Ebert: Video Games Can Never Be Art

[UncannyGarlic]

Fountain was an attempt to de-define art and basically a statement that anything could be art and also a statement that anything would be accepted as art. Artist's Shit was a commentary on the art world, that anything, even shit, would be considered art. The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living is a Tiger Shark in a tank of formaldehyde and it was originally preserved wrong so they had to replace the shark. If those are art, fucking anything is art. Anyone with enough money could do the shark, anyone could do the urinal, and anyone could shit in a can and label it in multiple languages. The shark was the only piece that actually had much artistic thought behind it and it's about as artistic as any taxidermied animal.

Art is decoration and entertainment, I can't think of any art that doesn't fall into one of those two categories and decoration is really a form of entertainment.

 

[.Pixote.]

Is this art…

It’s beautiful...its sculptural...it’s interesting, if it was ten feet high with Claes Oldenburg’s signature attached to it then undoubtedly if would be considered art. For something to be considered art it has to be made with the intention of being art – but even then it’s not that easy. Ultimately the individual and society will decide as to whether something is art and as to the worth or merit of the so called piece of art, (just ask Van Gogh whether what he made was art - the poor bastard couldn’t sell a single painting because in the eyes of society of the late 19th century what he made was rubbish).

When a company sits down to build a computer game is their sole intention to make a piece of art…no…commerce, but that doesn’t mean that within that commerce there isn’t some form with artistic merit.

 

[alec]

Art is decoration and entertainment, I can't think of any art that doesn't fall into one of those two categories and decoration is really a form of entertainment.

Thanks for pointing out to me that this discussion is not worth any more of my precious time.
You just made me feel like Einstein talking to a Star Trek nerd about the theory of relativity.
Guess I win.

 

[Brother None]

Give over, alec, I know you feel superior in this field, but your view of art from an artist's viewpoint is misguided. This clique of circle-masturbating "artists", whose world you belong to, is not relevant to the world at large, and your self-defining of art is irrelevant in the large scale. If you wish to internalize your definition like that fine, but then why ask other, "non-artist" types to stick to your definition? It's irrelevant to us.
Besides, nothing defines art other than history, which is exactly what makes these debate so trite. So many pieces of art were originally made as products, so many things intended to be art are lost to history. That's how it's always been, and I don't know how history will define gaming's place in art any more than Ebert does.

Still, debate if you will, but keep it civil. Another one of these snobby insults and you'll get a good old-fashioned proletarian strike.

 

[alec]

"Nothing defines art other than history, which is exactly what makes these debate [sic] so trite."

But hell, as far as I recall, I'm living right here, right now, ain't I? And so are you. If you think time will do all the work, then you forget that time does not care about art. Time is not the judge here, it's the gutter in which stuff tends to disappear. How many masterworks have not been buried by the dirt of time? It's humans that recover them. The coffin of time is often a treasure cove as well. Many masterworks were retrieved from it, even during your lifetime, even you should acknowledge that.

I also would appreciate it if you would not try to demean me as often as you do. You might have deleted your comment in my poetry thread, but I did read it. I mastered on New Criticism for Christ's sake, so a thread like this is just ridiculous to me. Please do not expect me to take these posters seriously.

The simple fact is that this debate is not over. It is not. I am very willing to listen to some good argumentations on behalf of the "games are art" side of this story, but all I read - and I am sure some other posters in this thread will agree with me - is teen logic, I simply do not find anything convincing in this thread so far or, for that matter, in any of the other similar threads that have seen the day of light on these boards. That does not mean this discussion is trite, though. We're exchanging ideas, that's how I see it. And if one of us kicks and screams whilst delivering them ideas, well, then I am man enough and old enough to deal with it. I'm not one bound to break easily. But thanks for caring. We know you love us.

Also: you edited your post before I posted this, and you know it, so don't act smart.

 

[PainlessDocM]

Art is decoration and entertainment, I can't think of any art that doesn't fall into one of those two categories and decoration is really a form of entertainment.

You think this work for example was created to serve as a form of banal entertainment/decoration?

