Monday, Nov 26, 2007
I'm sure many of you have heard of Roger Ebert's latest offering in the games-as-art debate. If not, please read up now... I'll wait.
*humming, soft sounds of items being idly moved around*
Ready? OK, so I could just start asking pointed questions about which games Mr. Ebert has played (himself, to completion) on which to base his sweeping comments about the medium as a whole (I'm betting that it would be a short list and end in "-tris"), but I'm not going to do that. Instead, I did a little digging and found another expert with views Mr. Ebert may find interesting:
__________________________________________________
Hello, I'm Rob Egert, well-known video game reviewer. Although I have never watched an entire movie, have never paid attention when someone tells me about a movie they've seen, I've decided that movies are not art. They're just popular entertainment, incapable of doing more than giving us something to look at while we eat popcorn. Movies can never aspire to the artistic heights of Rez or Okami, never write as compelling a script as Soul Reaver or The Longest Journey, never exhibit such moral dichotomy as Knights of the Old Republic.
Many people--so called "moviegoers" or "cinema buffs"--disagree with me about the non-art status of movies, but they're all wrong. I know this because I am regarded as an expert in a completely different field, while anyone who watches movies is obviously a witless teenage layabout. I can now prove my detractors wrong, though.
I recently played a game based on a movie, thus giving me vast insight into every movie ever produced. The game I played is called Catwoman, based on the movie of the same name. The game, developed by EA Games, was inspired by a high-profile movie and serves as an excellent illustration of my conviction that movies will never become an art form -- never, at least, until they morph into something else or more. Since this particular game based on this particular movie was poor, logic necessitates that all movies are therefore pointless and will not become art until they are more like a medium I personally see value in, such as video games.
I'm glad to have been able to settle this issue for everyone, and expect you all to discontinue any association you have with this artless medium of "cinema".
__________________________________________________
There, using the foolproof theory that one individual game or movie based on the other medium is indicative of every game or movie ever produced, Messrs. Ebert and Egert have proven that neither video games nor movies are art. ...Unless, I suppose, it were possible that not all movies are the same and not all games are the same, that some may be made with more care than others. But nah... that wouldn't make any sense.
Comments
Posted Nov 26, 2007 11:38 am PT
Sad....maybe if you sat down and watched a good movie you would see things a little differently
when done right movies are amazing, no different than a video game
when done right movies are amazing, no different than a video game
Posted Nov 26, 2007 11:41 am PT
Yes. I wish he could see this.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 11:42 am PT
Well, Hideo Kojima considers video games to be art, but only the making of them
The act of playing a game is completely different than admiring paintings
The act of playing a game is completely different than admiring paintings
Posted Nov 26, 2007 11:44 am PT
Yeah, if one can't be art, how can the other possibly be? They really are not that different of mediums except one is interactive. Makes perfect sense to me. And no need to point out that the "Final Fantasy" and new "Beowulf" movies are animated the same way video game cut scenes are... And as for just plain old animation, Ebert loved "Spirited Away" (its WAS awesome!) yet he can't get behind "Odin Sphere" or "Okami's" art? Mr Ebert is a DULLARD. How about video game movies? Are they art? Hitman? Tomb Raider?
Posted Nov 26, 2007 11:46 am PT
Yes, this thing about movies and games being art has quite some debate going on.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 11:49 am PT
Someone send this to good ol' Roger, maybe he'll see the error of his theory. Or maybe he'll just be too arrogant to care, great post by the way
Posted Nov 26, 2007 12:01 pm PT
Art can be a very individual and personal thing. To even try to come up with criteria for it is ridiculous.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 12:02 pm PT
he's a critic, all he needs to do is open his mouth and the truth will fall out.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 12:03 pm PT
I believe Mr. Ebert and Mr. Egert need to switch their focus for a day. why doesn't Ebert play some video games, and why doesn't Egert watch some movies. From there, we'll see who thinks what is an art form. But in my opinion, Games and movies are both forms of art. But Ebert and Egert are ignorant of that reality appearantly. Instead of exploring beyond just one game or movie, they decide to stereotype games and movies as unartistic just from one movie or game. And that's the longest comment I've done in a while
.
.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 12:04 pm PT
way to go
Posted Nov 26, 2007 12:25 pm PT
Delicious!
Posted Nov 26, 2007 12:41 pm PT
Hmm, seems like good satire. Short and to the point. And if Ebert confesses to what you accused him of, I officially declare him an *-hole. As put by Ebert himself (in a parody), "Why couldn't [he] come down with Who Gives a F*ck?"
