You've got it backwards. It's the savings that those workers produce that allows them to buy more which causes the cost of living to go up.
Well, yeah, duh, no kidding. But they wouldn't have *any* savings if the world wasn't buying what they were producing, as those jobs simply wouldn't exist.
The world doesn't progress due to consumption, it progresses due to production. Anyone can consume, and in infinite amounts.
Yes, but if there is no demand, there's no reason to increase supply, and it's on the supply side of the equation where the jobs are created.
The truth is that without production, any people, no matter how rich they once were, are destined to decline into poverty.
And without consumption, there would *be no jobs in the first place*.
The reality is that, in a closed economy, increased production and increased consumption go hand-in-hand. As people consume more, there is greater demand for jobs. As those jobs are created, people have more money to spend, and that increases consumption, and the cycle perpetuates.
In the case of China, the outside world is artificially inflating the demand side of that equation, and that in turn fuels the production side in China. That's a *good thing*.
Wow, this is an absolutely pitch-perfect, by-the-books troll. Start off with something reasonable (microsoft bad), then something still reasonable but a little bit more odd (Sea Shepherds bad), then get weird (I liked Hamas but not any more), and then finally the coup de grace (I was a democrat, but now Obama is teh EVIL!)
Well done! Congratulations to you, BadAnalogyGuy. You have truly surpassed yourself.
People will just not work at those factories. *shrug*
The simple fact is, people are *choosing* this work. But as the cost of living increases, which is inevitable as industrialization progresses, people will suddenly have more freedom to choose their job. The minute that happens, employers will have to create conditions which attract employees, and the result will be improved working conditions for everyone.
And ironically, in this scenario, it's world consumption that *drives* these improvements, as it is the demand which creates these jobs in the first place. But, of course, that means Wal-Mart might not be a vast force of pure evil, and no one wants to believe *that*...
Wow, $6.79 of purchasing power per hour for 15 hour shifts!
Err, $6.79 plus free food plus free housing. Factor all that in and I guarantee you it's no worse than your average minimum wage job in the US.
Meanwhile, if you think there aren't people in the US working 15 hour days, think again. Hell, when I grew up, my mom had *3* jobs to make ends meet. And I'm willing to bet that's far more common than you, in your cushy little office job, realize.
Maybe because the media likes to lie and spin these things to seem worse than they are? Maybe because using loaded language, such as referring to this job as a "prison", even though the workers *choose* to work there, is ugly and underhanded? Maybe because, without context, this kind of outrage is largely meaningless? Maybe because the article notably *doesn't* mention: cost of living, wage relative to other jobs in the area, surveys of worker satisfaction, etc?
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. I mean, christ, this is the Daily Mail we're talking about here, a tabloid of the worst sort. You'll forgive me if I take any reports they make with an *extremely* large grain of salt.
I consider Portal to be art because it introduced a new and interesting gameplay mechanic, the environment was fairly atmospheric and the story, while short, was engaging.
But come on, how can an interesting gameplay mechanic and a cute (if shallow) story turn an FPS into a work of art? I mean, don't get me wrong, it's certainly a product of creativity, and so is art in the same way that, say, the stick figure I draw on a napkin is art. But how can any of those elements raise Portal to the level of Art as Mr. Ebert is defining it (ie, a great creative work along the lines of Shakespeare, Mozart, etc)?
'course, at this point, we're clearly in "personal opinion" territory, so I don't expect to convince you, nor vice versa. I just find it baffling that anyone can play Portal and say to themselves "Yeah, I'd say this is in the same territory as Hamlet"...
I would counter that by asking you whether there's a painting that's not art,
Well that's a silly question, of course there is. I could make one for you right now if you want.
Okay, that's technically not true. Anything creative is artwork, but not every creative product is Art. Remember, Mr. Ebert isn't talking about artwork in general. Any idiot can see games clearly fall into that category (as does any other product of creativity). What he's talking about is high art, great art, the kind of stuff artists aspire to create. The kind of stuff you'd never get if you put me in front of a canvas with a paintbrush.:)
and what that painting lacks that, say, a Jason Pollack piece does not.
Oh, I don't know, technique? Aesthetic beauty? Symbolism or some other deeper meaning? The ability to evoke emotion? That sort of thing. And I guarantee you, any painting I create won't evoke any of that.:)
I think ultimately, we all define art as "something that invokes a feeling."
