Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
General: Ebert Backs Off....Kind Of
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
In an April column at the Chicago Sun-Times, erstwhile movie critic, Roger Ebert, told stunned readers that "video games can never be art". In the original column, Ebert spent a lot of ink explaining why. Now, a scant three months later, Ebert is retracting that statement...kind of.
I'm not going to waste your time synthesizing Ebert's new column as his words are much more elegant than mine. Suffice it to say that he backs off his original statement with a gigantic caveat.
I should not have written that entry without being more familiar with the actual experience of video games.
This is inarguable. Many of the comments continued by debating the definition of art, which, it was pointed out, I never provided. Many others defined art in terms that would include video games. I received dozens of names for video games that the posters said had affected them like art, and they told me why. Three or four games came up time and again.
...
My error in the first place was to think I could make a convincing argument on purely theoretical grounds. What I was saying is that video games could not in principle be Art. That was a foolish position to take, particularly as it seemed to apply to the entire unseen future of games. This was pointed out to me maybe hundreds of times. How could I disagree? It is quite possible a game could someday be great Art.
Read all of Ebert's column and let us know what you think on our forums about the games you see as art, that inspire you...or take up Ebert's position and defend it!
Comments
Ebert continues to show he relies on arbitrary poorly thought out definitions and is ignorant of the subject matter of which he writes.
edit: for typo.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Sometimes people get full of themselves and think their opinions are better grounded than others. Roger should stick to what he knows, movies, outside of that realm he is a neophyte evidenced by that thoroughly poorly thought out column in April.
Nothing more humbling than eating your own words.
Seeing as he straight up admitted it, yeah, I guess he "continues to show it." He hasn't played video games, he doesn't want to play video games, and he should have never mentioned video games. Just should have stuck with books and movies. His definition of art is pretty resolute, even for something abstract and, in my opinion, utterly pointless to debate.
Still, I could see some of his reasoning, especially when he mentioned Romeo & Juliet, and I think he has problems with the gameplay itself, not what most people would consider "art": the graphics and visual design of the world. Graphically, it's art, because it's creative and evokes emotion: fear, wonder, happiness, depression, etc. Art doesn't magically stop being art if the intended feeling is not achieved in the viewer. If any reponse is garnered at all, it's art.
Then again, some people call the finger-painting abomination that they created in Kindergarten art, so maybe "anything that people create with their imagination" is a good definition. But not really, because that's how people can throw ten cans of paint onto a canvas and label it as "abstract art." What a joke.
I'll snip a quote from the Comments and say it's my stance on the issue:
"Art isn't about making you feel good. Art is about making you feel."
Ebert is a pretentious jackass who hardly has the pedegree or the Master's Degree to tell anyone what counts as art and what does not. And once having his ass handed to him by hundreds of people (his own admission) he still tries to defend the untennable position by saying he just didn't define what he was talking about clearly enough. Given how out of touch with reality and the modern American he is, the balcony should just remain closed.
(I'd be willing to kill someone for this box to have a spellchecker, or at least to stop blocking my browser's built-in one.)
I hate how the industry cared what he thought.
I'm a MUDder. I play MUDs.
Current: Dragonrealms
Pfft, don't worry, you type much better than 95% of the Internet.
I agree, and now I know the best way to piss people off is to try to invalidate their opinion of something with only your opinion as evidence. Art is one of those things that should be left up to the individual to decide. Thus utterly pointless to debate, as Ebert kindly demonstrated.
hmm, well i gained a little respect for ebert because he actually admitted he made a mistake. but ive never respected his reviews for what im now thinking is the same reason he wont consider games to even possibly be art. games arent artistic enough, in his opinion/taste. thats fine with me, a lot of what he considers good film i would consider boring. honestly he reminds me of a small child saying "i dont like it", having never tried it. but by saying he should not have offered an opinion on the subject, he knows that and i respect this.
still not interested in his opinion on art though, i have my own, thx.
IF THE ONLY DEFENCE FOR CRITICISM OF A GAME IS CALLING SOMEONE A TROLL OR HATER, THAT SAYS A LOT ABOUT THE QUALITY OF THE GAME
Mass Effect series IS A MASTERPIECE, equal to any excellent movie from any respectable film director. This Ebret can suck hard on my turian genitalia...
666
Shadow of the Colossus. /thread
If you don't know what game that is then I emplore you buy it ASAP (playstation 2) and play it in 1 sitting.
