Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Who gives a shit? He's pretty much right anyway.

Yup. To me the entire user-controls-outcome point is what really makes me take the same position. The sports comparison is kinda interesting too

But who cares. Games are fun

 

[beelzebozo]

Barker: "I'm not doing an evangelical job here. I'm just saying that gaming is a great way to do what we as human beings need to do all the time -- to take ourselves away from the oppressive facts of our lives and go somewhere where we have our own control."

Ebert: Spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old.

wow, he's like a paid version of drohne

 

[Jon_Danger]

Calling a game art is the same as calling a movie art.

Now, multiplayer gameplay really is not art.

We are talking about full on singleplayer story driven cinematic gameplay experience.

Not Halo 3 online.

Halo 3 single player, yes.

 

[Campster]

Calling a game art is the same as calling a movie art.

Now, multiplayer gameplay really is not art.

We are talking about full on singleplayer story driven cinematic gameplay experience.

Not Halo 3 online.

Halo 3 single player, yes.

Whoa whoa whoa, what?

Why?

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Funny that I'm seeing a couple names in here that normally screech about how a particular company is ruining the sanctity of gaming now saying that video games aren't worth fighting for.

If the enthusiasts won't stand up and say this business is more than pointless distractions, then who will?

 

[karasu]

His view is too limited. It's like the only thing that separates games from art in his view is player control, but that's ridiculous. What I get from any piece of art is ultimately under my control. Not everyone gets the same thing from a movie. I can also watch it wherever, and however I want to. I can start in the middle of a trilogy instead of at the beginning, and I can get the censored versions if I want. And what about books? The images I get from the words are up to me. Sure the author describes the locations and the characters, but the images in my head are my own. I also experience architecture on my terms, but that doesn't make it any less artistic. Is storytelling an art? KOTOR told it's story better than four of the Star Wars movies. I have all of the respect in the world for Ebert, but he's old. he talks as if art was defined four thousand years ago and there's no adding anything to it.

 

[Stumpokapow]

Why can't we just agree that some games are designed as art pieces, some games are designed as entertainment with artistic elements, and some games are not designed as art at all? I don't think it's ridiculous to say that Vib Ribbon is art, Resident Evil 4 is artistic in ways but it's also interactive entertainment, and Barbie Horseback Rider is not intended to be artistic at all...

I believe that movies can be art; but there are movies that are purely art, a majority of movies that are artistic whether or not they are art, and movies that are not intended to be artistic in the slightest.

I just don't think the question is relevant. We don't need to have a position on whether or not games are categorically art. It is more useful to analyze artistic aspects of games when necessary. I don't think Ebert is putting down games by calling them closer to sports than art, he's just attempting to form a taxonomy of art and media. It doesn't strike me that Ebert is deriding games by saying he doesn't think they are high art.

If gamers think games should be considered high art as a way to get them taken more seriously, I'd ask the question--why do we automatically view high art as serious? What about art makes it inherently valuable? Nothing.

 

[Jon_Danger]

Whoa whoa whoa, what?

Why?

A multiplayer experience is like sports

single player experience is like an interactive movie.

Movies = Art.

 

[Imperial Hot]

Does it really matter, Ebert is going to die soon anyway? Isn't he like 400 years old?

 

[ElectricBlue187]

Games are fun and entertaining, but shallow, mindless distractions compared to most other forms of art. They're not reflective of the human condition, which all great art is. But we've been through this a dozen times in the past already...

They're not? A spreadsheet isn't reflective of the human condition, that's why accounting spreadsheets aren't art, but video games? That deal mostly with Human beings dealing with Human problems?

 

[tha_con]

I feel strangely compelled to respond to this...I wonder if I were to write something if it would get published?

 

[GhaleonEB]

Does it really matter, Ebert is going to die soon anyway? Isn't he like 400 years old?

Not sure if you know that he's fighting cancer right now and has been in the hospital for over a year or not, but that is going a bit too far.

 

[jetpacks was yes]

The problem, really, lies with the last statement. Plenty of movies are about shooting things, let's not forget. But in saying that a player-controlled outcome means that the work is devoid of artistic merit is to discredit the very strength of our medium. Games can't be art simply because they're games.

The argument I see a lot of is that games aren't art because art isn't interactive like games are. But... why does interactivity take that away, exactly? Because all known art forms before video games were invented are not interactive? Let's think about that for a moment.

I think art is just any sort of outlet for personal expression and reflection. The question shouldn't be "are games art?", but "can games be an effective outlet for personal expression?". But whatever, people can call it whatever they want to. Doesn't really change anything.

