Topic: Roger Ebert is an Idiot

[Jimmy]

and in what way does this make him an idiot? It's perfectly true that video game aren't art and worth nothing artistically talking. This isn't art at all this is just computer stuff, an ensemble of 0 and 1... The script of the video game had no value and are mostly filler (without mentionning they most of the time it's the same variation on a same theme).

So yeah videogame aren't art, they are game... If that make me also an idiot disconnect with his time that's perfect with me, no wonders the new generation think a movie need CGI and 3D graphics only to be good...

[RossRoy]

I don't know.. I think games have the potential to be art, but we just haven't seen it.

And somehow, I'm convinced that any game to which you could affix the label of "art", would be pretty boring

And I must add - Head tearings in Fallout 3 are pretty get some pretty artful blood spatter!

[Jimmy]

This one is

and yeah it's a boring game

[lyonsden5]

This one is

and yeah it's a boring game

 

[Antares]

I don't play video games, so I can't weigh in on this. But I lost respect for Ebert years ago, when I felt he started to follow the herd when it came to certain films and film makers. As if he wanted to appear hip to a younger demographic. He never did this when Siskel was alive, because Siskel would call him on it.

Losing Gene, left a huge void in this man's life and career. He's just a shadow of himself now, almost Andy Rooney-ish in manner.

[snowcat]

This one is

and yeah it's a boring game

Its only boring until you learn to do this



Whilst art is subjective so is just about every other bloody thing in the world... Personally I don't care if something is "art" doesn't stop my enjoyment, and if someone disagrees with me then so be it....

if they want to argue I just point to my siggy :p

[northbloke]

It's perfectly true that video game aren't art and worth nothing artistically talking.

And if someone had said that about adult films, you'd hit the roof!

I think too many people have a high-brow opinion of what art is or means. Wikipedia has an interesting definition: Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. I can see how video games could fit into that definition.
A good video game won't just be fun to play, it will have characters that will enage you and you will connect with just as much as you would with characters in a film.
In terms of visuals I'm currently playing Red Dead Redemption and some of the landscapes I've seen are just as stunning as something you'd see in a John Ford film. They're not just a creation of 1s and 0s, someone has put real effort into creating those and into creating a living, breathing frontierland just like a film or a book.
Yes video games are primarily commercially driven, but aren't also films? Anything that costs a lot of money to make needs to make that money back, it doesn't stop it from being an artform.

[Jimmy]

North, the adult film I watch and collect had scenario, real actors and were made by professional filmaker.
I wouldn't react at all if someone say that any gonzo film produce in the last ten years aren't art but garbage, since it's exactly what I think. Colourless product without soul aren't art they are entertainment (I would I wrote garbage, but I don't think video game are garbage), they can be fun but no more than that...

[northbloke]

Colourless product without soul aren't art they are entertainment (I would I wrote garbage, but I don't think video game are garbage), they can be fun but no more than that...

I don't understand why you think video games are without soul. Yes video games are primarily designed to be entertainment, but they can also be much more than that. Video games can move you emotionally and they can challenge you morally. Art and entertainment aren't mutually exclusive - something can be both.

[RossRoy]

Video games can [...] challenge you morally.

I always have problems being "bad" in games where you have the choice. Like in Red Dead Redemption - there's an achievement for hogtieing a women, putting her on train tracks, and looking as she gets squished. I did it - but somehow I felt bad doing it. Even though I used one of the ladies who help in ambushing you with bandits now and then.

[Alien Redrum]

The very fact they are interactive stuffs them up straight away. Art is passive because it's the artists way of communicating an idea.

I can't agree with this. As mentioned by Ross Roy, Red Dead Redemption has some beautiful shots in it (albeit CGI), but just because it's interactive doesn't mean it's not art. Still riding on Ross Roy's coattails ( ), how can one consider a Ford film art and a game not just because it's interactive.

Plus, some of the Final Fantasy 'intermissions' were amazing. There were times were I would have multiple saves just to re-watch them. If a game is done well, it certainly can be art.



Now, granted, the people aren't looking 'real' quite yet, but they are doing some amazing work with the backgrounds that is pretty damn impressive and is artistic.

So while there is art within a game, a game itself is too undisciplined to be art.

Thus becomes the objective part. Take a Jackson Pollack painting for example. Those suck, IMO. It's a bunch of paint thrown on a canvas and called art. I know the argument is it's disciplined paint throwing, but I don't agree that. IMHO, you shouldn't have to take a college course to appreciate a mess. 

While I don't think I will ever understand why a Pollack will hang in any art museum, I can sort of grasp why it does, for those that appreciate him on another level, though.

North, the adult film I watch and collect had scenario, real actors and were made by professional filmaker.

Video games most certainly have real actors. A sampling of the Grand Theft Auto: Vice City cast list:

Ray Liotta, William Fichtner, Tom Sizemore, Dennis Hopper, Burt Reynolds, Luis Guzmán, Philip Michael Thomas, Robert Davi, Danny Trejo, Gary Buseym, Lee Majors...

And they are made by professionals, as well as have a scenario.

