Roger Ebert: VIDYA GAEMS CAN'T BE ART!!1

[Phelot]

I wasn't asking either of you two tbh, but Cory.

You asked with your heart Samov... with your eyes and your heart.

 

[poocolator]

Before:

During:

After:

 

[Loki]

Given your premises, I'll ask a simple question: can (good) wine be art?

Wine is used to bring about a desired effect, there is too narrow of purpose to it, there is a certain utility to it. There is an expectation with wine, most are drinking it to get slightly or more severely inebriated, or just to enjoy it's specific flavor, and to meet and inflame desire.

With Art, there is no real specific purpose to it, no specifically defined utility, and it doesn't cater to expectations or specific desires, in fact, it doesn't function to inflame desire, quite the opposite. This is unlike the gaming industry, where there has developed a science of delivering pleasure. They know what gamers want, and they fulfill and exacerbate desires.

I also wouldn't consider pornography as Art, because there is a very narrow purpose to it, a utility. You are using it specifically to get your rocks off, to titillate specific desires, this is not artistic.

I think it was James Joyce who said, Art that moves you to desire is pornography. Which I think basically means he didn't consider anything that moves you to desire to be genuine Art, and I'm inclined to agree with this.

 

[Loki]

But whomever it is that Ebert was responding to in this article, one example that could have been used is the tried and true Torment. That game was pretty powerful and I'd consider a rather good piece of art. The best? No, not when compared to other forms of art, but it's still a shining example of what video games CAN do.

Games can contain a lot of Art within them. But what about the gameplay? Wasn't it standard rpg combat, inventory and spell management, and strategy? That stuff is inartistic, and if you removed it from the game, you wouldn't have a game.

I suppose then a game is an art gallery with gimmicks?

yeah, definitely. That's a good way of putting it.

I suppose [games] could just be a different way of presenting art.

yep, that works.

 

[Vibalist]

Don't be those guys.

don't be that guy.

 

[GeneralSamov]

Given your premises, I'll ask a simple question: can (good) wine be art?

Wine is used to bring about a desired effect, there is too narrow of purpose to it, there is a certain utility to it. There is an expectation with wine, most are drinking it to get slightly or more severely inebriated, or just to enjoy it's specific flavor, and to meet and inflame desire.

Let's separate the intoxication wine produces to the sole appreciation of its taste. It produces a feeling of pleasure in your mouth, much like a painting or sculpture does in your eyes or some classical music in your ears. So is there really a difference, if we conveniently ignore the fact that it causes inebriation (after all, people more interested in the alcohol bit will get cheaper and less tasty wines)?
Also, think outside of this limited example, for instance those incense aromatic sticks. They stimulate your smell in a similar way, and aren't used (at least not that I'd be aware) to alter your perception of reality.

The discussion can be expanded further, but I'd first be interested in how you'd classify these examples of sensorial stimulation.

 

[Lyric Suite]

I was actually thinking about the works of Rembrandt and other masters of that period that often painted portraits and did so for a living. This is something a militia ordered as a nice remembrance, yet it is nowadays seen as a marvelous piece of art.

Michelangelo worked on commission as well. Indeed, the very idea of art for art's sake didn't even exist prior to the 19th century. Art was always seen purely from an utilitarian point of view. I'd reckon there probably isn't any other context. This is why i always stressed more on the idea of genius, the concept of art being essentially irrelevant.

To elucidate what i mean, lets compare this not so great painting by Michelangelo:

against one of Raphael's most outstanding ones:

Both paintings are of course purely utilitarian in nature, that is, their purpose is not to be artistic, based on some arbitrary parameter, but to simply represent a scene. Yet, in the case of Michelangelo, he infuses something in his depiction that strikes us as real. It is the Deluge that we see in his painting, and we see it the way Michelangelo sees it, through the eyes of a genius. The Raphael is more technically accomplished, and yet, it is a complete and utter failure. He paints a scene here, and scene there, but the actual event is completely lost. There is no unity of any kind, no deeper insight into the essence of the event being depicted. Even the Pope, the very center piece of the story, whom legend says extinguished the fire with his benediction, appears in the distance, small and insignificant. Everything that could have made this picture great is completely missing. Is it art? Probably not, but it pretends to be, which is why it is considered art anyway since most people cannot understand genius in the first place.

