Art is something designed to provoke an emotional reaction.
Forums trolling and flaming or pretended idiocy are art by that definition too.
Given that a guy can shit in a can and put it on a perspex pillar and sell it as art, what's your point? That verbal trolling isn't art, but physical trolling is?
Originally posted by Rodentofdoom You have to put into context what these so called 'experts' consider as "art"
I have a pile of bricks in my yard ... but i dont see any galleries rushing to offer me untold riches to display it ....
If you percieve art as "an object or image of beauty that inspires awe and/or wonder" then many games can be classed as art
FFXI is beautiful in it's representaion, as are many other games.
I agree, it's really all a matter of perception. I'm very surprised someone of a movie critic like ebert would focus on the game part of video game especially when they involve 3D modeling, sound/music and writing/creating story lines. Really put this all together and what reallly separates a Disney/Pixar CGI movie from a video game aside that video games are more interactive. I reallly think Ebert shuold reconsider his stance given this perspective.
For something to be "art" is not a high standard. By one definition "art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." That's how poop in a jar can be art. Certainly a videogame is an arrangement of pixilated images intended to affect the senses and evoke emotions, so that should qualify.
The real question is, what is the quality of the art? Is it really something meaningful or does it just meet some basic definition?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
However, most companies tailor their games for the sake of business.
Just like what Hollywood does with most of it's series and movies that do well.
Or books that sell well.
As long as companies make games for the sake of making a good game, and not for the sake of generating as much revenue as possible, I consider them art. Very entertaining art.
Using LOL is like saying "my argument sucks but I still want to disagree".
I am shocked at the eloquence of some of the responses here - in particular the responses by Melmoth, Cowboyupinbl, and Dubhlaith. I was not surprised that your writing was well reasoned or well expressed, but I was surprised that you fell for Eberts obvious troll. Ebert is a notorious blog troll and should not be fed.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
Video games are an emergent art form and they WERE art from Space War onwards.
Interactivity has nothing to do with it. A lot of art forms experimented with audience participation and no one dared denied those works the designation of "art".
In addition I consider even board game rules as an art form, completely divorced from their physical component.
as wikipedia states "Art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions." - as a working artist I completely agree with this definition. Ebert goes on to comment "This is an intriguing definition, although as a chess player I might argue that my game fits the definition." So you could, Ebert and quite succesfully. Chess rules are definitely "elements arranged in a way to appeal to senses and emotions". Imo Chess, as a game, is one of humanity's great works of art. If you change elements of a game's ruleset then you directly change its appeal to "senses and emotions" - fiddle with the rules of an existing board game and you can change the way players behave during the game, their prevalent emotions while they play, their sense of aesthetic fulfilment.. (yes, even aesthetics - experienced chess and go players know the aesthetic pleasure you can get from a game that is beautifully played)
If a classical musical score can be considered "art" - even if it is always interpreted by someone other than its creator, then games rulesets must be considered art as well. If you deny game designers the status of "artist" then you would have to do the same to composers, architects and script-writers, just to name a few.
as for his main argument "not art because they can be won" - it is laughable. It is like saying that narative art is not art because it "ends" and we know that art never ends, like in visual arts, right? The argument is completely arbitrary - I'll write my own farty blog where I'll argue that music isn't art because I can't see it or that poetry isn't art because it's "just a bunch of words everyone can write". It's just a nonsense arbitrary argument.
And btw who can "win"? The players? No one ever argued that the players are artists - they are particpant audience. I don't see how the game designers "win" anything. It's just plain BS trolling.
Not to mention that even PLAYERS can sometimes be considered artists - for example in competetive sports. "arranging elements in a way that appeals to senses and emotions." They use the medium of a game as a way of artistic expression - just like a great artist violinist uses the musical score by another great artist. Anyone who watched Maradona or Pele play in their heydays would have to say that there definitely was a Muse in attendance somewhere.
I personally try to remain as objective as possible, while trying to find the most general equation that meets the most stringent of criteria.
I personally define art as an inclusive merger between two concepts:
- The creator puts all of themselves into the product. That it speaks to the creator's abilities. That the creation does not impose itself.
- The consumer fully appreciates the product. That it speaks to the consumer's body/mind/soul.
