|
Title: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: driph on January 03, 2011, 11:46:28 AM So we wrote a thing.
Quote If you’re reading this, you’re probably already familiar with the debate. You know the back and forth between Roger Ebert and Kellee Santiago on the subject and you’ve probably made up your mind about which side of the line you stand on. For those who haven’t been following the drama, here’s a quick recap: Ebert: vidya games will never be art. they r dumb an bad. poems, paint, poems. Santiago: no wai! games r totally art now. they wernt before, but u kno… games r sooo much better than b4. have you guys seen Fl0w(er)? Ebert: lol nub. u dont kno wat art is. Santiago: no, srs! here I send u my game. u liek? Ebert: no thx Santiago: watevs, i alredy won. games r totes art. my next game also is an art. http://flyingmongooselabs.com/2010/12/games-as-art-and-why-you-shouldnt-care/ Thoughts, criticism? Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: DeathInABottle on January 03, 2011, 12:04:49 PM I agree entirely with the idea that rules can influence emotions, and I agree that it's those rules that essentially distinguish games from other media: there's a seduction in opting out of the law of reality and into the rule of the game. This isn't to say that games can't be art, but that whatever it is that makes something a work of art doesn't bear any necessary relationship to the rule of the game - which isn't a problem, as you've said.
Excellent post. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 12:08:08 PM They are indeed art, its just a medium like any other. They can be pretty, ugly, emotional, crappy, provoking, ban-able, uplift, offensive like all forms of art.
I'm sure the same thing was said when color film was developed, or computers. Im convinced those that say they are not, are the same ones who think using photoshop means instant image or one push mimicry. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Sir T on January 03, 2011, 12:12:40 PM Or Music.
You can play Mozart and have a boring crappy night. You can play the banjo and enthrall an audience for hours. It depends on the execution and performance of the medium. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Lucas on January 03, 2011, 12:15:29 PM You can play Mozart and have a boring crappy night. You can play the banjo and enthrall an audience for hours. It depends on the execution and performance of the medium. Ok, sorry to interrupt for a second, but whenever I read "banjo" in a videogame topic my mind immediately gets back to this :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_PqZofBPWg Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Nebu on January 03, 2011, 12:19:11 PM Games are a combination of media which could all, individually, be considered pieces of art. Games itself are really relegated to their genre and I would define them as such by default (puzzles, interactive fiction, etc.). I have no problem calling the graphical, musical, or story components "art", but a game is still, by definition, a game.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 12:21:34 PM Depends on what game you are talking about.
Most games are interactive performances, they just happen to be canned in a medium. FOR INSTANCE! What if the opening scene/level to Call of duty was live acted, with you, as the viewer in an instillation? What makes it NOT a collaborative effort on the part of the artists involved (yes even programmers)? The fact its in a digital medium? When do those parts you list stop being art, once combined? Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Sky on January 03, 2011, 12:25:12 PM Of course games can be art. Anything can be.
Fuck, if you're going to call that wag Pollack art, I took a nice art this morning in the toilet. A real moving experience. A slapping of pigments and binders onto a surface is just a slapping of pigments and binders onto a surface, eh? Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Lucas on January 03, 2011, 12:27:21 PM Maybe I'm minimizing the meaning of the word "art" but: the concept of a game, and consequentially its realization, come from a sparkle of creativity, just like a piece of what you consider "traditional" art come from; then, just like traditional Art, in whoever watches it (and play, in our case, but I don't see a meaningful difference here), it evokes the range of emotions MrBloodworth described.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 12:27:44 PM Typically, Art creates or requests emotion.
Kinda hard to say that games are not an art form, when they have a greater impact on society then Pollack did, or skys movement will (Due to a limited engagement). Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Nebu on January 03, 2011, 12:29:03 PM As Sky has pointed out, labeling a game as "art" is as meaningless as labeling a urine-filled container as "art". Game designers need not try to legitimize the skills they bring to bear by calling their productions "art".
