The Epic Ebert Videogame Debate 169
Via Kotaku, a column at Ebert.com going into some depth on the are-games-actually-art debate. Ebert engaged in a public debate on the subject at last week's Conference on World Affairs. From the article: "Going in to the videogame panel, I'd been hoping the audience (mostly students) would be fired up about the subject and challenge the panelists, but they were unfortunately pretty passive. Maybe they were intimidated by the rather formal (for Boulder) theater setting, I don't know. Ebert began by explaining why he felt a game (particularly the shoot-shoot, point-scoring kind) was not an experience equivalent to that of reading a great novel like, say, 'The Great Gatsby,' because games don't delve very deeply into what it means to be human."
Epic Ebert (Score:3, Funny)
What the fuck? (Score:5, Interesting)
Going by that definition, videogames are MORE APTLY called art than a photograph, painting, sculpture, or anything else considered art by the mainstream. If you consider that a videogame combines the elements of sounds, colors, forms, movements, AND other elements for the production of the beautiful in a graphic medium, it seems logically sound to count at least some as art.
Of course all videogames aren't art. It's the same concept behind not considering a headshot art, or some jackass banging his hands on a piano as art.
This debate is asinine.
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2, Funny)
If you'd seen some of the headshots I've seen, you'd take that back.
Once upon a time... (Score:3, Insightful)
Along came a man - a musician, some would say - named Elvis. His music was generally modified from the tunes of slaves. And oh was there ever an uproar. Roger Ebert, Sr.: "That certainly
Re:Once upon a time... (Score:2)
Art is what grabs people, and illicits a (usually emotional) reaction, or at least burns itself into memory - or at least tries it's very best to do so. Most "art" is merely an imitation of greater works, inferior but attempting to achieve at least a small part of the older work accomplished. Usually you end up with something easily forgotten, and sometimes you end up with something either nearly equal, or vastly superior in a different aspect.
Most games are exactly
Re:What the fuck? (Score:5, Insightful)
There really should be a latin term for "arguing by looking through the dictionary for a definition that supports your side."
Generally speaking, we can divide any piece of entertainment into one of three groups: Art, Game, and Spectacle. Most of what we do is Game, and most of what we "don't do" (because we watch or listen or read or whatever) is Spectacle. Historically, only a relatively small area of Spectacle could be considered Art--something that goes beyond merely entertaining us, to actually touching on something fundamental in the common nature of the artist and the audience.
Video Games are interesting because, from time to time, they jump from being Game to being Art. Since at least the NES days Video Games have included Spectacle (cut-scenes and ending sequences), and occasionally this Spectacle jumps to the level of Art. Now, anyone could reason that out with a high school understanding of statistics, but the reason why video games are interesting isn't that their adjacent Spectacle becomes Art--it's because the game itself borders on and occasionally crosses over into Art.
This is what Ebert apparantly doesn't get. Sometimes, Video Games are art even without Spectacle. Myst is a good example of this--it's certainly game with only minor spectacle, but the game itself is executed in a way gripping enough to make us think.
If you're inclined to argue with Ebert's ilk about this, I would advice putting down the dictionary and going [back] to a College English Department. The argument for Video Games as art is easy enough to make, especailly if you can address the "game pieces as art" complaint and make a solid case for some other forms of "interactive art."
Re:What the fuck? (Score:3, Interesting)
Will Argvmentvm Ab Definitie work for you?
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
We're talkning about the noun "game" here, as in a specific package designed to elicit response. This can mean a video game, a board game, or just a standalone ruleset. "Tag" and "Hide and Seek" are games. All sports are games. Chess is a game.
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
Though I don't get into the Final Fantasy titles myself, I've heard other say a particular one had made them cry. That has the potential to be art. If a video game were to elicit the electricity of your first kiss, then that would be art. If a video game were to remind you of the shame of rejection or the despair of losing a loved one, that
Re:Not that you don't sound good, but... (Score:3, Funny)
And while we're at it, someone should make a latin phrase for "relying on latin phrases to sound authoritative in arguments"
-stormin
Re:What the fuck? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just right now I see the art in the things on my desk, not the least of which is the desk itself. The clothes people wear, the font used on a car's speedometer, the color of the vinyl wrapping on a cable, the Galois-field math of CDMA, the shape of the can of soda, the selection of grain on a wooden counter, the sounds of a keyboard click... some guy spent a long time figuring out the beauty of each one of those things.