But by that definition, the basest pornography qualifies as great art.
Other than that, I think my main disagreement with you is that you seem to limit your definition of art to good art or deep art.
No, *Mr. Ebert* was talking about "good art" or "deep art". Hell, that's the whole fucking point he's trying to make, and is the absolute heart of the whole discussion: he believes games will *never* be anything more than simple entertainment, and can never reach the level of art in the Shakespeare/Mozart/etc sense of the word (as opposed to the "finger painting in elementary school art class" sense of the word).
It's just the pedants around here that want to take his comments and warp them to mean he doesn't believe games are works of creativity at all (a statement that's so utterly absurd it's easy to contradict, which is, perhaps, why the pedants around here chose to simply change the argument rather than addressing his actual point).
This is only because of regulation. The reason I can't build a fiber ring in my small town and offer gigabit speeds is because of FCC Regulation.
Really? That's the *only* reason? So, what, you have agreement from residents to dig up their streets? The millions or billions needed to actually dig the holes, lay the fiber, and build out the rest of the infrastructure? The expertise and manpower to make that all happen? Really??
Wow, that's impressive! I was I was so rich and privileged...
Anybody else also thinks it's more than a little disconcerting that they are able to do this?
There's no evidence this could be done with a retail device. But I'm not at all surprised that, on a prototype device, they have a remote kill switch built in.
So I suppose, then, that the blood spewed forth when Chell is shot is just, you know, fake "android blood"? And that GlaDOS put this supposed android in suspended animation just for kicks?
Hell, Valve stated that they added her heel supports because people didn't buy the idea that a human could fall as far as she does in the game (citation).
Which does nothing to explain why the "android hell" comment makes sense when addressed to Chell. Unless she is in fact an android, of course.
*sigh* It's *not* addressed to Chell.
It's a live fire course for testing androids, and GlaDOS just put Chell through it for kicks. The lines GlaDOS delivers would be given to androids being run through the course, but that doesn't mean Chell is an android. It just means GlaDOS is running her "android live fire course" program, which includes that snippet of dialog.
Anyway, I'm really not trying to say that Portal is a masterfull art piece, just that it IS art.
Okay, great, that's what I thought. I admit, it was a leading question, but there was a reason for it.:)
I think you and Mr. Ebert aren't working with the same definition of the word "art". When he, or I, say games aren't "art", what we mean is they aren't "masterful art". Of course they are creative works, and in that sense they are art, in the same way that, say, a child's finger painting is art, or the sketch I make on a napkin is art.
But neither of those things is "masterful art". That's the difference. So when Mr. Ebert says "games will never be art", what you should interpret that to mean is, "games will never achieve the level of masterful art".
Now, you may disagree with that, but it's important to understand what he's saying. I, and I suspect he as well, would *never* claim that games aren't creative works, and therefore fit *your* definition of art. We simply dispute the idea that they are "art" in the same way that a classic novel or a great painting is art.
Does that make sense?
Oh, and to the asshole mod who downmodded my post as a troll: fuck you. Seriously. Any idiot can see I'm trying to participate in a civil discussion, here. If you don't like what I have to say, fine. But quit abusing the mod system, you fucking asshole.
You say it's "chilling", and at the same time you claim it evokes no emotion?
I don't consider fear much of an evocation. I can do that but jumping out at someone from behind, but I wouldn't call that act performance art.:)
The whole argument about "videogames aren't be art" is merely an old elite claiming that *any* new and popular form of art isn't art.
Bullshit. See, this is the problem with people such as yourself. You can't simply participate in the argument. You have to belittle those who disagree. It's like the jackass mods around here, modding my posts down as overrated, even though I think I make cogent arguments. You may not feel those arguments are valid or worthy of an upmod, but to ascribe negative motivations to me, as you do above, is just poor argumentation at best, and a clear sign you're feeling defensive. Why might that be, exactly?
Here's a bet: I'm guessing that most of the people objecting to videogames being called art also objects to comics being called art.
Well, you're wrong here. I actually think comic books are a fantastic example of a modern artform appearing during modern times. Anyone who's read Watchmen or Maus or any of the Sandman installments would, I think, have difficulty arguing those pieces aren't art. Not only are they visually appealing, but they explore the human condition. They actually do educate and illuminate, exploring themes in modern culture through visuals and narrative.