 

[Lyric Suite]

And lets not forget what is perhaps Michelangelo's greatest painting, the Adam:

A picture so familiar to us we no longer comprehend its significance. Only a genius could have represented such a subject without appearing absurd in the process.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Who gives a shit?

i can give you one if you paypal me the postage money

and lol@SMA for "gaemz r not art cuz I never experienced in a gaem what I experienced reading a book"

I'd like to think my taste has improved. If you asked me this question in high school, I would have been a passionate defender of games as art. After 4 years of studying Latin and Greek literature? Not so much. I'm humble enough in my own opinion to hold out the possibility that I am completely wrong about this, but so far I haven't seen a persuasive argument or example to convince me otherwise.

 

[Twinkle]

Mr. Ebert is good troll.

Why I generally disagree with him, reading butthurt-provoked articles stating something like Bioshock/Ass Effect/Heavy Rain/Random New Shit is "art" is hilarious experience. Hey, industry, grow up a bit and recognize that artsy faggotry wrapped around mediocre game doesn't make that game "art" even a bit.

 

[Loki]

Given your premises, I'll ask a simple question: can (good) wine be art?

Wine is used to bring about a desired effect, there is too narrow of purpose to it, there is a certain utility to it. There is an expectation with wine, most are drinking it to get slightly or more severely inebriated, or just to enjoy it's specific flavor, and to meet and inflame desire.

Let's separate the intoxication wine produces to the sole appreciation of its taste. It produces a feeling of pleasure in your mouth, much like a painting or sculpture does in your eyes or some classical music in your ears. So is there really a difference, if we conveniently ignore the fact that it causes inebriation (after all, people more interested in the alcohol bit will get cheaper and less tasty wines)?

hmmm... maybe. I could argue that Art, by my definition, cannot be something that is destroyed/consumed for the sake of appreciation. Art raises itself above carnal desires, above the typical scenario of deriving gratification from something by destroying it.

Also, If wine is Art because it creates pleasure in your mouth, then would not bubble gum, Doritos and cheese puffs be Art too? At the end of the day, food products are food products, and maybe anything consumable should not be Art.

Also, think outside of this limited example, for instance those incense aromatic sticks. They stimulate your smell in a similar way, and aren't used (at least not that I'd be aware) to alter your perception of reality.

In order to experience such a thing, you would have to destroy it, so I might argue that on those grounds, it is not Art. Art is beyond the human need to destroy/consume in order to benefit.

It's like if you had a spray can of room freshener. It's a limited can of stuff that will be destroyed shortly after you use it. Perfume too, it disperses and decays quickly.

Also interesting to note is how the nose and taste seem to represent the most animal and base aspect of us, Dogs seem so driven by their nose and seem to live for the taste. Other animals that rely on their eyes and ears more, seem to use those senses only to serve their lust for food.

It seems uniquely human that we can use our ears and eyes for enjoyment alone, rather than using them to service our lust for food.

Art almost seems to be above taste and smell, that's too animal.

Yet, I like your point, and I'm not entirely convinced that I should exclude wine, incense and perfume from the category of Art, and if I did, I think I would have to use the arguments I laid out above.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Fireworks are destroyed for the visual spectacle as well. It'd be pretty hard to say they aren't art. (Or rather, the display of them is.)

That actually seems close to the heart of the matter. The game itself isn't art, or even artistic. Rather, the playing of it, the narrative in motion, is. There is nothing artistic about the option of speaking to NPC_34 to intiate dialogue. The dialogue though, can be very moving. The potential actions in an action game are meaningless- an actual fight in motion can be very emotionally charged and carry various themes.

 

[Loki]

Art was always seen purely from an utilitarian point of view. I'd reckon there probably isn't any other context. This is why i always stressed more on the idea of genius, the concept of art being essentially irrelevant.

I would say Art was always seen as separate from games, sports, hunting, philosophy and science. Genius emerges in different ways, and shouldn't one make the distinction between a scientific, mathematical, artistic, or philosophical genius?