Really, ever
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
Re:What the fuck? (Score:3, Insightful)
Then why are cave paintings considered art ? After all, they were meant for a practical purpose - ensuring good
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
Actually, without first defining art it is impossible to say if "verything" or "nothing" is the most inaccurate definition possible :).
After all, it is possible that
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
I think you don't realize that creating something *is* expressing an idea. Someone had an idea for a bolt, and they made it. Just because it's practical and useful and there are billions of them doesn't mean that it isn't an idea that has been made manifest. Art may be beautiful, but it
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
Then by that logic, a urinal is not a piece of art either [wikipedia.org].
Give it up. It's all art, but most of it is bad art.
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2, Interesting)
So does a cartoon. So does a movie. I can guarantee you that most of the first and a woeful number of the second don't qualify as a
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
Not to be a grammar Nazi, but you hit one that's a pet peeve for me.
Not all video games are art, would be better.
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
Ahh, school.
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
Re:What the fuck? (Score:2)
Because we're being imprecise with our terminology.
Of course anything made is the product of some kind of art. What he is talking about is Fine Art:
Re:What the fuck? (Score:3, Interesting)
It has colors, movents, forms, and arguably sounds (as I have yet to play an overlapping round of 'the silent game' with my niece while playing). I would certainly call it entertaining (especially if the power is out) but I would never assume it is art. Video games are hard to charachterize because they imbue both the qualities of a game and that of television.
The core of this debate revolves around what is indeed art. For me, most modern
Dealing with the Humans (Score:5, Insightful)
So Max Payne didn't delve into how people manage (or fail to manage) grief? And Deus Ex didn't force you to face the moral out come of your actions?
There are plenty of games out there that deal directly and indirectly with human emotions, ethics and morals. IMO, that is dealing with what it means to be human.
Re:Dealing with the Humans (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Dealing with the Humans (Score:2)
See, everybody? THIS is why all the smart kids out of assassin school sign up with the Morag Tong. You can be sure of steady advancement in a safe and secure environment, in which the only people who need to get killed are those who have
Re:Dealing with the Humans (Score:2)
Max Payne delved deep into cliche. Deep, deep, deep, deep, deep into cliche. So deep, I actually started to seriously admire it after i became too numb to cringe any longer.
(Deux Ex, an exceptional game in so many ways, was an anomaly which I am told the publishers largely "corrected" in the sequel... I never bothered with the sequel myself, for fear of becoming totally disillusioned with it. I have to cling to the rare video
Re:Dealing with the Humans (Score:2)
This is a complete non-story. I like Ebert and I respect his opinion of movies, but he's not qualified to judge video games and thus anything he says abou
Re:Dealing with the Humans (Score:2)
Okay...what about interactive fiction? Those are games, but generally the 'gameplay' is abso
Okay (Score:5, Insightful)
That's nice and all, but there are plenty of books that fail to delve very deeply into what it means to be human. Maybe not every game is art, but you cannot say all games AREN'T art.
Re:Okay (Score:2)
Re:Okay (Score:2)
A list of games that are art (Score:3, Informative)
Dada: Stagnation in Blue [diygames.com]
Cloud [thatcloudgame.com]
Katamari Damacy [namco.com]
Facade [interactivestory.net]
Flow [jenovachen.com]
Orisinal [orisinal.com]
Re:A list of games that are art (Score:2)
Genre vs Medium (Score:2)
http://www.mindspring.com/~emshort/galatea.htm [mindspring.com]
In any case, it's absurd to suggest that adding even the tiniest bit of interactivity or fun removes all artfulness. In any case, Ebert's complaints are not issues of medium, but of genre. Games are only not art because they aren't trying hard enough.
Re:A list of games that are art (Score:2)
This is silly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Games are art. Odds are, if there's a serious discussion about whether something is art or not, it's art. It might not be some sort of highbrow art, or pure art, or even particularly good art, but it's art nonetheless.
Most games aren't very good artwork. Even your average "good" game isn't all that great art-wise--perhaps on par with advertising art.
This reminds me of the heated debates over whether rap was music or not. Now it's fully accepted as a form of music. I think the problem is that rap was a new form of music and there were people who couldn't grasp the idea that the current state of music is not to be taken as the totality of what can be music. The same here with art. Video games have expanded the categories of art. Now art is what art was before games, plus games. Just like music is now what music was before rap, plus rap.