Posted Nov 26, 2007 12:53 pm PT
lol Is this Egert guy a real person. One of the complaints about the catwomen video game was that she steals jewelery from light fictures. Remember that in the movie when Micheal Thiper was stealing jewelery by breaking the light fictures that concealed them.
Although I disagree with the idea that games and, movies arent art its obvious Egert is a nerd who hasnt left his house long enough to see a movie in years.
Although I disagree with the idea that games and, movies arent art its obvious Egert is a nerd who hasnt left his house long enough to see a movie in years.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 1:00 pm PT
Pure genius. Well done editorial.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 1:00 pm PT
This was well writen. I have to agree. You can't just see 1 movie or just 1 game, and base the entire thing on that. I have played games that were great, and some that were horrible. The same goes with movies. I have seen the good, and I have seen the bad. But just one bad doesn't change my point of view of all others. I don't see one bad movie or play a bad game and think, "Well, that sucked, so I won't be playing games or watching movies ever again." I just think, "Well, that was bad. We'll try again next time."
Posted Nov 26, 2007 1:10 pm PT
Does anyone else find it amusing that people don't understand "Rob Egert" was created to mock Roger Ebert (in a brilliant manner, if I may add)?
Posted Nov 26, 2007 1:36 pm PT
Heh heh...nice. He's been saying games aren't art for years now, so i isn't new, but i like your comical retort.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 1:38 pm PT
creating a video game and a movie is a sense of art.
playing games and watching movies is not.
When you create a video game (or a movie, they go through similar processes up until actually releasing it) devs invent these pretty ingenious plots and charismatic characters(at least most of the time). The same goes for a movie or writing a novel too! They write the script, the story, ect. all in writing form.
But video games just take a next step foward. They take their "novel" and actually "humanizes" it and brings into playable content. Textures, shaders, models, entities, ect. Like a movie but it's all pretty much rendered content instead of real life people. But real life people get put into the game by voice acting and movement recording, ect.
So, video games can easily be seen as an art as easy as writing a book can be. Same goes for a movie. BUT - actually watching movies, reading books, and playing games is not an art. It's become an all-around standard to any culture or race to read a book, watch a movie, and once in awhile play at least one video game.
This is in my opinion of course.
One can not simply say what is art and what is not art. It's all preference and view points.
As you can see, I do find video games a form of art aswell as movies.
Though, combining the 2 do not end, usually, in a good way. XD
playing games and watching movies is not.
When you create a video game (or a movie, they go through similar processes up until actually releasing it) devs invent these pretty ingenious plots and charismatic characters(at least most of the time). The same goes for a movie or writing a novel too! They write the script, the story, ect. all in writing form.
But video games just take a next step foward. They take their "novel" and actually "humanizes" it and brings into playable content. Textures, shaders, models, entities, ect. Like a movie but it's all pretty much rendered content instead of real life people. But real life people get put into the game by voice acting and movement recording, ect.
So, video games can easily be seen as an art as easy as writing a book can be. Same goes for a movie. BUT - actually watching movies, reading books, and playing games is not an art. It's become an all-around standard to any culture or race to read a book, watch a movie, and once in awhile play at least one video game.
This is in my opinion of course.
One can not simply say what is art and what is not art. It's all preference and view points.
As you can see, I do find video games a form of art aswell as movies.
Though, combining the 2 do not end, usually, in a good way. XD
Posted Nov 26, 2007 1:43 pm PT
Sorry, but I'm actually rather informed about this deal.
And I have to say, that for what I have read about Roger Ebert's opinion on why video games are not art, it's not because he thinks video-games aren't as 'elegant' as movies or books, but only because they are interactive. If I am not wrong, his position is that we as PLAYERS and not just observers of a video-game are what make them not be considered art, at least in his opinion. Respecting him as both a person and movie-critic (not that they're mutually exclusive), I can say that he doesn't just hate video-games or believes that they're still like pong or tetris. Instead, it's all about the participation of people in such art. When we transcend that 4th barrier of inactivity/appreciation and start being a PART of it, is when they stop being art.
That's all.
