Ebert:"Video games are an inherently inferior medium"

[TonyTheTiger]

So what isn't art? I'm not being flip. I'm genuinely interested in how people define it and where they draw the line. Is there some kind of math equation that can be done to determine if something crosses that line? If it has X then it's art but if it doesn't have Y then it might not be?

Basically, what could be removed from a piece of art that will render it not art? And if something isn't art, what could be added to make it art?

[Malon_Forever]

So what isn't art? I'm not being flip. I'm genuinely interested in how people define it and where they draw the line. Is there some kind of math equation that can be done to determine if something crosses that line? If it has X then it's art but if it doesn't have Y then it might not be?

Basically, what could be removed from a piece of art that will render it not art? And if something isn't art, what could be added to make it art?


I would say that everything and anything made by "man" for the enjoyment of "man" is "art." That's just my 2 cents.

[TonyTheTiger]

So is a baseball art? How about a dog toy? The latter isn't made for the enjoyment of man.

[Malon_Forever]

So is a baseball art? How about a dog toy? The latter isn't made for the enjoyment of man.

A hand made baseball? Yes (to me).

[boatofcar]

When the flush of a new-born sun fell first on Eden's green and gold,
Our father Adam sat under the Tree and scratched with a stick in the mould;
And the first rude sketch that the world had seen was joy to his mighty heart,
Till the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's pretty, but is it Art?"

Wherefore he called to his wife, and fled to fashion his work anew --
The first of his race who cared a fig for the first, most dread review;
And he left his lore to the use of his sons -- and that was a glorious gain
When the Devil chuckled "Is it Art?" in the ear of the branded Cain.

They fought and they talked in the North and the South,
they talked and they fought in the West,
Till the waters rose on the pitiful land, and the poor Red Clay had rest --
Had rest till that dank blank-canvas dawn when the dove was preened to start,
And the Devil bubbled below the keel: "It's human, but is it Art?"

They builded a tower to shiver the sky and wrench the stars apart,
Till the Devil grunted behind the bricks: "It's striking, but is it Art?"
The stone was dropped at the quarry-side and the idle derrick swung,
While each man talked of the aims of Art, and each in an alien tongue.

The tale is as old as the Eden Tree -- and new as the new-cut tooth --
For each man knows ere his lip-thatch grows he is master of Art and Truth;
And each man hears as the twilight nears, to the beat of his dying heart,
The Devil drum on the darkened pane: "You did it, but was it Art?"

We have learned to whittle the Eden Tree to the shape of a surplice-peg,
We have learned to bottle our parents twain in the yelk of an addled egg,
We know that the tail must wag the dog, for the horse is drawn by the cart;
But the Devil whoops, as he whooped of old: "It's clever, but is it Art?"

When the flicker of London sun falls faint on the Club-room's green and gold,
The sons of Adam sit them down and scratch with their pens in the mould --
They scratch with their pens in the mould of their graves,
and the ink and the anguish start,
For the Devil mutters behind the leaves: "It's pretty, but is it Art?"

Now, if we could win to the Eden Tree where the Four Great Rivers flow,
And the Wreath of Eve is red on the turf as she left it long ago,
And if we could come when the sentry slept and softly scurry through,
By the favour of God we might know as much -- as our father Adam knew!

--Rudyard Kipling

[TonyTheTiger]

That is whimsical.

But is it art?

[Mimi Nakamura]

Ebert is right.

[Mimi Nakamura]

Three words.

Metal Gear Solid.

This is a joke, right?

[IronBuddha]

He's just mad because video games have become more popular then movies.

[Ed Oscuro]

We're all just a bunch of backwoods hicks, why are we discussing this again?

:deadhorse:

Die thread, die!

p.s. Ebert's favorite art is Eating Too Fast, by Andy Warhol

ziiip ~

[NoahsMyBro]

I'm not at all prepared or qualified to define art, but I've got a couple of bits to add to the process:

1) I'd think that any definition of art *maybe* should consider the creator's intention. If he/she intends for something to be appreciated for it's aesthetic qualities in at least some significant way, than it could be called art. If we're talking about something that is completely utilitarian, and never intended to be valued for anything other than doing some bit of grunt-work (a nail, or the U-trap in your bathroom sink plumbing, for example), than I'd say it isn't art.