And that the merger of these two concepts is of a positive result for all parties involved.
I don't subscribe to 'artists' who autograph toilet bowls and sell them off as 'art'. I don't subscribe to murders who design elegant crimes of violence as being 'artistic'. 'Art' is too often passed off as purely subjective, and I don't subscribe. There are such things as quality and trash, regardless of the topic- and art is no exception. Accountability exists throughout.
To the OP:
I have been following an artist by the name of Chris Scalf for some time now. I really enjoy his work, but moreso what he stands for. In his blog, he wrote an article on 'humility' and I feel it has direct relation here when discussing 'new art' and 'what is art' and what isn't. Yes, in a way it's a shameless plug, but it really does show from a recognizable icon in the industry, that art truly does evolve.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc. We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be. So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away. - MMO_Doubter
Ultimately, Roger Ebert is a man who is starved for attention. His recent health issues have made him all but irrelevant as a movie critic, and he can only now speak with the aid of a computer, a la Stephen Hawkings, but for different reasons. Having been out of the limelight for so long, it seems he wanted to grab as much attention as possible, so he went after a market notorious for their outspoken opinions and the viral marketing that would ensue from his claim. This last month has been the most publicity he's gotten in years, and we just keep adding to it.
Ultimately, Roger Ebert is a man who is starved for attention. His recent health issues have made him all but irrelevant as a movie critic, and he can only now speak with the aid of a computer, a la Stephen Hawkings, but for different reasons. Having been out of the limelight for so long, it seems he wanted to grab as much attention as possible, so he went after a market notorious for their outspoken opinions and the viral marketing that would ensue from his claim. This last month has been the most publicity he's gotten in years, and we just keep adding to it.
I hate movie critics with a passion, they should try themselves to make a movie and se how difficult it can be.
I feel sorry for the old man if he has cancer.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
I hate movie critics with a passion, they should try themselves to make a movie and se how difficult it can be.
I feel sorry for the old man if he has cancer.
He did write a movie. At least one.
3 actually, but only one that was socially relevant and critically hailed, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". But, being culturally relevant in 1970 doesn't mean squat nowadays.
I hate movie critics with a passion, they should try themselves to make a movie and se how difficult it can be.
I feel sorry for the old man if he has cancer.
He did write a movie. At least one.
3 actually, but only one that was socially relevant and critically hailed, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". But, being culturally relevant in 1970 doesn't mean squat nowadays.
Pity Beethoven and Michelangelo, then.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Sorry but Ebert is a fucking idiot. So lets say Bob Ross paints some mountains a river and some happy little trees, thats called art right? But people that create a virtual world with all that shit it in is not considered art? I say if movies can be considered art then why not games. They are almost the same damn thing except in games you control the character instead of just watching.
I hate movie critics with a passion, they should try themselves to make a movie and se how difficult it can be.
I feel sorry for the old man if he has cancer.
He did write a movie. At least one.
3 actually, but only one that was socially relevant and critically hailed, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". But, being culturally relevant in 1970 doesn't mean squat nowadays.
Pity Beethoven and Michelangelo, then.
Difference being, Beethoven and Michelangelo had MANY works, which is added to their staying power. Writing one successful movie is akin to having a one hit wonder. I think a better comparison would be "Ebert is more like Flock of Seagulls". Comparing him to Beethoven, Michelangelo, Van Gogh or even Warhol is just kinda wrong.
I have played many games and I found much more art in one of them then in a gallery. A game can contain many forms of art, story, music, beautiful landscapes ect. This guy is old and clearly he didn't experience the same thing we do with today's games. He mentioned chess ffs.
Sorry but Ebert is a fucking idiot. So lets say Bob Ross paints some mountains a river and some happy little trees, thats called art right?
I'd call it a miracle.
But people that create a virtual world with all that shit it in is not considered art? I say if movies can be considered art then why not games. They are almost the same damn thing except in games you control the character instead of just watching.
I agree.
BTW, art doesn't just include visual media. Music is art. Poetry is art.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Anyone who is under the impression that video games can't be art just hasn't played AoC. Seriously, play it in high quality and check out some of the armour and scenery. It really is a work of art.
I pretty much got the vocal disagreements that I expected, but my knowledge of art and classifactory disputes is fairly limited and I put faith in what an actual art expert contends.