On the other hand some art was especially created to be part of the decoration of a room e.g. La Primavera, none the less this work has so many layers of meaning that certain scholars dedicate their entire careers to deciphering its meanings...

http://nagks.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/botticelli-primavera.jpg

 

[alec]

Brother None is studying.

 

[Brother None]

If you think time will do all the work, then you forget that time does not care about art.

Pretty much, but it changes everything. That's why pretending to be able to provide an absolute view on it *now* is somewhat vapid, and pointless.
In my heart of hearts, I know the whole art trouvè thing will be laughed out of the house as a joke a few decades from now. But who's to judge, really?

I also would appreciate it if you would not try to demean me as often as you do.

It is not. I am very willing to listen to some good argumentations on behalf of the "games are art" side of this story, but all I read - and I am sure some other posters in this thread will agree with me - is teen logic,

What? Oh sorry, I haven't really read a post of this thread other than browsing the last few. I was really just reacting to a report to tell you to stop insulting people.

Also: you edited your post before I posted this, and you know it, so don't act smart.

Why would I act smart about it? I often need to go back to edit and polish up posts since I tend too little to use the preview button. Normally that's fine, only you seem to always reply within a minute I mean Frith, I must've deleted the reply in your poetry thread as inappropriate in - what - 5 minutes?

Brother None is studying.

Indeed I am! Just finishing up a paper on the New Soviet Man as a national identity. How did you know?

 

[alec]

only you seem to always reply within a minute

I'm watching you, young man.




I'm watching you.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

You think this work for example was created to serve as a form of banal entertainment/decoration?

Are you suggesting that all entertainment is banal? Again, my point is that ultimately all art is some form or another of entertainment. Some art clearly tries to send messages to the viewer but I fail to see how that changes anything, it's not like there is a dichotomy between art and entertainment.

 

[Hamenaglar]

Few years ago there was an interview with Antonije Pušić, more commonly known as Rambo Amadeus, but to most of you probably unknown (except perhaps Ratty).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rambo_Amadeus

In an interview he often said that he had a need to communicate and that's what art is, some form of mass communication (or something to that effect). I tend to agree with him, but I also believe that art requires skill.

Not that long ago, I remember reading about guy who opened a tap on a sink in a certain museum and it was labeled art. The guy obviously had a message to send, but I can't consider such a simple act an art, if I could then I'd consider just about anything as art. In a same way I have trouble accepting abstract art as art (I despise it my entire soul, actually). It's just meaningless and empty too me. That's how I, personally understand art.

Are games art? Would Tolkien's Lord of the rings be considered art? I don't particularly like that book anymore. I do, however, believe it has artistic value. In general books are considered art, aren't they? Would Sapkowski's books about Geralt be considered art. I haven't read them personally, they might be bad art, but if Sapkowski was artist and his book are art, what about the game Witcher? I love that game, mostly because of it's non-gameplay elements. I love it because I found the theme and the setting somewhat fresh, at least in gaming. It might not be true in context of literature or filim, but games are developing as a medium and as a game, The Witcher is something special to me, just like the Fallout is. After all games provide something different than movies or books. They provide interactivity and that's the reason I love them. It's a completely new way of communication that potentially offers so much.

Ofcourse, comparing The Witcher or Fallout with (for example) Camus' Stranger is pointless. The book in question has so much more artistic value, at least to me, but I can't shake the feeling that there is some artistic value in some games, unfortunately such artistic expressions are too often (in my opinion) behind elements such as graphics or gameplay.

In my personal opinion, most of the games are not art, they are just that: games, created for pure entertainment. I do however feel that some games can be considered art, although probably not a good one when compared to artistic masterpieces in different disciplines. Not all art has to be good art.

 

[PainlessDocM]

You think this work for example was created to serve as a form of banal entertainment/decoration?

Are you suggesting that all entertainment is banal? Again, my point is that ultimately all art is some form or another of entertainment. Some art clearly tries to send messages to the viewer but I fail to see how that changes anything, it's not like there is a dichotomy between art and entertainment.

