Ebert reiterates: "Games are not art."

[Marek]

Think of it this way: Is chess art?

Yes. Is this a joke? Try telling Kasparov setting up a tournament defense is not an art form...

Is baseball? No.

You are out of your fucking mind if you think hitting a fastball is anything less than an art form, or throwing one for that matter

Again?

ANYTHING can be art. Interactivity or no.

/thread

No shit.

LIFE IS ART.


edit: Did you lend Segata_Sanshiro your account info? Even if you didnt I would blame this thread on him if I were you.

 

[J. Max]

Ebert's definition of what a game is or is not actually makes his points valid. If you define a video game by saying that it has to have a score, objectives, or some other measured metric, than his point is taken. Is Monopoly or football art?

Now, that being said, not all video games fit his definition. I think Santiago used the wrong games. I'd have used Electroplankton as my number one choice. It has no objective, no points, and a lot more in common with electronic art installations than most video games. Braid is a poor choice against his argument because it's a deconstruction of the "save the princess" mechanic found in a lot of platform games, Flower isn't really a game by his standards, and Waco is just a poor choice all together.

 

[Ami Tajiri]

ANYTHING can be art. Interactivity or no.

Agreed. To me, art is whatever I find beautiful and/or engrossing and/or otherwise provoking. It's an extremely loose definition that suits my sensibilities, and I suppose that in the end, art is in the mind of the beholder. For Roger Ebert, a game is incapable of being art, but in my mind, games have already become works of art, and there's some damn good ones at that.

On the other hand, Ebert's review of Grave of the Fireflies will crack me up forever:

"Grave of the Fireflies" doesn't attempt even the realism of "The Lion King"

 

[HeartlessNinny]

You're not really familiar with the post-modern movement are you?

I am actually. I spent a lot of time on it in college (I'm a literature guy).

I just don't buy a lot of it. I was very much into modernism, but post-modernism seemed like a movement that was ultimately bankrupt when it came to ideas. I could go into it a lot more, but I'll spare you guys the block of text.

I tell you one thing though. I'm always a bit surprised when gamers get so riled up about this.... So a film critic goes, "You know, I don't really think this is art." So the nerds reply, "What.... You don't think the thing we like is art? Well FUCK YOU YOU FUCKIN ASSHOLE, YOU'RE JUST FUCKIN STUPID"

 

[HeartlessNinny]

Literature is art and also has rules. Literary works have defined structures and objectives deliberately created to actively engage and manipulate the reader, knowing that the reader will be absorbing the content in a certain way. Choose your own adventure type books expand on this idea of engagement further by making the reader even more of an active participant in the story.

If I had to define what art is, I would say the defining feature is that it is content created for the purpose of deliberately affecting the observer's emotional state. In that sense it has to do with the creator's intent. Video games can be art sometimes, just like anything else.

Hmm... That's a good point.

I don't think 'choose your own adventure' style books are art though either. I'd also argue that creator intent has little to do with whether something's art or not (and ultimately isn't all that relevant).

 

[Nesagwa]

I am actually. I spent a lot of time on it in college (I'm a literature guy).

I'm a lit major, you're a lit major, we're all lit majors. I get it.

 

[Nesagwa]

Hmm... That's a good point.

I don't think 'choose your own adventure' style books are art though either. I'd also argue that creator intent has little to do with whether something's art or not (and ultimately isn't all that relevant).

It has everything to do with it.

That was the whole point of the post-moderns. Warhol wasn't just dicking around silkscreening shit for no reason.

 

[HeartlessNinny]

I think Hideo Kojima summed it up best. To paraphrase, games are not art, because they are made with the express purpose of entertaining the player, and all other goals must be subservient to that one, in order for it to be a good game. Art can exist solely for its own sake. A game must be fun, first and foremost. Movies and theatre and music can be completely self-indulgent twaddle that no one would ever want to partake of, but still be art. Conversely, a shitty game is a shitty game, no matter what labels you try to stick on it.

Excellent point.

I hope you're just trolling.

Uh, no. It's just an opinion. You can disagree with it if you like. Please note, and I'll say this again: claiming games aren't art doesn't mean I think any less of games. I fucking love games. Just because I don't think they're art doesn't mean I think any less of them. Sheesh.

Yes. Is this a joke? Try telling Kasparov setting up a tournament defense is not an art form...



You are out of your fucking mind if you think hitting a fastball is anything less than an art form, or throwing one for that matter



/thread

No shit.

LIFE IS ART.


edit: Did you lend Segata_Sanshiro your account info? Even if you didnt I would blame this thread on him if I were you.

