surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
So I was thinking, maybe the best way to get people to take the gaming community seriously would be more cancer jokes.
Great job there guys. Pure class.
Great job there guys. Pure class.
Who actually cares if video games are art or something? 90% of games are still dumb consolized simplistic action-oriented, boob physics jiggling, space marine grey corridor, mass market lowest common denominator trash. Just putting checking the little box next to "Is it art?" doesn't make the medium any better or more respectable.
@ lucassays
To quote my man Cody:
Bingo.
I don't think he had tried to start any kind of shitstorm, but rather tried to elevate the gaming population's bar by calling out the more mindless aspects of videogames (and more specifically, the more popular titles that focus less on actual narrative depth). He may have just been asking us to expect more than what we've been handed from those who create what we experience, but the way the question/statement/thought was framed did little to raise the actual point in his mind.
With that said, he may have seen this "debate" quite differently should he have been exposed to such titles as Okami (where the art is a literal application in gameplay mechanics, not just the "mise en scene" or the fantastic story), or any of Team Ico's previous works (Shadow Of The Colossus would have been a fantastic way to prove him wrong, should he have been subjected to an actual playthrough, whether by himself or with someone more familiar with a controller).
To quote my man Cody:
Bingo.
I don't think he had tried to start any kind of shitstorm, but rather tried to elevate the gaming population's bar by calling out the more mindless aspects of videogames (and more specifically, the more popular titles that focus less on actual narrative depth). He may have just been asking us to expect more than what we've been handed from those who create what we experience, but the way the question/statement/thought was framed did little to raise the actual point in his mind.
With that said, he may have seen this "debate" quite differently should he have been exposed to such titles as Okami (where the art is a literal application in gameplay mechanics, not just the "mise en scene" or the fantastic story), or any of Team Ico's previous works (Shadow Of The Colossus would have been a fantastic way to prove him wrong, should he have been subjected to an actual playthrough, whether by himself or with someone more familiar with a controller).
And as if to prove my point, half the comments on here either call him old and out of touch (he's surprisingly up on popular culture and other internet-related things that usually scare old people, such as twitter and blogging), there's a picture of a gecko giving him the finger (not sure why a gecko), and then a bunch of cheap shots at the fact that he had significant portions of his face removed due to cancer.
Video gamers want to be taken seriously, but can't be bothered to do the leg work to achieve that goal.
Video gamers want to be taken seriously, but can't be bothered to do the leg work to achieve that goal.
What's offensive about stating your opinion about what is and isn't art? It's like "talking about stuff" offends you. When did you get so sensitive?
Unlike most people posting(it seems) I actually read this article when Gizmodo first posted it and he still thinks games will NEVER be art, he just won't say it aloud anymore.
Games aren't art to me because to me art is a bunch of lame paintings in a fancy-schmancy, queer, white show-room with a bunch of post-modern(read: retarded) shit hanging from the ceiling and coming up from the ground where smug people go to, so they call belittle others who don't go.
Games are definitely not art, nor do I ever want them to be.
Games aren't art to me because to me art is a bunch of lame paintings in a fancy-schmancy, queer, white show-room with a bunch of post-modern(read: retarded) shit hanging from the ceiling and coming up from the ground where smug people go to, so they call belittle others who don't go.
Games are definitely not art, nor do I ever want them to be.
Why the fuck are you giving this man attention, Jim? This guy tries to define art with boundaries that make no sense.
This whole argument is fucking ridiculous.
This whole argument is fucking ridiculous.
@John Johnson:
Word. Not to mention Ebert is surprisingly knowledgeable about that other nerd passion, anime- he's written a lot about the how The Last Airbender disappoints the memory of the original show. Gamers are out of touch with Ebert, Ebert is not out of touch with gamers.
And definitely. Gamers never do the leg work. They fly into a rage and cry "censorship!" every time the media breathes a single negative thing about games. To be fair, much of what the press reports on games is hysterical.
Word. Not to mention Ebert is surprisingly knowledgeable about that other nerd passion, anime- he's written a lot about the how The Last Airbender disappoints the memory of the original show. Gamers are out of touch with Ebert, Ebert is not out of touch with gamers.
