voodoopanda
Member
I think people get interested/upset about this because it's probably the most high profile person out there who is even bothering to talk about whether video games are art one way or another.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Not This Again : Ebert : Video games can never be art
- Thread starter Jex
- Start date
I AM JOHN!
Banned
If you want to argue it that way, then most of the films we consider "artistic" (and I don't mean so-called "art films") are not "art" because they're made to appeal to a sizable audience. By that logic, both Citizen Kane and The Magnificent Ambersons were high budget films meant for wide appeal, so obviously those films has no artistic merit to them, and the fact that RKO ditched Welles and shifted management to save the company after both those films flopped proves that.RadarScope1 said:
Corporate funding is no different from private funding. It's all a means to an end, albeit the end may be slightly different.
ZephyrFate
Banned
Do not fear death. There is no death in The Void...BrokenSymmetry said:
So Ebert is saying that games cannot be art because you need to score points in vidjeogames. He's just trying to defend his irrational thoughts by applying made-up definitions. He takes the term "game" too literally and criticizes things without having tried to experience them. He shits on Flower and Braid while only having read of them, completely dodging the point of interactive art. He attempts to bolster his credibility by spouting pseudo-intellectual phrases such as, "Perhaps it is foolish of me to say "never," because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time," and "Is not a tribal dance an artwork, yet the collaboration of a community?" He is just splashing around at the bottom of the barrel, looking to anger others with unfounded arguments.
And I'm sure that all this attention is making him happy. Understand that when I say that he is like a spoiled six-year-old, it is not just meaningless rhetoric.
And I'm sure that all this attention is making him happy. Understand that when I say that he is like a spoiled six-year-old, it is not just meaningless rhetoric.
Go suck dix Roger Ebert lol
Ebert is pretty much the best troll on the internet.
Dude is a movie critic. Caring about his opinion on video games is like asking a Blockbuster employee to change your oil.
I don't know why anyone would be so obsessed with the opinion of someone who hasn't even bothered to experience the works he's criticizing. He clearly has his mind set and it cannot be changed. If Da Vinci rose from the grave, made a video game and said it was his greatest work, Ebert would still not be convinced it's art.
Dude is a movie critic. Caring about his opinion on video games is like asking a Blockbuster employee to change your oil.
I don't know why anyone would be so obsessed with the opinion of someone who hasn't even bothered to experience the works he's criticizing. He clearly has his mind set and it cannot be changed. If Da Vinci rose from the grave, made a video game and said it was his greatest work, Ebert would still not be convinced it's art.
BobsRevenge
I do not avoid women, GAF, but I do deny them my essence.
Every time they say the word "color" in that game I want to stab something. Voice acting is so bad. :lolZephyrFate said:
i don't understand why anyone would exclude any creative medium that leads the audience through a story or stirs their emotions from being considered art. opinions like these make people like ebert come off as elitist, closed-minded and flat-out ignorant.
an important thing to note is that (at least from what i have seen) ebert has not made any mention of his experience playing video games. it seems that he thinks he can experience video games the same way he is used to experiencing the films he has spent his life studying: by sitting back and hitting play. this isn't entirely surprising as it seems most video games that try and achieve a level of artistry do so being emulating movies, even going so far as to require more time watching cut-scenes than having any sort of interactive experience with their work.
the last few years we have seen far more effort being made by developers to help video games find their own way of telling stories or affecting their audience rather than basically showing a short movie between gameplay segments. the more this is achieved, the more engrossed the player can become, the more their actions in the game will weigh on their emotions and perhaps even prompt the player to consider why he (or the character he is experiencing the game through) is being driven to act the way they have or do the things they've done. they may be rare, but these are the types of games that show the mediums potential to create experiences that i feel have the same appeal to those that enjoy them as do popular forms of art like music, literature or film.
all art forms provide their own unique ways of allowing their audience to experience whatever it is that the artist intends to share and i think that the interactive element of games and the potential to make a player feel like they were quite literally involved in the way things unfolded as being something that anyone with an appreciation for art in general (and a reasonably open mind) should take note of. creative minds will no doubt help the medium evolve and perhaps gain some ground in solidifying games as an established art form, but another hurdle gaming has is it's inherent appeal to people's competitive nature. while there will always be those that desire something more from games, the fact remains that games will always be a way for people to exercise a skill or an opportunity to defeat an opponent. for many people, nothing more is needed (or wanted) than the thrill of victory in overcoming the final challenge, surpassing a previously set score or besting their friends in a multiplayer match. no artistic thought is needed or will even necessarily aid players in enjoying this aspect of games, which is what draws the majority of people to them in the first place. seems to me that so long as the artistic merits of gaming are irrelevant to the majority of the audience, few will take them very seriously.
an important thing to note is that (at least from what i have seen) ebert has not made any mention of his experience playing video games. it seems that he thinks he can experience video games the same way he is used to experiencing the films he has spent his life studying: by sitting back and hitting play. this isn't entirely surprising as it seems most video games that try and achieve a level of artistry do so being emulating movies, even going so far as to require more time watching cut-scenes than having any sort of interactive experience with their work.
