Support NeoGAF

[blame space]

What is the definition of art?

Are you sure you don't mean, games are not good art/high art?

i.e. art that matters beyond superficiality

 

[badcrumble]

I don't know what qualifies Ebert to make such a judgment. That said, I do agree with him 100%

I have a BFA and am a lifelong gamer, so I feel I am somewhat qualified in saying that games are not art. I can't imagine how they ever could be art, but I suppose it's possible someday.

Well, really, you're not qualified to say that games are not art. You're (maybe) qualified to say that games are not fine art, which is a perfectly legitimate thing to say.

 

[jdogmoney]

I'm going to wait until the thread slows down a bit to really contribute, but for the record, games can be art.

 

[Big One]

hmm..

What the fuck kind of point are you trying to make? That's pretty much exactly what you're saying. You're saying that the fact that's how you experience the art is restricting it from being art...I mean, what the fuck? Do you even understand what art is? That has nothing to do with what art is or not.

 

[speculawyer]

Shut the fuck up, Ebert. Just because you are old and don't 'get it' or don't enjoy it doesn't mean they are not art.

Game developers hire scores of artists, designers, and composers. Are images not art? I music not art?

If I stop in Bioshock and admire the Art Deco poster, am I not admiring art? Did it become not art when it was put in a video game but if I put the poster on my wall it is art?


Just shut the fuck up already.

 

[Mileena]

games are toys you have fun with

if it was "art" i wouldnt touch it with a ten foot pole, like hipster music

Post of the fucking day. This man speaks the truth.

 

[Boss Doggie]

He also believes comic books can't convey great narratives, as seen in his Dark Knight review. I love the man, but he's too "Golden Age" stuff.

At least he's not egoistic like that Ren and Stimpy guy.

 

[Haunted]

Ebert is great, but his expertise clearly lies with movies and not games.



Also! The thread totally should've been called "Roger Ebert: Braid and Flower are pathetic."

 

[jett]

Somebody get Ebert a copy of Planescape: Torment.

I lol'd.

Ebert's mind will never change, and he doesn't care to play any games. Like skiesofwonder said, it's like judging movie from reading a synopsis. He's incredibly biased against video games, for one reason or another, and seems pretty much offended at the notion that not only video games might be art, but they may ever be considered art in the history of time and space.

 

[blame space]

What the fuck kind of point are you trying to make? That's pretty much exactly what you're saying. You're saying that the fact that's how you experience the art is restricting it from being art...I mean, what the fuck? Do you even understand what art is? That has nothing to do with what art is or not.

one requires rudimentary input from a third-party participant, while the other two offer complete creative control to the artists.

one has input, the other doesn't. how can i be more clear?

 

[BocoDragon]

Shut the fuck up, Ebert. Just because you are old and don't 'get it' or don't enjoy it doesn't mean they are not art.

Game developers hire scores of artists, designers, and composers. Are images not art? I music not art?

If I stop in Bioshock and admire the Art Deco poster, am I not admiring art? Did it become not art when it was put in a video game but if I put the poster on my wall it is art?


Just shut the fuck up already.

I don't think he would disagree that games contain art.

But I believe the game itself is art. Design (be it game design... or building design, hardware design, etc) is an art... it's not all just function. There are aesthetic choices that have to be made. How and why those choices are made is the art.

 

[The Faceless Master]

don't worry people, 100 years ago, people said movies weren't art... in 50 years or so, people will all agree that videogames are art.

 

[ghostmind]

Ebert - I normally like what you have to say, but in this case you need to STFU.

 

[A Link to the Past]

Here's the problem with Ebert's assessment: he is making the same biased assumption that the definition of art will never, ever, ever change like people who criticized films did. At the time, films were certainly not held to the same degree as what was considered art at the time. If films could have been interactive from the get-go, by his definition films would never have been art, because I'm certain that many would take advantage of this. If films eventually became all-interactive, would Ebert stop calling films art because you could control it? People like Roger Ebert are a pox on the world of art because they are the kind of people that would criticize those who criticized his preferred medium. He would accuse them of being narrowminded. Then five seconds later, he would, in so many words, say that the definition of art will stop changing for the first time ever and as a result, video games will never be art.

 

[bhlaab]

His silly 'one-artist' definition seems like an attempt to get away from the fairly clear fact (from his earlier statements on the subject) that he doesn't believe that anything interactive can be art.

Especially puzzling since film didn't start to gravitate towards the auteur until the french new wave

 

[Cep]

He also believes comic books can't convey great narratives, as seen in his Dark Knight review. I love the man, but he's too "Golden Age" stuff.

At least he's not egoistic like that Ren and Stimpy guy.

I would not say that they cannot, but they are limited in ways books are not.

Luckily, they can do things and tell stories in ways books cannot.

Same for games.