And definitely. Gamers never do the leg work. They fly into a rage and cry "censorship!" every time the media breathes a single negative thing about games. To be fair, much of what the press reports on games is hysterical.
@John - I like the part where you ignore the 100s of actually thoughtful and well-versed counter arguments. Heck, even Ebert admitted that was the case on his blog.
@kjohnson1585
I said "on here" meaning Destructoid. We're not even at a hundred comments yet. And to be fair, "half" may be an overstatement, but I will say that at least a solid quarter are knee-jerk reactions without much more thought put into them beyond "I'm mad because I perceive he's insulting something that's important in my life."
I said "on here" meaning Destructoid. We're not even at a hundred comments yet. And to be fair, "half" may be an overstatement, but I will say that at least a solid quarter are knee-jerk reactions without much more thought put into them beyond "I'm mad because I perceive he's insulting something that's important in my life."
@Xyliac
I disagree with that. Sure, a staged debate is nothing but a show for the audience, but it doesn't represent the intentions and process of naturally-occuring argumentative discussion. These arise out of conflicting stances where each party feels the need to express their views in correction of the other. The goal of such discussions is agreement on the matter, or at least compromise. Debates detail the objective as swaying a more or less neutral party, but this is just a measure of the popularity of one's argument (the goal being to have the most popular argument - not to reach a decision).
When you and I argue, when people normally argue, we do so under the strive to convince one another of our points, not to gain support from those outside the argument. To enter an argument under the impression of 'winning' is to miss the whole point of communicating. The real winners aren't those whose argument survives, but those who feel they have resolved the situation.
The point boils down to our different epistemological views, which we could talk about for hours. Let me say I am very much not a subjectivist - and that I don't believe the subjectivity of human nature prevents concurrant truth.
There was another thing you said... "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." Yes of course. But Ebert voiced his views as if backed by some philosophical credibility, as if they were academic. Whether or not he voices these views, I will still hold the same contention with them, much as I would with a closet homophobe, a closet racist, or a closet rapist.
I can appreciate that whoever may recognize their opinion as uninformed and subjective, and so decide not to defend it but still retain it. Ebert, however, not only retains his views but maintains their philosophical defence. He admits his ignorance but still thinks his view is supported by reason.
I disagree with that. Sure, a staged debate is nothing but a show for the audience, but it doesn't represent the intentions and process of naturally-occuring argumentative discussion. These arise out of conflicting stances where each party feels the need to express their views in correction of the other. The goal of such discussions is agreement on the matter, or at least compromise. Debates detail the objective as swaying a more or less neutral party, but this is just a measure of the popularity of one's argument (the goal being to have the most popular argument - not to reach a decision).
When you and I argue, when people normally argue, we do so under the strive to convince one another of our points, not to gain support from those outside the argument. To enter an argument under the impression of 'winning' is to miss the whole point of communicating. The real winners aren't those whose argument survives, but those who feel they have resolved the situation.
The point boils down to our different epistemological views, which we could talk about for hours. Let me say I am very much not a subjectivist - and that I don't believe the subjectivity of human nature prevents concurrant truth.
There was another thing you said... "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." Yes of course. But Ebert voiced his views as if backed by some philosophical credibility, as if they were academic. Whether or not he voices these views, I will still hold the same contention with them, much as I would with a closet homophobe, a closet racist, or a closet rapist.
I can appreciate that whoever may recognize their opinion as uninformed and subjective, and so decide not to defend it but still retain it. Ebert, however, not only retains his views but maintains their philosophical defence. He admits his ignorance but still thinks his view is supported by reason.
I may be kinda late here, but isn't all of this kinda redundant? I mean, art is supposed to be personal, right? What's incredibly arty to you might be a piece of meaningless crap to me, and you can't say anything about it, it's just my opinion...
We should probably leave this debate at rest until the gaming generation grows up and doesn't hurl personal attacks at some old film critic for not thinking games are art. Roger Ebert posts a blog entry about his thoughts on games, doesn't see the worth in it, and everyone goes berserk. Film was considered low, escapist entertainment once, just like games are now, but I don't remember filmgoers throwing massive hissy fits over one guy's views. Why don't you people get over yourselves and get back to throwing money at MMOs.
