The Philosophy, Art, and Social Influence of games
User avatar
GSZX1337
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 5805
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:21 pm
Location: Madison, TN

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by GSZX1337 Wed Apr 21, 2010 3:20 pm

I've always thought of games and movies more of a combination of art forms instead of one artform in itself. *shrugs*
casterofdreams wrote:On PC I want MOAR FPS!!!|
User avatar
Erik_Twice
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 6252
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:22 am
Location: Madrid, Spain

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by Erik_Twice Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:10 pm

It's absurd to think that say "Spiderman" is not "art" but Citizen Kane is. They are both art, one just happens to suck.

He has not even played a few games and he thinks he can say whether videogames are art or not? Please, I don't tell him that Baraka is not art because I don't understand it.

But it's nothing new, he is like those who thought that cinema was just something "for fun" but couldn't be serious, those who thought that Picasso's most famous paintings were horrible because they didn't understand how art could not be photorealistic.

I also find funny how his own arguments can be used against himself when he talks about Voyage to the moon.

EDIT: Being frank, given how much he is mentioned I expected a better critic.
Looking for a cool game? Find it in my blog!
Latest post: Often, games must be difficult
http://eriktwice.com/
User avatar
GSZX1337
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 5805
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:21 pm
Location: Madison, TN

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by GSZX1337 Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:20 pm

General_Norris wrote:It's absurd to think that say "Spiderman" is not "art" but Citizen Kane is. They are both art, one just happens to suck.

FINALLY! Someone who gets it. I'm tired of fuck heads saying that "Quake IV isn't art! Shadow of the Colossus is!" If Quake IV isn't art, does that mean that Duke Nukem isn't art?

On a separate note: I liked Spier-Man. :P I guess I was wrapped up in the spectacle of my favorite Super-Hero on the big screen.

He has not even played a few games and he thinks he can say whether videogames are art or not? Please, I don't tell him that Baraka is not art because I don't understand it.

In the review of The Wizard, he admits he's a dummy when it comes to video games.
casterofdreams wrote:On PC I want MOAR FPS!!!|
Hatta
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 4030
Joined: Tue May 06, 2008 8:33 pm

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by Hatta Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:22 pm

General_Norris wrote: Please, I don't tell him that Baraka is not art because I don't understand it.


Eat more LSD.
We are prepared to live in the plain and die in the plain!
User avatar
MrPopo
Moderator
 
Posts: 22721
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 1:01 pm
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by MrPopo Wed Apr 21, 2010 5:55 pm

Andy Warhol made "art" a meaningless term.
Image
Games Beaten: 2015 2016 2017 2018
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
WiseFool22
16-bit
 
Posts: 58
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 12:52 pm

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by WiseFool22 Wed Apr 21, 2010 7:52 pm

Marcel Duchamp's Fountain

If you don't know what it is, look it up. That is considered art nowadays. I'm not going to go into all the details behind this work, but Duchamp entered this (under the fake name 'R. Mutt") in an art show that claimed to exhibit anything as long as the artist paid the entry fee. The art show rejected it, and Duchamp wrote a response as if he didn't know who the artist was.

He argued "Whether Mr Mutt made the fountain with his own hands or not has no importance. He CHOSE it. He took an article of life, placed it so that its useful significance disappeared under the new title and point of view – created a new thought for that object."

The artist creates art by his choices, conscious or subconscious. This is why I believe video games are art forms.
User avatar
Kebo
24-bit
 
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:25 pm

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by Kebo Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:45 pm

I consider games art, because I have no definitive standard for art, so I must judge on a case by case basis.

If I write a letter on a piece of paper, is it art?

If I scribble a line on a piece of paper, is it art?

If I half scribble, half doodle, is that art?

If I doodle, is that art?

If not, then why is a full-blown drawing art?

Is sheet music art? It is a set of instructions to be experienced, a set of rules that must be followed, like a game. Is acting art? It's a means to an end. Game engines bring together visuals, sound, music, with creativity and imagination. The final artistic piece would not exist without the engine. I have no reason to believe it's not art or no objective criteria to rule it out. When you go to an exhibit, you are in fact interacting with art. The angle you view it, the lighting, your perspective, the way you walk around it, it all changes your perception of the pieces, and more so if it's a sculpture. If you look up at a statue your experience will be different than if you look down on it. That, to me, is a level of interaction. I can't disagree more with the notion games are not art, or that there is a definitive standard of art.
User avatar
GSZX1337
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 5805
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 6:21 pm
Location: Madison, TN

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by GSZX1337 Wed Apr 21, 2010 8:53 pm

Kebo wrote:I consider games art, because I have no definitive standard for art, so I must judge on a case by case basis.

If I write a letter on a piece of paper, is it art?

If I scribble a line on a piece of paper, is it art?

If I half scribble, half doodle, is that art?

If I doodle, is that art?

All those are outsider art. :lol:
casterofdreams wrote:On PC I want MOAR FPS!!!|
User avatar
the7k
Next-Gen
 
Posts: 4313
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 5:48 am

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by the7k Wed Apr 21, 2010 11:49 pm

The definition of art I was taught throughout my life was "anything created through an artistic medium that attempts to speak to the human condition". In this definition, it does indeed disqualify almost every video game as being art - with exceptions such as the Ico Trilogy, Flower, Braid, Gabriel Knight and more.

However, it seems like what Ebert is saying is not just that no video games are art (which is a lie), but that video games aren't even an artistic medium (which is a damn lie). He's basically saying that video games are completely incapable of speaking to the human condition, and that's the most moronic thing a person of his intelligence can say.
Haoie
128-bit
 
Posts: 782
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 8:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: Roger Ebert is an irrelvant fogey.

by Haoie Thu Apr 22, 2010 5:57 am

I respect him for his opinion.

Looking at what most people buy, yech. I'll agree that most have no sense of taste.
If each mistake being made is a new one, then progress is being made.
Return to Games As Culture

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest