Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I did indeed see that before. Sure, RLT and Burning Coal are alive, but they are the only two theaters I can think of off the top of my head in this city of 300,000. Dosen't that seem a bit low to you?

[Muz]

Yeah, noone has a good definition for art.  That is the real crux of the problem here.

Art seems to be what you call entertainment. The difference between art and entertainment is that art is something that gets funding. Art is something that you can brag about to your friends that you're doing. It's "sophisticated", it's "a higher state of thinking", it's what separates the uncultured from the cultured.

Then you'd have to define culture. Well, culture's probably what you call something someone else before you did, but nobody cares to do today. If you're American and act French, you're cultured. If you're Indonesian and act American, you're cultured. If you eat food your people don't normally have or read books most people don't like, you're cultured.

Heh, I tried to read Midnight Children, but the writing style was too disorganized for me to read. It reminded me as sort of one of those intriguing games with poor gameplay, like UFO Aftermath, but it's won a prize, so I guess it's a good book that I'm too uncultured to understand. I read and enjoyed Carrie, where the literary theme was "blood", but didn't enjoy Mortal Kombat which had a similar theme. Art is complicated.

I'd probably understand it a lot more if someone could explain what makes Huckleberry Finn and Shakespeare art and why Superman and Conan the Cimmerian aren't.

Here, I'll help you out.

Oh, that's a fun definition. I could describe a lot of things as art under that definition.

[Grakelin]

I did indeed see that before. Sure, RLT and Burning Coal are alive, but they are the only two theaters I can think of off the top of my head in this city of 300,000. Dosen't that seem a bit low to you?

Nope. The fact that there are two in such a small city is impressive in itself. Theatres aren't like Burger Kings, they aren't mass produced and scattered across every city block.

[Footkerchief]

I did indeed see that before. Sure, RLT and Burning Coal are alive, but they are the only two theaters I can think of off the top of my head in this city of 300,000. Dosen't that seem a bit low to you?

Here's 6, plus another 5 if you count college theater programs.  Are you using yourself as a measure of your generation's disinterest in theatre?  Also, I'm still curious which ones closed recently.

This page lists roughly 800 theatre companies in NYC, which works out to 1 theatre company per 24,000 people.  Meanwhile, Raleigh has 1 theatre company per 37,000 people.  Not that big a difference, considering that NYC is one of the most important cultural centers in the world.

[Stove]

And I don't think the game fits that bill.

Well, that's too bad. I reckon it does fit the bill, quite blatantly. And so does Tetris.

It's just I can't think of a consistent one that doesn't leave it horribly subjective

Art is subjective. This doesn't just apply to video games, but to ALL ART.

If the interaction of people other than the artist precludes something from being art, then that would mean a significant amount aleatory music and interactive theatre is not art.

To pretend that you know better than everyone else what isn't art is little more than pompous snobbery.

That isn't saying games have no value, it's a statement of relative value in his eyes. Given the choice between a world with computer games and a world with Shakespeare, he would take the latter. That doesn't mean that computer games have no value, it means that he values them less than the works of Shakespeare.

I didn't say anything about "no value".

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Information.

Very well, I know when I'm beaten. You win this round, Footkerchief! ^{_{Damn Thraddash.}}

[Grakelin]

Rayleigh, North Carolina apparently has a massive theatre community.

[Leafsnail]

I guess... "It's not art" is a sortof insult people tend to throw around a lot.

Honestly?  I use the term "art" to cover pictures, generally.  It's simpler that way.  Y'know, like you have people working on "artwork" for videogames...

If I want to say something's good, I'll say so, and try to explain why without resorting to that word.

[palsch]

Just a warning, I'm absolutely trashed right now. I'm proofing as much as I can but can't ensure I won't go over the top a little.

Well, that's too bad. I reckon it does fit the bill, quite blatantly. And so does Tetris.

How? Please, someone explain, explicitly, why they think a particular game fits any definition of art. Just asserting that you think it is art without arguing in favour of it is nonsense.

For example, I don't think Portal fits the definition of art you offered, simply because Portal is not a work to be appreciated primarily for its beauty or emotional impact. You might disagree that this matters, but that is part of the definition you were using, and I'd argue it is somewhat central to that definition. If you remove that part then you are leaving an extremely broad definition of art, being any expression or application of human imagination regardless of intent or effect. Basically that would leave this post on the same level as any video game, and I don't think many people would accept that.

Art is subjective. This doesn't just apply to video games, but to ALL ART.

