Firstly, this an old, old debate that is resurrected whenever a new art/entertainment form becomes increasingly popular, especially whenever those particular forms are alien to particular members of an older generation who have made a living and professional reputation on being custodians of what counts for artistic taste.
It happened with novels, a relatively new medium which was derided as fluff in the early days (i.e. the 18th century) of its ascendancy; it happened with movies and TV; it happened with genre fiction and was revisited with renewed zeal during the video nasties panic in the UK during the 1980s; it happened with penny dreadfuls and comic books; it happened in Japanese theatre with Kabuki initially derided in 17th and 18th century Japan as popular fluff compared to the elite tastes required to enjoy noh theatre; and it is happening with video games.
But if you are really interested in getting to grips with this theory then we are really in a debate about aesthetics and art theory. What is art? Can it be objectively measured or is it subjective? Does what constitute art change throughout history or is it universal? If it is universal does that mean great art recognized by the ancient Greeks is the same recognized by 21st century man and will be the same recognized by 30th or even 50th century man? Does ideology or power effect what is allowed to be considered art and what is denied that status?
Nothing in the Ebert blog contributed to this debate and his definition of art was largely a motley collection of quotes, a cliched collection of "great works" that idiots the world over accept as great art because they have been told it's so (a bit like people who stuff their shelves with Booker prize list books), and an unconscious endorsement of the idea that art is an objective, descriptive category.
I personally feel that an overly objective and descriptive and prescriptive definition of art is ridiculous. Art is something valued as art and values change throughout history, and are subject to power, ideology and culture wars. While I think we can make some broad-brush statements about what art usually entails, it is one of these things that is best left with a more fluid and historical frame of reference. Whenever you try and reify art, to pin it down and dissect it, you remove it from its existential context and frequently bleed out all the real-world meaning that made it artistically valuable to people in the first place
It took ages before novels, movies and comic books were recognized as artistic and may take ages yet before video games attain that questionable privilege.
I kinda harbor an impossible hope that video games will NEVER be recognized as art because it would save the genre from smug and insufferable custodians of taste like Ebert and Bloom and the Booker judges. When video games are "officially" recognized as art it would to do to our games what the art critics and custodians of high-culture did to surrealism: castrate what was once virile and fresh into a safe and sterile medium for the bourgeoisie to discuss in their dull ego-stroking dinner parties.
A much better question is deciding between good and bad art. That is where the constructive debate begins.
They used to say the same thing about comic books .The very word graphics implys that some artistic talent is needed to produce the visuals in video games . The character designs don't just magically appear .
It amazes me how so many so called experts can find things like da-da ism art when they are closed minded to newer and more popular forms of it .
Art is very subjective essentially you can paint a bunch of potatos black and white and say its a representation of the inequalitys in our society and some people will believe you and say its genius . Normally the so called experts lol .
A can filled with shit is currently on display in Denmark. Some consider it to be great art, while others don't.
My point is that no one can label anything as art or claim it isn't. It's your own opinion that matters. I can't stand people who think themselves as "God of the arts"!
Imo, games CAN be art! LOTRO and AOC have fantastic landscapes and i consider it to be art.
I personally feel that overly objective and descriptive and prescriptive definition of art is ridiculous. Art is something valued as art and values change throughout history, and are subject to power, ideology and culture wars. While I think we can make some broad-brush statements about what art usually entails, it is one of these things that is best left with a more fluid and historical frame of reference. Whenever you try and reify art, to pin it down and dissect it, you remove it from its existential context and frequently bleed out all the real-world meaning that made it artistically valuable to people in the first place
This is pretty much it.
I mean, primitive people "made art" but they weren't thinking in the same way as picasso. The celts didn't have paintings and marble sculptures but they did work "art" into their clothign and whatever it was they carried as they travelled.
Art has a different meaning from culture to culture, people to people.
Whether it's the sculpting in the metal of a belt buckle, cave paintings, tatoos or found object sculpture, if a person sees it as art then it's art.
Humans are nutty that way.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I think video games can be art, and it's ridiculous to think that they can't be. But to understand why you have to understand how games compare to other mediums like film, photography, painting, etc.