Incidentally, if you look around at my posts, I don't necessarily agree with Ebert that games can *never* be art. I'm just not convinced anyone has created a game that is, yet.
So you're right, and I'm right, when we're talking about our own definitions... and neither of us are when talking about each others'.
I can certainly accept that, it's reasonable enough.
But still no one's explained to me why they think *Portal* is art (which was, after all, what my original post was about). How is it not just an interesting puzzle game wrapped up with some nice textures and music, and a barebones plotline? What makes Portal cross the line and, say, Doom II not? Or maybe you think Doom II does... is there a game you think *isn't* art? And if so, what does Portal have that that game doesn't?
Interesting. So your own personal definition of art is "Evokes an emotion, has a deeper meaning, teaches a lesson. Provides either insight or reflection. Is more abstractly beautiful or otherwise aesthetically pleasing than is average for a technically competent piece of work." However, most of what is unarguably considered "art" would fail one or more of those conditions.
Oh come now. Anyone with a reasonable level of reading comprehension would understand that those attributes I listed weren't meant to be interpreted as the necessary attributes that *all* works of art must possess. Heck, it wasn't even meant to be definitive. The point wasn't the list, it was the *idea*: that a piece of art transcends the superficial, and isn't simply ink on canvas, or words on paper.
And just a suggestion, next time, try not arguing based on technicalities. This isn't a court of law, neither you nor I are lawyers or judges (well, as far as I'm aware), and you aren't going to "win" the argument by identifying a loophole in my word choice or sentence structure.
Pretty sure GlaDOS says something along the line that you were "created" by Aperture to help them test their tech in one of the voice sequences in the lab. But it's been some times since I last played it through.
Nope, sorry.:) Like I say, it's a *really* common misapprehension, partly because she makes mention of androids during the first "live fire course". But that's because the course was meant to test military androids, not that you're one yourself.
Like I say, play it again. Or do a little googling. Chell is most certainly human.
The fact that GlaDOS was able to go nuts is the what I meant about the "Evil of Technology". I never said it particularly profound, but then, if you need a certain perceived *depth* for something to be "Art", where do you set the universal threshold that fits everybody?
Now you get it. I do believe art must have depth. Otherwise the term has no meaning. If there isn't some "threshold" for what is and isn't "art", then every silly short story I wrote in elementary school creative writing was "art". And while I find that flattering, it's also pretty ridiculous, don't you think?
As for the threshold, yup, I agree, that probably comes down to personal taste as much as anything else. And in my mind, as compared to an actual PKD novel, Portal's narrative truly pales in comparison, and doesn't pass that threshold in my mind.
And meanwhile, I have yet to see a compelling argument for why *Portal* is art. What about it is artful? The narrative is shallow. Well executed and entertaining, sure, but it's just simple entertainment. The gameplay is certainly cool, but I have trouble ascribing the term "art" to a clever physics engine and a neat technology trick. The artwork is certainly well done, but again, I don't see anything that I would consider terribly transcendent.
So what is it? *Why* do you think Portal is art?
Interesting that you didn't react on your aledged contradiction though
Actually, that was just an oversight on my part, I certainly intended do.
TBH, I don't see the contradiction. I said this:
Hilarious, clever, and a bit chilling at times.
I just don't think those things, in and of themselves, are enough to qualify something as a piece of art. Hell, Ghostbusters is hilarious, clever, and a bit chilling at times, but I'm not willing to call it a work of art. It's just well-executed entertainment. I'd say the same is true of Portal.
Portal is about the evil of technology used without concience, about corporate ruthlessness, about de-humanized procedures.
Weird, I'd say Portal is the usual "evil creature run amok" narrative. It's clear from the game that GlaDOS was created to facilitate Aperture Science's perfectly normal experiments in portal technology, but then went, well... nuts. It's really just that simple. As a narrative, it's actually incredibly shallow.
In parts, it links to P.K.Dick'ian themes, as you play an android...
Err... no you don't. Replay the game. This is a common misconception. Chell is human with special "shoes" (whatever they're called) to reinforce her legs so she can fall from great heights. She's definitely *not* an android.
Which, alas, pokes a rather large hole in your following text...
Taking apart GlaDOS at the end, piece by piece, suggests a deconstruction of an artificial psyche.
I dunno, that seems like stretching. I can't imagine the designers thought up GlaDOS and said to themselves "You know, she makes an excellent metaphor for the human psyche".
