PDA

View Full Version : Video games can never be art - Roger Ebert's Journal


EAGLE EYE
04-17-2010, 04:01 PM
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html)


http://www.suntimes.com/images/cds/ebert_blog.jpg

Mumm Ra
04-17-2010, 04:13 PM
ebert's been getting flack for that statement for yeeaaaars
which he should - cuz it's a pretty retarded opinion, IMO

Professor Poopsnagle
04-17-2010, 04:18 PM
He probably never played Deus Ex.

Mumm Ra
04-17-2010, 04:28 PM
he probably never played a videogame in his life

BTTR KNG KOOL
04-17-2010, 08:12 PM
His cave paintings would prolly look like shit.

BTTR KNG KOOL
04-17-2010, 08:30 PM
dude uses picasso painting as a mirror

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
04-17-2010, 09:49 PM
video games are more relevant to art than any 'conceptual art' crap. that Santiago bird should've brought it up. she was right about it being closer to the chicken scratch end of the spectrum.

imo, video games aren't too different from animated films, it's just one you can interact with.

Mumm Ra
04-17-2010, 11:36 PM
Eberts just an attention whore
if he were on wucorp he'd make a thread about why protools is better than liquid swords

then 10 pages later admit he never listened to liquid swords

EAGLE EYE
04-18-2010, 01:49 AM
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/art-talk/jonathan-meese



well well well...

RzaRectum
04-18-2010, 05:01 AM
http://www.vbs.tv/watch/art-talk/jonathan-meese



well well well...


Ahahaha @ the egregious reposting of this link. :lmao:

Mumm Ra
04-18-2010, 07:05 AM
http://img22.imageshack.us/img22/5354/capturemz.jpg

looks like sid has some competition

Mumm Ra
04-18-2010, 07:08 AM
i actually watched that whole video -
that man has it all figured out

SID
04-18-2010, 07:13 AM
The only games i would class as "art" are Shenmue and FF7

cf-MK4599A8

theDZA
04-18-2010, 07:38 AM
^ ICO and Shadow of the Colossus also

Mumm Ra
04-18-2010, 08:24 AM
^ thats what came to mind first

also the metal gear series fo sho

SID
04-18-2010, 08:31 AM
^ ICO and Shadow of the Colossus also

Never played ICO, but colossus i agree with also, amazingly cinematic game.

Longbongcilvaringz
04-18-2010, 10:06 AM
Roger Ebert obviously hasn't seen some of the youtube Throwing Knife Kill Streak videos that i've seen.

BTTR KNG KOOL
04-18-2010, 10:56 AM
weddings, north korea style.http://www.korea-dpr.com/users/thai/Feb2010015.JPG

Huggasaurus Sex
04-18-2010, 08:57 PM
it's only cuz "art" is such an ill-defined concept. really silly and pointless debate though. the video games of today are forebears of a kind of interactive art that will become so immersive, compelling, and ubiquitous that it will be like comparing a cathedral to a teepee.

Dr. Simon Hurt
04-18-2010, 09:09 PM
for the games that you guys are saying are examples of art, what makes them art?

i think ebert's point was that they aren't art because they aren't communicating ideas or philosophy at all, or appealing to either your emotions, intellect, or both like 'art' is supposed to do. cinematic gameplay and detailed rendering of characters doesn't make a game art, in the same way that 'transformers' isn't art.

i guess it depends on how you define something as art, like hugga said it's an ill-defined concept, and probably inherently subjective. but to me, art is something that will stimulate you, challenge you, or make you feel something. are there any videogames that do that?

i guess videogames are an art form...maybe...i mean ultimately, they are games. is chess art? a chess board can have some beautiful and intricately designed pieces, but that doesn't make the game itself art, in my opinion.

Dr Sleepwalker
04-18-2010, 09:15 PM
for the games that you guys are saying are examples of art, what makes them art?

i think ebert's point was that they aren't art because they aren't communicating ideas or philosophy at all, or appealing to either your emotions, intellect, or both like 'art' is supposed to do. cinematic gameplay and detailed rendering of characters doesn't make a game art, in the same way that 'transformers' isn't art.



