Recent blog post by Ebert on video games as art

[Deathpigor]

Four days ago, Roger Ebert posted an entry to his blog on why he thinks video games can never be art (at least in our lifetime).

Has anyone read it?  Thoughts?

[Pixelcade1]

Do you think throwing a bunch of garbage in a pile and welding it is "art"? I don't but people do but my opinion doesn't mean it's not art. Let him have his opinion. Go to a book store in the design sections you'll find plenty of reference to digital design that draws its roots from games. I think it's an art form just like film or painting is. It takes talent and creativity and many other aspects that any traditional "artist" needs to do his craft.

[Jake]

Can you send a link to the blog?

 I don't think I agree with the Ebert... but I have to read it first to even be sure here 

One reason I feel I won't agree with EGGYBERT, is that video games are made from creative ideas, brainstorming, programming, drawing etc. That's an art form.

To say video games cannot ever be art, is like saying animation has never
been an art form.

It may not be the most pure art, but it's definately AN art.

Why you ask?? Because, "YOU'RE (CREATING) SOMETHING FROM NOTHING!"
Geeze Ebert, normally you're pretty clever.

[snakeboy1]

I just play video games to have fun. I don't give two craps if it's considered art or not.

[VideoGameCritic]

I respect Ebert as a film critic - he knows a lot about movies.  I'm not so sure his opinions on video games hold much water.

Are video games art?  Well, the modern definition of art is pretty loose.  You can stick a piece of doo-doo on a stick and call it art.  Personally, I interpret art in the classical sense - like the Mona Lisa or Venus De Milo.  It's visually appealing and not easy to create.

Like snakeboy, I don't really care if games are considered art.  It's probably best they aren't.  Look at how video game "directors" have attempted to turn games into their own movies.  Think Bayonetta or Metal Gear.  It's irritating!  If designers tried to make games as art, it would probably be unbearable.

I certainly think games can be artistic, and they might have a good story as well, but at their core, video games should be games.  Something you play to pass the time.

[Adamant1]

[QUOTE=Jake]Can you send a link to the blog?

[/QUOTE]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

It's worth noting that it's a commentary on a speech by a video game designer that used rather poor arguments and bad examples to explain why why video games [b]are[/b] supposedly art.

And yeah, why does it matter if video games are considered "art" anyway? Like you others, I'm playing games to be entertained, not for their artistic value.

[Josh]

Art is defined as something created by man that is beautiful - something that is aesthetically pleasing.

Video games posses three types of art: story, art, and music
If you think about it, all of the games that we love possess an abundance of these things - the Critic usually looks at these things in order to judge the grade of a game.

So, technically ol' Ebert is wrong.

However, I think most gamers like to flap their mouths about this topic because they want to defend their past time and be seen as artsy-fartsy people.

If you are insecure about your lifestyle, then change it. Don't try to pass yourself off as a connoisseur of the fine arts. Video games are for having fun. Good art in them makes them more fun and enjoyable.

[chrisbid1]

ebert is a baby boomer curmudgeon.  he did not grow up with video games, he rarely or never plays them.  his opinion on the subject is invalid, he is an outsider thumbing his nose at a club he is not a member of.

now the question about whether or not games are art?  for the most part they are as artistic as any other popular form of entertainment.  if you think the movie avatar, or miley cyrus's music is art, then most video games are on par with those examples. 

[Gentlegamer1]

I think Ebert bit off more than he can chew on this one.

[steer]

These days, she says, "grown-up gamers" hope for games that reach higher levels of "joy, or of ecstasy....catharsis." These games (which she believes are already being made) "are being rewarded by audiences by high sales figures." The only way I could experience joy or ecstasy from her games would be through profit participation.

The three games (Waco Rssurection, Braid, Flower) she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic. I repeat: "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."
 
This whole subject is gas, the lady (games as art) who he is responding to says games today are 'closer' to the cave pictures and need to evole to the sistene chapel. So, if you believe games are art, than you believe they are garbage in presnt form as art....

To me, this just points to more Nintendo dominance, becuase the industry (most of it) is obssessed with this gas. Look at Heavy Rain, high production values, reinvent gaming, make a new genre,  blah blah, blah, and it boils down to quick time action events. To me, that is comical. Sure it sold well, to the hardcore fanoys via hardcore hype form game media. Total insulation.

Games are about gameplay, this arty gas just makes them unpleasant. I read again and again, the hype on story driven games, how awesome and epic they are, the bar is raised, again and agian, and then I play them,  and it is all gas.

So are games art? Not be Ebert standards. And I think we must defer to him, he is the least biased person in the room,and stands to gain or lose nothing from the subject. If you are agianst Ebert, than you have to be for art-house gaming gas, and I cannot tolerate it.