surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Roger is a very good reviewer, the deal of games isn't just his field he mentions, he is busy with other things.
but he said Games can't be art because of their interactive nature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art)... they wouldnt be games anymore if they change that
@Gaidenrider: Lesson learned, I hope?
Games = Art is an argument I never quite understood. Games don't need to be seen as art to 'matter' since most of the public doesn't care about actual Art as it is. Or games. But that doesn't mean they're equals.
I kept asking myself why such a classification mattered. I mean, okay, let's say Games are Art. What now? Am I supposed to feel a sense of pride or smugness because I'm a part of a hobby that counts? And really, why should we care about the opinion of a movie reviewer? He's a big name, yes, and his opinion influences millions of movie-goers, but we're gamers. We're a different medium of entertainment. Why him? He doesn't even play them as far as I know.
"omg he insulted our fav thing lol!"
And? Calling something not Art is a pretty weak start to an argument. I could understand if someone said like..."Playing games fosters mental retardation" or "without a shadow of a doubt results in children being trained for murder," or something else truly scathing, but Art? Come on. It's like as soon as Jack Thompson finally shut up, people needed a new central figure to hate.
Games = Art is an argument I never quite understood. Games don't need to be seen as art to 'matter' since most of the public doesn't care about actual Art as it is. Or games. But that doesn't mean they're equals.
I kept asking myself why such a classification mattered. I mean, okay, let's say Games are Art. What now? Am I supposed to feel a sense of pride or smugness because I'm a part of a hobby that counts? And really, why should we care about the opinion of a movie reviewer? He's a big name, yes, and his opinion influences millions of movie-goers, but we're gamers. We're a different medium of entertainment. Why him? He doesn't even play them as far as I know.
"omg he insulted our fav thing lol!"
And? Calling something not Art is a pretty weak start to an argument. I could understand if someone said like..."Playing games fosters mental retardation" or "without a shadow of a doubt results in children being trained for murder," or something else truly scathing, but Art? Come on. It's like as soon as Jack Thompson finally shut up, people needed a new central figure to hate.
Well now if the news media at large would STFU about violence in video games all would be right with the world. I am talking about you Fox News.
(I submitted this as a tip, but it's just as likely Jim saw it on gizmodo before he saw it in the tip box)
Anyway, I like Jim's argument that he's not doing games a disservice so much as he's doing Art in general one. I also kind of can't believe he's going to get away with apologizing, not for thinking games can't be art, but for SAYING SO. To make a ridiculous hyperbolic comparison: if you are hate minorities, but haven't personally lynched any, you are still probably a racist.
Anyway, I like Jim's argument that he's not doing games a disservice so much as he's doing Art in general one. I also kind of can't believe he's going to get away with apologizing, not for thinking games can't be art, but for SAYING SO. To make a ridiculous hyperbolic comparison: if you are hate minorities, but haven't personally lynched any, you are still probably a racist.
I have just finished a BA at an art college. Jims line:
"To me, the most offensive part of Ebert's claims weren't that games can't be art, but that art could be defined so easily, with a set of arbitrary, self-imposed boundaries that Ebert claimed he knew."
is such an important statement. There are so many types of 'art' and 'artist' that it is ridiculous to try and make boundaries. After all, the whole point of art is creativity and who has the right to tell somebody that their creativity is wrong? hmm, I work better with visuals than words and feel that i'm not going to get my point across without causing an argument here :\
Anyway, some people like paintings, some people like graphics, some people like jewelry, some people like music, some people like videogames.. surely all of these things [and many more] are all valid forms of art?
"To me, the most offensive part of Ebert's claims weren't that games can't be art, but that art could be defined so easily, with a set of arbitrary, self-imposed boundaries that Ebert claimed he knew."
is such an important statement. There are so many types of 'art' and 'artist' that it is ridiculous to try and make boundaries. After all, the whole point of art is creativity and who has the right to tell somebody that their creativity is wrong? hmm, I work better with visuals than words and feel that i'm not going to get my point across without causing an argument here :\
Anyway, some people like paintings, some people like graphics, some people like jewelry, some people like music, some people like videogames.. surely all of these things [and many more] are all valid forms of art?