The companion cube evoked no emotion? How about the cake?
No, not even remotely. It was funny, to be sure. Hilarious, actually. But I didn't feel guilty or sad for the cube.
What, you did??:)
You yourself admitted to loving Portal -- is that love not an emotion?
Oh come on now. You sound like a ten-year-old asking if I want to marry my pizza after I said I loved it.:) Clearly I used the term "love" to express simple preference, not some deeper emotional connection.
I mean, you do know the difference between "I love pizza" and "I love my mother", right?:)
But of course, is art required to teach a moral lesson? I sure don't think so.
Of course not. An abstract painting or a piece of music doesn't teach a moral lesson.
I think I should be clear: My little list, there, shouldn't be taken as the *necessary* qualities of art. But I do believe that a piece of art aspires to convey *something* aside from the superficial, whether it be a moral lesson or a simple emotion.
But I honestly don't believe Portal does that. I think what you see is exactly what it is, a fun little puzzle game with a simple narrative tacked on.
It contains all the elements required to call it "art" in the same way that any movie deserves to be called art.
Ah, but maybe that's the difference. I *don't* think *any* movie deserves to be art. Some movies, definitely. But, say, Scary Movie? Fuck no. Funny, maybe. Entertaining? To some. But I'd never call it a work of "art", simply a work of entertainment.
Similarly, I honestly don't think of Portal as anything more than simple entertainment, nothing more. But that's not meant to be pejorative. Frankly, I don't think it's creators ever intended it to be anything more than that. It's *fun*. Why does it have to be "art"?
Come on. Who does not share the sense of elation at the end of something like Rocky, or when the Ring falls into Mt. Doom? How is that not winning
Because the sense of elation you get from a game is selfish. *You* won. *You* reached that goal.
A great movie *evokes* emotion because you connect with the characters and feel for them when they achieve, while at the same time you empathize and relate to them.
But a game? Hell no. I mean, come on, can you really tell me you felt elated for Chell when she broke out of the Aperture Science lab, and not just for yourself because you beat the game?
That said, I fundamentally disagree with him. Art evokes an emotional response -- and video games do that in spades. From becoming an avatar in Ultima, to avoiding zombies in Resident Evil, losing Arith in FF VII, exploring your coldwar inner child in post-apocalyptic DC in Fallout 3 and discovering who GladOS is in Portal, video games do that. Denying such is just being snobbish.
I gotta say, I disagree.
All those games you cite certainly inspire excitement and fear, an adrenaline rush in the face of a challenge and at the risk of losing. But those aren't emotions inspired by the work, per se. They're simply triggered by your brain's risk-reward system.
Ask yourself: Do you feel any actual, real connection to the characters? Do you feel sadness for them? Sense their love? Their loss? Do you keenly feel pain when an NPC dies? Or actual joy for the characters (not just your personal achievement) when you win? When you finish the game, do you feel changed personally?
I know I haven't experienced that, most certainly not when compared to a great piece of music or a well-written novel. Sure, kicking the ass of an insane computer or a zombie in a postapocalyptic setting is fun. But art? You'll forgive me if I remain skeptical.
By the way, I'm not completely with Ebert in that I will concede that, some day, some game may reach what I personally would consider art. Maybe. But I disagree with the TED speaker in that I don't believe they've reached that point just yet.
But he is a professional critic, and he probably dislikes the respectability video games are getting in mainstream culture today. The thought of a room full of students critiquing Norman Jayden in Heavy Rain likely scares Ebert.
Or maybe he just, like, disagrees with you.
But why argue when you can just cast aspersions upon the man, right?
There are countless films that appeal only to our base desires for a laugh or a cringe, and they remain artistic for being cinema.
They do? Says who? Do you have evidence Ebert has? Or are you perhaps just erecting a strawman?
Aww, cute. A poor wittle mod decided to just mod me down rather than participate in a cogent discussion. Apparently I touched a nerve. Then again, this is Slashdot... I'm sure any comment that even suggests games might not be art will be modded down with great alacrity.
Slashdot Mirror
You've got it backwards. It's the savings that those workers produce that allows them to buy more which causes the cost of living to go up.
Well, yeah, duh, no kidding. But they wouldn't have *any* savings if the world wasn't buying what they were producing, as those jobs simply wouldn't exist.
