102 réponses à ce sujet

[exorzist]

Who Decides ‘What is Art’?



Funny thing about the Twitter-verse, when a well-known pundit Tweets some off-the-cuff commend like “Video Games Can Never Be Art,” one is apt to take it personally. Because what is Twitter for, if not to allow celebrities to speak directly to me.

So, for the most part when a Twitter-er shows signs of being an idiot on a pretty consistent basis, *coughAdamBaldwincough*, I am sad for a moment, then I un-follow and go on contentedly with my un-celebrity life. Maybe it’s because I come from a place where politicians regularly think that they get to decide ‘what is art’, but something about Roger Ebert’s definitive statement sends a shiver of apprehension down my spine.

Continue our response here ..

[addiction21]

Why can we not continue it here?



Personaly I take little critics say to heart.

[ImperialOperative]

Art is what comes from the heART

[JediZeng]

ImperialOperative wrote...

Art is what comes from the heART

You had to do it didn't you? *sigh*<_<

[Twitchmonkey]

Adam Sessler recently did one of his soapbox segments on this. He tends to agree with Ebert's assessment, but I think that the big logical failing they're both having is the inability to accept that something can be art even when it does not operate in the same way traditional art forms have.



It's difficult with our understanding of art that has been developed over the centuries, the idea that art is the avenue the artist uses to express and idea or feeling to the viewer, that a medium like videogames, where the person interacting with the medium takes some creative control over how the experience is communicated is hard to accept as what we call art.



The only question left is whether you redefine what art is, or neglect to include videogames, which have the power to truly engage the participant (a hallmark of great art) from being able to use that title. It's easier to just call videogames something different because then you don't have to question what you call art, but I just don't find that satisfactory.

[SpiderFan1217]

THAT IS THE STUPIDEST MOST IDIOTIC THING MY POOR EYES HAVE EVER HAD THE DISPLEASURE OF READING. WE ARE ALL NOW DUMBER FOR HAVING READ IT. ROGER EBERT IS AN IDIOT, AND MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL.

Modifié par SpiderFan1217, 22 avril 2010 - 07:44 .

[marbatico]

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

THAT IS THE STUPIDEST MOST IDIOTIC THING MY POOR EARS HAVE EVER HAD THE DISPLEASURE OF HEARING. WE ARE ALL NOW DUMBER FOR HAVING HEARD IT. ROGER EBERT IS AN IDIOT, AND MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL.

you can hear what we type here?

[SpiderFan1217]

marbatico wrote...

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

THAT IS THE STUPIDEST MOST IDIOTIC THING MY POOR EARS HAVE EVER HAD THE DISPLEASURE OF HEARING. WE ARE ALL NOW DUMBER FOR HAVING HEARD IT. ROGER EBERT IS AN IDIOT, AND MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL.

you can hear what we type here?

Point taken. I will fix.

[SpiderFan1217]

marbatico wrote...

SpiderFan1217 wrote...

THAT IS THE STUPIDEST MOST IDIOTIC THING MY POOR EARS HAVE EVER HAD THE DISPLEASURE OF HEARING. WE ARE ALL NOW DUMBER FOR HAVING HEARD IT. ROGER EBERT IS AN IDIOT, AND MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON HIS SOUL.

you can hear what we type here?

LOL.

[cynicalsaint1]

Without getting on a huge semantic rampage on what the requirements for something to be called "Art" are, I will say this:

A well made video game can connect to its player in a much deeper way than a any movie can, simply because of the fact that its user actually interacts with it.

For example I have yet to see a horror movie that can compete with say Silent Hill 2.

[Seagloom]

I agree with Twitchmonkey's third paragraph. Roger Ebert seems to have arrived at his own conclusions about what art should be based entirely on his perceptions. There is nothing wrong with having an opinion, but I feel the absolute way in which his was stated is arrogant and archaic. Whatever definition art had was fine before, but things change. Society has changed. There are mediums, even forms of acknowledged art that were not possible before and are now.



I'm not sure I entirely agree with Uilleand's every point but I definitely do not agree with Roger Ebert on this.



Maybe it's the anti-mimesis in me but I would not be so quick to dismiss a game's potential as art. That there are those who believe games can be considered art and want to examine them in that way at all means the idea is at least worthy of consideration. Art should not be treated like natural law, with rigid, unbreakable rules governing it.

[SpiderFan1217]

cynicalsaint1 wrote...

Without getting on a huge semantic rampage on what the requirements for something to be called "Art" are, I will say this:

A well made video game can connect to its player in a much deeper way than a any movie can, simply because of the fact that its user actually interacts with it.

For example I have yet to see a horror movie that can compete with say Silent Hill 2.

Ditto. (Except the Silent Hill part. Never played it. Replace horror movie with action adventure movie, and replace Silent Hill with FF7.

[Twitchmonkey]

Heavy Rain took a fairly adequate narrative with some questionable plot holes and delivered an experience, through the addition of interactivity and player choice, that had more of an impact on me than all but the best movies.

[Outamyhead]

Hard to dismiss games as an art form.

[SpiderFan1217]

Wait.... arn't there people who call busted bird houses art?

[cynicalsaint1]

Honestly, I don't think anything that Ebert has to say on the subject of video games has any validity. Seeing has he hasn't exactly played many games as far as I know, I don't think he has any right to critique them or make claims to what they may or may not be.

[ModerateOsprey]

He can say video/computer games can never be art, but he would be wrong.

[Dethateer]

Does art even have an official definition?

[Crixt]

FYI: Adam Baldwin is the man.

[SpiderFan1217]

Roger Ebert: Video games can never be art.

Blasto: This one doesn't have time for your solid waste excretions.

[Twitchmonkey]

Dethateer wrote...

Does art even have an official definition?

Yeah, a bunch of them. At least the people that made them up think they're official. Who would make that determination?

Modifié par Twitchmonkey, 22 avril 2010 - 08:31 .

[cynicalsaint1]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

Dethateer wrote...

Does art even have an official definition?

Yeah, a bunch of them. At least the people that made them up think they're official. Who would make that determination?

Apparently Roger Ebert *rolleyes*

[ModerateOsprey]

Dethateer wrote...

Does art even have an official definition?

I suspect most definitions that do exist are made by those who like art, but can't do art.

[addiction21]

Dethateer wrote...

Does art even have an official definition?

I do not know but I am positive at one point art critics were saying that movies will never be art...