Topic: Video games can never be art

Huh?

What I'm trying to say is this - a lot of people have this preconvieved notion that for an entertainment media to be "good", it needs to be "artistic". That's not true at all. Art is a word used by academics to describe the study of those paintings and singing.

Once again - art is the domain of academia. It's not actually a definitive stamp of approval of quality. It's perfectly possible for things to be "good" without being accepted as artistic canon, and it's perfectly possible for things to have artistic merit while being absolutely terrible. The interests of art - and academia, run separate to reality.

So, when I say that "games will be art once the academic community has accepted them" I don't mean that games are inferior currently - it's just that they haven't been brought into that world of study and philosophy yet.

People were singing songs and painting on cave walls long before academics was a concept, so no, academia did not invent art. It just laid claim to it and turned its collective nose up at everyone below them.

And once again you're missing the point. Before the academics invented the concept of art, songs and paintings on cave walls were not art. Art is not a genre, like literature or music or RPGs or whatever - it's a study.

You also have a funny understanding of what academics actually do. There aren't that many that turn a collective nose at everyone below them. For the most part they just try and develop a better understanding on how things in art work, by drawing on a relatively few canon examples of the genre. The typical academic still enjoys pop culture.

For this point I'm with WaltzElf...when cave paintings were created they were not created for arts sake...they were for information / history telling. The same can be said for songs when they were first sung.

Oh, now I understand the point he was getting at more. Thank you for summarizing.

I'm not missing the point. That would be difficult since you've restated yourself a few times now. I understand they supposedly invented the concept of thinking about things. Okay. But that would be like someone inventing a bike, then me calling it something else and claiming it as my authority. Anyone can study / appreciate / whatever art. You don't have to be a phD to decide for yourself what is art and what is not.

Why do you keep assuming that academia is somehow authoritative? I, and many other academics, certainly don't. A review of a game, or a movie, or a book is far more authoritative and relevant to life than a Foucaultian analysis of the same object. The review isn't claiming that the object is art - rather it's analysing its quality from the perspective that actually matters - whether it's entertaining or insightful enough.

It's not an academic analysis of the object, and it's not attempting to engage with the object as a work of art. It's a review.

Academia is there for people who are looking for a more in-depth understanding of a medium. It's concentrated knowledge, and that's where an object's quality (or lack thereof) of a work of art is relevant.

Claiming that is authoritative in any way is a little ridiculous. Art is only authoritative within the world of academia.

Also, the decisison about whether something is art or not comes through the engagement with the object, analysis of it, and argument for its place as a piece of art. That's why university students write essays or thesises. I've succesfuly argued that the Halloween series of movies are art on par with Dracula, so within the academic world what is and isn't art is nowhere near as limited as you seem to think.

I think we're looking at this the wrong way.

Can art never be video games?

...That's what keeps me up at night.

Yes, again, as art. Again, art exists purely within the realm of academia and has no relevance whatsoever outside of it. So, outside of academia, art is not authorative.

Look at religion - The Bible or the Quran are authoritative texts within those religious groups. They have no authority outside of those groups. Similarly, the artistic canon is authoritative within the academic community, but has no relevance outside of it whatsoever. A game that isn't accepted by the academic community can't be a work of art any more than a game that isn't accepted by the catholic community can be accepted as scripture.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art

The majority of accepted definitions have nothing to do with academics, and those that do are not nearly so restricted as you'd have us believe. Just because some academics claim to be not only the authority but the sole owners of the concept of art doesn't mean it is so. Art belongs to the people. The proletariat will arise and take what is theirs. Viva la revolucion.

If these academics "invented" art, why are so many artists poor/not a part of this academia?

You just answered your own question. Since they aren't part of this academia, they're poor.

Anyway, I disagree with the statement that academics invented art. Maybe they defined it, or made it more widely known, but as I already said (in the video) if there is someone who considers something art, it's art. It's not for the community to decide as a whole. Art speaks to different people in different ways

That's a definition to a word that was invented within academia. That's the academic definition for thier word. It still doesn't prove that the word art is anything more than a construction by a group of people who want to spend their days philosophising over something they're passionate about.

