Blow-Back From Ebert's Latest Games Assertion

Last week's new diatribe from Roger Ebert on the merits of games had some people up in arms. Commentary ranged from the respectful at Ars Technica, to the dismissive statements at GameCritics. N'Gai Croal, of Newsweek's LevelUp, has a lengthy and thoughtful look at the issue from both sides. From his comments: "It's the right of someone with the maturity of an honest and articulate four-year-old to forget the history of his own favored art form and close his mind to the potential of another. In the meantime, those of us who care about the possibilities inherent in this medium will have to rely upon ourselves and one another to keep doing the heavy lifting necessary to suss out where the art of videogames lies; to determine how the craft can enhance that art; and to continue the fight to push this young medium from squalling infancy into graceful adulthood. Let's get cracking."

Comments

the answer is obvious

[spyrochaete]

Art is something that draws you into its alternate universe to make you look at an issue or scene differently than you might otherwise. It is the man-made representation of the real world filtered through the artist's omniscient. Anything can be art if you permit yourself to perceive it as such.

In my opinion Ebert is A, an old man, and B, afraid. He is afraid of interactivity and doesn't trust the people he writes for - the passive consumers of one-way art - to be capable enough to play along when given the chance. Newsflash, Ebert: art is what YOU make of it, not what the artist makes.

Must be art

[tonyreadsnews]

Doesn't the fact that people are arguing over whether it is or isn't art make it art? Especially since some people's art is another person's trash...?

Sigh, No.

[SatanicPuppy]

See, the question is, "Why would Ebert bother to comment on gaming if he doesn't actually care about gaming?"

The answer is simple. We see it here every day. Why do people put inflammatory crap on their websites? To drive traffic.

Ebert's not an idiot. He is, however, largely irrelevant in terms of the internet...Movie reviewers are a dime a dozen here. Anyone ever been to his site for anything else? I never have.

But with one clever piece of pure flamebait, he drove his web traffic through the roof. Read his article...No, actually don't, just read someone else who's quoted it...No more traffic for you! Not yours! It's pure flamebait, right down to ad hominems and poop jokes at the expense of his target.

So let the irrelevant blowhard pass on by. By even caring about his hilariously irrelevant opinion, you're giving him what he wants.

Re:Sigh, No.

[SatanicPuppy]

This sort of thing always happens. You should read some of the nasty things theater critics said about early movies; they called 'em debased, shallow, puerile, and definitely not art.

Now we're dealing with the same crap from their descendants. It's no surprise. People are crappy at handling change.

Re:Sigh, No.

[Anonymous Coward]

They were debased, shallow, puerile. There were three basic strains of film from 1900 to 1910. First was the fine art experimentation of people like Georges Méliès. Second was the short film vaudeville adaptations. These tended to be a reel (15 minutes) long and were as vulgar and crass as what they were imitating. Third was the full length feature, which debuted with The Story of the Kelly Gang in 1906. The Birth of a Nation was very prominent stylistically. However, the early directors tended to just film theatrical plays in a straightforward manner, ignoring the stylistic direction Birth of a Nation lead to.

Re:Thoughtful?

[Haeleth]

This a quote from a thoughtful article on Ebert's comments?

Yes, but you need to look at the context: as it happens, "the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old" is a direct quote from Ebert's original article, where Ebert himself used it to describe Barker! Which kind of changes the way you see things a little, doesn't it?

Well done, though - you've illustrated nicely what really harms the reputation of gaming: the fact that people automatically assume that gamers are immature, and therefore anything a gamer ever says that might possibly be taken to reinforce that stereotype will be taken out of context and misinterpreted in the worst possible way. :)

Sculpture

[HTH NE1]

So I create a sculpture unlike any before. Instead of looking upon its exterior surface, you have to step inside it and explore its inner surface. There are many branches, converging and diverging, and depending on the path you take to explore the sculpture you see different things. Areas differ in appearance through materials used, lighting, projections, etc. Others differ in acoustics, have different environmental sounds, perhaps play back recordings of others who were there before. Others may be completely dark with nothing visible and you experience it only through touch. It can be enjoyed singly or in groups. Some parts are only accessible if you cooperate with others, or if you picked up some element along the way necessary to reach something. Other areas are only accessible if you work against your fellow explorers. Many are mutually exclusive. Some parts of it react to your presence and try to induce you to follow particular paths, which you can go with or fight against. The sculpture is the size of a large building, both in height and footprint. There is one entrance, but thousands of exits. It may even be impossible to fully explore within one person's lifetime.

Is it just a game? Is it just a sport? Or is it art?

What makes it one and not another?