• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Not This Again : Ebert : Video games can never be art

F

Flachmatuch

Member
charlequin said:
The bugbear of financial motivation erasing the ability for artistic expression is like high-school material. Nobody seriously considers this to be the deciding factor of the artistic validity of a given work.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see the actual arguments about how a game or movie etc designed through focus groups leaves space for individual creativity, as opposed to claiming that I should just know. If it's high school material, it should be pretty easy.

I said that video games as they're made now are not forms of self expression, and I'm pretty sure that it's true.

Do you even live in the 21st Century? Art done got democratized, man.
Click to expand...

I agree, and this is why I think talking about anything but independent games when talking about "art" is mostly silly. I also mentioned in my original post the (mostly trivial) reasons that I thought that indie game development doesn't have an easy time with being "artistic". My point was that *video games* are pretty special and may not serve as a tool for self-expression as easily and as generally as literature or music or even movies. Even if something can be art, it doesn't mean it is. It might be too expensive, difficult, specialised or whatever, and making video games is certainly difficult and expensive and specialised, and in this way pretty unique.
 
V

Vice

Member
Flachmatuch said:
I'd love to see the actual arguments about how a game or movie etc designed through focus groups leaves space for individual creativity, as opposed to claiming that I should just know. If it's high school material, it should be pretty easy.

I said that video games as they're made now are not forms of self expression, and I'm pretty sure that it's true.
Click to expand...

Many of the worlds greatest painting, sculptures, plays, and pieces of music were commissioned by the rich or created simply so the artist could make some money.
 
F

Flachmatuch

Member
Vice said:
Many of the worlds greatest painting, sculptures, plays, and pieces of music were commissioned by the rich or created simply so the artist could make some money.
Click to expand...

I don't know, I think there's a large difference between Shakespeare writing a play and being successful with it and the creation of a script for a Hollywood movie. I'm not saying selling your stuff is bad, but designing it, using all the technology and science you have so that it sells the largest amount possible somehow contradicts what I think art is.
 
J

Jomjom

Banned
Flachmatuch said:
I'd love to see the actual arguments about how a game or movie etc designed through focus groups leaves space for individual creativity, as opposed to claiming that I should just know. If it's high school material, it should be pretty easy.
Click to expand...

First of all if making something for financial gain prohibits the creation from being art, none of Shakespeare's plays would be art, as he pumped those out at record speed in order to make money. Also, while not exactly a focus group, he wrote on subjects that he knew would likely be widely accepted by the audience at the time, historical dramas and comedies. Just because you are creating something, while keeping in mind, mass appeal and profitability, does not foreclose the possibility of individual creativity. I would say that two go hand in hand because people will generally appreciate individual creativity which can lead to broader consumption and profitability.
 
H

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
lyre said:
The same can be said with most of gaf, but that doesn't stop them from yapping.

PS: The thread is over 700 posts. Ebert wins.
Click to expand...

Wins what? Wins at being highly uninformed and rigid? Well good for him I guess.

BTW this is a game discussion board. Dont know if you knew that, but I'm here to remind you. You can thank me later.
 
V

Vice

Member
Flachmatuch said:
I don't know, I think there's a large difference between Shakespeare writing a play and being successful with it and the creation of a script for a Hollywood movie. I'm not saying selling your stuff is bad, but designing it, using all the technology and science you have so that it sells the largest amount possible somehow contradicts what I think art is.
Click to expand...

But art with profit as a significant, or primary, goal was a big drive behind many forms, such as portraiture until cameras were invented. Along with sculpture and paintings of various religious scenes. The art was designed to appeal to the masses, or to one dude with lots of money, but that doesn't take away from the beauty or worth of a piece.
 
F

Flachmatuch

Member
jling84 said:
First of all if making something for financial gain prohibits the creation from being art, none of Shakespeare's plays would be art, as he pumped those out at record speed in order to make money. Also, while not exactly a focus group, he wrote on subjects that he knew would likely be widely accepted by the audience at the time, historical dramas and comedies. Just because you are creating something, while keeping in mind, mass appeal and profitability, does not foreclose the possibility of individual creativity. I would say that two go hand in hand because people will generally appreciate individual creativity which can lead to broader consumption and profitability.
Click to expand...

