6 ms·

Gracefully back-pedaled. As he admits, he put himself in a lose-lose situation, and when that happens, there's not much one can do besides back-pedal. As grac

Gracefully back-pedaled. As he admits, he put himself in a lose-lose situation, and when that happens, there's not much one can do besides back-pedal. As gracefully as possible.

steveklabnik 16y ago
He still arrogantly refuses to admit any kind of possibility of being wrong on the overall topic, though. > I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself. I'll admit that it's better than nothing, but the tone didn't seem very apologetic to me. He does concede a few points, and I admire him for that, but things like the screenshots really rubbed me the wrong way.
- stcredzero 16y ago
  Aye. It's like he's trying to make the point that videogames are only useful for telling horror stories. It's like people who think that Comic Books are only capable of telling stories about Underoo-clad flying head-bashers. It's a medium. Like many mediums, there may be one genre that is heavily represented, but this has nothing to do with the ultimate potential of the medium itself. It's the same sort of short sightedness that would declare "talkies" (slang for movies with sound) as only being useful for musicals.
  - anamax 16y ago
    Based on actual usage and consumption, comic books and movies are for porn. Video games aren't so much. Maybe that's the definition of "art" - how well can it be used for porn. (Music seems to be an exception to this definition but we all know why Eric Clapton learned the guitar.)
    - stcredzero 16y ago
      You're also confusing medium and message here. Porn is the message. Games are a medium. I would posit that any medium which can be used successfully for porn can also be used for art. If a medium can convey the subtle and unconscious cues effectively to our senses so as to manage to turn us on, then it can also be used for the myriad subtle cues used for high art. There are also mediums which lack the fidelity to effectively convey porn, but which can still convey art. (Scratching in a 1x1 foot patch of sandy dirt with a stick, for example. It's easy to convey nudity or profanity on such a crude drawing surface, but none of that would turn me on.)
      - anamax 16y ago
        > You're also confusing medium and message here. We're discussing Ebert's claim that video games, the medium, can't be used to produce art, the message. I apologize for leaving out "medium" in the sentence that would have made that clear. > There are also mediums which lack the fidelity to effectively convey porn, but which can still convey art. (Scratching in a 1x1 foot patch of sandy dirt with a stick, for example. It's easy to convey nudity or profanity on such a crude drawing surface, but none of that would turn me on.) That might be because you're used to getting your porn in higher-fidelity. However, the first porn that most kids draw is basically scratches. Also, we're pretty sure that some "scratch fidelity" cave drawings are porn. (An alternative is that kids are/ancient folk were more abstraction-tolerant. This shouldn't be too surprising - a lot of porn works between the ears.)
        stcredzero 16y ago
        Maybe that's the definition of "art" - how well can it be used for porn This was the basis of my observation of medium/message confusion. The "it" which is being used is the medium and "porn" is the message. So it would seem that you are trying to define a medium as "art", which is wrong. A message transmitted via a given medium is art, not the medium in isolation. Maybe you are looking for a term like "art-capable medium." An alternative is that kids are/ancient folk were more abstraction-tolerant. I've been spoiled by years of pornographic magazines, then by high resolution images from the Internet.
