AgentOtaku
Member
The Faceless Master said:
this is art
-
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.
Ebert (once again) reiterates his position on games.
- Thread starter Campster
- Start date
this is art
-WindYoshi-
Banned
Endow said:
The whole reason I stand for and defend videogames as an art, is because of the ones that have inspired me.
This is a good point.
Jon_Danger
Member
I think that the important thing here to realize is art is subjective. If you believe games are art, then they are art to you.
If you don't believe games are art, then so be it, enjoy them as games.
It really doesn't matter.
I think the biggest problem with what ebert has said is that he has no right to have an opinon like that. he said that he doesn't play games, yet he can form an opinion like that.
That is like me saying that the country of china sucks, even though I have never been there.
If you don't believe games are art, then so be it, enjoy them as games.
It really doesn't matter.
I think the biggest problem with what ebert has said is that he has no right to have an opinon like that. he said that he doesn't play games, yet he can form an opinion like that.
That is like me saying that the country of china sucks, even though I have never been there.
Granted, the only video game I can think of that could potentially be called high art is Tetris. But what needs to be understood is that the definition of high art is wholly mutable - high art is simply what human society considers to be the best and most worthy examples of human culture and expression.
From Ebert's stance, we can conclude that video games will never be high art as Ebert understands it. However, I fully believe that the best and most worthy examples of gameplay design will become high art as my contemporaries and future generations understand the term.
From Ebert's stance, we can conclude that video games will never be high art as Ebert understands it. However, I fully believe that the best and most worthy examples of gameplay design will become high art as my contemporaries and future generations understand the term.
teruterubozu
Member
It's kind of sad how this is hardly ever discussed and Ebert, an industry outsider, has become the cornerstone for this debate.
HomerSimpson-Man
Member
Innotech said:
Well, if you makes you feel any better it was shitty art.
The Faceless Master said:
I think it has more to do with the player not necessarily following the narrative intended by the authors, and then being punished. Granted certain games find nice ways around this (the first that comes to mind is the 'no that's not how it happened' thing in Prince of Persia).
Also, I don't think quitting a game before beating it can be considered reaching a true outcome in this case.
Nice post.besada said:
Kinda off topic but let's replace "art" with "games"
Ebert's an idiot. It's simple. Games is the expression of human creativity. People who try to create categories of games and non-games 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 (Core Gamers) or driving up elitism by creating a gulf between the traditional games and the waggle games people who try to convince you that things aren't games are inherently dishonest.
Makes sense!
soul creator
Member
maybe it's the cynic in me, but I always tend to take the view that all the commotion over "games as art" and "games are corrupting our youth!" will sort itself out over time.
We won't need to find any specific solution. Meaning, we should continue experimenting with different ideas, have our fun, try out cool new things...but then we just need to wait for the old people to die. Then when we're the old guys, games will be our socially accepted artform, and we're going to be railing against some other new form of expression.
In 30 years, Campster will be a noted Interactive Entertainment critic, and will laugh at anyone who calls Nanotainment "art". And public figures will talk about how Nanotainment is corrupting our children. Then they'll die, and Nanotainment will be this wonderful great artform all of a sudden. And the cycle will continue.
We won't need to find any specific solution. Meaning, we should continue experimenting with different ideas, have our fun, try out cool new things...but then we just need to wait for the old people to die. Then when we're the old guys, games will be our socially accepted artform, and we're going to be railing against some other new form of expression.
In 30 years, Campster will be a noted Interactive Entertainment critic, and will laugh at anyone who calls Nanotainment "art". And public figures will talk about how Nanotainment is corrupting our children. Then they'll die, and Nanotainment will be this wonderful great artform all of a sudden. And the cycle will continue.
TrueReligion
Banned
Show this douchebag a screenshot of Okami or Hotel Dusk. That'll shut him up.
AltogetherAndrews
Member
*** art
teruterubozu
Member
Campster said:
I'm not too sure about that. There are plenty within the industry that agree with Ebert.
Like Carmack, for example, who thinks stories in games are akin to having stories in porn flicks.
I'd agree if Ebert's views represented a consensus among movie critics or the rest of the art world, but I've never heard anyone else claim that games aren't capable of being art (oops I mean high art gotta shift those goalposts).teruterubozu said:
I mean, going by his reasoning, movies can't be art because the vast majority of it consists of people having sex so that men can masturbate more easily.
teruterubozu said:
Saying stories in games are about the same thing as stories in porn flicks doesn't mean that games aren't art. That falls closer to the old narratology vs. ludology "debates" than it does to declaring that games are devoid of artistic merit.
The very best games can only be compared to a John Woo Hollywood action movie or a Lifetime movie of the week. So, even at its very best, games are bottom of the barrel in comparison to the type of experience a movie or even TV can provide. I don't think anyone would call either of those mediums "high art".