Personally, I'm fine with calling games "art". However, it really adds nothing to the medium by doing so. Were I a game designer, I'd take great pride in my finished product regardless of the label affixed to it. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 12:32:43 PM I don't believe thats what Ebert means though. He seems them as inferior toys, that have no impact on the world around us. They are not art, so they do not elicit emotion, require skill, training, or talent.
They are impact less, musings, his connotations strips them of everything you have said nebu. Quote She begins by saying video games "already ARE art." Yet she concedes that I was correct when I wrote, "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets." To which I could have added painters, composers, and so on, but my point is clear. I think he is out of touch. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 12:34:10 PM This is and has always been a stupid argument that could be settled by actually looking up what the word 'art' means. Of course games are art.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: driph on January 03, 2011, 12:35:06 PM As Sky has pointed out, labeling a game as "art" is as meaningless as labeling a urine-filled container as "art". Game designers need not try to legitimize the skills they bring to bear by calling their productions "art". Personally, I'm fine with calling games "art". However, it really adds nothing to the medium by doing so. Were I a game designer, I'd take great pride in my finished product regardless of the label affixed to it. And that's pretty much our take on it. Is the experience meaningful? As a game, does it succeed in doing what you intended it to to? Then grats. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: jakonovski on January 03, 2011, 12:55:45 PM (Video) games are young and have already developed an opaque subculture, so it's no wonder there's resistance to calling them art. It also doesn't help that the ratio of cynical money making schemes to labors of love is far worse than even movies. But the indie scheme is already on the rise, and will inevitably at some point compel the industry to constructive self-reflection.
I think that instead of a premature discussion on art, it would be better to concentrate on the lack of self-respect (http://designreboot.blogspot.com/2010/12/against-dilettantism.html) many games designers show. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 12:56:48 PM As Sky has pointed out, labeling a game as "art" is as meaningless as labeling a urine-filled container as "art". Game designers need not try to legitimize the skills they bring to bear by calling their productions "art". Personally, I'm fine with calling games "art". However, it really adds nothing to the medium by doing so. Were I a game designer, I'd take great pride in my finished product regardless of the label affixed to it. And that's pretty much our take on it. Is the experience meaningful? As a game, does it succeed in doing what you intended it to to? Then grats. That's a bit like comparing commercial art, to traditional. EDIT: What I mean by that. Creating a "Thing" that simply serves a purpose, rather than a thing, that servers the makers desires, or that of the viewer. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Nebu on January 03, 2011, 01:00:40 PM That's a bit like comparing commercial art, to traditional. Commercial art, literature, music, canvas and oil... it's all art. Games are art. Game music is art. Game art is art. It's all art. This stuff is just a pointless academic exercise. It's like some pseudo-heirarchical argument for the sake of feeling important. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: stu on January 03, 2011, 01:02:20 PM Ebert and Santiago are both snooty clowns. Reading their arguments, I get the feeling that they are both in over their heads but have delved too deeply in their stances to back out. So, they just argue over loopholes within definitions.
Santiago's remarks infuriate me even more than Ebert's because she looks down on anything that isn't mature or critically acclaimed. One of them has an inferiority complex and the other has no basis for his opinions other than peripheral knowledge. edit: what Nebu said. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 01:02:43 PM That's a bit like comparing commercial art, to traditional. Commercial art, literature, music, canvas and oil... it's all art. Games are art. Game music is art. Game art is art. It's all art. This stuff is just a pointless academic exercise. It's like some pseudo-heirarchical argument for the sake of feeling important. Not really, its two distinct intents. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Malakili on January 03, 2011, 01:03:00 PM The real problem with the "art" of games is that there aren't enough artists working on them. By artists I mean creative people with good ideas.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Lantyssa on January 03, 2011, 01:04:08 PM This stuff is just a pointless academic exercise. It's like some pseudo-heirarchical argument for the sake of feeling important. What else do you expect from artists?Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Nebu on January 03, 2011, 01:04:39 PM Not really, its two distinct intents. Art is independent of intent. It's all art. A commercial jingle is every bit as much art as a Mozart symphony. Academics just like to assign value to justify their own egos. I know... I'm an academic. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Nebu on January 03, 2011, 01:05:41 PM What else do you expect from artists? I don't think that real artists care. It's the critics that like to affix labels to make themselves look like they're adding value. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 01:06:32 PM This stuff is just a pointless academic exercise. It's like some pseudo-heirarchical argument for the sake of feeling important. What else do you expect from artists?If I knew the terms, I'm sure I could come up with the two different intents in science too. Art is independent of intent. I disagree. :grin: Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: stu on January 03, 2011, 01:08:10 PM Art is a function acting as an extension and response to an environment. Anything created can be art, including that which nature provides us with. Intent doesn't factor into the equation. Whether something is commercial or not, the outcome is still art.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 01:12:18 PM They are both art, never said they were not.
