102 réponses à ce sujet

[UBER GEEKZILLA]

i actully love roger ebert..he has a good veiw on movies...wehn he reviews movies like spider man he dosent compare it to freaking godfather and juno but to other superhero movies...while other critics compare movies like transformers to dances with wolves...however i will admit his quote on games not being art is insuting and unfair..nevertheless i think he has a good view on MOVIES...but not games

[InvaderErl]

Silent Hill 2, The Path.



End of argument.

[The Grey Ranger]

My personal definition of art, is a human creation or performance, that evokes a thoughful or emotional response from the observer. There have been games that have done that for me. So I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree with Mr. Ebert.

[AntiChri5]

I never get tired of when some whiny attention **** thinks they are qualified to judge everything when they dismiss it without ever experiencing it or even considering doing so.

[crysischaos]

I'm perfectly fine with movies being movies, games being games, art being art. I don't need a movie critic to justify why I like anything or the level of enjoyment/appreciation I get out of it. Also I wouldn't take the opinion of a movie critic that hasn't played games, and let it make a bit of difference in how I view them. I don't think games need to be "legitimized" from a movie critic to be considered on the entertainment/"art" scale like a good movie, book or painting is.

[--Master of All--]

Question: If video games aren't art, then what are they?

IMO, Ebert is trying to distinguish himself from the rest of mass media by creating a definition of art that elevates the stature of his own profession. He doesn't take gaming seriously and he doesn't want to be associated with those who do, that's all that he seems to be saying. Whether video games are an art form isn't really up for debate, if you ask me.

Modifié par --Master of All--, 23 avril 2010 - 06:46 .

[MOTpoetryION]

Well the more i thought about this subject i came to the conclusion he is right .



Any of you have bioshock 2 ? The first time i seen the under water scenes with the corals and all .It was so pretty and sureal i was in a state of awe. And it being pixels or not made no differance to me . The scene invoked such a responce from me not only visualy but emotionaly i could consider it art. It was made by the hands of a living being. Regardless that a computer helped make it. The computer is but a tool, much like a paintbrush is a tool for a painter.



Games are started from nothing but an idea or concept. Just like a painting starts with a blank canvas. Its something the painter/programer wants to express and share with others. For enjoyment by others, may it be visualy or emotionaly or both. All you can do with a painting is look at it. A game you can be a part of ,intract with, feel sadness for, or be scared by and get angry at .



A game can do more things then a painting can ever hope to achieve. A game can invoke so many different emotions a painting cant. He is right games are not art . They are something much much more and are far better then to ever be called just art.

[Blind Bard]

Art is a strong word to describe the entirety of a game, any game. I cannot simply dismiss said opinion yet I do not endorse it either, for various reasons, first of which is that art means a lot of different things to a lot of different people. In any case, I do not wish to initiate a conversation about what art is but, among other things, I believe that art is supposed to serve a purpose and that purpose cannot or shouldn't just be "fun".

I find it undeniable that there is art to be found in games. Concept pictures, soundtrack, area and character design, not to mention writing (be that the story or dialogues), surely a game is filled with art and it is no coincidence that the gaming industry occupies more and more artists every year. Putting all that together and creating a whole is an art in itself but the question is whether the end result is a work of art or simply a compilation, a sort of gallery. I think that it depends.

Some games can trully be described as works of art. Such games are, in my opinion at least, those that either rely or simply underline the art forms used. How many times have you simply stopped playing and gasped at a scenery or lost yourself in the music or stood amazed at the complexity of a character presented? It is games that can summon such sentiments that are making a presentable case but in the end the same issue rises: is the game an art form itself or simply a gallery where various pieces of art are presented?

As I said, it depends. If a game is to be called a work of art literaly, then the game in its entirety must be able to conjure higher, stronger feelings to the player. Making the audience question or wonder at things is, in my humble opinion at least, the true calling of art and the final criteria upon which it will be judged. As much as I enjoyed Neverwinter Nights, I cannot compare it to Planescape Torment or Knights of the Old Republic, two games which actually made me ponder on things. It is the same with every other possible art form.

In the end, however, it lies on each one to decide what is and isn't art for him or her. For me, art should serve a purpose, be that to ponder on morality, move through beauty or even shock through roughness. Keeping entertained for some hours is not among my criteria, however, and as easily as I can hold a game among my favorites, I can disregard it completely as a work of art. In the end, it's not something bad to say a game is not an art form. It's just bad to ignore the potential, possibility or the opinion behind some off them being works of art.

Modifié par Blind Bard, 23 avril 2010 - 11:04 .

[ImperialOperative]

Video games aren't art because they're entertainment.



Art is supposed to be boring.

[Sago_mulch]

ART IS WHAT YOU MAKE OF IT

[MOTpoetryION]

lmao imperialoperative

i completly forgot to add that in my debate with self



<----walks away shaking head mumbling to self how could i forget that ...doh : )



But really i wonder how many, if any, games he has played?

he will suffer angering the the all powerful oz...wait wrong thread NVM

[insochris]

Panderfringe wrote...

