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

[Mike McC]

Lets say I walk up, and punch you in the face. I then declare it was performance art without a hint of insincerity. Is it Art?

[BitVyper]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

Lets say I walk up, and punch you in the face. I then declare it was performance art without a hint of insincerity. Is it Art?

Is that a koan? Should I be contemplating the nature of enlightenment?

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Mesden

then as long as he has a legitimate reason there's no point in being so upset about it.

You can't have a legitimate opinion on something without experiencing it.

It would be like me trying to tell you that having penises in your vagina sucks because obviously the act of penetration is superior to the act of penetrating. Maybe I could draw some comparisons on how like, any OTHER kind of penetration of the body is usually pretty terrible or something.

MAYBE if he actually played some of the more artistic games or did even some cursory research into the subject he could have a legitimate opinion.

He admits he has done neither, and so as it stands, he has none.

It's why I haven't, until now, bothered to actually respond to anything dealing with Ebert directly.

Originally Posted by Mike McC

Lets say I walk up, and punch you in the face. I then declare it was performance art without a hint of insincerity. Is it Art?

Let's say something is critiqued by art critics, put in a museum, and taught to art students as art.

Does it make you an idiot for insisting it isn't? Yes.

Also it wouldn't surprise me if someone doing that was actually a piece of performance art that existed to explore the violent undertones of modern society and how the modern man represses his primal urges even in the face of obvious force.

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by Krylo

Let's say something is critiqued by art critics, put in a museum, and taught to art students as art.

Does it make you an idiot for insisting it isn't? Yes.

But why does it?

Originally Posted by Krylo

Also it wouldn't surprise me if someone doing that was actually a piece of performance art that existed to explore the violent undertones of modern society and how the modern man represses his primal urges even in the face of obvious force.

But... is it Art?

[POS Industries]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

But... is it Art?

Yes. Jegus fucking Christ it is art. Okay?

I mean, if nothing else it at least falls under martial arts which has the word "art" in it so I guess you could say that it totally is art.

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by POS Industries

Yes. Jegus fucking Christ it is art. Okay?

I mean, if nothing else it at least falls under martial arts which has the word "art" in it so I guess you could say that it totally is art.

So, if someone declares something is Art, than it is always Art?

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Krylo

You can't have a legitimate opinion on something without experiencing it.

It would be like me trying to tell you that having penises in your vagina sucks because obviously the act of penetration is superior to the act of penetrating. Maybe I could draw some comparisons on how like, any OTHER kind of penetration of the body is usually pretty terrible or something.

MAYBE if he actually played some of the more artistic games or did even some cursory research into the subject he could have a legitimate opinion.

He admits he has done neither, and so as it stands, he has none.

It's why I haven't, until now, bothered to actually respond to anything dealing with Ebert directly.

See, this is why I made that chess analogy. Playing or not playing the game isn't relevant to his point. He just chose something inherent to all games (not just video games) and said that that quality, the one the makes them games, differences them from art. If that's his opinion then he doesn't have to play the game. That it is called a game is a justification for his reasoning (which isn't horrible, mind you, but very easy to disagree with).

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Mesden

See, this is why I made that chess analogy. Playing or not playing the game isn't relevant to his point. He just chose something inherent to all games (not just video games) and said that that quality, the one the makes them games, differences them from art. If that's his opinion then he doesn't have to play the game. That it is called a game is a justification for his reasoning (which isn't horrible, mind you, but very easy to disagree with).

It's not legitimate, however, because no one is claiming that a simple game such as chess, checkers, solitaire, poker, etc. is art. They are JUST a game and nothing else. I know I don't have to actually explain the differences to any of the members here, so I won't do so in detail.

The point, however, is that many video games make socio-political points, express ideas, exist to create beauty, etc. etc. all those things which the art community defines as the actual purpose of art.

If he had done some cursory research he'd know these things are inherent to art and that there are no things which EXCLUDE something from being art. There for he would not be making ignorant definitions of art.

If he had played some games he'd know that video games include those things and therefore not have removed them from the purview of art/artistic endeavor.

As that he's done NEITHER he can have no legitimate point.

Much as if he did a movie review and admitted half way through that he had never seen the movie but the trailers are pretty shit, no one would accept it, no one should, either, accept his ideas on video games vis a vis art, until he has educated himself on both matters.

He's, frankly, not worth the time.

Adam Sessler was because he has some idea of what he's talking about for at least HALF of the equation.

[Mesden]

Originally Posted by Krylo

It's not legitimate, however, because no one is claiming that a simple game such as chess, checkers, solitaire, poker, etc. is art. They are JUST a game and nothing else. I know I don't have to actually explain the differences to any of the members here, so I won't do so in detail.

The point, however, is that many video games make socio-political points, express ideas, exist to create beauty, etc. etc. all those things which the art community defines as the actual purpose of art.

If he had done some cursory research he'd know these things are inherent to art and that there are no things which EXCLUDE something from being art. There for he would not be making ignorant definitions of art.

If he had played some games he'd know that video games include those things and therefore not have removed them from the purview of art/artistic endeavor.

As that he's done NEITHER he can have no legitimate point.

Much as if he did a movie review and admitted half way through that he had never seen the movie but the trailers are pretty shit, no one would accept it, no one should, either, accept his ideas on video games vis a vis art, until he has educated himself on both matters.

He's, frankly, not worth the time.

Adam Sessler was because he has some idea of what he's talking about for at least HALF of the equation.

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.

[Fifthfiend]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

Lets say I walk up, and punch you in the face. I then declare it was performance art without a hint of insincerity. Is it Art?

Depends how all right you are with getting punched back.