Art is constantly changing in response to the ongoing advancements in technology. In general, painting was superseded by photography, which was superseded by film, which is superseded by video games/digital interaction. Each of these new developments was built off its predecessor, designed to take the idea of storytelling/suggestion with images to the next level once the current stage of technology had reached its potential. It is in this way that art and technology have forever influenced one another, as man's desire to tell stories and share his emotions has led him to seek out better and better ways to do so.
Now, our culture's response to each of these developments may not have completely surpassed what the previous achieved, but it is important to distinguish how each new advancement has a greater potential to bridge the gap between an artist trying to express something and his audience. Each new tier of technology further and further creates an artificial reality that the viewer can become lost in, and once they are there it is up to the artist to guide their emotions and feelings and lead them to certain realizations or discoveries.
Like I said, the way our culture has embraced these technologies is almost always to turn them into entertainment. This stunts their growth as pure art forms somewhat because certain formulas become established, and then the very meaning of the art to both viewers and new artists becomes how to copy or improve on these formulas. So an art begins to go in a certain direction, and it snowballs until people largely forget where it came from, what it's basic capabilities are, and the countless different ways they can be used. Once it reaches this point, the idea of what is "mainstream" becomes affirmed, and conversely those who go against it become the avant garde. These two forces play a constant balancing act, with the avant garde responding to what is needed to invigorate an art form and the mainstream taking that and pushing it to the extreme, until it has become exhausted and again something new is needed.
The history of video games up until now has more or less been to create interactive movies. This was probably a necessary way for games to develop, as we are only in the first 20 years or so of major video game development and it is natural for a new, fledgling art form to at first imitate the ideas of its predecessor (film). During the first few decades of any new art, it takes the artists and innovators time to experiment and figure out what works and what doesn't.
With film, the first films were simply static shots of moving trains or people exiting a building, because they were fascinating at the time, and just to achieve those was an accomplishment (and likewise we have Pong, Asteroids, and Tetris). But then filmmakers began to use different camera angles, and then began to juxtapose shots to create montage and convey a message from a series of images, and then finally there was sound, and then in recent years we have the onset of computer graphics/special effects. This traces a 100+ year history of film and shows how artists learn more and more what they can do to better convey their message, and create worlds for viewers to become immersed in.
You can look at video games and draw some parallels. There are too many developments to try and mention them all, but off the top of my head: look at FPS games, and how companies like Irrational and Valve have experimented with using the first-person view to place the player in the shoes of the character, rather than behind an avatar; look at what Bioware is doing with branching story arcs that build on each other to narrow down a more and more specific story based on the player's decisions; think about how the idea of an HUD has evolved, with things like lifebars or bullet counts more and more disappearing from the edges of the screen and instead being integrated into the visuals themselves. These are all ways that innovators are learning to better immerse the player in the experience.
Looking to the future, with 3D and the idea of virtual reality, it is games that will take the furthest advantage of this, not films. Already, we have become disillusioned to films somewhat because we no longer have that feeling of discovery, that anything can happen, because we know that this will be a one-off experience, with a predetermined pacing and timeframe, and that there is an ending at some point. We have realized, more or less, that films are a passive experience.
This is because we have experienced video games where we can actually change the outcome, where we have to interact with what's in front of us. It is a much more immersive experience, by design. That is because games are the cutting edge of technology; the best our innovators have to offer and have achieved. The mainstream, as I mentioned above, will continue to utilize this technology to create blockbuster experiences like Halo or Super Mario, which will always simply remain games and do not really innovate when it comes to interaction itself, while games I referenced above like Bioshock and Mass Effect explore more of the art form side, and push the boundaries to new levels. The mainstream and the avant garde; they will always be the two driving forces of an art form, and they are beginning to take shape in the games industry now that basic things like graphics and how to ergonomically design a controller and its buttons, etc, have been figured out.
Games as we know them today will probably someday be replaced by greater levels of immersion as technology increases, like something that plugs directly into your brain and overtakes your very consciousness. But that's just an example. The idea though is that games are art; while still early in their development, they are the closest we have come to suggesting a separate reality to a viewer. This is always what art is about. Music has the power to completely change your mood, writing/wordcraft can expand your mind and make you think on greater levels of intelligence, film and photography can take you places suggestively that are impossible to go physically, and video games bring these new worlds even closer to you by making them feel real and imminent because they present you with things from this world that you actually have to react to. And of course there's more, and each of these different mediums blur together and share these qualities. But games are in there; they are part of the wheel.
