Everybody still worried about what Ebert thinks about Nintendo tapes?
Everybody still worried about what Ebert thinks about Nintendo tapes?
2009 TNL Fantasy Football Champion
So Ebert thinks video games aren't art. You know what? I pretty much agree with him.
The question can also be asked of the adult movie industry. They started off mimicking the mainstream movie industry with nudity, then moved in the direction of pure porn ("gonzo"). They've largely thrown out the plots and concentrated on what its viewers want.
So are porn movies "art"? The answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. Porn as porn is not art but you can make an artistic porn movie. The problem is, the more it succeeds as art the more it fails as porn. The same applies to video games but the vg industry started out as just games and is trying to move toward mainstream movies. Unlike porn, which had to learn the hard way (heh) to concentrate on the good stuff, video games started with the right answer and will have to tool around with "art" before they realize that games as games are not art.
Ebert shouldn't waste his time reviewing the plotting and life lessons taught by cinematic video games, just as gamers shouldn't waste their time playing them.
Last edited by Despair; 24 Jul 2010 at 10:10 PM.
as long as games are made by people, they are art or have the potential to be art.
The reason that porn is not consider art is the same reason that you eating a ham sandwich is not art. It isn't an expression of your self. It is basic desire of your body. Most people don't consider basic requirements of the body to be art. We don't consider taking a shit, taking a nap, washing ourselves, taking cover in a storm, running from danger, etc, to be art.
Art requires some part of the human intellect. Be it the part that learns complex skills, the part that is self aware, or the part that can conceptualize the world around it and then attempt to reproduce it.
Finger painting by a little kid is art. Why? Because the kid is using his brain to try to express something (assuming he isn't just mushing colors because paint feels good on his hands)
Taking a shit is not art, but making a film about shit is. Why? Because you have to take shits, and you do it with out thought. It just is. There is no thought behind it. The film took thought. Someone had to think about the concept of shit, and then think of a way of expressing his thoughts about shit with film.
Video games are fully capable of being used as a medium for people to express their thoughts, feelings, and everything else that makes up the self.
Being a game does not hinder that. If someone wants to make something that others will have fun with, or make them happy, it is still art. Something doesn't have to make a statement about the state of the union and gay cowboys to be art. Art can really be as simple as someone wanting to make an electronic game that makes people happy. The art of fun.
I am very gay for Roger Ebert. I don't know if games are art or not and don't really give a fuck.
fucking is art, so why not videogames?
only if you convey an idea or elicit a particular response
Bookmarks