^ that

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
04-18-2010, 09:47 PM
people do get emotional over video games.


YersIyzsOpc


and haven't you seen how pissed people get when they lose a game?

and their elation when they complete the last level?



music is considered as art, but you can only fully appreciate when it's being played, the actual CD isn't art.


is a piano or a guitar or any musical instrument art? when those instruments are being played it could/would be considered as art.

Huggasaurus Sex
04-18-2010, 09:52 PM
for the games that you guys are saying are examples of art, what makes them art?

i think ebert's point was that they aren't art because they aren't communicating ideas or philosophy at all, or appealing to either your emotions, intellect, or both like 'art' is supposed to do. cinematic gameplay and detailed rendering of characters doesn't make a game art, in the same way that 'transformers' isn't art.

i guess it depends on how you define something as art, like hugga said it's an ill-defined concept, and probably inherently subjective. but to me, art is something that will stimulate you, challenge you, or make you feel something. are there any videogames that do that?

i guess videogames are an art form...maybe...i mean ultimately, they are games. is chess art? a chess board can have some beautiful and intricately designed pieces, but that doesn't make the game itself art, in my opinion.

at what point does a shelter become architecture?

the video games of today are more games than they are art, just like the mud houses of early cities are more shelters than they are architecture. but at some point we'll be playing video games that will rival the world's greatest cathedrals as enduring works of art. that's what we seem to be building towards...

Dr. Simon Hurt
04-18-2010, 10:10 PM
^^^so what? you're talking about a hyopthetical future scenario...i guess that's in response to roger ebert's asertion that they will 'never' be art...all i'm saying is that they may have highly elaborate aesthetic and design elements, but now it's just window dressing the fact that they are games. there's no statement about the nature of man, god, life, whatever...no challenge to your perception of reality, no stimulation of your emotions other than the your reaction to victory or defeat in the game.

i'm almost inclined to agree that a game can 'never' be pure art, because the very fact that it is a game meant to be played sets a parameter on how outre or challenging it can be on a visceral or intellectual level. but you can never say never...

and that scenario about video games that will rival cathedrals as enduring works of art seems highly dubious at best...most videogames are and have been, lowest common denominator entertainment in terms of their settings and goals. since old ass 80s nintendo, we have just been getting progressively more immersive and complex permutations of running through maps shooting at shit and finding weapons and life/power ups. and sports games and button-mashing punch-ups. so i have to respectfully disagree.

Huggasaurus Sex
04-18-2010, 10:33 PM
^^^so what? you're talking about a hyopthetical future scenario...i guess that's in response to roger ebert's asertion that they will 'never' be art...all i'm saying is that they may have highly elaborate aesthetic and design elements, but now it's just window dressing the fact that they are games. there's no statement about the nature of man, god, life, whatever...no challenge to your perception of reality, no stimulation of your emotions other than the your reaction to victory or defeat in the game.

i'm almost inclined to agree that a game can 'never' be pure art, because the very fact that it is a game meant to be played sets a parameter on how outre or challenging it can be on a visceral or intellectual level. but you can never say never...

and that scenario about video games that will rival cathedrals as enduring works of art seems highly dubious at best...most videogames are and have been, lowest common denominator entertainment in terms of their settings and goals. since old ass 80s nintendo, we have just been getting progressively more immersive and complex permutations of running through maps shooting at shit and finding weapons and life/power ups. and sports games and button-mashing punch-ups. so i have to respectfully disagree.

so is a cathedral art or is it just a shelter with lots of "window dressing"?

Dr. Simon Hurt
04-18-2010, 10:41 PM
a cathedral is art in my opinion, but that's not even a legitimate comparison to call of duty or your hypothetical immaculate futuristic video games.

not to get all bill clinton, i guess it comes down to how you define art. i've already defined how i see it, and i don't think any video games i've seen qualify. how do you guys define art and why do you think video games qualify?