 

[Campster]

A multiplayer experience is like sports

single player experience is like an interactive movie.

Movies = Art.

But the problem with that is that you're justifying one medium by saying "it's basically this other medium." At that point, why not just get rid of the gameplay in order to have even finer control over your artistic work? It's like saying "some movies are art because they're basically plays, and plays are art. Movies that aren't like plays aren't art. Q.E.D."

Also, that's a painfully shallow view of singleplayer games. What about titles like The Sims and Animal Crossing, with no set narrative? What about Tetris, which completely lacks a worldly metaphor altogether?

 

[teruterubozu]

How do you define art?
A paintbrush, guitar or director's chair will get you laid...not your Wiimote.

 

[ElectricBlue187]

How do you define art?
A paintbrush, guitar or director's chair will get you laid...not your Wiimote.

CliffyB disagrees

 

[Jeff-DSA]

This is a very fair response to Ebert's original editorial by a gamer: http://ds.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=4711

I didn't write the piece, by the way.

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

Funny that I'm seeing a couple names in here that normally screech about how a particular company is ruining the sanctity of gaming now saying that video games aren't worth fighting for.

If the enthusiasts won't stand up and say this business is more than pointless distractions, then who will?

I'll be honest, it's sort of wavers. Growing older, I really see it as an expensive hobby, but at the same time I start appreciating the effort it took to make some said games. It's like I can see the artistic creativity to make the components of the game come alive, but as a whole for an interactive vehicle I just want a great videogame and forget all about what ever labels of "art" it gets or not.

Not sure if you know that he's fighting cancer right now and has been in the hospital for over a year or not, but that is going a bit too far.

Yeah, the man gets respect from me. So he doesn't agree with with your views, whatever,hell the best I can get is 70% agreement with Ebert, wishing death over videogames so it's no longer an argumentative obstacle from a person....things like this make videogames have a long long way to grow up.

 

[Flo_Evans]

high art speaks to the human condition, gaming speaks to human desires.

 

[VALIS]

Funny that I'm seeing a couple names in here that normally screech about how a particular company is ruining the sanctity of gaming now saying that video games aren't worth fighting for.

If the enthusiasts won't stand up and say this business is more than pointless distractions, then who will?

Stand up for it in what way? There is a lot of style and creativity in video games. They are entertaining, diverse and consuming. It's a fine hobby. Still doesn't make them on par with the greatest in literature and cinema, though. I don't see why people bristle at this notion. Maybe because they're not well versed in great literature and film? Because, I'm sorry, the heights of video games have never come anywhere even remotely close to James Joyce or Stanley Kubrick or William Shakespeare or Akira Kurosawa.

 

[teruterubozu]

CliffyB disagrees

He doesn't Wiimote.

 

[empanada]

This makes EA (Electronic Arts) sad.

 

[JDSN]

Everything can be considered art, it just depends on the people. This is why try to label was is art and what isnt is a stupid thing to do, especially when you are a closed-minded fool that hates Resident Evil like Ebert is.

 

[dionysus]

I couldn't disagree with Ebert more. I am sure many posts above have captured my thoughts perfectly, so I am not going to repeat them again.

 

[rebel^pudding]

this isnt a hard topic, games in GENERAL arent art. some games can be considered art though.

 

[ParticleReality]

I gotta assume he's never seen anything like Shadow of the Colossus of Okami, like it or not those games are art. Sure, a Doom or a GTA might not be art but you can't base all your opinions on just that.

 

[-WindYoshi-]

Ebert's an idiot. It's simple. Art is the expression of human creativity. People who try to create categories of art and non-art are people with an agenda, and they shouldn't be trusted. Whether that agenda is protecting a medium they love to the exclusion of others (Ebert) or driving up prices by creating a gulf between the cognoscenti and the hoi-polloi (fine art industry), people who try to convince you that things aren't art are inherently dishonest.

Not only did you hit the nail on it's head, you ended this thread with just one swing of your hammer.

 

[AstroLad]

i'm sorry but just to take one example, Gears>>>Kirosawa. gears put you in the action and you feel you are there; you are not only absorbing in a brilliant story, you are a part of it, something no old movie (black and white no less, and people make fun of composite--ha) could even hope to accomplish, much less some dusty book. movies and books are great, but they are the past, just like grunting was the past of communication. no "old" media can offer the brilliance, beauty, and yes art of an amazing game like a Halo 1-2 end of story. period.

