Yes.
Printable View
Yes.
Wow, this has turned into a nice discussion with alot of good comments. :)
I feel I should elaborate, since the article actually states Ebert's reasoning. Though I feel many of you have actually touched upon why this statement is changing (even though you probably didn't realize it;) )
Ebert's main point is that art cannot be malleable or changing. Once the product is finished, it can never change. So basically, he's hitting it with a technicality since the very interactive nature of gaming prevents it from being consistant. Basically, no matter how amny time you read a book, watch a movie, witness a play, or listen to music; the four art forms never change. In a videogame, it's always slightly different when you play through it. The fact that you can fail and end the game prematurely becomes a factor.
Personally, I feel the medium of art is constantly changing and being redefined so I feel his definition will become obsolete in a few years;)
I think yes because dosen't it envolve art to make the characters and everything.
Is that a question or a statement?
He's never seen a moving sculpture, I take it? They change all the time. the animal shapes carved from living bushes still grow.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
It gets infuriating when all the 'grown-ups' around keep telling you that video games are just a stage and that I'll grow out of it. I didn't see them grow out of movies or books, though...
Anyway. Are video games art? I define art a bit diferently than other people around here. Artists create art under the influence of certain feelings. Through art, they want to show the world a piece of themselves. What I mean is that not all that glitters is gold. A picture can be beautifully done, appear real an so on, but that doesn't necessarily make it art. Sometimes a, I dunno, toilet seat, can express more. See, being somewhat an artist myself, I think that artists don't think about money. It's about something different. See, I dunno how, i.g. Kill Bill can be art (unless Tarantino wanted to show the world what bloody visions lay on the bottom of his soul). Not every piece of music is art, same as not every sculpture, painting or music is art. IMO, some videogames can be considered art. It actually depends on whether it's just 'cool' or whether it carries some more complex emotional sensations.
Like most things in life, the concept of Art is subjective. What they consider Art down the Tate Modern for example I would call rubbish. On the other hand I would call the works of Fumito Ueda Art. Take for example film. The likes of Schindler's List or Apocalypse Now or The Godfather can be considered Art. American Pie: The Roadtrip or Biker Bikini Bandits From Space probably won't be. In that sense for every Ico there's a Monster Truck Rally Four. For every 2001: A Spacy Odeyssey's there a Rob Sneider film. For every Van Gough there's someone's unmade bed. I think it's a bit critical to say games can never be Art because the very defintion of Art itself is very much open to interpretation. To my mind saying games can never be an artform is essentially demoting it to an intellectual level of beating rocks on the floor or snapping branches in half.
It's an Art. You express your feelings through playing the game. If your feel crappy then you play like dung. If you're on an high, then you play fantastically.
True art is what's created without hunger for money; so any game that's been produced out of pure passion can be considered art.
Art does not require any specific motivations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter_20
Mm, but thats really playing a game as an art, rather than the whole game itself untouched being an art.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazzard
Brilliant Thread.
And the answer is - there is no universal answer. Yes, I absolute believe some video games to be art. Especially the franchise of this forum - Final Fantasy. Movies, music, and stories are all considered "art", yes? So why wouldn't a medium that combines all of these elements into a greater experience be considered art?
At the same time, not all games are art, and I also believe that not all movies and music is art either. Alot of it is trash, and is more of a science than an art. Especially when you look at the music/movie industry today, their entire process of creating their products. It's more like drug companies who combine certain elements to have a certain desired effect, and a certain desired commercial response from the market. Same with games.
If you read/view some Sakaguchi interviews you'll see what i'm talking about.
He's a fossil. Someone said the same about his beloved movies, 80+ years ago :pQuote:
Originally Posted by LunarWeaver
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maxico
IMHO, creative things done with care and aiming for perfection are art, no matter what medium
A technicality if I ever saw one. I think he is a fossil that has not realized art is constantly evolving with it's creators, we the artists and art fans.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
We all pretty much agree though it's due mostly to our bias opinion really (to be fair, you don't ask a question like this in a video gaming forum) So here's something to think about then.
Are video games an art unto themselves or can one seriously compare games like Ico, the Final Fantasy series, and Zelda to the likes of artistic creations like the Mona Lisa, Mozart's Requiem, and Casablanca? Why or Why Not? Also, should it even be fair to compare art from different mediums?
No,you can't compare them not because they are 2 different mediums but because they belong in completely different periods of history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
It's like trying to compare a 500 b.c. Spartan warrior with a contemporary soldier.It's impossible.
To fully understand and appreciate something,you must be aware of the time period it was produced.