Now, if he were to argue that, in the context of art, video games aren't particularly great (although a few are quite good), he'd have a better point. Just like rap isn't really, compared to other forms of music, all that great artfully speaking, even if it is highly entertaining.
Re:This is silly... (Score:2)
I must admit that when I think of this game, I turn into a sniveling fanboy. It had everything that I require from a good book: characterization, engaging dialogue, great plot and subtle themes that really do concern the human condition.
It also had the element
N/A (Score:4, Insightful)
Movies (Score:3, Insightful)
As regards FPS's... (Score:5, Insightful)
And, let's face it, from the first Pong console, we all called it "playing a game", not "watching a (interactive) movie". We all used the word "playing" 'cause that's exactly what we knew were doing.
Where's the controversy here??
Re:As regards FPS's... (Score:2)
Kendo is often called an "art". And that's just a bunch of grown men screaming and hitting each other in the head with sticks. But let's not confuse medium with art here. There's nothing artistic about looking at a painting. Likewise, there need not be anything artistic about playing a game. What's in question here is whether or not t
Re:As regards FPS's... (Score:2)
Re:As regards FPS's... (Score:3, Insightful)
But does the med
Re:As regards FPS's... (Score:2, Interesting)
Also consider that some artists definitely look for more 'interactive' media - some sculptures come to mind, and I seem to recall that there have been stage plays where the audience is asked to
Re:As regards FPS's... (Score:2)
I think this hypothesis is wrong simply because the act of interacting with the object is not art. The object's artistic nature itself is what is in question. I'd go so far as to say that in the examples you listed, that the objects the games are played with, they could be debated as to whether they were pieces of art. But thats not the arg
Re:As regards FPS's... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:As regards FPS's... (Score:2)
Just so. Map, meet territory. The art is the Mona Lisa, not sitting smiling with hands folded.
Re:As regards FPS's... (Score:2)
When you talk about the Mona Lisa you can talk about the materials that make up the physical object or the processes that went into building that physical object, but that's not really an artistic discussion. You can only meaningfully discuss the Mona Lisa as art if you talk about what it looks like, which necessarily involves the act of viewing it.
Re:As regards FPS's... (Score:2)
Wrong argument (Score:2)
The argument is about whether games are art, not whether playing games is art.
Re:Art vs. sport (Score:2)
Uh.... nooo, dontinkzo... :)
Re:Art vs. sport (Score:2)
That actually sounds a whole lot more creative and expressive than flipping the pages of the greatest novel ever written. Or staring at the greatest sculpture ever made.
Re:Art vs. sport (Score:2)
Re:Art vs. sport (Score:2)
Re:Art vs. sport (Score:2)
it doesnt matter if you paint the stadium with pellets, beer and hotdog wrappers, or the blood of non-believers the creation is the art, the activity is the sport.
now I could take the analogy back toward's ebert's: the game world could be construed as 'art', but the interaction with it is the 'game' (or sport).
I thought they already decided this... (Score:2, Interesting)
Epic Ebert Videogame (Score:3, Funny)
Let's face it, Ebert is epic enough as it is.
I hate these debates. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are videogames "art"? To answer that, define "art". Once you do, you are almost certainly done.
We're getting this second hand, but Ebert offers up a definition to the effect of "art is something that deeply explores what it means to be human". By that definiton, I completely agree that truly artistic video games are rare. Even the examples I can think of that meet that definition are pretty thin on that front.
The reason I think it's important to remember we're in a definition debate is because there is an overwhelming temptation that most people experience to detach from the definition and start fighting as if the definition is obvious to everyone and the real question is whether the definition applies. Resist that, because it's backwards. If you clearly state a definition, it will be (relatively speaking) quite clear whether video games are art, are not art, or whether perhaps some are art.
At this point, you tend to realize that while it's interesting to compare and contrast the value of various definitions, you're not going to find The Definition Of Art. Therefore, you're not going to find The Answer. You should know going into the debate that you're not going to settle anything. You can't.
I enjoy this sort of thing in moderation if done with people who understand what's going on, but the people furiously arguing backwards tend to drown out the conversation pretty quickly, in my experience.
Re:I hate these debates. (Score:2)
That idiot called (Mr. Eber) should play like Ico.
