?

Log in

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Can games be art?

Roger Ebert - Video games can never be art

I'm going to agree with Ebert. I think games can be artistic, but I don't think they can be art.

Comments

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
soranokumo
Apr. 18th, 2010 03:55 pm (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree, here. Games can be artistic, and they can be art. Unfortunately, Santiago's presentation, I feel, didn't draw on the best examples. There were a number of problems with her presentation. Faced with that, Ebert wouldn't have been convinced to change his standpoint (and I don't know if he ever could be convinced, but hey).

My basic belief is that any type of media can produce art. I understand that part of what Ebert is saying is that we don't have any games that are like art now, and we won't within any current video gamers' lifetimes, but technology progresses far too quickly, and the media has evolved amazingly over the past few decades. It should be amazing to see where it goes from here.

Part of the problem is that "art" is entirely dependent on one's definition, and every person defines (or "knows") art differently. Even so, that Ebert's definition of art would somehow exclude games, strikes me as a very sad thing. He's ruling out an entire genre of media because it doesn't fit, to him.

Still, he's entitled to his opinion (boy howdy), and welcome to it... but I'm going to respectfully disagree.
death_by_wasabi
Apr. 19th, 2010 12:42 am (UTC)
Is the storytelling component considered seperate? I guess it would be. I think I'm going to have to agree with Ebert, for now. However, I'm not terribly artistic, and I don't really read a book or watch a movie and think "wow, that was great ART". I am having trouble defining art for myself so I don't entirely know where I stand.

I do agree that those were not the best examples. My question is how interactive can it be before it's not considered art?
( 2 comments — Leave a comment )