        anamax 16y ago
        > So it would seem that you are trying to define a medium as "art", which is wrong. No, I'm not. I'm discussing Ebert's claim about the sutability of different mediums for producing art.
        stcredzero 16y ago
        Then what does "it" in that sentence refer to?
    - w1ntermute 16y ago
      Video games aren't so much. Actually, they are in some cultures, and the results can be rather horrific: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapelay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapelay
- JoeAltmaier 16y ago
  He doesn't have to apologize for his opinions. He doesn't have to refuse to be wrong. That's not arrogant; thats a human right. I get it; many disagree. He comes off arrogant because he's famous.
  - steveklabnik 16y ago
    > That's not arrogant; thats a human right. He's certainly allowed to have his opinion, and you're right; he doesn't _have_ to apologize. I'm also not required to not think he's a bit arrogant when he disparages something that millions of people enjoy, and uses his cultural position to damage their reputation. Without ever having partaken himself.
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      The 'damage' is imputed; did he say this was a problem with video games? His cultural position IS to discuss what is art and what is not. Regardless of how many millions enjoy it.
      - mishmash 16y ago
        I think maybe his cultural position is to opine how well a specific piece of art from a particular class of artists is, rather than being a critic of every artistic medium. At least that's all of the respect I give to him and his position.
  - po 16y ago
    You have a right to be arrogant… it's your prerogative. But if people view it as arrogant, that's what it is. Calling him arrogant isn't denying him a human right; it's passing judgment based on an article he wrote.
    - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
      Then every writer with a large audience is arrogant - pushing their opinions off on people without any dialog. I think arrogant has to mean more in this context.
- ajscherer 16y ago
  "I may be wrong. but if 'm not willing to play a video game to find that out, I should say so." "It is quite possible a game could someday be great Art." I can't fathom how one could come away from that article thinking that Ebert believes it is impossible that he is wrong. He still believes that games aren't Art according to some definition he admittedly can't articulate, but he also repeatedly admits that he isn't capable of proving that belief. I agree the grisly screenshots are pretty underhanded (it would be equally easy to show repulsive frames from movies), and constantly mentioning that he refuses to play games sort of makes it sound like he would be able to prove games aren't art if only he were willing to lower himself to actually playing them. Overall I thought this post demonstrated more respect for the other side of a debate than I see in the vast majority of posts that make the front page of hn.
ScotterC 16y ago
Gracefully back-pedaled but who's decision was it to place a bunch of gory screenshots in the post? Not only distracting but really added a sinister feel to his words.
- samd 16y ago
  The screenshots are from Clive Barker's Jericho. He probably used them because he spends a couple of paragraphs talking about discussions he had with Clive Barker. Unfortunately Jericho is a horrible game and not a good example of games as art.
  - ScotterC 16y ago
    At least there's some connection. Poor taste though.

