OK... Now that was a good discussion.

I have to agree that Aquaman was bad, but I can't say it's the worst game ever. Have you ever played Custer's Revenge?

I've spoken my piece and I've enjoyed your counter-arguments.

You were using much more conceptual definitions of good, true, and beautiful than I was. I like how you expanded and encapsulated the words we were dealing with to make your point.

I guess the only thing we won't agree on at all is the fine art v. pop art discussion. I still think that there is art for the now and art for the ages.

... And that discussion is also one for the ages that a couple of keyboard jockies won't sort out, but had a great intellectual discussion about.

OMG!!! Gamers are having a civil, educated discussion! We can't have this!

Your mother is a h0m0!

OK... Now that that is out of my system.

Touche on the Bio Dome reference...

"My issue is that we seem to have moved from “I don’t know art but I know what I like,” to “I know what I like and what I like is art.” Just because something is moving to a person doesn’t make that thing art because that person isn’t that important."

You are right. This IS the core of the issue. That's why there is a difference between fine art and pop art.

Most games and movies would fall under the category of pop art: subjectively shallow with a mass appeal.

My original quote was not a definition of art. It was a condemnation of artists more than anything else, but it does bring to the forefront the idea that art is a shared experience of the artist and the viewer, albeit one separated by time. It also opines that this is necessary for anything to begin to be considered art.

Much as Whacko Jacko wants to use the classic Greek definition of art we must also consider that the ancient Greeks considered there to be only 4 elements: earth, air, water, and fire.

Obviously, that definition needs some revision. It is incomplete at best. If we decided to live in Mr. Thompson's static world, there would be no cars, planes, computers, or lawyers... Waitaminute... Would that last one be so bad?

Art is a fluid thing that leaves behind much concrete evidence of its existence. But its definition is constantly changing.

BTW... Thanks for keeping me honest here, Tom.

@ Dennis McCarthy

Why are you using a quote from Heinlein that arrogantly claims that modern art isn't real art when you're trying to bolster the notion that a modern form of expression, considered not to be art by a largely irrelevant pop culture critic, is art?

You seem so convinced that nearly everything can be art and yet you attack art that requires you to "sit on your fat overpaid butt and search for metaphors in a static medium." According to your later implications couldn't that also be as valid a piece of art as is art that requires someone to sit on their fat, overpaid ass and search for shines in an interactive medium?

Craftsmanship and craftsmen are done a disservice by the adjective "mere." Most of the media and many of the items that populate our lives are the product of exceptional craftsmen rather then artists. There is nothing wrong with a well crafted object that is not art.

Disliking art does not mean that one does not believe something to be art anymore then someone being "rendered emotional" makes something art.

A game is not art because it is a game and it exists any more then a painting is art because it is a painting and it exists. That someone may endeavor to "create art" - to me that would be the height of arrogance - does not make the results of their toils art. Years of schooling and practice at fine art institutes does not result in the creation of art despite the protestations of those who spent time and money wishing it were so.

Ebert is wrong in his assertion that games cannot be art, however equally wrong are the assertions that all games are art. If all games are art, then wouldn't all movies be art? By extension, all creative endeavors would be art. At that point the notion of "art" will have been devalued so much that it would echo hollowly with no more potency then Heinlein's "pseudo-intellectual masturbation."

Ebert is a fucking idiot. Who is he to tell people what 'art' is? He watches movies for a fucking living!

Video games art art, more than almost anything else in this world. How can a painting be art, but not the thousands of created images that exist in a video game?

I find video games to be of the highest art, in that they invoke emotion, and are open to interpretation. I don't understand his comment about true art taking you to one final conclusion. There is no fucking way that kandinsky meant for his paintings to be interpreted in one way. They are open to interpretation, and I would think that is encouraged by the artist.

Ebert is a fucking idiot. A real imbecile. To think someone could use a good liver.

Truthfully, I don't pay a 'film critic' no mind when I go see a film. I go and use my own judgement to see it the film is good or not. I loved the new Die Hard film. I don't need Roger Ebert, or Leonard Malten or whoever to tell me it's worth watching. And his opinion on videogames as an art form? My response is:

"SHUT UP AND DO YOUR [censored] JOB!! YOU ARE GETTING PAID TO TELL OTHERS WHAT FILMS ARE GOOD AND NOT TO BE RUNNING YOUR [censored] MOUTH ABOUT WHAT YOU PERSONALLY THINK WHAT ART IS!!!"