This is pointless. I can't begin to explain the entire art history from Mesopotamian art to present day incantations. Of course not all "entertainment" is banal, I never suggested such a thing. But there certainly is a dichotomy (popular word on this forum) between popular culture (entertainment) and meaningful art. Video games are a medium just as canvas/ paint are, perhaps some day some video game may 'qualify' as art. I don't see why that should be impossible. Perhaps time will tell?

 

[Ausir]

Shakespeare's plays were very much popular culture and entertainment in their day. Are you saying that they are therefore not meaningful art?

 

[Leon]

I like your point, Ausir, but I would argue that Shakespeare's work isn't... Okay, no, before I get ahead of myself, I just don't like Shakespeare. Dude couldn't write a believable female character for shit, and R&J was a tragedy because they're both tragically retarded (as someone else had once said - I forget who).

In any case, in a feeble attempt to actually add something to the discussion; art is as art does and it's by and large subjective, so art to an artist (alec, Michelangelo) will be wildly different from art to an talentless chode (alec, me). So, I agree with anyone saying that the argument is moot. We may as well argue over what the color blue is, exactly. After all, do you see it the same way I do?

 

[alec]

After all, do you see it the same way I do?

No, I don't. I for one do not think Shakespeare sucks. I also don't think that saying that "Shakespeare's plays were very much popular culture and entertainment in their day" does not do him much justice. In his own day he was a respected poet and playwright, but he never became as popular during life as during death. And much of his popularity during his own life can easily be attributed to the fact that famous, well-liked actors like Burbage and Kempe performed his plays. Also, however, if you would know a little about the conventions of theatre and poetry at the time of his life and then looked at the bulk of Shakespeare's work, you might see why he's held in such high esteem: he broke with those conventions and started innovating genres that had been in a form of stasis for many many years. His Romeo & Juliet is the first time that a playwright tackled the theme of romance in a serious tragedy. His use of words effectively shaped the English language and he influenced a myriad of writers and still does. In fact, he's simply one of the biggest paradigm writers to have ever lived, a term often used in modern literary criticism to denote a writer who has introduced a whole new paradigm: it means that certain texts that he produced have helped to change certain assumptions and conventions regarding theatre and poetry (in Shakespeare's case) which can be regarded as innovations within the literary system.
And yes: this can, indirectly, be measured.

The funniest thing, however, is this: in the First Folio, a collected edition of his plays that was published in 1623, Ben Jonson calls Shakespeare the "Soul of the age, the applause, delight, the wonder of our stage", but he remarks as well that "Shakespeare wanted art". John Fletcher was the most revered playwright during Shakespeare's life. Even Ben Jonson was more popular than him. You know why? Because they gave the people what the people wanted: classical theatre, stuff in stasis, close to pure entertainment for the masses. Shakespeare was regarded as a more experimental voice, mixing tragedy with comedy, using soliloquiys where they should not be used and so on. Heh, maybe that's why he's still read and others aren't? Maybe that's why he turned into art and they didn't? After all, do you see it the same way I do?

Seriously: I don't want to brag and boast about this, but I hear only teen logic. I don't hear people who actually seem to know what they are talking about.

 

[Leon]

I was asking about the color blue, alec.

 

[.Pixote.]

I often sit at my computer working away while listening to the plays of Shakespeare or Samuel Becket…never underestimate the power of the word.

 

[Sander]

No, I don't. I for one do not think Shakespeare sucks. I also don't think that saying that "Shakespeare's plays were very much popular culture and entertainment in their day" does not do him much justice. In his own day he was a respected poet and playwright, but he never became as popular during life as during death.

In what way? The plays he created were performed on a daily basis in the seedy part of town for the poorest groups of society, and he produced plays at a maddening pace to be performed at his theater. As entertainment, he was immensely popular among a wide group of society. You're probably right, though, that what he was doing wasn't popular as art during his own lifetime.

As for your gaming argument, why wouldn't there be games that are the vision of one invidual? There's nothing essential about this medium that makes that impossible, as anyone with a computer can start making a game. But gaming is a very young medium, and that's probably a big reason why these games that are art haven't popped up - or haven't made it to the mainstream.
I think another reason is that people don't play games to appreciate them as art. There is no movement that I'm aware of that tries to purposefully produce art as games (with a few individual exceptions), and most debates on whether or not games are art tend to focus themselves on stupid examples like Fallout 3 or whatever new game struck someone's fancy. People try to place the 'art' label on commercial games after the fact, and that for the most part just doesn't work.