 

[Big One]

one requires rudimentary input from a "player", while the other two offer complete creative control to the artists.

Video games offer complete creative control to the creators, so this point is completely moot. How do you think programming works? Poof! It happens? No, not even close. Not to mention the visuals, music, and narrative (if there is one) that's put into it.

one has input, the other doesn't. how can i be more clear?

So what does that have to do with what is art or not?

 

[Peronthious]

Ebert may have a point in his clarification of the goal aspect. Referring to observable, static art, such at paintings, sculpture, and the like, when a viewer observes the art piece and contemplates its emotional message they are entering into a state of play. This state of play involved foregoing the boundaries and rules of reality to restrict your experience to the rules created by the artist in the creation of the work of art. By way of example, consider Picasso's Weeping Woman. When you observe this painting, you restrict your field of view to what Picasso wanted you to feel when he crafted the painting, that being the emotions and pain the woman is experiencing, conveyed via the scattered abstract shapes which in their chaos further reinforce the emotional distress. A state of play is defined as this acceptance of predetermined rules and entrance into what is known as the play space, whether it be in taking in an artist's painting, participating in a religious ceremony, or playing a game of chess. A game is simply a state of play, an experience bounded by rules, but with an observable goal or end state. Thus, while the painting is a pure state of play, games like chess, football, Call of Duty, or Fable are all games defined by their end states, whether predetermined or user defined. At very few points in these games is the player purely focused on interacting with the play space without some predetermined or user defined goal in mind. These few points may indeed be considered art, but when defining a game as a whole as art the entire game and the designer's purpose in that entire game needs to be taken into account.

Performance art was mentioned earlier in this thread as contrasting with some of Ebert's definition. I dispute this; performance art is still defined as a pure state of play as it does not have any inbuilt end states.

 

[blame space]

anyone remember the crazy coder at Sony who claimed that Gran Turismo 4 proved the existence of God?

the day that guy's no longer a lunatic, that's the day that games truly become art.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

Something something about games you truly experience and don't have win criteria - SimCity games are truly art damnit!

 

[bhlaab]

Also of note is that he's clearly analyzing this (as far as I can tell) substandard speech and not the games themselves which he admits he hasn't played and is incredibly quick to dismiss based on casual superficial glances

 

[GhaleonQ]

Games are absolutely, 100% art in the sense that they are wholly open to interpretation, analysis, and criticism. They're just shitty art (qua art).

The latter bit seemed to be his only point (I don't think he's a good culture critic, just a good movie one). At least he's not fooled by dreck like Braid and Flower.

 

[jdogmoney]

anyone remember the crazy coder at Sony who claimed that Gran Turismo 4 proved the existence of God?

the day that guy's no longer a lunatic, that's the day that games truly become art.

WTF does this even mean?

 

[AndoCalrissian]

art is made by an artist. video games are played by players. is this seriously still contested?

you're manipulating an image in a predetermined scenario that a group of developers created. it's like people believing in god and saying: "my life is art!"

That's like saying art is made by an artist, but viewed by a viewer, so it's not art. Video games are made. So are artwork, music, films, etc.

I certainly won't debate that every game is art, just as I wouldn't claim every film, image, photo, or whatever is art. However, I would certainly say that if those things can be considered art, then so can games, whether or not the player is playing through a pre-determined scenario or if they themselves are involved in creating something in the game.

 

[Apath]

Why aren't games art? Isn't art just a form of expression?

 

[Red Scarlet]

*shrug*

 

[Guzim]

Ebert is still upset about the time Siskel beat him at a videogame.

 

[Black Rainbow]

A while back I saw a contemporary art piece at LACMA that consisted of, if I recall correctly, a series of cardboard signs with messages written on them. I personally didn't think it was all that artistic, but someone obviously did and that's the beauty of art: it can never be narrowly defined. If there is human creativity behind something, chances are it can qualify as art.

 

[Lord Error]

Just reading those descriptions for Braid and Flower are a bit painful with how much he misses the point of both. Or it's like he's intentionally not seeing the good in them, and just finding some random reasons to dislike, which you can do with anything. Kinda feel bad for him with how close minded he sounded there.

 

[Ploid 3.0]

art is made by an artist. video games are played by players. is this seriously still contested?

Video games are made by artists, paintings are viewed/interpreted by people.

you're manipulating an image in a predetermined scenario that a group of developers created. it's like people believing in god and saying: "my life is art!"

It's up to you what the painting means to you. You're given a visual, but you manipulate it's purpose. It's like people believing in Mario saying, "It's-a-Me Mario!"

 

[MiamiWesker]

If can't see the beauty of something like Super Mario Bros., then that is on him.

 

[Piano]

one requires rudimentary input from a third-party participant, while the other two offer complete creative control to the artists.

one has input, the other doesn't. how can i be more clear?

