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

[Mike McC]

Adam Sessler brings up some excellent points on this issue, of which I fully agree with:

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/70...es-be-Art.html

[Krylo]

So when Sessler says that one of the differences between art/vg is that the way people interact with them can show where we are as a culture... how, exactly, is that different than Literature, Painting, Music, etc.?

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by Krylo

So when Sessler says that one of the differences between art/vg is that the way people interact with them can show where we are as a culture... how, exactly, is that different than Literature, Painting, Music, etc.?

I think that it is due to the assumption that there is really only one way to go through it, to see it, to read it, without intentionally subverting the experience. Video games differ by you have freedom to choose how you go through it. You can leave a path of death and destruction, you can intentionally not hurt any enemies but the bosses, etc., and that changes the overall experience.

His point about the author not wanting to make a game because players could change how his characters would act is an excellent example of this.

Interacting with something is seperate from interpreting it in this instance.

[Aerozord]

Originally Posted by Krylo

So when Sessler says that one of the differences between art/vg is that the way people interact with them can show where we are as a culture... how, exactly, is that different than Literature, Painting, Music, etc.?

because when little Roger was in school he was told XYand Z are "art", since video games weren't among those they called art when he learned the term, its not art. For most of his life he knew video games were art, granted thats because they didn't exist, but point is he's spent this long with a list of what is art and he is not going to add or subtract anything from that list

ever

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

because when little Roger was in school he was told XYand Z are "art", since video games weren't among those they called art when he learned the term, its not art. For most of his life he knew video games were art, granted thats because they didn't exist, but point is he's spent this long with a list of what is art and he is not going to add or subtract anything from that list

ever

He was talking about Adam Sessler's points and his personal views (not Ebert's, Sessler's) in the video I linked, which really is a definition and interpretation worth debating. Way to bring Ebert into this in such a way. I applaud your maturity.

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.

[BattyAsHell]

I think the King of the Hill ep playing now hits the nail on the head..

"Interesting. So what do you think?"

"It's interesting. But what do you think?"

"What do you think?"

"Well, who's the artist?

"Aren't you a school teacher? You're not a real artist! This art is terrible!"

"I agree!"

Not an exact recreation, but that's the jist.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

I think that it due that there is really only one way to go through it, to see it, to read it, without intentionally subverting the experience. Video games differ by you have freedom to choose how you go through it. You can leave a path of death and destruction, you can intentionally not hurt any enemies but the bosses, etc., and that changes the overall experience.

His point about the author not wanting to make a game because players could change how his characters would act is an excellent example of this.

Interacting with something is seperate from interpreting it in this instance.

I'm not sure how this is different from how interacting is different than interpreting it in this sense, however.

Any two people with sufficiently differing view points as to play a game entirely differently, are going to walk away with equally different experiences after watching a movie, reading a book, viewing a play, going to a gallery, or listening to a song.

The game itself IS static, short of some very new procedural things like L4D.

The enemies will always spawn in the same place. The areas are always going to be in the same place. And, in many games the play through is going to go the same way. The Dunwich building will always be full of ghouls. World 1-1 will always be the first stage you play on Mario Brothers, and the blocks will always have the same shape.

How you play a game isn't really any different than how you interpret a work of art, in so far as this goes.

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.

Obviously the experience will be altered, but the fact that every person who views a piece of art has a different experience with it. That is one of the key features of art--that it is personal to the viewer.

Further: Sessler himself mentions plays, and is quick to acquiesce that they are only static in the written form. A play changes every time it is put on, and are we going to argue that playing MacBeth or Hamlet isn't experiencing the artistry of Shakespeare just as much, if not more than, watching or reading his works?

If anything, the 'static' form of plays--reading them--is the weakest link to the artist.

That alone takes a rather large chunk out of Sessler's assertion that art is static. That is his, completely arbitrary, definition. Which he admits.

And it's not one that has not been backed up by any actual art critic or definition that I've ever read.

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.

Speaking of which, Ad Hominem.

If he can't make his point without arguing that this entire thing is just a case of gamers the world over being insecure, he really has no case to make.

Couldn't be possible that this is actually kind of an important thing for video games to be taken seriously as a media form and not get relegated to the same social status as tabletop gaming or comic books, and all the financial issues (in the latter case) that comes with that.

[BattyAsHell]

Originally Posted by Krylo

I'm not sure how this is different from how interacting is different than interpreting it in this sense, however.

Any two people with sufficiently differing view points as to play a game entirely differently, are going to walk away with equally different experiences after watching a movie, reading a book, viewing a play, going to a gallery, or listening to a song.

The game itself IS static, short of some very new procedural things like L4D.

The enemies will always spawn in the same place. The areas are always going to be in the same place. And, in many games the play through is going to go the same way. The Dunwich building will always be full of ghouls. World 1-1 will always be the first stage you play on Mario Brothers, and the blocks will always have the same shape.

How you play a game isn't really any different than how you interpret a work of art, in so far as this goes.

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.

Obviously the experience will be altered, but the fact that every person who views a piece of art has a different experience with it. That is one of the key features of art--that it is personal to the viewer.

Further: Sessler himself mentions plays, and is quick to acquiesce that they are only static in the written form. A play changes every time it is put on, and are we going to argue that playing MacBeth or Hamlet isn't experiencing the artistry of Shakespeare just as much, if not more than, watching or reading his works?

If anything, the 'static' form of plays--reading them--is the weakest link to the artist.

That alone takes a rather large chunk out of Sessler's assertion that art is static. That is his, completely arbitrary, definition. Which he admits.

And it's not one that has not been backed up by any actual art critic or definition that I've ever read.



Speaking of which, Ad Hominem.

If he can't make his point without arguing that this entire thing is just a case of gamers the world over being insecure, he really has no case to make.

Couldn't be possible that this is actually kind of an important thing for video games to be taken seriously as a media form and not get relegated to the same social status as tabletop gaming or comic books, and all the financial issues (in the latter case) that comes with that.

Well, comics do have Sandman and some other "adult oriented" material.. Personally, I think a good argument can be made that comics are art, as much as video games..

But yeah, they're basically on par with games in the "trivial distraction yes, art no" scale.

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

I think that it is due to the assumption that there is really only one way to go through it, to see it, to read it, without intentionally subverting the experience. Video games differ by you have freedom to choose how you go through it. You can leave a path of death and destruction, you can intentionally not hurt any enemies but the bosses, etc., and that changes the overall experience.

His point about the author not wanting to make a game because players could change how his characters would act is an excellent example of this.

Interacting with something is seperate from interpreting it in this instance.

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 also feel that the idea of artistry being involved in the creation of games but the games themselves not being art is a copout and entirely untrue. As Jerry Holkins' strikingly taller, thinner, and less bald self-insert character put it, "If a hundred artists create art for five years, how could the result not be art?"

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by BattyAsHell

Well, comics do have Sandman and some other "adult oriented" material.. Personally, I think a good argument can be made that comics are art, as much as video games..

But yeah, they're basically on par with games in the "trivial distraction yes, art no" scale.

No no, those are 'graphic novels', because calling them 'comic books' makes them invalid.

And yes, comics are art, but the fact that they had to rename themselves to something without 'comic' in the name to get appreciation in works like Sandman, The Watchmen, V, etc. goes a long way to proving the whole 'this isn't just an insecurity issue, but rather a 'social acceptance has actual real world ramifications on media' issue' thing.

As much as it PAINS ME TO THE CORE to repeat something Blues pointed out, he was right. For once.

Something about broken chronometers goes here, I'm sure.