Hey guys, is architecture art? One the hand, it can be very pretty and impressive, but on the other, architecture on its own doesn't inspire any deep feelings and it's all built to serve a purpose, rather than purely for aesthetics.
Hey guys, is architecture art? One the hand, it can be very pretty and impressive, but on the other, architecture on its own doesn't inspire any deep feelings and it's all built to serve a purpose, rather than purely for aesthetics.
I'd argue that architecture is design.
Sculpture is the art counterpart of that, perhaps?
First, you need to figure out what art is. Then you need to figure out what games are.
They both overlap in areas.
Does it matter? No.
Does it rile the internet masses up into talking about it on discussion boards, getting overly semantic about it all? Yes.
I think that he actually makes a good point if we don't clump all games together. Games are going into different directions; casual/arcade games are based solely on the gameplay and resemble traditional games, MMO's/online games are based on interaction between the users and hardcore games are slowly turning into interactive stories.
If we only talk about the last group (which is the most relevant to the discussion) then comparison between games and films is fairly obvious. Honestly, putting something like let's say Mass Effect 2/Uncharted into the same category as Bejewelled/Wii Sport just doesn't cut it anymore.
I'm glad you mentioned casual games, because I actually think they're really relevant just because of how different they are from the rest.
I would consider something like Peggle or Zuma art, at least as much as something like Mass Effect, despite their huge differences in approach. In fact, casual games are where I see the most potential for the medium to go new places and be something more than a fancy semi-interactive movie. The most stunning visual art has largely been reserved for movie-like games so far, but some of the most creative, fun, and engaging gameplay concepts have been introduced in casual games without a significant grounding in reality. The interactive portion is what games can offer that other media can't.
I'm not trying to say that arcade games are better than games with a story, or vice versa. I just think that games which focus more on telling a story and having characters and realism will probably always fall in the shadow of movies, which obviously have a huge advantage when it comes to portraying realistic characters and dramatic situations. The more a game is allowed to appeal to the player by other means unique to the medium (interactivity, the less realistic the better), the easier it will be for people to appreciate it as what it is, rather than as a lower quality or dumbed-down version of something else.
But yeah, I don't really care what Ebert thinks. I just like talking about it.
I think that video games are a great form of art. You take visual art, music, story telling, etc, and put it all together in an interactive package. How could that not be art? I personally don't think lots of "contemporary" and "modern" art is really that amazing, but some people do, for whatever reason. And, as with any medium of art, there are really really bad pieces out there.
This is an obvious case of a well known public figure talking about something they don't know dick about. Either that or he tried out Halo and had a bad multiplayer match full of shit-talking 12 year olds killing him over and over then face humping him, so he wrote off video games as a whole.
I did read most of it simply because its an insight into what others consider art, you seem to value the quality of the work and its social/emotional impact on the public and the appreciation of that quality which is great. I simply call all of it art regardless of quality some of it is great art and some of it is awefully bad art. This applies to videogames, films, whatever just cause it sucks doesnt mean its not art.
This discussion is probably in the realms of things that get lost in the translation and differences in definitions. Although I am aware that it is a lame excuse, I am not a native English speaker; hence I might interpret certain terms slightly differently. For instance, in my native language (Polish) "art" has a definition that is much stricter than in English; it is used to describe a very profound work known for its cultural, historical and emotional significance. It is usually something that has received recognition both by the public and academic circles. To me, "bad art" sounds awfully wrong and the only word that seems to have the same meaning is "kitsch".
I believe that most people from Eastern Europe might perceive art in similar fashion. Since Communists didn't look favourably at artists and members of intelligence artistic activities did not become available to everyone until very recently. Hence art is usually associated with classical works and something of great value. I believe that West might have far more progressive outlook on art, as artistic performance was not restricted by ridiculous censorship; nevertheless, most of the things that are considered to be art I classify subconsciously as either "craft" or "entertainment".
