Ebert Reads Your Mail

[Balthasar]

Aparently Ebert (and the people that work on his website) have been reading a lot (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051206/COMMENTARY/51206002) of the responses (http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051208/COMMENTARY/51208002) from the gaming community about his comments regarding Video Games as art. The past couple of days he has been posting some of the comments he got in his mailbox and saw on message boards, both positive and negative.

From Part One of the reader responses:

I find it hard to believe that anyone can complain about a multi-billion dollar business that is overtaking the movie industry. But somehow you found a way. We live in a new age and if you can't find it in you to update your opinion on the industry, then none of your opinions matter because your old style of movies has passed. I haven't seen one good movie in a long time that can compare with the hours and hours that a video game can give out and the genius that goes into these games.
From Part Two:

Videogames may be difficult to make, requiring great thought, skill, planning, and care, but so is an armoire made of okra. That doesn't make either one art. VGs may be entertaining, escapist, enjoyable, and absorbing, but so is masturbation, and that doesn't make either one art. What art does that VGs do not, and probably never will, is edify and ennoble (even in the form of subversion). Moreover, and as a result, art endures. We are reading Cervantes and Goethe, performing Shakespeare and Moliere, and listening to Mozart and Beethoven hundreds of years after their works were created, with no end in sight. We aren't playing NES games 20 years after their creation. Indeed, they weren't being played 5 years after their creation. My garage is full of old videogame systems that will never be turned on again simply because new and better systems have come along. By contrast, when you buy a Chagall painting, you don't throw away your Van Gogh.
The second link contains responses that are more thoughtful, literate, and insightful than the first link, but they both offer interesting opinions, for the most part. Even though I personally don't see video games being art as a medium (yet), I find myself agreeing with many points in these letters from both sides of the debate.

[Adam Blue]

We aren't playing NES games 20 years after their creation.

What? C'mon. We all know the truth there. Ask Nintendo...or own one of their newer consoles.

[omnithrope]

The "Part Two" quote is spot on.

[fitbabits]

Ebert is nothing but a bitter old hack whose concept of 'art' is crap. Try telling Nintendo that no-one is playing their games 20 years after they have been made. Tosspot.

[Twinkie]

When the NES came out, gaming was still very young.

Don't compare an NES game to a Van Gogh, compare an NES game to something drawn on a wall by cavemen (That is, in no way, meant as an insult towards game designers 20 years ago).

I don't know if games are an art form quite yet, but hints are showing up here and there. Maybe in 10 years.

[Klade]

We also aren't reading the thousands upon thousands of rommance, fiction, and non-fiction biographies that were written 200 years ago. Does that mean they are not art?

There were more books and plays written then shakespeare and Dickens. The difference is between a piece of art and a masterpiece that will endure. To compare every single game against thousands of years of masterpieces is so stupid it barely deserves comment.

To say that no game has ever touched a person, changed their perspective or how they thought about life is also silly. Chances are any of us who have been playing games for more then a few years could point to games that made us say "wow this is incredible" and we werent talking about the technical abilities either. And we STILL play those games.

[bKangy]

His point is bullshit. Nobody looks at cave paintings nowadays, and nobody listens to the very first recorded sheet music made in monastries.

[TheKeck]

The "Part Two" quote is spot on.

Yeah, if "spot on" = "a load of crap"

so is an armoire made of okra. That doesn't make either one art.

If this guy thinks that this ISN'T art, he needs to explore the art field more.

What art does that VGs do not, and probably never will, is edify and ennoble (even in the form of subversion).

This statement makes me so mad I don't even know where to begin.

We aren't playing NES games 20 years after their creation. Indeed, they weren't being played 5 years after their creation.

This is absolutely untrue. Just because HE'S not play these games, doens't mean WE aren't. I've never read Cervantes. I guess that means it's not art.

[Dirty Harry]

Ebert is nothing but a bitter old hack whose concept of 'art' is crap. Try telling Nintendo that no-one is playing their games 20 years after they have been made. Tosspot.
Yeah this hoser needs to go.

[kickmybum]

Um... who cares?

[RMan]

Precisely, Twinkie, video games, big business or not, are in their infant stages. We don’t watch movies from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s either, even thought the technology was in use. Without a doubt, games will always be an inferior story telling medium than film, but it brings other possibilities that have not yet been exploited, IMO.

[midrael]

This completely depends on what your definition of art is.

If you only consider art to be Mozart and Da Vinci and the like, then I can see how you might consider video games to not be an artistic medium.

If you consider art as anything meant to invoke a sense of beauty whether through words, aesthetic presentation, sounds, colors, or movement, then chances are you probably see video games as an artistic medium.

[OUX]

Precisely, Twinkie, video games, big business or not, are in their infant stages. We don’t watch movies from the late 1800’s and early 1900’s either, even thought the technology was in use. Without a doubt, games will always be an inferior story telling medium than film, but it brings other possibilities that have not yet been exploited, IMO.

I disagree I think games are much better at story telling than film could ever hope to be. I stand firm in the statement that Final Fantasy 7 has a better story and presentation than ANY movie made in the last 10 years. Anyone flame me if you want but bring examples because were gonna rumble!

[fitbabits]

This completely depends on what your definition of art is.

If you only consider art to be Mozart and Da Vinci and the like, then I can see how you might consider video games to not be an artistic medium.

If you consider art as anything meant to invoke a sense of beauty whether through words, aesthetic presentation, sounds, colors, or movement, then chances are you probably see video games as an artistic medium.
Perhaps, but it doesn't change the fact that Ebert's argument has as many holes in it as the vest he probably wears under his shirt.

[Balthasar]

Ebert is nothing but a bitter old hack whose concept of 'art' is crap. Try telling Nintendo that no-one is playing their games 20 years after they have been made. Tosspot.

Actually, Ebert didn't make any comments about Nintendo. Those quotes are from readers, most of them gamers to some degree or another.

[Heretic Machine]

Quite frankly, I think the idea of art is quite silly and dated. Everything we do expresses SOMETHING, what makes objects like a painting or a novel anymore expressive? Art is just a word invented to allow people to make a living by "expressing" theirselves as proffessional artists. Maybe it could be argued that a project done out of love would be true Art, but in that case neither movies nor games would fall into the category of Art, as they are both made to make money for the people who fund them. So, basically either everything is art, or nothing is, I don't really care which you choose but I tend to go with the second.

[Babbster]

So, basically either everything is art, or nothing is, I don't really care which you choose but I tend to go with the second.