Hehehe the Shakespeare argument :) I'm not saying personal motives etc should be "pure" and that kind of stuff, just that there's quite a bit of difference between "engineering" stuff for maximum sales and what Shakespeare was doing. I think video games are much closer to the engineering model, because they are so costly, and I think this really does impact personal creative freedom.

Vice said:
But art with profit as a significant, or primary, goal was a big drive behind many forms, such as portraiture until cameras were invented. Along with sculpture and paintings of various religious scenes. The art was designed to appeal to the masses, or to one dude with lots of money, but that doesn't take away from the beauty or worth of a piece.
Click to expand...

Well it depends on the person imo, I think knowing the reason behind something can easily influence my enjoyment and opinion on it. Anyway, I don't really want to say that just having a financial motive immediately "corrupts" art, that's obviously not true; but as soon as everything else becomes subordinated to it, it becomes a lot more difficult to do, which is the case with most video games.
 
D

deepbrown

Member
Flachmatuch said:
I'd love to see the actual arguments about how a game or movie etc designed through focus groups leaves space for individual creativity, as opposed to claiming that I should just know. If it's high school material, it should be pretty easy.

I said that video games as they're made now are not forms of self expression, and I'm pretty sure that it's true.



I agree, and this is why I think talking about anything but independent games when talking about "art" is mostly silly. I also mentioned in my original post the (mostly trivial) reasons that I thought that indie game development doesn't have an easy time with being "artistic". My point was that *video games* are pretty special and may not serve as a tool for self-expression as easily and as generally as literature or music or even movies. Even if something can be art, it doesn't mean it is. It might be too expensive, difficult, specialised or whatever, and making video games is certainly difficult and expensive and specialised, and in this way pretty unique.
Click to expand...
An individual Auteur is not needed for Art. If it was, many films that I consider art would not be.
 
F

Flachmatuch

Member
deepbrown said:
An individual Auteur is not needed for Art. If it was, many films that I consider art would not be.
Click to expand...

That would also be a nice discussion :-D My problem is not with the principles people keep listing, I can accept any of them even if I have my own, but with the actual design and production methods and procedures with games, that tend to make them engineered, generic, prone to fashions and bandwagoning and also often cowardly and lying...and pretty far from being "art".
 
B

BobsRevenge

I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
The question in this thread isn't really if games are art. It's more if games fit your definition of art. The definition isn't entirely agreed upon in our language. A lot of games fit mine.

My definition of art is: Art is a deliberate effort by a creator to affect the senses through a medium, to convey something aesthetic and/or affect emotionally.

After that you judge its worth and the skill of the creator(s).

I mean, if you look up art in pretty much any dictionary, video games, or at least some video games, will fit that definition. You guys are just have weird hang ups and feel like calling video games art devalues Citizen Kane, or some shit, even though there is no such connection.

But yeah, there is no point in having an argument here unless you're arguing about a specific definition. Otherwise you aren't really arguing at all. More like just having a series of misunderstandings.
 
F

Flachmatuch

Member
I think the real topic of the discussion is actually the definition of art. It's impossible atm to choose a definition that fits everything, the point is to try and get closer to one, no? So choosing one would make the discussion uninteresting, imo.

Also, your definition would include everything with an emotional effect, from state or religious propaganda to TV ads, and I think it might need to be refined.
 
B

BobsRevenge

I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Flachmatuch said:
I think the real topic of the discussion is actually the definition of art. It's impossible atm to choose a definition that fits everything, the point is to try and get closer to one, no? So choosing one would make the discussion uninteresting, imo.
Click to expand...
Not choosing one makes this discussion pointless.

edit: I'm not against calling marketing art. It is just the manipulation of art to sell something.
 
F

Flachmatuch

Member
Not at all. In fact, once you choose one, the whole question becomes a pointless technicality, while in this way, you can focus on trying to understand what other people think.

BobsRevenge said:
I'm not against calling marketing art. It is just the manipulation of art to sell something.
Click to expand...

I don't care about the word itself, but there's meaning behind it. If you say "art" is "effecting emotions in people", and if this includes marketing and PR, it might be a perfectly good use for the word...but it doesn't mean that the concept that I think of as "art" couldn't be defined and doesn't exist (maybe it doesn't though). Choosing a definition is a choice, and it really doesn't get you closer to understanding stuff.
 
