Do we really care what a half of a once popular movie critic team says about video games? 

~Tobe

Indeed, I've started to stop caring what people who don't like games think of games. It doesn't affect me, and while I would like games to be recognised as a potential artistic medium, I'm happy with just enjoying what I love.

My only concern is that without that greater approval games will forever be mainstream shlock and the likes of truly interesting and moving games will cease to be.

Fortunately that's what the indy games do best at preserving.

You know, people use to say comic books couldn't be a true artistic medium, and nowadays people can't get enough of adapting comics and very few discredit their place as a true storytelling medium. But, it took comics roughly 50 years to make it to that place, so video games still have awhile to go, but I can see the day where we're talking about how no one can discredit video games as an art form.

And when that day comes, the topic will be replaced, from video games, to pron.

Oh, when that day comes...

One day, my art teacher gave our class an assignment. He said to create a self portrait of ourselves. I decided, hey, maybe I could get extra credit if I did it a bit more creatively. I decided to do a Manga interpretation of myself. I did a pretty good job, if I do say so myself, and I turned it into my teacher the next week. He gave me an F because "Manga is not art." That's just like Ebert dismissing video games, saying that their not art. Except of course, with me, I got an F. Not good.

Understand that all art teacher discourage manga /anime art because it is perceived as a"pop art" and it is not known to be anatomically correct. As well it has the distinction of being the "Easy to draw" syndrome, which is incorrect because 90% of people who draw it don't actually draw it well (They are a lot more tools to use than one pencil and pen).

Not saying that I agree completely, but from experience, you'll get a better reaction drawing the style from DC Comics "Blackest Night" than "One Piece."

That whole thing happened when I was ALOT younger, and still, Manga IS art. I mean, it's not a matter of opinion, it's a FACT. There's no denying it.

I respect the hell out of Ebert.  Have done so for years, and moreso now that he's still going forward on his work even after his face got turned into a horror mask by cancer (seriously, I'd chew bullets if I was told that I'd never eat, drink or speak ever again).

That said, he's on the wrong side of history in this debate.

Indeed, I've started to stop caring what people who don't like games think of games.

Jumping to conclusions much? o.o

I can't load the webpage now (seems to freeze up my browser whenever I try to) but of what I recall of the article from before it seemed to focus on the idea that if something has traits like goals, successes, etc... it's not art, and if not it's not a game. Whether or not Ebert likes games (and unless you're referring to some other statement of Ebert's outside the article, I don't think the assumption that he dislikes games follows) wouldn't be that relevant to that idea. Also I think whether or not something qualifies as art is quite subjective in the first place...

Indeed, I've started to stop caring what people who don't like games think of games.

Jumping to conclusions much? o.o

I can't load the webpage now (seems to freeze up my browser whenever I try to) but of what I recall of the article from before it seemed to focus on the idea that if something has traits like goals, successes, etc... it's not art, and if not it's not a game. Whether or not Ebert likes games (and unless you're referring to some other statement of Ebert's outside the article, I don't think the assumption that he dislikes games follows) wouldn't be that relevant to that idea. Also I think whether or not something qualifies as art is quite subjective in the first place...

You do realize a LOT of art is made upon commission, right? By that logic, art doesn't exist.

matthayter700 wrote:

---

Robobotnik wrote: 

---

Indeed, I've started to stop caring what people who don't like games think of games.

Jumping to conclusions much? o.o

I can't load the webpage now (seems to freeze up my browser whenever I try to) but of what I recall of the article from before it seemed to focus on the idea that if something has traits like goals, successes, etc... it's not art, and if not it's not a game. Whether or not Ebert likes games (and unless you're referring to some other statement of Ebert's outside the article, I don't think the assumption that he dislikes games follows) wouldn't be that relevant to that idea. Also I think whether or not something qualifies as art is quite subjective in the first place...

You do realize a LOT of art is made upon commission, right? By that logic, art doesn't exist.

What do you mean by "upon commission"? I was just pointing out what I thought Ebert's reasoning was, not saying I agreed with it...

cooking is an art, fashion is an art, i'd also consider talking an art
anything done with passion and taste and takes a lot of skill and devotion is pretty much art to me.

I think everything is art. Absolutely everything.

So yes, I'd say it is.

Ok just going to elaborate.
Art, to me, is something which invokes a feeling in the viewer. Now tell me when you look up into the sky, especially in evenings or at night, you don't feel awed/small/etc.

*puts on my beret*

I think everything is art. Absolutely everything.

So yes, I'd say it is.

Ok just going to elaborate.
Art, to me, is something which invokes a feeling in the viewer. Now tell me when you look up into the sky, especially in evenings or at night, you don't feel awed/small/etc.

*puts on my beret*

Either that or absolutely nothing.