However one is created for a means, the other is a expression of ones self or concept or environment. Two different intents. Two different outcomes, two very different set of considerations. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Sky on January 03, 2011, 01:14:11 PM This stuff is just a pointless academic exercise. It's like some pseudo-heirarchical argument for the sake of feeling important. I started out as an art major. If I could have stomached this kind of discussion, I may have ended up an artist.For me, there is a tipping point, but I'm not too hardcore about it. When we go to museums, she finds it funny how I just dismiss pieces. For me, having been an artist (and my best friend was an insanely talented artist now making a living as a fine artist), the main thing is: could this be posted to a mother's fridge? Even modern art, which I mostly detest, can be done well with a proper eye and skill level. However, people see an orange canvas with a blue line in it and go 'oh I can do that!', slap some paint on a canvas and get all philosophical about how they're artists and what it means to them. Which my second criteria, art speaks for itself. That said, modern art can go fuck itself; the old masters were, well, masters. If Pollack could paint as well as Rembrandt and CHOSE to splat paint around the canvas, I'd still think it shit but at least give him credit for making a statement. That's how I grew to appreciate Andy Warhol, not for his "art", but for his amazing con game. Easily one of the greatest men of the last century, proving the insipid nature of the art world without any shadow of a doubt. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 01:14:54 PM Intent matters to the extent that art has to be created deliberately - something created by accident doesn't really count. That isn't to say it can't include randomness, if the randomness is present by design.
But what I think Bloodworth is talking about, a distinction between something created for commercial or functional purposes and something created as art for art's sake, that's a very modern idea and one without a lot of merit, IMO. Mozart was writing pop music to make a living, he wasn't making art just to make it. The idea of the 'artist' as someone who goes off and just does their own thing for its own sake is a 19th century invention. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 01:18:28 PM A lot of the pieces we hold as works of great art are not always the ones that were being displayed publicly, "To pay the bills".
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Ginaz on January 03, 2011, 01:19:24 PM This stuff is just a pointless academic exercise. It's like some pseudo-heirarchical argument for the sake of feeling important. Not really. Video games need to be seen as art in order to be protected from overzelous lawmakers who want to ban or limit them. If they're seen as art, both legally and by the general public, then doing that becomes much harder. That is what is at the heart of the "games as art" debate now. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Sky on January 03, 2011, 01:20:43 PM Yeah, Michaelangelo had suits telling him what to do, they were just silly robes type suits. Art has always needed the patron, and few the patrons who didn't insert themselves into the process. You can't deny some amazing art that has come from the advertising world.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 01:28:39 PM A lot of the pieces we hold as works of great art are not always the ones that were being displayed publicly, "To pay the bills". I'm a musician, I can't speak to visual art really, but things like this are very much the exception in music, not the rule. EDIT: Feels a little weird describing myself as a musician these days since I haven't done anything with it in years, but whatever. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 01:35:19 PM I'm not sure I'm able to explain what I mean any better than I have. Other than, when you set out to write a jingle for someone, you make a jingle. When you set out to make a song as a form of expression, you don't write a jingle. Yes, there are many great jingles in the world.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Nebu on January 03, 2011, 01:41:58 PM I'm not sure I'm able to explain what I mean any better than I have. Other than, when you set out to write a jingle for someone, you make a jingle. When you set out to make a song as a form of expression, you don't write a jingle. Yes, there are many great jingles in the world. The only person that knows the intent of any piece of art is the artist. Most great songs of the 20th century were crafted as marketing vehicles. While not product specific, there was a definite money-making intent to both their creation as well as their design (the 2 minute 50 second song, etc.). I doubt that anyone would debate the hit songs of the 50's and 60's as being considered works of art. How overt this marketing campaign is does not detract from the quality of the art. Only academics and critics debate this merit and I think that's ego driven. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 01:43:49 PM And again, music as advertisement is a really recent invention. Who knows, people may be studying Alan Thicke in class 200 years from now.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Nebu on January 03, 2011, 01:46:20 PM And again, music as advertisement is a really recent invention. Who knows, people may be studying Alan Thicke in class 200 years from now. I disagree. Music has been selling religion for centuries. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 01:48:52 PM No where did I say anything about detracting from the art. You keep implying this yourself Nebu. Ebert and whats his nuts, likely are.