The reason I call all of it art is that as soon as you give yourself the right to declare what is and isnt art you become elitist and oppress other members of society with your own subjective opionion of what art is. This is what Ebert is doing quite overtly and also what you are doing to a much lesser extent.
Whoops, I didn't mean to sound like a snob; that wasn't my intention. However, it was always clear to me that art is meant in some way to be elitist; not necessarily oppressive, but meant to be different from works of lower, aesthetical value. Perhaps Ebert's definition is very similar to mine; he's an old guy
It is good to have people like you guys around though just so that the rest of us dont become complacent and forget how great we could all be if we tried to create great art rather than just getting by and creating boring or bad art.
While I do agree that such ranting might help us as individuals, creating a game that fits an old-fashioned definition of art might require far more effort than that. Currently it seems to me that far too many people are involved in the decision making process. Games come off to me as a mix of various (sometimes unrelated) ideas rather than an execution of a solid concept. Personally, I believe that to improve the quality of games as a whole, a strong creative mind has stand on top of it all and hold a similar influence as director in the film industry.
just as an example:
would I tell a child that thier little drawing of stick people outside a house is not art?
No, I would encourage that child and let them know they are an artist and thier picture is a work of art.
The general public may take a long time to accept video game content as art but that doesnt mean that I have to reject the notion of video games as art. As an individual I am free to accept whatever I appreciate as art and the sooner people realise that the sooner games will be recognised as art by the general public.
Like I mentioned before it's probably a matter of being used to a different definition; calling kid's doodles art sounds ridiculous to me, even though I understand the intention behind it.
I agree with your last statement, though personally I am far more hesitant to consider something as art; especially when we did not have enough time to assess its impact and influence.
I'm glad you mentioned casual games, because I actually think they're really relevant just because of how different they are from the rest.
I would consider something like Peggle or Zuma art, at least as much as something like Mass Effect, despite their huge differences in approach. In fact, casual games are where I see the most potential for the medium to go new places and be something more than a fancy semi-interactive movie. The most stunning visual art has largely been reserved for movie-like games so far, but some of the most creative, fun, and engaging gameplay concepts have been introduced in casual games without a significant grounding in reality. The interactive portion is what games can offer that other media can't.
I think this could evolve into an endless debate of whether something that does not aim to be art could be categorized as art. I remember long debates about artistic relevance of works which sole goal is to be fun and entertaining; to this day there are people who argue that Jules Verne or Agatha Christie were not an artists, but mere entertainers. Are they right? I will never know, but I do believe that perhaps we shouldn't bring into discussion something of which authors are not very concerned about making art.
You're right that casual games have some of the most creative ideas, but I think that an intention to provoke a wide array of emotion is a perquisite for art.
I'm not trying to say that arcade games are better than games with a story, or vice versa. I just think that games which focus more on telling a story and having characters and realism will probably always fall in the shadow of movies, which obviously have a huge advantage when it comes to portraying realistic characters and dramatic situations. The more a game is allowed to appeal to the player by other means unique to the medium (interactivity, the less realistic the better), the easier it will be for people to appreciate it as what it is, rather than as a lower quality or dumbed-down version of something else.
This will happen only if games will try to mimic the storytelling techniques of films and books. Interactivity in games is revolutionary to the point where classical narrative imposes restrictions. We need to come up with new ideas to convey the stories; I am not telling to abandon the cut-scenes and linear storylines (in fact, I am against branching storylines, as giving the player choice without compromising the quality seems impossible in the long run) but gameplay and interactivity should be given much more attention. Gameplay can be used as a storytelling device; interaction between the player and in-game environment could be a great way to develop the characters, use it as exposition and enhance the mood. I'm not thinking of the traditional text bubbles or voice-overs; but rather of something that ICO has done (yeah, I know...I talk about this game all the time) were gameplay was used to create a relationship between the characters.
I think that movie-like games have a long way to go; they are far harder to execute than films, books or plays since interactivity makes it much more difficult to create a rigid, well-structured experience. I cannot call the art at this point, but I am sure they could surpass the cinema.