And? I can choose to view a sculpture from whatever angle I please. That's why a true artist must compensate for that - the sculpture must work in every possible way it can be viewed to be true art. You can't put an x on the ground telling people where to stand to view your sculpture. They will choose how to view it.

Same with games. The artist gives you some control into how you experience it. But you're still playing within the artist's rules, what he/she wants you to be able to see/control.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

I don't know, Shadow of the Colossus seems like art to me.

But that's the only game I felt that way.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Is he invoking the "art is for art's sake" schtick again?

 

[blame space]

WTF does this even mean?

it means for "video games" to be Art, an environment of true choice needs to exist. something a participant experiences needs to be created solely by the player, but also in the context of the game. basically, you have to create God.

and isn't that what games try to do? a game gives you control over a variety of inputs. it lets you manipulate your environment in a way that is supposed to be considered "fun" by players. until you can manipulate your environment in any way you see fit to achieve any goal you desire, games are merely distractions with pleasurable feedbacks.

if games were art, games wouldn't exist. Game would exist.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

In my shitty American education I was taught that art was a product of human creativity, usually one that elicits a strong emotional response. Games are clearly the former, though somewhat weak in the latter, they definitely qualify. Ebert fails.

 

[iqubal]

Roger ebert surely knows about art, in fact he even wrote a screen play for the movie called:

Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens

Take a look and see what the movie is about....:lol

 

[speculawyer]

I don't think he would disagree that games contain art.

But I believe the game itself is art. Design (be it game design... or building design, hardware design, etc) is an art... it's not all just function. There are aesthetic choices that have to be made. How and why those choices are made is the art.

That is a distinction without meaning. If games have visual art, musical art, and literary (story) art . . . how can it not be art? Adding a game mechanic doesn't take away from the rest, it adds to it.


So even if he thinks a game mechanic cannot be called art (which I disagree with), you can't call it not art just because a game mechanic has been added to visuals, music, and story.

A film projector, a DVD player, and a television set don't make a film no longer art just because they are mechanical machines. Nor does a game mechanic take away from the art.

Here is a game that is art:
http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm

 

[speculawyer]

anyone remember the crazy coder at Sony who claimed that Gran Turismo 4 proved the existence of God?

the day that guy's no longer a lunatic, that's the day that games truly become art.

On the contrary. If the game made him feel that, clearly games are art.

 

[BocoDragon]

Ebert may have a point in his clarification of the goal aspect. Referring to observable, static art, such at paintings, sculpture, and the like, when a viewer observes the art piece and contemplates its emotional message they are entering into a state of play. This state of play involved foregoing the boundaries and rules of reality to restrict your experience to the rules created by the artist in the creation of the work of art. By way of example, consider Picasso's Weeping Woman. When you observe this painting, you restrict your field of view to what Picasso wanted you to feel when he crafted the painting, that being the emotions and pain the woman is experiencing, conveyed via the scattered abstract shapes which in their chaos further reinforce the emotional distress. A state of play is defined as this acceptance of predetermined rules and entrance into what is known as the play space, whether it be in taking in an artist's painting, participating in a religious ceremony, or playing a game of chess. A game is simply a state of play, an experience bounded by rules, but with an observable goal or end state. Thus, while the painting is a pure state of play, games like chess, football, Call of Duty, or Fable are all games defined by their end states, whether predetermined or user defined. At very few points in these games is the player purely focused on interacting with the play space without some predetermined or user defined goal in mind. These few points may indeed be considered art, but when defining a game as a whole as art the entire game and the designer's purpose in that entire game needs to be taken into account.

Performance art was mentioned earlier in this thread as contrasting with some of Ebert's definition. I dispute this; performance art is still defined as a pure state of play as it does not have any inbuilt end states.

Ok interesting.

But perhaps the artistic point of a game isn't to "beat" it (to head for the checkpoint) but for those moments you exist in its world... to see the interplay of polygonal design, textures, music, voices come together in a moment that evokes an artistic response. That type of moment seems to me quite alike to a film... and then some.

In fact film has a specific goal point... it's linear.. you're supposed to see only specific scenes. The artist tries to make you feel one specific thing. To me it seems like "forced" art... while in a game I can linger in its space for awhile. I can explore. Sometimes in a game I can just go fishing.. or sit on the couch with Yorda. Are you telling me that I'm not experiencing some sort of subjective emotional response from such moments? There are moments the designer intends... and then there's even emotions that come out of emergent moments of beauty.

On the other hand I can charge for the checkpoint with a sense of purpose and andrenaline... yet another artistic emotional response.

The more that I think about it.. the more BS I feel this Ebert argument is... and he just doesn't know because he just doesn't play! The few times he's ever intersected with games he's clearly in this "I dare you to prove me wrong but you can't" mode.