Gracefully back-pedaled. As he admits, he put himself in a lose-lose situation, and when that happens, there's not much one can do besides back-pedal. As gracefully as possible.

steveklabnik 16y ago

He still arrogantly refuses to admit any kind of possibility of being wrong on the overall topic, though. > I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself. I'll admit that it's better than nothing, but the tone didn't seem very apologetic to me. He does concede a few points, and I admire him for that, but things like the screenshots really rubbed me the wrong way.

stcredzero 16y ago
Aye. It's like he's trying to make the point that videogames are only useful for telling horror stories. It's like people who think that Comic Books are only capable of telling stories about Underoo-clad flying head-bashers. It's a medium. Like many mediums, there may be one genre that is heavily represented, but this has nothing to do with the ultimate potential of the medium itself. It's the same sort of short sightedness that would declare "talkies" (slang for movies with sound) as only being useful for musicals.
- anamax 16y ago
  Based on actual usage and consumption, comic books and movies are for porn. Video games aren't so much. Maybe that's the definition of "art" - how well can it be used for porn. (Music seems to be an exception to this definition but we all know why Eric Clapton learned the guitar.)
  - stcredzero 16y ago
    You're also confusing medium and message here. Porn is the message. Games are a medium. I would posit that any medium which can be used successfully for porn can also be used for art. If a medium can convey the subtle and unconscious cues effectively to our senses so as to manage to turn us on, then it can also be used for the myriad subtle cues used for high art. There are also mediums which lack the fidelity to effectively convey porn, but which can still convey art. (Scratching in a 1x1 foot patch of sandy dirt with a stick, for example. It's easy to convey nudity or profanity on such a crude drawing surface, but none of that would turn me on.)
    - anamax 16y ago
      > You're also confusing medium and message here. We're discussing Ebert's claim that video games, the medium, can't be used to produce art, the message. I apologize for leaving out "medium" in the sentence that would have made that clear. > There are also mediums which lack the fidelity to effectively convey porn, but which can still convey art. (Scratching in a 1x1 foot patch of sandy dirt with a stick, for example. It's easy to convey nudity or profanity on such a crude drawing surface, but none of that would turn me on.) That might be because you're used to getting your porn in higher-fidelity. However, the first porn that most kids draw is basically scratches. Also, we're pretty sure that some "scratch fidelity" cave drawings are porn. (An alternative is that kids are/ancient folk were more abstraction-tolerant. This shouldn't be too surprising - a lot of porn works between the ears.)
      - stcredzero 16y ago
        Maybe that's the definition of "art" - how well can it be used for porn This was the basis of my observation of medium/message confusion. The "it" which is being used is the medium and "porn" is the message. So it would seem that you are trying to define a medium as "art", which is wrong. A message transmitted via a given medium is art, not the medium in isolation. Maybe you are looking for a term like "art-capable medium." An alternative is that kids are/ancient folk were more abstraction-tolerant. I've been spoiled by years of pornographic magazines, then by high resolution images from the Internet.
        anamax 16y ago
        > So it would seem that you are trying to define a medium as "art", which is wrong. No, I'm not. I'm discussing Ebert's claim about the sutability of different mediums for producing art.
        stcredzero 16y ago
        Then what does "it" in that sentence refer to?
  - w1ntermute 16y ago
    Video games aren't so much. Actually, they are in some cultures, and the results can be rather horrific: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapelay http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapelay
JoeAltmaier 16y ago
He doesn't have to apologize for his opinions. He doesn't have to refuse to be wrong. That's not arrogant; thats a human right. I get it; many disagree. He comes off arrogant because he's famous.
- steveklabnik 16y ago
  > That's not arrogant; thats a human right. He's certainly allowed to have his opinion, and you're right; he doesn't _have_ to apologize. I'm also not required to not think he's a bit arrogant when he disparages something that millions of people enjoy, and uses his cultural position to damage their reputation. Without ever having partaken himself.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    The 'damage' is imputed; did he say this was a problem with video games? His cultural position IS to discuss what is art and what is not. Regardless of how many millions enjoy it.
    - mishmash 16y ago
      I think maybe his cultural position is to opine how well a specific piece of art from a particular class of artists is, rather than being a critic of every artistic medium. At least that's all of the respect I give to him and his position.
- po 16y ago
  You have a right to be arrogant… it's your prerogative. But if people view it as arrogant, that's what it is. Calling him arrogant isn't denying him a human right; it's passing judgment based on an article he wrote.
  - JoeAltmaier 16y ago
    Then every writer with a large audience is arrogant - pushing their opinions off on people without any dialog. I think arrogant has to mean more in this context.
ajscherer 16y ago
"I may be wrong. but if 'm not willing to play a video game to find that out, I should say so." "It is quite possible a game could someday be great Art." I can't fathom how one could come away from that article thinking that Ebert believes it is impossible that he is wrong. He still believes that games aren't Art according to some definition he admittedly can't articulate, but he also repeatedly admits that he isn't capable of proving that belief. I agree the grisly screenshots are pretty underhanded (it would be equally easy to show repulsive frames from movies), and constantly mentioning that he refuses to play games sort of makes it sound like he would be able to prove games aren't art if only he were willing to lower himself to actually playing them. Overall I thought this post demonstrated more respect for the other side of a debate than I see in the vast majority of posts that make the front page of hn.

ScotterC 16y ago

Gracefully back-pedaled but who's decision was it to place a bunch of gory screenshots in the post? Not only distracting but really added a sinister feel to his words.

samd 16y ago
The screenshots are from Clive Barker's Jericho. He probably used them because he spends a couple of paragraphs talking about discussions he had with Clive Barker. Unfortunately Jericho is a horrible game and not a good example of games as art.
- ScotterC 16y ago
  At least there's some connection. Poor taste though.