I agree. For me, art has to do with reception, does it trigger emotion? Art is, afterall, in the eye of the beholder. Musical elements, voice acting, backgrounds, character design, all of that is art. I think in a sense they create an interactive collage!
Last edited by wallpaperotaku at 1:12:53 AM CDT on July 5, 2010.
Chibi Artist Girl (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/04/10 | Reply
I say to Ebert: "HA! And HA again!"
Yes, games are art! Considering all the work that goes into them, how can you not call them art? Taking the pieces apart, you have: the initial character/setting designs (for example, Namco sells pieces of Soul Calibur stage art), taking that and building three-dimensional representations and making them convincing and appealing; the storywriting, scripting and casting; the musical score...The list could go on! Video games are an art!!!
Indeed, we can even speak of acts being performed artfully, without the end result itself attempting to be art, e.g. a well-executed triple-play in baseball. It's not uncommon or unusual to hear of something like "The Art of Repairing...", as another example. We can do things artfully, but it doesn't necessarily follow that in every case the end is art.
I have to mention that I'm not exactly opposed to the idea of games-as-art. I welcome any input on the discussion of art! I'm pointing out that any sustained and in-depth discussion on art has to go further than one that simply offers an unqualified assertion that games are/aren't art. I'd like to see more "groundwork" being done on this issue, since there's so much confusion involved in it.
True, afterall, in anthropological terms, art is used to describe anything with out necessary purpose, however this gets tangled in questions like a well-designed chair, or an amulet that shows rank. A chair is made with the purpose of sitting, but in ways can be called artistic. And the amulet is a artfully crafted necklace, but it was made specifically to suit a purpose.
This statement almost sounds like the same kind of fallacy Mr. Ebert is engaging in. While it's true that creating a video game is a lot more complex than he's probably giving them credit for, it's not exactly fair to say that you can make a movie just by "pointing a camera" at something. Professional filmmaking requires a huge budget, tons of video editing, expensive professional equipment, the list goes on. On top of that, acting itself is actually deceptively hard to do in some cases. And that's not even considering animated movies, which Ebert does regularly critique and considers art just as much as he does any other film medium.
Anyway, my point is that it's perfectly fine to defend your stance, just be aware of how you do so. You don't make much ground by downplaying the amount of work put into one thing just to make the thing you're defending look good, especially if it's in response to the other guy doing the exact same thing.
The guy fails to realize all the time and effort in creating the games. He's a movie critic right? Well, all he sees is what the camera catches on film. However, the games have to be MADE entirely by people.. if it were that easy to point a camera and make it a video game, I think everyone would have their own game by now.
It sure as hell is an art form. No question about it.
Mr. Ebert, if someone wants to see games as art, then let them. In that case, the burden falls upon them to clarify and classify the concepts they work with. And that isn't an easy job when considering what are the objects of art. I'm sure someone can make a convincing argument that checkers could be called art.
Vagrant AI (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/01/10 | Reply
Well at least he had the cojones to admit he shouldn't have said anything. Although I think it's important to point out that he's not apologizing for being wrong, no. He still has his opinion which he clearly isn't wanting to go out and change by actually playing a video game.
Oh well, priorities and all that.
And I was about to get into this long spiel about how to define art and its relation to games, but I realize that's been done to death with this story already and I'm sure other people have been better at discussing it than I ever would. So yeah.
Yeah, it's something. It's also really incredibly stupid. I mean, it's one thing for some Joe Blow talking in his own living room to the people who happen to be there, but it's another thing to be a professional writer whose words are read by... significantly fewer people after this would be my guess. Idiot.
My favourite bit was where he mentioned how friends were more than happy and willing to set him up with a PS3 and some artistic games like Flower, and each time he had an excuse to not go through with it they would keep accommodating him. In the end, he accepts that he knows he hasn't given current games a fair chance, but has no interest in giving them a fair chance because he'd rather do other stuff.
That's just funny.
The man admitted that he pissed off a bunch of folks by getting into a topic he knew nothing about. That's still more than most people out there who piss off folks by getting into topics they know nothing about. I'll give kudos to that - it's something.
wallpaperotaku
The Hero of Time (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/05/10 | Reply
@Pleiades Rising:
I agree. For me, art has to do with reception, does it trigger emotion? Art is, afterall, in the eye of the beholder. Musical elements, voice acting, backgrounds, character design, all of that is art. I think in a sense they create an interactive collage!
Last edited by wallpaperotaku at 1:12:53 AM CDT on July 5, 2010.
kita mikichi
Chibi Artist Girl (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/04/10 | Reply
I say to Ebert: "HA! And HA again!"
Yes, games are art! Considering all the work that goes into them, how can you not call them art? Taking the pieces apart, you have: the initial character/setting designs (for example, Namco sells pieces of Soul Calibur stage art), taking that and building three-dimensional representations and making them convincing and appealing; the storywriting, scripting and casting; the musical score...The list could go on! Video games are an art!!!