The world doesn't progress due to consumption, it progresses due to production. Anyone can consume, and in infinite amounts.
Yes, but if there is no demand, there's no reason to increase supply, and it's on the supply side of the equation where the jobs are created.
The truth is that without production, any people, no matter how rich they once were, are destined to decline into poverty.
And without consumption, there would *be no jobs in the first place*.
The reality is that, in a closed economy, increased production and increased consumption go hand-in-hand. As people consume more, there is greater demand for jobs. As those jobs are created, people have more money to spend, and that increases consumption, and the cycle perpetuates.
In the case of China, the outside world is artificially inflating the demand side of that equation, and that in turn fuels the production side in China. That's a *good thing*.
Wow, this is an absolutely pitch-perfect, by-the-books troll. Start off with something reasonable (microsoft bad), then something still reasonable but a little bit more odd (Sea Shepherds bad), then get weird (I liked Hamas but not any more), and then finally the coup de grace (I was a democrat, but now Obama is teh EVIL!)
Well done! Congratulations to you, BadAnalogyGuy. You have truly surpassed yourself.
How is this gonna happen in China?
People will just not work at those factories. *shrug*
The simple fact is, people are *choosing* this work. But as the cost of living increases, which is inevitable as industrialization progresses, people will suddenly have more freedom to choose their job. The minute that happens, employers will have to create conditions which attract employees, and
the result will be improved working conditions for everyone.
And ironically, in this scenario, it's world consumption that *drives* these improvements, as it is the demand which creates these jobs in the first place. But, of course, that means Wal-Mart might not be a vast force of pure evil, and no one wants to believe *that*...
Wow, $6.79 of purchasing power per hour for 15 hour shifts!
Err, $6.79 plus free food plus free housing. Factor all that in and I guarantee you it's no worse than your average minimum wage job in the US.
Meanwhile, if you think there aren't people in the US working 15 hour days, think again. Hell, when I grew up, my mom had *3* jobs to make ends meet. And I'm willing to bet that's far more common than you, in your cushy little office job, realize.
Maybe because the media likes to lie and spin these things to seem worse than they are? Maybe because using loaded language, such as referring to this job as a "prison", even though the workers *choose* to work there, is ugly and underhanded? Maybe because, without context, this kind of outrage is largely meaningless? Maybe because the article notably *doesn't* mention: cost of living, wage relative to other jobs in the area, surveys of worker satisfaction, etc?
I could go on, but I think I've made my point. I mean, christ, this is the Daily Mail we're talking about here, a tabloid of the worst sort. You'll forgive me if I take any reports they make with an *extremely* large grain of salt.
I consider Portal to be art because it introduced a new and interesting gameplay mechanic, the environment was fairly atmospheric and the story, while short, was engaging.
But come on, how can an interesting gameplay mechanic and a cute (if shallow) story turn an FPS into a work of art? I mean, don't get me wrong, it's certainly a product of creativity, and so is art in the same way that, say, the stick figure I draw on a napkin is art. But how can any of those elements raise Portal to the level of Art as Mr. Ebert is defining it (ie, a great creative work along the lines of Shakespeare, Mozart, etc)?
'course, at this point, we're clearly in "personal opinion" territory, so I don't expect to convince you, nor vice versa. I just find it baffling that anyone can play Portal and say to themselves "Yeah, I'd say this is in the same territory as Hamlet"...
I would counter that by asking you whether there's a painting that's not art,
Well that's a silly question, of course there is. I could make one for you right now if you want.
Okay, that's technically not true. Anything creative is artwork, but not every creative product is Art. Remember, Mr. Ebert isn't talking about artwork in general. Any idiot can see games clearly fall into that category (as does any other product of creativity). What he's talking about is high art, great art, the kind of stuff artists aspire to create. The kind of stuff you'd never get if you put me in front of a canvas with a paintbrush. :)
and what that painting lacks that, say, a Jason Pollack piece does not.
Oh, I don't know, technique? Aesthetic beauty? Symbolism or some other deeper meaning? The ability to evoke emotion? That sort of thing. And I guarantee you, any painting I create won't evoke any of that. :)
I think ultimately, we all define art as "something that invokes a feeling."
But by that definition, the basest pornography qualifies as great art.
Other than that, I think my main disagreement with you is that you seem to limit your definition of art to good art or deep art.