Life is art? Sorry man, but that sounds like twaddle to me. What does it mean, exactly? Inherently, I would tend to think it means nothing. And I don't think Kasparov would insist that chess is art, either. And hitting a fastball is art...? Really? Okay. Well, if you think so, that's fine. But I don't, any more than I think kicking a soccer ball is art or running really fast is art.

Again. I don't see why everyone gets so bent out of shape about this... It's not a bad thing. Things don't need to be art to be valuable and meaningful.

My relationships with friends, family, etc. aren't 'art'. That's life — the most important thing about it, if you ask me. And it doesn't need to be art.

Agreed. To me, art is whatever I find beautiful and/or engrossing and/or otherwise provoking. It's an extremely loose definition that suits my sensibilities, and I suppose that in the end, art is in the mind of the beholder. For Roger Ebert, a game is incapable of being art, but in my mind, games have already become works of art, and there's some damn good ones at that.

On the other hand, Ebert's review of Grave of the Fireflies will crack me up forever:

Making a bad criticism doesn't invalidate someone's credibility. No one's perfect, and if one's argument was propped up by saying, "Well, this guy said something wrong once, so everything he says is wrong," then you should literally never listen to anyone at any point on any subject for any reason.

My final point: obviously, one's own definition of what art is changes from person to person. I don't expect that mine will apply to everyone, and I don't have a problem with that. Moreover, if you disagree with me, I don't think you're a big stupid poopy head or something, I'll respect your opinion if you put some thought into it. That's (supposed to be) the point of discussions like this.

 

[cannonball]

I tell you one thing though. I'm always a bit surprised when gamers get so riled up about this.... So a film critic goes, "You know, I don't really think this is art." So the nerds reply, "What.... You don't think the thing we like is art? Well FUCK YOU YOU FUCKIN ASSHOLE, YOU'RE JUST FUCKIN STUPID"

Even more surprising than the nerds that go into a fit of rage, is the people that actually agree with the notion that you can blanket something so diverse and full of creativity as "not art". I've always wondered why there has ever needed to be a debate about this at all.

 

[HeartlessNinny]

Even more surprising than the nerds that go into a fit of rage, is the people that actually agree with the notion that you can blanket something so diverse and full of creativity as "not art". I've always wondered why there has ever needed to be a debate about this at all.

Well for me it was just a way to prompt a discussion... And hey, come on. It's always worth talking about what art is. I consider that important. Though I have to admit, this is hardly an ideal forum... Makes me wish I was back at college or something.

I forgot to say something, by the way. Just because I don't think games are art now doesn't mean I think they can never be art. I just don't think they are now. I also reserve the right to change my mind if someone convinces me.

 

[Jaelus]

I'd also argue that creator intent has little to do with whether something's art or not (and ultimately isn't all that relevant).

To the contrary, the intent of the creator may be the only relevant test for determining if it is art.

If I take a shit on the floor because I need to take a shit, it's just a piece of shit on the floor. If, however, I take the same shit on the same floor with the intent of it being a thought-provoking post-modern commentary on the global financial crisis, then it is art.

 

[NeoTheranthrope]

 

[aria]

I like his movie reviews, though I don't always agree, and this opinion is just silly. Games are 95-99% low art, with the occasional surprise.

 

[complexz]

On the other hand, Ebert's review of Grave of the Fireflies will crack me up forever:]

after reading this I had to check the review as i could not imagine anyone saying that after seeing grave of the fireflies. And I was right you totally quoted that out of context and what ebert says is legit.

Hollywood animation has been pursuing the ideal of "realistic animation" for decades, even though that's an oxymoron. People who are drawn do not look like people who are photographed. They're more stylized, more obviously symbolic, and (as Disney discovered in painstaking experiments) their movements can be exaggerated to communicate mood through body language. "Grave of the Fireflies" doesn't attempt even the realism of "The Lion King" or "Princess Mononoke," but paradoxically it is the most realistic animated film I've ever seen--in feeling.

 

[SNKorSWM]

Siskel would be rolling over in his grave by now.

 

[PleaseKillMeNow]

Of course, he's always been retarded.

Now he's also an invalid.

We chased off DashK for this guy?

 

[Deuce]

Edit Note: Deuce, There has been games made to indulge the creators without consent of entertaining the consumer, just 'cause Kojima doesn't think so it doesn't mean it's true, but you should know that.