@Super Drybones- To be fair, he has been a big name. It's not like this was the first thing he said that made people boil, nor has it been the last.
Really though, tossing all video games under the truck because you think they'll never be like a film is the first in a long stream of recent dick moves by Roger Ebert. He's starting to feel his age, and he can't hold his own codes to himself.
Really though, tossing all video games under the truck because you think they'll never be like a film is the first in a long stream of recent dick moves by Roger Ebert. He's starting to feel his age, and he can't hold his own codes to himself.
@catsithx
Pffft, you cannot tell Fox news to stop talking shit, that's how they are rich. Why else do you think they still have Bill O Reilly?
Not that I disagree, but in a raw realistic point of view, it would need some hells to freeze to make Fox News reasonable.
Pffft, you cannot tell Fox news to stop talking shit, that's how they are rich. Why else do you think they still have Bill O Reilly?
Not that I disagree, but in a raw realistic point of view, it would need some hells to freeze to make Fox News reasonable.
Oh, i didnt say "I have just finished a BA at an art college" just to show off.. my point was going to be that I hear people claiming things as 'not art' over and over again at college.
A flash of common sense from an art snob? Wow. The end <i>is</i> near. It's good to see Ebert back off of something he doesn't know anything about.
For this, I can respect Ebert.
This was why I refused to take that fiasco seriously. He doesn't play videogames. So who's he to say?
Here's to you Ebert. It takes a big man to admit he made a mistake when in your position.
This was why I refused to take that fiasco seriously. He doesn't play videogames. So who's he to say?
Here's to you Ebert. It takes a big man to admit he made a mistake when in your position.
@Jim
Is there a reason why you haven't impersonated Ebert in one of your videos yet? You guys kinda look alike, no offense.
Is there a reason why you haven't impersonated Ebert in one of your videos yet? You guys kinda look alike, no offense.
I'm not sure I don't agree with his orignal statement, but I would never discount the possiblity and I also realize my definition of what constitutes "art" is rather narrow.
This debate has far too many angles and is centered around an ideal that is so subjective and based on pure opinion that I don't see a sound reason to continue with it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
This debate has far too many angles and is centered around an ideal that is so subjective and based on pure opinion that I don't see a sound reason to continue with it.
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
that's like saying 'we were wrong, universe wasn't created 6000 years ago. it was created 7000 years ago'. he is still an ignorant fuck. no matter if it's the notebook, braid or watching my mother wanking - if it makes me cry IT IS A FUCKING ART to me!
of course, there is that one more thing about artist's intentions and interaction with artee (did i just make this up?) so that counts my mother out but you get my point.
of course, there is that one more thing about artist's intentions and interaction with artee (did i just make this up?) so that counts my mother out but you get my point.
Well, good on him for back-peddling on that over-arching statement. Though I do still find it telling that he used a bunch of screen caps from first person shooters in his post.
Its progress I guess. He at least is wise enough to admit that he can't divine the evolution of the medium, even if you believe that no game that currently exists can be defined as art.
Its progress I guess. He at least is wise enough to admit that he can't divine the evolution of the medium, even if you believe that no game that currently exists can be defined as art.
Art, like many other things in life, finds its intrinsic and extrinsic value solely on the viewpoint of the individual that experiences it.
Eye of the beholder, folks. Eye of the beholder.
Eye of the beholder, folks. Eye of the beholder.
At the risk of sounding like a pretentious arsehole, I think that art is whatever an individual finds beautiful.
I like that Roger Ebert pissed the gamers off. It's a silly debate and a silly thing to get all in a huff about. I'm glad that he is aware of the world enough to realize what he said was wrong. That's called maturity and I can dig that. Now if the gamers can do the same, maybe we can get somewhere. Big ups to Roger Ebert for being a bad ass guy on many levels.
