Roger Ebert: Games are an inferior medium

[Blarghagh]

The thing is though, what is art? Ebert has grown arrogant indeed if he thinks he can answer that question.

[Zero]

The thing is though, what is art? Ebert has grown arrogant indeed if he thinks he can answer that question.

 

Indeed, and a large portion of his argument seems based on the idea that the other mediums have some great works thus they are capable of being art. Yet if movies theoretically were all a bunch of Michael Bay films or literature a bunch of trashy romance novels; and they didn't have any of those great names/titles to fall back on , would they be considered art? That is would they be considered mediums for art by most people concerned with the term or would they just be another medium capable of some things but not others (as Ebert as labeled gaming).

 

Like others have said how much has Ebert actually played games? He is after all close to his 70s, I don't think many from that generation are that into gaming. On my own biased opinion, I would agree there hasn't been any "great" artistic games for me as an individual, but I've seen enough of the medium to know it is capable of.

Edited August 26, 2007 by Zero

[Calax]

 

 

Meet Mr Ebert ^.^

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

He's a film critic WTF does he know about games!

 

Games can be art, that does not mean every game is art, much as every movie being art, or every book.

 

Harry Potter != Art.

Die Hard != Art.

Doom 3 != Art.

 

It's very simple concept. I'm shocked at Kaftan, but then again I'm getting used to his bleak attitude.

[Kaftan Barlast]

I was just saying that games(currently) are entertainment and there is no game counterpart to for instance Roy Andersons "Song from the floor above", Dostojevskijs "The Idiot" and other works of high artistic integrity, quality and value.

 

 

But I think that it's only a question of time until we will see "fine art" games.

[Pidesco]

I was just saying that games(currently) are entertainment and there is no game counterpart to for instance Roy Andersons "Song from the floor above", Dostojevskijs "The Idiot" and other works of high artistic integrity, quality and value.

 

 

But I think that it's only a question of time until we will see "fine art" games.

 

I can agree with that. Although, I think it will be a very long time until we get the gaming equivalent of something like, say, Meshes Of The Afternoon.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

I was just saying that games(currently) are entertainment and there is no game counterpart to for instance Roy Andersons "Song from the floor above", Dostojevskijs "The Idiot" and other works of high artistic integrity, quality and value.

 

 

But I think that it's only a question of time until we will see "fine art" games.

 

Sometimes its pure entertainment, but I've certainly seen games that I consider art.

 

One of which would be Out of this World/Another World.

[Blarghagh]

How is entertainment not art? I'm pretty sure that a movie that sets out to entertain and does so is more artful than a horrible movie made for "the right reasons" as one might say.

[Pidesco]

The question is who and how many you are entertaining with your work. I find Persona (the film, not the game) enormously entertaing, but the vast majority of movie going peeps would find it an awful bore.

 

Scary Movie set out to entertain a great deal of people and was very successful. Does that make it art?

[Tale]

The question is who and how many you are entertaining with your work. I find Persona (the film, not the game) enormously entertaing, but the vast majority of movie going peeps would find it an awful bore.

 

Scary Movie set out to entertain a great deal of people and was very successful. Does that make it art?

Scary Movie also parodies pop culture. Just because it's tastless and poorly produced does not mean it can't be art.

[Pidesco]

Let me rephrase that:

 

Scary Movie set out to entertain a great deal of people and was very successful. Does that make it "good" art?

[Tale]

Let me rephrase that:

 

Scary Movie set out to entertain a great deal of people and was very successful. Does that make it "good" art?

I'm sorry, you introduced a subjective. You'll need to elaborate.

[Pidesco]

That's actually kind of my point. All of this is subjective, like any other considerations on value.

[Tale]

But art isn't a consideration of value but of classification.

Edited August 27, 2007 by Tale

[Pidesco]

Perhaps when you use the word, but when Ebert uses the word "art", or "high art", or whatever, he's making a consideration of value. He is saying games are worse than movies because they are not art.

[Tale]

I didn't get that impression. Especially not with his stated claim of why.

[Pidesco]

Everyone else seems to think he was devaluing games, though. If not, then why did so many gamers get their panties all in a bunch over Ebert's comments?

[Tale]

1) Misinterpretation that he's devaluing games.

2) Disagreement with the principle.

 

There's a possible 3rd, but it's not worth mentioning.

[Pidesco]

Well...

 

I'd be practically willing to bet that he first decided he didn't like games (probably out of prejudice), and then proceeded to search for reasons for his distaste of games, mostly by over rationalizing. "Games are not art" is the argument he came up with.

 

 

I guess this is awfully judgemental on my part.

[Tale]

Bad kitty.

[Pidesco]

99% of all great philosophers did what I think he did anyway, so I guess it isn't really a big deal.

[Kaftan Barlast]

For something to qualify as art, it must have been done with the intent to produce something artsy. It also needs to have that special undefinable "thing" that you cant really quantify

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

For something to qualify as art, it must have been done with the intent to produce something artsy. It also needs to have that special undefinable "thing" that you cant really quantify

 

Which is why Out of this world/Another world can be considered to be art.

[Pidesco]

For something to qualify as art, it must have been done with the intent to produce something artsy. It also needs to have that special undefinable "thing" that you cant really quantify

 

Which is why Out of this world/Another world can be considered to be art.

 

And also why my last fart could also be considered art.

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

For something to qualify as art, it must have been done with the intent to produce something artsy. It also needs to have that special undefinable "thing" that you cant really quantify

 

Which is why Out of this world/Another world can be considered to be art.

 

And also why my last fart could also be considered art.

 

Perhaps, was the smell utterly unique.

 

The whole definitation of what is art in general is BS, there are games that should certainly be thought of as art, so sarcasam aside I was actually trying to be serious.