Dear Art Critics...

[cardboard_dream]

Recently, I've seen a number of different reactions to Roger Ebert's latest claim that video games can never be art, and a variety of postings supporting his claim as well as disputing it.

Comments

Agreed.

[kylesplawn]

I noticed that confusion in PZ's post as well. It's like saying that a play can't be art because the audience just sits there (or rather the exact opposite argument in this case). Come on, do sports have a plot, protagonists and antagonists the way that novels do? Sure you can root for the home team, but is your projected opinion of what the visiting team represents the same thing as having an author's representation of things there from the outset? Nobody authors NBA games, and HALO isn't just a competitive sport between teams. Games aren't just a collection of assets the way PZ argues that they "contain art," many times they're purposefully arranged according to the creators' vision and a vehicle for expression of a view

My reply to Ebert on his blog

[anonymous]

To put it briefly, you hit the nail on the head, its a matter of tastes, and you clearly have not educated your palette for the subtleties that allow games to be an art. And this is clearly pointed out by linking game development, and playing a game in the same argument.

I would argue most gamers haven't an idea either. Take the point you make with nude drawings, as humans we just know if its good or not. We can dedicate a lifetime of studying, and develop many rules as to why some executions are better than others. But at the end of the day, one of the truly unique properties that makes something art, is its ability to instantly communicate its greatness without us knowing anything about it.

I think that is one link to why games are in fact capable of being high art an that we may already have had a few in our lifetime.