Comments (14)

1. I’m a bit of a video game enthusiast myself. Roger Ebert made a speech at my college (before cancer destroyed his ability to speak and right after he made his art/video game statement.)The college was the Savannah College of Art and Design which among many other majors, includes a major in video game design. I was a film major there at the time and needless to say, because of his statement and retardedly uneducated movie reviews (that’s a whole different gripe alltogether), he did not recieve a warm welcome. As a matter of fact, I think I was so disgusted with him and his statement that I walked out on him before he was done. The statement that video games are not art is possibly the stupidest, dumbest, most ignorant statement ever uttered by a human being. I’m stirring the pot here, people. Anyone else agree with me that he’s a moron?

   posted by Eric on 4-19-2010 at 1:51 pm

2. Eric:

   Uneducated movie reviews? What? That is possibly the stupdiest, dumbest, most ignorant statement ever uttered by a human being.

   (Also, if you actually think that someone stating that video games aren’t art is actually the stupidest, dumbest, most ignorant statement ever uttered by a human being, you’ve got a lot of life lessons ahead of you, pal.)

   posted by Arlo J. Wiley on 4-19-2010 at 1:56 pm

3. Hilarious! I LOVE the end of the instructional video. The old technology, bowl cut, goofy kicks! I wish I had one of those things.

   posted by Kelsey on 4-19-2010 at 2:09 pm

4. Apollo Creed: Ain’t gonna be no rematch.
   Rocky: Don’t want one.

   I don’t know, I would’ve liked to see one, all these yrs later – with a Wii (RIP, Gene)

   posted by Amy on 4-19-2010 at 2:19 pm

5. Arlo, your’e right. Actually it was stupid of me to say that his movie reviews are uneducated. I was off on a tirade. The man has seen every movie in the world. Let me rephrase, in a calmer tone. He movie reviews are retarded and I disagree with 90% of them. With that being said, I’m sticking by my guns about him really making a dumb statement when he said that video games are not an art form. As a matter of fact, they are the most all encompassing art form that I can think of. They involve the obvious “art”, drawing, storytelling, music composition, character design, etc. The list goes on for ever and includes everything that make films “art”. Only it takes it just one step further, because a video is quite simply, an interactive movie. So, for a man who has made a career critiqing films which he undoubtedly considers to be art, for him to say that video games are not art completely discredited (in my mind) everything he has said about movies over the past 20 years. Let’s not throw fire at one another Arlo. Maybe I just wasn’t being articulate before. (I still think Ebert is an idiot though).

   posted by Eric on 4-19-2010 at 3:00 pm

6. How’s about this for input on the subject Eric. At the time (1993) I would agree that video games were not an art. Now with that being said, today’s video games make 1993 seem like 1893. So perhaps in 1993 this wasnt the dumbest thing ever said, now a days yeah it would be a little different for him to have said that.

   posted by Michael on 4-19-2010 at 4:16 pm

7. Eric: While I agree with your general thesis (That Ebert was wrong and that video games are, or at least can be, art) I disagree with your choice of terms for Mr. Ebert’s statement. I would not call it “stupid” or “dumb”, I would call it ignorant and arrogant.

   Ignorant because Mr. Ebert appears to be under the mistaken belief that games do not hold a single artistic vision (one of the reasons he gave for games not being art) such as a movie director. Infact most AAA games these days do. They have a director, an art director, a voice director, producers, and script writers. Many of the same jobs in the film industry.

   Arrogent simply because the “old guard” always believes their form of art is somehow supperior to new emerging art. There was a time when stage acting was the only work for a “serious” actor. TV and movies were beneth them. No doubt many a stage critic has said the same thing about movies that Mr. Ebert said about games. It is arrogent to think that there is no artistic value in the work of the next generation, that your view of art is the only legitimate one.

   For an look at some games that pass any litmiths test for “art” I recommend FloWer, Heavy Rain, Uncharted (1&2), the Legacy of Kain games (ignore Blood Omen 2), and the God of War games.

   I am Playstation bias, so fans of the other consoles feel free to add your own list of “artistic” games.

   posted by Keith on 4-19-2010 at 4:18 pm

8. Oh yeah, games from 1993 werent art. I can understand how you would think that, I mean, silent movies arent art, and cave paintings arent art, and scratchy recordings of Louis Armstrong from 1924 certainly arent art… Give me a break.

   posted by Adam on 4-19-2010 at 4:38 pm

9. @Keith, You can’t possibly leave Bioshock from the list of artistic games – It’s for PS3, Xbox, and PC.

   The games is a huge achievement in making games art. The storytelling happens without cut scenes, so you really feel part of it. The sound design is more frightening then most movies and the story is very moving.

   I would also add Mass Effect 1 & 2, gears of war, and Fallout 3 to the list.

   posted by hockeyzombie on 4-19-2010 at 4:53 pm

10. Give Ebert a break – has anyone here ever played the game Boogerman? Calling boogerman art is like calling one of those moving neon unicorn pictures art. There is no doubt that video games have the potential to be art and many are. Ebert is still holding his ground though – check out this recent article from his website. http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

    posted by mc on 4-19-2010 at 8:22 pm

11. Yeah, I agree with you mc. Boogerman was not art. But think of the worst movie you ever saw. Maybe something like say, American Ninja. Or Fast and Furious. Art? I think not. But film is art. And Michael has a great point too. Back in ’93 it was hard to find a game that could be considered “art” because video games were still in such an infant stage. But in at least the last 15 years, I feel starting with games for the original Playstation like Final Fantasy 7 and Resident Evil, games really started becoming something that no one could have dreamed off. They became similar to movies and these days they have taken it even farther. I always feel that this is a really hard concept for people to grasp who don’t play them, because they think of things like Pac Man or well, Boogerman when they hear the term “video game”. But yes, play Bioshock or Mass Effect or any countless number of great titles released recently and your brain might melt because you got something so completely beautiful and immersive that it totally caught you off guard.

    posted by Eric on 4-20-2010 at 8:30 am

12. lol @ the boogerman reference….that game was freakin’ awesome

    posted by Michael on 4-20-2010 at 11:20 am

13. I’m going to go ahead and call bullshit on the fact that you got up and walked out of your college graduation in the middle of his speech because of that.

    posted by Jay on 4-20-2010 at 1:50 pm

14. Even back in 1993, there were a few video games that I’d consider art. “Final Fantasy IV” (FF2 in America) is one example – it’s almost impossible not to be moved by Palom and Porom’s sacrifice, which is still one of my all-time favorite video game scenes.
    In general, I’d classify video games as an “art form,” but only a few games would really be “art” – much like film and literature. Pre-1993, very few games could qualify as “art”, simply because of technological limitations on graphics, sound, story, etc. That doesn’t mean they did not make good (sometimes excellent) use of the available resources; it’s just that it’s hard to view “Donkey Kong” at the same level as “Chariots of Fire” or “The Indian in the Cupboard” (both approximate contemporaries).

    posted by amaneaux on 4-20-2010 at 2:35 pm

Comment