The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
I disagree with him on this issue but I still like him. I prefer his opinions on Nicholas Sparks to his opinions on video games.
I used to like him, back when he was still on TV with Siskel and writing entertaining reviews of 0-star movies. But it seems that nowadays he's just going more and more off the deep end with his reviews/articles, and not in the fun ways.
all told, it's a stupid argument, stoked by people who can't concieve of the fact that something originally conceived as a children's toy could ascend to an artform
and while very few games can be considered art in the "meaningful expression of feelings" sense, there are examples of such
i don't know. craftsmen more than artists, i'd say. i think the most convincing argument for games as art blooms from the other end - independant games with a singular creative vision. everyday shooter is art. call of duty 2 is not
i don't know. craftsmen more than artists, i'd say. i think the most convincing argument for games as art blooms from the other end - independant games with a singular creative vision. everyday shooter is art. call of duty 2 is not
but since when is something painstakingly crafted and taken pride in not art?
all told, it's a stupid argument, stoked by people who can't concieve of the fact that something originally conceived as a children's toy could ascend to an artform
and while very few games can be considered art in the "meaningful expression of feelings" sense, there are examples of such
Roger Ebert is a grouchy old dude
I admire how well he put his point across, but the problem is that it is manifest that he hasn't played any games. It's like watching the trailer for The Godfather and saying "this is stupid, it's just a dumb crime film"
say you have a dude who makes pottery for a living
do you consider the pottery to be art? even if there are no depictions or designs on the pottery? if the pottery was designed with a utilitarian purpose in mind like storage? where is that line?
Kuribo's Shoe on
0
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
I like Roger Ebert! He writes good movie reviews and interesting blog articles
But he is old, and averse to change, and games are a young medium, and filled with a bunch of very one note experiences
I can't really blame him for saying games aren't art, but to say they'll never be art is pretty dumb
i don't know. craftsmen more than artists, i'd say. i think the most convincing argument for games as art blooms from the other end - independant games with a singular creative vision. everyday shooter is art. call of duty 2 is not
but since when is something painstakingly crafted and taken pride in not art?
a model car, for example
you can craft it perfect detail and precision, for months or years, but you're never going to create something more meaningful than the car as it was already, an idea and some parts in a box
bsjezz on
0
Lord DaveGrief CauserBitch Free ZoneRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
This is a pretty stupid argument and I'm not surprised Ebert is still on the wrong end of it
all told, it's a stupid argument, stoked by people who can't concieve of the fact that something originally conceived as a children's toy could ascend to an artform
and while very few games can be considered art in the "meaningful expression of feelings" sense, there are examples of such
Roger Ebert is a grouchy old dude
I admire how well he put his point across, but the problem is that it is manifest that he hasn't played any games. It's like watching the trailer for The Godfather and saying "this is stupid, it's just a dumb crime film"
yeah, the problem is he's an intelligent and well spoken man who refuses to even look at the medium he's decrying
kind of sad, really
Kuribo's Shoe on
0
Donkey KongPutting Nintendo out of business with AI nipsRegistered Userregular
I disagree with him on this issue but I still like him. I prefer his opinions on Nicholas Sparks to his opinions on video games.
I used to like him, back when he was still on TV with Siskel and writing entertaining reviews of 0-star movies. But it seems that nowadays he's just going more and more off the deep end with his reviews/articles, and not in the fun ways.
He has committed pretty hard to his "games aren't art" argument and I figure, at this point, let him have it. It's not like it really matters if grants the medium legitimacy.
Sometimes a movie hits a sore spot for him, like Kick-ass or Zoolander, but he's still a pretty good critic. He's one of the few really mainstream guys who will advocate for good scifi. And there are some things he gets. He understood why Transformers 1 was awesome and Transformers 2 was terrible.
And how can you not love the guy who wrote this:
"The Last Song" is based on the novel by Nicholas Sparks, who also wrote the screenplay. Sparks recently went on record as saying he is a greater novelist than Cormac McCarthy. This is true in the same sense that I am a better novelist than William Shakespeare. Sparks also said his novels are like Greek Tragedies. This may actually be true. I can't check it out because, tragically, no really bad Greek tragedies have survived. His story here amounts to soft porn for teenage girls, which the acting and the abilities of director Julie Anne Robinson have promoted over its pay scale.
[...]
