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

[krogothwolf]

The issue the people have against video games as art is because gamers create their own experience within the game it doesn't come off as art. It really makes no sense to me to use that as an excuse because everyone takes something different from a set of art. Some hidden meaning they believe the author or painter hide within it.

I just think they all fear change.

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

A book has no variation in it's path without intentional subversion of the intent.

A videogame... I can choose to spare the goombas. I can warp to level 8. It's not a concrete path. it is very fluid, and alterations can be made to the experience. There is only a generalized sense of how to experience it. It is only a framework. It is, in essence, incomplete, because it requires a user's own personal input to complete it.

And every time it's completed it is likely different.

OBJECTION!

What of "choose your own adventure" books? What, then, of shared, persistant worlds by multiple authors with conflicting continuities (Star Wars Expanded Universe, say)? What singular "path" would one take there? What if a typo or plot hole appears in a book, or that book is written in such a way as to be purposefully ambiguous in its meaning or ending? What of Final Fantasy XIII in the non-linearity arguement?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

I just think they all fear change.

I know I do. Man, can those pennies get heavy after a while. Oh! Ooooooooohhhhhhhhh! Oh. THAT kind of "change". Right. Oh yeah, They totally do. Also, I'm not afraid of anything. Nope. *runs and hides in the fear of pennies*

EDIT 2:

Originally Posted by Krylo

And it still provides a much more static presentation than say, seeing Midsummer's Night Dream as performed by two entirely different casts/directors/etc.

As my wife is a drama teacher (in addition to her English duties) I can attest this is entirely accurate from experience. Further, what of those famed theater pieces that beg or even require audience interaction? Even more, what of ImprovAnywhere - is what they do any less 'art', despite the fact that it can, inherently, only be done once to its full effect (unlike, say, seeing a movie or showing a painting)? Or is it more of an art because of that, in which case repeatable experiences, such as viewings of movies and painting would be diminished.

Or then again, an orchestral arrangement by Bethovan is a masterpiece - a masterpiece interpreted slightly differently by every single orchestra that plays it. Oh, wait, that's not art - it's played, after all, in a strict, straightforward pattern exactly as the creator intended, following rigorous rules to get from one path to the next.

Similarly, Mozart. Oh, but there is relief in sight: it has no choice! Or does it? Can it be played on piano? Of course, as that was how it was written. Or on a keyboard? Well... those are similar enough. What about on a synthasizer, electrically created with no keys or strings? Hm. Perhaps it can be elegantly distributed to various persons - a band of pianists - to create a duet (or larger) when none was originally intended? Indeed each person who plays a piece of music can play it to their own instrument, their own way of thinking, and can redistribute the notes as they see fit: minor, personal touches throughout the whole, creating a new arrangement all their own.

No, the argument that minor play differences seperate videogames from art is not valid. Music students study and play only specific movements of larger orchestras, often skipping around. Similar, I'd say, to warping to level 8 and ignoring the few goombas, non?

[Viridis]

It is, in essence, incomplete, because it requires a user's own personal input to complete it.

You see this even more in modern games like the Spore, Mass Effect, etc.

Can't we interpret the act of playing the game as.. writing the story? We're making the art with the developers.

[Krylo]

Guys, we live in a world where getting shot in the arm is, literally, considered high art.

Drawing the line at Vidjamagames is just stupid.

[Kerensky287]

Originally Posted by Viridis

You see this even more in modern games like the Spore, Mass Effect, etc.

Can't we interpret the act of playing the game as.. writing the story? We're making the art with the developers.

I love this definition. It's honestly my favourite interpretation of "video games as art" I have ever heard.

Partly because it feels so deep - by playing the game, you're creating your own unique experience. It's a piece of art that is your very own, and you get to personalize it however you want.

Partly it implies that Roger Ebert is an artless tool because he refuses to play these things.

Also partly because it finally makes art a goddamn competitive sport.

[krogothwolf]

Doesn't art need someone to view it or read it to be considered art? Then the critics and views need to dissect and interpret all sorts of meaning behind the said art. Was harry porter really just a book about some crazy wizard going through school while conquering evil in some alternate universe, or was it a deep look into the dangers a child faces through school? With voldermort being an interpretation of peer pressure and dark magic being an example of drugs?

How is a game any different then that?

[Marc v4.0]

If the only person to ever see a painting is the one who painted it, is it not still art?

[krogothwolf]

Originally Posted by Marc v1.0

If the only person to ever see a painting is the one who painted it, is it not still art?

If the only person to play the video game is the guy who created it and follows the path they created themselves, how is that not art?

[Marc v4.0]

...I think we said the exact same thing.

edit: Clearly, I think Video games are Art

[tacticslion]

Originally Posted by krogothwolf

If the only person to play the video game is the guy who created it and follows the path they created themselves, how is that not art?

Even if that game is never played, it is created - it exists and is admired (presumably) in the mind of the creator - it is, in some respect, art. Otherwise, yes, I agree with you.

To (in highly improper fashion, I'm aware) quote myself:

Originally Posted by tacticslion

Similarly, Mozart. Oh, but there is relief in sight: it has no choice! Or does it? Can it be played on piano? Of course, as that was how it was written. Or on a keyboard? Well... those are similar enough. What about on a synthasizer, electrically created with no keys or strings? Hm. Perhaps it can be elegantly distributed to various persons - a band of pianists - to create a duet (or larger) when none was originally intended? Indeed each person who plays a piece of music can play it to their own instrument, their own way of thinking, and can redistribute the notes as they see fit: minor, personal touches throughout the whole, creating a new arrangement all their own.

No, the argument that minor play differences seperate videogames from art is not valid. Music students study and play only specific movements of larger orchestras, often skipping around within the same over-all piece, ignoring some parts, and focusing more heavily on others. Similar, I'd say, to warping to level 8 and ignoring the few goombas, non?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Krylo

Guys, we live in a world where getting shot in the arm is, literally, considered high art.

Drawing the line at Vidjamagames is just stupid.

To be fair loons have always led the way to 'new' artistic expression! Picasso, man, Picasso!