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

[CABAL49]

If music is are art. If movies are art. If drawing and writing are art, then how aren't video games art? They have music, animation, writing and design. Everything that Ebert says is art, are in video games.

[Mike McC]

All those things can also be in a Ford Pinto, but does that make it art?

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

All those things can also be in a Ford Pinto, but does that make it art?

Yes.

Yes it does.

[tacticslion]

Also, in which I was ninja'd because I'm a Pompous Windbag.
I apologize in advance for any maming of the English language and/or names of the (in)famous. And if I am highly insensitive to some issue, I whole-heartedly take all the blame for my own hubris and mangled ways of saying things.

Originally Posted by Mike McC

Honestly, I think this helps show Sessler's point that this need of validation of video games as art really illustrates the underlying insecurity that gamers have.

Seriously, one man, one critic, disagrees with one group's assumed consensus over something ultimately inconsequential, and a lot of people go fucking apeshit over it. This is not a healthy response.

Meh. While I agree gamers often need more maturity (myself included) I would challenge you to find an artistic community that would respond differently. If, say, Stan Lee (famous comic book creator) or even better Scott MacCloud (famous comic book student and professor) suddenly and publically declared that, say, Internet Sprites (including webcomics) are not Art, there would be an uproar within the online community - a backlash against a careless and obviously incorrect definition of art. To clarify more, if Picasso had ever declared that Bethovan was nothing more than a mere blind man with an acceptable sense of rythm, but not an artist, such a quote would be continually derided until today, even as people admired his work. Indeed, when a prominant and powerful person, influential in a certain wider circle declares definatively that "this group, who is only on the edge anyway, is considered forever out of this circle, and cannot enter", there is going to be a backlash. So, while I agree that hating him is a pointless response (though I do get a chuckle from the insults), similarly leaving things alone is pointless response. Discussion, even amongst fellow gamers becomes vital.

In a sense, this is the same (rational) response of any people recieving injustice.
WARNING: CRAPOMETER ABOUT TO BE NECESSARY
(In other words, I am fully aware that the comparison I am about to make is dissimilar in the extreme: it is a hyperbole, not meant to offend, but only to make a point)
For example, when, in Scottland, the male English Nobles were - by law - required to strip the virginity of any Scottish woman on her wedding night - the latest in a long series of injustices perpetrated against the conquered Scotts - the Scottsmen (and women) had an escalating series of responses: first, they allowed, then they talked, then they got angry, then they revolted. They were angry that their rights were being violated. They spoke before they revolted, but a revolution - and thus change - occured.
Second Example: Segregation. When, in the United States, it became increasingly obvious that those with were freed after the Civil War, yes, but still subject to numerous and horrendous injustices; among such there was at first silent frustration, but grudging permittance and acceptance; soon there was talk - first amongst themselves, then publically; and finally a revolution occured that changed the way they (and others) percieved them.
END CRAPOMETER

I understand - I fundamentally understand and hereby attest - that declaring 'video games' to be invalid for the 'art' category is a utterly and rediculously minor injustice compared to the two mentioned above. That said, I bring those up to show the similarity in pattern when percieved injustice occurs. First, a people (a group, category, whatsoever have you) generally accept, because they truly find themselves too weak, because they, too, desire to keep the status quo, or just because they are afraid; the reasons are varied, but the response similar. After this, as the percieved injustice continues in the face of inaction, the people group who feel the injustice is against them begin to talk amongst themselves about the fact that there is an injustice. It is only with this recognition that change can be made for the better.

Now, in refutation of my own point: I recognize that 'art' is a contentuous subject at best, ill-defined, and constantly argued. But I am presenting to you a valid psycho-social reason for the angry response from "Gamers" and some "Artists" alike: a person, well-respected in the wider "field" of "Art" (as movies are), has socially snubbed them, declared them Unworthy to be part of the Clique. This is a percieved injustice, and thus the natural response is angry talk. Angry talk itself, however, can only take people so far. Ultimately, a demand and a challenge is laid down by the words. The real test, now, is to see if the broader Gaming Community is willing to step up to the challenge. To some extent, that is what has happened. Ico. Shadows of the Colossus. Chrono Trigger. Legend of Zelda (take your pick, save the first two). Final Fantasy (I'd point to Tactics for story, though I'm biased, so I'll stick with VI). Spore and Okagami (or so I'm given to understand of those two, as I've not played myself). But as a community, these things which most who've experienced are proud of, have been rejected outright. As being inferior because of what they are, and thus not subject to the 'rights' or 'honors' (as ephemeral as those may be) of being declared "Art". This is truly what frustrates people, I think: what they have been moved by, touched by, molded by, and responded to on a primal level is called "inferior" by a person who - "by all rights", many think - should know better, as he is respected by the general public. Thus he hurts the general acceptance of Games into the wider world - as an Art, yes, but also just as an acceptable thing at all, by demolishing it and dismissing it.