B

BobsRevenge

I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Flachmatuch said:
Not at all. In fact, once you choose one, the whole question becomes a pointless technicality, while in this way, you can focus on trying to understand what other people think.
Click to expand...
It's not a pointless technicality. It is the answering of the issue presented in the thread. That's the point.

edit: I see what you're getting at. However, it is out of order to argue about video games at all until a clear definition of art is agreed upon to argue about in the first place. You have to clearly define what you think art is before you should argue about what qualifies.
 
S

Snowman Prophet of Doom

Member
deepbrown said:
An individual Auteur is not needed for Art. If it was, many films that I consider art would not be.
Click to expand...

Such as?

Also, I disagree with your earlier assertion that most films are not art. All films are art, as that is the nature of the medium. Most films just aren't GOOD art.
 
J

jdogmoney

Member
Flachmatuch said:
Hehehe the Shakespeare argument :) I'm not saying personal motives etc should be "pure" and that kind of stuff, just that there's quite a bit of difference between "engineering" stuff for maximum sales and what Shakespeare was doing. I think video games are much closer to the engineering model, because they are so costly, and I think this really does impact personal creative freedom.
Click to expand...

That's literally exactly what Shakespeare did. He wrote (kept) what was a hit. Do you think the high culture of the time was thrilled when he began to "speak of country matters"?

The debate here isn't High Art vs. Low Art, unfortunately. That would be a good one to have somewhere, though, since the only difference between the two is varying levels of pretentiousness, and it would be funny to see the justification for any other definition.

The people who say video games aren't art still need to provide a definition of art, and explain why games don't fit that definition when literature, movies, theatre, paintings, architecture, and performance art do, to name a few things off the top of my head.
 
G

Gilgamesh

Member
I really enjoy reading Ebert's movie reviews, but he can be really dumb sometimes. Like when he talks about video games, or when he reviewed Gladiator.
 
C

chicken_ramen

Member
jdogmoney said:
The people who say video games aren't art still need to provide a definition of art, and explain why games don't fit that definition when literature, movies, theatre, paintings, architecture, and performance art do, to name a few things off the top of my head.
Click to expand...

This is simple if you accept that art is a meaningless term that is recursively defined.
 
B

BobsRevenge

I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Flachmatuch said:
Choosing a definition is a choice, and it really doesn't get you closer to understanding stuff.
Click to expand...
What exactly are you trying to understand?
 
R

reetva

Banned
This is all incredibly silly. Art is a subjective thing. Arguing about "high art" versus "low art" is like arguing about left versus right when you are back to back with your opponent.
 
C

charlequin

Banned
Flachmatuch said:
I'd love to see the actual arguments about how a game or movie etc designed through focus groups leaves space for individual creativity, as opposed to claiming that I should just know.
Click to expand...

The problem is that you're arguing about a strawman here. Very little (if anything) is "designed through focus groups" the way you are suggesting; many things are aversely affected by marketing pressures and funding issues, but the idea that products are being created entirely absent any form of human intention and individual design is just totally ungrounded in reality.

I said that video games as they're made now are not forms of self expression, and I'm pretty sure that it's true.
Click to expand...

It's bullshit.

You seem to be lacking a working knowledge of the history of artistic expression and it leads you to unreasonable conclusions like suggesting that Shakespeare's work is somehow meaningfully distinct from that of a Hollywood screenwriter despite almost identical commercial concerns lying at the heart of both.

Shakespeare's work was pretty much definitionally "low art" at the time of its production. It's honestly one of the very easiest examples to use in demonstrating why the entire concept of a "high art/low art" distinction is nonsense.
 
S

Safe Bet

Banned
charlequin said:
Shakespeare's work was pretty much definitionally "low art" at the time of its production.
Click to expand...
I'm not really educated enough to comment on Shakespeare, but from what I understand his plays were purposely intertwined with both "high art" and "low art" in order to appeal to commoner and noble alike.
 
K

kurosawa

Member
charlequin said:
The problem is that you're arguing about a strawman here. Very little (if anything) is "designed through focus groups" the way you are suggesting; many things are aversely affected by marketing pressures and funding issues, but the idea that products are being created entirely absent any form of human intention and individual design is just totally ungrounded in reality.



It's bullshit.

