Roger Ebert claims "video games cannot be art"; molests children. - Page 13

01d55 · 04-25-2010, 02:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo

In much the same way as I don't argue with doctors, so long as there is consensus in the field, as to the best way to treat appendicitis, I do not argue with art critics, professors, etc. etc. on what is defined as art.

You can draw arbitrary lines if you want, but it's about as ridiculous as arguing with Hawking about Quantum Mechanics.

They know more than you, you are wrong.

You don't have to like all art, you don't have to find it tasteful or particularly valid. However, to say that it ISN'T art, still makes you wrong.

Well I might not be a professor myself yet but I am an undergraduate majoring in Computer Game Design and the consensus among my professors here at UCSC goes something like this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

For literally centuries chess has been the medium through which people have experienced revelations about themselves and others and the broader nature of humanity and interconnected human society, guided by a simple set of interactions nonetheless allowing for variations of infinite complexity.

That shit is art as hell.

Basically if you talk to people who say they study "art" but actually mean they study "music and painting and drama and maybe movies and television" then it's a crapshoot if games are or aren't art, and they're going to focus on shit like "is there a story." If you talk to people who study games (They're called ludologists) then you get a consensus: "game rules are art."

Krylo · 04-25-2010, 02:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 01d55

If you talk to people who study games (They're called ludologists) then you get a consensus: "game rules are art."

I've never heard that idea defended before, but it's one I'm willing to learn about. However it is now 3 am, and I'm pretty lazy, so could you give me some kind of summary of the justification for calling game rules art?

01d55 · 04-25-2010, 03:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo

I've never heard that idea defended before, but it's one I'm willing to learn about. However it is now 3 am, and I'm pretty lazy, so could you give me some kind of summary of the justification for calling game rules art?

It is now 1AM and I have to do a bunch of goddamn dishes before I go to sleep (and I gotta get up around noon so I can't put that off forever).

DFM · 04-25-2010, 02:16 AM

One time I arranged all the chess pieces to spell 'poop'.

Krylo · 04-25-2010, 02:18 AM

You're gonna make me do this, aren't you?

Fine. Chess, etc. are not art because they do not exist to make socio-political commentary, they do not exist to bring beauty, they do not exist to express ideas, they do not exist to create emotion.

A well played game of chess could be loosely defined as art, in the playing itself, much as commentators will often call athletes poetry in motion, or say that their movements have a particular art to them in and of themselves, in that anything done well enough can capture emotion, and express beauty.

These simple games themselves, however, can not.

On the other hand, just to pull something out of thin air here, Lunar can express social ideas on the importance of love and song, God of War can show human pathos of all sorts, and Katamari Damacy can exist as a thing to show and create beauty and emotion. They do these things regardless of how well (or poorly) they are played.

This is where things become different. And those aren't even particularly artistic games.

Fifthfiend · 04-25-2010, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo

Fine. Chess, etc. are not art because they do not exist to make socio-political commentary, they do not exist to bring beauty, they do not exist to express ideas, they do not exist to create emotion.

Chess does literally all of those things. Proverbially speaking, it was explicitly created to do that first thing you said.

Krylo · 04-25-2010, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mesden

Opinions don't have to be legitimate, though. Though who's to say his opinion is unjustified? He believes that the direct interactivity aspect of games separates them from art. I don't know whether he has or not interacted with a game before but if he has then his opinion on that particular matter (which is the one matter he states as his argument) is legitimate. Frankly, if he had a reasonable statement that movies aren't art because X inherent quality is not art and is found in all movies, then his opinion is at the very least justified, if considered silly by others.

He's just an old guy with an unpopular but well worded opinion.

Yeah, sure, by I took offense to your use of 'legitimate reason'.

Like I said, I don't give two shits about his actual opinion because it has no legitimacy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

Chess does literally all of those things. Proverbially speaking, it was explicitly created to do that first thing you said.

Care to substantiate that claim?

'Cause I can't actually find any information on why Shatranj was invented, and the closest I can find to an actual reason for playing chess was nobles during the rennaissance period (at which point Chess had been around in various form for centuries), using it to study tactics.

Which is a lot different, in and itself, from making socio-political commentary.

Fifthfiend · 04-25-2010, 02:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krylo

Care to substantiate that claim?

'Cause I can't actually find any information on why Shatranj was invented, and the closest I can find to an actual reason for playing chess was nobles during the rennaissance period (at which point Chess had been around in various form for centuries), using it to study tactics.

Which is a lot different, in and itself, from making socio-political commentary.

One prince made it up to explain why some other prince was a douche. I think? It was at the beginning of Chess the Musical.

Krylo · 04-25-2010, 02:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

One prince made it up to explain why some other prince was a douche. I think? It was at the beginning of Chess the Musical.

Nah, one prince sent it to another prince to do that, but the game itself was already around at that point.

I believe it was the Indians sending it to the Persians.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike McC

But, what about Robert Ebert, someone who has dealt with art for years, in the form of cinema? Surely that experience nets him the right to argue about what is Art.

See reply to Mesden Vis a Vis legitimacy of Ebert.

If he had studied art he'd know better than to make the definition he did.

Krylo · 04-25-2010, 02:31 AM

In much the same way as I don't argue with doctors, so long as there is consensus in the field, as to the best way to treat appendicitis, I do not argue with art critics, professors, etc. etc. on what is defined as art.

You can draw arbitrary lines if you want, but it's about as ridiculous as arguing with Hawking about Quantum Mechanics.

They know more than you, you are wrong.

You don't have to like all art, you don't have to find it tasteful or particularly valid. However, to say that it ISN'T art, still makes you wrong.

04-25-2010, 02:16 AM	#4
DFM Om Nom Nom Join Date: Sep 2005 Posts: 3,850	One time I arranged all the chess pieces to spell 'poop'. __________________ [14:26] ManoftheRus: YOU GODDAMN SNEAKY DEE

04-25-2010, 02:18 AM	#5
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	You're gonna make me do this, aren't you? Fine. Chess, etc. are not art because they do not exist to make socio-political commentary, they do not exist to bring beauty, they do not exist to express ideas, they do not exist to create emotion. A well played game of chess could be loosely defined as art, in the playing itself, much as commentators will often call athletes poetry in motion, or say that their movements have a particular art to them in and of themselves, in that anything done well enough can capture emotion, and express beauty. These simple games themselves, however, can not. On the other hand, just to pull something out of thin air here, Lunar can express social ideas on the importance of love and song, God of War can show human pathos of all sorts, and Katamari Damacy can exist as a thing to show and create beauty and emotion. They do these things regardless of how well (or poorly) they are played. This is where things become different. And those aren't even particularly artistic games. __________________ I am very tired.

04-25-2010, 02:31 AM	#10
Krylo The Straightest Shota Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: It's a secret to everybody. Posts: 17,789	In much the same way as I don't argue with doctors, so long as there is consensus in the field, as to the best way to treat appendicitis, I do not argue with art critics, professors, etc. etc. on what is defined as art. You can draw arbitrary lines if you want, but it's about as ridiculous as arguing with Hawking about Quantum Mechanics. They know more than you, you are wrong. You don't have to like all art, you don't have to find it tasteful or particularly valid. However, to say that it ISN'T art, still makes you wrong. __________________ I am very tired.