Again, not that I need The likes of him to tell me what is good to watch.

- Warren Lewis

Isn't the decision of something being or not being art mostly a matter of opinion? I feel that if some thing is aesthetically pleasing, provokes thought or imagination, requires creativity, or produces an emotional response from the viewer, then it can be considered art. I know that is a very broad definition, but it should be subjective too. While one person may think that a sport like football is barbaric, another may see the art in a perfectly executed play. Some may see a car as being a peice of working art, while another thinks of it as just another machine.

He does not know what he is talking about, but that is no change for him.

As has been pointed out by numerous others since Roger opened his FAT trap on the subject, Ebert's comments can not and must not be given the "weight" that his essays on movies are given for the plain and simple fact that the man has never once bothered to pick up and play a game, immerse himself in gaming culture or done actual RESEARCH on the subject.

People listen to him based on his celebrity and professional status and he demeans and cheats his audience by pontificating on a subject he literally knows nothing about.

and with that, I give you MY example of Games as "High Art":

Archive.org Curator's Choice Award:
http://www.archive.org/details/014900

Hell, we're talking about the Mona Lisa, why not go further and look at the works of Salvador Dali? When he put his works up for display, he gave no captions for them, didn't explain what they were supposed to be. He left that up to the patron. Does that not make his work interactive to some degree?

As the ruling in the landmark St. Louis arcade case pointed out, many forms of art go out of their way to be interactive. When Shakesphere introduced the witches in MacBeth, they became such popular characters that some believe he later added a new scene starring them. When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes, readers were so furious that he rewrote the book so that he didn't actually die. I don't need to explain the matter of the Star Wars Expanded Universe. If interactivity automatically negates the artistic value of something, why do so many works of art strive to become interactive (and sometimes succeed)?

Rodger Ebert may know his movies, but he clearly doesn't understand much else. And I think that's why he's saying what he is. His whole career centers around film. The last thing he wants is to see another medium overtake it.

It's not worth it to say "looks like he hasn't played/heard of [insert game title]." Because he hasn't played any of them.

arguing about whether something is art or not is like arguing if Star Wars is a western. Nothing anyone can say is going to change the other person's mind.

I don't care about whether or not videogames are "art" because I am more concerned with if I like something or not than what label people put on it.

I think it far more interesting that while Ebert got tons and tons of feedback from gamers he remained adamant in his stance. When a famous writer said something about it he suddenly became a lot more reasonable. Elitist to the core.

Walk up to an average person in the street and show him, say, The Scream. Ask him to interpret it and anaylse its value as art. Chances are, he won't be able to. A student of fine art, meanwhile, could probably go into horrendous detail on the angle of the brush strokes and how it influenced later pieces.

A film critic could talk all day about the use of lighting in a single scene and how a particular director's ability to break up narrative invented a whole new genre. Joe in the street would say it was a decent film but a bit boring near the end.

Can you talk about the emotional impact of the T-rex revelation in the original Tomb Raider or how unit caps in Warcraft influenced RTS design, or discuss the pros and cons of voice acting in RPGs and how it affects the way the player connects with the characters? No? Then you're the man in the street.

How exactly is a movie critic an authoritative person on defining "high art?"

He's not.

"Art" is a fluid concept and depends on who is interpreting it. Video games COULD be art-leaving the possibility that it IS for some and IS NOT for others. It is not "never" automatically. Stick to your movie reviews, Ebert.

@Black Manta
"When it comes down to it, critics really don’t know shit."
I agree, going a little OT, I remember when Shrek came out, and critics gave it low reviews. Yet, it was one of the most popular films that year. I know that because I worked at a Showcase Cinemas that was showing it for about half a year while most other movies were in theatres for about half as long at most. I can't even remember all of the movies that came out after Shrek that stopped showing before Shrek stopped.

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

It's that simple.

Nightwing2000
NW2K Software

"Ebert dismisses the idea of art presenting choices, asserting that if one is offered ‘every emotional journey available’, then each is individually devalued:"

He misses the point. Art does offer many different emotional journeys, but it does not offer all the choices to each individual viewer. The viewer at best because of personality, mood, time of day, etc. is offered by art only a few emotional journeys per each viewing of the artwork (maybe sometimes limited to 1). That's why art is so important to return to later, as you find something different that hadn't been there before for you.