No, *Mr. Ebert* was talking about "good art" or "deep art". Hell, that's the whole fucking point he's trying to make, and is the absolute heart of the whole discussion: he believes games will *never* be anything more than simple entertainment, and can never reach the level of art in the Shakespeare/Mozart/etc sense of the word (as opposed to the "finger painting in elementary school art class" sense of the word).
It's just the pedants around here that want to take his comments and warp them to mean he doesn't believe games are works of creativity at all (a statement that's so utterly absurd it's easy to contradict, which is, perhaps, why the pedants around here chose to simply change the argument rather than addressing his actual point).
This is only because of regulation. The reason I can't build a fiber ring in my small town and offer gigabit speeds is because of FCC Regulation.
Really? That's the *only* reason? So, what, you have agreement from residents to dig up their streets? The millions or billions needed to actually dig the holes, lay the fiber, and build out the rest of the infrastructure? The expertise and manpower to make that all happen? Really??
Wow, that's impressive! I was I was so rich and privileged...
Everywhere but the US.
And Canada. *sigh*
Anybody else also thinks it's more than a little disconcerting that they are able to do this?
There's no evidence this could be done with a retail device. But I'm not at all surprised that, on a prototype device, they have a remote kill switch built in.
Or, they remotely bricked all of them, and then everyone could bring theirs in the next day and un-brick it.
Just FYI, if you can "un-brick" it (without the use of a soldering iron, anyway), it wasn't bricked to begin with.
So I suppose, then, that the blood spewed forth when Chell is shot is just, you know, fake "android blood"? And that GlaDOS put this supposed android in suspended animation just for kicks?
Hell, Valve stated that they added her heel supports because people didn't buy the idea that a human could fall as far as she does in the game (citation).
Which does nothing to explain why the "android hell" comment makes sense when addressed to Chell. Unless she is in fact an android, of course.
*sigh* It's *not* addressed to Chell.
It's a live fire course for testing androids, and GlaDOS just put Chell through it for kicks. The lines GlaDOS delivers would be given to androids being run through the course, but that doesn't mean Chell is an android. It just means GlaDOS is running her "android live fire course" program, which includes that snippet of dialog.
Anyway, I'm really not trying to say that Portal is a masterfull art piece, just that it IS art.
Okay, great, that's what I thought. I admit, it was a leading question, but there was a reason for it. :)
I think you and Mr. Ebert aren't working with the same definition of the word "art". When he, or I, say games aren't "art", what we mean is they aren't "masterful art". Of course they are creative works, and in that sense they are art, in the same way that, say, a child's finger painting is art, or the sketch I make on a napkin is art.
But neither of those things is "masterful art". That's the difference. So when Mr. Ebert says "games will never be art", what you should interpret that to mean is, "games will never achieve the level of masterful art".
Now, you may disagree with that, but it's important to understand what he's saying. I, and I suspect he as well, would *never* claim that games aren't creative works, and therefore fit *your* definition of art. We simply dispute the idea that they are "art" in the same way that a classic novel or a great painting is art.
Does that make sense?
Oh, and to the asshole mod who downmodded my post as a troll: fuck you. Seriously. Any idiot can see I'm trying to participate in a civil discussion, here. If you don't like what I have to say, fine. But quit abusing the mod system, you fucking asshole.
Well .. I guess you can feel yourself, flattered : the silly short stories you wrote WERE art. If you had writen a phone book, I might think otherwise.
See, now, I think what's really happening here is a terminological mismatch.
So, do you really not make any distinction between, say, the short stories I wrote in elementary school, and a work by Charles Dickens?
You say it's "chilling", and at the same time you claim it evokes no emotion?
I don't consider fear much of an evocation. I can do that but jumping out at someone from behind, but I wouldn't call that act performance art. :)
The whole argument about "videogames aren't be art" is merely an old elite claiming that *any* new and popular form of art isn't art.
Bullshit. See, this is the problem with people such as yourself. You can't simply participate in the argument. You have to belittle those who disagree. It's like the jackass mods around here, modding my posts down as overrated, even though I think I make cogent arguments. You may not feel those arguments are valid or worthy of an upmod, but to ascribe negative motivations to me, as you do above, is just poor argumentation at best, and a clear sign you're feeling defensive. Why might that be, exactly?
Here's a bet: I'm guessing that most of the people objecting to videogames being called art also objects to comics being called art.