 

[Loki]

Fireworks are destroyed for the visual spectacle as well. It'd be pretty hard to say they aren't art. (Or rather, the display of them is.)

Damn, yeah you're right.

Samov, I'd have to agree with you that incense, perfume and even expensive wines can be Art. I've got no argument for those. I'm just a bit bothered by junk food, like Doritos, and tacky air fresheners, which exist for enjoyment, too. I guess lyric suite is on to something when he stresses the lack or presence of genius and refinement is what is relevant.

 

[Damned Registrations]

I think art is less about enjoyment (drugs can accomplish that, and neither pills nor their effect seem like art to me) and more about communicating something. Whether that something is a specific emotion, a narrative, or something even more abstract, doesn't really matter.

What it communicates determines the taste. Awe is pretty popular. People tend to like awe inspiring art. Disgust inspiring art, not so much. Concepts are more finicky and much much more complicated . A piece of art might communicate the particular hopelessness of someone condemned to execution, or the injustice of a corrupt nobility with a side of outrage. This doesn't mean it's better. While communicating the above two concepts through a piece of music with no lyrics would be a masterpiece, communicating them through blunt prose would be simple and shallow.

How effectively it communicates it is proportional to the quality. Video games tend to suck at this (Often trying to communicate multiple complicated things with poor writing and other artistic means), as do crayon drawings by small children and shitty pop music. This part is also subjective, but generally a Beethoven symphony is pretty damned effective at inspiring emotion no matter who you are. The Power Rangers theme song works great on a child, but an adult is going to make their will save to not give a shit.

The best art communicates better the more it is examined (It has depth to it's means of communication). Music becomes less inspiring when you realize it inspired you by being really loud. It becomes more inspiring when you realize the rhythm (Holy fuck what a stupidly spelled word; 5 consonants, one vowel but 2 syllables?) in it reminded you of a thunderstorm or the ocean.

The logic above can be applied to pretty much any medium I can think of.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

I said think, but fuck. You can't do it.

I know what your dull argument was. That's why I wrote I understood your response to LS, before I got to my own stuff, which was that MUSIC IS PERFORMANCE.

But you are confusing the [re]creation process with the actual product to be experienced. When you go to see a musical performance, you are passively taking in the product, which already exists on paper or in someones head. The audience is not manipulating the piece of Art toward some goal or end, and there is no competitive element.

Formulate your argument in a manner that doesn't require you to talk about "audience", and you'll get to read my response to my response to your response to my response. As it is, I'm having a more interesting time talking to myself than you. Probably because youa re dumb as hell, mang.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

I said think, but fuck. You can't do it.

I know what your dull argument was. That's why I wrote I understood your response to LS, before I got to my own stuff, which was that MUSIC IS PERFORMANCE.

But you are confusing the [re]creation process with the actual product to be experienced. When you go to see a musical performance, you are passively taking in the product, which already exists on paper or in someones head. The audience is not manipulating the piece of Art toward some goal or end, and there is no competitive element.

Formulate your argument in a manner that doesn't require you to talk about "audience", and you'll get to read my response to my response to your response to my response. As it is, I'm having a more interesting time talking to myself than you. Probably because youa re dumb as hell, mang.

On the other hand, you could explain how the experience of an audience listening to an improvisation is different from that of listening to a composition. Of course, it's not metaphysically different. So, again, your argument is kind of dumb, in that it fails to take facts into account.

 

[1eyedking]

Michelangelo worked on commission as well. Indeed, the very idea of art for art's sake didn't even exist prior to the 19th century. Art was always seen purely from an utilitarian point of view. I'd reckon there probably isn't any other context. This is why i always stressed more on the idea of genius, the concept of art being essentially irrelevant.

To elucidate what i mean, lets compare this not so great painting by Michelangelo:

(pic)

against one of Raphael's most outstanding ones:

(pic)

Both paintings are of course purely utilitarian in nature, that is, their purpose is not to be artistic, based on some arbitrary parameter, but to simply represent a scene. Yet, in the case of Michelangelo, he infuses something in his depiction that strikes us as real. It is the Deluge that we see in his painting, and we see it the way Michelangelo sees it, through the eyes of a genius. The Raphael is more technically accomplished, and yet, it is a complete and utter failure. He paints a scene here, and scene there, but the actual event is completely lost. There is no unity of any kind, no deeper insight into the essence of the event being depicted. Even the Pope, the very center piece of the story, whom legend says extinguished the fire with his benediction, appears in the distance, small and insignificant. Everything that could have made this picture great is completely missing. Is it art? Probably not, but it pretends to be, which is why it is considered art anyway since most people cannot understand genius in the first place.