If art is something that inevitably leads to a singular conclusion, then why is so-called "high" art endlessly debated by experts and laymen? For e.g., from my previous post, the Mona Lisa. Some may look at it and conclude that "we’re all narcissistic bastards who look for ourselves in other people." Others may look at it and endlessly debate what her smile means.

For me the definition of art is fairly simple. Art is something that is created by one person or many people, to entertain, to provoke thought, to decorate, or just for the hell of it. Art is made for other people to enjoy, and not for the artist himself. (Ebert says that the experience of not being able to speak was emotionally provoking for him but it was not art. He is right, it was not art for him. But for others around him, for an audience, it would be art.) That is one thing that I believe is required for art.....an audience.

Sorry, Ebert, but some of those choices can sometimes be a bad choice and not have a happy ending (Disgaea for instance, i forget how many endings that game has). Think about it, almost all the movies out there have a happy ending. There are few out there that do that.

He reminds me of my English teachers who asked "what was the author thinking when he wrote this." (I wonder when the jets game is on today?).

And art does whatever, not lead to an inevitable conclusion. Raum put it the right way.

Hmm here's a toughie do i listen to A) An old movie critic who i have never been fond of and anm not fond of any critics as they make a living nit picking other peoples creative works.

or B) A fellow scouser and creator of many books and brilliant stories who has made a living being creative in many fields who also knows about games and so knows about the topic wich is being debated.

Ebert has his right to an opinion but i'll only respect it when he actually knows what he is talking about. Its the same with wacko jacko he has a bad opinion on games yet has shown time and again he is ignorant of the medium.

Apparently Ebert has never heard of Indigo Prophecy, Half Life, Startcraft, or the words Final Fantasy, so he needs to shut the fuck up.

Most of those games have an inevitable conclusion.

And by his definition, choose your own adventure books are not art

Ebert is an uninformed moron trying to justify his grotesquely uninformed opinion. He needs to stick to what he (barely) knows. The fact that he categorizes games under 3 genres and nothing else should be proof enough that he knows nothing about the topic.

He's obviously never played an RPG. Final Fantasy VI, Terranigma, and Tales of Symphonia have tear-jerking moments.

@JACK THOMPSON, ATTORNEY WITH HIS NAME IN CAPITAL LETTERS
"The ancient Greeks defined art as that which points the viewer of it to what is good, beautiful, or true."

Maybe the fact that they were an ancient civilization has something to do with that. Also, a source would be nice.

"That is the definition then, and that is the definition now."

Says who? YOU?
Who are YOU to decree what is art and what is not? How much discretion and eloquence have YOU shown in the past?

"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a video gamer."
~
Jack Thompson

You like to quote Winston Churchill, who wasn't an artist so much as he was a diplomat. And yet you never quote Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, or Isaac Asimov; maybe that's because their works aren't exactly children skipping in fields of flowers.

"Maybe gamers should get an education before they start holding forth on these things."

The one who truly lacks an education, Jack, would be you.
Otherwise you would've learned Law School lesson 101: No Ad Hominem attacks.

Wait a minute... Didn't Mr. Thompson recently say that he was never going visit this site again?

Well like many things art is based on one's own opinion. Like my grandfather once told me as a child 'Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one and they all stink.'

Something that hasn't been mentioned yet, but is very much worth discussing:
Roger Ebert, in his film criticism, operates under auteur theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory

Briefly, auteur theory says that the director/producer of a film is the film's "author." As such, the film should be viewed as an expression of that one person. And while auteur theory has its critics, it still forms the basis of almost all film criticism to this day, much as John Maynard Keynes's theories form the basis of economic thought today. For example, the film adaptation of "Sin City" (2005) had three directors credited, and the Directors Guild of America had a kitten over this since Frank Miller had never directed a film before and the DGA generally frowns upon co-directors anyway. (Rodriguez resigned from the DGA rather than tolerate this.)

So Mr. Ebert's argument is that, since videogames (no matter how story-driven) are a user-driven medium, the director/producer is not really in control of the message or the experience. Likewise, this is why he might not see Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man 2" as high art, since Raimi was using Marvel's Spider-Man comics as the basis for the film and the film's many producers (including Stan Lee) no doubt had a great deal of input into the film. In other words, Raimi wasn't in control of the message or the experience - not really.