As for money making, They have to eat don't they? Most artists, like myself, will sell you anything out of the piles sitting around, in fact this one here I pulled from the bottom of the pile, I made just for you, just now, because of your request. Lets me tell you how its related...... :grin: Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: stu on January 03, 2011, 02:27:31 PM You're saying intent changes the outcome, but the outcome is always art. That's the point. Whether or not the art can be sold is moot. All video games are art.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Malakili on January 03, 2011, 02:39:31 PM Serious question: Are board games art? Table top games (Warhammer, D&D?). If not, what sets video games apart, if so, are all games art?
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 02:55:09 PM Serious question: Are board games art? Table top games (Warhammer, D&D?). If not, what sets video games apart, if so, are all games art? Story. :why_so_serious: Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 03, 2011, 02:57:31 PM Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Modern Angel on January 03, 2011, 02:59:19 PM I think the entire premise of the conversation is off. Nerds and nerd culture have a craving for being taken seriously by Real Serious People. It's the same thing driving people insisting the latest Batman is as much literature as Nabokov. One, it's not. Two, it doesn't matter. Whether what I'm playing is "art" or should be taken seriously by those Serious People never once crosses my mind.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Ingmar on January 03, 2011, 03:05:34 PM I think the entire premise of the conversation is off. Nerds and nerd culture have a craving for being taken seriously by Real Serious People. It's the same thing driving people insisting the latest Batman is as much literature as Nabokov. One, it's not. Two, it doesn't matter. Whether what I'm playing is "art" or should be taken seriously by those Serious People never once crosses my mind. Rap isn't music, rock and roll isn't music, jazz isn't music, 12 tone music isn't music, etc., etc. The new thing NEVER counts as far as the establishment is concerned. It has nothing to do with nerds craving acceptance and everything to do with the fact that new mediums always take time to gain academic acceptance. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: jakonovski on January 03, 2011, 03:08:12 PM Art is such an annoying word and people always end up in a semantics slapfest. Let's instead ask, are (video) games more than insipid entertainment where the creator feels more than craftsman's pride? Cos that's where the key to Serious People lies. Games are inevitably done half-assed, lacking either soul or competence.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: stu on January 03, 2011, 03:10:23 PM I believe concepts can be art, like an equation or a strategy. With board games, you have a basic frame in which the outcome is derived through nearly unlimited iterations. The creator of the game provides the shape of the frame and color of the canvas, while the players compete for outcomes. A game of chess which has lasted weeks, sitting on a den table, is art.
