Roger Ebert claims "video games cannot be art"; molests children.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Krylo

But, like I said, playing the game, and doing things (like that) with the game can be art, but the game itself isn't, because it lacks the context that would allow it to make those things I said before. I think this is actually why we came up with the idea of performance art--that sometimes an action can present social views, or beauty, or all those other neat things we prescribe to art, better than anything else, but there's no way to really save the ephemeral act, ergo performance art.

Chess doesn't lack context, it is context. It exists to shape and guide the experience of people who play it in order to lead them to particular types of experiences and understandings. You can't separate the playing of chess from the game itself because the entire point of the game's design is to create the experiences people have when playing it. Emotion and beauty? Experiencing the beauty of the flow of a well-played game, or the emotional turmoil of the sheer inscrutability of how a better player beats you, are encoded into the game's DNA, just as much as the heartstopping pressure of whether to call a bluff is encoded into poker, or flipping over the board and going THIS IS BULLSHIT HE ALWAYS GETS ALL THE HOUSES is built into Monopoly. A game that didn't inspire emotion would be pretty much the shittiest game (IE, golf).

Every game that exists essentially looks at the broader scope of human experience, behavior and interaction and recreates some aspect of it in microcosm. Society basically by definition is the construction of rules and laws in order to encode values and beliefs and shape and define how we understand and interact with the world around us and games simplify and distort the rules governing those interactions so that we examine them and develop a greater and deeper understanding of the whole.

If games aren't art then frankly it's art that comes out as the inferior expressive form because games command the attention of their players and create a directness and authenticity of experience which no passively observed piece of static art will ever hope to match.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Chess doesn't lack context, it is context. It exists to shape and guide the experience of people who play it in order to lead them to particular types of experiences and understandings. You can't separate the playing of chess from the game itself because the entire point of the game's design is to create the experiences people have when playing it. Emotion and beauty? Experiencing the beauty of the flow of a well-played game, or the emotional turmoil of the sheer inscrutability of how a better player beats you, are encoded into the game's DNA, just as much as the heartstopping pressure of whether to call a bluff is encoded into poker, or flipping over the board and going THIS IS BULLSHIT HE ALWAYS GETS ALL THE HOUSES is built into Monopoly. A game that didn't inspire emotion would be pretty much the shittiest game (IE, golf).

Every game that exists essentially looks at the broader scope of human experience, behavior and interaction and recreates some aspect of it in microcosm. Society basically by definition is the construction of rules and laws in order to encode values and beliefs and shape and define how we understand and interact with the world around us and games simplify and distort the rules governing those interactions so that we examine them and develop a greater and deeper understanding of the whole.

If games aren't art then frankly it's art that comes out as the inferior expressive form because games command the attention of their players and create a directness and authenticity of experience which no passively observed piece of static art will ever hope to match.

So I was reading this paper on Ludology 'cause Numsie, and I was about to disregard the whole thing because it was so dry that I couldn't believe that anyone who would write it would actually know anything about emotions or beauty or aesthetics, much less art. My motherboard manual was, literally, less dry.

HOWEVER, this argument is actually a really good one.

Also, while golf may be the worst game ever, WII golf is totally great.

[Fifthfiend]

I assume academic papers on ludology are like when you have to read Lord of the Flies in school and your teacher finds a way to take a story about psychotic grade schoolers beating each other to death and make it boring.

[The Sevenshot Kid]

Eh. Opinions are a lot like ***holes; everyone has one and they tend to stink.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

A game that didn't inspire emotion would be pretty much the shittiest game (IE, golf).

Hey, don't give me that. Golf inspires lots of emotion. The religious commentary of Tiger Woods after a particular putt - Buddah not mentioned - is proof of that (anger)! My naps (boredom) when granddad used to watch (fascination) it are proof of that!