Eh, who is that guy? Now don't get me wrong as I know who he is, yet I don't know who he thinks he is..
Art critics as well as music or movie critics make me sick, as most of the time they have nothing to show that they have created to add any weight or value to their opinion that they know whats art and what is not art. It's hilarious really, the second I let some nobody who has zero real talent, tell me what is and what is not art, is the second I burn my paint brushes smash my Wacom Tab, delete my photoshop and Audacity programs and burn my Guitar equipment.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Melmoth, I just want to say that I am quite taken aback by your intellectualism and your eloquence. It is rare to see someone take that kind of time and care with a response. And I would add that I am quite glad you did it with regards to this topic.
This is an important thing to discuss, if only because of people like Ebert persist in their arguments. It trivialises gaming in general. His primary stipulation, that games cannot be art because they can be won, is interesting, if misguided. This is the idea that art cannot be interactive, that art is something to be observed. This is what I think is the primary hurdle of our generation to bring this into the popular understanding of art. Because, whatever we think of as art (and I agree with you, that it is a subjective thing) as a people, as a world, is the direction are will go in the next generation. I would very much like to see great artists work on interactive pieces like some of the great games we have now. Primarily, I believe that this is a facet and a continuation of the semi-persecution gamers and the idea of gaming experienced during its inception. That has been decreasing rapidly, but it does persist. Many people, especially older people, like Ebert, see it as counter-culture, and are the same people that, as you say, derided kabuki, manga, novels, films, etcetera ad nauseam. We may not need to change those minds, as things always change with time, but I like the idea of people in general taking a more inclusive idea of art.
I write poetry. It may not be good art in every case, but no one would argue that it is not art, simply because of what it is. People write novels, and even when they are terrible, it is universally accepted as art. People paint or take photographs with the same result.
In the simplest distillation of this argument, we can simply say that games have both storyline and graphical representations. Both things are already universally accepted as art, regardless if it is terrible, ugly to behold, or transparent in topic. It is art. A game now is just like a film with which we can interact. That addition cannot detract from the fact that it already contains things that all people accept as art. By the simplest logic, even the World of Warcraft is art. Pulp fiction, let's say.
I doubt I am as eloquent as Melmoth, but I wanted to weigh in on this timeless debate. Odds are, many in the current generation of young gamers will find things to hate about whatever "art" the next generation or two come up with.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
If a room full of rubbish can be counted as art, which it as been. Then a excellent video game is art. I can name a lot of titles that have pushed back the fronter of graphics, sound and playability. One of the earliest games is: The Longest Journey made in 1999 as one of the best background graphics and story lines I've seen for it's time. Bringing things more up to date, EVE Online and AoC. Sometimes the graphics in both games are quite wonderful and they can literately catch you off guard.
So from my point of view some games are true art. Unlike a room full of rubbish, which I'm going to make for myself and sell it for a billion dollars.
Originally posted by Aki_Ross If a room full of rubbish can be counted as art, which it as been. Then a excellent video game is art. I can name a lot of titles that have pushed back the fronter of graphics, sound and playability. One of the earliest games is: The Longest Journey made in 1999 as one of the best background graphics and story lines I've seen for it's time. Bringing things more up to date, EVE Online and AoC. Sometimes the graphics in both games are quite wonderful and they can literately catch you off guard.
So from my point of view some games are true art. Unlike a room full of rubbish, which I'm going to make for myself and sell it for a billion dollars.
Ah, The Longest Journey! I cannot believe that was not something I thought of in this context. That game is perhaps at the pinnacle of what games as are can be with our current technology. Better graphics I doubt will raise the bar much besides general playability. The story that game told, and the feelings it evoked, ah, all I can say is that it was amazing. I hope Ragnar and co. do as good a job with The Secret World. Maybe a MMO that is the pinnacle of art?
Edit: Gdemami, I believe that many trolls may feel that theirs is an art, so perhaps there is some truth to it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Originally posted by MMO_Doubter Yes. We don't have to like it for it to be art. Any strong emotional reaction will qualify. I guess it would be classified as 'performance art'.