This is why I frame my skidmarked underwear instead of washing it. ;)

[Varsity]

There are two questions that this hangs on for me: what is art, and what elements of a game make it a game? I consider art anything that is created to make the viewer, player, reader or whoever experience an emotion, and the crux of a game to be in its interactivity. An interaction that leads to a genuine emotion (adrenaline is not one) is therefore art, at whatever level.

Shadow of the Colossus is a work of art because it is the fact that YOU are actively destroying the Colossi creates your moral dilemma. The only flaw is that, while it is technically possible to decide not to hurt them and walk away, you have to kill them to progress - but that needn't have been the case.

Half-Life 2's introductory maps are art too, but it is not their interactivity that makes them so and I don't think calling the game a piece of art can be justified with them. The exception is the 'pick up that can' scene.

So yes, it is entirely possible for a game to be art. It's just rare in today's industry.

Edit: another potential example of art by my defenition: EVE Online. Any thoughts?

[RMan]

I disagree I think games are much better at story telling than film could ever hope to be.
No, what I mean is it's an inferior storytelling medium, but that doesn't mean a game can't produce a superior experience than a movie, it just won't be because of storytelling. Good storytelling involves crafting a series of events and timing their presentation in a way to illicit an emotional response. The nature of something interactive pretty much means the player/user can alter the timing, and generally break the flow of the story (and that’s if it’s perfectly crafted, if not they can break the story altogether). In short, as interactivity increases, control over presentation decreases and that’s what makes it an inferior storytelling medium.

[GrinR]

We already had this conversation. It was better the first time.

[Varsity]

No, what I mean is it's an inferior storytelling medium, but that doesn't mean a game can't produce a superior experience than a movie, it just won't be because of storytelling. Good storytelling involves crafting a series of events and timing their presentation in a way to illicit an emotional response. The nature of something interactive pretty much means the player/user can alter the timing, and generally break the flow of the story (and that’s if it’s perfectly crafted, if not they can break the story altogether). In short, as interactivity increases, control over presentation decreases and that’s what makes it an inferior storytelling medium.
On the other hand, player-driven events are always more emotional than predetermined ones of the same type. Thus my EVE suggestion.

[Citizen Philip]

The word "art" has expanded expoentially since the early 1900s. You can take courses in post-modernism: the whole point of the course is, What is Art? That's how loaded the word art is.

I believe books have the best narrative ability, followed by games, followed by movies. Your imagniation always wins, which is the realm in which books lie. I believe movies are like TV, the medium of a non-questioning passive person. A book, like a game is interactive (I can skip ahead, reread a portion or avoid elements in a book), you are required to do something (i.e. read). I'd rather be involved in a process than dictated to.

Ebert is an old man who doesn't want, cannot or is unable to accept games other in their most superfical form. Which is quite ironic, as most Hollywood movies are superfical overly simplifed and quite insulting to their audience: I guess he is observing games with his 3D movie glasses: I imagine he resents his inability to shovel popcorn in his mouth and suck down a gallon of coke - AND NOT BE - finished with a game in two hours.

[RMan]

On the other hand, player-driven events are always more emotional than predetermined ones of the same type. Thus my EVE suggestion.
Possibly true, but that's not storytelling, that's something that perhaps we need a new word for (and the possibility that Ebert and other more conditioned/closed minded people just seem to overlook).

[OUX]

RMan I am sorry but I have been more emotionally effected by games far more often than by films. The characters struggle becomes my struggle, their successes and failures are mine after I play threw them. When Aeris died I cried and was so angery that I had to stop for a few days before I rationalized that the only closure would be to beat the game. At the end of shadow I was practically dancing trying to hold onto the ground and struggling to not be sucked into the void. I felt betrayed when bastila went to the darkside. The long and short of it is that in the games you are the story and in movies your just watching someone else's story.

[captainspankypants]

Do you think Ebert has ever played a video game? If he has, do you think he has played a game since Space Invaders or maybe Pac Man?

[Citizen Philip]

There are two questions that this hangs on for me: what is art, and what elements of a game make it a game? I consider art anything that is created to make the viewer, player, reader or whoever experience an emotion, and the crux of a game to be in its interactivity. An interaction that leads to a genuine emotion (adrenaline is not one) is therefore art, at whatever level.

Shadow of the Colossus is a work of art because it is the fact that YOU are actively destroying the Colossi creates your moral dilemma. The only flaw is that, while it is technically possible to decide not to hurt them and walk away, you have to kill them to progress - but that needn't have been the case.

Half-Life 2's introductory maps are art too, but it is not their interactivity that makes them so and I don't think calling the game a piece of art can be justified with them. The exception is the 'pick up that can' scene.

So yes, it is entirely possible for a game to be art. It's just rare in today's industry.

Edit: another potential example of art by my defenition: EVE Online. Any thoughts?

I believe genuine, ageless art is rare. Regardless of its medium. Cultural works that become known municipally, nationally or evenly globally is a very complex interaction of many factors.

As far as, what is art and what is not? Grab yourself a couple of degrees and you could make a living debating what is, and what isn't.

[Citizen Philip]

We already had this conversation. It was better the first time.

Agreed. I refuse to start writing very long responses about a subject that has no right or wrong answer.

[fitbabits]

Surprised no-one else has thought of this, but what about asking Ebert to play The Movies (http://www.gametab.com/pc/movies.the/2441/) and then give his opinion?

[OUX]

I would honestly be surprised if he could send an email with an attachment let alone muliti-task in a game.

EDIT: You also forget the levels of adeptness
Those who can do;
Those who can't teach;
And all the while the fools criticize them all.

[Com_Gaunt]

Um... who cares?

Exactly!
"Art" is such a relative concept and just because someone who has been recognized by society as an expert on some subject deems something not Art does not make it so.
The great masters of various paintings that are considered "Art" now were scorned by the experts of their time and most of them did not become successful until after their death.

I consider games like Syndicate, UFO: Enemy unknown, System Shock, Fallout, Baldurs Gate II, Gothic and so on works of great art that go beyond some picture of flowers that some dutch dude missing his left ear created hundreds of years ago.

And who cares what other people say? My enjoyment of my art collection of games will not diminish due to other people's perception of them.

[fitbabits]

I would honestly be surprised if he could send an email with an attachment let alone muliti-task in a game.
Then he can get his staffers to play it (http://www.gametab.com/pc/movies.the/2441/) while he watches and critiques.

[Tohoya]

Actually, yes, the enthusiasts are still playing old NES and SNES games from the past. It's not like the average music-listener listens to Beethoven either; they listen to what's new and hot.