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Every game that exists essentially looks at the broader scope of human experience, behavior and interaction and recreates some aspect of it in microcosm. Society basically by definition is the construction of rules and laws in order to encode values and beliefs and shape and define how we understand and interact with the world around us and games simplify and distort the rules governing those interactions so that we examine them and develop a greater and deeper understanding of the whole.

If games aren't art then frankly it's art that comes out as the inferior expressive form because games command the attention of their players and create a directness and authenticity of experience which no passively observed piece of static art will ever hope to match.

QFT. Rules can easily be considered art in the same way (to use my own previous analogy) an engine can be considered art: they both have a specific, practical function, yet can be created for the purpose of expressing beauty, elegance, and eloquence while performing that function. One of the traits of Art that I've noticed - or at least the enduring 'masterpieces' - is that it attempts to, in some way, express nobility, beauty, and honor of its subject. Even when highlight or glorifying 'ugly' things, it tends to express this in oddly beautiful ways (examples including English Rennaisance paintings of 'noble commoners' human, beautiful in their plainness, etc). In other words Art exists to glorify and praise that which is found worthy in something. I'm curious if this would stand as a definition, or if it's believed that such things persist only because they're beautiful, while "art" itself can be ugly and vile. I'm not an art major, and my experience is limited to the study of humanities and history, as well as various argumentative definitions and links.

Ultimately, I resubmit the several-times-expressed (in various ways, at least once by myself) idea: Roger Ebert's personal opinion isn't worth getting angry over against him as it is empty and ignorant; but his expressed opinion is worth getting 'upset' over, and talking about (amongst ourselves and others) because he is a recognized and respected name in the broader 'art' community and has effectively used the adult-equivalent of a highschool 'you're not cool enough to be in our clique' rebuke of video games, which means that many who work as artists within games will go unrecognized and rejected because the 'cool kids' said so. As a group, Gamers and game makers have been rejected from the broader art community by a respected member of that community - a rejection that hurts, regardless of its validity.

Mesden mentioned that the problem might be just the name* - 'game' is just not going to cut it. So again, I ask, is there anyone here who has a reasonable proposition for those artists who wish to differentiate their work to call it? My lexicon isn't large enough to do so.

Originally Posted by The Gunslinger

Eh. Opinions are a lot like ***holes; everyone has one and they tend to stink.

Well, some more than others. Depends on what they feed themselves with, really, and how often and well they clean themselves.

*"What's in a name? A rose by any other name..."

[CelesJessa]

Originally Posted by tacticslion

In other words Art exists to glorify and praise that which is found worthy in something. I'm curious if this would stand as a definition, or if it's believed that such things persist only because they're beautiful, while "art" itself can be ugly and vile.

As my video art professor always tells us, art isn't always meant to be beautiful, entertaining, or pleasant to look at. A lot of times art is made to criticize things or comment on things in a negative light so I don't think that the definition of art existing to praise and glorify something would carry over to well, personally.

A fun example that I think applies to this debate a lot is the piece called "fountain" by Marcel Duchamp. Basically he took a urinal, wrote on it, and set it on it's side and said "This is art", as a comment of how we define art. The actual physical urinal isn't particularly beautiful and most people wouldn't consider it art because of what it is, physically, but the intellectual decision behind the piece and the statement the artist was trying to make makes it art. So yeah, anything could be art.

Also, having an art debate makes me feel incredibly nerdy and happy.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by CelesJessa

A well-informed rebuttle.

Thanks! So the question still stands: any suggestions for alternate names instead of "game"

Originally Posted by CelesJessa

Also, having an art debate makes me feel incredibly nerdy and happy.

I know, right?

