Saw this over on reddit.
From NEA: video games are an art form - Icrontic
Should be interesting to see what comes of this. Put that it in your pipe and smoke it Roger Ebert.
Ebert, u mad?
Good for the vg enthusiasts and the industry, I guess.
And then people wonder why we have a deficit. When you take taxpayer money and throw it into frivolous things like this it adds up.
Not to mention that governments tend to hire private artists to build ugly statues or design ugly buildings for millions. Sometimes people call that embezzlement, but usually it’s done right out in the open, just like this is.
Sure, why the hell not, let’s give some artist $200k (it won’t be an artist, it will be a big company probably, or several artists in a big company) while ignoring medical care and trampling on the poor some more. We can’t give unemployment benefits for those in the middle class or working poverty wages at McDonalds, but we can give some jackass $200k for his “vision.”
Give me a fucking break. This country is so retarded now. You people are okay with this?
I guess this is cool.
Like Pherai said in the thread I made by mistake, It certainly won’t change anyone’s mind(anyone that really thought about it) whether or not it is, but to the average person that only casually dabbles with games on occasion I suppose it’d help legitimize the field to them in some way.
But considering that art budgets are regularly getting slashed year after fiscal year, why would you want to spread the lack of wealth even thinner?
EDIT: I preview’d my post and Serpent went off. DAYUM
So how many people ACTUALLY read Eberts reasons for games not being art, or did you just hear that he said it and jumped on your soap box? Curiosity.
I honestly don’t give a shit either way.
i dont know the specifics of his hate of vg’s being art, that sounds new. but he’s always had it out for vg in general. just as a entertainment form.
What I was trying to get at was being considered art is a pretty pointless distinction for video games. Consider some of the bullshit that is also considered art…
Piss Christ - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
As it says in the article, the National Endowment for the Arts in part sponsored this piece. I can’t really say its that exciting to me to know that the government holds video games with the same artistic esteem as a picture of a crucifix in a jar of piss.
To me, the video games as art debate is just a topic to make up for slow news days on gaming sites. People say its a step towards getting video games more culturally accepted, but aren’t they already pretty fuckin ingrained in our culture? I can’t think of anyone I know under 30 years old who doesn’t play video games in some capacity. Some people just need to accept that no matter how popular video games get, you’ll always be a nerd if you’re spending 12 hours a day on the latest Final Fantasy online game.
I remember hearing about that in art school.
Apparently the “art” “teacher” viewed it as viable art.
I switched majors shortly thereafter.
Yea I read it a while back. He didn’t appear to have enough experience to realize there is an art available in the interactive elements of a computer game not available in other forms of what he considers well defined art, eg films and theatre. This interactive element is what uniquely* defines the video game’s art, since it directly effects the intellect, emotions, and/or senses.
*There is an exception. There is some interaction allowed in theatre and some types of ‘cleverly’ written books, but it’s simply not the same as a video game, I think.
That’s the closest definition of “art” I got out of Ebert’s article, so I’ll try to go with that and show some potential counter examples.
When the video game allows a person to create a unique experience for himself, then it has become art. Furthermore I think there are clear examples of video game art already available.
-
In the tales from ‘Dwarf Fortress,’ a game I don’t expect many people would want to play (I don’t), but it can be fun to read about. This is an experience shaped by the user interaction, unique with every new world.
Dwarf Fortress - Boatmurdered -
Another “Let’s Play” for an RPG “Fallout 2”. By combining unique story telling with the video game, this user has created a form of art and a unique experience. Perhaps this game isn’t art, but it certainly inspired art.
Fallout 2 - Update 1 -
Given the correct form of input, a simulation can represent real world experiences. I’ve flown the Boeing 737 simulator at NASA, which looks like the disneyland star wars ride from the outside and inside it is an exact replica of a Boeing 737 cockpit. Even with the mechanical hydraulics turned off, the specially designed visuals are enough to effect your senses such that you think you are actually banking left when you turn left. But then you look out the back door at the wall and it’s still level, it’s quite strange. So my point here the visuals of this simulation can effect one’s senses. Given a motivated person, they could use this input to create art, I think.
People have no choice, like ‘we the the people’ really have a voice anymore…shrugs
Eat shit and like it… large ass deficit will keep getting higher… like America produces anything to start with, we’re a country of consumers…
But oh well, video games are a legal artform… shoutouts to the [media=youtube]_lJoabhPLDU&feature=channel_video_title"[/media]
If people appreciated the craftsmanship that went into creating things, and that said craftsmanship can also be used in that medium to express things, we wouldn’t have this debate.
This has been Pertho saying: meh.
^I’d have to agree.
Heavy Rain would seem to defy Ebert’s categorical rejection by his own stated standards, then, I think.
Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk
To be fair, in Ebert’s follow-up piece he does admit that:
So he does backpedal a bit. But, like others have said this recognition won’t change anyone’s mind.
For those interested: here’s Ebert’s original comment on why video games can’t be art. It’s the third Q&A down.
And his more detailed piece on why video games can never be art.
I’m mostly interested in what this means moving forward. I have hope that when/if someone gets a grant to make a video game as a public work of art it’s not Piss Christ: The Video Game.
I don’t blame Ebert for thinking video games aren’t high art. He probably saw the films, Super Mario Brothers, Street Fighter, House of the Dead, BloodRayne, Double Dragon, etc.
i guess this is great that games are technically defined as art…but what non-commercial entity is designing games for mass consumption that are worth a shit?
Art is too abstract to be defined so this means fuck all. Debate continues. Move along.
I’m not a fan of this because I think the government should only focus on the constantly swinging pendulum of freedom and security; they should get away from anything that’s not that.
It’s like the gov’t recognizing marriage, straight, gay and inbetween. What’s the point of that? People feeling special because the government recognizes them as a special couple is a priority I don’t like. The gov’t recognizing that one of my favorite art mediums is art is just a waste of time too.
The possible positive outcome of this is that a great game could be made with a decent budget and no commercial incentives. If we do see games as art (and I think EVERYONE can at the very least acknowledge that games contain art in the form of graphics, sound etc) then damn near every artwork we’ve experienced has been a commercial piece of art, not art created to be as good as it can be or for it’s own purpose (art 'for art’s sake).
So we may get a game that’s beautiful and absolutely brilliant that would otherwise might never be made as it wouldn’t be commercially viable.
Basically we might see more games in the mould of Ico or Braid than say… movie tie ins and sports updates. They may even be released as Public Domain!
Honestly I’m more afraid of games being made with an art for arts sake approach. I like games being fun, and I’m afraid of people losing track of that in trying to create artistic video games.