If you all really think you're bending his will you're wrong! You are all still bending to his will and none of you can even see it. It's like trying to convince your dad that eating pizza is the same thing as eating your vegetables just because it's made with some vegetables. And him finally admitting yes DAMMIT YES!!! pizza is made with vegetables but it's still not the same as eating the stuff in it's unprocessed form.
But if you want to take things in a literal sense then YES, video games are a form of art only because of the existance of concept art and the use of basic art tools that create it, but that's where the similarities end. Because the whole point is that traditional art is limited, unique and (acceptedly) flawed. A video game is abundant, share multiple features and would be riddiculed for it's flaws.
When video games go into mass production, it loses it's art form status and enters the entertainment media market. While at the same time gains no cultural value as it ages. This is all of course my own opinion of things.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
Most of you have demonstrated with your comments that you are at least as close-minded as you claim Ebert is - and I doubt have even watched or read an Ebert movie review, let alone understood it, so have no right to an opinion at all.
Ebert obviously had a particular concept of art in his mind when he said what he did, and given the teachings of the "art world" from how we are taught in school and down the line, it is easy enough to understand why. Realizing all that weight of teaching and considering how long he has likely lived with that concept, I take my proverbial hat off to a man who admits he made an ill-conceived statement. His qualifications do not mean he remains close-minded, they just mean he doesn't see all the reasoning, yet, why some games could be considered art or have artistic features. However, he IS open to the possibilities, that is clear.
Have played: Everquest, Asheron's Call, Horizons, Everquest2, World of Warcraft, Lord of the Rings Online, Warhammer, Age of Conan, Darkfall
As a resident of Illinois for almost 20 years, I can honestly say I know a lot about this man and his views ever since I was a boy growing up reading the paper every morning with my grandfather. When Ebert's partner was alive, they were top of the game among critics, everyone in the country knew about them.
Opinion is like politics though, you'll never get everyone to agree, and I don't think that's what he was going for. Everyone knows him to be world renown as a movie critic, but the irony is, a "lot" of the games made today with massive polygon counts are using the same professional software movie "artists" use to make movies with (aka fantasy where they have to create monsters, etc.).
So I'm quite surprised he couldn't make a connection like that himself, being as he sees every movie released. To each his own though I suppose.
I have all the rights i damn well want to post my opnions Mr. and YES I didn't bother to read this POS critics reviews before posting my reply, same as he didn't play a single videogame before making a FOOL of himself on his original post flaming them. You're nobody to say to anyone who has rights to what, so stfu.
666
If Ebert considers movies to be art, then by all accounts games should be considered art too. But then again I have never thought that movie critics were really worth a damn anyway.
Are movies "art"? To me, it entirely depends on the movie; most are simply entertainment with artistic elements for visual interest. Is a book a work of art? Same answer, though the artistic elements appeal to the mind's eye, rather than otherwise.
A video game combines both aspects, with artistic work throughout plus the chance to read (and feel like you're part of) a deep, well-written storyline. So, again, same answer -- it entirely depends on the game. Most are entertainment, but certainly some are art.
+1 I actuallly forgot about this pompass ass until seeing this thread. His reviews are opinions only and my only question would be, what does it take to become a professional in this line of work and get paid for giving opinions? Seems to me people who can create do so and those who cant judge the work of those who do. He is just a self proclaimed "intellectual" that pretends to know what he is talking about and in reality wouldnt k now shit if he stepped in it. Thats my opinion and I do take paypal.
WOW isnt great because it has 12 million players. WOW has 12 million players because its great.
Ebert's my movie guy, not my games guy, so I really don't care what he says about games.
Honestly speaking, I don't really care about art. But there's about one thing I remember hearing my teacher aesthetics say, and that is that art is subjective. If he thinks games aren't art, well that's good for him but that doesn't mean a damn thing.
"Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks."
The funniest part of the new article for me was the foot-dragging refusal to actually try some of the games players recommended in the comments section of the first article. Even with Sony and others willing to give him hardware and software and coach him through playing.
My impression was that the simply does not want video games to be a form of art, he doesn't want his stance changed, because then there would be a whole 'nother area of art (or the arts) that he'd have to bone up on so he could claim to have an opinion on "the best" of.