To be sure, I resent the sacrilege Nicholas Sparks commits by mentioning himself in the same sentence as Cormac McCarthy. I would not even allow him to say "Hello, bookstore? This is Nicholas Sparks. Could you send over the new Cormac McCarthy novel?" He should show respect by ordering anonymously.
Donkey Kong on
Thousands of hot, local singles are waiting to play at bubbulon.com.
0
Tossrocktoo weird to livetoo rare to dieRegistered Userregular
say you have a dude who makes pottery for a living
do you consider the pottery to be art? even if there are no depictions or designs on the pottery? if the pottery was designed with a utilitarian purpose in mind like storage? where is that line?
the only way to find out is to see some pottery that's art
i don't know. craftsmen more than artists, i'd say. i think the most convincing argument for games as art blooms from the other end - independant games with a singular creative vision. everyday shooter is art. call of duty 2 is not
but since when is something painstakingly crafted and taken pride in not art?
a model car, for example
you can craft it perfect detail and precision, for months or years, but you're never going to create something more meaningful than the car as it was already, an idea and some parts in a box
one could argue that putting together a model with skill is an art of its own
and what about the people who put the parts together? if a guy makes a really good helicopter model for a video game that he's particularly proud of, who's to say that isn't art?
I just find it hard to believe that in 100-200 years if video games are still around that his statement that video games can never be art will still be an accepted stance.
say you have a dude who makes pottery for a living
do you consider the pottery to be art? even if there are no depictions or designs on the pottery? if the pottery was designed with a utilitarian purpose in mind like storage? where is that line?
the only way to find out is to see some pottery that's art
I don't completely disagree on his point of "does it even matter?", but he's lending far more attention to the matter just by commenting on it. Again.
And when it comes down to it, for me, do video games fulfill the criteria that defines art? I guess they do. Defining art is pretty subjective anyway, and going round and round in circles isn't going to do me a whole lot of good, so I think I'll just go back to what I was doing.
End on
I wish that someway, somehow, that I could save every one of us
all told, it's a stupid argument, stoked by people who can't concieve of the fact that something originally conceived as a children's toy could ascend to an artform
and while very few games can be considered art in the "meaningful expression of feelings" sense, there are examples of such
Roger Ebert is a grouchy old dude
I admire how well he put his point across, but the problem is that it is manifest that he hasn't played any games. It's like watching the trailer for The Godfather and saying "this is stupid, it's just a dumb crime film"
yeah, the problem is he's an intelligent and well spoken man who refuses to even look at the medium he's decrying
kind of sad, really
It's a problem with the medium though. If I said to Roger Ebert "look, play GTAIV. It's like The Godfather of video games. It's incredible" and he agreed, he wouldn't just play it until the end and then go "wow Tube you were so right, it must be awesome being you. It'd involve me sitting with him going
"no press A to run. that's the one at the bottom... the... yeah the green one now get into cover that guy has a gun NO DON'T RUN TOWARDS HI- aaaahhhh ok ok no big deal let's start again ok next time you want to hold the right trigger- the one at the back - yeah on the right hand side that's the trigger and then use the left stick to- look let's just watch the cutscenes on youtube"
Or persuading him to play Planescape Torment and having to have an awkward conversation at The Transcendant One because he picked all the wrong spells.
say you have a dude who makes pottery for a living
do you consider the pottery to be art? even if there are no depictions or designs on the pottery? if the pottery was designed with a utilitarian purpose in mind like storage? where is that line?
the only way to find out is to see some pottery that's art
i haven't
You clearly lack even the most rudimentary knowledge of either pottery or art then.
i don't know. craftsmen more than artists, i'd say. i think the most convincing argument for games as art blooms from the other end - independant games with a singular creative vision. everyday shooter is art. call of duty 2 is not
but since when is something painstakingly crafted and taken pride in not art?
a model car, for example
you can craft it perfect detail and precision, for months or years, but you're never going to create something more meaningful than the car as it was already, an idea and some parts in a box
one could argue that putting together a model with skill is an art of its own
and what about the people who put the parts together? if a guy makes a really good helicopter model for a video game that he's particularly proud of, who's to say that isn't art?