And lets not forget what is perhaps Michelangelo's greatest painting, the Adam:

(pic)

A picture so familiar to us we no longer comprehend its significance. Only a genius could have represented such a subject without appearing absurd in the process.

I see you are wise in the ways of art.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

Who gives a shit?

i can give you one if you paypal me the postage money

and lol@SMA for "gaemz r not art cuz I never experienced in a gaem what I experienced reading a book"

I'd like to think my taste has improved. If you asked me this question in high school, I would have been a passionate defender of games as art. After 4 years of studying Latin and Greek literature? Not so much. I'm humble enough in my own opinion to hold out the possibility that I am completely wrong about this, but so far I haven't seen a persuasive argument or example to convince me otherwise.

You only see what your eyes want to see. Suck it down!

 

[J1M]

Everyone in this thread has made the fatal assumption of putting art at the top of the food chain when it comes to the human experience.

Aside from pornography, which is defined as media with little or no artistic value, art occupies the bottom of the food chain. Abstract art. Modern art. Rap. You've all seen it and you have all said to yourselves "I can't believe someone likes that enough to consider it art".

Just as the artistic movie can contain more base sexual or violent pornagraphy, a game encompasses the lesser. Graphics, audio, writing, they are all contained within the higher form of experience that is the interactive medium of gaming.

In conclusion:
Games are not art.
Games contain art.
Games supersede art.

 

[J1M]

Those of you who "cannot imagine" a game that does X or Y need to get your shit straight and ask yourselves if the guy watching a cave man smear mud on the wall thought to himself "yeah I can totally see realistic 3D aliens coming out of this".

Gaming is a medium that is still so much in its infancy that the person who made the first game is STILL ALIVE. If a game without true choice and consequence doesn't exist 100,000 years after he dies, THEN you can claim it will never come about.

 

[Konjad]

i never think about 'art' when playing games, listening to music, watching paintings etc. This is just empty word so many are angry about. But if you really want to think if games can be art try to make your opinion after playing The Void

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Those of you who "cannot imagine" a game that does X or Y need to get your shit straight and ask yourselves if the guy watching a cave man smear mud on the wall thought to himself "yeah I can totally see realistic 3D aliens coming out of this".

Gaming is a medium that is still so much in its infancy that the person who made the first game is STILL ALIVE. If a game without true choice and consequence doesn't exist 100,000 years after he dies, THEN you can claim it will never come about.

Anything is possible, but the trends in the industry are not encouraging. The console industry has painted itself into a corner of rising development costs which is leading to complete creative stagnation. Likewise, the declining profits, despite huge increases in the size of the market, of mainstream titles are forcing publishers to look elsewhere to grow their bottom line. That elsewhere seems to be online social and casual games such as Farmville or Bejeweled. No one argues that such games are anything more than pleasant distractions. In fact, casual gaming increasingly looks a lot like board and card games, and less and less like the big-budget mainstream games that had been dominant up until a few years ago.

The industry can always crash, allowing for a reset of the creative and business models, potentionally leading to new, previously unenvisioned kinds of games. Still, I highly, highly, highly doubt that a game will be released in my lifetime which will measure up to Plato's Republic or Michelangelo's David. The sort of games being released today certainly don't.

 

[1eyedking]

But if you really want to think if games can be art try to make your opinion after playing The Void

I've read it's nothing but repetitive and pretentious.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

Everyone in this thread has made the fatal assumption of putting art at the top of the food chain when it comes to the human experience.

Like notes on a page, a computer game is a set of parametres out of which the player (the musician) weaves his own aesthetic experience.

Art is a form of sublimation, a surrogate activity, in which we replace the more satisfying pleasures of the real world with the easier acquired pleasures of intellectual or emotional masturbation.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

/end thread