the last few years we have seen far more effort being made by developers to help video games find their own way of telling stories or affecting their audience rather than basically showing a short movie between gameplay segments. the more this is achieved, the more engrossed the player can become, the more their actions in the game will weigh on their emotions and perhaps even prompt the player to consider why he (or the character he is experiencing the game through) is being driven to act the way they have or do the things they've done. they may be rare, but these are the types of games that show the mediums potential to create experiences that i feel have the same appeal to those that enjoy them as do popular forms of art like music, literature or film.
all art forms provide their own unique ways of allowing their audience to experience whatever it is that the artist intends to share and i think that the interactive element of games and the potential to make a player feel like they were quite literally involved in the way things unfolded as being something that anyone with an appreciation for art in general (and a reasonably open mind) should take note of. creative minds will no doubt help the medium evolve and perhaps gain some ground in solidifying games as an established art form, but another hurdle gaming has is it's inherent appeal to people's competitive nature. while there will always be those that desire something more from games, the fact remains that games will always be a way for people to exercise a skill or an opportunity to defeat an opponent. for many people, nothing more is needed (or wanted) than the thrill of victory in overcoming the final challenge, surpassing a previously set score or besting their friends in a multiplayer match. no artistic thought is needed or will even necessarily aid players in enjoying this aspect of games, which is what draws the majority of people to them in the first place. seems to me that so long as the artistic merits of gaming are irrelevant to the majority of the audience, few will take them very seriously.
Equus Bellator Apex
Junior Member
reetva said:
Aside from the last bit:lol my thoughts exactly.
BravoSuperStar
Member
Chipopo said:
So you are saying the highest level of artistic achievement video games can hope to aspire to is that of a TV commercial, or billboard ad?
AzureNightmare
Banned
The man just doesn't get it. He just doesn't. Every game at one point or another is a work of art. It may not necessarily be GOOD art, but it is art nonetheless. But I cannot tell you how many times I've seen breathtaking scenes in games and thought to myself just how far games had come as an artform. They now benefit from writing that is sometimes better than Hollywood's standard fare, and the scenery that these artists conjure up and render is the sort of stuff you can lose yourself in. Roger Ebert is so fucking clueless.
bistromathics
facing a bright new dawn
Games are about providing experiences and art is about eliciting emotional responses. If an experience you have elicits an emotional response, I dont really see how the argument can persist beyond inventing and comparing fuzzy definitions of "game" and "art"
toastyToast
Member
I can't say that I care about games ever being defined as art.
I've gotten into reading a lot more lately and it's made me realize that a vast majority of games are horrible stories. With my new definition of a good story is I can't think of any game that even comes close.
I can see the literature>games argument but film>game? With the the amount of horrid shit that film studios pump out every year I'd find it hard the few good movies that do get released. Even then, if a game doesn't have a good story it can still be FUN which is an element I think Ebert has disregarded entirely.
I've gotten into reading a lot more lately and it's made me realize that a vast majority of games are horrible stories. With my new definition of a good story is I can't think of any game that even comes close.
I can see the literature>games argument but film>game? With the the amount of horrid shit that film studios pump out every year I'd find it hard the few good movies that do get released. Even then, if a game doesn't have a good story it can still be FUN which is an element I think Ebert has disregarded entirely.
chicken_ramen
Member
Chipopo said:
Billboards and TV Advertisements are subsets of the still image and the motion picture. Video games are a subset of rule driven interaction. This says nothing about any particular creation's individual merit. Your argument seems to be based on an unvoiced assumption that all three are generalisable groups equally lacking in merit, an assumption that is completely subjective, impossible to back up, and completely meaningless to this discussion.
Warm Machine
Member
Games are art and it is important that gamers come to accept and believe in it.
There are many games that are classics art works of the medium. I consider Tetris a beautiful work of interactive artistic design and visualization. It is a flawlessly executed puzzle with expert craftmanship. It doesn't tell a story, it doesn't have dialogue, it is just there and there is an extreme appreciation in the world for its design.
Besides, when many genres and styles of artistic work are combined it is impossible to not have art at the end of the creative process. You can at least take away parts of the whole as being succesful works of art.
There are many games that are classics art works of the medium. I consider Tetris a beautiful work of interactive artistic design and visualization. It is a flawlessly executed puzzle with expert craftmanship. It doesn't tell a story, it doesn't have dialogue, it is just there and there is an extreme appreciation in the world for its design.
Besides, when many genres and styles of artistic work are combined it is impossible to not have art at the end of the creative process. You can at least take away parts of the whole as being succesful works of art.