[Balthasar]

His point is bullshit. Nobody looks at cave paintings nowadays, and nobody listens to the very first recorded sheet music made in monastries.

Two things:

1) People absolutely continue to look at prehistoric art. The Venus of Willendorf and sculptures like it can be found on display in many reputable museums. Lascaux's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux) cave paintings continue to be visited to this day.

2) Recorded music does not date back as far as paintings, but we certainly listen to music created as far back as the 1200's, maybe before. Ballads from as far back as then have been remade from time to time by musicians, including more modern rock musicians. Ever hear "When the Levee Breaks?"

[Citizen Philip]

Exactly!
I consider games like Syndicate, UFO: Enemy unknown, System Shock, Fallout, Baldurs Gate II, Gothic and so on works of great art that go beyond some picture of flowers that some dutch dude missing his left ear created hundreds of years ago.

And who cares what other people say? My enjoyment of my art collection of games will not diminish due to other people's perception of them.

I believe the relative terms are:

You do what you want and you don't care what people think, and you're are poor = crazy

You do what you want and you don't care what people think, and you're are rich = eccentric

You do what you want and you don't care what people think, and you're are neither rich nor poor = unimportant

[Dirty Harry]

I think the game Gun is very good and i eagarily await the sequel i hope it is atleast four times as long as the first game. Being a cowboy is hella fun biznatch.

[Varsity]

Possibly true, but that's not storytelling, that's something that perhaps we need a new word for (and the possibility that Ebert and other more conditioned/closed minded people just seem to overlook).
It certainly needs a new word, but it remains the same principle.

[bKangy]

Two things:

1) People absolutely continue to look at prehistoric art. The Venus of Willendorf and sculptures like it can be found on display in many reputable museums. Lascaux's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lascaux) cave paintings continue to be visited to this day.


Ah, but is this a historical study, or an appreciation of "great art" (which as others have pointed out, is a pretty much self-defined term anyway)?

2) Recorded music does not date back as far as paintings, but we certainly listen to music created as far back as the 1200's, maybe before. Ballads from as far back as then have been remade from time to time by musicians, including more modern rock musicians. Ever hear "When the Levee Breaks?"[/QUOTE]

This is true, and I don't claim to much of an expert in this field, but surely this is picking up the musical ball and running with it, as opposed to everyone listening and appreciating the original work as it was originally created? And no, I've not heard it, but I suppose I'll take a look now :)

[CrimsonPixel]

art

• noun 1 the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively. 3 (the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, and drama. 4 (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with human culture (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects). 5 a skill: the art of conversation.

I'd say, going by what the dictionary says, that video games definately fill most of the literal criteria for what is art. While all games are not art, neither are all movies, or all drawings, or all writings.

You have games like Tony Hawks or the NFL games that are simply exercises in fun, but then you have creative masterpieces like some Final Fantasy games, or ICO, or even Katamari that definately are an art form.

Just remember though, for Every Clockwork Orange level of film, we have a dozen Doom levels of film.

[Kelegacy]

Ebert is nothing but a bitter old hack whose concept of 'art' is crap. Try telling Nintendo that no-one is playing their games 20 years after they have been made. Tosspot.
I like Ebert and appreciate his views, I really do, but he and Roeper gave The Devil's Rejects by Rob Zombie 2 THUMBS UP!!! I watched it on Saturday and abandoned it halfway through because it was so idiotic and mindless.

[RMan]

RMan I am sorry but I have been more emotionally effected by games far more often than by films.
Again, just because they can have more emotional impact doesn't mean they're a better storytelling medium, they just bring other things to the table. I believe it's a superior medium also, but that doesn't mean it's superior in every way, and recognizing that deficiency is important if you want to have a real discussion, especially with someone who doesn't recognize what games can do. In general, the average person doesn't consider games coming close to film in terms of storytelling or eliciting an emotional response (at least one that's not related to violent behavior :)). For you, it seems that your emotional impact was increased by the greater immersion the game supplied, but again, that’s a different thing than storytelling (the key part of it is the ‘telling’ part, perhaps the word to describe what you like is ‘storyliving’, or something less lame :)).

[fitbabits]

I like Ebert and appreciate his views, I really do, but he and Roeper gave The Devil's Rejects by Rob Zombie 2 THUMBS UP!!! I watched it on Saturday and abandoned it halfway through because it was so idiotic and mindless.
I used to appreciate his views, but there have been too many 'bought' TWO THUMBS WAY UP for my liking!

And The Devil's Rejects is fucking shite!

[midrael]

I believe genuine, ageless art is rare. Regardless of its medium. Cultural works that become known municipally, nationally or evenly globally is a very complex interaction of many factors.

I think Citizen Philip really hit on a major hole in Ebert's comparison. Ebert isn't comparing games to art.. he's comparing it to ageless art. There's a difference between a painting by Leonardo Da Vinci and a painting of Leonardo the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle.

Can they both be art? Sure, I think so. Heck, both can be in the exact same medium. Yet, the likelihood of the Da Vinci painting being remembered through the ages are probably higher than our painting of Leo.

It's a falacy to believe that something has to be timeless in order to be considered art.

[OUX]

I like Ebert and appreciate his views, I really do, but he and Roeper gave The Devil's Rejects by Rob Zombie 2 THUMBS UP!!! I watched it on Saturday and abandoned it halfway through because it was so idiotic and mindless.

OMFG! Kel I completely agree with you for the 2nd time in 1 week...creepy :D

[Heretic Machine]

Fuck you guys, The Devil's Rejects was an awesome movie!

[AniAko]

My garage is full of old videogame systems that will never be turned on again simply because new and better systems have come along. By contrast, when you buy a Chagall painting, you don't throw away your Van Gogh.

On the contrary, my garage is full of Van Goghs!

Actually, the problem with this perception is that art is in general NOT mass produced. This increases the monetary value. Um, of COURSE I wouldn't throw something out that was worth something!!

Further more the analogy doesn't work monkey-man. Your garage is FULL of old games, why not throw them out? Or rather than throwing out the Van Gogh when you get the Chagall, why not put it in the garage?

[PantherModern]

For the most part, it seems that Ebert (and most film critics, I guess) adhere to the auteur theory of filmmaking, or that a film can have an author. And that it is this guiding vision (usually supplied by the director) that creates an artistic whole. The one things that video games must allow for that films or books do not is user input. By allowing the user to change the landscape, you invalidate the author theory. If you could go to a museum, look at a DaVinci, and toss a few daubs of paint on to your liking before you left, would the work still be his?