 

[Flo_Evans]

i'm sorry but just to take one example, Gears>>>Kirosawa. gears put you in the action and you feel you are there; you are not only absorbing in a brilliant story, you are a part of it, something no old movie (black and white no less, and people make fun of composite--ha) could even hope to accomplish, much less some dusty book. movies and books are great, but they are the past, just like grunting was the past of communication. no "old" media can offer the brilliance, beauty, and yes art of an amazing game like a Halo 1-2 end of story. period.

:lol are you high right now?

 

[Imperial Hot]

Not sure if you know that he's fighting cancer right now and has been in the hospital for over a year or not, but that is going a bit too far.

This is awkward......I didn't know that. I was just commenting on his old age, how older members of the media will never accept gaming as a form of art, and how we are just going to have to wait until his generation passes in order for video games to be accepted.

I definitely don't want a man's life cut short by any means, especially not cancer.

My bad.

 

[Xiaoki]

It's good to see that we all can respond to this "are video games art" discussion in a mature and eloquent manner.

.....

Wait, this is NeoGAF, that's not at all possible.

NeoGAF, if you don't have the same opinion then you suck.
NeoGAF, CONFORM OR DIE!!!!!

 

[HomerSimpson-Man]

i'm sorry but just to take one example, Gears>>>Kirosawa. gears put you in the action and you feel you are there; you are not only absorbing in a brilliant story, you are a part of it, something no old movie (black and white no less, and people make fun of composite--ha) could even hope to accomplish, much less some dusty book. movies and books are great, but they are the past, just like grunting was the past of communication. no "old" media can offer the brilliance, beauty, and yes art of an amazing game like a Halo 1-2 end of story. period.

HOLY CRAP! The off-topic people, would kill you! And also probably laugh at out defense of videogame as art too.

Spoiler

If it's not satire of course.

 

[VALIS]

i'm sorry but just to take one example, Gears>>>Kirosawa. gears put you in the action and you feel you are there; you are not only absorbing in a brilliant story, you are a part of it, something no old movie (black and white no less, and people make fun of composite--ha) could even hope to accomplish, much less some dusty book. movies and books are great, but they are the past, just like grunting was the past of communication. no "old" media can offer the brilliance, beauty, and yes art of an amazing game like a Halo 1-2 end of story. period.

:lol :lol

 

[Berserker]

As if today's modern movies are anywhere near being an 'art'

 

[No6]

Stand up for it in what way? There is a lot of style and creativity in video games. They are entertaining, diverse and consuming. It's a fine hobby. Still doesn't make them on par with the greatest in literature and cinema, though. I don't see why people bristle at this notion. Maybe because they're not well versed in great literature and film? Because, I'm sorry, the heights of video games have never come anywhere even remotely close to James Joyce or Stanley Kubrick or William Shakespeare or Akira Kurosawa.

Why do video games require examples on par with Kurosawa or Joyce before being High Art? Is there a date when cinema changed from "a fine hobby" to high art? Cinema during the silent era was by and large terrible, and the few works of that period that can compare with the works created during the "talkie" era showed up near the end of the silent era.

Also, I hope I'm not the only person who sees the massive downgrade to Ebert since the cancer fix. Ignoring his current (terribly thought out and ignorant) video game stance, his movie reviews have just been awful, with weird rambling and almost childish commentary.

 

[beelzebozo]

i think referring to the board as if it's some given fact of life is a little played out at this point

 

[Scrubking]

Ebert's an idiot. It's simple. Art is the expression of human creativity. People who try to create categories of art and non-art are people with an agenda, and they shouldn't be trusted. Whether that agenda is protecting a medium they love to the exclusion of others (Ebert) or driving up prices by creating a gulf between the cognoscenti and the hoi-polloi (fine art industry), people who try to convince you that things aren't art are inherently dishonest.

QFT

 

[eve241]

For me everything that inspires as well as entertain is art.Video games can be art.

 

[Jon_Danger]

Also, that's a painfully shallow view of singleplayer games. What about titles like The Sims and Animal Crossing, with no set narrative? What about Tetris, which completely lacks a worldly metaphor altogether?

Games like that basically let you create your own art. It gives you the pieces and lets you do what you will. Games like that are more of the street art that you see. made quick easy and fun

I was trying to make it a simple arguement.

What ebert is failing to realize is that movies went through the exact same thing that games are going through now. Old silent movies and talkies were scoffed at by the art crowd. Just seen as a crude medium to depict a story. He is making the same mistake with games here, besides the fact that he states that he doesn't know shit about games. Games are still stuck in a paradigm. A paradigm where they are though of as a children's plaything by the average person. Only time will shift this way of thinking, as time always does.

