News: Celebrating over 10 years serving the creative community

Author Topic: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art  (Read 2275 times)

deka

  • Black Op
  • ******
  • Posts: 323
  • SPQR
Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« on: April 20, 2010, 06:37:22 PM »
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

Roger Ebert refutes some game developer chick who asserts that games are art. As much as I admire Ebert's knowledge of film, he's simply misled on this issue. Ebert is disputing the wrong games for the wrong arguments by the wrong people.

Here is one of the speaker's examples of an art-game:

WACO: The Video Game!!!!!

This woman is a retard.

toadie

  • Global Moderator
  • Combine Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • Terrible artist, Animator and Programmer.
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #1 on: April 20, 2010, 08:25:47 PM »
I would tend to agree with Ebert, and yes that bitch is the stupid, and WACO : THE GAME is not art (it's just a poorly built piece of crap), but I'd prosit that my acceptance of Ebert's statement is only true if you're referring that statement to the current state of gaming. As it stands, games are no more art than comic books (with a thin list of notable exceptions).

At a point similarly placed point in their timeline, comicbooks were in the same quandary as games. It was an evolve or stagnate point, and they stagnated. Rather than turning out a single work that provoked thought or emotion or any high-end thinking, Comicbooks stagnated. The result is than you were then left with a dose of large comic publishers controlling and regulating the entire industry and the content it pushed out. Aside from small outliers and indie comics, divergent thinking is gone from that market, and thus the cultural opinion of comics are not art, and doomed  to be so forever more.

Unless the minority of this piece become majority, games will follow the path of comics. Big publishers are going to push down thinking that is too divergent for mass appeal. You will never see a "Citizen Kane" of games under the curent gaming climate,you'll get EXACTLY more of the same drivel designed for mass-consumption.

I know this is going to cause some friction, but I had to put it out there, and it had to be in this thread.

JohnChronic

  • Half-Life 1.5 Team
  • Black Op
  • *
  • Posts: 322
  • Formerly Abyss 25
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #2 on: April 21, 2010, 03:17:33 AM »
Games are art. Well, at least the part I do *smug*.
Fairly pro texture artist.

James

  • Administrator
  • Gman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1359
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #3 on: April 21, 2010, 06:25:08 AM »
First and foremost, I think Roger Ebert is an annoying prick, so I tried to read his article as objectively as I could. Just thought I'd get that out of the way...

As pointed out somewhere in the comments, Roger's article is essentially a deconstruction of Kellee's arguments, with a couple of debatable points chucked in for good measure: he argues that games "can be won" and therefore can't be art. Not only does this not really make any sense, it ignores the greater part of the game that is actually considered the art - The storytelling, the graphics, the music, the sound.

You could argue that, if a group of critics were sitting around arguing about what the latest and greatest piece of art by Mr.TrendyArtist is about, and then Mr.TrendyArtist himself burst into the room telling them all to shut the fuck up and informing them exactly what his newest art piece meant and was about, then surely the art critics, who were trying to "win" (intellectually that is) have now lost - An outcome - which therefore means Mr.TrendyArtist is no longer an artist? Kind of a convoluted point, but I guess what I'm trying to say is, fuck the outcome and enjoy the ride. In other words, try and at least appreciate things at face value. If you play through something like Braid smugly thinking to youeself "Oh I'm not learning a lesson here and the discipline has been totally negated" then you've obviously not thought about the fact that somebody has sat there painting these striking visuals, composing this sweet music and somebody else has been programming it all together. This amazing technology that allows you to actually reverse every single thing you do. Think about that. All you've done is try and get on the intellectual high-horse and scoff at the uneducated proles who "just don't get it".

HOWEVER, part of the reason Roger is so easily able to make these points is that this woman is a pseudo-intellectual herself, showcasing blatantly shitty games pretending there's some kind of hidden meaning to them (I'm talking about Waco here). There are so many other games she could have used to make her points; games that obviously have an immediately noticeable "arty" element to them: Hideo Kojima's cutscenes, Valve's animation and facial expression technology, Silent Hill's psychological imagery, GTA4's mind-bogglingly vast city and even Modern Warfare's striking weapon animations. These are things you can immediately see and understand, not something that you have to pretentiously "interpret". If she'd done this, she would've helped this cause rather than damage it. He brings up an interesting point, asking if gamers "need validation", and I'd have to agree. In my opinion, the majority of gamers are spoilt, loud-mouth, immature, socially inept, irritating self-entitled pricks, with an unhealthy obsession with their pastime and a rabid, frenzied anger for anyone who dares challenge them. For this reason I think it's still going to be a long time before games can be taken seriously, and until a vast shift in the gaming community occurs and people stop trying to awkwardly "justify" stupid things like Waco or pretend there's some kind of hidden metaphor in mowing people down on GTA or cutting zombies up with a chainsaw instead of just admitting it's just entertainment, games will not be placed alongside music or film.