I am not saying that Mr. Ebert is correct in his assertion. In fact, I disagree with it entirely. I won't elaborate for the sake of brevity (this post has gone very long as it stands). Nevertheless, it is very important that, if you are going to argue with a venerated film critic like Mr. Ebert, you have to understand where he is coming from and be able to counter his argument.

Ack, double posting. Sorry. The point of that waffle was, what *is* high art? One could argue that different media have different characteristics for high art. Music, sculpture, painting, film, photography. So why should gaming not have its own high art? Maybe there haven't been any examples of it yet, or maybe there have. History seems to be a deciding factor, and games just don't have enough of it to be able to look back. But if in a century or two people are looking back at World of Warcraft and the effect it had, would that not then be an example of fine art?

There are always two sides to a story, and if set straight, both sides are right. In some ways, he IS correct that games aren't art, because of the interactivity. However, on the other hand, games CAN be considered art depending on the plot and how it moves. Look at Final Fantasy VII; every person who loved all the characters broke out in tears when Aeris died. It doesn't even have to be limited to RPGs, I cried my eyes out at the ending to Klonoa and Ace Combat 5.

See the problem and the solution? Games like Mega Man can only have the art be considered art, not the actual games. However, those with a HUGE amount of depth can be considered art because they're like interactive plays, you merely play as one of the actors.

@ Mr.Pat, Ebert is arguing that most of what artists do isn't what he would consider high art. He isn't say movies and painting are art and games aren't. He's saying movies and paintings are mostly not high art, but a few are and no games are. I understand disgreeing, but I wish people would disagree with what he was actually saying and not what people think he's saying. Also, he's written several books, won a pulitzer prize and written a cult movie. I'd say that qualifies him as an accomplished artist, though probably not in his own mind.

More appropriateness from Heinlein:
"Jubal, why isn't there stuff like this around where a person can see it?"
"Because the world has gone nutty and contemporary art always paints the spirit of its times. Rodin died about the time the world started flipping its lid. His successors noted the amazing things he had done with light and shadow and mass and composition and they copied that part. What they failed to see was that the master told stories that laid bare the human heart. They became contemptuous of painting or sculpture that told a stories — they dubbed such work 'literary.' They went all out for abstractions.
Jubal shrugged. "Abstract design is all right — for wall paper or linoleum. But art is the process of evoking pity and terror. What modern artists do is pseudo-intellectual masturbation. Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience. These laddies who won't deign to do that — or can't — lost the public." (Stranger in a Strange Land)

Art is an interactive process. It does not merely require you to sit on your fat overpaid butt and search for metaphors in a static medium. Video games can be the next truly great art form. Loathe as I am to admit it, the tripe from Rockstar is art.

Not all art is for everyone. GTA proves this point.

Not everyone loves Beethoven. Some think Pablo Picasso was a half blind, epileptic hack. Not everyone will see the retelling of classic Greek myths through the eyes of a half-mad Spartan as a valid form of expression.

Yes there is "mere craftsmanship" involved, but someone out there will be "rendered emotional" on some level by each of these things.

Video games reflect the spirit of our times. Embrace them as a new art form and understand that someone out there will decry their existence as has happened to every other form.

Come on, you know that's all rubbish.

I mean that a lot of people are close-minded. They develop their categorical thinking (like "art", "not art", "good", "bad") by the time they reach their twenties, not moving a bit afterwards.

And a chance of adding another "item" into one of these categories is pretty much close to a firm zero.

Let's just say certain people aren't qualified to judge certain things as Art or not.

Roger Ebert is clearly a MOVIE critic. So he has NO validity whatsoever about whether Games are art or not. That's like asking a NOVEL writer about whether movies can be art or not.

Hideo Kojima however, while he shares a similar view, at least he has more validity, especially since he WORKS at said industry. Not that I agree with him, but he has more credibility than Roger Ebert when it comes to games

I defy anyone to play the entirety of Shadows of the Colossus and tell me it wasn't art.

End of arguement, and now we can all go to bed.

@DoctorFedora:

you could not have picked a worse example.
Chess is not "simply a reasonably well-balanced set of gameplay mechanics" it is a particularly accurate analogy of war.