TL;DR Version: He's a jerk and a troll, and it makes us feel better to talk badly about him behind his back.

NOW! To LONGWINDED DIATRIBE NUMBER THE SECOND!

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

There's a huge difference [between programming code for visuals and games]. Because Pixar movies are a non-interactive medium, the entirety of the computer programming invested into the product is made to improve the aesthetics. It's an entirely artistic endeavor. They're creating a series of images for an audience to react to.

But all the CGI programming is on the "visual" side. There's no coding of an independent 'game engine' designed to register exactly how much HP is taken off when your character is hit with an attack or the way enemy AI "strategically" attempt to take down the player.

By contrast, there's actually two elements of programming going on with videogames. There's the artistic side of the project, .... Then there's the algebraic side of the equation, which is really just programming artificial rules (battlefield mechanics, turn-based DnD style combat, real-world emulating physics, etc.) into the game.

The former, in my opinion, is art. The latter, in my opinion, are just a series of mathematical rules, akin to how a series of math equations ultimately comprises much of the complicated real-world phenomena we witness as science.

While your posts are eloquent, cleaver, and insightful, I refute thee! For, you see, the very thing you compare to Science is, in itself, Art! Have you never seen a machine that is a piece of Art? A Bycicle can very much be art: it is a machine, but it can be designed in and of itself to be an artistic expression. Visually, yes, but also functionally: so that the function (to move a person) is performed in an eloquent and elegant way. There is even now a show on Television that highlights the artists' work in creating a motorcycle (I can't recall the name, but it's been advertized on thatguywiththeglasses.com) - a machine and device meant to perform a function in a scientific way, but also in an artistic way. The finished product, as a whole, would be called "Art", even though it has functional, scientific elements to it, and is based on scientific principles of chemistry and physics, like internal combustion. While one would not (necessarily) define the printing press as art, nor the language a book may be written in, the book itself certainly can be taken as such - the entire thing, physical binding and content both - though the binding can be very different in different editions! Indeed, while English is not - in and of itself - Art, any more than, say, unused paint in a bucket is, it is the Code, if you will, upon which, from which, and through which art comes to us: the element of expression by which we interact with the Art of a novel. Indeed coding that underlies gaming can be itself an Artform - it is the act of creating highly functional "Art".

Even devices such as chairs are considered art. Why? Because they are made of wood? No: wood is not Art by its lonesome - it is a substance (though many can find artistic inspiration in wood). Instead, it is the way in which the wood is shaped and used for a purpose that becomes art - the final product of the chair would not be itself without the base wood, and the whole is considered art. Wood is not art, but the wood that makes up the chair makes up the art. Further, the wood-carver is an artist. The act of creating the chair is artistic expression (or can be: it can also be dull, mindless labor, if you want it to be).

Replace Wood with Code and Chair with Video Games. I recognize the validity that you are hinting at: base tools, or 'substance' such as unused Code are not of themselves Art to most. But Coding, crafting carefully laid-out structures to function just so in order to acquire just such a reaction, in order to make only this happen - that is both art and an artform.

You may disagree. I find this acceptable. But I thought I'd show you how - subjectively - even the code that defines the game performance and rules - is itself an Artform, even if such a thing as generic, undefined "Rules" is nothing more than a non-anchored concept void of any use outside of a context.

Also, I recognize you added "from my point of view". So, yeah, I think you get that some would disagree with you too. But I'm jus' sayin'!

TL;DR: ZOMIGOSH, EYEZ TOTALLY TEH SMAHTUR WAN!1!One! N00b!1!One! U ddn't evn gt teh cncptz eyez talkin' 'bout!1!One! Also, I'm just saying your ideas are valid from a point of view, but I respectfully disagree.

Short Version: read Krylo's and Blue's earlier posts. They are much more succinct and eloquent.

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Yes.

Yes it does.

What if the music was....

Nickelback?

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

What if the music was....

Nickelback?

Just because something isn't good art doesn't mean it's not still art.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by CABAL49

If music is are art. If movies are art. If drawing and writing are art, then how aren't video games art? They have music, animation, writing and design. Everything that Ebert says is art, are in video games.