But, as mentioned a couple of times, it's all subjective. I think the cover art and posters for the old 70s porn is absolutely beautiful and can be considered art in its own way, but the movie within is not art (IMO!). But, like the Pollack, I can kind of see why some people would consider it such.

I think the piss/semen/urine Jesus pictures are more of a statement than art, though. Although some of them are pretty damn interesting.

[Najemikon]

Jimmy, your argument is absurd! Everything can be broken down into its relative parts and say, "well, it's a just a bunch of pixels/pigments/letters/sounds". As Northbloke says it's the way they are combined, not the medium.

I've long held that comics and computer games conquered science fiction years ago, while for the main part, films have consistently failed to match and resort to paint by numbers crap. There are exceptions of course, but for every Blade Runner there are a hundred Paychecks!

Sophie, I find nothing wrong with your argument, but I have to stress that when I say I don't consider games to be "art", I'm not being in any way snooty, elitist or just dismissive even because I love playing games. I just didn't come out of Batman Arkham Asylum feeling like I'd seen something important. I just thought it was bloody good and very... artistic.

And I absolutely disagree with Ebert that they never can be considered art. The writing and creativity is superb in many games, better than other mediums as I said.

"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions."

[/i]

By that definition, games most definitely are, but then so is my coffee table. I believe art should represent an idea to be interpreted by the individual...

Someone yelling "FRAG THAT MO-FO!" at Quake is not interpreting the skill of the artist involved. Are they noticing any subtle sub-texts? No. They're running for their virtual life.

Also, art should surely be a movement? A progression of ideas. Games for the most part haven't changed. They look prettier, but underneath it's still 'solve the puzzle the fastest', or 'number of headshots wins', etc.

I also think art should be accessible by everyone. When you sit in a cinema, watch a DVD or visit a gallery, you are being given identical information to everyone else. How you react is the interesting thing. But games are not on a level. Different platforms, different skill, different pace, means people get different responses and the response is that of a drug or a rollercoaster ride.

I don't agree with the moral challenge argument, because, and I come full circle, games are interactive. How can you be morally challenged when the fate of a character depends on you pressing 'W' or clicking 'Next'.

And finally, art should have a beginning, a middle and an end. Even in sculpture and paintings, there is a flow. But in a game? Well you can see the end if you like... if you're good enough.

"What did you think of the end of Half-Life 2? Wasn't it challenging and metaphorical!"... "Dunno, I couldn't get past the zombies"...

I think finding boundaries is healthy and important and it becomes part of education and recognising the important amongst the good, even when it isn't as talented or creative. It's part of the reason the Auteur theory developed in film; Michael Bay will never be an Auteur, yet the mere existence of his film means they should be considered art? That I find slightly... cheap.

This ties in with an old argument I used to have on Invelos. Most people thought Genre should be an unlimited or at least generous field, because Genre is subjective.

I love the Genre theory and passionately defend that it is not subjective. Learning why a film is considered a particular Genre is part of the process of understanding it. Just because you laughed, it ain't a comedy!

And so I think it's healthier to make the effort to distinguish become art forms, because one day, there will be a game/interactive experience that can be considered such and it will be important and wonderful, and should be recognised as such.

I'll still prefer Call of Duty, but important and wonderful anyway!

[Jimmy]

I don't understand why you think video games are without soul.

Ok some can, but common none of the videogame script are William Shakespeare, Etienne De La Boetie, Nicholas Machiavel or Thomas Moore materials... Even as a movie none of them would make the cut. I just make a distinction between art and entertainment that's all, I don't say videogame are crap (I play since the day of the Space Invaders game in the arcade). I appreciate them as a way way to pass the time, nothing more but nothing less. Even if I agree I was frighten playing Phantasmagoria or sad at the end of the world in Final Fantasy 6 or got an adrenaline rush playing HNL Hockey that doesn't make them art.

I just don't like to read that a well respected and one of the best movie critics is called an idiot because he express an opinion. Sure I don't agree with him sometimes (His review of Day of the Woman piss me of because he doesn't get it), but I don't call him an idiot for that. I just think he's wrong and I don't react like a fanboy.

[Najemikon]

Alien, I didn't see your reply until I'd spent way too long on that one!

But I do address your points. More specifically though, I'm sure Red Dead is gorgeous, but artistic skill is not a measure of whether it is art. In The Searchers, there is a correlation between Ethan's soul and the environment. Ford could have line drawn a cartoon and got the same effect, so photo-real landscapes is not where it's at.

See above for what I was saying about "beginning middle end", so the artistic endeavour can be considered as a whole.

And I agree Jackson Pollack was a mess. But he presented it to be considered; why did he do such a mess and why are we bothering? I don't bother, it's shite.

Games, no matter how pretty or well presented, are made to entertain and are bought by people wanting to be entertained. Art is a not a buyers market.

 

[Najemikon]

Ok some can, but common none of the videogame script are William Shakespeare, Etienne De La Boetie, Nicholas Machiavel or Thomas Moore materials... Even as a movie none of them would make the cut.

No, many games have scripts and ideas too good for a film! Good Hollywood make Half-Life? No way.