Consider the King: "Anyone who has managed a large organization or is a student of history will have given a wry smile at the king's place in Chess. He is incredibly powerful, moving in any direction... but slowly, slowly. He can only be defeated indirectly, by restricting his freedom of action." -Game rules as art, The Escapist Issue 41

The problem with comparing a static form of art versus a multiform form of art is that we can dismantle the multiform and judge the various forms of art.

We already have been doing that for decades, though we don't specify the judgements as being towards "art".

The Oscars is one of many prime examples. We tear down the overall piece (single movies) and judge them on their various forms of "art". Audio, music, video production, performance by stars, directorship, etc. And then, to top it off, we judge the overall piece.

Written material and paintings aren't as easy to tear down into various art forms.

We can, however, still tear down orchestrated music because we can judge written composition as well as the skill of the person playing the piece.

I know the discussion came up some time back in another article, but I'd like to see an awards show for video/computer games much like the Oscars. Not only broken down by genres but by the various art forms within games themselves.

Nightwng2000
NW2K Software

I know what you mean Ace, but take your wall analogy, if the wall wasn't there, there would be no art, yes, you could take the canvas away from Sunflowers by Van Gogh, and end up with 'Pure Art', which turns out to be a pile of dried oil-paint.

I hope I'll never see art judged by the Media it is presented on, we've been painting on cave walls for millions of years.

As for using forms from other Media, the Pop Video is common phenomena, even using music to tell short stories, e.g. 'Thriller' by MJ, which is, in essence, a 4 minute long musical using, at the time, modern visual media techniques. Media has always borrowed from other parts of itself, that's part of how it grows. Even Warhole, as mentioned at the start of this item, didn't MAKE half the stuff he did pictures of, he just borrowed them from other places, but the way he presented it was considered artistic.

The whole unique thing about Computer Games is the very thing that makes them seperate from other forms of Media, Warhole specialised in presenting things in a different way, I personally think he would have looked very favourably on the possibilities within Computer Media and Games.

Basically, I feel that saying that Computer games are a lot of artwork held together by programming is like saying 'The Haywain' is a load of pigment held together by canvas.

"I say that trying to hold to an outdated definition the Greeks came up with a couple of thousand years ago is absurdist fantasy on our resident attroney’s part."

I'm not suggesting that we hold to it however it is important that we are aware of it and consider it because our tradition does follow from the Greek tradition. Art has developed and advanced over the ensuing two millennium but the Greek tradition was the starting point. That Jack Thompson, Attorney (your right, wouldn't want him targeting his *snicker*intellectat me for not writing his name properly) has reminded us of an important part of our artistic tradition doesn't make the message ipso facto wrong.

In a nutshell: he's got a point on that topic, but he's still an ass.

One thing: you said, "look at Kabuki theatre versus traditional Greek plays and tell me the use of metaphor was anything close." I did a little research on that just to make sure, but I'd have to say that you're wrong. The relatively few Greek plays we have access to extensively use metaphor throughout. In fact, metaphor has long been a very important part of Western literary and artistic tradition. Kabuki theater does use metaphor extensively but it is also a much younger theatrical tradition that was built upon extensive existing tradition and has been allowed to develop itself for hundreds of years. If put a Nissan 350ZX up against a Datsun 280Z the former will win every time but the 280 is still based on the same concepts. Catch the use of metaphor there :)

As far as graffiti is concerned, well take a look at this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Graffiti_politique_de_Pompei.jpg
Political graffiti has been used since ancient times, it's the just the tools and implementation that has changed.

All I'm saying is that it seems as though you're attacking the Greek tradition because Jack Thompson, Asshole Attorney mentioned it without considering that the Greek tradition is important and worth being aware of even as you consider how art has evolved over thousands of years.

As to the definition itself, I agree with you on every point except "good," but that's only because I think that you're looking at "good" from the wrong perspective. It doesn't necessarily mean "morally good," rather it could mean "practically good," as in, "that's a good cup of coffee," "he's a good writer," or "I bet she gives great helmet." When you see a bad movie it doesn't offend your moral sensibilities but your aesthetic sensibilities.

Truth suggests that you're looking at a something with intellectual honesty and you're willing to accept what you see even though you might not like it. It also implies that you're examining some of the more difficult topics in the quest for truth. It suggests a scholarly tradition.