But really, the whole idea of what art is just seems so subjective, if not arbitrary. Though then again I wouldn't know much about the philosophy/terminology of it anyway...

Well it looks like the definition of art within itself is a matter of opinion. I find art to be something pleasing to the senses, such as drawing or painting is pleasing to the eye, music is pleasing to the ears...

"I find art to be something pleasing to the senses, such as drawing or painting is pleasing to the eye"

that's right there the main reason why games can be seen as art, they're pleasing to the eyes.

"The meaning of words isn’t a fixed thing! Any word can mean anything! By giving words new meanings, ordinary English can become an exclusionary code! Two generations can be divided by the same language!

To that end, I’ll be inventing new definitions for common words, so we’ll be unable to communicate. Don’t you think that’s totally spam? It’s lubricated! Well, I’m phasing." - Calvin, C&H comics

I don't think definitions are really a matter of "opinion" even if they are technically subjective... if we don't know which definitions are the right ones, how can we know who is communicating properly and who isn't? We need some sense of some established definitions being above other, less meaningful definitions. Trouble is that seems a little hard to figure out with words like "art."

Well it looks like the definition of art within itself is a matter of opinion. I find art to be something pleasing to the senses, such as drawing or painting is pleasing to the eye, music is pleasing to the ears...

I listen to Death Metal and find it pleasing to the ears, does that make it art? I'm not saying it couldn't be... but you have to admit very few people would liken Death Metal of all things to art.

Well it looks like the definition of art within itself is a matter of opinion. I find art to be something pleasing to the senses, such as drawing or painting is pleasing to the eye, music is pleasing to the ears...

I listen to Death Metal and find it pleasing to the ears, does that make it art? I'm not saying it couldn't be... but you have to admit very few people would liken Death Metal of all things to art.

Again, I'd say it depends on which met the definitions more, and which definitions are the right ones...

Quite honestly, matters of perception are not really relevant on the mainstream. There are music teachers who quite literally state that nothing made in the past 100 years counts as artistic music, simply because by being modern it is not classical, and only classical music is artistic. (not real quote, is a paraphrase, for heavens sake do not reply to this quote it's called an example, you nitpicking conceited...)

The point of the matter is, there is no such thing as a general perception. Look at modern art, even within the snobby "art community" it is treated like an in-joke (just ask David Bowie) and yet that has art in it's title, the only reason for it existing is for people to look at it, tilt their head and go "ooo" and "aaah".

So if there is mixed opinion about stuff which exists only to be treated like art, then of course no one's going to agree on wether entertainment can be artistic. The arguement will exist for movies, it'll exist for photographs, it'll exist for music. It'll exist for videogames.

The big spoiler of the arguement, though, is at the end of the day IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Videogames are just now managing to be recognized in the mainstream, why would they want to be recognized by the artistic niche for anything more than prideful bragging rights anyway. Wether someone thinks Metal Gear Solid 4 is an artistic masterpiece of storytelling does not change it from being an entertaining stealth shooter with a convoluted storyline, it's just a matter at looking at a round object and calling it a sphere, a circle, a ball or even a "thing". End of the day the object doesn't change, just the description.

The big spoiler of the arguement, though, is at the end of the day IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Videogames are just now managing to be recognized in the mainstream, why would they want to be recognized by the artistic niche for anything more than prideful bragging rights anyway. Wether someone thinks Metal Gear Solid 4 is an artistic masterpiece of storytelling does not change it from being an entertaining stealth shooter with a convoluted storyline, it's just a matter at looking at a round object and calling it a sphere, a circle, a ball or even a "thing". End of the day the object doesn't change, just the description.

This. Definitely this.

People talk about this as if to equate something being "good" with being "art" or as if calling something "non-art" were essentially voicing disapproval of it. I can't help but think people are just jumping to conclusions about this...

I dont neccessarily think it SHOULD matter to anyone, in fact, I think if anything it SHOULDN'T matter to the kinds of people you listed above. They're not a part of the gaming world, so their opinions on games are pretty much just gravy.

I dont neccessarily think it SHOULD matter to anyone, in fact, I think if anything it SHOULDN'T matter to the kinds of people you listed above. They're not a part of the gaming world, so their opinions on games are pretty much just gravy.

But they are part of the world of art criticism and analysis. So it's precisely their business to hash out whether their definitions of "art" extend to cover video games, comic books, popular film, youtube videos, pornography, and other contested forms of so-called art.

I dont neccessarily think it SHOULD matter to anyone, in fact, I think if anything it SHOULDN'T matter to the kinds of people you listed above. They're not a part of the gaming world, so their opinions on games are pretty much just gravy.

What the hell? So one has to be "part of the gaming world" (in what sense?) for one's opinions on games to matter? As if there was no value to a perspective on gaming from outside of it?

