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

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

In simplistic terms. It almost sounds like you believe the video game is the frame for the art itself.

Pretty much. I like that.
The mechanics of the game itself is not art, it's what the writers and the graphics artists and the composers collectively do with those mechanics to tell their tale that can make the experience a form of art.

Calling the game's mechanics a frame seems somewhat a disservice as I actually think the mechanical aspect of the programming is an equal component alongside the artwork, almost as if the two together create a hybrid between a rules-based interactive game and an evocative storytelling device. When I say this aspect of videogame creation is not art, believe it or not, I don't mean it as an insult... it's more a way to distinguish between two elements that, when combined, create a hybrid product I consider in many ways superior to "mere" novels or portraits or movies, which may succeed as "works of art" but lack that gaming component in which viewers can also engage as active participants.

[The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk]

Yeah... I wouldn't take anyones opinion/criticism on anything unless they've experianced, even to the slightest degree, whatever it is they're opinionating on/criticising.

By his own admission he has not played a single videogame, so how can he say anything about them? Robert Eberts opinions on games is henceforth ignored by me until he sits down and plays something.

[synkr0nized]

It seems to me folks confuse what is and isn't art with what they think should be art or is "good" art.

So a guy can throw a bunch of paint at a wall and call it art, directors and writers can oversee a bunch of actors and record them and call it art, but digital creations that individuals or groups can interact with aren't art? Sounds like people are attributing a set of opinions about art to a definition of art which isn't necessarilly correct.

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by synkr0nized

It seems to me folks confuse what is and isn't art with what they think should be art or is "good" art.

So a guy can throw a bunch of paint at a wall and call it art, directors and writers can oversee a bunch of actors and record them and call it art, but digital creations that individuals or groups can interact with aren't art? Sounds like people are attributing a set of opinions about art to a definition of art which isn't necessarilly correct.

Just sayin', those guys throwing paint at walls have a good scam going. All you need is some basic drama training to convince snooty people you're tortured and deep and you're set.

[Kerensky287]

I think that art is COMPLETELY subjective, which is why Roger Ebert has his head way up his ass claiming that videogames can objectively never be art.

I mean, I don't get "fine art", but if the multitude of pranks/quiet studies making fun of art critics have been any indication, NOBODY does. Art critics are absolutely full of shit. Why? Because they're trying to objectively define something that is, by definition, subjective.

Ebert is a successful movie critic because he puts a lot of thought into the movies he watches.... or tends to agree with the public opinion or something. Well-thought-out arguments for why a movie is art tend to be successful, but arguments the listener agrees with are a lot easier to make.

Re: Video Games as art: Okami.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

Originally Posted by Kerensky287

Re: Video Games as art: Okami.

I've been saying that for such a long time now, along side Ico and SotC

[bluestarultor]

Originally Posted by Kerensky287

I think that art is COMPLETELY subjective, which is why Roger Ebert has his head way up his ass claiming that videogames can objectively never be art.

I mean, I don't get "fine art", but if the multitude of pranks/quiet studies making fun of art critics have been any indication, NOBODY does. Art critics are absolutely full of shit. Why? Because they're trying to objectively define something that is, by definition, subjective.

Ebert is a successful movie critic because he puts a lot of thought into the movies he watches.... or tends to agree with the public opinion or something. Well-thought-out arguments for why a movie is art tend to be successful, but arguments the listener agrees with are a lot easier to make.

Re: Video Games as art: Okami.

Gotta love how they convinced every critic in New York there was a famous artist who never really existed. Also that both a bear and a monkey won art contests at different points.

[BattyAsHell]

Originally Posted by Invisible Queen

Admittedly there has't been a single defining title you can rub in the face of people who say "it isn't art", like Maus for comic books, but then comics took about eighty years to get to that point. Give it a little time, and stick with Ico for the moment.

Although on a conceptual level, you have to wonder if a form of artistic expression can actually be without artistic merit.

Is not bad art still art?

[BattyAsHell]

Originally Posted by Kerensky287

I think that art is COMPLETELY subjective, which is why Roger Ebert has his head way up his ass claiming that videogames can objectively never be art.

I mean, I don't get "fine art", but if the multitude of pranks/quiet studies making fun of art critics have been any indication, NOBODY does. Art critics are absolutely full of shit. Why? Because they're trying to objectively define something that is, by definition, subjective.

Ebert is a successful movie critic because he puts a lot of thought into the movies he watches.... or tends to agree with the public opinion or something. Well-thought-out arguments for why a movie is art tend to be successful, but arguments the listener agrees with are a lot easier to make.

Re: Video Games as art: Okami.

Heh, there's this one artist who has a webpage showing off material for T-shirts.. Really geeky stuff, like Mario Bros. related.. On his "About me" page, he claims he'll never try and succeed in the conventional "art" circles, because he's discovered it's basically a cliquish bunch where you need to like the same things they like, and turn your nose up at the same things they reject, and there's very little room for innovation...

I think there's truth of that in lots of things, personally.. The people who define what's what, are usually the one's with a vested interest in the status quo: e.g. the people who broke into and inhabit the industries. In addition, the masses tend to like familiarity, so it's really hard for innovation to win them over.. That's why a lot of artists considered great today, were only considered this after their deaths... By then, the worlds moved on.

[CelesJessa]

I'm of the school of thought that anything can be art. I mean, there have been art pieces using video games as a medium so someone just drawing a line and saying "THIS CAN'T BE ART" is kind of silly.

I spend a lot of time having to watch crazy video art pieces and discussing why it can be art and I've pretty much learned that trying to make a blanket statement about anything in terms of "what is art" is pretty close minded when you look at the rest of the art world.

Honestly, his claims bother me more as an artist than as a gamer. XD