Moreover, a dictionary definition of "art" doesn't prove that art is any more relevant to non-academics than "religion" is relevant to atheists.

So you're saying I don't believe games exist because I'm no longer working at a university?

Just because academics supposedly invented the term doesn't mean it hasn't come to mean many more things since and doesn't mean that everyone in this discussion has to play by your terms. And since you didn't begin the discussion, it is illogical to assume that this is the case.

Many words change definition over the course of history. That doesn't mean that everyone should be assumed to be using each and every word by the original usage, overriding all subsequent (and vastly more popular and relevant) definitions.

I can't get over how well-written and well-argued that IGN article was. Just a great piece of journalism--really hope ol' Ebert responds to it. I do love Roger Ebert but he should really stick to film. Somehow I doubt the man has actually played many videogames.

This article reminds me of a play I saw recently, called 'Art'. Basically a guy buys a painting which is just a white canvas... and (supposedly) white lines across it. It causes a huge controversy.
The definition of the word "art" is flexible; it can include a wide range of things, including, imo, some select games. I think Spore could be considered a form of art.

I think it would be easiest to define the paramaters of this debate if we knew where it began; did gamers assert that games were art, or did Ebert and people like him decide to say it isn't unprovoked? I don't recall it being a talking point before HE made it one a while back, anyway.

Of course, what we're really fighting with is the pathetic vagueness that is the English language. If we weren't trying to cram so many definitions into one three letter word (just like we do with a certain four letter word spelt L-O-V-E), we'd be able to differentiate amongst them without trouble.

IMO, "art" is something that seeks to be MORE than entertainment. Not all games do this (Nintendo in particular seems to enjoy keeping itself in that box as much as possible), but some like Braid and Flower hold depth that simply cannot be expressed in words (not that Santiago couldn't have come closer than she did). TBC...

Braid makes you think in a way I've never seen in any other medium by combining gameplay and story, culminating in the final level throwing a twist at you I love to discuss, but shan't at this time because it's a MASSIVE spoiler. The text Ebert critisized actually weaves into the gameplay to make the story a sum of parts on a very abrstract, arty level, and you can come back to it after finishing your first playthrough and get even more out of it.

Flower DOES give feelings of joy and ecstacy, which Ebert would know if he'd bothered to give it a chance. The feelings I got from the game, specifically the effortless rush of flying over the landscape, were, in my experience to date, unique to that game alone. Nothing else in the WORLD has ever made me feel that. Surely that counts for something above and beyond average entertainment?

TBC again _{crap browser still crap...}

Even with those descriptions, I haven't given you a clear idea of what those games bring to the table. Why, you may ask? Because it's IMPOSSIBLE. Which brings to my mind an idea of what art may truly be: Something so complex and so deeply rooted in personal experience and emotion that works cannot describe it.

Mario doesn't fit into that category, as I think we can all agree that his platforming antics, while highly entertaining, are comprehensible on a more basic level (which is what Nintendo is going for, so props to them for doing such a good job). But think of your favorite comedy show or movie...chances are, whatever it is doesn't move you to deep thinking (unless you picked something thusly designed, such as Click). For example, Tiny Toon Adventures. Funny, yes. Thought-provoking? The mere thought of that being involved is in itself laughable. But it's still a great show.

TBC AGAIN _{lengthy musings and PS3 browsers don't mix...sorry.}

@stuffo: if you check the article itself, ebert describes how it was provoked by someone attempting to convince him video games were art.

It all comes down to what the individual wants, even to a specific time. Sometimes, I WANT simple fun like Mario. Other times, I want to be challenged on an intellectual level or experience something unique. That's where Braid, Flower, Heavy Rain (as much as opinions are split on that one, I find that it gives you reason to think in a way NOTHING else does), and others come in.

In short, my definition of "art" says that SOME videogames are art, not the whole medium...but the same applies to film, paintings, poetry, music, and whatever else Ebert wants to call "art."

EDIT: @TBD: I did read his entire article, so I guess I missed that part. In that case, I would question why that person felt the need to start the argument at all.