The GHZ Forum

Only 2nd in line to Sirlin rage.

I came across this today and was pretty overwhelmed not just by the ignorance and elitist attitude, but by the overwhelming amount of genuine followers to the subject. His main point seems to be that video games are marketed for capital gain, as if art is somehow above this.

I feel lucky and privileged to say that video games can and have impacted me in more then just sentimental ways. I feel we should all be able to say that about at least a few examples. But people are just content to cite the latest FPS and MMO games and act like douches I guess.

At least I can make fun of Sirlin for thinking Yomi is a skill and being on his unenlightened pedestal, but this just feels like it attacks me personally yo. PERSONALLY

In this thread we talk about games as an art form and hold standards well enough not to cite Heavy Rain as the highest emergent example kthx.

Just about any human creation can be called art. I saw an arrangement of bricks in an art gallery. Personally I think it's a lesser accomplishment than Ocarina of Time, but whether or not someone wants to call it art is irrelevant. The label of "art" doesn't change what something actually is.

These days I'm generally just more concerned about whether or not they're entertainment, rather than art.

An old dude who has spent his entire career critiquing film has an opinion about video games. Good for him?

The main thing I remember from this whole thing is his description of Braid, which I assume was given to him and not his own interpretation, which was basically that it was just like Prince of Persia: Sands of Time, but like, heavy man. I didn't even much like Braid, but it obvious that he has no idea what he is slamming, and he has no interest in learning about them. Beyond that, his other point is clear: he has a very narrow definition of "art," and that ain't changing.

One thing he says late in the article is that if you want to be able to say that in playing video games, you are studying a great work of art, then that is just fine with him. I think that's the most important thing--whether art or not (perhaps "studying the emergence of new media" would be better, if "art" is in question), he recognizes that this is important to people, but it's not important to him. He is a movie critic (not even so broad as an "art critic"), and video games are (obviously) beyond the the scope of his interests.

As soon as the word "art" enters any discussion, it is immediately robbed of all significance or potential for resolution.

In other words:

Remember when we all talked about whether or not games were art over ten years ago? I'm still embarrassed by whatever I said in that thread. Thank god I don't remember any of it.

Ebert has a better argument than Santiago. He called Santiago out on her belittled the gave drawings and her unusual incorporation of a call to put together a group to work on 21st century media. Overall her presentation was very modern which is not the way to go when you're trying to put something new in the same category as older ideas. She could have cited stronger exhibits, particular ones not made by USC affiliates or her own company.

It's obvious that Ebert does not care for nor has an interest in gaming. His description of Braid and flower show that he doesn't get it and doesn't care to get it. This makes him a poor candidate to argue either way on the subject. It really makes him unqualified for the discussion. Gamers and anyone else following this stuff just need to learn to not listen to him. You wouldn't care to know someone's opinion of the state of film if they had never bothered to watch one. Why would you care about an opinion on games from someone who is close minded to them?


I think there's a lack of mature, creditable players in this discussion and that's the main reason it's still going on.

It's probably worth noting that Ebert doesn't consider most movies to be art, either. We're talking about a guy whose personal definition of "art" (as opposed to "entertainment") is extremely specific and includes only the "highest" of works. Do you know what I'm saying? It's not like he'd think Shadow of the Colossus was any more a work of art if it was a book or a film. He probably doesn't think Star Wars or Lord of the Rings are art, either, and I'm pretty sure he loves those movies!

I think it's ridiculous that he thinks video games are inherently incapable of being art -- that the addition of interactivity and goals automatically makes art impossible. But I can see his point about modern gaming. His definition of what qualifies as art is much more specific than mine, but he is right that there aren't any games that fit that definition yet. There have been great games, interesting games, games with fantastic narratives, games that address complex themes... but no, no game has "said" anything on the level of the greatest works of film, writing or music.

But give it time!

My parents and a grandparent were professional (academic) artists. They never learned how to "do art" at school or anywhere else; what they learned were techniques that made their works look better to them. As much, my good old dad never paints "art", he paints paintings and it's up to the beholder to decide whether they like them or not.

From experience, when the word "art" appears with question marks in the home room, it usually comes from someone loaded with cash who's looking to lower the price.