Yeah, the very first question I would have in approaching this debate is: "Could you please define Art?"
To come up with a definition of art where video games are totally excluded I think would be impossible.
That said, things like golf or Monopoly aren't considered art. Fashion artists are involved in shoe design, but shoes aren't art. I but games for fun and challenge, not as an artistic expression. So his premise isn't bad or wrong and certaly worthy of debate.
To come up with a definition of art where video games are totally excluded I think would be impossible.
That said, things like golf or Monopoly aren't considered art. Fashion artists are involved in shoe design, but shoes aren't art. I but games for fun and challenge, not as an artistic expression. So his premise isn't bad or wrong and certaly worthy of debate.
Yeah, I found it weird that his definition of art seemed to only apply to movies. At the very least, he feels that for a videogame to be art, they have to possess the very same qualities as an artful film (I've noticed even people in the videogame community do this as well). Being interactive does not preclude something as art (There are many interactive installation art pieces). Paintings don't need a great narrative or dialogue to be considered art. To hold video games to these rigid boundaries just seems myopic.
I tend to agree with Clint Eastwoods ideal that if your good at something and you do it well there's an art to it there no matter what the profession.
"Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so."
He still holds the same belief as before. Nothing has changed except his intent to voice it.
He still holds the same belief as before. Nothing has changed except his intent to voice it.
Honestly I find the "Are games Art?" conversation repetitive and tiring. Art is subjective, so fucking Pac-Man could be considered art by someone. If it is, we'll all see it happen. Why bother arguing over it, especially if you aren't the creative type? Leave it to the people making/interested in making the games, I say. I just want to enjoy them, personally.
The guy is just tired of voicing his opinion against stubborn 9 year old gamers who insult him on a daily basis. Is that so bad? I personally support this guy in this action. I don't agree with his believes, but if I were him I'd also just shut up instead of continuing a debate with everyone around him insulting him.
Did anybody actually read the linked article? He's still being extremely ignorant and snobby in regards to the subject of art - only he's now admitted this is the case.
In regards to a dictionary definition of art:
"This might exclude video games on a technicality (are they works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power?), but that won't do. I required a definition that would exclude video games (those up to this point, anyway) on principle."
I respect Roger Ebert as a film critic but he has one of the most narrow minded views of 'art' I've ever come across.
In regards to a dictionary definition of art:
"This might exclude video games on a technicality (are they works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power?), but that won't do. I required a definition that would exclude video games (those up to this point, anyway) on principle."
I respect Roger Ebert as a film critic but he has one of the most narrow minded views of 'art' I've ever come across.
As a huge fan of Roger Ebert (read his books, love his writing), I still believe this was a subtle attempt to get people to begin treating games as an art form, rather than saying, "Yo, this game is so pretty, it has to be art!"
Because that's the real hurdle, at this point. I mean, some review sites even give a review merit for a game being "art". That doesn't make it so. Thoughtful criticism on the meaning of it makes it so, and while that exists, there needs to be more, and more that is accessible to everyone.
Because that's the real hurdle, at this point. I mean, some review sites even give a review merit for a game being "art". That doesn't make it so. Thoughtful criticism on the meaning of it makes it so, and while that exists, there needs to be more, and more that is accessible to everyone.
@Byronic Man
You're going to change his beliefs. In fact the goal in a debate isn't to change a belief. It's to convince the audience, not the debater.
There's a lot of things I believe that I probably wouldn't voice just willy nilly. That goes without saying for all of us.
He has an opinion based on an observation but he's realized his validity to voice his opinion as an observer and not an active participant is null.
To have an opinion and to voice that opinion are two different things.
You're going to change his beliefs. In fact the goal in a debate isn't to change a belief. It's to convince the audience, not the debater.
There's a lot of things I believe that I probably wouldn't voice just willy nilly. That goes without saying for all of us.
