Ebert:"Video games are an inherently inferior medium"

[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.