And I have to say, that for what I have read about Roger Ebert's opinion on why video games are not art, it's not because he thinks video-games aren't as 'elegant' as movies or books, but only because they are interactive. If I am not wrong, his position is that we as PLAYERS and not just observers of a video-game are what make them not be considered art, at least in his opinion. Respecting him as both a person and movie-critic (not that they're mutually exclusive), I can say that he doesn't just hate video-games or believes that they're still like pong or tetris. Instead, it's all about the participation of people in such art. When we transcend that 4th barrier of inactivity/appreciation and start being a PART of it, is when they stop being art.
That's all.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 1:48 pm PT
Posted Nov 26, 2007 1:57 pm PT
"Interactivity" has nothing to do with the Hitman movie sucking.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 1:59 pm PT
See, I'm considering writing my own piece about this to offset the knee-jerk reactions gamers have had about Ebert's opinion. I feel that games can't be art right now predominately because of the technological aspect. So much of developing games has to do with making sure it works right, and that it's fun to play. It's not about art. Not to mention that the medium changes every 5 or so years, and gamer's opinions change with it. Case in point: Picasso's Guernica is a great work of art. Nothing in the time since it came out can dispute that. Citizen Kane is a great film, despite all the technological advances in film making since then. But gamers tend to disown everything that looks "last-gen", which puts games firmly in the pop-culture department, not art. Ebert made his point brilliantly when he said that Andy Warhol would argue that video games WERE art, and he'd do it by putting one in a glass case and labelling it "video game". But the problem is, Andy Warhol's representation is art, not the game itself.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 2:07 pm PT
I think it depends on the movie or game. For example, Zelda and Okami, they're art, but GTA isn't even though it's a good game.
Or for movies, I think LotR is art, but a movie like SAW (while good) isn't
Or for movies, I think LotR is art, but a movie like SAW (while good) isn't
Posted Nov 26, 2007 2:18 pm PT
Art is all in the eye of the beholder. There is no one person, no one reference, that can clearly define what is and what isn't art. It's all a matter of opinion. Great editorial though, Shifty. Even though I usually agree with Ebert's opinions, I enjoyed the parody of his somewhat pompous viewpoint on video games. 
Posted Nov 26, 2007 2:34 pm PT
@ fepepinar Looking further into Eberts opinions and hearing someone actually properly defend them is enjoyable, but something about declaring art depending on activity seems kind of silly...
Interactive art, doesn't that sound fun?
Unless you feel content with sitting by being entertained, I rather spice things up myself and contribute to a piece of art with my own flavor. Some people don't considered atheletics as art because its more of a skill... I can understand that, but not everything should have such an objective view.
Interactive art, doesn't that sound fun?
Unless you feel content with sitting by being entertained, I rather spice things up myself and contribute to a piece of art with my own flavor. Some people don't considered atheletics as art because its more of a skill... I can understand that, but not everything should have such an objective view.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 2:34 pm PT
I'm with my friend, M3ss. Ebert is not the coolest guy in my book.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 2:45 pm PT
One of the more clever blogs I've read all year - and also simply one of the best.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 3:15 pm PT
Some in both types are art. Movies have more though.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 3:49 pm PT
He raise some very good points. What some people fail to understand is that not ALL videogames (or movies) can be considered as art. To me Die Hard deserves to be called art as much as Quake 3
Posted Nov 26, 2007 3:51 pm PT
That is some top quality satire. Nice work.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 3:56 pm PT
Great editorial, and I agree with it entirely.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 4:12 pm PT
Superb article and one of the best reads I've had in a while.
But I would just like to point out how utterly shocked I am at how many people seem to think Egert is real person. I mean, really people?
But I would just like to point out how utterly shocked I am at how many people seem to think Egert is real person. I mean, really people?
Posted Nov 26, 2007 4:23 pm PT
Ah, one of the benefits of being the epitome of critics....speak, and it shall be so! 
Still, rather depressing to think lofty ideals may give one tunnel vision, yes?
Much like Agent 47 himself, you find that being THE expert in the field means that you have no room for other aspects of the world. Which is something of a conundrum, I should think. Art imitates life, and yet how much do you exist in the latter?
As always, nice read, Shifty.
Still, rather depressing to think lofty ideals may give one tunnel vision, yes?Much like Agent 47 himself, you find that being THE expert in the field means that you have no room for other aspects of the world. Which is something of a conundrum, I should think. Art imitates life, and yet how much do you exist in the latter?
As always, nice read, Shifty.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 4:27 pm PT
Very well done and makes an excellent point.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 4:29 pm PT
Sorry for mr Ebert, but games have been an art form for quite a while. Someone should go and tell him about it.
