think that Ebert might just be trolling for hits.
Some more twitter gems:
D
Deleted member 53669
Guest
lol.
Games come from a long line of entertainment forms, and have been defined in game theory in part even though it's under the category of political science in university studies. This classification is the idea of 2 or more players with opposite goals, and their movements effect each other. And this is only games that are competitive in nature. Video games are a collection of all these broad ideas of games brought to a format that projects the game itself via video.
The thing about this though, is that the purpose of playing games other than to increase a skill that is useful, is completely subjective to the person. I can write a whole term paper on why I think that Chess is such an important tool to use to philosophically navigate life. And since we are dealing with ideas that we all made up here based on our surroundings, who's to say what doesn't fucking exist? Which is what Ebert is saying in the abstract. That games don't exist.
So fuck him. When god comes down and writes a physics equation as a constant defining what ART is in the first place then maybe you can act like your shit doesn't smell.
Games come from a long line of entertainment forms, and have been defined in game theory in part even though it's under the category of political science in university studies. This classification is the idea of 2 or more players with opposite goals, and their movements effect each other. And this is only games that are competitive in nature. Video games are a collection of all these broad ideas of games brought to a format that projects the game itself via video.
The thing about this though, is that the purpose of playing games other than to increase a skill that is useful, is completely subjective to the person. I can write a whole term paper on why I think that Chess is such an important tool to use to philosophically navigate life. And since we are dealing with ideas that we all made up here based on our surroundings, who's to say what doesn't fucking exist? Which is what Ebert is saying in the abstract. That games don't exist.
So fuck him. When god comes down and writes a physics equation as a constant defining what ART is in the first place then maybe you can act like your shit doesn't smell.
Professor Danger!
Where'd That 6th Toe Come From?
Has anyone seen that kinda awful "Anamorph" film. The one where this murderer guy goes around and kills people, but makes "art" out of it with the bodies.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497323/
Thought it might be an interesting addition to a discussion about what makes art.
Also, you can make things that might clearly not be art, by transferring it to a more artistic medium. Such as photography or painting. So someone can just take something basic, ordinary, and unoriginal and bring out some sort of artistic quality or feeling into the viewer. I think that's definitely part of it. I can't really go around looking at random everyday shit, thinking it's art. However, if I see something in that everyday thing and bring it out/force it out for the viewer thanks to the medium I'm portraying it in, then it can be seen as art.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497323/
Thought it might be an interesting addition to a discussion about what makes art.
Also, you can make things that might clearly not be art, by transferring it to a more artistic medium. Such as photography or painting. So someone can just take something basic, ordinary, and unoriginal and bring out some sort of artistic quality or feeling into the viewer. I think that's definitely part of it. I can't really go around looking at random everyday shit, thinking it's art. However, if I see something in that everyday thing and bring it out/force it out for the viewer thanks to the medium I'm portraying it in, then it can be seen as art.
UniversalWolf
eaten by a grue.
I agree. I actually think he's wrong quite often, but his opinions are almost always well-reasoned and backed up by concrete knowledge. Sure, everyone has an opinion, but some opinions are worth more than others. Thus, it's a mistake to dismiss what Ebert says. Is he an art snob? Yes, I'd say he is and it's one of his flaws. I think the gaming world would be better of with more art snobs and fewer Todd Howards, though. The fact that Ebert's talking about games at all shows he wants to take them seriously.Eyenixon said: