Forbin

Roger Ebert rehashes old debate even indie hipsters are tired of

Recommended Posts

Right, sorry for ignoring this topic for a few days, but I've been milling it around in my head and I've come to the decision that I really like your definition, Stevan. I'm no longer of the opinion that art doesn't exist, though it does remain a vague and often hard to decipher thing. The definition is a great one though and at the very least unveils the difference between art and... not-art.

So, good job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Woo, go me! I win the internet! And they said that it was impossible to have a constructive conversation about art in the context of video games!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, I kind of skimmed through this, and I kind of feel like what I'm saying is a lot less clever than the thread's been getting, but here are a couple of short thoughts:

I find it quite strange how people can in one breath describe art as subjective, irrelevant, or even non-existent, then berate Ebert quite viciously for having an opinion about it. If it's subjective, is he not as entitled to his opinion as everybody else, and if it's irrelevant or non-existent, what does it even matter? I'm not saying I agree with him, but that kind of inconsistency suggests to me that people are automatically assuming a defensive stance and throwing everything they can at him because what he said was in some respect negative about games. I say "in some respect" because stuff doesn't have to be art to be valid or valuable. I guess the problem is that it can be read as being quite patronizing. Certainly, in some of his comments elsewhere (his Twitter feed, for example), Ebert has been very patronizing and quite childish. The whole "too well-read" thing was ridiculous. But taken on its own merits, I didn't find the article itself especially enraging. Basically, I've found both sides of the argument rather disappointing on the whole. Everyone seems to be flinging shit from the camp they picked way before the start, and for reasons other than the subject matter itself. Then again, perhaps I'm misinterpreting and not giving people enough credit.

I think Kingzjester's description of art is an ingeniously clear and concise one, but I think the problem is that it (inevitably) doesn't give a complete demarcation of art from non-art. This is no surprise, of course, and it goes an admirable distance towards doing so, but I think the remaining gap is probably where the promiscuous realism thing comes in. I may be missing the point somewhat, but the example suggested to me several context-sensitive and possibly partially overlapping sets co-existing, which makes complete sense, as the world is not defined in the terms of one particular intellectual domain (a recent favourite subject of mine is the flexibility and arbitrariness of identity). The list itself states that art is sensitive to society and history; this could manifest as several largely independent subclasses of the superclass "art". The purple list could be a meta-description of the superset, I guess. But the definition itself specifies that art is "alchemical", which leaves things quite open, as I see it. There is something about art that endlessly evades definition, and the only way to effectively describe it is with words like that. It's part of its nature, I suppose.

Sorry, I'm not saying one clear thing or really making much of a point in general here. I have a habit of doing that. Or failing to do that, more accurately.

As for my own opinions, I'm still undecided, and probably never will be. If you take a very permissive anything-that's-creative definition of art, then sure, games are totally art, just like dumb action films and elevator music. If you take a very restrictive classics-only definition of art, then no, games probably aren't, but neither is the majority of film, music, theatre, paintings, and so on. I guess I, like most people, would be more inclined to place it somewhere between the two, but I'm really not sure where. There are certainly artistic elements to the games I play and the films I see and so on, but I'm not sure how many I'd be comfortable calling works of art. Then again, I don't really have the same reservations about music. I guess I'm awful and inconsistent after all.

God, what a load of rubbish.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a system of mechanics and goals is somehow inartistic, I wonder what Ebert would say about Train.

...

As to JamesM and many other people's comments about why should people care if they believe art is subjective. I have posted this a few times on reddit (maybe even on here), but I think that people are upset because of Ebert's influence. You can dismiss his posts as his opinion, and claim he has a right to one, no matter how weak an uninformed it is. But it's hard to dismiss the fact that he's using his platform to publicly degrade the video game industry and it's professionals.

It's bad enough that we have Arnold Schwarzenegger bringing a bill to the Supreme Court trying to ban violent video game sales to minors, we don't need any more uninformed disdain towards video games. The FTC found that M-rated video games are the hardest thing for a minor to buy without a parent, the law is completely unnecessary. Yet the Californian government believes that it should (like porn) lose it's first amendment rights and be legally regulated.