Now frankly, I'm going to go play FIFA 10 and not care one whit about whether someone would consider it art.

 

[alec]

No, I don't. I for one do not think Shakespeare sucks. I also don't think that saying that "Shakespeare's plays were very much popular culture and entertainment in their day" does not do him much justice. In his own day he was a respected poet and playwright, but he never became as popular during life as during death.

In what way? The plays he created were performed on a daily basis in the seedy part of town for the poorest groups of society, and he produced plays at a maddening pace to be performed at his theater. As entertainment, he was immensely popular among a wide group of society. You're probably right, though, that what he was doing wasn't popular as art during his own lifetime.

I don't know who taught you that or where you read it, but it's
horribly wrong. Whilst The Globe and Blackfriars Theatre were affordable for the common people, they were also frequented by the wealthy. They just paid more and got to sit in a Lord's Room or a Gentleman's Room. Just like it is today: if you pay more, you get better seats. And what's more: his plays were just as well performed at the court of King James I of England where Queen Elizabeth enjoyed them (repeatedly, she was fond of "The Merchant of Venice"). It's what is often referred to as the Golden Age of Elizabethan literature and drama. You can actually notice how aware Shakespeare was of this mixture of intellect and social class, since his texts clearly cater to all of them but do so without judging any member of society (which is, for instance, not the case in de commdia del arte).

What is true, though, is that theatres were usually situated in the "poorer" parts of town. And with "poorer" you should think: in the same place where you found the pubs and whorehouses. In short: where people went to have a good time. I don't know how it is in the Netherlands, but in Gent, for instance, this is still the case. Theatres, pubs and brothels are in close proximity to one another. Which makes perfect sense when you think about it.
The Blackfriars Theatre actually tried to flee this neighbourhood, but when it started to build in a wealthy neighbourhood, the people petitioned against it out of fear that it would attract pubs and brothels over time.



This sort of stuff is my dada, Sander. I studied it for five years. I know what I'm talking about.

People try to place the 'art' label on commercial games after the fact, and that for the most part just doesn't work.

That is the first good argument I've read so far. Yet think about it, 'cause what you say basically boils down to "the intent to make art is not there to start with." This has a precedent in the famous monkey paintings: are they to be considered art?

 

[Sander]

I don't know who taught you that or where you read it, but it's
horribly wrong. Whilst The Globe and Blackfriars Theatre were affordable for the common people, they were also frequented by the wealthy. They just paid more and got to sit in a Lord's Room or a Gentleman's Room. Just like it is today: if you pay more, you get better seats. And what's more: his plays were just as well performed at the court of King James I of England where Queen Elizabeth enjoyed them (repeatedly, she was fond of "The Merchant of Venice"). It's what is often referred to as the Golden Age of Elizabethan literature and drama. You can actually notice how aware Shakespeare was of this mixture of intellect and social class, since his texts clearly cater to all of them but do so without judging any member of society (which is, for instance, not the case in de commdia del arte).

I know this. My point was that it wasn't art aimed at people looking for art - it was entertainment aimed at a very wide audience.

What is true, though, is that theatres were usually situated in the "poorer" parts of town. And with "poorer" you should think: in the same place where you found the pubs and whorehouses. In short: where people went to have a good time. I don't know how it is in the Netherlands, but in Gent, for instance, this is still the case. Theatres, pubs and brothels are in close proximity to one another. Which makes perfect sense when you think about it.

Eh, 's not really the case here.

That is the first good argument I've read so far. Yet think about it, 'cause what you say basically boils down to "the intent to make art is not there to start with." Heh?

Absolutely. But there's nothing fundamental about the medium that prevents this from happening.

One game that does try to specifically be art is The Path, coincidentally created by a Belgian company. I don't know to what extent it succeeds, but I do know the intent is present.