The second someone start seeing something as art ... well it is. For many people videogames are art, graffitis are art, playing football is an art, realizing a reality show is an art or even killing can be an art. Art is in the eyes of the people making and seeing it.
The second someone start seeing something as art ... well it is. For many people videogames are art, graffitis are art, playing football is an art, realizing a reality show is an art or even killing can be an art. Art is in the eyes of the people making and seeing it.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 4:31 pm PT
[This message was deleted at the request of a moderator or administrator]
Posted Nov 26, 2007 4:37 pm PT
dontpokeme you got to be kidding me right? Thats exactly the point he was trying to make for video games, that paragraph at the end was "sarcasm" go google it or something.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 5:07 pm PT
To pepepinar, a lot of modern art today is centred around interactivity. Art instillations like Gormley's Blind Light were created for people to experience, to enter - not just view.
If people regard art as simply what one looks at to admire then games will never be considered as such.
Nice write-up Shifty.
If people regard art as simply what one looks at to admire then games will never be considered as such.
Nice write-up Shifty.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 6:00 pm PT
Nice post, really funny. I've lost all respect i had for Ebert after reading his review.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 6:28 pm PT
Beautiful post. I really hate Ebert and think he's a pompous ass. If I were a developer for a timeless classic [Ocarina of Time anyone?], or even a writer, theeen I would be pretty pissed that some big-shot who knows a thing or two about movies yet nothing about video games is saying that video games aren't art. I will agree with something I read before in a post about the same topic: if anything, video games should be considered more of an art form than movies. The level of creativity and freedom is definately art worthy, though I guess there's always skeptics...So here's to counting down to the final days of Roger Ebert!
], or even a writer, theeen I would be pretty pissed that some big-shot who knows a thing or two about movies yet nothing about video games is saying that video games aren't art. I will agree with something I read before in a post about the same topic: if anything, video games should be considered more of an art form than movies. The level of creativity and freedom is definately art worthy, though I guess there's always skeptics...So here's to counting down to the final days of Roger Ebert!
Posted Nov 26, 2007 6:33 pm PT
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
Posted Nov 26, 2007 6:34 pm PT
If it makes anyone here feel any better about this; Roger Ebert is a movie critic that has very little weight in the artistic merits/demerits of art films, and he holds almost no credibility with the art film culture. So he pretty much invalidates his own opinion in the "games as art" debate.
He is a film critic for the masses, and perhaps his "insight" into this topic is more grounded in other motives, such as, politics, money, or both.
But on the other hand, if Leonard Maltin were to throw up an argument, or some other celebrated film historians on this topic. There just might be some weight behind it, because of their background in art, generally speaking.
He is a film critic for the masses, and perhaps his "insight" into this topic is more grounded in other motives, such as, politics, money, or both.
But on the other hand, if Leonard Maltin were to throw up an argument, or some other celebrated film historians on this topic. There just might be some weight behind it, because of their background in art, generally speaking.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 7:43 pm PT
Now children for all we know Ebert can be the hard core gamer. All though unlikely, he totally could pass as the Kingom Hearts type. Or maybe he has an illegitimate child who enjoys playing crappy video games when he visits Ebert's house on thursdays. Games like Spiderman 3 or Herdy Gerdy. Now thats where Ebert gets his gaming insights from.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 7:46 pm PT
Oh, and in the same case as film: Just because the product contains artistic elements, doesn't mean that the product itself is art.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 7:47 pm PT
Hilarious and genius. All at the same time. Wow.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 8:02 pm PT
Hehehehe very clever and very true. All too often we see people who insult some form of medium or say that it is a lesser medium when they know nothing of it. For example I myself being a musician I am offended when someone says a song "sucks". "Suck" indicates something wrong with the musicians or writers themselves and people believe that "suck" is interchangable with dislike or hate. Sorry aboot the rant in your comments I just had to get that off my chest (aaahhhh that felt good).
Posted Nov 26, 2007 8:07 pm PT
I seriously love you now. Great blog.
Posted Nov 26, 2007 8:16 pm PT
I like how Ebert credits the "run-n-gun" action scenes to the movie's counterpart, despite the complete lack of "run-n-gun" action in the hitman games.
(Great article though, kinda sad how some people were under the impression that "Egert" was real)
(Great article though, kinda sad how some people were under the impression that "Egert" was real)
Posted Nov 26, 2007 8:23 pm PT
Friends
My Friends
Josepiphus