Art's quality and value is subjective. I've never suggested otherwise. But that doesn't mean that I should have to accept a definition of art that is utterly worthless. Saying that art is whatever anyone considers art is, to me, utterly pointless and entirely destroys the concept. Rather I want a definition which, simply, makes sense.

If the interaction of people other than the artist precludes something from being art, then that would mean a significant amount aleatory music and interactive theatre is not art.

I think you missed the point.

I've played in orchestras and string groups, and taken part in theatre sessions and plays. Those productions and performances easily qualify as artistic efforts, even if they were amateurish (I'm a poor actor and never was great on the violin). What I would question is whether the composer without an orchestra (or other means of putting his composition into sound) was truly producing art. What artistic meaning and value does an unplayed musical score have?

I've repeatedly stated that I think that the playing of a game can have artistic merit, in the same way that the acting of a script or the playing of a score can be an artistic performance. The nature of the art depends on the type of game and the player working their way through it. But the game itself is no more the performance than the script is the play. The play may contain artistic vision and lines, but I'd be hard pressed to call it art in the same way the performance of the work is.

To pretend that you know better than everyone else what isn't art is little more than pompous snobbery.

Bloody hell, I'm a physicist. I don't hold any authority on art. The whole point of engaging in this topic was to try to force knee-jerking gamers to damn well think and actually engage in the debate that most had ignored in slamming a damned intelligent and good man who they happened to disagree with on one insignificant issue.

It's the people who jump on the bandwagon of slagging off Ebert without thinking or engaging with the subject at all who really piss me off.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I've been trying to ignore a number of comments, not all here, about his appearance and face that have been really annoying. The guy lost a section of his lower jaw to cancer and is no longer able to speak thanks to the deformation. It isn't relevant to the debate, but has been typical of the tone that has drawn me in to defend a position I don't feel strongly about otherwise.

I didn't say anything about "no value".

I don't really see any controversy here then.

I mean, all his statements suggest are that he values Shakespeare and other literary works more than video games, while acknowledging they do have value. I don't really see why this is a major problem with people. The statements seem to be in response to some of the more extreme comments he has been fielding since the original article (he tweets a lot; not having other forms of communication does that) and so are a shade hyperbolic, but not overly so. Frankly, it takes a deliberate misreading to suggest anything particularly controversial here.

[Stove]

How? Please, someone explain, explicitly, why they think a particular game fits any definition of art. Just asserting that you think it is art without arguing in favour of it is nonsense.

For example, I don't think Portal fits the definition of art you offered, simply because Portal is not a work to be appreciated primarily for its beauty or emotional impact.

I see beauty in its elegant puzzle design and ingenious gameplay mechanics, which are something that can only be properly experienced interactively, and the appreciation of which were the primary purpose of the game. You might try to argue that the primary purpose of the game is how it stimulates the reward pathways in your brain, but that is also what music does - it is a type of emotional impact, and still fits the definition.

Art's quality and value is subjective. I've never suggested otherwise. But that doesn't mean that I should have to accept a definition of art that is utterly worthless. Saying that art is whatever anyone considers art is, to me, utterly pointless and entirely destroys the concept. Rather I want a definition which, simply, makes sense.

Unfortunately, art is an irrational concept, so finding an absolutely reliable definition of art is, as I said previously, an exercise in futility.

I think you missed the point.

I've played in orchestras and string groups, and taken part in theatre sessions and plays. Those productions and performances easily qualify as artistic efforts, even if they were amateurish (I'm a poor actor and never was great on the violin). What I would question is whether the composer without an orchestra (or other means of putting his composition into sound) was truly producing art. What artistic meaning and value does an unplayed musical score have?

I've repeatedly stated that I think that the playing of a game can have artistic merit, in the same way that the acting of a script or the playing of a score can be an artistic performance. The nature of the art depends on the type of game and the player working their way through it. But the game itself is no more the performance than the script is the play. The play may contain artistic vision and lines, but I'd be hard pressed to call it art in the same way the performance of the work is.

So, are you saying that the written play /isn't/ art? Would you say that when Shakespeare wrote his plays, he did not create art? That's what it sounds like you're saying.

Bloody hell, I'm a physicist. I don't hold any authority on art. The whole point of engaging in this topic was to try to force knee-jerking gamers to damn well think and actually engage in the debate that most had ignored in slamming a damned intelligent and good man who they happened to disagree with on one insignificant issue.