I'd say that a game looks like "Traditional" artwork is no more or less Art than say, Mario64 or even Pong
I wasn't talking about love in terms of its art, more of in terms it was one persons vision (who thinks in abstract code and logic apparently) I'm not talking about its graphics.
But yeah, I agree in the sense that each unit/prop/character is an artfully crafted model, but is that character art by itself? Not really. But a scene that has a life of its own, you can see and feel the past and the mood, and everything is amazing looking, that's more art like IMO.
I read some posts in this subject here and there....
I wish I could find the article. He was a high up in the FFXIII creation process, and said he did not think that FFXIII is art. He called video game creation a craft, a skill set...Like carpentry, or something along those lines.
I read some posts in this subject here and there....
I wish I could find the article. He was a high up in the FFXIII creation process, and said he did not think that FFXIII is art. He called video game creation a craft, a skill set...Like carpentry, or something along those lines.
I'd agree with that, I've had lots of talks with fellow artists about craft vs art, craft being a skill you use/sell for money, but with craft skills it can help make your art better. Even if its a craft that means you can use those craft skills to make art.
This discussion is probably in the realms of things that get lost in the translation and differences in definitions. Although I am aware that it is a lame excuse, I am not a native English speaker; hence I might interpret certain terms slightly differently. For instance, in my native language (Polish) "art" has a definition that is much stricter than in English; it is used to describe a very profound work known for its cultural, historical and emotional significance. It is usually something that has received recognition both by the public and academic circles. To me, "bad art" sounds awfully wrong and the only word that seems to have the same meaning is "kitsch".
I believe that most people from Eastern Europe might perceive art in similar fashion. Since Communists didn't look favourably at artists and members of intelligence artistic activities did not become available to everyone until very recently. Hence art is usually associated with classical works and something of great value. I believe that West might have far more progressive outlook on art, as artistic performance was not restricted by ridiculous censorship; nevertheless, most of the things that are considered to be art I classify subconsciously as either "craft" or "entertainment".
Yeah I read your post thanks for the response it explains quite a bit about our different perspectives on art, I find that interesting. You talk of the eastern european definition of art being similar to your own. Well I dont personally know where my definition of art has come from I lived in south africa for 20 years and now I currently live in the uk and studied art and design here at university a few years ago so my ideas of what constitutes art have probably been formed by those experiences in some way. I never really enjoyed the way university went about delivering art theory but it was an interesting subject. To me the word art is just a describing word to imply that there is some artistic value even if that publicly percieved artistic value is minimal. Im not necessarily correct about any of these ideas and your perspectives on art are just as valid as mine, I dont really think your oppressing anyone just wanted to debate that idea.
I personally find it hard to draw any kind of line between where craft becomes art or where entertainment becomes art. There are basic guidelines to which is which but also many gray areas so my solution is to just say its all art in various forms like shades of gray on a black and white scale.
edit* I just remembered my university actually taught me about low art and high art and commercial art so they probably impressed upon me this idea that art is not just high(elitist) art but everything else in the spectrum too.
I can't find the link but... I remember to see, some time ago, an art exhibition about Carmack, Miyamoto and Molyneux.
Video games are a recent way of art and it's a matter of time to be recognized as a great human expression.
I can 'feel' these are pieces of art in the beginning, but also until the end:
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a12e3iKzqlw[/ame]
I was about to post that comic, that last bit is bang on.
Probably one of the only PA comics I've seen that has a more 'serious' ending (as opposed to funny) as well!
I don't like this whole debate, my own father i believe at some point said i was cheating because i use a computer, but i try to ignore shit like this. (maybe his opinion has changed recently, will have to ask )
I believe Art doesn't need a definition, it doesn't serve any purpose other than to entertain or be appreciated, which plenty of things can do. IMO it's just people associating a word stereotypically. (if that makes sense)
"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite an immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. She quotes Robert McKee's definition of good writing as 'being motivated by a desire to touch the audience.' This is not a useful definition, because a great deal of bad writing is also motivated by the same desire. I might argue that the novels of Cormac McCarthy are so motivated, and Nicholas Sparks would argue that his novels are so motivated. But when I say McCarthy is 'better' than Sparks and that his novels are artworks, that is a subjective judgment, made on the basis of my taste (which I would argue is better than the taste of anyone who prefers Sparks)."