Games such as Monopoly and Life reflect some of our values and provide enough variables that the object of the game can be achieved in numerous ways. With these games the players are given a chance to express themselves through the framework given, just like in video games. Board games are an expression of our competitive nature. Expression is art. Board games are art. (I hope I don't sound like some artsy fartsy douchnozzle) Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Modern Angel on January 03, 2011, 03:28:06 PM Rap isn't music, rock and roll isn't music, jazz isn't music, 12 tone music isn't music, etc., etc. The new thing NEVER counts as far as the establishment is concerned. It has nothing to do with nerds craving acceptance and everything to do with the fact that new mediums always take time to gain academic acceptance. False analogy. Music is an objective thing. Outside of some of the more extreme power noise subgenres something either is or is not music and it can be objectively proven. Art is a far more loaded and ambiguous word. And as far as academic acceptance goes, video games had that forever ago. There are plenty of video game classes, video game history classes, video game pop culture classes... what's not happening is that video games are not being taught alongside Botticelli in stuff like art history. THAT is where the craving for gravitas comes in because the arguments almost universally run into a post modern demand that they be taken just as seriously in those fields of study. I should add by way of edit that games are certainly low art. If Transformers the movie is art (and it is, just not good art) then video games are. But again, that's never what these discussions are actually about. John Waters would agree if someone ever asked him; he also would never compare his films to the finest cinema. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Merusk on January 03, 2011, 04:20:12 PM Ebert's so out of touch he hears Video Game and still thinks Pac-Man, to put a fine point on it. However, being a collective of video gamers it's not surprising to find the borg here feels they are all art.
I'd argue some are, some aren't. There's artistry to them all, but not all elevate to art. If you're just a collection of rules with pretty graphics, no you're not art. When you're using those rules to express something or evoke a feeling then you're at least attempting art. To illustrate this to Ebert, someone should have asked him if the early days of Edison filming his assistants art or sunrises were art or merely technical demos. At what point did filming become art, hm? Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Quinton on January 03, 2011, 05:20:27 PM I'd certainly agree that not all games are art, just as not all paintings or movies or songs are art.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: UnSub on January 03, 2011, 06:35:30 PM To my mind, video games aren't Art because they don't last long enough on an individual basis to stick in cultural memory. Arguably Pac-Man IS among the closest thing video games have to Art because it has been 30 years and people still talk about the character. BioShock was held up as a successful game that was Art, but it isn't generally discussed anymore.
Film became Art when it had pieces that lasted long enough to be absorbed into the cultural fabric. Video games (individually) actually have a problem sticking in cultural fabric because every 5 years or so you need an entirely new 'language' (read: console, operating system, etc) to be able to experience the game as intended. On top of that video games are all about day 1 / week 1 sales and the idea of being able to buy 'old' games (say: released 3 or more years ago) is a relatively new event (and before that there were lots of issues with abandonware... and probably still are). Meanwhile, I can watch "To Kill A Mockingbird" at any time I want. So, although games do contain artistic elements, they aren't Art yet. Video games are much too culturally disposable to be serious Art at this point. Give it another 10 years and we'll see. (Oh and the 'art = emotional response' doesn't work as a definition given that sports also create an emotional response and is typically considered at the other end of the art scale.) Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Merusk on January 03, 2011, 06:45:18 PM The difference with sports is it's not being done to evoke that emotion, it's a secondary effect in nuts living vicariously through someone else's ritualized combat.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Furiously on January 03, 2011, 08:40:06 PM I thought art was in the eye of the beholder.
I find all of it to be a bit pretentious, I mean a hick might love a jackalope on his wall, instead of the Mona Lisa. And you can say, it doesn't change the fact the Mona Lisa is art. But, it does to that person. I might think God Only Knows by the Beach Boys is about as artful as music gets. But if you like rap or classical your vision of art will be different. It's hard to have an art show showcasing a video game. It's a lot easier to show a movie or hang a painting or listen to an orchestra. Move the thread to politics is my suggestion. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: rk47 on January 03, 2011, 08:41:13 PM two words. Heavy Rain. :uhrr:
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Margalis on January 03, 2011, 09:12:25 PM Man who gives a fuck?
Creating a good game takes both art and craft. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: lamaros on January 03, 2011, 10:09:33 PM Man who gives a fuck? Creating a good game takes both art and craft. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: apocrypha on January 04, 2011, 12:15:11 AM The question "Is it art?" is stupid and pointless. The only question that really matters is "Is it good art?".