Halo is actually a great example. For instance, there was that scene on the beach when you find an overturned warthog. To get through that one time, I tossed some grenades, blew the rocket launcher over to me, picked it up, fired on the baddies, and wiped them out. It was awesome, yes. But I did it. The director set up the canvas, but I painted the picture that I remember with such fondness. Can we attribute that to the the designers or me?

This sort of control, in many ways, allows for the user to ovverride the vision of the director if they so choose (maybe the designer wanted me to do something else in that spot), and do what they wish, making THEM the auteur, not the games creators, per se. Realize that I am simplifying and speaking in generalities here. So, from Ebert's perspective, it would seem that the ability to create an artistic work and then display it as complete for appreciation (the typical method in any field of art) is almost impossible. The only video games that I think have actually been "directed" in the sense that Ebert is thinking of would be MGS by Kojima, or maybe Final Fantasy. Those games are rigid narratives for the most part, defined story arcs and character development pieces that lead a user through the tale to an inevitable conclusion (Multiple endings, yes, but still). The user only inputs when the "director" sees fit. And most people I talk to can't stand the MGS series for that fact. They feel like they are playing a movie, and they hate it.

I mean, they are just fundamentally different experiences, one passive, the other active. I would say that in some ways it is more difficult to have a story where the audience participates, but again, that isn't what Ebert is saying. He simply doesn't think that video games will stand the test of time like "art" seems to have. But in reality, it is just the exceptional, defining pieces that hang around in any field. And I think it is those pieces that have been closely led by a particular auteur (MGS, God of War, FF, Zelda) that will hold up as art as the video game industry moves on. But, I don't think that it is the same kind of art that Ebert is referring to, and I am ok with that.

[Dirty Harry]

Fuck you guys, The Devil's Rejects was an awesome movie!
not going to respond :?

[Balthasar]

I disagree I think games are much better at story telling than film could ever hope to be. I stand firm in the statement that Final Fantasy 7 has a better story and presentation than ANY movie made in the last 10 years. Anyone flame me if you want but bring examples because were gonna rumble!

That's not even challenging, but I'll throw one out there: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Actually, make that two: City of God.

[Morrolan]

So what email address gets through to the man himself? Or do all these emails go to the webmaster or some such? What is the best address to send to?

[fitbabits]

Fuck you guys, The Devil's Rejects was an awesome movie!
Pfft, NEVER!

[trip1eX]

Ebert is right man.

Doom the game is not art.

Doom the movie is.

:P

[TheKeck]

For the most part, it seems that Ebert (and most film critics, I guess) adhere to the auteur theory of filmmaking, or that a film can have an author. And that it is this guiding vision (usually supplied by the director) that creates an artistic whole. The one things that video games must allow for that films or books do not is user input. By allowing the user to change the landscape, you invalidate the author theory. If you could go to a museum, look at a DaVinci, and toss a few daubs of paint on to your liking before you left, would the work still be his?

Halo is actually a great example. For instance, there was that scene on the beach when you find an overturned warthog. To get through that one time, I tossed some grenades, blew the rocket launcher over to me, picked it up, fired on the baddies, and wiped them out. It was awesome, yes. But I did it. The director set up the canvas, but I painted the picture that I remember with such fondness. Can we attribute that to the the designers or me?

This sort of control, in many ways, allows for the user to ovverride the vision of the director if they so choose (maybe the designer wanted me to do something else in that spot), and do what they wish, making THEM the auteur, not the games creators, per se. Realize that I am simplifying and speaking in generalities here. So, from Ebert's perspective, it would seem that the ability to create an artistic work and then display it as complete for appreciation (the typical method in any field of art) is almost impossible. The only video games that I think have actually been "directed" in the sense that Ebert is thinking of would be MGS by Kojima, or maybe Final Fantasy. Those games are rigid narratives for the most part, defined story arcs and character development pieces that lead a user through the tale to an inevitable conclusion (Multiple endings, yes, but still). The user only inputs when the "director" sees fit. And most people I talk to can't stand the MGS series for that fact. They feel like they are playing a movie, and they hate it.

I mean, they are just fundamentally different experiences, one passive, the other active. I would say that in some ways it is more difficult to have a story where the audience participates, but again, that isn't what Ebert is saying. He simply doesn't think that video games will stand the test of time like "art" seems to have. But in reality, it is just the exceptional, defining pieces that hang around in any field. And I think it is those pieces that have been closely led by a particular auteur (MGS, God of War, FF, Zelda) that will hold up as art as the video game industry moves on. But, I don't think that it is the same kind of art that Ebert is referring to, and I am ok with that.

To say that user interaction negates art, though, is pretty ridiculous.

Here's a very simple example. I was in Portland over Thanksgiving and they have a piece of public art there that is this huge pendulum sort of thing with big metal rods sticking up from it. It's supposed to represent something about Portland and people working together or something, I don't remember exactly. Anyway, the explanation of the piece explicitly says that the art is truly complete when someone give the pendulum a push and puts everything into motion.

I pushed the thing around in the way I thought would be most fun and interesting. I guess that the whole thing wasn't art, and only an expression of my imagination.

[TheKeck]

I used to appreciate his views, but there have been too many 'bought' TWO THUMBS WAY UP for my liking!

And The Devil's Rejects is fucking shite!

Oh man, I LOVE it when those guys stick those thumbs "WAY UP". I mean, I don't know if it's an official part of their rating scale, but you KNOW a movie has gotta be good when Mr. Ebert's thumb altitude is extreme! ;)

[Heretic Machine]

Interactive art would just be a new form of art, if art existed. Again, I don't think that it does, or if it does then everything is art including my fart, and so it's useless debating whether something is or is not art either way.

[Maskatron]

Games ARE art, period. To varying degrees of course...but I think certain games like Rez, Grim Fandango, Ico, etc. will live on for some time. I think in 100 years, people will still be playing Robotron on Xbox Live.

[OUX]

That's not even challenging, but I'll throw one out there: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Actually, make that two: City of God.

Alright I never even heard of City of God so my comments will all be toward Eternal.

1. Charatcers
Eternal had boring characters that you never really felt attached to because the entire move was about them not wanting to be attached to each other. The other characters were not interesting and mostly stereotypes. Jim Carry never has been a good actor but he did half way decent in this movie unfortunately since the character was written to be a wet noodle the bar wasn’t set that high. Kate jumped the shark immediately (as in during the movie) after being drawn in the titanic, ironically her career only raised enough to be able to notice the fall during the drawing scene.

FF 7 has some of the best characters ever framed by thy mortal eye. Cloud he was alright not that great until you find out that his entire stint in SOLIDER is a lie and that he is far more complex than you would have thought. The supporting roles were great as well. You felt attached to the characters and genuinely wanted the story to end well because of who was involved.