If a game moves me to emotion, then it is art!
Re:I hate these debates. (Score:2, Insightful)
Just my 2 as a musician and visual artist of 10+ years.
Re:I hate these debates. (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole conversation is quite pointless.
A much more useful conversation -- can we enjoy games as deeply as we enjoy other kinds of art?
I wrote a paper in college [deadhobosociety.com] arguing yes. Long story short: vid
Mr Ebert - you are right. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sera
Re:Mr Ebert - you are right. (Score:2)
Has CK's copyright expired ? Could one make an action-oriented refilming of it ? "BFG..." Or simply have Kane rise from his grave as a brain-eating zombie and have an investigating reporter go after him with a chainsaw.
Yes, let's make Citizen Kane 2 as a splatter horror movie !
For that matter, you could simply add a sledlauncher to Doom3, that would make it CK.
Re:Mr Ebert - you are right. (Score:2)
I'd say they're about on par in terms of incorporating shadow into the mood and cinematography.
I am not artistic (Score:5, Insightful)
Some stuff I could get. Regular mainstream art like paintings or sculptures even if made out of trash. I am not a complete idiot and did not need to be told wich was the sculpture and wich the trashheap.
But performance art was too confusing. The only difference between performance art and a mental case on the street seemed to be location. Some "artist" would "perform" for an amazing amount of time and apparently it was all very meaningfull. When you are holding a heavy camera usually you don't think much about what you are actually filming since you are busy with your own work. But when the performer freezes or just twists a single limb for minutes on end you can't help but wonder what the fuck it is all about.
The most amazing thing is that these people all think it is extremely important what they are doing. Considering their efforts as worthy as hospitals. After all they want the same tax money to support them that could also be used to research cancer.
Not that I really mind. It keeps them off the street. Sure a less liberal goverment would force them to get a real day job but would you really want one them to be your co-worker? Jails for the criminals, mental hospitals for the insane and art centers for the totally useless.
I say it harsh but nonetheless that is how most people view "art". Useless crap that cost a lot of taxpayers money but does nothing.
Do we really want games to be like that?
It reminds me off a Yes Minister episode in wich the questions arises why opera (wich the masses do not want) receives subsidy but soccer (wich the masses do want) does not.
Games are not art. In the same way movies and indeed books are not. If it is popular and people freely spend their own money on it then it can't be art. Art does NOT sell.
Most REAL artists would agree. If you look at nearly all the great works of arts you would learn that all of them were commercial projects paid in advance. "De nachtwacht" by rembrandt. The "Mona Lisa" by Da Vinci. Great works of art yet made for no other reason then the money.
Perhaps there are two kinds of art. The artsy arts that survive only thanks to goverment subsidies that nobody gives a shit about and the kind that actually sells and can sustain it self. Offcourse that is not "real" art in the eyes of the first group but frankly I don't think that is bad at all.
Think of it like this. Do you know what local delicacy means? It means nobody else in the world wants to eat it. If a game truly became art would anyone really want to play it?
Re:I am not artistic (Score:2)
And indeed, Ebert is a master of deconstructing film. He makes a zillion observations every minute of every film. When it comes to interp
This is getting old... (Score:2, Interesting)
He's asking us to make it true, not being a snob (Score:2)
Okay. Let's take you at your word.
You say if you "make something and say it's art" that counts. Does the game industry actually send out this message? Does it, in any significant way, make claims about its work being art? That's not the message I'm getting as a member of the
So only certain human experiences are art? (Score:2)
Games excel at engaging three aspects of the human mind:
* Creativity -- Given a toolset and a receptive environment, a game player is encouraged to express themselves in new ways. (See: The Sims, A Tale in t
Re:So only certain human experiences are art? (Score:2)
I am not saying videogames cannot be art, but your definition is lacking.
Re:So only certain human experiences are art? (Score:2)
Table Tennis is a good example of a reflex-oriented game. Figure Skating takes a good amount of creativity (and reflex, and some logic). It's hard to find examples that don't have a combination of all three.
I suppose most sports require a certain amount of athletics. But then again, Dance Dance Revolution does, and Golf doesn't.
Re:So only certain human experiences are art? (Score:2)
What it means to be Human in a Game? (Score:2, Funny)
Oh, and Common.