BravoSuperStar
Member
One thing about these types of threads I enjoy is learning just how locked in, and rigid some peoples framework for labeling mediums and medium delivery methods can be. A lot of these so called conditions and requirements that video games fail to meet would also declassify books and movies as art, if applied to those mediums. The whole thing is so subjective, but Ebert shouldn't pass judgment on something he clearly has no experience with.
chicken_ramen said:
My only presupposition is that there is a difference between high art and low art, and that videogames belong to the latter and would have to evolve significantly before it should be considered otherwise. Obviously even the belief in high art is under dispute nowadays, so I see where you're coming from.
mysticwhip
Banned
Drawings and paintings are art.
I keep shit simple.
I keep shit simple.
Rich Uncle Skeleton
Member
A lot of people defend their games-as-art position by pointing to good stories, characters, etc., but if all of that it revealed via cutscenes then you aren't arguing that games can be art, you're arguing that film can be, even if it's computer-generated and interrupted periodically by a video game. I happen to think that games can be art in ways beyond just mimicking film, but I think that's a much harder argument to make. I would argue that the moment in the last level of Braid where you realize what's really going on is pretty artistic, and it involved gameplay. A similar effect could've been achieved through film, but I think the fact that you're controlling the guy gives it more impact.
Anyway, there aren't a whole lot of examples I can think of, but to say that there's no potential there at all is just closed-minded. And, as someone pointed out above, no one can seem to give a very good definition of art, so the whole discussion is sort of pointless.
Anyway, there aren't a whole lot of examples I can think of, but to say that there's no potential there at all is just closed-minded. And, as someone pointed out above, no one can seem to give a very good definition of art, so the whole discussion is sort of pointless.
Roger Ebert is a gifted film critic. He's intelligent, articulate, and extremely insightful when it comes to the world of cinema. As far as his opinions on games are concerned, well... Even the most intelligent, insightful person can still be wrong.
There's really no debate to be found here. It doesn't look like he's about to back away from the stance that games aren't (and can't be) art, and attempts to convince him otherwise fall on deaf ears. So he can go on believing that if he likes. Denying a thing doesn't make it any less true. Getting up in arms over his pronouncements is just a waste of time.
There's really no debate to be found here. It doesn't look like he's about to back away from the stance that games aren't (and can't be) art, and attempts to convince him otherwise fall on deaf ears. So he can go on believing that if he likes. Denying a thing doesn't make it any less true. Getting up in arms over his pronouncements is just a waste of time.
Why do we care, really? He's a movie guy. His opinion on games means just as much as the opinion of a music critic or a book critic: not much.
When is gaming going to grow up enough not to run to other forms of entertainment for approval? Maybe if we just relaxed and stopped yelling, "SEE? SEE? WE'RE COOL, TOO," we could get somewhere good.
And that's kind of what bothers me about this big push to make games more cinematic and more like movies - like that should be the goal. It's okay for games to just be games. Enough with the inferiority complex already.
When is gaming going to grow up enough not to run to other forms of entertainment for approval? Maybe if we just relaxed and stopped yelling, "SEE? SEE? WE'RE COOL, TOO," we could get somewhere good.
And that's kind of what bothers me about this big push to make games more cinematic and more like movies - like that should be the goal. It's okay for games to just be games. Enough with the inferiority complex already.
Mr. B Natural
Member
Lard said:
The only people that I laugh at are morons that think they know what people 50 years from now will think of things. That puts you and ebert in the same category.
Mr. B Natural
Member
whitehawk said:
Use your internet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_culture
Video games are the antithesis of high art.
I've said this a few pages back, but high art has more to do with the culture that surrounds it than the art itself. In which case, video games is the very antithesis of high art. It's super corporate, for the masses "pop" culture, extremely juvenile and anti-intellectual, impersonal (not expressive), entertainment for entertainment's sake and shallow.
The difference is simple. Watch the oscars then watch the VGA awards.
The difference is NeoGaf and a masters class at the university.
The fact that Psychonauts, which is more like a Saturday morning kids cartoon, is one of the better arguments for games as art is testament to how completely out-of-touch gamers are from reality. I love games, so do you but let's be honest with ourselves guys. Final Fantasy/Silent hill/Half Life/Ico isn't art (as in high art). It's just one or two stepa above the rest which are the lowest of low of arts, which is fine and an improvement, but call a spade a spade. It's two steps in the right direction, when you got another 2 flights to go before games get any respect.
The whole culture would have to do a 180 in the opposite direction it has been going for the past 20 years. Could it happen? Sure. Will it? I dunno. All I know is that the longer it takes to change, the harder it becomes to turn the boat around.
chicken_ramen
Member
Chipopo said:
I guess then we have to continue to disagree. If you believe that 'high art' is real and not purely a social construct then that's a whole other argument, but probably not worth getting into right now.
If on the other hand you're suggesting that high art and low art are simply social constructs and are judging this from a perspective of general public opinion then I agree, games are not considered high art by the people who think that is a useful term.
But, to reiterate my own feelings, why should anyone care? It's all completely arbitrary.
a Master Ninja
Member
I searched the thread just to make sure this was posted.John Dunbar said:
Darkmakaimura
Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
When video games and movies become one... Virtual reality, Holodeck, etc.