There's no "art", we've all been had. There's just stuff that feels good while we're dealing with it, and that's matter's very subjective.

..."videogame art"? Okay, fine, I'll play, it's too tempting. Link's Awakening for GB. That game's videogame art. Since when are 8-color sketches not considered arty enough? Picasso's sure are.

Why would we want to compare video games to the great works of literature in the first place? What is there to compare? Writing? To focus on writing alone is to miss the point of a multifaceted medium. How come nobody draws attention to Shakespeare's abysmal use of the camera? Oh that's right - because he didn't write a fucking film.

Whether or not you define video games as art is a strictly personal thing. Ebert argues that he doesn't. Which is entirely valid, but it's also thoroughly tedious to read through.

SMACK DAT DEAD EQUINE, YO

Art is subjective. Or is it? Or isn't it?

Crazy Penguin wrote:Just about any human creation can be called art. I saw an arrangement of bricks in an art gallery.

I remember that! That whole fucking place was a washout, man. We should've gone to Sega World.

I wont play this "Idiot who hates videogames" game, the best thing to do is just to ignore them, Its kind are just attention whores after all.

j-man wrote:

Crazy Penguin wrote:Just about any human creation can be called art. I saw an arrangement of bricks in an art gallery.

I remember that! That whole fucking place was a washout, man. We should've gone to Sega World.

WE STILL CAN. We should make like Sam Beckett and put right what once went wrong.

I think "Segaworld" was one of the reasons of Sega downfall, while the 32X and the Saturn still get most of the blame.

Explain yourself, you utter lunatic.

j-man wrote:Explain yourself, you utter lunatic.

Sega went crazy when they noticed they had won the 16 bit war, and wasted money in things that if they had been smarter and not so ego filled, they wont have done. Who in his right mind-set would thing the 32X was a good idea after the Sega CD failed to made it?. And the Saturn, a 2-d console in a world that wanted 3-D like crazy? And worst of all, Sega theme parks?.

No wonder the 2001 internet bubble pop creamed them!

Newsflash: Sega didn't win the fourth generation console wars. They were ahead of Nintendo during 1992 and perhaps 1993, and that's it. On the other hand, they certainly were quite successful over at the arcade scene, in fact they were so successful there that they could afford entire theme parks and arcades for themselves.

As for the topic at hand, basically ditto (No Imagination) and Crisis. When we have rulesets and goals literally built into our works by definition, it's logical to assume that what can be considered "art" in the field must have not only nice, creative and polished visuals and sound, but also elaborate rulesets and goals.

Honestly, I think the exchange between Ebert and this Santiago person is pretty low in regards to actually discussing videogame art, mainly because Ebert doesn't really care about them and Santiago suggests mostly lousy examples. At least Ebert does inquire about the games' rulesets, so he isn't entirely out of touch as to what actually constitutes real examples of at least "potential" videogame art.

Console Video Game Wars

I never did truly understand what anyone meant by this.

Isuka I see you are looking forward to Gainax's next production at least as much as I am.

Also Kogen, I think that just refers to the competition between the SNES/Mega Drive or Saturn/N64/Playstation or PS2/Dreamcast/Gamecube/X-Box or Playstation 3/Wii/X-Box 360. In the context both of the market and the rabid fans who think you can only own or support a single company (which is, of course, not all of them, but has often been at least a vocal minority).

Kogen wrote:Console Video Game Wars

I never did truly understand what anyone meant by this.

I wonder what historians will make out of this name in the far future.

Opa-Opa wrote:

Kogen wrote:Console Video Game Wars

I never did truly understand what anyone meant by this.

I wonder what historians will make out of this name in the far future.

It seems that this ancient civilisation believed in three different deities who were in a spiritual war with each other. Apparently many households bore little shrines of the god they had chosen as their family's protector and sacrificed thin mirrors to them in the belief that it would help their gods win the never-ending battle in the heavens.
There also seem to have been demi-gods which apparently served these deities, and of which people carries portable shrines, probably akin to prayer beads.

Am I blasphemous for having a Wii and a PlayStation?

I think that's more of a polytheistic/agnostic mix, there.