Re:What it means to be Human in a Game? (Score:2)
I find that's overly generous - most games just have humans as completely average with no bonuses or penalties.
Godawful Gatsby (Score:2, Interesting)
I found the book shallow, devoid of interesting narration, and too pigeon-holed towards a narrow economic class in one particular decade. Timeless it is not.
Code (Score:2)
Having played many games with artistic value through my life time, arguing that games are not art seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I know I'm prejudiced, but I can't take an
art (Score:2)
Definition of Art (Score:2)
And to be honest shouldn't we make up our minds? Is it art or a sport? Can't really have it both ways. So by the Cyber-Athletes' leagues definitions it wouldn't be art either would it?
Re:Definition of Art (Score:2)
What about rhythmic gymnastics? Is it art or is it sport? Is it both?
Ditto for figure skating, ballet, etc.
Making game engines feels like art-making. (Score:2, Interesting)
More on that... I use my 3d engine to explore artisting ideas. How to make snow that feel snow?,.. What look to get that feel?, and others.
As I work on other business, and my mind is free, I let my sould explore the in and outs of some 3d engine design ideas. And this feel exactly li
Does it even matter? (Score:2)
I think there is a group of people that want games to be art so that it affords them protection from censorship. There is another group of people that want games to be a professional sporting thing so that it affords legitimization from another angle, but there are some conceptual difficulties reconciling those two things.
My opinion is that art is too limited a concept to be applied
Tetris (Score:2)
I'm not talking about any particular implementation of the game; it's the very concept that is just completely impossible in the real world. The type of thinking it invokes could not have been possible in any other wya than through a video game.
Surely something that manages that must be considered art?
p.s. Rembrandt, Michelangelo and Da Vinci weren't considered "art" when they lived; it was just a profession for which they were paid hourly wages. Surely it was
Re:Tetris (Score:2)
More or less, I have strong tetris feelings when I'm reorganising shelf space in the mixed cups and glasses cupboard: I'm at the top, providing the mismatched pieces, and I push them down, turn them, and try to make them fit as snugly as possible.
Re:Tetris (Score:2)
I agree partially (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree with him for most games (99% or so), but there are some notable exceptions. Planescape:Torment for instance, that whole game is centered around questions such as "Can anything change the nature of a man? Would you REALLY want to be immortal? What is a valid philosophy of life (Dustmen, Godsmen, Sensates)?"
When I was asked the question "What can change the nature of a man?", with along list of possible answers such as "love, death, faith, regret, nothing", I froze. I had to go for a long walk before I could answer that question.
That if anything goes deeply into what it means to be a human, and it did it in ways few other media or artform could.
Some other games that, while maybe not asking such big questions about life, have touched me emotionally:
Final Fantasy 7
Grim Fandango
Longest Journey
Fallout
Knights of the Old Republic 2 (would have been even better without the butchered ending(s)) [team-gizka.org].
Re:I agree partially (Score:2)
By this rationale almost any video game can be called art. Would Pac Man really want to be immortal? What can he do besides eat and run? What would he do in the maze after he'd eaten all the ghosts and dots?
Re:I agree partially (Score:2)
I think the difference is that in Planescape you actually live through the consequences of immortality as a human being and discuss the moral choices with other sentinent beings. Although this is all in a fantasy setting, so there is some suspension of disbelieve required.
You would have some difficulties forming emotional attatchments to Pacman and grieve for his death, but
Re:I agree partially (Score:2)
Re:I agree partially (Score:2)
Ebert's defenition, at least for meaningful art, seemed to be that it brought up issues of the human condition. I believe Planescape:Torment is a good example of this. Pac Man is not. Call me literary minded, but for me conversations is an important part of this. I haven't played it, but appearently some people find ICO a very touching game
Re:I agree partially (Score:2)
Does this devotion, spoken or otherwise, have to be between 2 people? Can't it be between a man and his purpose? Rez, a kaleidoscopic rail shooter, is about as artsy as they come, but there's no dialog except for in a hidden level. Geometry Wars is visually stunning and exciting but it portrays no purpose other than to survive. Even The Sims can feature
Try harder Ebert - use thinking next time (Score:4, Insightful)
Computer games are very much a potential basis for artistic expression, and are often used that way. Whether this be through music, sound, visuals, or their combinations, artistic expression unarguably exists there.