The follow up questions I'll pose though are:
Why is it so important that games are classified as art?
Does it really matter if games can't be classified as art?
Comments
Video-games can definetely be considered art aslong as it appeals to a persons emotions and senses (just as Wikipedia says).
Read more about my answer to it in my blog.
My gaming blog
You're confusing art with skill. Kicking ass is destructive, not creative.
Hmmm, so I guess blowing up a plane is not art, but writing hate speech on a wall is.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I'll wait for Brent's cheat sheet.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
You have to put into context what these so called 'experts' consider as "art"
I have a pile of bricks in my yard ... but i dont see any galleries rushing to offer me untold riches to display it ....
If you percieve art as "an object or image of beauty that inspires awe and/or wonder" then many games can be classed as art
FFXI is beautiful in it's representaion, as are many other games.
Given that a guy can shit in a can and put it on a perspex pillar and sell it as art, what's your point? That verbal trolling isn't art, but physical trolling is?
Give me liberty or give me lasers
I agree, it's really all a matter of perception. I'm very surprised someone of a movie critic like ebert would focus on the game part of video game especially when they involve 3D modeling, sound/music and writing/creating story lines. Really put this all together and what reallly separates a Disney/Pixar CGI movie from a video game aside that video games are more interactive. I reallly think Ebert shuold reconsider his stance given this perspective.
Everything that is expressing something can be considered to be art.
I believe that that game Flower is art because it expresses emotion.
And who cares what some old man thinks anyway?
They have always been against new things and new ideas.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
For something to be "art" is not a high standard. By one definition "art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." That's how poop in a jar can be art. Certainly a videogame is an arrangement of pixilated images intended to affect the senses and evoke emotions, so that should qualify.
The real question is, what is the quality of the art? Is it really something meaningful or does it just meet some basic definition?
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Games are art.
However, most companies tailor their games for the sake of business.
Just like what Hollywood does with most of it's series and movies that do well.
Or books that sell well.
As long as companies make games for the sake of making a good game, and not for the sake of generating as much revenue as possible, I consider them art. Very entertaining art.
I am shocked at the eloquence of some of the responses here - in particular the responses by Melmoth, Cowboyupinbl, and Dubhlaith. I was not surprised that your writing was well reasoned or well expressed, but I was surprised that you fell for Eberts obvious troll. Ebert is a notorious blog troll and should not be fed.
"Never met a pack of humans that were any different. Look at the idiots that get elected every couple of years. You really consider those guys more mature than us? The only difference between us and them is, when they gank some noobs and take their stuff, the noobs actually die." - Madimorga
I call BS.
Video games are an emergent art form and they WERE art from Space War onwards.
Interactivity has nothing to do with it. A lot of art forms experimented with audience participation and no one dared denied those works the designation of "art".
In addition I consider even board game rules as an art form, completely divorced from their physical component.
as wikipedia states "Art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions." - as a working artist I completely agree with this definition. Ebert goes on to comment "This is an intriguing definition, although as a chess player I might argue that my game fits the definition." So you could, Ebert and quite succesfully. Chess rules are definitely "elements arranged in a way to appeal to senses and emotions". Imo Chess, as a game, is one of humanity's great works of art. If you change elements of a game's ruleset then you directly change its appeal to "senses and emotions" - fiddle with the rules of an existing board game and you can change the way players behave during the game, their prevalent emotions while they play, their sense of aesthetic fulfilment.. (yes, even aesthetics - experienced chess and go players know the aesthetic pleasure you can get from a game that is beautifully played)
If a classical musical score can be considered "art" - even if it is always interpreted by someone other than its creator, then games rulesets must be considered art as well. If you deny game designers the status of "artist" then you would have to do the same to composers, architects and script-writers, just to name a few.
as for his main argument "not art because they can be won" - it is laughable. It is like saying that narative art is not art because it "ends" and we know that art never ends, like in visual arts, right? The argument is completely arbitrary - I'll write my own farty blog where I'll argue that music isn't art because I can't see it or that poetry isn't art because it's "just a bunch of words everyone can write". It's just a nonsense arbitrary argument.
And btw who can "win"? The players? No one ever argued that the players are artists - they are particpant audience. I don't see how the game designers "win" anything. It's just plain BS trolling.