 

[PhoenixDark]

i'm sorry but just to take one example, Gears>>>Kirosawa. gears put you in the action and you feel you are there; you are not only absorbing in a brilliant story, you are a part of it, something no old movie (black and white no less, and people make fun of composite--ha) could even hope to accomplish, much less some dusty book. movies and books are great, but they are the past, just like grunting was the past of communication. no "old" media can offer the brilliance, beauty, and yes art of an amazing game like a Halo 1-2 end of story. period.

10/10

 

[Alts]

Why do video games require examples on par with Kurosawa or Joyce before being High Art? Is there a date when cinema changed from "a fine hobby" to high art? Cinema during the silent era was by and large terrible, and the few works of that period that can compare with the works created during the "talkie" era showed up near the end of the silent era.

Also, I hope I'm not the only person who sees the massive downgrade to Ebert since the cancer fix. Ignoring his current (terribly thought out and ignorant) video game stance, his movie reviews have just been awful, with weird rambling and almost childish commentary.

The day somebody makes a Finnegans Wake videogame, Ebert will see the error of his ways.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

i'm sorry but just to take one example, Gears>>>Kirosawa. gears put you in the action and you feel you are there; you are not only absorbing in a brilliant story, you are a part of it, something no old movie (black and white no less, and people make fun of composite--ha) could even hope to accomplish, much less some dusty book. movies and books are great, but they are the past, just like grunting was the past of communication. no "old" media can offer the brilliance, beauty, and yes art of an amazing game like a Halo 1-2 end of story. period.

:lol Good one.

 

[Jon_Danger]

i'm sorry but just to take one example, Gears>>>Kirosawa. gears put you in the action and you feel you are there; you are not only absorbing in a brilliant story, you are a part of it, something no old movie (black and white no less, and people make fun of composite--ha) could even hope to accomplish, much less some dusty book. movies and books are great, but they are the past, just like grunting was the past of communication. no "old" media can offer the brilliance, beauty, and yes art of an amazing game like a Halo 1-2 end of story. period.

Kurosawa

and no

sorry, no

watch a kurosawa movie

if you like color watch RAN

 

[AgentOtaku]

the perception of games as art is subjective....

.....and to me, games ARE art....

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

Funny that I'm seeing a couple names in here that normally screech about how a particular company is ruining the sanctity of gaming now saying that video games aren't worth fighting for.

If the enthusiasts won't stand up and say this business is more than pointless distractions, then who will?

I think you may be on to something if we see more small time garage groups getting shit published on the three warring corporate platforms.

In the meantime gaming is about as full of art as your local Wal-Mart or Target.

Yeah, they've built some nice buildings; but those buildings are only there to sell hundreds of thousands of $4 t-shirts.

Gaming is hurtling towards it's own comical damnation with increasing production budgets, product placement, and copying of existing formulas because everybody is afraid of deviating from the path of safety.

Art is not safe. Commercial art is.

 

[The Faceless Master]

does the player really control the outcome in most games?

they may control the vehicle for achieving the outcome, but usally, there is only one outcome, two if you count not finishing the game...

 

[Oblivion]

Why really care about acceptance? Just enjoy the games...

It's mainly a psychological thing, I think. For years, people have looked down upon video games as a juvenile form of entertainment. And a good chunk of video game enthusiasts don't like that. Basically a justification to not feel bad about what they like.

Personally, I don't really see much difference between why a movie could be considered art, but not video games. Though I don't really care.

 

[Brannon]

Put it this way; do you really want games to be associated with 'high art'?

Really?

You WANT this?

 

[Segata Sanshiro]

Stand up for it in what way? There is a lot of style and creativity in video games. They are entertaining, diverse and consuming. It's a fine hobby. Still doesn't make them on par with the greatest in literature and cinema, though. I don't see why people bristle at this notion. Maybe because they're not well versed in great literature and film? Because, I'm sorry, the heights of video games have never come anywhere even remotely close to James Joyce or Stanley Kubrick or William Shakespeare or Akira Kurosawa.

It isn't yet, but it someday could be. Cinema was considered trash in the beginning, and by and large, it was. Comic books were nothing more than pulp trash, and they didn't fight hard enough, so even though genuine art is being created in the format, they'll always be pulp trash to people.

Games may not be art yet, but they can be some day. They are a creative expression and there's nothing that says someday we won't have something to rival Shakespeare or Kurosawa. When we do, if we haven't fought the good fight, that art will be dismissed due to this young medium being crushed under the shoe of misunderstanding.

 

[Campster]

Put it this way; do you really want games to be associated with 'high art'?

Really?

You WANT this?

Yes.