Yeah, terror is not liked by many but it is still a masterpiece of art.
I guess qualification 'bullshit' is more appropriate in this case.
As others have said, this is an old argument, and it's one that will go on forever. The reality is that art is a subjective experience. The problem comes from other people (aka Ebert) trying to tell you what is art to you. That is a no-no.
The points where Ebert's argument falls apart:
He has never really played video games, or so it appears from the way he talks about them
He doesn't really define "art".
He's a so-called expert of a different medium
So how can someone be any kind of authority on whether or not something is art, if they haven't truly experienced it? Art is something hard to define specifically because its definition changes based on the person. Plus, why are we listening to a 75-year old movie critic tell us what video games are or aren't? (And frankly, I don't agree with his movie reviews either, so already I know he's not the be-all-end-all of anything)
If you think it's art, then it's art. Whether other people think you're right or wrong, they don't have the right to take that definition away from you.
In the end, who really cares? Are video games going to be any more or less fun if they're art? I don't think it'll have any difference on the genre, and we really don't need the pretentious art snobs trying to enforce their ideal on our medium.
As long as the game is fun, I say it doesn't matter.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
If you think it's art, then it's art. Whether other people think you're right or wrong, they don't have the right to take that definition away from you.
What if Bobby Kotick thinks his management techniques are art?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Ah, The Longest Journey! I cannot believe that was not something I thought of in this context. That game is perhaps at the pinnacle of what games as are can be with our current technology. Better graphics I doubt will raise the bar much besides general playability. The story that game told, and the feelings it evoked, ah, all I can say is that it was amazing. I hope Ragnar and co. do as good a job with The Secret World. Maybe a MMO that is the pinnacle of art?
Quite agree, The Longest Journey and it's squeal Dreamfall are truly both great games for the storyline, I just hope that Ragnar can continue the journey at some point in the future. As for The Secret World, time will tell. Creating a MMORPG is a lot different from making a RP.
Comments
Firstly, this an old, old debate that is resurrected whenever a new art/entertainment form becomes increasingly popular, especially whenever those particular forms are alien to particular members of an older generation who have made a living and professional reputation on being custodians of what counts for artistic taste.
It happened with novels, a relatively new medium which was derided as fluff in the early days (i.e. the 18th century) of its ascendancy; it happened with movies and TV; it happened with genre fiction and was revisited with renewed zeal during the video nasties panic in the UK during the 1980s; it happened with penny dreadfuls and comic books; it happened in Japanese theatre with Kabuki initially derided in 17th and 18th century Japan as popular fluff compared to the elite tastes required to enjoy noh theatre; and it is happening with video games.
But if you are really interested in getting to grips with this theory then we are really in a debate about aesthetics and art theory. What is art? Can it be objectively measured or is it subjective? Does what constitute art change throughout history or is it universal? If it is universal does that mean great art recognized by the ancient Greeks is the same recognized by 21st century man and will be the same recognized by 30th or even 50th century man? Does ideology or power effect what is allowed to be considered art and what is denied that status?
Nothing in the Ebert blog contributed to this debate and his definition of art was largely a motley collection of quotes, a cliched collection of "great works" that idiots the world over accept as great art because they have been told it's so (a bit like people who stuff their shelves with Booker prize list books), and an unconscious endorsement of the idea that art is an objective, descriptive category.
I personally feel that an overly objective and descriptive and prescriptive definition of art is ridiculous. Art is something valued as art and values change throughout history, and are subject to power, ideology and culture wars. While I think we can make some broad-brush statements about what art usually entails, it is one of these things that is best left with a more fluid and historical frame of reference. Whenever you try and reify art, to pin it down and dissect it, you remove it from its existential context and frequently bleed out all the real-world meaning that made it artistically valuable to people in the first place
It took ages before novels, movies and comic books were recognized as artistic and may take ages yet before video games attain that questionable privilege.
I kinda harbor an impossible hope that video games will NEVER be recognized as art because it would save the genre from smug and insufferable custodians of taste like Ebert and Bloom and the Booker judges. When video games are "officially" recognized as art it would to do to our games what the art critics and custodians of high-culture did to surrealism: castrate what was once virile and fresh into a safe and sterile medium for the bourgeoisie to discuss in their dull ego-stroking dinner parties.