It's quite simple, if movies are art, if books are art (like it or lump it this includes Dan Brown and Stephenie Meyer) then games are also art. There have always been hack filmakers / writers and even hack artists (think of someone like Kostabi who merely signed paintings produced by others (he said it was a return to the old days) and made millions). Also, there are hack game developers, who produce lousy cheap games, that provoke no feeling other than regret for having wasted money on their offerings.
On the other side of the game design coin, as so many pointed out, Shadow of the Colossus (and Ico, for my money) are the facts on which his argument floundered. Beautiful, involving, immersive, affecting - those games were experiential like few others have been.
So, kudos of a sort for admitting he was wrong, he didn't have to. But some kudos revoked for his unwillingess to actually delve into and explore this medium he dislikes. "I was wrong because I played this and...." would ring far more true than "I was wrong because some people wrote some very elegant and detail-filled ripostes to my original post." The man's a critic, he's built his whole career on having an opinion, not on letting himself have one dictated to him.
Never read anything of his before.
Anyone who can come back and admit they were pretty much wrong in print deserves some respect even if you don't agree with his views.
Not many journos would do it. Especially some on here.
From that statement alone I can tell you don't know what an art film is. And no not all films are considered art, just like all video games aren't. And just like art films, art video games are very few, very niche and very non-profitable and those points right there would keep critics like Ebert from experiencing such art video games at all.
The last art video game I played was Okami and the last art film I watched was Valhalla Rising. In both instances each would never garner the mass drawing of people/players that would deem them blockbusters, because they were both made with different goals in mind.
"Small minds talk about people, average minds talk about events, great minds talk about ideas."
I exist and am capable of both rationalization and radicalization; therefore, I have every right to an opinion, regardless of what you think. And I live in a free country (for now), so I have every right to state my opinion.
Few people on this earth are as close-minded and also have the pulpit from which to spout their close-mindedness - Christopher Hitchens and Sen. Al Franken come to mind immediately - as Roger Ebert . He is as entitled to his opinions as you are to yours and I am to mine. I have seen plenty of Ebert over the years, mostly prior to Gene Siskel's death. Opinions are never truly wrong, by definition, so his insistence on being right about everything makes him self-reliant on spouting his opinions as fact. Somehow, for some reason, people have paid him for this, which reinforces his belief that his opinions are fact.
That's fine, I'll bite. He's wrong. /palpzon About a great... many... things. /palpzoff
Three simple words: ART IS SUBJECTIVE. Problem solved, case closed. Now everyone can talk about it and nobody is wrong. Because if art is NOT subjective, then who is the authority? Roger Ebert, who has already admitted he is incorrect? Federal governments, who dole out most of the cash to pay for the creation of art? How do they decide what is art? It is subjective, even to them. It is not the same as deciding what is a chair, or what is a car, or what is a house. Those have pretty solid definitions. In my own opinion, which is every bit as viable as anyone else's, AND WHICH I HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO, some games are art, and some are not. This can be debated but never disproven, as it is an opinion, not a fact, and therefore just as valid as Ebert's or anyone else's.
There's a sucker born every minute. - P.T. Barnum
Can't agree more on that count.
I don't think anyone can defend Ebert's position because it is an ultimately indefensable. Especially when he thinks that video games can never be art. It's kind of like watching one of those old movies of a train coming at the screen and saying "film can never be art" or looking at a kindergartener's finger painting and saying "painting can never be art." Well, apart from the fact that Ebert hasn't examined video games at all.
Video games are a very new and very revolutionary medium. In a single lifetime we've gone from games like Pomg to games like Grand Theft Auto IV, Bioshock, Portal, and (Insert Your Favourite Current Gen Game Here.) That's like going from cave paintings to Egyptian sculture and paintings in 40 or so years! That means that as a medium, video games are growing faster than anything before.
Video games are also incredibly complex, they encompass all forms of art and even a few sciences. Cinematography, photography, sculpting, painting, acting, writing, screenwriting, and physics just to name a few. They also attempt to create their own world or the real world in great detail. This is incredibly ambitious for any medium. Video games may be something else entirely in the distant future, and there is no way anyone can objectively say they will not be art.
Therefor a film cannot be art because I have a DVD copy of it that millions of other people have? My print of Van Gogh's Starry Night isn't art because they have made millions of those prints?
You're describing a mere distribution method, that can't define art in and of itself.
There is nothing that man has said that was worth the ink used to print it or the price of the airtime used to show it on TV.