Imperial Wizard

  • BSR Team
  • Big Momma
  • *
  • Posts: 648
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #4 on: April 21, 2010, 06:59:43 AM »
Games aren't art?  
http://www.zenoclash.com
« Last Edit: April 21, 2010, 07:03:29 AM by RaZ777 »
Ah?

toadie

  • Global Moderator
  • Combine Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • Terrible artist, Animator and Programmer.
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #5 on: April 21, 2010, 08:11:51 AM »
First and foremost, I think Roger Ebert is an annoying prick, so I tried to read his article as objectively as I could. Just thought I'd get that out of the way...

As pointed out somewhere in the comments, Roger's article is essentially a deconstruction of Kellee's arguments, with a couple of debatable points chucked in for good measure: he argues that games "can be won" and therefore can't be art. Not only does this not really make any sense, it ignores the greater part of the game that is actually considered the art - The storytelling, the graphics, the music, the sound.

You could argue that, if a group of critics were sitting around arguing about what the latest and greatest piece of art by Mr.TrendyArtist is about, and then Mr.TrendyArtist himself burst into the room telling them all to shut the fuck up and informing them exactly what his newest art piece meant and was about, then surely the art critics, who were trying to "win" (intellectually that is) have now lost - An outcome - which therefore means Mr.TrendyArtist is no longer an artist? Kind of a convoluted point, but I guess what I'm trying to say is, fuck the outcome and enjoy the ride. In other words, try and at least appreciate things at face value. If you play through something like Braid smugly thinking to youeself "Oh I'm not learning a lesson here and the discipline has been totally negated" then you've obviously not thought about the fact that somebody has sat there painting these striking visuals, composing this sweet music and somebody else has been programming it all together. This amazing technology that allows you to actually reverse every single thing you do. Think about that. All you've done is try and get on the intellectual high-horse and scoff at the uneducated proles who "just don't get it".

HOWEVER, part of the reason Roger is so easily able to make these points is that this woman is a pseudo-intellectual herself, showcasing blatantly shitty games pretending there's some kind of hidden meaning to them (I'm talking about Waco here). There are so many other games she could have used to make her points; games that obviously have an immediately noticeable "arty" element to them: Hideo Kojima's cutscenes, Valve's animation and facial expression technology, Silent Hill's psychological imagery, GTA4's mind-bogglingly vast city and even Modern Warfare's striking weapon animations. These are things you can immediately see and understand, not something that you have to pretentiously "interpret". If she'd done this, she would've helped this cause rather than damage it. He brings up an interesting point, asking if gamers "need validation", and I'd have to agree. In my opinion, the majority of gamers are spoilt, loud-mouth, immature, socially inept, irritating self-entitled pricks, with an unhealthy obsession with their pastime and a rabid, frenzied anger for anyone who dares challenge them. For this reason I think it's still going to be a long time before games can be taken seriously, and until a vast shift in the gaming community occurs and people stop trying to awkwardly "justify" stupid things like Waco or pretend there's some kind of hidden metaphor in mowing people down on GTA or cutting zombies up with a chainsaw instead of just admitting it's just entertainment, games will not be placed alongside music or film.

Arg fuck, the education is seeping out. someone get me some cotton wool and a rusty knife. That'll fix it.
(Disclaimer, I'm not a big fan of two things.. okay 3 things - 1) Pigeonholing things that don't need to be 2) Big Corporations,and in particular Big Media 3) "art"... Everything I'm now about to may sound like me trying to defend "art", or "big media" pr pigeonholing, but I'm not. I'm just tired and trying to not go completely The Exploited on it because I beleive this is viable and legit discussion. Please bear with.)

I agree with everything you said, Ebert is a self-centered prick, and that woman is no better.  No really though, like I said, games will never EVER get a place among high arts (which is what this whole games as art debate has been about since well before Roger got in on it). Not a single game would. Ever. Not as games are today, which are just big consumables (Popular music and big hollywood sutdio movies tend to fall into this aswell).Don't forget too, even though Comicbooks are art in as they're created using art technique and prduced using art mediums, they are not art. They're media, designed for nothing more than consuming in cyclical fashion. This too, applies to games


I'm also not saying this is a BAD thing, because High Art is a fucking nightmare of egotistical bastards. I don't believe game developers even WANT that sort of snobbishness in their medium, I certainly don't. But it IS a THING that games  in of themselves can never be "art",not as the world stands on them today. Heck, even Comics are still pretty decently followed, enough to make hollywood want to look at them, Indie comics are continually doing high art (it just not widely circulated and by far not the majority in comics).