I never really understood why something is more "art" than something else, why some artists are "better" than others because of, something.
Penny Arcade comic summed things up pretty nicely really, just don't get why games need to be compared to something "big" in other genres for it to be art.
Why would gaming want it's "Citizen Kane" anyway? It was a dreadfully boring movie by todays standards, the only thing about it was that it slightly changed how movies are made.
Ebert doesn't seem capable of having a standard or opinion that evolves.
People consider Shakespeare and Rembrandt among the greatest things ever, they were pioneers. They had talent sure and they did something new, but most artists today are MILES ahead of them in talent and technique.
but most artists today are MILES ahead of them in talent and technique.
Rembrandt? really? hahahahahahahahahahaah! NO they are not, not even close, i would be hard pressed to find any artists working today that could even hope to be the shit that sticks to Rembrandt's ass hair when he farts. this is seriously the funniest thing i have heard all day.
Why would anyone care about Roger Ebert's opinion of video games? The man is ancient. And he isn't associated with video games in any way. The only real experience he's had with them is probably the video-game based movies that he's been forced to review over the years. If your only experience with video games was through movies like Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and the Legend of Chun-Li, you'd probably have a low opinion of video games as well.
I agree with Arsh, but I found this pretty funny.
If you check out Julian Beever's other work you'll see hes not even close to running circles around Rembrandt, but he gets a lot of press. 200 years from now I can tell you who will still be considered an old master with paintings that are still considered priceless and who will be mostly a forgotten novelty. I think most modern artists fall into that category.
But who knows, maybe like Ebert, I'm not fit to make that call since I'm not from the future...
Take that Rembrandt! Deviantart crits you for 0 damage!
Why would anyone care about Roger Ebert's opinion of video games? The man is ancient. And he isn't associated with video games in any way. The only real experience he's had with them is probably the video-game based movies that he's been forced to review over the years. If your only experience with video games was through movies like Resident Evil, Silent Hill, and the Legend of Chun-Li, you'd probably have a low opinion of video games as well.
Did you know that ancient Roger Ebert is the same age as Nolan Bushnell, the man who founded Atari? They're both 67 years old. Funny how one is a hopelessly out-of-touch antique and the other is a legendary, foreward-thinking pioneer.
Did you know that ancient Roger Ebert is the same age as Nolan Bushnell, the man who founded Atari? They're both 67 years old. Funny how one is a hopelessly out-of-touch antique and the other is a legendary, foreward-thinking pioneer.
Nolan Bushnell also founded Chuck-E-Cheese. Nolan Bushnell was always an entrepreneur, and has been far more open to new ideas. (especially when they involve making money) Roger Ebert is a film critic. Pretension is his forte. Moreover, I don't think Nolan Bushnell has ever chimed in on the games as art debate. He's not an artist or a critic, and may not even have an opinion one way or the other.
People consider Shakespeare and Rembrandt among the greatest things ever, they were pioneers. They had talent sure and they did something new, but most artists today are MILES ahead of them in talent and technique.
+1 Bashing.
Did you ever stand infront of a gigantic rembrandt in amsterdam or anywhere?
All your statement states is that you have no clue about art history.
I dunno, I think Nolan Bushnell would agree with Roger Ebert:
"Video games today are a race to the bottom. They are pure, unadulterated trash and I'm sad for that.” -Nolan Bushnell on the games of today
The hatred for Ebert here is rather astonishing. I've always loved his work and find most of the criticisms here to be baffling. He's pretentious? He hates popcorn movies? He hates the internet? I mean I know it's easy to pull stuff out of your ass, but some of you are talking shit.
