Ebert: Video Games Can Never Be Art

[alec]

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.

This is a moot point. As far as I know art is not exclusively aimed at people looking for art. Never has been. Troubadours, for instance. Dance. In fact, the way I see it most art uses the same distribution channels as simple entertainment, with the possible exception of paintings and sculpture, even though with things like grafitti, even that reclusiveness has changed.

I think the problem here is that you seem to think there is a clear and well defined gap between art and entertainment. Initially there is not. A Jean Claude Van Damme movie follows the same path a Woody Allen movie tends to follow. The paintings of PIcasso reached the gallery in pretty much the same way your cousin's paintings reach the gallery and reach their audience. It's what the market has to offer. But then the sieves start to work: time, social/historical relevance, innovative/subversive ideas, register(s), influence, so many factors, to much to name. Ultimately the audience decides what becomes art, but just look at this audience and tell me who is better suited to judge the intricate worth of these "things"? If movie makers and movie critics keep the Woody Allen movies (this is just to follow our example) alive by following them and making the recipe even better, paving the way for movies that give even more insight into the human condition, yet they forget "all" about Van Damme whom the masses love, then which group are you more likely to follow and believe when they propose to name this or that "art"? If it makes you any happier then I am willing to agree to say something absurd like "art is canonical entertainment". And that's very much simplified. Architecture can be art, yet I fail to see how that could be entertainment. Just to give an example, of course.

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.

No, see: it uses art in the game. That's a whole different thing. I'll keep an eye on it, though, seeing it's Belgian.

 

[Ausir]

And that's very much simplified. Architecture can be art, yet I fail to see how that could be entertainment.

Art is entertainment or decoration, as someone stated here already.

 

[Sander]

This is a moot point. As far as I know art is not exclusively aimed at people looking for art. In fact, the way I see it most art uses the same distribution channels as simple entertainment, with the possible exception of paintings and sculpture, even though with things like grafitti, even that reclusiveness has changed.

I was never trying to imply that Shakespeare wasn't art because it wasn't aimed at an audience of art-lovers. I was just noting that he was very popular among a wide group of people during his lifetime.

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.

No, see: it uses art in the game. That's a whole different thing. I'll keep an eye on it, though, seeing it's Belgian.

No, you misunderstand. The game itself and its intent is to be art. I'm not talking about its visuals, I'm talking about the game itself. Here is a decent write-up of the game.

 

[alec]

Architecture is not merely decoration, Wiki man. Just saying.

I was never trying to imply that Shakespeare wasn't art because it wasn't aimed at an audience of art-lovers. I was just noting that he was very popular among a wide group of people during his lifetime.

I fail to see how this is of any importance to the discussion at hand. Seriously. This does not matter. But thanks for pointing out to me that succesfull artists do exist.

 

[Sander]

I fail to see how this is of any importance to the discussion at hand. Seriously. This does not matter. But thanks for pointing out to me that succesfull artists do exist.

No, the point was that his audience has changed as time passed. He was largely a popular artist during his lifetime, but his audience now is more exclusive. It was a response to your statement about Shakespeare being more than just popular entertainment in his day.
Though modern adaptations try to do their best to make him popular again.

 

[alec]

No, the point was that his audience has changed as time passed.

It's called the cycle of life: you live, you breed, you die. And so on.

He was largely a popular artist during his lifetime, but his audience now is more exclusive.

Does this seem to odd to you? The people who are most interested in the artist's merits will cherish him the most, thus in that circle of friends he lives on the longest. In the mean time the audience gets bombarded by new entries, new talent, new names to which it automatically diverts its attention. Common logic. It's almost Darwinian, for Christ's sake.

It was a response to your statement about Shakespeare being more than just popular entertainment in his day.

He was. He was also admired by the more intelligent amongst the masses who admired the innovation he presented, his play with words, his neologisms, his overhaul of classic drama conventions. People who also had access to his plays or saw him at court, just like the poor masses you think his audience solely consisted of (if you remember your post a page ago). Again I fail to see your point. Do you have a point? How does having a broad appeal negate the idea of something being art?

Though modern adaptations try to do their best to make him popular again.

Popularization of art is common. Throughout the ages. The concept of copying is at the basis of mimetics. It's also typical if one is willing to belive Harold Bloom, read "The Anxiety of Influence" to be convinced, for instance. And this discussion is almost turning into me teaching you the basics of knowledge. Please leave the ring. This is becoming quite embarassing for you and you don't even seem to mind.

How curious.

 

[Brother None]

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.

No, see: it uses art in the game. That's a whole different thing. I'll keep an eye on it, though, seeing it's Belgian.

Why not just play it?

Braid is more the kind of game you're talking about, clever gameplay but then loaded with pretentious shit. What you'd call art.

Honestly the only ones that seriously explore games themselves as art is Ice Pick Lodge, anyway. And they're probably even full enough of snobby art knowledge to appease you.

 

[alec]

Why not just play it?

Motion sickness.

Seriously.

It's been hampering my gameplay days since 3D came into existence.

Braid is more the kind of game you're talking about, clever gameplay but then loaded with pretentious shit. What you'd call art.

It was a fun game, toyed with it on a friend's x-box, yet it was not what I would call art.

Honestly the only ones that seriously explore games themselves as art is Ice Pick Lodge, anyway. And they're probably even full enough of snobby art knowledge to appease you.

I'll check it out.