..what was I talking about again?

(sidenote - a lot of high-class falootin stuff bein posted on the HLC today.. weird)

Anton

  • Gman
  • ******
  • Posts: 1827
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #6 on: April 25, 2010, 02:44:43 PM »
I once saw someone I know playing Killer 7, and man, that game is wonderfull! Of course it's lacking a bit in the design at very few points in the game, due to the anime-ness, but otherwise was absolutely gorgeously looking! And the story of no More Heroes (from the same team) is also great in it's own way. games like these, that actually are fun to play, and have their own interesting directions are really something that amazes me, especially the character interactions and how the maps worked, combined with the graphics of Killer 7, that was just wonderfull.

I don't fit them together as actual pieces that are just great artworks in themselves, simply because I somewhat define art as something that you don't interact with or change, (there are probably exceptions) How this goes from that to that to that, how the characters react towards eacther, how the song changes from this part to the other. how the colours come together to make this or that. It's something someone else already did, you're just having a look at it. That's sort of my definition of art. I sincerely doubt games will be considered art any soon, but as long as fun games are being made and the media within them is great. I will place them on a completely different, but equally high pillar of appreciation.

deka

  • Black Op
  • ******
  • Posts: 323
  • SPQR
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #7 on: April 28, 2010, 11:54:01 AM »
Unlike James, I'm not annoyed by Roger Ebert. I respect his knowledge of film, even if his tastes are known in the film circle as notoriously erratic -- he gave The Knowing two thumbs up and Kick-Ass two thumbs down. Whether or not you respect Ebert's opinions, however, it's undeniable that Ebert is moving into the social irrelevance phase of criticism. It's the phase that critics encounter as they become old and consequently far detached from the younger generation and their social mores. The reason he gave Kick-Ass a review of one star is that he found the movie "morally reprehensible", not on any basis of the quality of the movie -- hence, the social irrelevance. Roger Ebert should not have been asked to write on the subject of videogames as an emerging artform; his opinion isn't even relevant to film anymore.

Ebert's argument that
Quote
One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
is laughable. The purpose of art is not to win, or finish, but to experience the piece. No one (other than pitiful journalists) plays a game, reads a book or watches a movie simply to get to the end. A movie itself might be embedded in a videogame; does the game's objective of finishing the movie have any bearing on the quality of the movie?

On the subject of art, in order to define something as art, one must first define art. We can argue forever on whether or not something is considered art, but as long as art itself remains undefined, we'd be arguing with differing and possibly contradictory definitions of art. The definition of art that Kellee Santiago posed -- the Wikipedia definition of art -- is "the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." But, that's really not the definition of art that we are looking for, because, by that definition, anything can be classified as art. The product of me riding a bumpy metro/subway might be that I become aroused by the seat rubbing against my crotch. Is the metro art?

Modern "serious" gamers often define aesthetically pleasing games as art, but this definition is meritless as well, because aesthetics are a superficial element of gaming.

The only definition of art of any importance is the definition that icycalm posits: something that not only affects the senses or emotions, but something good (i.e. intricate). Only good books, good film and good games are art; media that produce the most profound sensations in the most profound individuals.

Flower is not art. Braid is not art. Both are very stylistic and both exhibit qualities of games and film, but individually they are neither good games, nor good cinematic experiences.

Half-Life is art. Deus Ex is art. They may not be aesthetically pleasing, but as far as games go, they are unparalleled.

Alex

  • For Hire A
  • Gman
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #8 on: April 29, 2010, 01:50:02 AM »
Of course, god forbid anyone being able to criticize something?  Moreover, morality plays an important part in what we find tasteful or distasteful.
At the risk of flaming, Kick Ass is a film for kids / paedos / whoever the hell likes Nicholas Cage.  It would be worse if reviewers started rating up films just to be "down with the kids" (which in the case of this film... is something to avoid).

Ugh, stop trying to reach for a scientific definition of art.  Art is a physical construct of expression, which the recipient can identify with but never interact with.  The viewer / listener is always passive.

The only time a game has been "art" is when a lazy artist submitted a computer playing Counter Strike as their art project.  Supposedly the players of the game demonstrated the de-linearization of society.  No mention was made of the game / mechanics / etc, because those facets are not art.

Just as art is art, games are games.  They are nothing more than that.
Nerds have been trying for ages to get games classified as something more than they are (games as sports being the worst), failing to realize that changing a word doesn't change the nature of an object.

Anton

  • Gman
  • ******
  • Posts: 1827
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #9 on: April 29, 2010, 02:10:56 AM »
Games do have the uncanny ability of letting you do things in the game you might want to do in real life but can not. This is probably the biggest similarity, it shows you something you want to see in real life, but at the moment, can not. Sometimes.