Beauty is the most difficult to define of the three aspects of Greek tradition because it refers to aesthetics. There are, of course, theories that exist to define beauty in aesthetics through forms, lines, angles, symmetries, etc. that people respond to but that is a very fluid and amorphous subject.

When you consider it like this, the Greek tradition is saying that art requires craft in being good, intellect in being true and aesthetics in being beautiful. Any item that exhibits one or two of those qualities would be excellent but it would not be art.

To use a modern example consider Katamari Damacy according to the strictures of the Greek tradition. It is undeniably good in the way that it is constructed. Aesthetically it could be called beautiful and I will grant that it passes the beauty "test." The thing is that it wouldn't pass the intellectual, or "truth," test. Yes it is an indelible piece of popular culture and it's one of my favorite games but it's not art.

Shadow of the Colossus makes a much better case in that it is very "good," it exhibits "beauty" and it exposes "truth."

I still don't think that there's any reason to differentiate between pop art and fine art. If something is art then it is art. To divide between "fine" and "pop" really is to suggest that some things are art "for now" but some things are "just art." Why make that distinction?

Why be concerned with whether something would have been considered art 200 years ago and whether it will be considered art 200 years in the future? You may be saying, "then why the hell did you go on about the Greek tradition?" That's because the context in which the understanding is reached can be as important as the understanding itself. What is considered "good," "true," "beautiful" today may well be different then two centuries in the past but the value of intellect, craft and aesthetics as concepts remains constant.

"But I maintain that there will be art that is created that will / can not be understood by everyone, but uses its medium in revolutionary ways and sends many a person on a journey of emotion and discovery that will effect them for a long time afterwards."

Yes, I agree with that entirely but being revolutionary and "sending a person on a journey of emotion and discovery that will effect them for a long time afterwards" does not make something art.

We live in an emotional time where what people feel is considered to be of greatest importance. The general consensus is that if somebody "feels" something we shouldn't dare disparage it because... well, I don't really know why. The thing is, though, that notion is bullshit. Not to disparage anyone's feelings but there needs to be some justification if other people are to be expected to consider them valid. If, for example, you say that Aquaman moved you emotionally and then tell me that it should be art because of that I have every right to tell you to justify why you were so effected by what is generally considered The Worst Game, Ever.

Well, gee, what a surprise. A bunch of gamers on a gaming site don't agree with Roger Ebert's insistence that games aren't art? Immediate ad hominem attacks, you say?

Color me unsurprised.

The problem is that the aspects of video games that are artistic are the ones that are wholly unrelated to gameplay mechanics. It boils down to a similar situation to how a chess set could be considered art, but the game of chess itself is simply a reasonably well-balanced set of gameplay mechanics.

"Thanks for keeping me honest here" I do what I can :)

I just spent tonights Brain Points on an altogether too long comment about the RE/racism debate so I'm not exactly primed for a massive response - forgive me that :)

"That’s why there is a difference between fine art and pop art.

Most games and movies would fall under the category of pop art: subjectively shallow with a mass appeal."

See, I don't really see there being a difference between "fine art" and "pop art." I look at popular culture as just that and I accept aspects of popular culture as art. Plenty of "fine art" is not art - rather it is pretention and arrogance in a more easily consumable form. Why talk to a pretentious asshole when you can just have hang his painting on the wall? By the way, it's upside down.

I completely agree that a shared experience is vital to art and expression in general. It's simple - expression is only valid when it's intended as a part of a dialog. If it's not a dialog then the expression is just someone yelling *cough*JACK THOMPSON!!!!*cough*

Pardon me, I meant to say, "It it's not a dialog then the expression is just someone yelling biased lunacy while covering their ears and cowering from any rational, well-formed responses like your friend and mine, Jack Thompson." This damned cough...

The Greek deficiency regarding physical science don't necessarily translate to deficiencies regarding their philosophical understandings of art. Considering that our artistic tradition follows directly from the Greek tradition it is important for us to be aware of their concepts. It's just distasteful when that information is imparted by a snickering Florida massacre-chaser.

jacko said:
"The ancient Greeks defined art as that which points the viewer of it to what is good, beautiful, or true. That is the definition then, and that is the definition now. Maybe gamers should get an education before they start holding forth on these things."

You know in that interview you told us to google that and guess what, we did. And we can't find a source for it. Care to enlighten us jacko?