2.Plot twists
Eternal has “They knew each other before” Yeah saw it coming after the first 15 minutes. That and the doctor banging his assistant but can you blame him?

The S man is alive (I know saw it coming but I am including the weak in both), kills shinra prez. , cloud wasn’t in solider, sep’s mom, the black materia, aeris dying, the life stream and what it really is, the sector falling down

I will post more later but right now it is time to leave the office

[Citizen Philip]

For the most part, it seems that Ebert (and most film critics, I guess) adhere to the auteur theory of filmmaking, or that a film can have an author. ...

I mean, they are just fundamentally different experiences, one passive, the other active. I would say that in some ways it is more difficult to have a story where the audience participates, but again, that isn't what Ebert is saying. He simply doesn't think that video games will stand the test of time like "art" seems to have. But in reality, it is just the exceptional, defining pieces that hang around in any field. And I think it is those pieces that have been closely led by a particular auteur (MGS, God of War, FF, Zelda) that will hold up as art as the video game industry moves on. But, I don't think that it is the same kind of art that Ebert is referring to, and I am ok with that.


Ebert can not appreciate games all he wants: the trained audience of the medium will smile and nod, maybe give him a pat on the head and continue to enjoy themselves. He can sit on his park bench and talk about the glory days of movies, maybe if he had breadcrumbs the birds will pretend to pay attention.


...

or if he has candy. Little boys.

;)

[icronic]

Videogames may be difficult to make, requiring great thought, skill, planning, and care, but so is an armoire made of okra. That doesn't make either one art.

I suppose that depends on one's definition of art, but I can't possible see how an armoire isn't art is some form or another, unless you're just hammering together 2x4s.

VGs may be entertaining, escapist, enjoyable, and absorbing, but so is masturbation, and that doesn't make either one art. What art does that VGs do not, and probably never will, is edify and ennoble (even in the form of subversion). Moreover, and as a result, art endures. We are reading Cervantes and Goethe, performing Shakespeare and Moliere, and listening to Mozart and Beethoven hundreds of years after their works were created, with no end in sight.

The comparison to masturbation is so ridiculous I cannot even comprehend it. Seriously unless we're talking about artistic value of the shape and size of the stain upon completion. While we're at it let's compare Apples to tennis balls and declair apples superior because we can eat them.

As for art enduring? Really. I don't recall the stick figures I drew as a child enduring. It was still art, it wasn't good art, but it was art non the less. How many times are you going to read Hamlet or Romeo and Juliet in your lifetime? What will happen to them when you're done. They end in in the garage or some bookshelf never to be read again.

We aren't playing NES games 20 years after their creation. Indeed, they weren't being played 5 years after their creation. My garage is full of old videogame systems that will never be turned on again simply because new and better systems have come along. By contrast, when you buy a Chagall painting, you don't throw away your Van Gogh.

We can't buy NES games 20 years after their creation. Believe me, there are games I would die to play again, and I believe that's true of many people. Also at the time of NES videogames were just breaking into the market, and they were more of a toy than anything at the time. I can bet in the next 10 years when the technology starts to slow down that will change a great deal.

And honeslty I do think games endure. At least for those who've played them. I will never forget FF7, Fallout, Planescape Torment, Out of This World (Another World), Indigo Prophecy, X-Com, Metal Gear Solid, and a number more... I highly doubt anyone who played any of them would forget either. How do games not endure if we can still remember great games from 15 years ago?

[Balthasar]

Ah, but is this a historical study, or an appreciation of "great art" (which as others have pointed out, is a pretty much self-defined term anyway)?

I would not pretend to know why one would go to France to look at prehistoric cave paintings. And that wasn't the point anyway. The point is that old games get worse for the wear with age, while old artwork never diminishes in quality (and for the record, I'm not actually trying to support or argue against that idea).


This is true, and I don't claim to much of an expert in this field, but surely this is picking up the musical ball and running with it, as opposed to everyone listening and appreciating the original work as it was originally created? And no, I've not heard it, but I suppose I'll take a look now :)

It's a Led Zeppelin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_the_Levee_Breaks) song, sort of. It's not nearly as old as ballads covered by bands like The Greatful Dead in the 60's, however. I think you have to also remember that humans did not have the technology to record and play back music until the late 1800's (and that was, as you can imagine, of a very poor quality that could not recreate the fidelity of a full orchestra, let alone one woman singing a cappella.

[PantherModern]

To say that user interaction negates art, though, is pretty ridiculous.

Here's a very simple example. I was in Portland over Thanksgiving and they have a piece of public art there that is this huge pendulum sort of thing with big metal rods sticking up from it. It's supposed to represent something about Portland and people working together or something, I don't remember exactly. Anyway, the explanation of the piece explicitly says that the art is truly complete when someone give the pendulum a push and puts everything into motion.

I pushed the thing around in the way I thought would be most fun and interesting. I guess that the whole thing wasn't art, and only an expression of my imagination.


Never said it negated the art. i said that it may very well negate the Auteur theory of film that Film Critics use as a basis for their criticism. Ebert is a Film Critic after all, and was referring to film and books, which is what I was addressing for the most part. I know I moved into classical art with a few of my examples, but I suppose that concurrent ideas concerning the rewriting of books would also apply.

And also, I never said that I don't think that games are art. I was simply positing that it makes total sense as to why Ebert wouldn't see games as art based on how he views film, and that games, if they are to be viewed as "art" will likely be a different kind of art than the classical framework Ebert is using. And, in a way, you reinforced my idea with your example. The art pleased you because of the input you provided, and that input was not necessarily what the "Author" of the art intended when it was designed. He allowed for it, yes, but did he expressly wish it to be used in that way? So is that moment the author's or yours? It just depends how you use art and define it. I think Ebert defines it as a passive appreciation, wheras our generation is more accepting of interactive elements.

[PixelSamurai]

For the most part, it seems that Ebert (and most film critics, I guess) adhere to the auteur theory of filmmaking, or that a film can have an author. And that it is this guiding vision (usually supplied by the director) that creates an artistic whole. The one things that video games must allow for that films or books do not is user input. By allowing the user to change the landscape, you invalidate the author theory. If you could go to a museum, look at a DaVinci, and toss a few daubs of paint on to your liking before you left, would the work still be his?

Halo is actually a great example. For instance, there was that scene on the beach when you find an overturned warthog. To get through that one time, I tossed some grenades, blew the rocket launcher over to me, picked it up, fired on the baddies, and wiped them out. It was awesome, yes. But I did it. The director set up the canvas, but I painted the picture that I remember with such fondness. Can we attribute that to the the designers or me?