Also, does this mean I want to kill manipulative aliens and michievous computers... And stealing things? No but it's something everyone probably finds thrilling because of the challenge, and you may have your philosophical side somewhere you find it itneresting to be that person, but wouldn't want to in real life. I maen I loved Silent Hill 2 and Afraid of Monsters, I would never in hell want to be James or David Leatherhoff. But on the other hand there are games that I love a lot that don't do that as much, Clonk for example, while very unrealistic it lets me build a small society and industry somewhere for mining gold or drilling oil, meanwhile I try to survive with my workers. This is something I could probably try in real life as it's not really morally wrong, but I like it because I'm malnutritioned, weak and nerdy.

I don't really know what I was trying to say here though.

deka

  • Black Op
  • ******
  • Posts: 323
  • SPQR
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #10 on: April 29, 2010, 01:45:08 PM »
Of course, god forbid anyone being able to criticize something? 
No one's questioning his right to criticize.

Moreover, morality plays an important part in what we find tasteful or distasteful.
Thank you Captain Obvious. The point isn't whether or not morality plays a guiding role in Ebert's criticism -- morality is always the focal point of judgment; it's not something you can escape or alter, it just is -- the point is that Ebert's morality no longer reflects the social mores of the current generation. Take that as you will.

At the risk of flaming, Kick Ass is a film for kids / paedos / whoever the hell likes Nicholas Cage.  It would be worse if reviewers started rating up films just to be "down with the kids" (which in the case of this film... is something to avoid).
Have you seen the film? If so, we can discuss its strengths and weaknesses in a completely separate thread, because this is going too far off topic. Kick-Ass is only one example of Ebert's dissonance with the consensus of film critics, and not a rare example either. Ebert's page is brimming with dissonant reviews -- e.g. The Losers, a far inferior paint-by-the-numbers comic-book-esque action film, which was univerally panned, received a rating of 2 thumbs up from him.

Ugh, stop trying to reach for a scientific definition of art. 
Analytic philosophy, not science. I would rather have a philosopher's opinion on the construct of art than a layman's opinion, considering philosophers were the first to pose the question of "what is art?", and such an idea has only recently permeated popular culture, to be flippantly and nonsensically abused.

Art is a physical construct of expression, which the recipient can identify with but never interact with. The viewer/listener is always passive.
Do you have a supporting sourced argument, or is that just your opinion?

The only time a game has been "art" is when a lazy artist submitted a computer playing Counter Strike as their art project.  Supposedly the players of the game demonstrated the de-linearization of society. 
Haha, what? Do you have the article or source, I'd like to read this.

No mention was made of the game / mechanics / etc, because those facets are not art.
Then which aspect was art?

Nerds have been trying for ages to get games classified as something more than they are (games as sports being the worst), failing to realize that changing a word doesn't change the nature of an object.
Nobody's trying to inflate gaming as an order of high-art, or seek validation from established communities of art (other than Select Button, Kotaku, and all the aspies who keep pestering Roger Ebert). The purpose of Insomnia.ac is to elucidate the nature of games and art, which haven't ever been properly explored to that depth, or simply forgotten, with the advent of games journalism.

Alex

  • For Hire A
  • Gman
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #11 on: April 30, 2010, 02:34:01 AM »
Ebert's morality no longer reflects the social mores of the current generation.
Yeah, because everyone follows the exact same moral code?  I think not.  You seem to be confusing your interaction with people on 4chan with actual reality.

I see that Kick Ass got pretty mixed reviews, but let's not start another thread about it.  Point is Ebert wasn't alone in disliking the film, so I fail to see how that makes him "out of touch".

I would rather have a philosopher's opinion on the construct of art than a layman's opinion, considering philosophers were the first to pose the question of "what is art?
Do I hear the Pot calling the Kettle black?  I don't see why it takes a philosopher to answer the question, a well informed person with a good grasp of reality should be able to define it.

Do you have a supporting sourced argument, or is that just your opinion?
Right, so I need someone elses opinion to back up my own?  I don't go through a fucking dictionary everytime I write something.  There is such a thing as common sense, something you seem to lack entirely.

Then which aspect was art?
Hurr durr. lrn 2 rd.
Supposedly the players of the game demonstrated the de-linearization of society.

Nobody's trying to inflate gaming as an order of high-art, or seek validation from established communities of art (other than Select Button, Kotaku, and all the aspies who keep pestering Roger Ebert)
lol, kind of shot yourself in the foot there.