I am not reading the comments to this post, but based on the first comment I see, I'm going to assume that a number of idiots- Oh, excuse me, I mean gamers have left a great many demeaning, insulting comments about a man who is quite talented, intelligent, and likable. Ebert, I mean... not you, Jim. ;) Anyway, good job at probably making us all look just fantastic, you fucking dumbshits. Happy Canada Day.
I respect him as a film critic, I have since is days At The Movies with Gene, but he really is way off on games. Maybe when they were 16bit sprites and such, but I defy anyone to argue that art isn't subjective. Ico moved me, and the first time I battled that flying colossus over the water it took my breath away. Easy examples, sure, but also widely accepted as some of the finest works in gaming 'art'.
I'd use the *scene missing* from Red Dead Redemption as another example.
I'd use the *scene missing* from Red Dead Redemption as another example.
Art is any creative expression manifested through a medium. The end, story over. All this subjective nonsense of what "is" and "isn't" art is absolute rubbish.
"Art is any creative expression manifested through a medium. The end, story over. All this subjective nonsense of what "is" and "isn't" art is absolute rubbish."
well, then art isn't hard, and such a broad definition makes me think 'who cares if games or anything else is art.'
well, then art isn't hard, and such a broad definition makes me think 'who cares if games or anything else is art.'
@DysprosiumJudas
I think your definition of art explains exactly WHY there is subjectivity in defining art. Because I find your definition of art to be, um, absolute rubbish.
That said, I'm about 70 comments too late to really enter into this discussion/debate and my head hurts too much to go back and catch myself up. So I'm just going to leave my borderline-flaming comment here and pretend that I've made a contribution.
Toodles.
I think your definition of art explains exactly WHY there is subjectivity in defining art. Because I find your definition of art to be, um, absolute rubbish.
That said, I'm about 70 comments too late to really enter into this discussion/debate and my head hurts too much to go back and catch myself up. So I'm just going to leave my borderline-flaming comment here and pretend that I've made a contribution.
Toodles.
tl;dr: Ebert said something uncharacteristically stupid and ignorant, people debated it (both intelligently and unintelligently), Ebert admitted that he didn't know what he was talking about and apologized for it, a few people are still butthurt about it and trying to find reasons to whine about it (and failing to do so, make fun of the fact that he had to have part of his jaw surgically removed in order to not die), world keeps on spinning.
@mackie junior
If you're done being a condescending prick, you might want to read the manner in which Ebert apologized and even try to understand the reason people still aren't eager to fellate him.
If you're done being a condescending prick, you might want to read the manner in which Ebert apologized and even try to understand the reason people still aren't eager to fellate him.
I wish he didn't say anything because I hate hearing about it in the first place. Before he mentioned that games couldn't be art, people never said anything about it.
Its like telling a kid he can't have something. They never wanted it in the first place, but as soon as you say you can't have it, thats the only thing they want.
Now I got a several page article in my GI magazine on how they're art. Get this trash out of my game magazine. I don't care. I don't play games to decide if its art, and even if it was, why would I give a second notice. I just want to entertain myself for a couple hours.
Its like telling a kid he can't have something. They never wanted it in the first place, but as soon as you say you can't have it, thats the only thing they want.
Now I got a several page article in my GI magazine on how they're art. Get this trash out of my game magazine. I don't care. I don't play games to decide if its art, and even if it was, why would I give a second notice. I just want to entertain myself for a couple hours.
People need to realize that art isn't some sort of objective dogma. Everything is art, there is no pre-determined set of rules to decide whether or not a piece of work qualifies as art or not. It's something that's completely relative to the observer, and no one person has a perception more keen than anyone else. Decide for yourself what is art.
Try looking up Young-Hae Chang's "Art of Sleep" for a better understanding of what I mean.
Try looking up Young-Hae Chang's "Art of Sleep" for a better understanding of what I mean.
follow
