racketboy.com

pelham123 wrote:This from the man that thinks Alex Proyas' 'Dark City' is one of the greatest films ever made. I just can't take him seriously after that.

Well, it is a GOOD movie at least.

I actually thought this topic would be about him trashing Kickass, which I haven't seen yet but really want to

"Art" is highly subjective, but I'll give you my loose definition: Art says, or at least attempts to say, something about the human condition. Very few games do so, or even try. But a few do.

And that's fine, either way. I agree - why does it matter? I need no validation.

Im glad games are not considered art because that means they are still fun. Art is not fun it's thought provoking and it just so happens there are plenty of other mediums out there covering that.

MrPopo wrote:No, seriously. Why does it matter if it's art or not?

This is a legitimate question.

Obviously, both Roger Ebert and the OP have an emotional stake in whether or not video games count as art; otherwise, neither would have written anything on the issue. But that just begs the question: why does it matter to anyone whether video games are art?

Will the pleasure I derive from playing video games be diminished or enhanced if someone else does or doesn't think they're art? Absolutely not.

While I may not agree with everything Ebert wrote, he did have valid points and gave a thought out intellectual article. The biggest fault in his arguement imo is that he won't play the games and experience them for himself. Its like saying reading is not as enjoyable as movies because I have never read a book. How do you base youi theory on that.

But here's my arguement on if videogames are art. Would you call a Museum art or the pictures and sculptures in it? While video games can have art in them they themselves are not art. If you told someone what they had to do for a certain time in a certain location using limitations that you give them; is that journey art? Games are an event in which you particapate in a limited capacity. is looking at a mountain art or exploring it an art? I don't think so but capture that mountain in a medium to express to others what you saw (or saw in it) and it is. So if a game becomes like that then it is, but games you explorer how you wish in the set parameters. But like I said earlier games are full of art and developing games can be an art form. But playing them no.

Feel free to disect my statements I am sure its full of fallicies.

I believe this is relevant. Rev Rant: Fun Isn't Enough

Anyway, I feel that Roger Ebert's view is irrelevant, and yet it is also the view that everybody else prescribes to gaming.

For example, you can tell by the way he sums up Flower that he obviously never picked up the controller before dismissing it. Considering the strength of video gaming as a medium is the interactivity and immersion, this would be like making a movie review based purely on the book that inspired it.

Basically, video games will always be misunderstood by those that never play them. If we had more culturally relevant games, this wouldn't be as big a problem - but when the only games we can turn to for this are indie games, it's a sad state of affairs.

Anything made by humans can be considered art. Whether what we create is good or not, is decided on by other people. If someone wants to call something art, it's art to them.

From wikipedia, the answer to everything:

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions."

If, for example, you consider there to be a "god" then we could say that god is an artist, and Roger Ebert's face, is art:



That certainly affected my senses.

Jrecee wrote:Anything made by humans can be considered art. Whether what we create is good or not, is decided on by other people. If someone wants to call something art, it's art to them.

From wikipedia, the answer to everything:

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions."

If, for example, you consider there to be a "god" then we could say that god is an artist, and Roger Ebert's face, is art:



That certainly affected my senses.

This post is win.

I believe everything is an art. Nature, existence, rape, ducks, video games, vice presidents, et cetera.

Someone said because art has never been interactive before, it can never be interactive. I completely disagree, how that is a valid point I do not know. That statement seems to prohibit the creation of new mediums, which blows my mind.

Goddamn I hate the whole "is it art?" argument. I know that it sounds dickish, but only the people actually involved in whatever field are qualified to say if something in the field is art or not. It's a dumb argument and the layman's opinion on it really doesn't matter.
Ebert can think what he wants. I don't agree with him a fair amount of the time, but he usually has a decent point that he can back up and I respect him for that. And he's really goddamn stubborn and getting old, so whatever.