The purpose of Insomnia.ac is to elucidate the nature of games and art, which haven't ever been properly explored to that depth, or simply forgotten, with the advent of games journalism.
That entire sentence makes... no sense at all.  As far as I can make out, it sounds like some nerdy luvvie arseholes want to find or ascribe some hidden depth to games.

Bored of this whole argument.  Probably will get bant now :P

toadie

  • Global Moderator
  • Combine Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 842
  • Terrible artist, Animator and Programmer.
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #12 on: April 30, 2010, 07:55:36 AM »
[quote ]
Then which aspect was art? [/quote]
I'd imagine the bit that was projected onto a screen and presented by the guy who then went "this is art." and then it was art.

Quote
Nobody's trying to inflate gaming as an order of high-art, or seek validation from established communities of art (other than Select Button, Kotaku, and all the aspies who keep pestering Roger Ebert).
Aha. So you DO think that game journalism is some sort of devaluing element to the argument. For a second there I thought you just hate on things that the same colour as you. No but seriously, Kotaku only do one thing good and that is report game stuff. They are not a place to go to find good debate topics or high discussion, and if you expect mroe than that, you're going to be quite bitter. There ARE however, legitimate topics and points being proffered by people out there towards/against the games-as-art thing that ARE worth finding, reading and discussing.


Vaguely-OT: If you've ever had the chance to sit down to a Jonathan Blow lecture or column, you'll know what I mean. The way he does game mechanics man, THAT is some art.

deka

  • Black Op
  • ******
  • Posts: 323
  • SPQR
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #13 on: April 30, 2010, 10:13:46 AM »
Ebert's morality no longer reflects the social mores of the current generation.
Yeah, because everyone follows the exact same moral code?  I think not.  You seem to be confusing your interaction with people on 4chan with actual reality.
No, I'm not arguing for objective morality. Everyone has a different understanding of morality, but their combined convictions form the popular understanding of morality. Morality is always changing, and what I'm saying is Roger Ebert no longer reflects the prevalent values of our generation -- as he was known to do with previous generations. This isn't a bad thing, nor is it a good thing. I'm not attacking Roger Ebert for his opinions, I'm just saying that Ebert's opinions have grown increasingly remote.

I see that Kick Ass got pretty mixed reviews, but let's not start another thread about it.  Point is Ebert wasn't alone in disliking the film, so I fail to see how that makes him "out of touch".
Based on the judgment of one film alone, it wouldn't be readily apparent, but Ebert has been known for some time now as an outlier in film criticism. Do you follow any film critics yourself?

I would rather have a philosopher's opinion on the construct of art than a layman's opinion, considering philosophers were the first to pose the question of "what is art?
I don't see why it takes a philosopher to answer the question, a well informed person with a good grasp of reality should be able to define it.
Two well-informed persons with good grasps of reality can come to completely contradictory views, but it takes an entirely different breed of human to cast away the prejudices of society and delve into human nature.

Do you have a supporting sourced argument, or is that just your opinion?
Right, so I need someone elses opinion to back up my own?  I don't go through a fucking dictionary everytime I write something.  There is such a thing as common sense, something you seem to lack entirely.
No, not someone else's opinion. I was just curious for your reasoning as to why and how you'd define "art" the way you did.

Then which aspect was art?
Hurr durr. lrn 2 rd.

Supposedly the players of the game demonstrated the de-linearization of society.
If the players' demonstrations are the aspect of art, and the game itself/mechanics/etc. are in no way aspects of art, and therefore do not lend to the demonstrations being art, then removing the game itself would have no impact on the demonstrations being art. But if that weren't true, then the game itself should be considered an aspect of art, as it is the crux of the demonstration.

Keep in mind this is all hypothetical, because I don't believe whatever experiment you were referring to can be thought of as art. I believe it is a load of nonsense used to win the validation of academia.

Nobody's trying to inflate gaming as an order of high-art, or seek validation from established communities of art (other than Select Button, Kotaku, and all the aspies who keep pestering Roger Ebert)
lol, kind of shot yourself in the foot there.
Again, I'm not defending the examples you put forward.

The purpose of Insomnia.ac is to elucidate the nature of games and art, which haven't ever been properly explored to that depth, or simply forgotten, with the advent of games journalism.
That entire sentence makes... no sense at all.  As far as I can make out, it sounds like some nerdy luvvie arseholes want to find or ascribe some hidden depth to games.
No one's trying to search for some hidden depth, just properly define the role of gaming as it should be.

No but seriously, Kotaku only do one thing good and that is report game stuff.
You mean, aside from all the cakes and boobs and plush-toys? :P

Alex

  • For Hire A
  • Gman
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #14 on: April 30, 2010, 11:25:15 AM »
Morality is always changing, and what I'm saying is Roger Ebert no longer reflects the prevalent values of our generation -- as he was known to do with previous generations.

