3 ms·

The terminology question is not the interesting one. That would be sort of like asking whether "Ah, perdona al primo affetto" [1] should be considered art despi

The terminology question is not the interesting one. That would be sort of like asking whether "Ah, perdona al primo affetto" [1] should be considered art despite being part of a crass commercial effort (Mozart needed money, so he composed an opera for the coronation of Leopold II). Such questions of terminology can be discussed endlessly without gaining much from them. But the question that Ebert was fundamentally asking is whether video games are capable of the same level and kind of intellectual or emotional stimulus as traditional works of art such as Beethoven's Fifth or Hamlet. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx1Esy_jE_A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx1Esy_jE_A

lisper 10y ago
> whether video games are capable of the same level and kind of intellectual or emotional stimulus as traditional works of art And on what possible basis could anyone ever answer that question? BTW, that is emphatically not the question Ebert was addressing. Ebert wrote: "... I [do] indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.” So his reasoning has nothing to do with whether or not video games "are capable of the same level and kind of intellectual or emotional stimulus as traditional works of art." He is simply saying, with absolutely no foundation or justification whatsoever other than his authority as a Great Film Critic, that games can't be art because they are interactive. Phooey. (BTW, I'm not a big fan of video games. I hardly ever play them. But to my mind, Myst, Riven and Monument Valley have at least as much claim to being art as that stupid Northcote painting.)
- rbehrends 10y ago
  > And on what possible basis could anyone ever answer that question? If you're looking for something that can be proven or disproven: not at all. But we constantly ask questions for which there isn't an objectively correct answer all the same. Any attempt to answer the question of whether something is art cannot avoid a mass of subjective elements. > BTW, that is emphatically not the question Ebert was addressing. Ebert wrote: That's an argument he put forward. An argument is not the same as the question it attempts to address. Right after that he writes: "But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers." The point he is making is that there are elements in art that rise beyond craftsmanship; he refers to the "soul" or "vision" of an artist elsewhere.
  - lisper 10y ago
    If something has to be "worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers" in order to be considered art then the vast majority of what people call "art" doesn't qualify.
    - rbehrends 10y ago
      I didn't say that. The question is whether video games are capable of it, at least in principle. There's plenty of shoddy writing and music, too, but that's not a good point of comparison.

lisper 10y ago

> whether video games are capable of the same level and kind of intellectual or emotional stimulus as traditional works of art And on what possible basis could anyone ever answer that question? BTW, that is emphatically not the question Ebert was addressing. Ebert wrote: "... I [do] indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.” So his reasoning has nothing to do with whether or not video games "are capable of the same level and kind of intellectual or emotional stimulus as traditional works of art." He is simply saying, with absolutely no foundation or justification whatsoever other than his authority as a Great Film Critic, that games can't be art because they are interactive. Phooey. (BTW, I'm not a big fan of video games. I hardly ever play them. But to my mind, Myst, Riven and Monument Valley have at least as much claim to being art as that stupid Northcote painting.)

rbehrends 10y ago
> And on what possible basis could anyone ever answer that question? If you're looking for something that can be proven or disproven: not at all. But we constantly ask questions for which there isn't an objectively correct answer all the same. Any attempt to answer the question of whether something is art cannot avoid a mass of subjective elements. > BTW, that is emphatically not the question Ebert was addressing. Ebert wrote: That's an argument he put forward. An argument is not the same as the question it attempts to address. Right after that he writes: "But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers." The point he is making is that there are elements in art that rise beyond craftsmanship; he refers to the "soul" or "vision" of an artist elsewhere.
- lisper 10y ago
  If something has to be "worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers" in order to be considered art then the vast majority of what people call "art" doesn't qualify.
  - rbehrends 10y ago
    I didn't say that. The question is whether video games are capable of it, at least in principle. There's plenty of shoddy writing and music, too, but that's not a good point of comparison.