This sort of control, in many ways, allows for the user to ovverride the vision of the director if they so choose (maybe the designer wanted me to do something else in that spot), and do what they wish, making THEM the auteur, not the games creators, per se. Realize that I am simplifying and speaking in generalities here. So, from Ebert's perspective, it would seem that the ability to create an artistic work and then display it as complete for appreciation (the typical method in any field of art) is almost impossible. The only video games that I think have actually been "directed" in the sense that Ebert is thinking of would be MGS by Kojima, or maybe Final Fantasy. Those games are rigid narratives for the most part, defined story arcs and character development pieces that lead a user through the tale to an inevitable conclusion (Multiple endings, yes, but still). The user only inputs when the "director" sees fit. And most people I talk to can't stand the MGS series for that fact. They feel like they are playing a movie, and they hate it.

I mean, they are just fundamentally different experiences, one passive, the other active. I would say that in some ways it is more difficult to have a story where the audience participates, but again, that isn't what Ebert is saying. He simply doesn't think that video games will stand the test of time like "art" seems to have. But in reality, it is just the exceptional, defining pieces that hang around in any field. And I think it is those pieces that have been closely led by a particular auteur (MGS, God of War, FF, Zelda) that will hold up as art as the video game industry moves on. But, I don't think that it is the same kind of art that Ebert is referring to, and I am ok with that.


I think you hit the nail on the friggin' head. I also got finished reading Neuromancer again recently, so props to you!

All I've ever gotten out of gaming is a good time. I agree with Ebert that games don't edify or enrich your intellect. I've never had an emotional reaction to a game, ever. I've had my adrenaline pumping, but that's not the same thing. I've never cried over a game, never worried about my main character, never thought about the themes or storyline of a game long after I'd finished it. A game has never forced me to question my morals, examine humanity, or change my mind on a particular issue. I can't say I've learned much from gaming either, aside from the odd technical fact or the amount of ammo an M60 can hold. Yes, I've even played several FF games, checked out Rez, and Katamari, and none if is "art", at least in the sense that Ebert is talking about it.

Too many developers are involved in a game for its artistic vision to ultimately override its commercial one. Not even a man with vision at the helm like Warren Spectre can guarantee a genuine piece of art over a commercialized product, whereas in the other fields like painting, music and even film, its quite possible to maintain an artistic vision and actually speak to the viewer. Honestly I think the bottom line is a major hinderance to games-as-art. That, and the fact that teens don't give a shit about themes, art or even storyline, as long as its fun.

[Kelegacy]

OMFG! Kel I completely agree with you for the 2nd time in 1 week...creepy :D
You must have taken your Smart pills this week.

[Citizen Philip]

I would not pretend to know why one would go to France to look at prehistoric cave paintings. And that wasn't the point anyway. The point is that old games get worse for the wear with age, while old artwork never diminishes in quality (and for the record, I'm not actually trying to support or argue against that idea).


Games get old, just like a book on a shelf. The style of gameplay and design fits within a specific frame, compared to other styles of gameplay. From a historical view some games can be appreicate years after their creation: most cannot.

There maybe dozens of sidescrolls and a few exceptional ones are still enjoyable. The "oldness" of some titles becomes a style and can be appreciated in all it's blocky goodness. Even that old sythesizer (sp) music has a strange appeal, like the original Monkey Island music ;)

I get a real kick out of seeing the old 16 colour ASCII "cell phone art" characters that have started popping up. Heck, old games are being put into cellphones as a selling feature.

[jacktion]

Here is a quote from Part 2.

"Videogames may be difficult to make, requiring great thought, skill, planning, and care, but so is an armoire made of okra. That doesn't make either one art. VGs may be entertaining, escapist, enjoyable, and absorbing, but so is masturbation, and that doesn't make either one art. What art does that VGs do not, and probably never will, is edify and ennoble (even in the form of subversion). Moreover, and as a result, art endures. We are reading Cervantes and Goethe, performing Shakespeare and Moliere, and listening to Mozart and Beethoven hundreds of years after their works were created, with no end in sight. We aren't playing NES games 20 years after their creation. Indeed, they weren't being played 5 years after their creation. My garage is full of old videogame systems that will never be turned on again simply because new and better systems have come along. By contrast, when you buy a Chagall painting, you don't throw away your Van Gogh."

Haven't we learned that you can't say what is and isn't art? Ever since Duchamp put a urinal in a museum the lines have been blurred. You simply can't define art. "Art edifies and ennobles"? That is pretty vague. And there are a lot of art critics who have watched performance art pieces where someone masturbates and considered it art, so you can't say that either.
And people do still play NES games. A lot of people. People will play the classics 100 years from now. Not a lot of people but some will.
And people did throw away Van Goghs. It took him a long time to get popular.
It is particularly ironic that he cites Van Gosh because it is a direct parallel to Videogames!! All the modern day snobs of Van Gogh's time thought his shit wasn't art either!! It wasn't popular and no one bought it! Critics wrote articles saying it wasn't art! And later on, smarter people realized his stuff was really good and it gained in value. Now this dumbass assumes that Van Gogh is one of the greats just because he has grown up being told that! If he grew up being told Miyamoto was a great than he would believe that! He is so stupid and transparent! I can't stand it.

[atariv8]

Where does that guy with the old systems in his garage live. I'll be glad to that "junk" off his hands. I'll put it next to my Atari 2600, Commodore 64, Mac Classic(Tertris anyone?), Sega Genesis, etc...

[IagoTheHunted]

yikes this thread is growing faster than I can read it so f***'it I'm just going to post my opinion and hope I'm not being too redundant... Sorry if I am

Anyway as we know nobody wins the "this is art and that isn't" argument cause the word is too vauge and undefined. But I would offer this definition as a base: "Art is that which is created by humans with the specific purpose of being emmotionally evocative to other humans". It could be almost anything. But from that we can say what is NOT art, specifically that which was never intended to evoke any sort of right-brain emmotional experience in anyone. And our traditional definition of "games" does fall into that catagory... I mean like chess, checkers, tic-tak-toe, whatever, and then even early games like pong, pac-man, etc. They weren't supposed to be art, they were only about gameplay, about thinking and problemsolveing, which is a different type of creative intention from what we consider art.

