3 ms·

I can't find a source for your quote, but he seems to consider quite a bit of debate in this article: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_ne

I can't find a source for your quote, but he seems to consider quite a bit of debate in this article: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve... He also clarifies that he thinks video games can in principle be art, but that no video game yet made could hold its own among the great works of art.

vacri 14y ago
Ebert's criticisms of videogames sound exactly like the layperson's criticisms of cubism: doesn't look like what I think a picture should look like; it doesn't appeal to me; it doesn't make rational sense to me. One clear example is when he equates Braid's 'reversing time' mechanism to 'taking back a move in chess'. It's not - it's a game mechanic used in the game to progress, not to have a do-over. He is operating from some very wrong assumptions. I don't mean to restart the debate here, I'm just pointing out that his arguments are insulated and prejudiced, and hence my main point: that by denying any debate on the topic (it's the first sentence in your link - relented only by sheer volume), he refuses to learn about the topic. Again, I think this is in stark contrast to the quote I was initially responding to. I think it is profoundly anti-intellectual to behave in this manner. I don't care whether or not he likes games, or whether he thinks they're shit art or not. Each to their own. But for an influential person in a related field to make such a contentious, declarative statement, and then refuse to entertain debate... that's anti-intellectualism, in my opinion. Just like the layperson who doesn't get cubism and calls it inferior as a result. He did change opinion over time and concede that they could be 'non-traditional art', which suggests that yes indeed, engaging in debate (even if it has to be forced upon you) can actually change your views; help you understand why people say what they say. PS: the snarky person in me had to laugh at Ebert's characterisation of games as 'not art' because the audience's actions can change the outcome or plot. Clearly he never played Mass Effect :D
- mehwoot 14y ago
  Shit, people's perceptions of art are insulted and prejudiced? Who knew? Isn't the fact that he supposedly said he doesn't consider them art and doesn't want to debate it an indication that he views it as just a personal opinion, and not something he wants to force on other people? He has his reasons, no doubt, but not everybody in the world needs to embrace everything in it. If he was happy with the art that he knew, good for him.
  - vacri 14y ago
    If he was happy with the art that he knew, good for him. I didn't say otherwise on what made him happy. But when you're an influential public figure making public statements, the rules are a little different for you. If a politician or a leading business figure said "I think latinos are lazy and worthless. I'm not going to debate that, it's just a personal opinion", would you still say that no-one would have a right to ask them to justify the statement or hold them to account?
    - mehwoot 14y ago
      If a politician or a leading business figure said "I think latinos are lazy and worthless. I'm not going to debate that, it's just a personal opinion", would you still say that no-one would have a right to ask them to justify the statement or hold them to account? No, because I hold the rights of races of people not to be discriminated or slandered against far, far more important than the right of video games to be considered art. Calling a race of people lazy promotes racism and actually affects people's lives. Whether video games are art is mostly an academic question. That's the difference. I don't think journalists should have to answer questions on any topic that comes up. He clearly didn't know much about video games and he was happy with the art that he knew. People who think video games are art have a right to reply, but not a right to expect him to debate it with them.

vacri 14y ago

Ebert's criticisms of videogames sound exactly like the layperson's criticisms of cubism: doesn't look like what I think a picture should look like; it doesn't appeal to me; it doesn't make rational sense to me. One clear example is when he equates Braid's 'reversing time' mechanism to 'taking back a move in chess'. It's not - it's a game mechanic used in the game to progress, not to have a do-over. He is operating from some very wrong assumptions. I don't mean to restart the debate here, I'm just pointing out that his arguments are insulated and prejudiced, and hence my main point: that by denying any debate on the topic (it's the first sentence in your link - relented only by sheer volume), he refuses to learn about the topic. Again, I think this is in stark contrast to the quote I was initially responding to. I think it is profoundly anti-intellectual to behave in this manner. I don't care whether or not he likes games, or whether he thinks they're shit art or not. Each to their own. But for an influential person in a related field to make such a contentious, declarative statement, and then refuse to entertain debate... that's anti-intellectualism, in my opinion. Just like the layperson who doesn't get cubism and calls it inferior as a result. He did change opinion over time and concede that they could be 'non-traditional art', which suggests that yes indeed, engaging in debate (even if it has to be forced upon you) can actually change your views; help you understand why people say what they say. PS: the snarky person in me had to laugh at Ebert's characterisation of games as 'not art' because the audience's actions can change the outcome or plot. Clearly he never played Mass Effect :D

mehwoot 14y ago
Shit, people's perceptions of art are insulted and prejudiced? Who knew? Isn't the fact that he supposedly said he doesn't consider them art and doesn't want to debate it an indication that he views it as just a personal opinion, and not something he wants to force on other people? He has his reasons, no doubt, but not everybody in the world needs to embrace everything in it. If he was happy with the art that he knew, good for him.
- vacri 14y ago
  If he was happy with the art that he knew, good for him. I didn't say otherwise on what made him happy. But when you're an influential public figure making public statements, the rules are a little different for you. If a politician or a leading business figure said "I think latinos are lazy and worthless. I'm not going to debate that, it's just a personal opinion", would you still say that no-one would have a right to ask them to justify the statement or hold them to account?
  - mehwoot 14y ago
    If a politician or a leading business figure said "I think latinos are lazy and worthless. I'm not going to debate that, it's just a personal opinion", would you still say that no-one would have a right to ask them to justify the statement or hold them to account? No, because I hold the rights of races of people not to be discriminated or slandered against far, far more important than the right of video games to be considered art. Calling a race of people lazy promotes racism and actually affects people's lives. Whether video games are art is mostly an academic question. That's the difference. I don't think journalists should have to answer questions on any topic that comes up. He clearly didn't know much about video games and he was happy with the art that he knew. People who think video games are art have a right to reply, but not a right to expect him to debate it with them.