A much better question is deciding between good and bad art. That is where the constructive debate begins.
Regards
Melmoth
ed for typos and some clarification
The guy who wrote the article is like 75 years old. It's hard to take his opinion on video games seriously when he most likely can't program his vcr.
I do think that SOME game can be considered art, these games are not mmo's that is one sure thing.
Play ICO or Katamari Damacy on the PS2 and tell me games can't be art.
Of course they can.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
They used to say the same thing about comic books .The very word graphics implys that some artistic talent is needed to produce the visuals in video games . The character designs don't just magically appear .
It amazes me how so many so called experts can find things like da-da ism art when they are closed minded to newer and more popular forms of it .
Art is very subjective essentially you can paint a bunch of potatos black and white and say its a representation of the inequalitys in our society and some people will believe you and say its genius . Normally the so called experts lol .
A can filled with shit is currently on display in Denmark. Some consider it to be great art, while others don't.
My point is that no one can label anything as art or claim it isn't. It's your own opinion that matters. I can't stand people who think themselves as "God of the arts"!
Imo, games CAN be art! LOTRO and AOC have fantastic landscapes and i consider it to be art.
This is pretty much it.
I mean, primitive people "made art" but they weren't thinking in the same way as picasso. The celts didn't have paintings and marble sculptures but they did work "art" into their clothign and whatever it was they carried as they travelled.
Art has a different meaning from culture to culture, people to people.
Whether it's the sculpting in the metal of a belt buckle, cave paintings, tatoos or found object sculpture, if a person sees it as art then it's art.
Humans are nutty that way.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I think video games can be art, and it's ridiculous to think that they can't be. But to understand why you have to understand how games compare to other mediums like film, photography, painting, etc.
Art is constantly changing in response to the ongoing advancements in technology. In general, painting was superseded by photography, which was superseded by film, which is superseded by video games/digital interaction. Each of these new developments was built off its predecessor, designed to take the idea of storytelling/suggestion with images to the next level once the current stage of technology had reached its potential. It is in this way that art and technology have forever influenced one another, as man's desire to tell stories and share his emotions has led him to seek out better and better ways to do so.
Now, our culture's response to each of these developments may not have completely surpassed what the previous achieved, but it is important to distinguish how each new advancement has a greater potential to bridge the gap between an artist trying to express something and his audience. Each new tier of technology further and further creates an artificial reality that the viewer can become lost in, and once they are there it is up to the artist to guide their emotions and feelings and lead them to certain realizations or discoveries.
Like I said, the way our culture has embraced these technologies is almost always to turn them into entertainment. This stunts their growth as pure art forms somewhat because certain formulas become established, and then the very meaning of the art to both viewers and new artists becomes how to copy or improve on these formulas. So an art begins to go in a certain direction, and it snowballs until people largely forget where it came from, what it's basic capabilities are, and the countless different ways they can be used. Once it reaches this point, the idea of what is "mainstream" becomes affirmed, and conversely those who go against it become the avant garde. These two forces play a constant balancing act, with the avant garde responding to what is needed to invigorate an art form and the mainstream taking that and pushing it to the extreme, until it has become exhausted and again something new is needed.
The history of video games up until now has more or less been to create interactive movies. This was probably a necessary way for games to develop, as we are only in the first 20 years or so of major video game development and it is natural for a new, fledgling art form to at first imitate the ideas of its predecessor (film). During the first few decades of any new art, it takes the artists and innovators time to experiment and figure out what works and what doesn't.
With film, the first films were simply static shots of moving trains or people exiting a building, because they were fascinating at the time, and just to achieve those was an accomplishment (and likewise we have Pong, Asteroids, and Tetris). But then filmmakers began to use different camera angles, and then began to juxtapose shots to create montage and convey a message from a series of images, and then finally there was sound, and then in recent years we have the onset of computer graphics/special effects. This traces a 100+ year history of film and shows how artists learn more and more what they can do to better convey their message, and create worlds for viewers to become immersed in.
