Ebert: Games still aren't art

[CardJoe]

So, you may remember that Roger Ebert said that computer games weren't art a while back. We covered Clive Barkers response to that in the news. You can find the article yourselves, I'm having lunch and can't be arsed to put down my fork to find it (mm, pasta salad)

Anyway, Ebert has come back with a...comeback...and still insists games aren't art:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=80201

I'd be very interested in hearing peoples views on this, for future features.

[kenco_uk]

Perhaps it's being confused as an art medium because it provokes reactions? Or is the label 'work of art' purely a remark on the graphical content, i.e. how realistic it looks?

[ElThomsono]

IMO they have far too much direct purpose to be considered art; perhaps if they weren't fun to play?

[Flibblebot]

It depends on your definition of "art"

If you take art to be the kind of stuff that Brian Sewell likes, which vanishes up its own arse with self-importance, then no, games are not art.

However, if you take art to include any kind of creative work, then yes it's art. The problem is that by this definition Hollywood films would be included as art. It boils down to the idea of whether or nor art is allowed to be commercial - whether something like a Thomas Kinkade picture is allowed to be art, or whether it's just vomit-worthy.

This kind of argument will always run and run - on the one side, you'll have the Brian Sewell purists, and on the other you'll have the all-inclusives. It'll never stop, because both sides think they're right.

What do I think? Well, yes, I think games can be considered as art. Not all games, but those games that have a well-rounded story line (Deus Ex and the like), or have particularly lush graphics (not necessarily Crysis-style realistic, but games that have a their own unique graphic style that perhaps complements the story well). Grim Fandango is a game that appeals both in terms of the story and the graphics.

Of course, there are also gaming equivalents of my 4-year old niece's crayon scribblings, and I wouldn't consider them art.

So, in conculsion, games can be considered an art-form, but not all games are artistic.

[CardJoe]

Originally Posted by ElThomsono

IMO they have far too much direct purpose to be considered art; perhaps if they weren't fun to play?

Some games aren't fun, like Pro Cycling Manager 2006. But pretty pictures can still be art, so why can't fun games?

[DougEdey]

Joe: Why do you post so many threads in Gaming? Shouldn't you put these on the front page under news?

[ElThomsono]

Originally Posted by CardJoe

Some games aren't fun, like Pro Cycling Manager 2006. But pretty pictures can still be art, so why can't fun games?

Because if it's functional, it's not purely art, is it?

Sure a lot of aesthetic design's gone into my monitor, but it's first and foremost a machine to display images. With games, they're primarily designed as entertainment, any artistic element is a an afterthought. Nobody starts to make a game by saying "I'd like to make a statement about society, and all its ills", instead they say "Wouldn't it be cool to have a game where you can steal cars and shoot people?".

[CardJoe]

Not true. Haze: We want to make a game which mirrors a number of issues to do with violence in the media and governmental morality. How can we make a game about that?

[capnPedro]

Depends on the game. HL2? Work of art. Carmageddon? Not so much.
It's possible, at least in my eyes, for a game to be art.

[CardJoe]

Originally Posted by DougEdey

Joe: Why do you post so many threads in Gaming? Shouldn't you put these on the front page under news?

I've only done two or three really and a lot of it is to do with the fact that if I post these things as news then it stops me being able to work on the review I'm working on. I do some news in the morning and then I have to move on to reviews - anything else of significant interest and I put it in here so people can still discuss it, but I don't need to worry about tymos...I mean, typos.

[ElThomsono]

Originally Posted by CardJoe

Not true. Haze: We want to make a game which mirrors a number of issues to do with violence in the media and governmental morality. How can we make a game about that?

Cool, first I've heard of it; I guess that by my views on art it qualifies

However, I still stand by the opinion that games don't automatically qualify as art. Ask anyone in the buisness "Yes, but is it art" and they'll probably punch you in the face, the subject might just have been discussed before

[CardJoe]

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/...d__fps_games/1

Delves a bit into the issue and talks about Haze especially.

[Veles]

If a lightbulb that turns on and off can be considered art then so are videogames.

[will.]

Needs to have another option. I voted art, but personally I see a video game as a game but the individual parts as art. For example, a model, a texture, a soundtrack, a special effect. They are all pieces of art. Together they make a collection or a gallery of art. Not one single piece.

[Firehed]

I think some are - it depends on the storyline mostly, not the texture quality or any of that nonsense (possible exception: Far Cry). I'd only consider a video game to be a work of art in the same sense that I'd think the same of a book.

[Sandwich]

Art is the representation of the creators' human emotions, mindsets and/or environments. Usually this representation conveys a message.

A literary novel such as Scarlet Letter is Art. It explores all three of those things and conveys a message
A book such as Harry Potter is not Art. It is entertainment.

A picture like the Epson Toner ad in the banners is not art. It is a commercial.
A picture like Van Gogh's Self-Portrait is Art. It is a representation of his mindset.

An informercial for Miracle Blade is not Art.
A propaganda message is Art because represents the human environment and mindset of politicians.

So with that in mind. If the game is made with a message, it usually involves some sort of emotion or mindset in the developer's mind. More often than not, this is not the case. But this is true for anything. Even painters occasionally paint for no reason other than money or practice. Picasso did that, he used to just scribble stuff out to sell it.

[CardJoe]

I remember there were scenes from a Myst game that was used in the Tate and there was a 'war photographer' who took pictures in Enemy Territory for display. I also saw an exhibition of corpses in Max Payne once.

http://www.we-make-money-not-art.com/

[Bungle]

I'm pretty sure gaming can be concidered art. I remember the first time playing unreal when you've just come outside of your crashed ship to witness an alien world. The music and the visuals worked beautifully together to invoke strong emotion. For me that is what art is suppose to do. Move you emotionally.

[wafflesomd]

If this can be considered art:



Anything can...

[CardJoe]

THATS art. By Andy Goldsworthy, who is a very cool guy.