The value of a critic is not what he likes or not, but how clearly he can articulate why. I don't always agree with him, but I can usually see where he is coming from and he is always an enjoyable read. The man if nothing else has a great sense of humor.
As for the "Game is Art" debate, I can see his point it's not entirely without merit. His argument is not that games contain no art, simply that it is not an artistic medium for the audience. I rather like his chess analogy, a sculptor can create an amazing chess set that is unquestionably a work of art. That does not, however, make the act of playing chess anymore an artistic form of expression. Whether you play with cheap plastic or a sculpted masterpiece, chess is a game.
I personally believe he keeps going back to this subject because he wants someone with more intimacy with games to make a convincing counter argument. However when all the responses are "Go play Shadow of the Colossus, it's beautiful!" and "Metal Gear Solid made me cry!" or "You're old and don't understand us young people!" I can see why he finds it hard to be convinced.
"I am still a victim of chess. It has all the beauty of art - and much more. It cannot be commercialized. Chess is much purer than art in its social position."
-Marcel Duchamp
"I am still a victim of chess. It has all the beauty of art - and much more. It cannot be commercialized. Chess is much purer than art in its social position."
-Marcel Duchamp
The man had a very unorthodox definition of art, to say the least.
The hatred for Ebert here is rather astonishing. I've always loved his work and find most of the criticisms here to be baffling. He's pretentious? He hates popcorn movies? He hates the internet? I mean I know it's easy to pull stuff out of your ass, but some of you are talking shit.
The value of a critic is not what he likes or not, but how clearly he can articulate why. I don't always agree with him, but I can usually see where he is coming from and he is always an enjoyable read. The man if nothing else has a great sense of humor.
I'm not saying that he is a bad critic. And I certainly don't mean to be insulting when I say that he is pretentious. Critics are supposed to be pretentious. It comes with the territory. I often enjoy Roger Ebert's movie analysis, and usually read his reviews of films that I am interested in.
I'm saying that Roger Ebert has no place reviewing video games. When he says that games have no value as art, he is making a blanket critical statement about a medium that he probably has very little experience with. When it comes to films, I am willing to bow to his expertise. But I don't believe for a second that he has some deep understanding of video games.
And I think that pointing out how old these people are is entirely valid. Roger Ebert grew up in a world without video games. He's about the same age as my dad. And my father can't get past the first level of Super Mario Brothers. Roger Ebert is the product of a previous generation.
I'm not saying that he is a bad critic. And I certainly don't mean to be insulting when I say that he is pretentious. Critics are supposed to be pretentious. It comes with the territory. I often enjoy Roger Ebert's movie analysis, and usually read his reviews of films that I am interested in.
I'm saying that Roger Ebert has no place reviewing video games. When he says that games have no value as art, he is making a blanket critical statement about a medium that he probably has very little experience with. When it comes to films, I am willing to bow to his expertise. But I don't believe for a second that he has some deep understanding of video games.
And I think that pointing out how old these people are is entirely valid. Roger Ebert grew up in a world without video games. He's about the same age as my dad. And my father can't get past the first level of Super Mario Brothers. Roger Ebert is the product of a previous generation.
But in reading his whole article, he doesn't comes across as someone saying that he knows everything. Simply that he has considered the idea and has his opinion. I also get the impression he took a lot more deliberation to come to his conclusion than a lot of the people who say 'I liked Portal, therefore it is art'.
I have no problems in people disagreeing with him, I certainly don't agree entirely. It's just with the way his opinions can be dismissed without any consideration because he is not an expert on the subject. If he is so misinformed, it should be easy to point out why. He is old is not a valid argument.
I also get the feeling many people didn't even read the article, they just saw 'Old man doesn't like Video Games!' and got indignant.
I'm really having a hard time as to why some people are getting so angry about this. Does it affect anything you do for a living, or the game industry as a whole? No it doesn't. So someone that has no connection or affect on the gaming community said he doesn't think games are art. So..? Who cares? It's his opinion.