Not to mention that even PLAYERS can sometimes be considered artists - for example in competetive sports. "arranging elements in a way that appeals to senses and emotions." They use the medium of a game as a way of artistic expression - just like a great artist violinist uses the musical score by another great artist. Anyone who watched Maradona or Pele play in their heydays would have to say that there definitely was a Muse in attendance somewhere.
(soz for my english, not a native here)
Personal quip:
I personally try to remain as objective as possible, while trying to find the most general equation that meets the most stringent of criteria.
I personally define art as an inclusive merger between two concepts:
- The creator puts all of themselves into the product. That it speaks to the creator's abilities. That the creation does not impose itself.
- The consumer fully appreciates the product. That it speaks to the consumer's body/mind/soul.
And that the merger of these two concepts is of a positive result for all parties involved.
I don't subscribe to 'artists' who autograph toilet bowls and sell them off as 'art'. I don't subscribe to murders who design elegant crimes of violence as being 'artistic'. 'Art' is too often passed off as purely subjective, and I don't subscribe. There are such things as quality and trash, regardless of the topic- and art is no exception. Accountability exists throughout.
To the OP:
I have been following an artist by the name of Chris Scalf for some time now. I really enjoy his work, but moreso what he stands for. In his blog, he wrote an article on 'humility' and I feel it has direct relation here when discussing 'new art' and 'what is art' and what isn't. Yes, in a way it's a shameless plug, but it really does show from a recognizable icon in the industry, that art truly does evolve.
That is exactly right, and we're not saying NO to save WoW, because it is already a lost cause. We are saying NO to dissuade the next group of greedy suits who decide to emulate Blizzard and Cryptic, etc.
We can prevent some of the future games from spewing this crap, but the sooner we start saying no, the better the results will be.
So - Stand up, pull up your pants, and walk away.
- MMO_Doubter
Ultimately, Roger Ebert is a man who is starved for attention. His recent health issues have made him all but irrelevant as a movie critic, and he can only now speak with the aid of a computer, a la Stephen Hawkings, but for different reasons. Having been out of the limelight for so long, it seems he wanted to grab as much attention as possible, so he went after a market notorious for their outspoken opinions and the viral marketing that would ensue from his claim. This last month has been the most publicity he's gotten in years, and we just keep adding to it.
I hate movie critics with a passion, they should try themselves to make a movie and se how difficult it can be.
I feel sorry for the old man if he has cancer.
All those memories will be lost in time, like tears in the rain.
I think games that are done right is art, a lot of concept art for many big games is art, even WoW has much good concept art.
He did write a movie. At least one.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
3 actually, but only one that was socially relevant and critically hailed, "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls". But, being culturally relevant in 1970 doesn't mean squat nowadays.
Art as well as beauty are in the eye of the beholder. The guy may have a mmorpg screensaver, and not even realize it.
Pity Beethoven and Michelangelo, then.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Sorry but Ebert is a fucking idiot. So lets say Bob Ross paints some mountains a river and some happy little trees, thats called art right? But people that create a virtual world with all that shit it in is not considered art? I say if movies can be considered art then why not games. They are almost the same damn thing except in games you control the character instead of just watching.
Difference being, Beethoven and Michelangelo had MANY works, which is added to their staying power. Writing one successful movie is akin to having a one hit wonder. I think a better comparison would be "Ebert is more like Flock of Seagulls". Comparing him to Beethoven, Michelangelo, Van Gogh or even Warhol is just kinda wrong.
I have played many games and I found much more art in one of them then in a gallery. A game can contain many forms of art, story, music, beautiful landscapes ect. This guy is old and clearly he didn't experience the same thing we do with today's games. He mentioned chess ffs.
I agree.
BTW, art doesn't just include visual media. Music is art. Poetry is art.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Anyone who is under the impression that video games can't be art just hasn't played AoC. Seriously, play it in high quality and check out some of the armour and scenery. It really is a work of art.
I pretty much got the vocal disagreements that I expected, but my knowledge of art and classifactory disputes is fairly limited and I put faith in what an actual art expert contends.
The follow up questions I'll pose though are:
Why is it so important that games are classified as art?
Does it really matter if games can't be classified as art?