He may be an intelligent and good man in fields he is more familiar with, but that doesn't give his point of view on video games any merit, considering he even admits he is largely ignorant of the subject. I am someone who has for quite a while been interested in games as an art form, who would like to see more games created for the sake of art, and who would like to see more people analyze games as an art form. For someone prominent and respected like Ebert to come along and express an uninformed opinion that games aren't art isn't really an 'insignificant issue' (relatively speaking).

I don't really see any controversy here then.

I mean, all his statements suggest are that he values Shakespeare and other literary works more than video games, while acknowledging they do have value.

The controversy is that he's using fallacious reasoning to make a point against the cultural worth of video games.

[Euld]

It's tough jumping into a debate about six pages in D:

I'm having trouble defining art, but here's what I've got so far: art has to be a created work that invokes a change in a person's view of the world.  I don't mean a change in political/religious/whatever point of views, I mean something more obscure.  Let's say in Dragon Age, after finishing it and getting to know the characters in it, you suddenly realize you know people in real life who are a lot like the people in the game.  Then that realization colors your future relationships, hopefully positively.  Every piece of art won't invoke the same (or sometimes any) change in every person, but that's par for the course with art.  It's painfully subjective because people are painfully subjective and people make art.  Portal, for me anyway, made me realize a puzzle game could rise above its genre with the proper storytelling.  World of Goo also showed me this, thus I now look at puzzle games with a more open mind about the possibilities.  Run of the mill sports games aren't art because nobody walks away looking at things differently, the best of the best games do that.

[Grakelin]

You don't have to change anybody's view for something to be art. It's almost pretentious to try and do so. It's all about invoking emotion.

[HideousBeing]

You don't have to change anybody's view for something to be art. It's almost pretentious to try and do so. It's all about invoking emotion.

Pretty much. Or at least it's about portraying an idea or theme.

Games are art to me because of games like Penumbra, the second game is the scariest media I've ever experienced. I can't imagine a movie or book having the same effect.

[Sergius]

I was considering this as a question of value rather than quality.

See, this is another category error. Hell, Ebert mentions a game he played and enjoyed and I don't see him saying they have no value. The guy reviews summer blockbusters next to art films without making value judgments based on their artistic merit.

"Show me a man who believes a game can have more value than Huckleberry Finn," I wrote, "and I'll show you a fool."

You're welcome.

[Sergius]

I didn't say anything about "no value".

I don't really see any controversy here then.

I mean, all his statements suggest are that he values Shakespeare and other literary works more than video games, while acknowledging they do have value. I don't really see why this is a major problem with people. The statements seem to be in response to some of the more extreme comments he has been fielding since the original article (he tweets a lot; not having other forms of communication does that) and so are a shade hyperbolic, but not overly so. Frankly, it takes a deliberate misreading to suggest anything particularly controversial here.

That is because you are attacking a strawman. The post you replied to compared one work to another, about their relative value (Deus Ex has more value than Daniel Steele novels, therefore games are art, and books aren't, right?) and you brought up "it's not a matter of quality". Then someone said "it is about value, not quality, and it's the standard Ebert is using", then you come up with "you're saying it has ZERO VALUE!". So now when nobody has actually said it has zero value, you say "then why are you arguing!"



EDIT: Now, commenting on Ebert's:

I don't have a problem with games being art. Or if someone, using some sort of valid logical method, discovered that they, indeed, can't be art.

The main problem I see about Ebert blog posts (both of them) is that he basically admits to be intellectually dishonest. He starts with a conclusion (games are not art), then tries to justify it by finding a definition that declares games as not art. When the definition he finds doesn't cut it, he says "I clearly need another definition, one that says games are not art" and goes to search for one. If there are multiple popular definitions, he will claim that games don't fit it on a technicality ("primarily for their beauty or emotional power", which, by the way, you could say about most beautiful games with crappy gameplay). Never mind that the OTHER definitions have no such restriction. Then when said definition is "not enough" by his own standards, he tries to make up a definition on the spot, one that, for some arbitrary reason, excludes games.

Imagine that I wanted to tell the world that "The Dark Crystal" isn't a movie. For my own, selfish reasons, I guess. So I dig up a definition that says that movies "have actors in them". So I claim victory, declare The Dark Crystal as "not a movie", then someone brings up that "there are actors in costumes, not just puppets." So I sulk for a while, but then I decide that I need another definition to prove me right. So I look and look, and finding nothing, make up a definition, that according to my gut feeling, movies should depict the real world, and this is clearly fantasy land and as such can't be a movie.