You seem to be lacking a working knowledge of the history of artistic expression and it leads you to unreasonable conclusions like suggesting that Shakespeare's work is somehow meaningfully distinct from that of a Hollywood screenwriter despite almost identical commercial concerns lying at the heart of both.

Shakespeare's work was pretty much definitionally "low art" at the time of its production. It's honestly one of the very easiest examples to use in demonstrating why the entire concept of a "high art/low art" distinction is nonsense.
Click to expand...

charlequin: faster, stronger, smarter,,, and absolutely right. debating definitions of what is good/bad or low/high art are just ridiculous. it's art. (period)
 
S

Safe Bet

Banned
kurosawa said:
...debating definitions of what is good/bad or low/high art are just ridiculous. it's art. (period)
Click to expand...
Lex and Terry farting on the raido aint "Art" and we need some way to express that.
 
C

chicken_ramen

Member
Safe Bet said:
Lex and Terry farting on the raido aint "Art" and we need some way to express that.
Click to expand...

You say 'I don't like it.' You say 'it's dumb.' Then you back that up with reasons.

Art as a label is lazy shorthand that means nothing and comes with elitist connotations.
 
M

mclem

Member
Out of interest, what's Ebert's stance on Clue? In an *extremely* limited sense, that's an interactive movie.

What about Run, Lola, Run, where the film proceeds in three different directions?
Indeed, would Run, Lola, Run *stop* being art if it was three different films and asked you to pick one at the start?

What about Choose Your Own Adventure books?

What about Test Site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Site )?


My own stance on this?

Too often, people say "They're fun, they don't have to be art". I dispute that; they are fun, and that's *why* they're art.
 
R

reetva

Banned
mclem said:
Out of interest, what's Ebert's stance on Clue? In an *extremely* limited sense, that's an interactive movie.

What about Run, Lola, Run, where the film proceeds in three different directions?
Indeed, would Run, Lola, Run *stop* being art if it was three different films and asked you to pick one at the start?

What about Choose Your Own Adventure books?

What about Test Site (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Site )?


My own stance on this?

Too often, people say "They're fun, they don't have to be art". I dispute that; they are fun, and that's *why* they're art.
Click to expand...
Escapism is a great form of art, yes. That is, in my opinion.
 
C

charlequin

Banned
mclem said:
Too often, people say "They're fun, they don't have to be art". I dispute that; they are fun, and that's *why* they're art.
Click to expand...

"Fun-ism" (that's not a real word, I just made that up right now) is an idea that seems to be guiding a lot of the positions in this thread that are in at least partial agreement with Ebert: this idea that games are "fun," which is a contra-indication for the things that make up art (serious commentary, or, uh, whatever other bullshit.)

That's already taking a pretty narrow view of art (much of which can be plenty"fun.") But it's particularly pernicious with regards to games, since it uses a term that's intended to sound like a positive ("they're fun!") while both dismissing games as essentially childish and also dismissing any emotional experience people have interacting with a game that doesn't fall within the narrow window of "fun."

It's the same sort of thing people have used to dismiss elements of popular or folk culture for ages: "oh, that's just fun, it doesn't have any real value."
 
H

HK-47

Oh, bitch bitch bitch.
charlequin said:
"Fun-ism" (that's not a real word, I just made that up right now) is an idea that seems to be guiding a lot of the positions in this thread that are in at least partial agreement with Ebert: this idea that games are "fun," which is a contra-indication for the things that make up art (serious commentary, or, uh, whatever other bullshit.)

That's already taking a pretty narrow view of art (much of which can be plenty"fun.") But it's particularly pernicious with regards to games, since it uses a term that's intended to sound like a positive ("they're fun!") while both dismissing games as essentially childish and also dismissing any emotional experience people have interacting with a game that doesn't fall within the narrow window of "fun."

It's the same sort of thing people have used to dismiss elements of popular or folk culture for ages: "oh, that's just fun, it doesn't have any real value."
Click to expand...

I hate funism (I am going to use this word).
 
M

mclem

Member
Flachmatuch said:
When you're saying Flower or Braid is "art", you're implicitly comparing them to stuff with achievements like Faust or the Iliad or Citizen Kaine, and in this case the comparison does indeed become pathetic.
Click to expand...


ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED:
Pact with the devil.

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED:
We'll always have Paris.

ACHIEVEMENT UNLOCKED:
Hit you like a sled-gehammer.
 