You seem to be implying that a lack of participation in gaming warps your perception of it. What if it's the other way around? What if it's that being into gaming would warp your perception of it? For what it's worth, I don't expect either perspective to be "unbiased" or anything, but to just say that only perspectives within gaming matter strikes me as awfully selective.

Surely being into video games oneself, at least if it involves a lot of nostalgia value, would leave one thinking more favourably of the hobby? That wouldn't exactly be a neutral, impartial analysis of it, would it? In that case, why wouldn't perspectives outside of gaming, even if biased in the other direction, have at least some value?

New article on Cracked.com by columnist Robert "gomijin" Brockway: Why Ebert is Wrong: In Defense of Games as Art. He makes some good points.

To comment on what Matt said, I DO think you need to be involved in a certain field to criticize it at least somewhat. To say that... let's give an example, you hate death metal (For the record, two years ago I thought all death metal sucked majorly and was an excuse to be loud and brutal. My how have times changed.....). But the only death metal band you've heard is Cannibal Corpse( For the record again, I enjoy my fair share of DM and I still dislike Cannibal Corpse). Now, nevermind the fact that CC is only one band of the genre and doesn't exactly represent the genre in its entirety, you're still determined that death metal sucks because you only listened to a band once and hated how it sounded on that one occasion. Now, couldn't it be possible that there are other bands, within the same genre but don't quite sound the same? Still, you want to say "NO!" because you're determined that it sucks without giving it a fair chance.

Wouldn't you say, that this is.... extremely ignorant? Shouldn't you be required to delve into it before making a statement like that? Or should you be allowed to make blanket generalizations based on a very limited experience that isn't helped by the insentient ignorance?

That's exactly what I was trying to say, but was too stupid to say. I mean, when you think of museum curators, philosophers, and art historians, does the word GAMER really pop out in your head? Granted, I mean that as a generalization, not meaning that ABSOLUTELY NO ART HISTORIANS EVAR PLAY VIDEO GAMEZ. I mean, sure, they probably play video games, but, well... like Hukos said. They may not play enough different games and genres to base their opinion off of. It's really hard for me to explain... :-/

That's exactly what I was trying to say, but was too stupid to say. I mean, when you think of museum curators, philosophers, and art historians, does the word GAMER really pop out in your head? Granted, I mean that as a generalization, not meaning that ABSOLUTELY NO ART HISTORIANS EVAR PLAY VIDEO GAMEZ. I mean, sure, they probably play video games, but, well... like Hukos said. They may not play enough different games and genres to base their opinion off of. It's really hard for me to explain... :-/

Lots of my friends are gamers who are going to grad school to pursue careers just like the ones I listed. Absolutely anyone can play video games and have an opinion about them, regardless their job. Yeah, a 60-year old professor of art history is statistically unlikely to be a gamer, but what about a 35-year-old professor of art history? Being a "gamer" is largely a generational thing, and the generation that grew up with the NES and SNES is coming of age. And some of them are going into careers in academia.

To comment on what Matt said, I DO think you need to be involved in a certain field to criticize it at least somewhat. To say that... let's give an example, you hate death metal (For the record, two years ago I thought all death metal sucked majorly and was an excuse to be loud and brutal. My how have times changed.....). But the only death metal band you've heard is Cannibal Corpse( For the record again, I enjoy my fair share of DM and I still dislike Cannibal Corpse). Now, nevermind the fact that CC is only one band of the genre and doesn't exactly represent the genre in its entirety, you're still determined that death metal sucks because you only listened to a band once and hated how it sounded on that one occasion. Now, couldn't it be possible that there are other bands, within the same genre but don't quite sound the same? Still, you want to say "NO!" because you're determined that it sucks without giving it a fair chance.

Wouldn't you say, that this is.... extremely ignorant? Shouldn't you be required to delve into it before making a statement like that? Or should you be allowed to make blanket generalizations based on a very limited experience that isn't helped by the insentient ignorance?

Even a broader experience with a medium (or genre, like in your analogy) wouldn't necessarily give you a representative sample. For your analogy, if someone only listened to one band, yeah that might leave them with the wrong impression of what death metal was like, but even if they listened to a variety of bands that could still give them the wrong impression, since bands they heard of could still be a biased sample of them for reasons they might not be aware of.

In your analogy, you talk about someone being absolutely convinced that something is bad and not giving it a chance. This is obviously circular, but it's very different from the article we're responding to. Ebert is saying video games aren't art, according to the supposed definitions of video games and of art. (See the "goals and incentives" thing I mentioned earlier.) I'm not sure if he's using the right ones here, but the point is that it's a very different kind of idea than the generalizations/preconceptions you're comparing it to.

And I"m saying, unless he plays games regularly, I don't think he's fit to say "It isn't art".

And I"m saying, unless he plays games regularly, I don't think he's fit to say "It isn't art".

Care to explain why?