look technical skill and perserverant application of that skill does not an art make. you could just as easily say garbage collection is art. which you could argue, for a certain definition of art, but i'm not interested in that argument. i already understand what art is
for me art has to be an arrangement of content and stylistic choices which make no sacrifice in communicating their central purpose. art is communication. unless their is some new message to be carried, or an old message to be carried better, it fails to be art. well, at least good art. 'bad art' is a different thing entirely*
*by that i mean there are special exceptions for truly 'bad art'. it has to be more than a failure to make art. it has to be a very special kind of failure
say you have a dude who makes pottery for a living
do you consider the pottery to be art? even if there are no depictions or designs on the pottery? if the pottery was designed with a utilitarian purpose in mind like storage? where is that line?
the only way to find out is to see some pottery that's art
i haven't
You clearly lack even the most rudimentary knowledge of either pottery or art then.
yeah that was a silly way to say it
i have seen pottery that's art. in modern art i personally haven't seen any artistic pottery, but i'm sure it exists
what i meant was more like 'show me some artistic pottery, and i'll show you the difference between that and my cereal bowl'
Craftsmen are not artists
The things which craftsmen make are not art
The Sistine Chapel was created by craftsmen
Therefore, the Sistine Chapel is not art
all told, it's a stupid argument, stoked by people who can't concieve of the fact that something originally conceived as a children's toy could ascend to an artform
and while very few games can be considered art in the "meaningful expression of feelings" sense, there are examples of such
Roger Ebert is a grouchy old dude
I admire how well he put his point across, but the problem is that it is manifest that he hasn't played any games. It's like watching the trailer for The Godfather and saying "this is stupid, it's just a dumb crime film"
yeah, the problem is he's an intelligent and well spoken man who refuses to even look at the medium he's decrying
kind of sad, really
It's a problem with the medium though. If I said to Roger Ebert "look, play GTAIV. It's like The Godfather of video games. It's incredible" and he agreed, he wouldn't just play it until the end and then go "wow Tube you were so right, it must be awesome being you. It'd involve me sitting with him going
"no press A to run. that's the one at the bottom... the... yeah the green one now get into cover that guy has a gun NO DON'T RUN TOWARDS HI- aaaahhhh ok ok no big deal let's start again ok next time you want to hold the right trigger- the one at the back - yeah on the right hand side that's the trigger and then use the left stick to- look let's just watch the cutscenes on youtube"
Or persuading him to play Planescape Torment and having to have an awkward conversation at The Transcendant One because he picked all the wrong spells.
I know I would argue that the artistry in games is really in the playing experience and what it evokes. Watching Shadow of the Colossus is actually pretty fucking boring, but playing it, deciding what to do and struggling with the controls (not that they're bad, just that you gotta work dat thing) involves you in a way that you can't get with movies or TV. This is offset by the fact that your narrative is going to be interrupted a shit-ton.
i don't know. craftsmen more than artists, i'd say. i think the most convincing argument for games as art blooms from the other end - independant games with a singular creative vision. everyday shooter is art. call of duty 2 is not
but since when is something painstakingly crafted and taken pride in not art?
a model car, for example
you can craft it perfect detail and precision, for months or years, but you're never going to create something more meaningful than the car as it was already, an idea and some parts in a box
one could argue that putting together a model with skill is an art of its own
and what about the people who put the parts together? if a guy makes a really good helicopter model for a video game that he's particularly proud of, who's to say that isn't art?
look technical skill and perserverant application of that skill does not an art make. you could just as easily say garbage collection is art. which you could argue, for a certain definition of art, but i'm not interested in that argument. i already understand what art is
for me art has to be an arrangement of content and stylistic choices which make no sacrifice in communicating their central purpose. art is communication. unless their is some new message to be carried, or an old message to be carried better, it fails to be art. well, at least good art. 'bad art' is a different thing entirely
then you have a narrower definition of art than I care to entertain myself. for me art is the expression of creativity. and that shows through in every game, though the levels of creativity may differ.
say you have a dude who makes pottery for a living
do you consider the pottery to be art? even if there are no depictions or designs on the pottery? if the pottery was designed with a utilitarian purpose in mind like storage? where is that line?
the only way to find out is to see some pottery that's art
Posts
Yet he has that cool young urban stubble and the "hair in your eyes" haircut.
I'm so confused.
I believe there is art in games. Is the game itself art? I don't know that I would say it is, or that it should be.