 

[blame space]

And? I can choose to view a sculpture from whatever angle I please. That's why a true artist must compensate for that - the sculpture must work in every possible way it can be viewed to be true art. You can't put an x on the ground telling people where to stand to view your sculpture. They will choose how to view it.

Same with games. The artist gives you some control into how you experience it. But you're still playing within the artist's rules, what he/she wants you to be able to see/control.

but you can't manipulate the sculpture. the sculpture is presented to you and is viewed (and only viewed) by you. if a video game was comparable to a sculpture, it would be a simulation of viewing a sculpture. if developers want to make an interactive museum where i can view and subjectively judge pieces of digital art so be it, but it sounds like a boring fucking game.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Is he invoking the "art is for art's sake" schtick again?

Though I'm on his side, quality-wise, his argument is all over the place. I've reread it twice and his only consistent point is that bad creativity isn't art. "Video games won't be art in our lifetimes," is wholly unsupported by his arguments. That said, he started this whole thing after his illness, which is when his film criticism started sucking, too. I wish 1990s Ebert could give us a fair fight.

 

[ArachosiA 78]

What is the definition of art?

Are you sure you don't mean, games are not good art/high art?

There doesn't seem to be any real consensus on what exactly constitutes art. The main point of games is for the player to have fun, and that is why I can't see them as art. Art just is. It's an expression of its creator, but beyond that it doesn't do anything. Video games certainly express the ideas of their creators, but this is not their primary purpose for existence.

I guess I see calling games of any kind art the equivalent of calling a rollercoaster art.

 

[jdogmoney]

it means for "video games" to be Art, an environment of true choice needs to exist. something a participant experiences needs to be created solely by the player, but also in the context of the game. basically, you have to create God.

Why?

Spoiler

Ignoring the rest of the post on the grounds that I don't understand what you're trying to say.

 

[Chris Murphy]

Being the uncultered swine that I am, I have no idea who this man is. I am certain however that he doesn't actually know the definition of the word 'art'. If he did... well then he would be a lot more open to new ideas if he believes himself to be an art lover.

 

[BocoDragon]

That is a distinction without meaning. If games have visual art, musical art, and literary (story) art . . . how can it not be art? Adding a game mechanic doesn't take away from the rest, it adds to it.

I quite agree... but he might say that a game is like a museum.. It contains art, but is not itself art.

I don't agree with that premise.. and even if I agreed... the layout and design of a museum is still art! And a game is much more than a museum.

 

[XiaNaphryz]

but you can't manipulate the sculpture. the sculpture is presented to you and is viewed (and only viewed) by you.

Some art pieces are actually made to be interacted with though. Not common, but they're out there.

 

[AndoCalrissian]

Ebert may have a point in his clarification of the goal aspect. Referring to observable, static art, such at paintings, sculpture, and the like, when a viewer observes the art piece and contemplates its emotional message they are entering into a state of play. This state of play involved foregoing the boundaries and rules of reality to restrict your experience to the rules created by the artist in the creation of the work of art. By way of example, consider Picasso's Weeping Woman. When you observe this painting, you restrict your field of view to what Picasso wanted you to feel when he crafted the painting, that being the emotions and pain the woman is experiencing, conveyed via the scattered abstract shapes which in their chaos further reinforce the emotional distress. A state of play is defined as this acceptance of predetermined rules and entrance into what is known as the play space, whether it be in taking in an artist's painting, participating in a religious ceremony, or playing a game of chess. A game is simply a state of play, an experience bounded by rules, but with an observable goal or end state. Thus, while the painting is a pure state of play, games like chess, football, Call of Duty, or Fable are all games defined by their end states, whether predetermined or user defined. At very few points in these games is the player purely focused on interacting with the play space without some predetermined or user defined goal in mind. These few points may indeed be considered art, but when defining a game as a whole as art the entire game and the designer's purpose in that entire game needs to be taken into account.

Performance art was mentioned earlier in this thread as contrasting with some of Ebert's definition. I dispute this; performance art is still defined as a pure state of play as it does not have any inbuilt end states.

That's very interesting. With a movie or other story (novel, play, etc.) there's usually a goal for the characters in it, which to me is very similar to the goal a player or character has in a game, but it's something that the player themselves have to pursue and achieve, rather than it happening just by watching or reading further. I honestly, see no difference. I understand that not every game is art, just like not every movie is art. But to say that no game that currently exists is art I think is incorrect.

 

[Haunted]

Being the uncultered swine that I am, I have no idea who this man is. I am certain however that he doesn't actually know the definition of the word 'art'. If he did... well then he would be a lot more open to new ideas if he believes himself to be an art lover.

Roger Ebert is arguably the most influential and well known movie critic of our times.

 

[Big-ass Ramp]

Why does the gaming community get worked up about this? Who cares what he says, it doesn't matter. Only time will tell.