3 ms·
There are a few things I'd point out to summarize the article: 1. The prevailing wisdom now (and at the time the article was written) was that Ebert was dead w
by habitue 10y ago
There are a few things I'd point out to summarize the article:
1. The prevailing wisdom now (and at the time the article was written) was that Ebert was dead wrong about games being art. This was a settled issue and not controversial. This article takes a contrary stance, and I think does as good a job as you can to make sense of Ebert's statements. I wouldn't bother writing up a comment if you're under the impression you're in the minority in thinking Ebert is wrong: this is a deliberately contrarian article.
2. Unfortunately, by trying to see Ebert's point of view, it turns out the only chartable course is through "definitional waters". That is, it hinges on the definition on what Art is. The article summarizes some of the existing thought on this, but spoiler alert it's not very interesting. Art is a very fuzzy concept, and has been redefined over and over so many times that nailing down a correct definition and saying "this is" and "that ain't" is like trying to grab hold of a greased eel. It's one of those activities you can spend reams and reams of paper talking about, it's a high concept topic that makes the speaker sound intelligent, but in the end it inevitably devolves the same way discussions about whether gifs are videos devolve. There's no substance, there are better things to set your brain cells thinking about.
- ziotom78 10y ago> Art is a very fuzzy concept, and has been redefined over and over so many times that nailing down a correct definition and saying "this is" and "that ain't" is like trying to grab hold of a greased eel. So true. And yet, the idea of "art" seems so innocently easy to explain, until you try. I remember St. Augustine's definition of time, which could apply to art as well: "If no one ask of me, I know; if I wish to explain to him who asks, I know not." (Confessions, Book XI, Chapter XIV)
- fenomas 10y agoFor me, the question was never "are games art?" - the question was: "can someone who's never played a video game and never plans to say anything meaningful about whether games are art?" Ebert's implicit answer of "yes" to that question is what I found mystifying.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- habitue 10y agoYeah, this is totally true, but it is also an uninteresting thing to say because basically only Ebert and potentially the author of this piece disagree with you.
- fenomas 10y agoI think you're misunderstanding me. I don't think it's self-evident that Ebert was wrong to argue about games' artistry without playing them, and I suspect that a reasonably good argument could be made that he wasn't. What I find weird is that Ebert didn't make that argument, and didn't seem to think he needed to.