I don't think what Kojima said is true simply because KOJIMA SAID IT (cue Also Spracht Zarathustra), but I happen to agree with him. A game that sacrifices playability and enjoyability for the sake of creator indulgence is a bad game, any way you slice it.

 

[LoneSage]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PnHzD1gPak

finally, it's so clear now

 

[Taiso]

I don't think what Kojima said is true simply because KOJIMA SAID IT (cue Also Spracht Zarathustra), but I happen to agree with him. A game that sacrifices playability and enjoyability for the sake of creator indulgence is a bad game, any way you slice it.

Ironically, taking Kojima's view into account, I consider the Metal Gear Solid series to be among the closest video games have come to being 'art.'

I think this topic really illustrates a fascinating character dynamic that passionate people have: the need to have their views and thoughts validated. All the ways in which this thread has showcased peoples' various means of establishing their opinion has proven to be very interesting.

I once had a discussion with someone once who said 'art is validated by the masses' and my view was 'the masses can't dictate to me what is and is not art.' It was heated, and it really came down to his view:

Society deems what has value, and therefore what can be considered 'artistic.'

versus my view:

Society can't dictate to me what I should and shouldn't be defining as art.

He thought I was an elitist for believing that a minority percentage could dictate art to the masses. I told him that I don't dictate art to anybody, I simply define it for myself and don't care if people agree or disagree. I added that it's more elitist to sit on a high horse and tell me to conform to society's view on aesthetic matters of no legal or moral consequence.

Ever since that argument, my view has been 'art can not be objectively defined.' Not even by Roger Ebert, who I think is a very ihtelligent man and one of two movie critics I'll seriously consider.

 

[Ami Tajiri]

Making a bad criticism doesn't invalidate someone's credibility. No one's perfect, and if one's argument was propped up by saying, "Well, this guy said something wrong once, so everything he says is wrong," then you should literally never listen to anyone at any point on any subject for any reason.

That wasn't what I meant at all. It was more of an aside that I found funny, as I had earlier said that everyone was entitled to their opinion of what constitutes art. Didn't mean anything mean by it, I just found it interesting. (I don't base my assessment of him on that review alone, at any rate. Most of his reviews that I've read turn me off, so there's just an irreconcilable difference of taste and evaluation of art between me and Mr. Ebert.)

after reading this I had to check the review as i could not imagine anyone saying that after seeing grave of the fireflies. And I was right you totally quoted that out of context and what ebert says is legit.

I guess I still disagree on that point that Grave of the Fireflies could be considered less realistic in terms of its animation than The Lion King. (I know that he says that it is more realistic in feeling, and I agree there at least.) Ebert is, of course, completely entitled to feel that way, but I just had to laugh. I'm sorry if it came across as a misrepresentation.

 

[Taiso]

When Ebert said that Grave Of The Fireflies is 'less realistic' on a technical level, I'm pretty sure he probably meant that compared to big budget Disney releases, the actual degree of animation isn't as fluid or abundant. As actual ANIMATION goes, Grave isn't exactly a tour de fource. It has a heart, it has a soul, and the animation's pretty good. Whereas with Disney films, the movies have high production values and are technical master achievements but don't tell human stories on mature levels that he can fully appreciate as a grown man.

I would say Ebert didn't choose his words properly but I understood the context of what he was saying, and so did most people that read the review (I'll wager), so I can't fault him there.

 

[Ami Tajiri]

Fair enough. It's been a while since I've seen either, so I guess I wasn't really thinking about the fluidity and movement. I'd have to watch them both again to see how I feel.

 

[neo_mao]

guys this thread has prompted me to learn more about art.
what is a better place to start? Mario Paint for the snes or Art Alive for the genesis?

 

[HeartlessNinny]

That wasn't what I meant at all. It was more of an aside that I found funny, as I had earlier said that everyone was entitled to their opinion of what constitutes art. Didn't mean anything mean by it, I just found it interesting. (I don't base my assessment of him on that review alone, at any rate. Most of his reviews that I've read turn me off, so there's just an irreconcilable difference of taste and evaluation of art between me and Mr. Ebert.)

I guess I still disagree on that point that Grave of the Fireflies could be considered less realistic in terms of its animation than The Lion King. (I know that he says that it is more realistic in feeling, and I agree there at least.) Ebert is, of course, completely entitled to feel that way, but I just had to laugh. I'm sorry if it came across as a misrepresentation.

Fair enough. I've noticed other people really do seem to subscribe to the method of thought I pointed out, though, and it always strikes me as pretty damn weird.

 

[Marek]

Things I learned from this thread. Chess is clearly not an art according to the Ninny.