Video games cannot be expression. They exist purely as a market, an industry. Would you call the production line a work of expression? The constituent pieces may be art, but the whole itself by definition cannot be called such.

ever play Dead Rising? if you play through the case files, you'll see that it criticizes American consumerism (more in the literal sense compared to Romero's Dawn of the Dead). is criticism not a form of expression?

Modifié par insochris, 23 avril 2010 - 04:04 .

[nikki191]

something like fatale and the path very much fit the description of art to me.. you walk away and it goes with you on such a deep level

[ImperialOperative]

lolart

[bzombo]

Panderfringe wrote...

Games cannot be art in the same way art galleries themselves are not art. They contain art in them but are not themselves artwork.

i like that. i think you've put it in perspective very well.

[bzombo]

addiction21 wrote...

eucatastrophe wrote...

I also don't think he is a very good film critic.
But that is neither here nor there

Personally I have never been a fan of critics anyway. "Those who can — do. Those who can’t — criticize"

wouldn't that include most of these forums then?

[LiquidGrape]

This whole argument of whether interactive experiences can be art or not is completely asinine to begin with.
The only ones who decidedly attempt to refute the artistic demands of the medium are either simply ignorant, or committed to an aged, archaic notion of what constitutes art.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 23 avril 2010 - 05:49 .

[bzombo]

AntiChri5 wrote...

I never get tired of when some whiny attention **** thinks they are qualified to judge everything when they dismiss it without ever experiencing it or even considering doing so.

i see your point, but responses like this do exactly what you were criticizing.

[Twitchmonkey]

LiquidGrape wrote...

This whole argument of whether interactive experiences can be art or not is completely asinine to begin with.
The only ones who decidedly attempt to refute the artistic demands of the medium are either simply ignorant, or committed to an aged, archaic notion of what constitutes art.

I think if we let everything be art, we kind of devalue the word to the point of making it meaningless. I also don't think we should depend upon "experts" to tell us what that word should mean, however. Art will always be subjective, but that doesn't mean it has to lack meaning for the person who uses it.

[LiquidGrape]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

LiquidGrape wrote...

This whole argument of whether interactive experiences can be art or not is completely asinine to begin with.
The only ones who decidedly attempt to refute the artistic demands of the medium are either simply ignorant, or committed to an aged, archaic notion of what constitutes art.

I think if we let everything be art, we kind of devalue the word to the point of making it meaningless. I also don't think we should depend upon "experts" to tell us what that word should mean, however. Art will always be subjective, but that doesn't mean it has to lack meaning for the person who uses it.

I'd argue that there shouldn't be a value involved anyway. Art, the way I've always understood it by the most widely acknowledged definitions, is simply a designation for creative processes which are specifically intended to provoke, elicit, extract and/or stimulate the emotions and senses of any given recipient.
Now, one problem with calling games "art" is the fact that the term "game" implies a predetermined goal for any creation in the medium, regardless of its inherent qualities.
Win the race, score a point, reach the finale, etc.
This would suggest that no game is more artistically relevant than a chessboard.
- Which is why I differentiate between games and interactive experiences.
An example of a game would be Pac-Man.
An example of an interactive experience would be Half-Life 2.
Though it's true that I often forget to utilize this appellative myself, a dilemma which I'm trying to improve upon.

The fact is that as the form has grown in sophistication, it has also evolved in its capabilites as an expressive format.
I look at developers such as Valve, Tale of Tales, FunCom, Team Silent and Frictional Games and see a great future potential for immersive experiences.

Modifié par LiquidGrape, 23 avril 2010 - 10:26 .

[Twitchmonkey]

That's fair. The terminology may be outdated, and that may be the source of a lot of the confusion between the two groups. One recognizes them as an experience, the other just sees them as a series of challenges of a certain type ultimately leading to a goal the player is trying to reach, which is sort of an outdated definition.



I agree that art is the attempt to invoke emotions or some sort of response out of the viewer, but it's important to question whether the product succeeds in this. I simply cannot accept something as art if it does not speak to me, because on its most important test, it has failed for me.

[LiquidGrape]

Twitchmonkey wrote...

That's fair. The terminology may be outdated, and that may be the source of a lot of the confusion between the two groups. One recognizes them as an experience, the other just sees them as a series of challenges of a certain type ultimately leading to a goal the player is trying to reach, which is sort of an outdated definition.

I agree that art is the attempt to invoke emotions or some sort of response out of the viewer, but it's important to question whether the product succeeds in this. I simply cannot accept something as art if it does not speak to me, because on its most important test, it has failed for me.

Oh, naturally, one should always be critical.
I just wanted to elaborate upon why I believe "games" is such a controversial subject for art theory.

[ModerateOsprey]

I think PacMan is art

[LiquidGrape]

ModerateOsprey wrote...

I think PacMan is art

And you're perfectly free to think so.
Not sure I would agree, but unlike Ebert I'm not sanctimonious about it.

[Twitchmonkey]

I don't know, I can look at one of Goya's "black paintings" and only become a bit unsettled, but getting surrounded by 3 ghosts with no way out is downright harrowing. That speaks to my primal fear emotion.