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

[Mike McC]

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.

It is interesting that you picked this, because Quantum Physics is one of the fields where there is currently a lot of change in definitions and understanding. Arguing with Hawking about Quantum Mechanics may very well be one of the best things you can do.

Even with scientific understanding, nothing is absolute, and relies on assumptions. Is it wrong to challenge those assumptions if it might lead to a better understanding?

[Krylo]

It is if you have no idea what you're talking about, yes.

Because it won't lead to a better understanding.

If you're Kyriakos Tamvakis, then, by all means, disagree with/argue with Hawking.

Now, again, stop being ignorant and obstinate just to be such and/or trolling.

Seriously, you're incredibly obvious.

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by Krylo

It is if you have no idea what you're talking about, yes.

Because it won't lead to a better understanding.

If you're Kyriakos Tamvakis, then, by all means, disagree with/argue with Hawking.

Now, again, stop being ignorant and obstinate just to be such and/or trolling.

Seriously, you're incredibly obvious.

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.

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Well, in most cases, those lines tend to be drawn as merely a matter of preference. "I don't like X, so X is not art." And, in each of those lines, an argument can be made against it, usually one stronger than the argument made to draw the line in the first place. You may call not drawing such lines naive or deceitful, I call doing the opposite foolhardy and shortsighted.

And the narrower our view of art, the more we as a society risk stifling ourselves creatively.

Perhaps. But, aren't the definitions of what is socially acceptable as art always shifting. And aren't discussions, fueled by critics who dissent, help us as a society to actively define that line, to definitively inlude/exclude it (typically to include at this stage of social development)? And therefore, don't these opinions, these critics, have merit from this?

There may not be a right answer, of course, but it is something worth considering.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

Perhaps. But, aren't the definitions of what is socially acceptable as art always shifting. And aren't discussions, fueled by critics who dissent, help us as a society to actively define that line, to definitively inlude/exclude it (typically to include at this stage of social development)? And therefore, don't these opinions, these critics, have merit from this?

There may not be a right answer, of course, but it is something worth considering.

Such discussion are among the oldest philosophical debates within human civilization and have never been a bad thing, but that doesn't mean you mentioning it isn't an obvious dodge around my response to how wrong you were.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.