5 ms·
I wonder if he would agree that a single instance of a video game having been played could be art. A specific playthrough. Therefore not open-ended. EDIT: I'm
by ra88it 16y ago
I wonder if he would agree that a single instance of a video game having been played could be art. A specific playthrough. Therefore not open-ended.
EDIT: I'm thinking about famous games of Go that are now considered (by some) to be works of art. And I'm making the tenuous jump to video games, where the final 'work' of art is a collaboration between the player(s) and the designers of the game.
- JoeAltmaier 16y agoThat's the point: I agree a Particular game can be art. The artist has to be present in art. Undeniably many video games Contain lots of really cool art. But so does my bedroom.
- ra88it 16y agoI don't know that it makes such a big difference, but I'm trying to figure out what's going on in Ebert's brain. (Personally, I disagree with his thesis.)
- jasonlotito 16y agoThat's the thing though. You're bedroom could be art. No reason it couldn't be. I think his fundamental challenge is you don't experience a game as much as you play a game. You don't play art as much as you experience art. My question is, why do we need to define games as art? Games are so much more than art. So much more engaging. They offer so much more than mere art. Games, at their core, encompass so much more than experience, that to limit themselves to just being art is almost an insult. Games have been around far longer than art. Games have taught us far more than art. Games continue to push human kind forward. Games are our past, present, and future. Art might be experienced, but games are lived.