[BattyAsHell]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Chess doesn't lack context, it is context. It exists to shape and guide the experience of people who play it in order to lead them to particular types of experiences and understandings. You can't separate the playing of chess from the game itself because the entire point of the game's design is to create the experiences people have when playing it. Emotion and beauty? Experiencing the beauty of the flow of a well-played game, or the emotional turmoil of the sheer inscrutability of how a better player beats you, are encoded into the game's DNA, just as much as the heartstopping pressure of whether to call a bluff is encoded into poker, or flipping over the board and going THIS IS BULLSHIT HE ALWAYS GETS ALL THE HOUSES is built into Monopoly. A game that didn't inspire emotion would be pretty much the shittiest game (IE, golf).

Every game that exists essentially looks at the broader scope of human experience, behavior and interaction and recreates some aspect of it in microcosm. Society basically by definition is the construction of rules and laws in order to encode values and beliefs and shape and define how we understand and interact with the world around us and games simplify and distort the rules governing those interactions so that we examine them and develop a greater and deeper understanding of the whole.

If games aren't art then frankly it's art that comes out as the inferior expressive form because games command the attention of their players and create a directness and authenticity of experience which no passively observed piece of static art will ever hope to match.

Nice argument.

And works just as well for Go, imo.

[01d55]

Originally Posted by Krylo

So I was reading this paper on Ludology 'cause Numsie, and I was about to disregard the whole thing because it was so dry that I couldn't believe that anyone who would write it would actually know anything about emotions or beauty or aesthetics, much less art. My motherboard manual was, literally, less dry.

Reading academic papers is always a risky proposition. You may have been better served by moving on to a different paper.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by BattyAsHell

Nice argument.

And works just as well for Go, imo.

Actually, I think that's his point: games are a reflection and an abstraction of life and its struggles in a microcosm. Go is included in that, as is Checkers, and even Baseball, Basketball, or Football (both kinds). The latter (the sports) for example, each represent the eternal struggle for dominance between "us" and "them/not us" in a visual, tangible way - why else would we identify with "our" team so strongly, or demonstrate so vividly (and sometimes violently) our fanaticism (from whence we derive "fan") if not because we identify with the "us against them for supremacy/existance" theme inherent within such sports games. All games represent a struggle of some sort - some are just more obvious than others. In that way, all games become performance art, though, as we've clarified, some art is good, some isn't. Some games are probably more 'artistic' than others, just as a child's stick-scratches on a sheet of paper are 'less artistic' than a painting by Rembrandt - more skill (arguably) went into the latter one, though both were the result of the creative impulse (also, I may be using the word 'artistic' wrongly, which is why I put it in quotes - if so, oops, feel free to correct me).

As a 'similar' comparison, let's take, say, tic-tac-toe and compare it to Lord of the Rings (the board game). The one (TTT) is simplistic and direct, requires little to no artistic talent (the base ability to render an "X" shape and an "O" shape with vaguely parallel lines in a "#" pattern, at most - sometimes, now, even these are done for you and you just stick things where you want), while the latter requires tremendously skilled artists, an elegant and detailed rules-system, a myriad of representative pieces, and a basic understanding of a modern epic. Lord of the Rings (both book and board game) is very definately art - both are, in fact, probably considered "High Art", whatever that means (hey, my Humanities professor made the distinction, I dunno), especially the epic. Tic-Tac-Toe, on the other hand, is not "high" art, by any means, but is educational (on a basic level) and both shows and guids a compound drive for compatition and creativity (not so creative if it's all rendered for you, but even then, you decide what to put where) combined with critical thinking skills (at least potentially). These are all that seem to be needed for 'art', based off of what I'm reading here and have seen before.

Ultimately, it seems, art needs to have a 'point' of some kind - an intentional "why" it was created, even if it was created simply to make "art". This would, it seems, exclude purely "natural" events (volcanic eruptions, meteor strikes, etc), despite their beauty and ability to evoke awe in another. Of course, what do I know? I'm not a serious art student, professor, doctor, or master - just a nerd who's had a few classes. Maybe even those natural events are 'art'. Of course, if you believe everything is the result of an active, divine Hand (I do) such events would be the result of forethought as well, so, hey, I just rebutted my own idea.