He has an opinion based on an observation but he's realized his validity to voice his opinion as an observer and not an active participant is null.
To have an opinion and to voice that opinion are two different things.
He's not really conceding defeat. He's just avoiding further provocation by giving an "I'm sorry you were offended"-style apology. He's still wrong - now he's just not defending himself. Now that he's placating us while sporting a simpering expression can we just ignore the fool?
BioShock was more "artsy" than the majority of films these days, which are utter fucking shit.
And old man that doesn't understand a new era of media, you say? Bullocks!
And Fox News bashing is getting old. After watching MSNBC and CNN, Fox News is the least corrupt of the bunch. MSNBC is a shit tank for pure stupidity. But yes, Fox News has got on video game sex and violence, and they're stupid for it. We have the ESRB for a reason, Fox.
And old man that doesn't understand a new era of media, you say? Bullocks!
And Fox News bashing is getting old. After watching MSNBC and CNN, Fox News is the least corrupt of the bunch. MSNBC is a shit tank for pure stupidity. But yes, Fox News has got on video game sex and violence, and they're stupid for it. We have the ESRB for a reason, Fox.
If he actually meant what he said, then he's an pretentious jackass. I like to think he was just trolling.
Personal opinion, not every ones, yes there are some arty games which are pretty.
But this argument is like every argument about defintion of art, which is all based on personal opinion, there is no right there is no wrong there is only views.
But this argument is like every argument about defintion of art, which is all based on personal opinion, there is no right there is no wrong there is only views.
You know, I probably disagree with his opinion, but I firmly believe that he's put more thought into it than at least 75% of gamers.
Most gamers want video games to be art because it justifies their past time in a way that wouldn't be quite so acceptable were video games not art.
Some video games may be art, but I've sunk 226 hours into Battlefield: Bad Company 2, and that game most assuredly is not art, it's more like a sport for very lazy people.
I guess my gripe is this: Instead of counter-claiming Ebert because it strikes a nerve within you, sit down, and try to define art. Not with a dictionary, but with what you think it is. I did so and found the slope got slippery pretty quickly.
Most gamers want video games to be art because it justifies their past time in a way that wouldn't be quite so acceptable were video games not art.
Some video games may be art, but I've sunk 226 hours into Battlefield: Bad Company 2, and that game most assuredly is not art, it's more like a sport for very lazy people.
I guess my gripe is this: Instead of counter-claiming Ebert because it strikes a nerve within you, sit down, and try to define art. Not with a dictionary, but with what you think it is. I did so and found the slope got slippery pretty quickly.
I really believe that all these stupid discussions regarding whether or not games are 'art' stem from their name.
They're called 'games' for some reason. They shouldn't be. Games are things like chess, and rock/paper/scissors, and hopskotch. Whoever started calling pieces of interactive entertainment 'games' automatically associated them with these pastimes in the minds of the uninitiated, but they are actually much, much more similar to films, or even books or music. Storytelling entertainment. Anyone who plays games regularly knows that they can do everything a film can.
Ebert is an elitist twit.
They're called 'games' for some reason. They shouldn't be. Games are things like chess, and rock/paper/scissors, and hopskotch. Whoever started calling pieces of interactive entertainment 'games' automatically associated them with these pastimes in the minds of the uninitiated, but they are actually much, much more similar to films, or even books or music. Storytelling entertainment. Anyone who plays games regularly knows that they can do everything a film can.
Ebert is an elitist twit.
Ebert is, for many reasons, one of the most impressive individuals in the criticism business. I figured this kind of thing was coming eventually, but I honestly thought he already made his point when he asked in one of his often debated articles about games as art, why do we care what he thinks?
In all honesty, my problem with his argument was never that his conclusion was wrong, but rather his definitions were different than mine. So I have no feud with Ebert, and neither should any other gamer.
In all honesty, my problem with his argument was never that his conclusion was wrong, but rather his definitions were different than mine. So I have no feud with Ebert, and neither should any other gamer.
follow