It's not because the medium can not do it .. it's because of the talent level of video game makers as opposed to hollywood or movie making in general.
No video game has moved me in the way a Schindler's List did. No art work in a video game can even compare to the Impressionist painters of centuries ago. No storyline created in a video game will have the depth or grandeur of a Moby Dick or the subtle tragedy of The Sun Also Rises or The Great Gatsby.
They feasibly COULD .. but there is no talent in this field that can even compare at this point in history.
If you are someone taht has been moved to tears by a video game (and I have played them all) ... or have been personally effected by a video game. I would say that you are socially or morally retarded in some aspect. You probably need to get out more.
It's not because the medium can not do it .. it's because of the talent level of video game makers as opposed to hollywood or movie making in general.
No video game has moved me in the way a Schindler's List did. No art work in a video game can even compare to the Impressionist painters of centuries ago. No storyline created in a video game will have the depth or grandeur of a Moby Dick or the subtle tragedy of The Sun Also Rises or The Great Gatsby.
They feasibly COULD .. but there is no talent in this field that can even compare at this point in history.
If you are someone taht has been moved to tears by a video game (and I have played them all) ... or have been personally effected by a video game. I would say that you are socially or morally retarded in some aspect. You probably need to get out more.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
Berserker said:
Just because you know "Epic Movie" is a piece of shit doesn't mean you've exposed yourself to the full breadth of cinema.
Here's stuff that's available in your local Blockbuster--if you'd prefer movies that are artistic to the point that you would not likely find them at Blockbuster, let me know:
2007 - This is England, aspects of Joshua, the colorization of 300, technical aspects of Grindhouse,
2006 - Bubble, Tsotsi, Hard Candy, Caché, Pan's Labyrinth, technical aspects of Children of Men, to a lesser extent Match Point, aspects of the Prestige, Letters from Iwo Jima / Flags of our Fathers, Apocalypto
2005 - Munich, Junebug, Broken Flowers, Oldboy, to a lesser extent Sin City, Shopgirl, and March of the Penguins, some elements of Good Night and Good Luck,
2004 - Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Baadassssss!, The Life Aquatic, aspects of Hotel Rwanda, aspects of The Downfall, to a way lesser extent Million Dollar Baby, the camera work in Crash, aspects of Beyond the Sea, some elements of Saved although not the movie as a whole, the Passion of the Christ (visually)
2003 - Lost in Translation, Big Fish, to a lesser extent Finding Nemo, technical elements of Lord of the Rings, Coffee and Cigarettes
2002 - Russian Ark, City of God, Y Tu Mama Tambien, Dangerous Lives of the Altar Boys, Naqoyqatsi (you might have some trouble finding this at Blockbuster),
2001 - Waking Life, Mulholland Drive, Amélie, aspects of A Beautiful Mind, the cinematography in parts of Donnie Darko, K-PAX
2000 - Almost Famous, Traffic, Requiem for a Dream, aspects of Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, Memento, Chinese Coffee, cinematography in Gladiator
People who complain modern movies aren't art are like people listening to Clear Channel and complaining Nickelback is boring. Stop limiting yourself to the top ten grossing movies of the year and you'll find that cinematography and art is alive and well.
teruterubozu
Member
Campster said:
Well, it's saying games are like porn, which I guess can still be art
Gekkonidae
Member
I generally have to agree. Video Games as we now know them have never ascended to the realm that Ebert describes as "high art."
The form is 30-40 years old and film by this point in it's lifetime had a produced a myriad of great works. This is not to say that video games will never be great art, I just wouldn't bet on it within the near future.
The form is 30-40 years old and film by this point in it's lifetime had a produced a myriad of great works. This is not to say that video games will never be great art, I just wouldn't bet on it within the near future.
The rest of your post was a hilarious mishmash of contradictory statements, but I'll agree with this. Of course, I would also say the same thing about anything from the silent era of film, but whatever.ToxicAdam said:
I agree, but if you start playing the "aspect" game then video games instantly fall into the art list. I thought Zelda TP was trite doggerel, but there were a couple aspects that would easily count as artistic statements in any medium.Stumpokapow said:
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
No6 said:
Like I said earlier in the thread, I believe there are things which are primarily art, things which have artistic elements to them, and things that are purely entertainment.
You'd have to be dumber than a sack of shit or more shallow in taste than a kiddie pool is in water to say that modern films are categorically not artistic. I'm just honestly offended that there are people out there who think film used to be a glorious art form and these days it's a cesspool. Film gets better every year as more and more visions come to life and technology helps creativity further and further. People who genuinely think that the 30s or 60s or 80s were the peak of film are foolishly nostalgic for an era they weren't alive in.
Okay, just thought I'd mention it. There's some folks who would make that comment with full knowledge of his current condition, I thought I'd ask before I assumed.snack said:
And wow he's back reviewing movies again. Cool.
