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

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

I'm sorry if I don't quite buy that people really believe that 'all things described as Art is Art." Everyone draws a line on what is and is not Art. To say that they don't is either naive, or decietful. Naive, because they never really thought about it, probed thier limits. Decietful, because they are hiding the truth to make thier point.

Everyone draws a line.

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.

[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.

[Fifthfiend]

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]

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.

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.

[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.

[01d55]

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:

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]

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?

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by Krylo

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.

Do you have the right to judge him worthy of having an opinion on art? Do you have the experience to qualify you for that right? I mean, surely, you are not exempt from this criteria.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

Do you have the right to judge him worthy of having an opinion on art? Do you have the experience to qualify you for that right? I mean, surely, you are not exempt from this criteria.

Welp, as is proven by my ability to actually use an actual accepted definition of art, I can easily argue I know more about artistic integrity than he does.

So yes.

[01d55]

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).