Replies
Sculpture is the art counterpart of that, perhaps?
First, you need to figure out what art is. Then you need to figure out what games are.
They both overlap in areas.
Does it matter? No.
Does it rile the internet masses up into talking about it on discussion boards, getting overly semantic about it all? Yes.
I'm glad you mentioned casual games, because I actually think they're really relevant just because of how different they are from the rest.
I would consider something like Peggle or Zuma art, at least as much as something like Mass Effect, despite their huge differences in approach. In fact, casual games are where I see the most potential for the medium to go new places and be something more than a fancy semi-interactive movie. The most stunning visual art has largely been reserved for movie-like games so far, but some of the most creative, fun, and engaging gameplay concepts have been introduced in casual games without a significant grounding in reality. The interactive portion is what games can offer that other media can't.
I'm not trying to say that arcade games are better than games with a story, or vice versa. I just think that games which focus more on telling a story and having characters and realism will probably always fall in the shadow of movies, which obviously have a huge advantage when it comes to portraying realistic characters and dramatic situations. The more a game is allowed to appeal to the player by other means unique to the medium (interactivity, the less realistic the better), the easier it will be for people to appreciate it as what it is, rather than as a lower quality or dumbed-down version of something else.
But yeah, I don't really care what Ebert thinks. I just like talking about it.
Besides, fuck Ebert, I want to know what Gene Shalit thinks about all of this.
This discussion is probably in the realms of things that get lost in the translation and differences in definitions. Although I am aware that it is a lame excuse, I am not a native English speaker; hence I might interpret certain terms slightly differently. For instance, in my native language (Polish) "art" has a definition that is much stricter than in English; it is used to describe a very profound work known for its cultural, historical and emotional significance. It is usually something that has received recognition both by the public and academic circles. To me, "bad art" sounds awfully wrong and the only word that seems to have the same meaning is "kitsch".
I believe that most people from Eastern Europe might perceive art in similar fashion. Since Communists didn't look favourably at artists and members of intelligence artistic activities did not become available to everyone until very recently. Hence art is usually associated with classical works and something of great value. I believe that West might have far more progressive outlook on art, as artistic performance was not restricted by ridiculous censorship; nevertheless, most of the things that are considered to be art I classify subconsciously as either "craft" or "entertainment".
Whoops, I didn't mean to sound like a snob; that wasn't my intention. However, it was always clear to me that art is meant in some way to be elitist; not necessarily oppressive, but meant to be different from works of lower, aesthetical value. Perhaps Ebert's definition is very similar to mine; he's an old guy
While I do agree that such ranting might help us as individuals, creating a game that fits an old-fashioned definition of art might require far more effort than that. Currently it seems to me that far too many people are involved in the decision making process. Games come off to me as a mix of various (sometimes unrelated) ideas rather than an execution of a solid concept. Personally, I believe that to improve the quality of games as a whole, a strong creative mind has stand on top of it all and hold a similar influence as director in the film industry.
Like I mentioned before it's probably a matter of being used to a different definition; calling kid's doodles art sounds ridiculous to me, even though I understand the intention behind it.
I agree with your last statement, though personally I am far more hesitant to consider something as art; especially when we did not have enough time to assess its impact and influence.
I think this could evolve into an endless debate of whether something that does not aim to be art could be categorized as art. I remember long debates about artistic relevance of works which sole goal is to be fun and entertaining; to this day there are people who argue that Jules Verne or Agatha Christie were not an artists, but mere entertainers. Are they right? I will never know, but I do believe that perhaps we shouldn't bring into discussion something of which authors are not very concerned about making art.
You're right that casual games have some of the most creative ideas, but I think that an intention to provoke a wide array of emotion is a perquisite for art.