B

BowieZ

Banned
All video games are made up of art (some good, some bad).

Some video games convey meanings and messages and are thus art as a whole (some good, some bad), but not all do this.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
While Ebert sounds like he's trolling or out of touch, ultimately he's right: games are not art. It's interesting that in discussions on this subject, posters focus on minimalist games like Flower or bloated games with lots of exposition, "story," and cut scenes like Metal Gear Solid. This should be a discussion of playing games, not the various aspects of art forms which games have co-opted over the years. Video games boil down to interaction and interface, how your actions are translated onto a screen.

Is chess art? Dungeons and Dragons? They are games, just as video games are. Flooding video games with big stories and musical scores doesn't change the point.

Obviously there's passion here because people's hobbies and passions seem to be under attack. But that shouldn't cloud basic facts. It's rather similar to arguing whether fantasy or comic books can be literature, although in that case the answer is yes.
 
B

BowieZ

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Is chess art? Dungeons and Dragons? They are games, just as video games are. Flooding video games with big stories and musical scores doesn't change the point.

Obviously there's passion here because people's hobbies and passions seem to be under attack. But that shouldn't cloud basic facts. It's rather similar to arguing whether fantasy or comic books can be literature, although in that case the answer is yes.
Click to expand...
Obviously one might think all "video games" should be classified solely as "games" because the term has "games" in it. But that shouldn't cloud basic facts.
 
P

PhoenixDark

Banned
BowieZ said:
Obviously one might think all "video games" should be classified solely as "games" because the term has "games" in it. But that shouldn't cloud basic facts.
Click to expand...

What would you describe video games as, other than what they are: games? Interactive media?
 
M

mentalfloss

Banned
I like the really loose significance of the term art. You know, like, "wow, you've got that down to an art." Something that shows an art form as a skill, regardless of the context. That to me, seems like the most appropriate use of the word.

I'm assuming this looser version came after art was contextualized in visual media, but I think it's much better to accept the more general version of the word, this way it can apply to anything. Even taking a crap can be an art. I would rather it be an all encompassing concept rather than be confined to certain forms of media.
 
M

Madman

Member
Flachmatuch said:
I said that video games as they're made now are not forms of self expression, and I'm pretty sure that it's true.
Click to expand...
FWIW, David Jaffe said Kratos was at least in part a reflection of himself.
 
M

mentalfloss

Banned
Madman said:
FWIW, David Jaffe said Kratos was at least in part a reflection of himself.
Click to expand...

Can't say I'd be surprised if that were true. Kratos is just pissed at everything though - not really that interesting of a character to begin with.
 
B

Big One

Banned
PhoenixDark said:
Is chess art? Dungeons and Dragons? They are games, just as video games are.
Click to expand...
Yes they are, if you actually understood what art meant. Anything that conveys an emotion of fun, competition, or ultimately is useless (as Oscar Wilde says what it takes to be art) can easily be defined as art just as much as film or literature. People experience fun while watching movies too but that doesn't stop the film medium to be art in total.

Ebert claims that video games doesn't have a "Citizen Kane" but this analogy is so flawed for many reasons. For one, it's implying that literature and music has a "Citizen Kane" that can be defined as the shining achievement of it's medium, and it's pretentiously implying that Citizen Kane IS the shining achievement of film. Ebert may watch a lot of movies, but he knows so little about his own specialty. If you read any of his reviews, or heard them, they are so basic and simplistic that for him to be defining the mediums and "art" is just completely ludicrous. He may've had a fun show with Sieskal, but he's a bad critic in his field. Ebert needs to figure out why film is art before he figures out why video games are art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Being able to change the games' cover arts on Steam is an underrated feature of the platform
8
696
violence replied
  • Poll
New Final Fantasy Collection at UNIQLO + More Gaming T-Shirts
News Community Business
20
1K
Kaachan replied
Card game developer says it paid an 'AI artist' $90,000 to generate card art because 'no one comes close to the quality he delivers'
Drama Game Dev 2 3
119
8K
Caffeine replied
CNBC — Why The $183 Billion Video Game Industry Can't Quit Microtransactions
Opinion Analysis
30
2K
kyussman replied
What does the “Majora” in The Legend of Zelda: Majora’s Mask mean? Art director explains
Game Dev
43
2K
Gambit2483 replied
Top Bottom