Ebert: Video Games Can Never Be Art

alec were you by any chance raised in a correctional facility

Because the word "Corrected" appears to be stamped on your forehead
 
Look, Per, I fully understand that you do not like the distinction that I make between art and entertainment, because if you would agree on that, you'd basically be agreeing that your classic, uninnovative Tolkien copies are mere grub-street novels, so yeah: I get your stubborness and I can follow your 'logic', but let's be honest here: wouldn't it feel like a weight was lifted from your shoulders if you would accept my point? I mean: there's nothing wrong with aiming a little higher than fantasy, you know? Gamebooks and shit, orcs and elves and talking cats, that's cool, it's cool when you came up with those things for the first time and it's cool when you're a teenager, but you know: you're even older than I am. No offense, seriously, but you know.

I'm just saying: maybe it's time to re-evaluate your ideas concerning art and literature. My system almost begs you to aim higher than the trivial, to avoid becoming a simple copy-cat. Maybe it can stimulate you to reach higher. I dunno. It's just a thought.

My thoughts are with you, man.
 
It's pretty fucking obvious Ebert never played many games. He's just a biased piece of shit with stupid opinions.
 
Jet1337 said:
It's pretty fucking obvious Ebert never played many games. He's just a biased piece of shit with stupid opinions.
Click to expand...

Oh, come on, man. As if it wasn't bad enough once Per started trolling.

Why would your opinion on this matter not be biased/stupid? Huh?
 
Video Games, or at least the interactive medium has the potential to become great art.

It hasn't. It has been pissed away for $$$ and (_0_)////D~

It has come close a few times, but has sacrificed creator's vision for player friendly blase` bland.

And I neither have the time, nor patience to work in the industry to attempt otherwise.
 
alec said:
your classic, uninnovative Tolkien copies are mere grub-street novels
Click to expand...

:(

Why do you want to hurt me alec. Is it because I corrected you.

Also: which parts did you think were the most Tolkienesque? The ones were Gandalf and Aragorn sit about whining about their relationship issues?
 
Ebert is probably referring to videogames in the form that they are mostly known as: Products of the Gaming Industry. And as far as these games are concerned, he's correct. And you can extend some of these arguments to the Movie and Music Industry as well.

If he had a broader definition for games, his arguments wouldn't stand, because it's not at all impossible for one man to create a videogame just to satisfy his own need for creative expression, not to entertain others, neither to make money.

Especially if you count interactive video installations as videogames (which, technically, i see no reason why you shouldn't), well, modern art galleries and festivals are full of them. I don't know if it's a better or worse medium than traditional media, but it most certainly can host a persons' creative endeavours.
 
First, let me just apologize for failing to read the entire thread . . . I will in a little while, after the guilt has eaten into my very soul.

I have to agree with Ebert, despite the title of the article. He seems to suggest that because nothing of great artistic merit yet exists within the video game world that video games themselves cannot be considered art. That until this parameter is meant, he will not consider a game a piece of art.

So, it's not "Video Games can Never be Art", as in the first paragraph he admits to being a bit of poetic fluff*, it's "Video Games are Not Art, Today."

And may not be for many hundreds of years, until we produce a Da Vinci/Shakespear of games.

(Also, aside from Frogger and Pac-Man, when is a game not a piece of interactive literature?)

I can feel the guilt eating my soul already . . . Reading now . . .
 
The way I look at art is a materialistic object that has the power to inspire. There are very few games out there that do that.

Not all games are works of art, but the fact is it has been done before.
 
alec said:
I hate the talking cat.

I really think you blew it there.
Click to expand...

It's true. They warned me about it, too. "You've put in so much random shit," they said, "but the talking cat that appears on what, four pages out of too freaking many, is the random shit that will make the contents of your metaphorical money bin crash into the underworld."

"It's nice to know you're unable to tell which of the shit I put in is random and which isn't," I replied. "The talking cat, however, is art: it defies explanation and transcends justification. I don't expect you to understand it."

"Art?" they said. "There's no more art here than in, say, a computer game, which is to say none at all. Where will this end? Maybe even Neil freaking Gaiman will roughly five years from now write a book with a talking cat in it and give it a line almost exactly like one of yours. Look. Many years in the future, someone - and this may be a vengeful spirit whom you have just corrected on the topic of Argentinian writers, maybe someone else completely, who can tell this far in advance - will bring this up and insinuate relevance to some ongoing general art discussion, perhaps even making reference to your then-current age in order to gain some kind of imaginary leverage. You don't want to be in that position! Repent! Ditch the cat!"

AHAHA FOOLS, I thought, although somewhat incidentally, as I always think that about everyone. But I guess we can see now who called the matter correctly. In any case, that me is now long in the past, so let us join together in laughing with impunity at him across the veils of time.
 
alec said:
The Cheshire cat laughs at you. Geddit?
Click to expand...

But surely a nonsensical children's book created purely to entertain cannot be art! That is such a silly idea.
 
Per, your lapse in sanity was most enjoyable.

Almost as enjoyable as Smeagle and Golem's discussion of delicious hobbits.
 
The guy is old and sick, he has already made up his mind to not play videogames, and the examples suggested to him by most people are shit. Can you really blame him? I mean, most gamers have really bad taste when it comes to other forms of art, such as books or movies. Hell, most of them probably couldn't even read a book. Look what his friend suggested to him to get to know games as a medium better - a fucking PS3. Yeah, that will make him appreciate artistic experiences that some rare games can provide..
If I were to regard art as something that contributes to my spiritual growth, movies have been way more important to me in that area.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top