Experience and familiarity can do a lot to shape someone's consideration of a given topic. For example, a greater familiarity with the game of chess changes it from a baffling activity where two people take it in turns to move pieces around an 8x8 grid to a skill-testing contest potentially involving various strategies which have been well documented during the game's history. However, some aesthetic appreciatioon can be derived from seeing various patterns formed by the game-position as it evolves, and some sense of success can be derived from differing numbers of removed pieces from the board for each side as the game progresses - hence even a relatively inexperienced viewer can have some level of appreciation of the game.

Just in case you were wondering, I'm not particularly good at chess, and take little more than a passing interest in it. Just decided to throw it in as an example of how different experiences can be gained from viewing a fairly well-known activity.

Similarly, the appreciation of a painting can be affected by knowledge of general themes for composition, styles used, media employed (oil/watercolours/acrylic/whatever), previous works by the same artist, common imagery invoked in paintings for various themes, and so forth. Again, I have little more than a passing interest in paintings.

The more you know of a topic, the more different ways you have of appreciating the subject you are viewing. If I see a game of chess in progress, I know enough to follow the moves, and get a reasonable sense of who is playing better, but not enough to know what strategies either side may be employing, or appreciate fully the game position. Similarly, when looking at a fine painting, my general impression is typically more along the lines of "ooh, pretty". In neither case does my relative lack of expertise prevent me from having some appreciation of the subject.

My view is that you can look at just about anything from an aesthetic perspective to varying degrees of success. What makes something art is if the object has some intended message or experience to portray through a non-direct means. I would say video games, potentially through interactive narrative or through other presentation, can achieve this - at least as much as film, music or literature can be considered art. Also, as with chess, the aesthetic may not be inherent or integral to the game - after all, I doubt chess grandmasters consider which move will bring about the most artistically pleasing, or symbolically charged outcome during a competitive match. Perhaps this instead allows some games to act as a medium for artworks to be created in, rather than as art themselves.

And I"m saying, unless he plays games regularly, I don't think he's fit to say "It isn't art".

Care to explain why?

I have never eaten a mango. But I know that a mango is not a fish. Why? Because I have a definition of fish (aquatic vertebrate with scales, gills, and fins) and despite the fact that I've never eaten a mango before, not have I even held one to examine it closely, I know a little bit about mangos. Enough to realize that it's not a fish, without ever tasting it. It's a different kind of thing. It's a fruit. 

In the same way, Ebert hasn't played many video games, but he knows a little bit about them, and by what little he knows he can already tell that they don't fit with his idea of what art is. Clearly you disagree with how he came by that conclusion. I'm not sure I agree either. But maybe that's because Ebert has a different idea of what "art" is than the ideas you and I have. Surely he's entitled to his opinion about what art is, isn't he? As we keep saying, there's no one agreed-upon definition of art.

And speaking of which, there's really no agreed-upon definition of "game," either. Chess, football, hide-and-seek and solitaire are all games. Is a video game really a member of that category as well? Is it a "game" in the same sense that those are games? What does it have in common with them? 

Art has been an important cultural phenomenon for millennia. Games have, too. And in general, they have always been distinct. But now, video games are an important cultural phenomenon, and that raises some questions. Are video games art, or are they games, or are they both, or are they neither? I happen to think that questions like this really do matter, and I don't think we should discount someone's opinion just because they're not a gamer.

That's like saying because you can add 2+2 you can teach advanced calculus at Harvard.

And art is well... subjective. As is the quality of a game. And considering he doesn't play many, I have very little doubts that his impressions upon videogames are extremely limited and range probably to the most recent Halo game. I don't think unless he's really explored all that videogames have to offer, that he can justify his opinion on them.

That's like saying because you can add 2+2 you can teach advanced calculus at Harvard.

How so? Dirk just made an analogy about mango vs. fish, which seemed a lot more of a closer comparison because it was about a definition-centric approach. Where is the comparison in your analogy, and how does it counter Dirk's?

And art is well... subjective. As is the quality of a game. And considering he doesn't play many, I have very little doubts that his impressions upon videogames are extremely limited and range probably to the most recent Halo game. I don't think unless he's really explored all that videogames have to offer, that he can justify his opinion on them.

Again, why would he need to have "explored" videogames to have justified his opinion? I think some diehard gamers might have a limited range of "experience" with games too, they might be too focused on specific genres and/or styles of gaming.

If it's about the definitions, why should experience even be relevant? And unless Ebert made specific claims about the quality of video games as a whole (again, the link didn't seem to work on my computer, but I'm going by what I recall) why would quality be relevant?

Well in the end it doesn't matter what any of us thinks.

Because Roger Ebert has changed his mind and agreed that video games CAN be classified as ART!

Now that's done I suggest that this thread should be locked, ignoring the hypocrite that has posted in a topic that's months old.