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/03/10 | Reply
@wallpaperotaku:
Indeed, we can even speak of acts being performed artfully, without the end result itself attempting to be art, e.g. a well-executed triple-play in baseball. It's not uncommon or unusual to hear of something like "The Art of Repairing...", as another example. We can do things artfully, but it doesn't necessarily follow that in every case the end is art.
I have to mention that I'm not exactly opposed to the idea of games-as-art. I welcome any input on the discussion of art! I'm pointing out that any sustained and in-depth discussion on art has to go further than one that simply offers an unqualified assertion that games are/aren't art. I'd like to see more "groundwork" being done on this issue, since there's so much confusion involved in it.
wallpaperotaku
The Hero of Time (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/03/10 | Reply
@Pleiades Rising:
True, afterall, in anthropological terms, art is used to describe anything with out necessary purpose, however this gets tangled in questions like a well-designed chair, or an amulet that shows rank. A chair is made with the purpose of sitting, but in ways can be called artistic. And the amulet is a artfully crafted necklace, but it was made specifically to suit a purpose.
Its so confusing XD
Ace
Senile Hipster (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/02/10 | Reply
@ChibiHanyou:
This statement almost sounds like the same kind of fallacy Mr. Ebert is engaging in. While it's true that creating a video game is a lot more complex than he's probably giving them credit for, it's not exactly fair to say that you can make a movie just by "pointing a camera" at something. Professional filmmaking requires a huge budget, tons of video editing, expensive professional equipment, the list goes on. On top of that, acting itself is actually deceptively hard to do in some cases. And that's not even considering animated movies, which Ebert does regularly critique and considers art just as much as he does any other film medium.
Anyway, my point is that it's perfectly fine to defend your stance, just be aware of how you do so. You don't make much ground by downplaying the amount of work put into one thing just to make the thing you're defending look good, especially if it's in response to the other guy doing the exact same thing.
ChibiHanyou
Ochibi~ (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/02/10 | Reply
The guy fails to realize all the time and effort in creating the games. He's a movie critic right? Well, all he sees is what the camera catches on film. However, the games have to be MADE entirely by people.. if it were that easy to point a camera and make it a video game, I think everyone would have their own game by now.
It sure as hell is an art form. No question about it.
Pleiades Rising
Otaku Idol (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/01/10 | Reply
Mr. Ebert, if someone wants to see games as art, then let them. In that case, the burden falls upon them to clarify and classify the concepts they work with. And that isn't an easy job when considering what are the objects of art. I'm sure someone can make a convincing argument that checkers could be called art.
Shinmaru
Baron of Terribad (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/01/10 | Reply
Who cares if video games are art, anyway? I don't give a crap if I'm engaging in high art when I play Phoenix Wright. I just want to have fun.
Love thy Evangelion.
bellpickle
Pickle of the Year (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/01/10 | Reply
lol. Oh Ebert.
1dev13
Grand Otaku | Posted 07/01/10 | Reply
*Sighs* How could you say that if you've never even given it a chance? *Facepalm*
Miss Anonymous
Vagrant AI (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/01/10 | Reply
Well at least he had the cojones to admit he shouldn't have said anything. Although I think it's important to point out that he's not apologizing for being wrong, no. He still has his opinion which he clearly isn't wanting to go out and change by actually playing a video game.
Oh well, priorities and all that.
And I was about to get into this long spiel about how to define art and its relation to games, but I realize that's been done to death with this story already and I'm sure other people have been better at discussing it than I ever would. So yeah.
DemonKingAtticus
A Fiery Spirit (Otaku Eternal) | Posted 07/01/10 | Reply
Yeah, I think that's fair as well.
But someone, somewhere, is not gonna be happy regardless. ^^;
brigid
Otaku Legend | Posted 07/01/10 | Reply
Yeah, it's something. It's also really incredibly stupid. I mean, it's one thing for some Joe Blow talking in his own living room to the people who happen to be there, but it's another thing to be a professional writer whose words are read by... significantly fewer people after this would be my guess. Idiot.
SomeGuy
Canadian Liaison (Team) | Posted 07/01/10 | Reply
My favourite bit was where he mentioned how friends were more than happy and willing to set him up with a PS3 and some artistic games like Flower, and each time he had an excuse to not go through with it they would keep accommodating him. In the end, he accepts that he knows he hasn't given current games a fair chance, but has no interest in giving them a fair chance because he'd rather do other stuff.
That's just funny.
The man admitted that he pissed off a bunch of folks by getting into a topic he knew nothing about. That's still more than most people out there who piss off folks by getting into topics they know nothing about. I'll give kudos to that - it's something.