But then that also depends on who's definition of "good" you're talking about. What most of us know as "good art" is really just "art that has made a lot of money for rich people" or "art that elitist art critics decide is good". The time spent discussing the nature of art (and any specific medium in relation to it) would always have been better spent just going and creating something instead. And yeah, I'm aware of the irony inherent in that statement. :why_so_serious: Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: tgr on January 04, 2011, 04:21:53 AM The real problem with the "art" of games is that there aren't enough artists working on them. By artists I mean creative people with good ideas. Whereas this is creative and a great idea: (http://media.ugoto.com/pictures/paintball_art-0e6.jpg) I'm actually somewhat curious as to why it seems to be so important to some people to insist on games being art. Honestly, as has been said before here, it adds nothing to the games themselves if they are (or aren't) seen on as art, except maybe an added pride of the profession. I mean, I'm all for calling games art if that'll give the guys that make games art feel more pride, but I'm not entirely sure you want to invoke the art clause when you have "artists" sprinkle icing on a dog poo and call it art: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/42409000/jpg/_42409829_poo_sprinkles_reuters.jpg) I mean, really... Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Nebu on January 04, 2011, 06:56:11 AM Well, it does evoke an emotional response for some. Does that same analogy make Serek Dmart games "art"?
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: apocrypha on January 04, 2011, 06:58:26 AM Birthday cards evoke emotional responses. Doesn't make them art. Or does it?! :grin:
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Samprimary on January 04, 2011, 07:01:56 AM I think the real reason that one shouldn't care about this debate is because .. well, it's not a debate, and one side is unambiguously wrong.
Mike Thomsen: Quote What's most ironic about Ebert's latest round of criticism is that it's based on an invalid reading of the works he's arguing against. After watching a video of "Waco Resurrection," Ebert concludes that it is a "brainless shooting gallery." Of Braid, he says the time reversal mechanic breaks the "discipline of the game," and doubts that "I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game." Ebert concludes by addressing Flower: "Nothing she shows from this game seemed of more than decorative interest on the level of a greeting card." He reaches these conclusions by virtue of having streamed clips of each work online. This would be the equivalent of dismissing a film after having read a dismissive essay about it. "Videogames by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control," he wrote in 2005. Videogames are art precisely because their interactions—player choices, as he puts it—necessitate authorial engagement. When Ebert criticizes the aesthetics and general concepts of a game based on a recorded excerpt, he is experiencing them as film. A videogame is not a videogame on YouTube. The language a creator uses to express her heart or mind is discovered through a firsthand experience of the allowable actions and their consequent significance. To criticize an individual work on those grounds, let alone an entire medium, is invalid, a fine exemplar of how stupid even our most curious and articulate minds can be. To be a debate, there has to be some credible level of discussion between two sides, and describing Ebert's participation in his flailing controversy that way is inaccurate. His 'side' is as a single person who professedly knows jack shit about video games, and the other 'side' is everyone else. Even Ebert recognizes the depth of expression and the amount of creativity that goes into video games. The only thing that he's doing that turns him into a 'side' is that he has has drawn an imaginary, arbitrary line in the sand which he refuses to define, he can't credibly show to exist, and that he's sticking with for no good reason. Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: jakonovski on January 04, 2011, 07:04:17 AM I like the whole "this piece of poop is art" phenomenon precisely because it causes so much outrage.
Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Mrbloodworth on January 04, 2011, 07:06:39 AM Birthday cards evoke emotional responses. Doesn't make them art. Or does it?! :grin: (http://i167.photobucket.com/albums/u155/ejaynycgg/funny%20new/dramatic_cat.gif) Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Sky on January 04, 2011, 07:19:28 AM Serious question: Are board games art? Table top games (Warhammer, D&D?). If not, what sets video games apart, if so, are all games art? In 9th grade my friend and I designed an Indiana Jones-based (hey, it was the 80s) board game with a giant map and counters, with tables all along the borders of the gameboard. For art class.Title: Re: Games as art and why you shouldn't care. Post by: Lantyssa on January 04, 2011, 08:13:20 AM Birthday cards evoke emotional responses. Doesn't make them art. Or does it?! :grin: (http://cdn.someecards.com/someecards/filestorage/happy-one-few-people-birthday-ecard-someecards.jpg) |