Roger Ebert: Video Games Can Never Be Art

[Wolvieboy17]

Are you sure I have no understanding, or is it just that I disagree with you?

The reason I'm not using this particular definition of art that you put forward is that it removes the ability to define anything as art since, to a degree, emotion is expressed in virtually everything, including how one beats an otherwise emotionless videogame. In other words: everything is art. An all-inclusive definition is meaningless, isn't it? And it doesn't sound like there's anything contemporary about it. The only thing new is digital, which is one of a billion possible media to convey artistic thought. If everything is (or can be) art now, it was 1000 years ago as well.

And out of curiosity, what is an example of powerful art with bold clear meaning? Btw, any value: physical, philosophical, intellectual, financial, spiritual, social, etc can be questioned to provide subjectivity, not just moral.

I really could care less what movies Ebert holds in high esteem. Don't confuse my value of Ebert's core thought in this article with any esteem of him as a critic. But to be fair, just from the wiki, I personally question if the characters in Punch Drunk Love getting together was a good thing.

The definition I'm talking about is cynical/literal/elitist, I agree. I simply find it more useful for the purpose of discussing art. The definition you're using is more useful for creating art, since it accounts for expression in things such as videogames, or making piles of trash.

Is there anything more that needs to be said about this? I don't really have anything further to add.

How about Mike Parr sewing his lips shut? That was so powerful, and was in direct relation to the reports of refugees doing the same thing in the detention centres.

And yes, there are MANY things that can be considered art. I remember having a really interesting discussion with an Arts reporter I work with, whether or not Advertising could be considered art, if you look at some of the ads nowadays they definitely have artistic qualities, but does that make them art? She concluded no, for the most part, because the motivation is to sell a product, rather than express an idea, but I put forward the idea that the whole process is still about manipulating emotions, and making an audience feel a certain way, which in itself is what most contemporary art does.

You're right, as far as there never being one, universal definition, because the concept of art is constantly shifting to suit the forms of media. However, that said, that also means that the statement "VIDEO GAMES WILL NEVER BE ART" is a completely impossible falsehood, because future speculation aside, if the definition of art is so elusive, how could someone attain that a media form, that already has forms of artistic merit, could in fact NEVER be art?

Also, your whole subjectivity argument is kind of silly... It's a cop out to use the subjectivity angle, because nothing we can never move past subjectivity, unless things dissolve into the realm of the meta.

An interesting question on this would be, do you consider a novel or a comic book art? I'd be curious to see your opinion on that.

 

[Upset Spideyfan]

Here is a response from Cracked that mentions The Path, which totally blows Ebert's argument out of the water.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/why-ebert-is-wrong-in-defense-of-games-as-art

 

[Addendum]

 

[Isildur´s Heir]

This all argument doesn´t make sense.
And pointing this or that game as art is stupid
Video Games are art, case close.

There are bad games, just like there are bad music and bad movies.
Do bad movies make film less art?

 

[Fading]

I like that last panel, and it's true. How can a team of talented developers bring in artists to draw concept art, then take years taking that concept art and turn it into a digital form, and make beautiful, or dark scenery, and it not be art just because the end product is interactive? I'm playing Oblivion again, and I was at the Waterfront outside the Imperial City when the sun was setting, and I set there for a second looking out over the lake with the sun reflecting off of it. It was a beautiful scene, the trees swaying, the sun reflecting off of the water...if I had taking a screen shot and hung it on a wall it would probably be considered art.




Ya know, I don't even think it bothers me as much whether video games are art or not. I'm not so insecure about it that I think one of my favorite entertainment passtimes HAS to be recognized by a bunch of mainstream snobs as art to validate it. Video games are what they are, and have worth on their own. They don't NEED to be art. I think it just bothers me that it's being used by some to look down on gaming, and it typically seems to be by Hollywood types. With movies seeing a decline in profits, and video games growing a lot in profits (over the last 10 years or so), I've noticed more and more hostility coming from the movie camp towards gaming. This Ebert article, and others like it, seem more like Hollywood types setting on a high horse trying to make games out as some infantile lesser medium.

I think if Ebert didn't use such absolutes like, "can't", and didn't take such a strong stance, let alone such a public one....twice...it wouldn't be such a big deal. Instead he, and others, take a more demeaning stance. When you do that...lol, it's almost like trolling. Like you're saying such a strong statement to goad the opposite camp responds back. He's entitled to his opinion, and that's perfectly fine with me. Just expect discussion about what you started, and expect the other side to state their opinions as strongly as you stated yours.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

We're forgetting as well, that art comes in all shapes and forms, from the purely aesthetic stuff to the hard hitting, impacting, meaningul stuff... and thats just dumbing it down, and not even going into all the po-mo contemporary stuff...

 

[Ace of Knaves]

I still want to know how a literal pile of rubbish can be considered art.

Because it comments on the wastefulness of society today? Get the **** outta here with that ****. Someone took a bin and emptied it onto the floor. End of story.

 

[Wolvieboy17]

The person who actually did the first trash artwork was actually really clever (before it was recreated by every *****ebag art student who ran out of time on an assignment). My girlfriend who's an artist told me the story. The artist, who's name eludes me, their last artwork got really badly panned by this one, well known art critic in New York, who described it as "nothing more than poorly conceived idea and a pile of absolute rubbish", so his next artwork it was just an empty platform, and he waited until everyone was in the gallery, and just walked in with garbage bin, emptied it on the platform, plonked the bin down, and walked out. Classic. I'm pretty sure the title was simply "poorly conceived rubbish".

 

[Ace of Knaves]

Hehe well that's actually pretty funny. But it's not the one i'm thinking of.

 

[Soapy]

Ebert vs Games: Round 3