Stinkles said:
You can, yes.
And this answers the question someone asked before if video games needs to have works on par with a Shakespeare or Kurosawa (or whomever recognized as a master of his form) to be taken seriously as art. The answer is a resounding YES. I mean, we're having this debate now when the highest watermark video games have achieved might be on par with Star Wars, not Seven Samurai. Some people have a reasonable answer in that video games are still in their infancy, and film was considered rather base and lowbrow in its infancy, too. Fair point. But don't tell me, "Bububu art is in the eye of the beholder and Final Fantasy is also high art because it speaks to me more than Nabokov ever could!!" And then you're gonna get older and realize Final Fantasy is chock full of well worn, boiler plate fantasy cliches that have been done better a hundred times before in other mediums.
A visual style that creates atmosphere and tone for a game is art.
A character design to create a unique identifiable character is art.
A mech design for certain types of games is also art, as are unique guns and swords and other such props.
A driving storyline may not be on the same level as a great piece of literature, but it is an attempt at the same thing.
Even 3d model rendered to beautifully mimick a real life counterpart is a work of art, just as any 2d drawing or painting would be.
Concept art speaks for itself. Are the beautiful drawings and paintings all of a sudden non-art because it has to do with a video game? Right.
Games are in every way as much art as movies are. Now if we're talking about "art" with the quotes, like art films and stuff that is commonly received as "really wierd creative stuff," there are games like that too. Katamari and Okami to name a couple.
I can understand how some games can be so shitty that they APPEAR to have no artistic talent involved, but if they can exhibit "The Dot", "The Circle", and "The Square" in the Boston Art Gallery (I still can't ****ing get over this ...), then no one should be saying video games are not art.
A character design to create a unique identifiable character is art.
A mech design for certain types of games is also art, as are unique guns and swords and other such props.
A driving storyline may not be on the same level as a great piece of literature, but it is an attempt at the same thing.
Even 3d model rendered to beautifully mimick a real life counterpart is a work of art, just as any 2d drawing or painting would be.
Concept art speaks for itself. Are the beautiful drawings and paintings all of a sudden non-art because it has to do with a video game? Right.
Games are in every way as much art as movies are. Now if we're talking about "art" with the quotes, like art films and stuff that is commonly received as "really wierd creative stuff," there are games like that too. Katamari and Okami to name a couple.
I can understand how some games can be so shitty that they APPEAR to have no artistic talent involved, but if they can exhibit "The Dot", "The Circle", and "The Square" in the Boston Art Gallery (I still can't ****ing get over this ...), then no one should be saying video games are not art.
AstroLad said:
Edit: Rereading the quote makes me think AstroLad was joking...if so, whoosh, right over my head.
While I disagree with Ebert, I am just going to say that "The Iliad" is about 4,000 years old and is still one of the greatest pieces of art ever created and so much better than Halo. In fact, for you to say that Halo is greater than all previous works of art throughout all human history is so flabbergasting to me that I can't even think of a response. Our premises and outlooks on art must be entirely different. My college professor one said, "all great Western literature can trace its roots to "The Iliad" and the Bible."
I think one day, many years from now, certain games will be classed as great works of art, just like movies were once scorned and are now accepted as art. Games also have the potential to affect people the way art does, and I think in some cases games have reached the level of "High art", whatever that is. I look at SotC as my main example.
I think some of you are being affected by the failure of American education to instill in its students an appreciation for art. Most of my peers back in my secondary and undergraduate days hated anything considered art and considered it boring. To them and some here, art and entertainment cannot exist together. This is a fallacy, as most art (there are some exceptions) were also the most popular form of entertainment of the time: Theater in classical Greece, Oratory in classical Rome, theater during the British empire, novels during the British empire, etc. Most of the things we consider classics now, were base entertainment scorned by the Ivory tower intellectuals.
Shakespeare main audience was the poorest of the poor. Who laughed at his sex jokes and slapstick humor, ie Falstaff. In fact, the Pit in the Globe Theatre as it was called could be accessed for a mere penny and people spit out orange peels and hazelnuts on the floor. Dickens was published in weekly and monthly magazines that would be the modern equivalent of Entertainment Weekly and Cosmopolitan. Homer's epics were poems recited for drunken Greeks after dinner. All of this great art started out as entertainment for the masses. It always takes years for the intellectuals to realize what appeals to the masses is often a masterful commentary of the human condition.
Dalauz said:
well that is different, not all games are even art. i forget who but there is a games writer who breaks down two different kinds of games--one kind being kiddie mario/non-game stuff where it's basically not considered art (and definitely not high art) by anyone. it's like how you wouldn't consider a workout tape art.