Ebert's argument is that games by general definition have some sort of ulterior goal that you're trying to achieve, as opposed to something you experience without work through a pre-laid out system as to how you're supposed to experience it.

Not that I agree, but you can't just list things that are in games that can be art and completely ignore what his actual argument is.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Mesden

Ebert's argument is that games by general definition have some sort of ulterior goal that you're trying to achieve, as opposed to something you experience without work through a pre-laid out system as to how you're supposed to experience it.

Not that I agree, but you can't just list things that are in games that can be art and completely ignore what his actual argument is.

Got it. So, because we use our five (predetermined) senses (actually, at most, three, and usually unless we particularly enjoy sniffing or tasting odd substances) all forms of primary communication by way of artistic expression are made by way of a pre-laid out system of how we are 'supposed' to experience things, nothing we experience can ever be art? Admittedly, I am abusing your wording, so sorry. I mean no offense, only fun.

That said: a book. A book has a begining, a sort of ulterior goal that the author is trying to achieve: the author is attempting to get us to go through a particular set of movements and motions for our bodies, using the ambient reflected light, to acquire visual images which our brains process and translate into a cohesive concept - their 'story'. Interestingly, no one fusses about books (of which I am an avid fan, in general) whether they are printed on paper or on a Kindle or Nook (or iPhone or iPad, though the latter may suffer name-jokes). Video Games? The same thing. A predetermined series of actions in order to get information communicated to the player across a varied and multifaceted medium.

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by tacticslion

Got it. So, because we use our five (predetermined) senses (actually, at most, three, and usually unless we particularly enjoy sniffing or tasting odd substances) all forms of primary communication by way of artistic expression are made by way of a pre-laid out system of how we are 'supposed' to experience things, nothing we experience can ever be art? Admittedly, I am abusing your wording, so sorry. I mean no offense, only fun.

That said: a book. A book has a begining, a sort of ulterior goal that the author is trying to achieve: the author is attempting to get us to go through a particular set of movements and motions for our bodies, using the ambient reflected light, to acquire visual images which our brains process and translate into a cohesive concept - their 'story'. Interestingly, no one fusses about books (of which I am an avid fan, in general) whether they are printed on paper or on a Kindle or Nook (or iPhone or iPad, though the latter may suffer name-jokes). Video Games? The same thing. A predetermined series of actions in order to get information communicated to the player across a varied and multifaceted medium.

A book has no variation in it's path without intentional subversion of the intent.

A videogame... I can choose to spare the goombas. I can warp to level 8. It's not a concrete path. it is very fluid, and alterations can be made to the experience. There is only a generalized sense of how to experience it. It is only a framework. It is, in essence, incomplete, because it requires a user's own personal input to complete it.

And every time it's completed it is likely different.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

A book has no variation in it's path without intentional subversion of the intent.

A videogame... I can choose to spare the goombas. I can warp to level 8. It's not a concrete path. it is very fluid, and alterations can be made to the experience. There is only a generalized sense of how to experience it. It is only a framework. It is, in essence, incomplete, because it requires a user's own personal input to complete it.

And every time it's completed it is likely different.

Gonna stand by this:

Originally Posted by Krylo

Whether I go east or west out of Megaton, decide to head straight to Vault 15, murder every undead on the ship, or use the warp pipes to get to world 8 as soon as possible, is of little difference within the context than whether I believe Gollum to be a tragic or villainous figure, whether I believe Ahab's vengeance to be justified, whether I believe that Lord of the Flies is a valid interpretation of how mankind falls to its primal instincts when devoid of culture, or even whether I interpret the killing of the pig as a hunting scene or a rape scene.

And further this:

Originally Posted by POS Industries

But as I've mentioned previously, there is not really a point during one's gameplay experience where they aren't doing something the designers intended for them to be able to do, unless there's a glitch or exploit involved, which is altogether akin to cutting apart a book and pasting it back together in a different order.

As such, it wouldn't actually be the players changing the behavior of the author's characters so much as the game developers adapting the original work to allow for changes in the characters behavior, similar to such changes being made in the adaptation of a book to a movie.

I'm not seeing how deciding not to jump on a goomba's head or warp to level 8 and getting a totally different experience is any different than me reading Lord of the Flies and calling the hunting of the pig a metaphor for rape, while other people in my highschool literature class called it hunting.

I'm also not seeing how what you decide to do within the game deviates from what the artists wished for you to do.

And it still provides a much more static presentation than say, seeing Midsummer's Night Dream as performed by two entirely different casts/directors/etc.