Frankly, I didn't feel like copying in an entire chapter to establish more context. Either that or I should have been more selective in which parts I copied and pasted.

No... I do not like Roger Ebert's comments. My point (and Heinlein's) was that the emotional relationship between the artist and the participant must be present for something to be considered art.

Read the last two sentences.

"Creative art is intercourse, in which the artist renders emotional his audience. These laddies who won’t deign to do that — or can’t — lost the public.”

Anytime an artist (be they a painter, musician, or game design team) can "render emotional" their audience it is art. Even a Velvet Elvis or Aquaman.

Conversely, what is art to one person might have no effect on someone else. That other person might decry its existence as obscenity and demand that it be removed from the public's eye. *cough* JACK THOMPSON, ATTORNEY*cough*

Until we start ignoring the screaming few from the extreme ends of the spectrum, we'll have vitriolic arguments which degenerate into nothing more than childish personal attacks. *cough* JACK THOMPSON, ATTORNEY*cough*

"Mere craftsmanship" were Ebert's choice of words. I worked for a craftsman for a few years. He made wooden furniture using only hand tools and techniques that a hundreds of years old. His final results were art.

Art requires mastery of your craft.

I consider God of War, Shadow of the Colossus, and Final Fantasy IV to be art. They engaged me in a way few movies ever have and told an engaging story that made me actually care about what became of them. They have much in common with many of my favorite novels.

I never claim that all games are art. I merely claim that any game can be art in someone's eyes. Same with movies... and books... and paintings. It is the perception of the audience. Nero would probably consider snuff films and Hustler to be art. (He was one sick puppy.)

John Coltrane's days of doing free jazz inspired many, but cost him many listeners because they couldn't abide the seeming lack of structure. Is it any less art?

I guess my main point is that making sweeping generalizations about the definitions of art that you expect to hold true for everyone is pointless and belittles what for someone else can be a beautiful experience. Art is what each person makes of it.

John Bruce Thompson, you are an expert in being a massacre chaser, and not much else.

Looks like you flunked reality school...again.

@GoodRobotUs,
Irony has always been one of Jack's weakpoints, seeing as how nearly everything he's said has come back and bit him in the ass.

I actually forgot to bring up a better point I had regarding this.

I'm an artist.

I went to school for and majored in media arts, specifically being art involving photography and videography. I've studied art in all its forms, through all its great periods, dating as far back as you can imagine, I own a degree in my field, I'll be attending grad school to focus on my photography in the spring, I've been given my own solo exhibitions, and I've sold copies of my work; so yeah, I'm a pretty damn good source to determine what art is.

Shadow of the Colossus- Art in the form of a game
Ico - She same
Okami - Same
Stupid Invaders - Had CGI that could rival Pixar
My video where your autographed book was destroyed for charity - you bet your ass that was a work of art.

I'm sorry to burst your archaic bubble, but over time art evolves - oh wait, I forgot, you don't believe in evolution either. As technology progresses, mediums are adapted to fit into the artistic mold, and video games are no exception.

Once you get a few solo art exhibitions under your belt and you sell a few pieces of art, maybe then you'll have an opinion that actually matters. Until then, kindly STFU and GBTW.

How about I mail you a few prints of Piss Christ, Jack? Since I know you love that piece of art so much.

take out the when between but and art and change Is to If.

It just pisses me off when people refuse to admit something is art. So many artistic movements went through this same BS. But now they are required learning for many art colleges. People will soon have no choice but to admit that games are art. It may take a little bit of time but it will be done. Art has evolved throughout history and video games are simply another evolution of it.

This argument will fail just as Jack Thompson's argument will. Smother another failure, lay this to rest.

The Greek definition of art is a very narrow one when applied today. Again, to bring up Ebert's magnum opus Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, it fails at least two of the three (Good and True). Yet it's still considered art by some in spite of that.

Better update your Funk & Wangalls, Jack.

The ancient Greeks killed Socrates for questioning God and the system. Maybe you (What's your name and job again? I must've missed it before) should think before you start putting all your faith in them.

A self bloating critic dose not have the right to tell others what art is,in the end art is in the eye of the beholder one mans trash is another treusre.

Just wanted to add that i dont think that all games qualify as art just as i dont feel all movies, comics,pictures,sculptures,ect qualify as art by default but I know i dont get to decide what is and isn't art.