I'm not. That's standard procedure around here.
all told, it's a stupid argument, stoked by people who can't concieve of the fact that something originally conceived as a children's toy could ascend to an artform
and while very few games can be considered art in the "meaningful expression of feelings" sense, there are examples of such
Roger Ebert is a grouchy old dude
but since when is something painstakingly crafted and taken pride in not art?
I admire how well he put his point across, but the problem is that it is manifest that he hasn't played any games. It's like watching the trailer for The Godfather and saying "this is stupid, it's just a dumb crime film"
do you consider the pottery to be art? even if there are no depictions or designs on the pottery? if the pottery was designed with a utilitarian purpose in mind like storage? where is that line?
But he is old, and averse to change, and games are a young medium, and filled with a bunch of very one note experiences
I can't really blame him for saying games aren't art, but to say they'll never be art is pretty dumb
This is where the "old" part comes back into play
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
a model car, for example
you can craft it perfect detail and precision, for months or years, but you're never going to create something more meaningful than the car as it was already, an idea and some parts in a box
yeah, the problem is he's an intelligent and well spoken man who refuses to even look at the medium he's decrying
kind of sad, really
He has committed pretty hard to his "games aren't art" argument and I figure, at this point, let him have it. It's not like it really matters if grants the medium legitimacy.
Sometimes a movie hits a sore spot for him, like Kick-ass or Zoolander, but he's still a pretty good critic. He's one of the few really mainstream guys who will advocate for good scifi. And there are some things he gets. He understood why Transformers 1 was awesome and Transformers 2 was terrible.
And how can you not love the guy who wrote this:
the only way to find out is to see some pottery that's art
i haven't
one could argue that putting together a model with skill is an art of its own
and what about the people who put the parts together? if a guy makes a really good helicopter model for a video game that he's particularly proud of, who's to say that isn't art?
you must not be looking very hard then
It does seem like it.
I don't completely disagree on his point of "does it even matter?", but he's lending far more attention to the matter just by commenting on it. Again.
And when it comes down to it, for me, do video games fulfill the criteria that defines art? I guess they do. Defining art is pretty subjective anyway, and going round and round in circles isn't going to do me a whole lot of good, so I think I'll just go back to what I was doing.
It's a problem with the medium though. If I said to Roger Ebert "look, play GTAIV. It's like The Godfather of video games. It's incredible" and he agreed, he wouldn't just play it until the end and then go "wow Tube you were so right, it must be awesome being you. It'd involve me sitting with him going
"no press A to run. that's the one at the bottom... the... yeah the green one now get into cover that guy has a gun NO DON'T RUN TOWARDS HI- aaaahhhh ok ok no big deal let's start again ok next time you want to hold the right trigger- the one at the back - yeah on the right hand side that's the trigger and then use the left stick to- look let's just watch the cutscenes on youtube"
Or persuading him to play Planescape Torment and having to have an awkward conversation at The Transcendant One because he picked all the wrong spells.
You clearly lack even the most rudimentary knowledge of either pottery or art then.
look technical skill and perserverant application of that skill does not an art make. you could just as easily say garbage collection is art. which you could argue, for a certain definition of art, but i'm not interested in that argument. i already understand what art is
for me art has to be an arrangement of content and stylistic choices which make no sacrifice in communicating their central purpose. art is communication. unless their is some new message to be carried, or an old message to be carried better, it fails to be art. well, at least good art. 'bad art' is a different thing entirely*
*by that i mean there are special exceptions for truly 'bad art'. it has to be more than a failure to make art. it has to be a very special kind of failure
yeah that was a silly way to say it
i have seen pottery that's art. in modern art i personally haven't seen any artistic pottery, but i'm sure it exists
what i meant was more like 'show me some artistic pottery, and i'll show you the difference between that and my cereal bowl'
The things which craftsmen make are not art
The Sistine Chapel was created by craftsmen
Therefore, the Sistine Chapel is not art
Is this correct, bsjezz?
I know I would argue that the artistry in games is really in the playing experience and what it evokes. Watching Shadow of the Colossus is actually pretty fucking boring, but playing it, deciding what to do and struggling with the controls (not that they're bad, just that you gotta work dat thing) involves you in a way that you can't get with movies or TV. This is offset by the fact that your narrative is going to be interrupted a shit-ton.
then you have a narrower definition of art than I care to entertain myself. for me art is the expression of creativity. and that shows through in every game, though the levels of creativity may differ.
Canopic Jars