Yes, read that in your last post.  Blah blah, don't care, please read my posts above.

Do you follow any film critics yourself?
No.  Outside of America no one gives a shit about critic fandom.  You just read / listen to a review of something you might be interested in getting, the reviewer generally doesn't matter as long as they happen to be objective.

Two well-informed persons with good grasps of reality can come to completely contradictory views, but it takes an entirely different breed of human to cast away the prejudices of society and delve into human nature.
lol, no one is immune from prejudice.  Even the most holier than thou people will regard others in disdain, but more importantly being prejudiced has nothing to do with understanding human nature.  A psychopath completely understands the emotions of other people, they just don't give a shit about them.

the game itself should be considered an aspect of art, as it is the crux of the demonstration
The game isn't art, and as I said twice before the art was entirely about sociological functioning.  You could change the game to rolling footage of a rugby match, it would still have the same meaning - delinearization of social standing.

To further the point, if someone paints a picture of a chewing gum ridden street, does that make chewing gum art?

No one's trying to search for some hidden depth, just properly define the role of gaming as it should be.
Beating a dead horse here, but gaming is already defined.  The term is self-explanatory.
A fat smelly nerd sitting down and mashing a controller isn't art (though on a side note it would be hilarious if someone submitted that as a piece to the Tate Modern).

If games can be considered "art" then we might as well dispense the word from vocabulary entirely, because it will become completely meaningless.

SPRKH

  • Cry of Fear Team
  • Gman
  • *
  • Posts: 2580
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #15 on: April 30, 2010, 12:16:23 PM »
TL:DR, but anyway, there should be a distinction between people playing games, people creating games (audiovisual assets) and the actual game as a whole.

Fat fucks.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2010, 12:18:59 PM by Sporkeh »

deka

  • Black Op
  • ******
  • Posts: 323
  • SPQR
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #16 on: April 30, 2010, 06:02:36 PM »
Do you follow any film critics yourself?
No.  Outside of America no one gives a shit about critic fandom. 
That's quite a stretch. Are you sure you're not confusing the rest of the world with yourself? And, this has nothing to do with fandom -- it's simply following someone whose opinion you respect, so that you're able to enjoy your selection at the cinema.

You just read / listen to a review of something you might be interested in getting, the reviewer generally doesn't matter as long as they happen to be objective.
Well, no reviewer can be objective. Everyone has different tastes. That's why it's necessary to discriminate whose opinion you take on a particular film. I, for instance, would read an Ebert review for an interesting, alternative account of a film I'd already seen, but never as a recommendation. And, if you watch a lot of film, you eventually gravitate to a particular critic whose tastes you share. Metacritic and IMDB are helpful resources, but they take a while to update. I wouldn't trust their ratings with current releases. 

Two well-informed persons with good grasps of reality can come to completely contradictory views, but it takes an entirely different breed of human to cast away the prejudices of society and delve into human nature.
lol, no one is immune from prejudice. 
I suppose that's true -- no one's free from all preconceptions. But, there are individuals whose insight are greater than others; they vary in degrees.

Even the most holier than thou people will regard others in disdain, but more importantly being prejudiced has nothing to do with understanding human nature.  A psychopath completely understands the emotions of other people, they just don't give a shit about them.

Emotions aren't human nature. As far as I know, emotions are the product of human nature. I define human nature as the inherent behavior of certain persons of different environments, creeds and sexes. In that regard, I'd say prejudices have everything to do with understanding human nature. Ask a Randian and ask a Communist on their views of the working-class poor, their origin, and their nature and you're likely to get completely contradictory opinions.

the game itself should be considered an aspect of art, as it is the crux of the demonstration
The game isn't art, and as I said twice before the art was entirely about sociological functioning.  You could change the game to rolling footage of a rugby match, it would still have the same meaning - delinearization of social standing.
How would the players interact with rolling footage of a rugby match? The game of Counter-Strike served as the mechanism for the students' demonstration, and as the mechanism, it shaped their decisions. Had it been an entirely different map or game than the one they'd decided on beforehand, their demonstration would have been completely different -- I'd go so far as to say it would have failed to imitate the de-linearization of society.  Is not the environment of a painter an aspect of his art -- the values and boundaries of society that shaped the painter, reflected in his works?

To further the point, if someone paints a picture of a chewing gum ridden street, does that make chewing gum art?
But the chewing gum in the painting doesn't exist, only the idea of the chewing gum -- and the idea is art, because it is the idea, reflected in the painting, that produces profound sensations. In the same manner, a cartridge isn't art. Neither is a CD, or a microchip, or a game console. What is art is the idea, not the medium.