This will happen only if games will try to mimic the storytelling techniques of films and books. Interactivity in games is revolutionary to the point where classical narrative imposes restrictions. We need to come up with new ideas to convey the stories; I am not telling to abandon the cut-scenes and linear storylines (in fact, I am against branching storylines, as giving the player choice without compromising the quality seems impossible in the long run) but gameplay and interactivity should be given much more attention. Gameplay can be used as a storytelling device; interaction between the player and in-game environment could be a great way to develop the characters, use it as exposition and enhance the mood. I'm not thinking of the traditional text bubbles or voice-overs; but rather of something that ICO has done (yeah, I know...I talk about this game all the time) were gameplay was used to create a relationship between the characters.
I think that movie-like games have a long way to go; they are far harder to execute than films, books or plays since interactivity makes it much more difficult to create a rigid, well-structured experience. I cannot call the art at this point, but I am sure they could surpass the cinema.
I wasn't talking about love in terms of its art, more of in terms it was one persons vision (who thinks in abstract code and logic apparently) I'm not talking about its graphics.
But yeah, I agree in the sense that each unit/prop/character is an artfully crafted model, but is that character art by itself? Not really. But a scene that has a life of its own, you can see and feel the past and the mood, and everything is amazing looking, that's more art like IMO.
I wish I could find the article. He was a high up in the FFXIII creation process, and said he did not think that FFXIII is art. He called video game creation a craft, a skill set...Like carpentry, or something along those lines.
I'd agree with that, I've had lots of talks with fellow artists about craft vs art, craft being a skill you use/sell for money, but with craft skills it can help make your art better. Even if its a craft that means you can use those craft skills to make art.
I'd say this is art.
http://vimeo.com/3268624
Yeah I read your post thanks for the response it explains quite a bit about our different perspectives on art, I find that interesting. You talk of the eastern european definition of art being similar to your own. Well I dont personally know where my definition of art has come from I lived in south africa for 20 years and now I currently live in the uk and studied art and design here at university a few years ago so my ideas of what constitutes art have probably been formed by those experiences in some way. I never really enjoyed the way university went about delivering art theory but it was an interesting subject. To me the word art is just a describing word to imply that there is some artistic value even if that publicly percieved artistic value is minimal. Im not necessarily correct about any of these ideas and your perspectives on art are just as valid as mine, I dont really think your oppressing anyone just wanted to debate that idea.
I personally find it hard to draw any kind of line between where craft becomes art or where entertainment becomes art. There are basic guidelines to which is which but also many gray areas so my solution is to just say its all art in various forms like shades of gray on a black and white scale.
edit* I just remembered my university actually taught me about low art and high art and commercial art so they probably impressed upon me this idea that art is not just high(elitist) art but everything else in the spectrum too.
is a good read if you want to know what "art is"
Video games are a recent way of art and it's a matter of time to be recognized as a great human expression.
I can 'feel' these are pieces of art in the beginning, but also until the end:
[ame]
Catch up with the times, man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Art
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-art
Probably one of the only PA comics I've seen that has a more 'serious' ending (as opposed to funny) as well!
I don't like this whole debate, my own father i believe at some point said i was cheating because i use a computer, but i try to ignore shit like this. (maybe his opinion has changed recently, will have to ask
I believe Art doesn't need a definition, it doesn't serve any purpose other than to entertain or be appreciated, which plenty of things can do. IMO it's just people associating a word stereotypically. (if that makes sense)
BUT, I believe this is the appropriate response to things like this:
[ame]
so any MMO is Art, as you cannot win it?
[ame]
Penny Arcade comic summed things up pretty nicely really, just don't get why games need to be compared to something "big" in other genres for it to be art.
Why would gaming want it's "Citizen Kane" anyway? It was a dreadfully boring movie by todays standards, the only thing about it was that it slightly changed how movies are made.
Ebert doesn't seem capable of having a standard or opinion that evolves.
People consider Shakespeare and Rembrandt among the greatest things ever, they were pioneers. They had talent sure and they did something new, but most artists today are MILES ahead of them in talent and technique.
But yeah, lol opinions.