You can look at video games and draw some parallels. There are too many developments to try and mention them all, but off the top of my head: look at FPS games, and how companies like Irrational and Valve have experimented with using the first-person view to place the player in the shoes of the character, rather than behind an avatar; look at what Bioware is doing with branching story arcs that build on each other to narrow down a more and more specific story based on the player's decisions; think about how the idea of an HUD has evolved, with things like lifebars or bullet counts more and more disappearing from the edges of the screen and instead being integrated into the visuals themselves. These are all ways that innovators are learning to better immerse the player in the experience.
Looking to the future, with 3D and the idea of virtual reality, it is games that will take the furthest advantage of this, not films. Already, we have become disillusioned to films somewhat because we no longer have that feeling of discovery, that anything can happen, because we know that this will be a one-off experience, with a predetermined pacing and timeframe, and that there is an ending at some point. We have realized, more or less, that films are a passive experience.
This is because we have experienced video games where we can actually change the outcome, where we have to interact with what's in front of us. It is a much more immersive experience, by design. That is because games are the cutting edge of technology; the best our innovators have to offer and have achieved. The mainstream, as I mentioned above, will continue to utilize this technology to create blockbuster experiences like Halo or Super Mario, which will always simply remain games and do not really innovate when it comes to interaction itself, while games I referenced above like Bioshock and Mass Effect explore more of the art form side, and push the boundaries to new levels. The mainstream and the avant garde; they will always be the two driving forces of an art form, and they are beginning to take shape in the games industry now that basic things like graphics and how to ergonomically design a controller and its buttons, etc, have been figured out.
Games as we know them today will probably someday be replaced by greater levels of immersion as technology increases, like something that plugs directly into your brain and overtakes your very consciousness. But that's just an example. The idea though is that games are art; while still early in their development, they are the closest we have come to suggesting a separate reality to a viewer. This is always what art is about. Music has the power to completely change your mood, writing/wordcraft can expand your mind and make you think on greater levels of intelligence, film and photography can take you places suggestively that are impossible to go physically, and video games bring these new worlds even closer to you by making them feel real and imminent because they present you with things from this world that you actually have to react to. And of course there's more, and each of these different mediums blur together and share these qualities. But games are in there; they are part of the wheel.
ahem
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.massively.com/media/2008/07/os167_eve_425.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.massively.com/media/2008/05/os107_eve_425.jpg
they can certainly be a medium for expressing art at least
Into the breach meatbags
Eh, who is that guy? Now don't get me wrong as I know who he is, yet I don't know who he thinks he is..
Art critics as well as music or movie critics make me sick, as most of the time they have nothing to show that they have created to add any weight or value to their opinion that they know whats art and what is not art. It's hilarious really, the second I let some nobody who has zero real talent, tell me what is and what is not art, is the second I burn my paint brushes smash my Wacom Tab, delete my photoshop and Audacity programs and burn my Guitar equipment.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Melmoth, I just want to say that I am quite taken aback by your intellectualism and your eloquence. It is rare to see someone take that kind of time and care with a response. And I would add that I am quite glad you did it with regards to this topic.
This is an important thing to discuss, if only because of people like Ebert persist in their arguments. It trivialises gaming in general. His primary stipulation, that games cannot be art because they can be won, is interesting, if misguided. This is the idea that art cannot be interactive, that art is something to be observed. This is what I think is the primary hurdle of our generation to bring this into the popular understanding of art. Because, whatever we think of as art (and I agree with you, that it is a subjective thing) as a people, as a world, is the direction are will go in the next generation. I would very much like to see great artists work on interactive pieces like some of the great games we have now. Primarily, I believe that this is a facet and a continuation of the semi-persecution gamers and the idea of gaming experienced during its inception. That has been decreasing rapidly, but it does persist. Many people, especially older people, like Ebert, see it as counter-culture, and are the same people that, as you say, derided kabuki, manga, novels, films, etcetera ad nauseam. We may not need to change those minds, as things always change with time, but I like the idea of people in general taking a more inclusive idea of art.
I write poetry. It may not be good art in every case, but no one would argue that it is not art, simply because of what it is. People write novels, and even when they are terrible, it is universally accepted as art. People paint or take photographs with the same result.