BUT the other kind of game--the modern game ushered in by the PS and refined by the 360 to it's essence--is not only art but can often reach the plateau of "high art" once reserved for old media and now being dethroned like prospero for the shakespeare fans out there. so what you have is a Succession of The Crown of sorts. an Evolution if you will.
to those clinging to the past: is "the great gatsby" still "high" art? maybe, maybe not. the question is much stickier now than it was before this new kind of gaming that exists now. but the funny thing is that the best stories of all never die--that is, there is always hope that CliffyB will read gatsby and say
hey, it would be pretty cool to make the player control Gatbsy in an FPS with Wilson as the Final Boss--give the player the immersion and FULL CONTROL over what happens
Have you read his recent reviews? I honestly believe he suffered some form of brain damage during the cancer treatments.GhaleonEB said:Okay, just thought I'd mention it. There's some folks who would make that comment with full knowledge of his current condition, I thought I'd ask before I assumed.
And wow he's back reviewing movies again. Cool.
I agree. And who's nostalgic for 80s films (seriously, that decade was terrible, and I place most of the blame on the use of terrible synth in movies)?Stumpokapow said:
Come on gamers, execs, journalists, developers, someone please **** this guy up, take it to him cause he's a moron.
Mass Effect shits all over this guy, the original Metal Gear does too, the Soul Reaver comes to mind too. Hell even Super Colombine Massacre could be considered art in it's own stupid way. Never played it and it was in poor taste but it had a point I think. **** this pretentious moron and his ignorance, videogames can be high art and will indisputably be at some point we just haven't seen that one game yet that everyone walks away from like wow.
I think Mass Effect could be that game cause it's so amazing looking and fluid and well done. Movies are passive entertainment, they can only tell one story. If Mass Effect can pull of telling multiple deep and engaging different stories with the polish of what we've already seen it will blow minds.
This guy doesn't play games and he can't see how people walk away from games more complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, intelligent, etc. when he's being spoonfed his primary mode of entertainment because he doesn't. What an ass.
Mass Effect shits all over this guy, the original Metal Gear does too, the Soul Reaver comes to mind too. Hell even Super Colombine Massacre could be considered art in it's own stupid way. Never played it and it was in poor taste but it had a point I think. **** this pretentious moron and his ignorance, videogames can be high art and will indisputably be at some point we just haven't seen that one game yet that everyone walks away from like wow.
I think Mass Effect could be that game cause it's so amazing looking and fluid and well done. Movies are passive entertainment, they can only tell one story. If Mass Effect can pull of telling multiple deep and engaging different stories with the polish of what we've already seen it will blow minds.
This guy doesn't play games and he can't see how people walk away from games more complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, intelligent, etc. when he's being spoonfed his primary mode of entertainment because he doesn't. What an ass.
All games are filled with artistic elements and bits of art... the question is what would make a video game "art".
A "great art" film is different than a book and both are different than a painting. They each have different requirements to be generally considered art.
Personally, I think folks worry too much... art will come from gaming, I suppose, but I don't see a need to rush or demand it... otherwise we end up like Comic Book Store Guy, decrying other artistic forms in favor of our new spinoff.
A question for you all that, I think, has a lot to do with this...
Is Disneyland art?
Theme parks, in my opinion, are closer to video games than films or books are to video games.
A "great art" film is different than a book and both are different than a painting. They each have different requirements to be generally considered art.
Personally, I think folks worry too much... art will come from gaming, I suppose, but I don't see a need to rush or demand it... otherwise we end up like Comic Book Store Guy, decrying other artistic forms in favor of our new spinoff.
A question for you all that, I think, has a lot to do with this...
Is Disneyland art?
Theme parks, in my opinion, are closer to video games than films or books are to video games.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
I agree. That's like arguing that movies aren't high art because they are too close to real life.El_TigroX said:
That was me, and so am I correct in assuming that you CAN name a movie at which point cinema became high art? If so, what? It would give us a nice timeframe to work with. Hell, games get a few thousand years of credit if we're considering Shakespeare as the required level of playwright.VALIS said:
I would also argue that games have made it well past Star Wars (which is really pretty low art). There's a way to go before we're at Citizen Kane, but the goal is not unobtainable.
The whole thing is just one guys opinion, so don't get so uptight about it. My problem with considering video games art is that art or high art should be timeless. I can see a painting that is hundreds of years old or listen to a 50 year old song or a 70 year old movie and still have the same experience as when it was brand new. Video games do not afford this luxury with the fact that I can't experience the an old game now the same way I could when it was new due to my level of experiencing greater technical achievement. But thats just my opinion.
No6 said:
It was a slow development. The earliest movies, around the time of Lumiere, were just trains pulling into stations or a guy getting squirted in the face with a hose. Then you get these rudimentary plots like guys going to the moon or clansmen trying to keep America pure. (Early 1900's-1920)
Then you get Citizen Kane in '41. I think games are somewhere between those.
Similar threads
- Poll