Disclaimer: I know I’m dredging up a long dismissed argument from 10 years ago, and discussing it in all the same tone as people did back then, despite everyone having moved on. My core thesi…
The artfulness of games is incredibly mature, and video games are just the latest technology applied to an expression as old as humanity itself (possibly older).
Chess is art, and so is Tetris or Monopoly, or basketball. These games may involve some science, but the enjoyment is developed intuitively by a designer or team of designers who may be working in metaphor (such as chess and monopoly being metaphors for war and business) or pure abstraction (like tetris or basketball).
I also think it’s disingenuous to dismiss the visual and audio art elements of a game as somehow separate from the game itself when Ebert’s medium relies on the same things. “But Dessa, games appeal to the language of movies to communicate the emotional impact of the stories they may contain!” Yes, but movies also rely on the language of theater and literature to do the same (quite literally in the case of silent movies).
Ebert died saying he hated Dark Souls as though personally hating something has any relevance whatsoever to whether it should be considered art. The author of this article seems to do the same when he points out how childish gamer examples can be. Childish things can be art. Art can suck too.
Likewise, the argument that capitalism commodofies art shouldn’t be difficult for readers here to break down. Capitalism commodifies movies, music books, and anything else that takes labor to create. You could argue that these products cease to be art under capitalism, but that’s a blanket statement about whether art is possible at all under capitalism, not about what media are or are not valid for the expression of art.
chess was devolved developed by multiple people from different cultures over centuries. There’s no distinct “act of creation” like chess bob ross doing happy little (bong)clouds, at most you get some committees agreeing to formalize things people were already doing.
I mean one point the article OP posted brings up is the fact that Ebert was confused as to why gamers gave a shit about his opinion in the first place. He was a film critic, not a video game critic. Might as well ask his opinion on the best way to cook a steak or stock investing or the March Madness point spread. He was never an arbiter of what’s art and what isn’t and he made that point himself. People shoved garbage like Bioshock Infinite into his face and insisted it was proof that vidya is art, which is kinda like showing someone True Lies to convince someone films are on the same level as literature.
I can’t blame an out of touch boomer for being out of touch and not getting a new art form he had no interest in to begin with.
The artfulness of games is incredibly mature, and video games are just the latest technology applied to an expression as old as humanity itself (possibly older).
Chess is art, and so is Tetris or Monopoly, or basketball. These games may involve some science, but the enjoyment is developed intuitively by a designer or team of designers who may be working in metaphor (such as chess and monopoly being metaphors for war and business) or pure abstraction (like tetris or basketball).
I also think it’s disingenuous to dismiss the visual and audio art elements of a game as somehow separate from the game itself when Ebert’s medium relies on the same things. “But Dessa, games appeal to the language of movies to communicate the emotional impact of the stories they may contain!” Yes, but movies also rely on the language of theater and literature to do the same (quite literally in the case of silent movies).
Ebert died saying he hated Dark Souls as though personally hating something has any relevance whatsoever to whether it should be considered art. The author of this article seems to do the same when he points out how childish gamer examples can be. Childish things can be art. Art can suck too.
Likewise, the argument that capitalism commodofies art shouldn’t be difficult for readers here to break down. Capitalism commodifies movies, music books, and anything else that takes labor to create. You could argue that these products cease to be art under capitalism, but that’s a blanket statement about whether art is possible at all under capitalism, not about what media are or are not valid for the expression of art.
If Dark Souls was one of the first games I played I’d hate it too. It’s not exactly easy to get in to.
what, because the board and pieces look nice sometimes? you can be a notation sicko and play without those.
No, because of its gameplay design, which was an act of creation requiring aesthetic decisions.
chess was
devolveddeveloped by multiple people from different cultures over centuries. There’s no distinct “act of creation” like chess bob ross doing happy little (bong)clouds, at most you get some committees agreeing to formalize things people were already doing.edit: a word
Art can be collaborative. It can be an evolving work touched by many hands.
I mean one point the article OP posted brings up is the fact that Ebert was confused as to why gamers gave a shit about his opinion in the first place. He was a film critic, not a video game critic. Might as well ask his opinion on the best way to cook a steak or stock investing or the March Madness point spread. He was never an arbiter of what’s art and what isn’t and he made that point himself. People shoved garbage like Bioshock Infinite into his face and insisted it was proof that vidya is art, which is kinda like showing someone True Lies to convince someone films are on the same level as literature.
I can’t blame an out of touch boomer for being out of touch and not getting a new art form he had no interest in to begin with.
Ugh, I was tired of Bioshock discourse before I ever even played it.
That’s ok tho, Dark Souls is just Hollow Knight for people who are scared somebody could call them gay for liking the wrong stuff.
What little I’ve played of it didn’t wow me. Seemed good enough, but too grimdark for my tastes