In the simplest distillation of this argument, we can simply say that games have both storyline and graphical representations. Both things are already universally accepted as art, regardless if it is terrible, ugly to behold, or transparent in topic. It is art. A game now is just like a film with which we can interact. That addition cannot detract from the fact that it already contains things that all people accept as art. By the simplest logic, even the World of Warcraft is art. Pulp fiction, let's say.
I doubt I am as eloquent as Melmoth, but I wanted to weigh in on this timeless debate. Odds are, many in the current generation of young gamers will find things to hate about whatever "art" the next generation or two come up with.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
If a room full of rubbish can be counted as art, which it as been. Then a excellent video game is art. I can name a lot of titles that have pushed back the fronter of graphics, sound and playability. One of the earliest games is: The Longest Journey made in 1999 as one of the best background graphics and story lines I've seen for it's time. Bringing things more up to date, EVE Online and AoC. Sometimes the graphics in both games are quite wonderful and they can literately catch you off guard.
So from my point of view some games are true art. Unlike a room full of rubbish, which I'm going to make for myself and sell it for a billion dollars.
In general - if it was created and makes you feel something, then it's art.
I don't consider most photography art. Only staged photos are art.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Art is something designed to provoke an emotional reaction. It is trivially obvious that many video games therefore qualify as art.
Whether they are good art is another question....
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I think most consider photo's in general art simply because of sayings like "art imitates life".
Though I do agree there's a huge difference between a photo of families hanging out or friends, and a photo meant to provoke feeling.
War photography is art where as, family photos are... shall we say momentos?
The simplest thing could be considered art, like folding shapes out of paper... Or.. spreading noodles and elmers glue onto a sheet of poster board.
Art is expression, which games can have plenty of within them. Sorry old timer, you're wrong about this one..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Forums trolling and flaming or pretended idiocy are art by that definition too.
Ah, The Longest Journey! I cannot believe that was not something I thought of in this context. That game is perhaps at the pinnacle of what games as are can be with our current technology. Better graphics I doubt will raise the bar much besides general playability. The story that game told, and the feelings it evoked, ah, all I can say is that it was amazing. I hope Ragnar and co. do as good a job with The Secret World. Maybe a MMO that is the pinnacle of art?
Edit:
Gdemami, I believe that many trolls may feel that theirs is an art, so perhaps there is some truth to it.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Yes. We don't have to like it for it to be art. Any strong emotional reaction will qualify.
I guess it would be classified as 'performance art'.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
That's Ebert you're calling old-timer, right?
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Yeah, terror is not liked by many but it is still a masterpiece of art.
I guess qualification 'bullshit' is more appropriate in this case.
Yeah, lol..
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
As others have said, this is an old argument, and it's one that will go on forever. The reality is that art is a subjective experience. The problem comes from other people (aka Ebert) trying to tell you what is art to you. That is a no-no.
The points where Ebert's argument falls apart:
He has never really played video games, or so it appears from the way he talks about them
He doesn't really define "art".
He's a so-called expert of a different medium
So how can someone be any kind of authority on whether or not something is art, if they haven't truly experienced it? Art is something hard to define specifically because its definition changes based on the person. Plus, why are we listening to a 75-year old movie critic tell us what video games are or aren't? (And frankly, I don't agree with his movie reviews either, so already I know he's not the be-all-end-all of anything)
If you think it's art, then it's art. Whether other people think you're right or wrong, they don't have the right to take that definition away from you.
In the end, who really cares? Are video games going to be any more or less fun if they're art? I don't think it'll have any difference on the genre, and we really don't need the pretentious art snobs trying to enforce their ideal on our medium.
As long as the game is fun, I say it doesn't matter.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
There is an art in just about any human.. talent?
In this case art is used under a different premise of course .Though usually is still considered the art of....
Which could be followed by just about any action a human is capable of. There's an art to spreading terror, just as there is an art to kicking ass.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
So talent equals art now? Anything a human being does is an art as long as the person is talented?
Eh....
Quite agree, The Longest Journey and it's squeal Dreamfall are truly both great games for the storyline, I just hope that Ragnar can continue the journey at some point in the future. As for The Secret World, time will tell. Creating a MMORPG is a lot different from making a RP.