Well, you're wrong here. I actually think comic books are a fantastic example of a modern artform appearing during modern times. Anyone who's read Watchmen or Maus or any of the Sandman installments would, I think, have difficulty arguing those pieces aren't art. Not only are they visually appealing, but they explore the human condition. They actually do educate and illuminate, exploring themes in modern culture through visuals and narrative.
Incidentally, if you look around at my posts, I don't necessarily agree with Ebert that games can *never* be art. I'm just not convinced anyone has created a game that is, yet.
So you're right, and I'm right, when we're talking about our own definitions... and neither of us are when talking about each others'.
I can certainly accept that, it's reasonable enough.
But still no one's explained to me why they think *Portal* is art (which was, after all, what my original post was about). How is it not just an interesting puzzle game wrapped up with some nice textures and music, and a barebones plotline? What makes Portal cross the line and, say, Doom II not? Or maybe you think Doom II does... is there a game you think *isn't* art? And if so, what does Portal have that that game doesn't?
Interesting. So your own personal definition of art is "Evokes an emotion, has a deeper meaning, teaches a lesson. Provides either insight or reflection. Is more abstractly beautiful or otherwise aesthetically pleasing than is average for a technically competent piece of work." However, most of what is unarguably considered "art" would fail one or more of those conditions.
Oh come now. Anyone with a reasonable level of reading comprehension would understand that those attributes I listed weren't meant to be interpreted as the necessary attributes that *all* works of art must possess. Heck, it wasn't even meant to be definitive. The point wasn't the list, it was the *idea*: that a piece of art transcends the superficial, and isn't simply ink on canvas, or words on paper.
And just a suggestion, next time, try not arguing based on technicalities. This isn't a court of law, neither you nor I are lawyers or judges (well, as far as I'm aware), and you aren't going to "win" the argument by identifying a loophole in my word choice or sentence structure.
Pretty sure GlaDOS says something along the line that you were "created" by Aperture to help them test their tech in one of the voice sequences in the lab. But it's been some times since I last played it through.
Nope, sorry. :) Like I say, it's a *really* common misapprehension, partly because she makes mention of androids during the first "live fire course". But that's because the course was meant to test military androids, not that you're one yourself.
Like I say, play it again. Or do a little googling. Chell is most certainly human.
The fact that GlaDOS was able to go nuts is the what I meant about the "Evil of Technology". I never said it particularly profound, but then, if you need a certain perceived *depth* for something to be "Art", where do you set the universal threshold that fits everybody?
Now you get it. I do believe art must have depth. Otherwise the term has no meaning. If there isn't some "threshold" for what is and isn't "art", then every silly short story I wrote in elementary school creative writing was "art". And while I find that flattering, it's also pretty ridiculous, don't you think?
As for the threshold, yup, I agree, that probably comes down to personal taste as much as anything else. And in my mind, as compared to an actual PKD novel, Portal's narrative truly pales in comparison, and doesn't pass that threshold in my mind.
And meanwhile, I have yet to see a compelling argument for why *Portal* is art. What about it is artful? The narrative is shallow. Well executed and entertaining, sure, but it's just simple entertainment. The gameplay is certainly cool, but I have trouble ascribing the term "art" to a clever physics engine and a neat technology trick. The artwork is certainly well done, but again, I don't see anything that I would consider terribly transcendent.
So what is it? *Why* do you think Portal is art?
Interesting that you didn't react on your aledged contradiction though
Actually, that was just an oversight on my part, I certainly intended do.
TBH, I don't see the contradiction. I said this:
I just don't think those things, in and of themselves, are enough to qualify something as a piece of art. Hell, Ghostbusters is hilarious, clever, and a bit chilling at times, but I'm not willing to call it a work of art. It's just well-executed entertainment. I'd say the same is true of Portal.
Portal is about the evil of technology used without concience, about corporate ruthlessness, about de-humanized procedures.
Weird, I'd say Portal is the usual "evil creature run amok" narrative. It's clear from the game that GlaDOS was created to facilitate Aperture Science's perfectly normal experiments in portal technology, but then went, well... nuts. It's really just that simple. As a narrative, it's actually incredibly shallow.
In parts, it links to P.K.Dick'ian themes, as you play an android ...
Err... no you don't. Replay the game. This is a common misconception. Chell is human with special "shoes" (whatever they're called) to reinforce her legs so she can fall from great heights. She's definitely *not* an android.