No one's trying to search for some hidden depth, just properly define the role of gaming as it should be.
Beating a dead horse here, but gaming is already defined.  The term is self-explanatory.
Gaming is defined. The role of gaming is not. Everyone has a different conception of what the role of gaming is, or should be -- varying by age, sex, intelligence, culture, status, nationality, etc. The Japanese view fighting games and shmups as a way of life; Koreans view Starcraft and similar RTS' as a national sport; we, the majority, in the West, view videogames as another form of entertainment for children. Are we more right than them? Some, who write for worthless blogs and boards, even view games as art (albeit, for all the wrong reasons).

A fat smelly nerd sitting down and mashing a controller isn't art (though on a side note it would be hilarious if someone submitted that as a piece to the Tate Modern).
A fat smelly nerd looking at a painting or listening to Beethoven isn't art either. A fat smelly nerd doing anything is not art -- and it certainly isn't appealing.

If games can be considered "art" then we might as well dispense the word from vocabulary entirely, because it will become completely meaningless.
"Art" never had an accepted meaning. Everything ever considered "art" was by taste alone. The definition we give it is only for the sake of the argument.
Anything can be considered art. Art is not an explicitly defined medium. Everything we now consider art was once, at a point in time, not considered art. Just read the article I posted, it'll answer all your questions.

Alex

  • For Hire A
  • Gman
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #17 on: May 01, 2010, 01:47:13 AM »
That's quite a stretch. Are you sure you're not confusing the rest of the world with yourself?
[/quote]

No.  The rest of the world are quite different to Americans.

following someone whose opinion you respect, so that you're able to enjoy your selection at the cinema.
Well, no reviewer can be objective. Everyone has different tastes. That's why it's necessary to discriminate whose opinion you take on a particular film. I, for instance, would read an Ebert review for an interesting, alternative account of a film I'd already seen, but never as a recommendation. And, if you watch a lot of film, you eventually gravitate to a particular critic whose tastes you share.
This is why I don't read one review.  I read a lot of reviews if I'm thinking of buying something.  Besides I'm not the sort of person who rushes to buy stuff, I leave that to nerds and fanboys.

Emotions aren't human nature. As far as I know, emotions are the product of human nature. I define human nature as the inherent behavior of certain persons of different environments, creeds and sexes. In that regard, I'd say prejudices have everything to do with understanding human nature. Ask a Randian and ask a Communist on their views of the working-class poor, their origin, and their nature and you're likely to get completely contradictory opinions.
Umm, you do know that animals feel emotion too?  They are inate the humans too.
Perception of other people will depend enourmously upon the environment you grow up in, and your own personal success.  If you and the people you grow up with are failures, then you're more likely to be left leaning (or in some cases, very right wing if scapegoating is your thing).  Emotion only comes into play when people sympathise with people they relate to.

How would the players interact with rolling footage of a rugby match?
Durr, they would pick up the ball and run with it.
The point I was making is that what was viewed on screen could be any manner of communally played game, any game could show different people playing together (which is what the art piece was about).

Gaming is defined. The role of gaming is not.
It is defined, it's a leisure activity.

Everyone has a different conception of what the role of gaming is, or should be
Yes.  As a leisure activity.

The Japanese view fighting games and shmups as a way of life; Koreans view Starcraft and similar RTS' as a national sport
That would be the nerds, not the nations.

we, the majority, in the West, view videogames as another form of entertainment for children.
Well it is a very childish activity.  Certainly a fun activity, but a very base childish one.

deka

  • Black Op
  • ******
  • Posts: 323
  • SPQR
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #18 on: May 01, 2010, 10:21:58 AM »
This is why I don't read one review.  I read a lot of reviews if I'm thinking of buying something.  Besides I'm not the sort of person who rushes to buy stuff, I leave that to nerds and fanboys.
Films don't play forever at the cinema, and viewing a film at home simply isn't the same experience. Between the cinema and a DVD, I'd rather go to the cinema. Ebert shares this sentiment --
Quote from: Ebert
From time to time I'll meet someone who was underwhelmed by "2001: A Space Odyssey." Because I consider it one of the great moviegoing experiences of my life, I ask them how they saw it. They invariably saw it on home video. Just as there are movies--"Moulin Rouge" seems to be one--that benefit from return visits via DVD, so there are a few movies that should not be seen that way--not the first time, anyway.
Umm, you do know that animals feel emotion too?
Humans are animals; our physiological processes mimic each other. My argument wasn't that emotion is exclusive to humans, just that emotion is a product of the character, and not the character itself. To consider emotion a component of human nature -- i.e.