Huggasaurus Sex
04-18-2010, 11:23 PM
the video games of today aren't yet great examples of art just like mud houses aren't great examples of architecture. but there's no fundamental reason why shelters have the potential to be works of art but games don't.

part of the problem is the word "game." if films can be art, would you consider a kind of interactive film art? cuz that's where games are headed.

Dr. Simon Hurt
04-18-2010, 11:32 PM
i think the interactivity is what prevents it from being art--interactivity allows the outcome and the information being conveyed to be dictated by the user or player to a certain extent, so you aren't getting a singular artistic vision. or if you are, it's a diluted one. it's like comparing a novel to a 'choose your own adventure' book.

if films allowed the viewers in theatres to vote on what happened next at certain scenes, it ceases to be artistic, because the artist is allowing the audience to determine the direction of the piece. if a director changed the ending of his film based on test audience feedback, isn't his/her 'artistic integrity' being compromised?

EAGLE EYE
04-18-2010, 11:33 PM
part of the problem is the word "game."

o rly?
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4014/4410047509_6ba6da18be.jpg

Ol' Dirty Trixˣ
04-18-2010, 11:39 PM
don't laugh but i've seen some amazing farms on farmville. if farmville were an old school toy it'd be plastercine, if it were art medium it would be something like modelling clay. unlike traditional video games, this game allows the player to be creative. it does have limitations, but all art mediums has its own limitations. don't get me wrong, i'm not comparing farmville to dali or van gogh or anything like that.


Farmville is a little like surrealism. surrealist art is a combination of reality mixed with fantasy. the 'reality' in farmville would be the actual trees and houses and stuff, the 'fantasy' is how everything is arranged on the farm. and there's no way the following farms were created by your average gamer with no skills in art.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs504.snc3/26502_429357693776_102452128776_3751524_3829697_n. jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs511.snc3/26862_435641978776_102452128776_3903749_3146939_n. jpg

the beach and the water is created by grouping coloured hay bales together.


http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs266.ash1/19357_345255968776_102452128776_3471750_214048_n.j pg

same in this one. the roads are also made up of hay bales. i haven't figured out how the towers were made.

http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/3419/farmvilleenverdad.jpg

http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/9945/granjaampliada.png



http://img12.imageshack.us/img12/2861/farmvillezoom.png


some valentines ones. these are mostly made up of coloured hay bales too.

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs363.snc3/23442_356359278776_102452128776_3514342_2581707_n. jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs363.snc3/23442_356359298776_102452128776_3514343_2305078_n. jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs383.snc3/23442_356359313776_102452128776_3514344_3950303_n. jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs363.snc3/23442_356359193776_102452128776_3514335_6719782_n. jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs363.snc3/23442_356359203776_102452128776_3514336_6456425_n. jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs423.ash1/23442_356359218776_102452128776_3514337_6722228_n. jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs383.snc3/23442_356359263776_102452128776_3514341_6563885_n. jpg

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs423.ash1/23442_356359228776_102452128776_3514338_7191296_n. jpg

Huggasaurus Sex
04-19-2010, 12:02 AM
i think the interactivity is what prevents it from being art--interactivity allows the outcome and the information being conveyed to be dictated by the user or player to a certain extent, so you aren't getting a singular artistic vision. or if you are, it's a diluted one. it's like comparing a novel to a 'choose your own adventure' book.

if films allowed the viewers in theatres to vote on what happened next at certain scenes, it ceases to be artistic, because the artist is allowing the audience to determine the direction of the piece. if a director changed the ending of his film based on test audience feedback, isn't his/her 'artistic integrity' being compromised?

i suppose drawing the line between art and not art at user interaction is as valid a line to draw as any when dealing with a concept as fuzzy as this, kinda like deciding if a film is pornographic based on whether or not it gives you a boner.

but anyway, i'm quite certain the videogames of tomorrow will be every bit as captivating and awe-inspiring as today's greatest works of art, even if they can't be categorized as art. again tho, it's a really silly debate...

SID
04-19-2010, 04:20 AM
Farmville is the swaggest game ever..