Where it all started. Ebert's blog.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

IGN's rebuttal. Excellent read.

http://pc.ign.com/articles/108/1084661p2.html

That was a great read. I was actually interested the entire time. which is saying something for me. Online stuff, it's hard for me to stay interested while reading it.

i shall begin by defining art.....

oh, wait. art defies definition. **** smears of the crucifixion.....that's art, i suppose.

painting your *** and rolling on a canvas naked.....that's art.

standing naked in a doorway, that's art.....

every ******* bullshit movie and play and poem and story ever is art.......

but a video game? all the talent of a hollywood blockbuster, the graphical genius of god knows what.....the immersion of actually BEING the character.....literally designing, building, and fleshing out of locations that do not exist as opposed to simply hitting record on some hill somewhere?

nah, games ain't art.

Well said, MajorWhiteBoy. Art has such a vacuous definition. They'll call freaking anything art. Like this picture that looks like three pieces of construction paper put together:

Or this random pixel looking thing that looks like it was made with MS Paint:

I really don't get how people come up with deep definitions and meanings from the arbitrary juxtapositioning of objects, either. By some definitions, basically everything is art. *facepalm*

Look at how many varying definitions come up for the word lol: http://dictionary.re....com/browse/art

Call me a philistine, but I say art has to at least be something that appears to have some thought and effort put into it (like video games), not random paint splatters or shapes.

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/704081/Sesslers-Soapbox-Adam-vs-Ebert---Can-Video-Games-be-Art.html

He's back

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/COMMENTARY/70721001

I honestly do believe that he is doing this for publicity. Still, he's out of touch and beyond his time. Retire, Ebert. You've lost it.

Art

A lot of stuff in that article that he was saying irritated me. This, for example:

Ebert: If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?

He's missing the point...art is broad, and no where in any definition of art is it written that art must be something set in stone rather than have options or choices available. If someone were to remake Romeo and Juliet as some sort of interactive DVD, where the watcher COULD make choices, and view the outcome...would that not be art? It's a bit silly, but if done in a creative and expressive way, I think it could be art.

And his sarcasm at the very end of that was unnecessary too. He's a bit too imbecilic for my liking lol.

He's very pompous and condescending. It all started, because he said "video games can never be art".

Only he would make such a claim. He needs to go.

A lot of stuff in that article that he was saying irritated me. This, for example:

Ebert: If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?

He's missing the point...art is broad, and no where in any definition of art is it written that art must be something set in stone rather than have options or choices available. If someone were to remake Romeo and Juliet as some sort of interactive DVD, where the watcher COULD make choices, and view the outcome...would that not be art? It's a bit silly, but if done in a creative and expressive way, I think it could be art.

And his sarcasm at the very end of that was unnecessary too. He's a bit too imbecilic for my liking lol.

I agree, he is missing the point and part of that is fear I think - Fear of things that are outside his experience and understanding. He is dismissing a medium that he refuses to experience. In the first one he says that immersive games that do not have a "win" goal are not by definition games. He is litterally talking through ignorance. I thought that IGN's rebuttal was excellent.

As for his comments regarding Clive Barker - he thought naming Myst would give him credibility? It is sad really, to me he sounds like the senile old uncle in the corner desperately trying to be relevant.

desperately trying to be relevant.

You nailed it.

I'm with Trixie and Whiteboy...hell, pretty much all of you. There is no clear definition of what art is. I believe it's in the eye of the beholder. What is art to one person, might just look like a urinal to someone else...thanks for that, PK.

To summarily dismiss a medium with a statement like "Video games can never be art" is just pompous and makes him look like he has no clue what he's talking about.

Do not speak ill of Duchamp!

What about people who starve animals in public and call it art?

Or what about the guy who made the Rape Tunnel and said it was "art"?

The fact remains, that #1) Art is subjective.

To me video games are a combination of the arts. Music, visual, literature, cinematography (in a sense), etc. Crap, 100 years ago is was blasphemous to call a "movie" a work of art.

Art is what's in your head exposed. End of story.

brain matter?