My point is just that new games are undefined and before unseen entities. They cross the boundry between pure storytelling, pure drafting/sculpting, or pure gameplay. In fact they are all those things and thus none of them (well, no single one). That's what makes me so excited to work in games. It's NEW. It's a creative medium that couldn't be possible without all the other ones we've developed as a species. An interactive, visually realised, story. Fucking awsome. Anyone who doesn't see the potential here needs to shut up and go think about it some more.

[PantherModern]

Um, actually you can define art:

art ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ärt)
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

We must define art to even speak about it. Otherwise, absolutely everything is art (and I mean EVERYTHING). What we can't do is determine what is art to you and what is art to me. It is entirely subjective. That is the beauty and awfulness of these types of discussions.

[if76]

I bet old videogames get played more than old movies get watched

[Balthasar]

Alright I never even heard of City of God so my comments will all be toward Eternal.

1. Charatcers
Eternal had boring characters that you never really felt attached to because the entire move was about them not wanting to be attached to each other.

No it wasn't. The whole movie, if one can make such a generalized statement, was actually about how people can be "fated" to be attracted to each other, or more accurately, how attraction works independently of our memories with whom that attraction is ostensibly built upon. This is greatly over-generalized--for anyone that actually saw and understood the movie--but the point I want to make here is that what you are supposed to get, if you understand the movie, is just how strong their bond is to each other in spite of their best efforts.

FF 7 has some of the best characters ever framed by thy mortal eye. Cloud he was alright not that great until you find out that his entire stint in SOLIDER is a lie and that he is far more complex than you would have thought. The supporting roles were great as well. You felt attached to the characters and genuinely wanted the story to end well because of who was involved.

Perhaps you felt that way, but it is an error on your part to say I felt a certain way when I saw Eternal Sunshine and another way when I played FF7. For the record, Final Fantasy 7 ranks as one of my top 3 favorite RPGs all time (Xenosaga and Final Fantasy Tactics being my other two, not necessarily in that order), but it didn't come close to making me feel the way I did when I watched Eternal Sunshine. I related far more to Joel than I did to Cloud. His relationship to Clementine was far more adult, far more real. Cloud's relationships are on par with the ones you have in junior high school.

2.Plot twists

Plot twists are not a halmark of good narrative. Me thinks you are out of your league here.

[Balthasar]

yikes this thread is growing faster than I can read it so f***'it I'm just going to post my opinion and hope I'm not being too redundant... Sorry if I am

Anyway as we know nobody wins the "this is art and that isn't" argument cause the word is too vauge and undefined. But I would offer this definition as a base: "Art is that which is created by humans with the specific purpose of being emmotionally evocative to other humans". It could be almost anything. But from that we can say what is NOT art, specifically that which was never intended to evoke any sort of right-brain emmotional experience in anyone.

If I spray paint a swastika on a Synagogue, is that art?

[Balthasar]

So what email address gets through to the man himself? Or do all these emails go to the webmaster or some such? What is the best address to send to?

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/99999999/GENERALINFORMATION/41117002

[shpanky]

"We aren't playing NES games 20 years after their creation."

We aren't...?

Super Mario Brothers
Tetris
Bejeweled
Solitaire
Minesweeper


And um...I haven't watched "Grapes of Wrath" since my college film class.

[Last of the Red Hot Mamas]

Alternate headline: "Ebert Eats Your Mail"

[BlindSwordsman]

We aren't playing NES games 20 years after their creation.

Incorrect for sure. Just ask any who refuses to update the firmware on their PSP or have been lucky enought to play joust on Live.

[Kefkataran]

Ebert is nothing but a bitter old hack whose concept of 'art' is crap. Try telling Nintendo that no-one is playing their games 20 years after they have been made. Tosspot.

Uh, what?

Guys, don't get me wrong. I wholly disagree with Ebert. I've been a big proponent of games as art for as long as I can remember, if only because I have a very liberal definition of what art is. But what Ebert is doing here, presenting us with lots of varied and intelligent letters on BOTH sides of the issue, is very awesome of him. Regardless of the fact that he has already stated his opinion, he's reading and letting his readers read the letters both for and against his idea that have been pouring in. That's very cool.

Me, personally, I think the idea that videogames aren't art is just as silly as the idea that films weren't art that was prevalent in film's early days, or the idea that comics aren't art, etc.

While there may not be many great examples of games as art (although there are some very arguable ones already), I think the further the medium grows, the sooner we'll be able to accept it.

[TheKeck]

One idea that people keep coming back to is that art must have some kind of emotional response. I would contend that this is not neccessary at all.

[OUX]

Plot twists are not a halmark of good narrative. Me thinks you are out of your league here.

Alright besides your other mistakes name something vg or film that doesn't have some sort of plot twist

[Sazime]

This is absolutely untrue. Just because HE'S not play these games, doens't mean WE aren't. I've never read Cervantes. I guess that means it's not art.

Right on brotha.

[EternalGamer]

While any definition of art end up unsatisfactory (sorry all you OED and Webster fans, dictionarys are NOT the definitive sources on the meanings of words--they are only designed to DESCRIBE how people use them), I think we can easily see why non-gamers react in complete disbelief when one of us tries to tell them videogames are art.

I think a large part of it relates to the fact that the narrative in games (ie. the gameplay) is still incredibly repetitive and limited. I would never go see a movie in which someone smashes the same box for 12 hours, or endlessly shoots the same looking bad guy or engages in the same "action sequence" again and again. Let's face it: even BAD movies offer more variation in two hours than most entire games do in 20, even if this variation is largely aesthetic. The other problem is that gaming narratives have not found a way to engage the player by creating "non-violent" (ie. dramatic) tension through gameplay. Destroy X or X will kill you. That is pretty much how the tension in every game ever made works. Both of these are issues that I think will be dealt with in the next 5 or 6 years but until then, I completely understand where outsiders are coming from when they don't see what is so great about gaming.

Dan

[Balthasar]

Alright besides your other mistakes name something vg or film that doesn't have some sort of plot twist

That a film or video game has a plot twist does not mean that a the structure of a plot fundamentally requires such a device. Futher, why specifically video game or film? Neither are paragons of narrative construction in the first place. If we want to call a "twist" something we could not have likely guessed that was actually crucial to the plot, and thus after sudden introduction changed the complexion of that plot--and whose introduction was also late in the narrative--I would submit Lolita (I do not consider the events that lead to the separation of Lolita and Humbert Humbert to be a twist at all); Crime and Punishment, Invisible Man (not The Invisible Man); The Lord of the Rings Trillogy (you can throw the movie version in there); Blue Velvet (movie); Pi (movie); Requiem for a Dream (movie); Star Wars Episode 1-4, Episode 6; Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas; etc.