This does mean some things could fairly be considered art that maybe shouldn't be. For example, consider a simple hammer. It probably isn't art. But what if the designer of the hammer engineered the hammer to a high degree - maybe the balance is just right, or the shape of the heavy part at the end (I don't know the term for it, sorry), or the grip on the handle is specially made, all so that the skilled carpenter will enjoy using this particular hammer more than the common hammer the average joe uses to hang a picture? In the world of hammers, this one just might be a level above, and rightly called a work of art.

2) It may be this goes to the old argument that some Supreme Court judge wrote about pornography - to paraphrase - "I don't know what it is, but I know it when I see it". It might be that art is like that also. (It might be that porn is art, for that matter.)

#2 also leans to the idea that porn/art is all relative, and in the eyes of the beholder. What one person considers art, another may consider not art.

[TonyTheTiger]

You make a really convincing argument. There's just one problem: As convincing as it is, and I'm sure many people will be likely to agree with you on paper, people don't generally seem to adopt that philosophy in practice.

If art really is a kind of "in the eye of the beholder" thing, then if Roger Ebert says that video games are not art nobody should really have a problem with that. But when he made his statement (and actually went ahead to try to defend it) a lot of people responded with a lot of venom. Would they have reacted so strongly if Ebert had said that he didn't think yellow was a very nice color or that he didn't think Chinese food was all that appetizing? I really don't think so.

What that means is while most people might be inclined to agree on paper that there's no cut and dry definition of what qualifies as "art," they seem to take other's opinions on the matter to heart. Which goes back to something I said earlier in this thread: For whatever reason, the word "art" is seen as more than a descriptor and rather a badge of honor. And so to say something is not art is to somehow show a lack of respect. And that opens up a big can of worms.

[j_factor]

You make a really convincing argument. There's just one problem: As convincing as it is, and I'm sure many people will be likely to agree with you on paper, people don't generally seem to adopt that philosophy in practice.

If art really is a kind of "in the eye of the beholder" thing, then if Roger Ebert says that video games are not art nobody should really have a problem with that. But when he made his statement (and actually went ahead to try to defend it) a lot of people responded with a lot of venom. Would they have reacted so strongly if Ebert had said that he didn't think yellow was a very nice color or that he didn't think Chinese food was all that appetizing? I really don't think so.

What that means is while most people might be inclined to agree on paper that there's no cut and dry definition of what qualifies as "art," they seem to take other's opinions on the matter to heart. Which goes back to something I said earlier in this thread: For whatever reason, the word "art" is seen as more than a descriptor and rather a badge of honor. And so to say something is not art is to somehow show a lack of respect. And that opens up a big can of worms.

Did Ebert actually say that videogames aren't art? He said they're an inherently inferior medium. If he'd said "games don't fit my definition of art" I don't think that would have elicited as strong as a reaction as saying that videogames are inferior. Because he's devoted himself to film, it comes across as a flippant "my medium is better than your medium" type remark, and because he apparently has limited experience with games, it also comes across as ignorant.

Videogames have both advantages and disadvantages compared to film. You don't see Tommy Tallarico calling film an inherently inferior medium, and if he did, you can bet the reaction from movie fans would be just as venomous as the gamers' reactions to Ebert's comment.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think he said they're an inferior medium in the context of what qualifies as art. So according to Ebert, something that does not qualify as art is inherently inferior to something that does. So even Roger Ebert seems to interpret "art" as a badge of honor.

I wouldn't want to posit a straw man and say that Ebert considers art the be all, end all of value. I doubt he'd consider art in any form more valuable than food and shelter. But in the small confines of entertainment, he values "art" above "non-art" as most people appear to. Whether games qualify as art or not is a totally different issue than whether or not art itself should be seen this way. I'm stuck on "maybe" for the first question and leaning toward "no" for the second.