Which, alas, pokes a rather large hole in your following text...
Taking apart GlaDOS at the end, piece by piece, suggests a deconstruction of an artificial psyche.
I dunno, that seems like stretching. I can't imagine the designers thought up GlaDOS and said to themselves "You know, she makes an excellent metaphor for the human psyche".
The companion cube evoked no emotion? How about the cake?
No, not even remotely. It was funny, to be sure. Hilarious, actually. But I didn't feel guilty or sad for the cube.
What, you did?? :)
You yourself admitted to loving Portal -- is that love not an emotion?
Oh come on now. You sound like a ten-year-old asking if I want to marry my pizza after I said I loved it. :) Clearly I used the term "love" to express simple preference, not some deeper emotional connection.
I mean, you do know the difference between "I love pizza" and "I love my mother", right? :)
But of course, is art required to teach a moral lesson? I sure don't think so.
Of course not. An abstract painting or a piece of music doesn't teach a moral lesson.
I think I should be clear: My little list, there, shouldn't be taken as the *necessary* qualities of art. But I do believe that a piece of art aspires to convey *something* aside from the superficial, whether it be a moral lesson or a simple emotion.
But I honestly don't believe Portal does that. I think what you see is exactly what it is, a fun little puzzle game with a simple narrative tacked on.
It contains all the elements required to call it "art" in the same way that any movie deserves to be called art.
Ah, but maybe that's the difference. I *don't* think *any* movie deserves to be art. Some movies, definitely. But, say, Scary Movie? Fuck no. Funny, maybe. Entertaining? To some. But I'd never call it a work of "art", simply a work of entertainment.
Similarly, I honestly don't think of Portal as anything more than simple entertainment, nothing more. But that's not meant to be pejorative. Frankly, I don't think it's creators ever intended it to be anything more than that. It's *fun*. Why does it have to be "art"?
Come on. Who does not share the sense of elation at the end of something like Rocky, or when the Ring falls into Mt. Doom? How is that not winning
Because the sense of elation you get from a game is selfish. *You* won. *You* reached that goal.
A great movie *evokes* emotion because you connect with the characters and feel for them when they achieve, while at the same time you empathize and relate to them.
But a game? Hell no. I mean, come on, can you really tell me you felt elated for Chell when she broke out of the Aperture Science lab, and not just for yourself because you beat the game?
That said, I fundamentally disagree with him. Art evokes an emotional response -- and video games do that in spades. From becoming an avatar in Ultima, to avoiding zombies in Resident Evil, losing Arith in FF VII, exploring your coldwar inner child in post-apocalyptic DC in Fallout 3 and discovering who GladOS is in Portal, video games do that. Denying such is just being snobbish.
I gotta say, I disagree.
All those games you cite certainly inspire excitement and fear, an adrenaline rush in the face of a challenge and at the risk of losing. But those aren't emotions inspired by the work, per se. They're simply triggered by your brain's risk-reward system.
Ask yourself: Do you feel any actual, real connection to the characters? Do you feel sadness for them? Sense their love? Their loss? Do you keenly feel pain when an NPC dies? Or actual joy for the characters (not just your personal achievement) when you win? When you finish the game, do you feel changed personally?
I know I haven't experienced that, most certainly not when compared to a great piece of music or a well-written novel. Sure, kicking the ass of an insane computer or a zombie in a postapocalyptic setting is fun. But art? You'll forgive me if I remain skeptical.
By the way, I'm not completely with Ebert in that I will concede that, some day, some game may reach what I personally would consider art. Maybe. But I disagree with the TED speaker in that I don't believe they've reached that point just yet.
But he is a professional critic, and he probably dislikes the respectability video games are getting in mainstream culture today. The thought of a room full of students critiquing Norman Jayden in Heavy Rain likely scares Ebert.
Or maybe he just, like, disagrees with you.
But why argue when you can just cast aspersions upon the man, right?
There are countless films that appeal only to our base desires for a laugh or a cringe, and they remain artistic for being cinema.
They do? Says who? Do you have evidence Ebert has? Or are you perhaps just erecting a strawman?
Aww, cute. A poor wittle mod decided to just mod me down rather than participate in a cogent discussion. Apparently I touched a nerve. Then again, this is Slashdot... I'm sure any comment that even suggests games might not be art will be modded down with great alacrity.