And what other "errors" did I make now? Heh.

[PantherModern]

While any definition of art end up unsatisfactory (sorry all you OED and Webster fans, dictionarys are NOT the definitive sources on the meanings of words--they are only designed to DESCRIBE how people use them), I think we can easily see why non-gamers react in complete disbelief when one of us tries to tell them videogames are art.




While I am certainly not going to deny that dictionaries are there to describe words--well, not words themselves. Words are just containers of socially ascribed information, and dictionaries record the commonly accepted meaning associated with their usage. The only way that we know that art is more than the definition is because we have a definition to begin with. Words without the associated meaning that we give them are useless. Art has a meaning, and that meaning has to have a starting place. That's why we need dictionaries. Art has to have a starting place. Where it ends is subjective. We have what is considered canonical and we inevitably use it as a point of comparison. It's how criticism works. Once works and styles are entered into the canon, it becomes a part of the standard by which all new works are judged. That takes time. Just time. Video games are new. It may take hundreds of years to be "recognized" by Academia and the Public as an art form.

It may be me, but I get the weird feeling that a lot of people are using this argument to justify their love of games--i.e. "games are art, and I appreciate them, therefore I am good" kind of thing. Personally, I don't need my love of gaming to be justified by anyone. I know what I know and that is enough for me.

[Lint of Death]

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARR RRRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrgggghhh.






EDIT: AAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggg gggghh.

[Kelegacy]

I just want to say, one more time, how much I hated The Devil's Rejects.

Rob Zombie should take a couple more screen writing classes. Unless that whore of his takes her top off or does some wild porn, I'll never watch another flick of his again.

[TrackZero]

Ebert is nothing but a bitter old hack whose concept of 'art' is crap. Try telling Nintendo that no-one is playing their games 20 years after they have been made. Tosspot.

Agreed. Claims that we aren't playing classic games just shows how out of touch he is.

[Balthasar]

Agreed. Claims that we aren't playing classic games just shows how out of touch he is.

Dude, Ebert never said you aren't playing classic games. Had you read what I wrote (or what were in the links), you would see that quote came from a letter sent to him in response to his comment that games are a notch below film and literature. A majority of the letters he posted are from gamers.

[Exodus]

The part two of the news post is retarded. Of COURSE we don't play games that are old because the art format has been upgraded because video gaming is tied to technology. We STILL appreciate mario, we STILL worship zelda, we go out of our way at 4am to wait in line for a game just like a starwars movie until the place opens up and we can finally get what we want.

You define those pieces of art, art that truley cannot be reproduced because their creator is long dead and did not have access to a photocopier of high grade style, this is pure NONSENSE, if someone told van gogh he could print thousands of his works and make loads of cash, would he have? or any other applauded artists in our worlds past? Get real.

[Exodus]

I'd like to add, the post by Sean Weitner, the last one. Not only do I like him because he spells Sean properly and shares my name. But he has the points dead on. Good for him, he should be paid for that. ;D

[EGO]

Ebert is a hack who gets paid to talk about OTHER PEOPLE'S ART and makes no significant impact of his own.

Of course, he'll shit on other's art and use such juevinile analogies as videogames to masterbation. He probably knows alot more about that subject than the videogames he's speaking of.

I find his opinion completely irrelevant, even for what he gets paid to talk about, let alone an unqualified opinion about a subject he has no understanding of.

[Lint of Death]

Teehee, EGO doesn't read either :)

Is the newspot too long? It seems a lot of people can't hold their attention long enough and instead decide to draw their own conclusions.

[Kefkataran]

Ebert is a hack who gets paid to talk about OTHER PEOPLE'S ART and makes no significant impact of his own.


Anyone who actually reads Ebert and is interested in film on a more critical level would never call the man a hack. He has most definitely helped boil review writing into (omigosh, I'm gonna say it, yes) an art.

Anyways, you're ridiculous juvenile anger is exactly the kind of stuff someone who doesn't play videogames can point to and say, "Look, this is what most of the gaming community seems to be like." Ebert, at the least, is giving people a fair shake at throwing in their opinions, and you should probably respect that.

Is the newspot too long? It seems a lot of people can't hold their attention long enough and instead decide to draw their own conclusions.

Actually understanding full-length newsposts requires intelligence and analysis; where would the signature EvAv "attitude" be if people actually did that?!

[Furious Wang]

eye of the beholder...

[Balthasar]

Teehee, EGO doesn't read either :)

Is the newspot too long? It seems a lot of people can't hold their attention long enough and instead decide to draw their own conclusions.

It's pretty annoying. I mean, all they had to do was click on one of the links. Or you know, read the subject line (Ebert reads your letters). Jeez.

[mister_slim]

I guess I'm jumping in a little late here, but I might as well toss in my thoughts.

As a preliminary point, interactivity does not lessen art. Look at Beowulf, Shakespeare, or even Tolkien. Audience interaction helped form all of those works.

Ebert is somewhat correct from his viewpoint, but the problem is that movie criticism is probably the worst possible viewpoint for game criticism. A movie has perhaps the most rigidly controlled audience. Notice that there is no attempt to control how long someone looks at a painting (what I find interesting about painting is that much of the value of the work tends to be dependent on context and discussion) or at what speed someone reads a book. I can read a page each day, or read a chapter, but the author can only control the order of the words. So the rigid structure which is the strength of the art which Ebert is most experienced in analyzing is a major flaw when it appears in a game.

Some interesting counterexamples would be certain works (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4%2733%22) by John Cage (the creation of 4'33" was influenced by the I-Ching, by the way) or Surrealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrealism#History_of_Surrealism), which made significant use of chance, including games, to produce art. Finally, as a joke I like to tell people that Tetris is an allegorical retelling of the Tower of Babel.

[Varion]

The part two quote is NOT spot on. He sidesteps the issue by not providing a definition of art and providing an example wherein old games aren't art because people aren't still playing them. This is a) not true. Emulators are huge and I see people playing retro games constantly over lunch. b) also true of the movie industry. How many people are watching chaplin films and listening to classical music? I think it's arguable that both become a niche entertainment form and neither are indicative of whether they are "art." I bloody dare you to tell me Terminator is art. It may have been artfully created like an armoire made of okra but it certainly isn't ennobling or educational.

[IagoTheHunted]

If I spray paint a swastika on a Synagogue, is that art?

Well I'm jewish and I'd have to say yeah that would be very powerful art if you wanted to express yourself that way. I mean just because you'd get killed/run out of town for doing it doesn't mean it's not art. Serial killers consider themselves artists in many cases. Art can be evil.