Rembrandt? really? hahahahahahahahahahaah! NO they are not, not even close, i would be hard pressed to find any artists working today that could even hope to be the shit that sticks to Rembrandt's ass hair when he farts. this is seriously the funniest thing i have heard all day.
He is one of my inspirations to get my Master's in life drawing.
If you check out Julian Beever's other work you'll see hes not even close to running circles around Rembrandt, but he gets a lot of press. 200 years from now I can tell you who will still be considered an old master with paintings that are still considered priceless and who will be mostly a forgotten novelty. I think most modern artists fall into that category.
But who knows, maybe like Ebert, I'm not fit to make that call since I'm not from the future...
Take that Rembrandt! Deviantart crits you for 0 damage!
Did you know that ancient Roger Ebert is the same age as Nolan Bushnell, the man who founded Atari? They're both 67 years old. Funny how one is a hopelessly out-of-touch antique and the other is a legendary, foreward-thinking pioneer.
tell me one
Nolan Bushnell also founded Chuck-E-Cheese. Nolan Bushnell was always an entrepreneur, and has been far more open to new ideas. (especially when they involve making money) Roger Ebert is a film critic. Pretension is his forte. Moreover, I don't think Nolan Bushnell has ever chimed in on the games as art debate. He's not an artist or a critic, and may not even have an opinion one way or the other.
+1 Bashing.
Did you ever stand infront of a gigantic rembrandt in amsterdam or anywhere?
All your statement states is that you have no clue about art history.
"Video games today are a race to the bottom. They are pure, unadulterated trash and I'm sad for that.” -Nolan Bushnell on the games of today
The value of a critic is not what he likes or not, but how clearly he can articulate why. I don't always agree with him, but I can usually see where he is coming from and he is always an enjoyable read. The man if nothing else has a great sense of humor.
As for the "Game is Art" debate, I can see his point it's not entirely without merit. His argument is not that games contain no art, simply that it is not an artistic medium for the audience. I rather like his chess analogy, a sculptor can create an amazing chess set that is unquestionably a work of art. That does not, however, make the act of playing chess anymore an artistic form of expression. Whether you play with cheap plastic or a sculpted masterpiece, chess is a game.
I personally believe he keeps going back to this subject because he wants someone with more intimacy with games to make a convincing counter argument. However when all the responses are "Go play Shadow of the Colossus, it's beautiful!" and "Metal Gear Solid made me cry!" or "You're old and don't understand us young people!" I can see why he finds it hard to be convinced.
-Marcel Duchamp
The man had a very unorthodox definition of art, to say the least.
I'm not saying that he is a bad critic. And I certainly don't mean to be insulting when I say that he is pretentious. Critics are supposed to be pretentious. It comes with the territory. I often enjoy Roger Ebert's movie analysis, and usually read his reviews of films that I am interested in.
I'm saying that Roger Ebert has no place reviewing video games. When he says that games have no value as art, he is making a blanket critical statement about a medium that he probably has very little experience with. When it comes to films, I am willing to bow to his expertise. But I don't believe for a second that he has some deep understanding of video games.
And I think that pointing out how old these people are is entirely valid. Roger Ebert grew up in a world without video games. He's about the same age as my dad. And my father can't get past the first level of Super Mario Brothers. Roger Ebert is the product of a previous generation.
edit: I would also like to use the top of the page to pimp Anthony Burch's rant on legitimizing games.
But in reading his whole article, he doesn't comes across as someone saying that he knows everything. Simply that he has considered the idea and has his opinion. I also get the impression he took a lot more deliberation to come to his conclusion than a lot of the people who say 'I liked Portal, therefore it is art'.
I have no problems in people disagreeing with him, I certainly don't agree entirely. It's just with the way his opinions can be dismissed without any consideration because he is not an expert on the subject. If he is so misinformed, it should be easy to point out why. He is old is not a valid argument.
I also get the feeling many people didn't even read the article, they just saw 'Old man doesn't like Video Games!' and got indignant.