Mods and movies made using games, such as Red vs Blue also fall into the 'art' category. People have been expressing themselves artistically through this medium for so long now we barely consciously register it.
It takes moronic comments like Ebert's to remind us that games today are as foreign a country today as film was to theatre goers in 1908.
His comments are rather like saying film has no basis in art, using "Dumb and Dumber" as your sole basis for that argument.
Quoi? (Score:2)
However, if anyone decided that our blessed videogames are not art, gad- get the torches and pitchforks. I think the distinction need
But is it art? (Score:3, Insightful)
Eh, I read a paperback novel and it wasn't art, therefore books aren't art.
I saw "Home Alone 2" and it wasn't art, therefore films aren't art.
I watched "Extreme makeover home edition" and it wasn't art, therefore TV programs can't be art.
Slashdotters reply with variations on "what about the $EMOTION in $FAVOURITE_GAME". Correct but predictable.
Rude (Score:2)
Games are Art (Score:2)
Unlike movies or books, games are interactive and the player's experience is caused by their actions. Many modern games try to combine this with a cinema-like experience, but don't be fooled: if the story was more important than the interactivity, the medium wou
Games AS Art vs. Games CONTAINING Art (Score:3, Insightful)
I think that most of us can at least point to at least a few games and draw parallels to other works traditionally recognized as being "art". I've heard examples such as FF7s "death of Aris" evoking similar emotional responses to parts of other traditionally dramatic narratives, Oblivion exploring the human condition, Max Payne exploring what it means to be human, Myst retains a similar high level of visual artistry to most traditional paintings... the list goes on.
The question I pose is that 95% of the examples given by Slashdot posters are examples of games that CONTAIN art, not games that ARE art. This is because a lot of the rudimentary definitions of art contain specific criteria to be met by individual mediums. I have heard the arguement that a game has art, but if you took away all the cut scenes from that RPG, it would scene to contain art. I have two problems with that... for one, you've just defined art out of games, as cut scenes are movies, not games. In a cut scene, all gameplay stops, more often than not, the player puts down the controller, and watches events unfold on the screen for a couple of minutes, this is not a game, this is a movie. Now, I love cut scenes, and I love movies, but if you require cut scenes in a game in order to qualify as "art", you've just defined art out of the GAME altogether.
Even before we need to define "what is art", we must, then, ask "what is a game?" Many games are an extension of traditional narrative forms. RPGs are mostly a combination of cinema and literature, with an interactive element thrown into the mix. Myst could be considered a series of paintings, all of which may exude the same criteria as those in an art gallery. Is Myst, then, in its artistic definition, no more than a simple art gallery? What about if we were to remove all of these elements? If Myst was played as a text based adventure, could we begin to look at its puzzle elements as having artistic qualities? The real meat of the definition of gaming is in the process of which the player progresses through the game world. IE: Myst could be a game without the imagery, but it would simply be a gallery without its interactive puzzle elements.
The problem is, from a medium standpoint, no game explores any medium that isn't already included in the definition of another art form: still visuals, moving picturess, music, literature, even skulpture are all represented in games, yet you can break almost any game into a collection of these pre-defined elements. The only constant that breaks the mould is interactivity. Is interactivity, in of itself, then, a separate medium? (let is keep in mind that games are not the only interactive form out there) Can it in itself contain artistic qualities?
These are the REAL questions we should be restling with... not whether FF7s cutscenes are good enough to qualify as "high art" or "good art". Most of the statements I've heard are entirely subjective in nature, and betray the writer's opinion of the work at hand. Art should be more than that, is possible to dislike a work of art while still realizing that it is, in fact, artistic. One must come to terms with the fact that a harliquin dime novel fits the definition of art as much as a Shakesperian tragedy, although its quality and value may be up for speculation. Let's not get sidetracked by these personal value judgements if we are to truly define the artistic elements of a medium.
Re:Agree with Ebert... almost. (Score:3, Informative)
Ico
Loom
Monkey Island
Ultima 7
Tetris
Star Control II
Grim Fandango
System Shock
Re:Agree with Ebert... almost. (Score:2)
I have one question: Is this art? [gallery.ca] If so, why are three simple striped considered art while the narrative properties of video games are considered substandard?
Under the definition of provoking genuine critical thought, most pieces of art would be treated as "fake art". Cubism [wikipedia.org], for one, doesn't promote cr