Quote from: Alex
Even the most holier than thou people will regard others in disdain, but more importantly being prejudiced has nothing to do with understanding human nature.  A psychopath completely understands the emotions of other people, they just don't give a shit about them. [presupposing that emotions are human nature, and psychopaths who understand emotion, therefore, understand human nature]
-- would be incorrect, because emotion arises as a product of human nature --

Quote from: American Heritage Science Dictionary
A psychological state that arises spontaneously rather than through conscious effort and is accompanied by physiological changes
-- and for emotion to affect itself would be a paradox. That is why two persons of different character exhibit different emotions, in response to the same stimuli.

Perception of other people will depend enourmously upon the environment you grow up in, and your own personal success.  If you and the people you grow up with are failures, then you're more likely to be left leaning (or in some cases, very right wing if scapegoating is your thing). 
Then you agree that prejudices, which arise from the environment that shaped us, have everything to do with our perceptions of other people?

How would the players interact with rolling footage of a rugby match?
Durr, they would pick up the ball and run with it.
But you didn't give them a ball, you gave them footage -- like a 35mm roll of film -- or did I misunderstand you?

The point I was making is that what was viewed on screen could be any manner of communally played game, any game could show different people playing together (which is what the art piece was about).
Do you still have a link to the article? I fail to understand the purpose of this experiment. "De-linearization of society" isn't very informative.

It is defined, it's a leisure activity.
By whom? You? So you define gaming as a leisure activity; and dictionary.com defines gaming as "to teach something or to help solve a problem, as in a military or business situation"; and Swede Johan Quick, the Q4 world champion, defined it as work. Where is there congruity in the world as to the role of gaming?

Alex

  • For Hire A
  • Gman
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #19 on: May 01, 2010, 10:48:14 AM »
I got about as far as your ridiculous opinions on psychopathy and decided: TLDR.
Please read some proper academic sources before you start spouting more nonsense.

Simon

  • BSR Team
  • Gman
  • *
  • Posts: 1127
  • Whiskey brony
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #20 on: May 01, 2010, 12:08:38 PM »
You nerd are so anoying that porn is more entertaining

deka

  • Black Op
  • ******
  • Posts: 323
  • SPQR
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #21 on: May 01, 2010, 01:44:32 PM »
I got about as far as your ridiculous opinions on psychopathy and decided: TLDR.
Please read some proper academic sources before you start spouting more nonsense.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FjiL_Y_NsiUC&lpg=PP1&dq=what%20is%20an%20emotion&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false

I don't have any time to go into detail today.

You nerd are so anoying that porn is more entertaining

Uh, thanks.

Alex

  • For Hire A
  • Gman
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #22 on: May 01, 2010, 02:18:01 PM »
I got about as far as your ridiculous opinions on psychopathy and decided: TLDR.
Please read some proper academic sources before you start spouting more nonsense.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FjiL_Y_NsiUC&lpg=PP1&dq=what%20is%20an%20emotion&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false

I don't have any time to go into detail today.

I love how the book begins with a preface that states "this book is a product of its time".  Not an academic source at all, try reading some up to date and reputable sources.

You nerd are so anoying that porn is more entertaining
I'm just posting in here to troll :V

Thomas

  • Administrator
  • Gman
  • *****
  • Posts: 1912
  • Some nerd
    • Half-Life Creations
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #23 on: May 01, 2010, 06:34:16 PM »
I got about as far as your ridiculous opinions on psychopathy and decided: TLDR.
Please read some proper academic sources before you start spouting more nonsense.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FjiL_Y_NsiUC&lpg=PP1&dq=what%20is%20an%20emotion&pg=PA14#v=onepage&q&f=false

I don't have any time to go into detail today.

I love how the book begins with a preface that states "this book is a product of its time".  Not an academic source at all, try reading some up to date and reputable sources.

You nerd are so anoying that porn is more entertaining
I'm just posting in here to troll :V

Don't you have a degree in Psychology Alex?

Alex

  • For Hire A
  • Gman
  • *
  • Posts: 3951
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #24 on: May 02, 2010, 01:37:13 AM »
That was a trump card I was holding so I could troll some more :P  Heh, ok I'll let you have some peace mate.

But yeah, generally speaking a reference isn't worth anything unless something is quoted from a paper published in an academic journal.  Anyone else studying / who has studied at University will also know that a single reference generally is inadequate to prove a point - so if you really want to strenuously argue something, be sure to be able to adequately back it up with at least 3 references.

deka

  • Black Op
  • ******
  • Posts: 323
  • SPQR
Re: Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art
« Reply #25 on: May 03, 2010, 12:51:49 PM »
If you have a degree in psychology, I'd like to hear your opinion on the James-Lange theory of the origin of emotions.

I have uni work and end-of-semester exams to attend to. This is the end for me... till June :P