We don't need any more people in the world disrespecting video games as a medium. We don't need people to have their prejudices solidified by a respected film critic. So when you read through the comments left by the Ebert legion on his blog, you get upset. Regardless of your feelings of someones rights to their own opinion, or free speech. You get upset that someone with such influence is making a public scene when it's clear he doesn't have any appreciation or understanding about what he's talking.

A friend of the family was over at my mom's place having tea one day. It turns out her son works as a designer at BioWare, so I was interested and asked her what he worked on. After a long discussion about his history in the industry, she admitted that for a long time she didn't tell people that her son worked on video games. She was ashamed. He had a job at one of the best companies in the country, making award winning games, earning a good living and raising a family. But she was still ashamed.

So that is why I care about what Ebert thinks, even though I think art is highly subjective. And that's why I think he should shut up when he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's all fine, but if that's the problem, argue in those terms. I don't the outsude opinions you're concerned about are going to be won over by vehement insistence that games are art. All they need to know is that they're a valid use of one's time and not a threat to all hold dear, or whatever. Getting tangled up in the definition of art will do nothing for that cause. In a recent article, Ebert concedes that some graffiti can be art, but I don't feel the medium is any less hated than it's ever been. It doesn't help that the majority of graffiti is nuisance vandalism; similarly, if you're going to defend games on artistic grounds, you're going to get the bone-headedness of a large portion of the industry's output thrown back at you, which is ultimately counter-productive.

I can understand nervousness about public perception of games (although I don't share it myself), but having a knee-jerk reaction to everything negative said and employing every argument available, regardless of how sincere it is, only makes one seem desperate and lacking in genuine and relevant arguments. It reinforces the image I have of gamers as an intensely tribal, insular and childish group. That's part of why I favour communities like Idle Thumbs: the people seem more like individuals.

Again, I might be being grossly unfair.

Anyway, the way I see it, social acceptance of computer games is on the up. As far as I can tell, there's a lot less stigma around it now than when I was growing up. There may be backlashes, but if anything they're a measure of gaming's recent success.

Is "backlashes" even a word?

Edited by JamesM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I thought I might. But I'm already spending way too much time posting on my phone at work today. No time to pay heed to something as inconsequential as the English language.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because if a relatively new medium cannot exceed what some argue is the the pinnacle of American fiction, it is completely invalid?

This really is increasingly becoming a generational flame war.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe he's referring to that Huck Finn movie with teen hunks Jonathan Taylor Thomas and Brad Renfro that Disney put out years ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well.. that's what happens when you get old, it becomes more difficult to think and process new information

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing works as well as a juicy ad hominem attack to make an old codger way past his prime realize the error of his ways. :tup::tup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I have such a love-hate relationship with him. Anything he says about movies, I tend to agree with or at least respect. But for some reason he insists on taking a stand regarding something he just doesn't understand. Why do that? I guess he just doesn't see what a fool it makes him look like for most everyone younger than 30.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Glad he relented somewhat and that we can stop putting words in his mouth, but he did seem to end up being completely unable to justify his position on any level. By the end of that piece he had practically admitted it was a faith-based assertion, which is to say it was utterly fatuous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What a guy! :tup: (Although why he chose to illustrate his article with grotesque imagery is questionable.)

I noticed that too. Ugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure we could expect much more from him, it's good to have closure, but it was kinda bullshit the way he peppers the article with screen shots from blatantly bad video games. It was like an article on cracked, punctuating the writing with ridiculous images. I mean, he used Jericho, a game so terrible that even though it's under 3 years old and retailed for full price you can buy it today for 1.70.

But the most important thing, he straight up apologized for, which I appreciate. He had no business writing an article when he had no experience, and was unwilling to even look into it.

If he's so reluctant to play a game, maybe he should take a tour of a studio like Blizzard, and show him what goes into a game beyond the gore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've still got this nasty taste in my mouth either way. I actually had no idea the guy had a poll going on video games vs. Huck Finn.

Glad the farce is over at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now