- Credits
- 49,547
Famous movie reviewer Roger Ebert recently posted a thoughtful, interesting piece on his blog where he argues that games are not Art. His thesis:
Since I read Ebert's post yesterday, I've been turning over his ideas in my head. I'm not going to join the legion of gamers saying he's wrong or he's too old to appreciate games. Ebert isn't arguing that games aren't valid, or that making games doesn't involve the same kind of skills needed to created a piece of Art, just that the finished product -- a "game" -- is not an "artwork." The interactivity and goal-focused nature of a video game prevent it from being Art, given Eberts definition of the term. I don't really have a response because Roger Ebert is way smarter than almost anyone, I don't necessarily disagree with his point, and I suspect there's a bit of good-natured trolling in his post, too. But I will say this: Who cares?
his blog
more here
Since I read Ebert's post yesterday, I've been turning over his ideas in my head. I'm not going to join the legion of gamers saying he's wrong or he's too old to appreciate games. Ebert isn't arguing that games aren't valid, or that making games doesn't involve the same kind of skills needed to created a piece of Art, just that the finished product -- a "game" -- is not an "artwork." The interactivity and goal-focused nature of a video game prevent it from being Art, given Eberts definition of the term. I don't really have a response because Roger Ebert is way smarter than almost anyone, I don't necessarily disagree with his point, and I suspect there's a bit of good-natured trolling in his post, too. But I will say this: Who cares?
his blog
more here