 

[Sander]

Popularization of art is common. Throughout the ages. The concept of copying is at the basis of mimetics. It's also typical if one is willing to belive Harold Bloom, read "The Anxiety of Influence" to be convinced, for instance. And this discussion is almost turning into me teaching you the basics of knowledge. Please leave the ring. This is becoming quite embarassing for you and you don't even seem to mind.

How curious.

How curious. You're attempting to troll me. More interestingly, you're actually trying to take statements I made and pretend you're the one telling me that. Newsflash: nothing you've said in this thread is new to me.

Regardless, you've still yet to comment on what's so fundamentally different about games as a medium that you can't create art in the form of a game.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

I like the idea that art is primarily the product of the vision of one man...
It all goes awry when the creative process is no longer guided by the vision of the dominant creative personality present, but rather of finances, reaping income and media that generally do not mix very well with art (like commercials, advertisements).

Would you say that Spiderweb Software's games are art? They are one man's vision and his wife's artwork. Financial considerations are taken into account but they always are (can't make something without any money and bankrupting oneself isn't a realistic option either). What about many flash games? Most are not made for profit and are the vision of one or a few people.

But there certainly is a dichotomy (popular word on this forum) between popular culture (entertainment) and meaningful art.

I'm not so sure, for example Alec (and I think many people) considers the Beatles art and they were definitely a part of popular culture in their heyday.

As for Shakespere, he wrote most of his plays to suit the tastes of those he was preforming for (the ruling monarch or their family [wife/son] generally, if I remember correctly) and did so for money.

Art is entertainment or decoration, as someone stated here already.

I'd argue that decoration is largely entertainment as, according to the first definition, entertainment is:
–noun 1. the act of entertaining; agreeable occupation for the mind; diversion; amusement: Solving the daily crossword puzzle is an entertainment for many.
I'd say that it's intended as both an agreeable occupation for the mind and an amusing diversion. Still, I seperated them out for the very reason that it isn't neccessarily a natural connection that people make.

Architecture is not merely decoration, Wiki man. Just saying.

No, much of it is functional but I thought we were discussing architecture which is art and I don't think you're suggesting that functional architecture is art. For that same reason, most people seperate out games like chess, tic-tac-toe, and pong from the field of games as art.

 

[alec]

@ Sander: I am not trolling you. Usually you don't seem to make that many mistakes and omissions in your posts, so I naturally assumed you knew nothing about the subject at hand (which would explain the mistakes and omissions).

Now that you've simply assured me that you did in fact know all those things and that nothing I've told you so far is new to you (even though you claimed something entirely different regarding Shakespeare's audience, for instance, and have been making quite redundant observations so far), you should ask yourself why I should even try "to comment on what's so fundamentally different about games as a medium that you can't create art in the form of a game." The way I see it, there really is no point. I'm pretty sure that you will already claim to know these things yourself once I point them out to you. And my time is worth just a little bit more than repeating things you guys always seem to know yourselves anyway (and - if I may believe you, that is - usually much better ).

No hard feelings, though. Society seems to agree with me. Have fun playing your games.

 

[Per]

 

[Deleted member 53669]

What the hell is this "Art" you people speak of?

If no one can agree upon a definition, there is no reason to take any argument seriously.

 

[Allotrope]

like anyone reads newspapers anymore

 

[alec]

Although a nice find (Scot McCloud is one of the most original thinkers of his time), again this proves nothing. The pomo technique of throwing fragments at your opponent is hopelessly outdated. If you would have posted the following panels from that book, "Understanding comics", you'd see that the broad definition of art that McCloud uses in fact allows art to include completely trivial stuff like laughter or picking your nose, the invention of shoelaces and the easter eggs your kids fingerpaint in school. So now we're all artists, eh? Begs the question what the point of this discussion is then, doesn't it?

McCloud obviously must have realized that this definition is as weak and unworkable as it sounds, for in the next pages he goes into detail about the six steps any work in any medium will always follow, clearly moving from what most would consider entertainment/amusement/hobby (e.g. the local pottery club, arranging flowers into nice bouquets with the gals from the old pensioner's fund, etc.) towards real art, people who innovate, who create a new surprising paradigm, and so on. And that arrow (towards art) is obviously powered by intentionality which is what I've been claiming ever since I joined this discussion.

I've read all his books from front to back, like anyone who is even a little bit serious about his comic art should do, so yeah. Nice try.

It would be pretty daft to call all comics art, by the way. But I'm sure all of you already know that, so yeah.

I will now eat my croissants and sip my rooibos tea while listening to the local birds.

 

[Ausir]

What the hell is this "Art" you people speak of?

If no one can agree upon a definition, there is no reason to take any argument seriously.

The definition of art is "what alec likes", of course.

 

[alec]

Phew. Finally. I'm glad that's settled then. On to more pressing matters, shall we?

 

[Per]

again this proves nothing.

What proves anything? It can however be quite illuminating.

If you would have posted the following panels from that book,

There's a reason I didn't, of course; I don't agree with them. But the point is that since you are obviously able to look outside of the "can comics be art" box, you should be able to look outside the slightly bigger but still similar "can games be art" box. For as long as our box is bigger than yours, we win, and you don't want that.

Could have posted more shit if my browser weren't constantly threatening to crash and whatnot.

 

[generalissimofurioso]

Can boxes be art?

 

[Crni Vuk]

a shark in a box ... yeah ... I guess. No clue. Its just useless. Poor shark.