Some videogames are art. And some aren't. That's why videogames cannot be placed in either category; videogames are sometimes to be interpreted through the way YOU personally want it to, (like a painting) or the way the creator of the game wants you to (like a book). Videogames often have near-infinite possibilities and paths, so they cannot be interpreted the same way each time. I believe art is, in essence, something that is made for another to enjoy. Videogames do that. So perhaps they are.
As long as games are mostly judged on technical terms ("graphics are dated but passable", "there are texture pop-ins", "the sound effects lack power", "visually there's nothing to be impressed with" and then use the technical considerations to give a score, I see the "games are art" argument a pointless one.
Give Rogert Ebert a film shot in B/W, and if the movie is a good piece of storytelling, he will not go like "visually, the movie looks dated because it was shot in black and white"
Really? she choose Wako as an examaple? that's like picking Transformers to prove that movies are art. Of all the great games she has to pick that one? I doubt it's a coincidence that she knows the creator, and is one of the only people who considers it art
I want to kill this bitch. I like her less than Ebert. Flower is the furthest fucking thing from "art"- same goes for her other two ass-tastic examples. Goddamn it: After reading his article and about Kellee's argument, and then all of your equally fucking retarded comments and retorts...I have to say that, within a certain context and frame, I'm on Roger Ebert's side. Fuck the decadent videogame industry and its mind-numb consumers.
The Witcher, Mass Effect, Mafia, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout 3, and so on...
These games are synthesis of cinematic videos, great dialogues, fantastic stories, good music, architecture, drawing and graphic design. Plus, they make YOU the main character and give you chocies. They are uninqe experiences in so many ways, and are way more than just fun.
They are ART at it's best, reaching and affecting your mind and emotions.
@TheDuckaDiesel Hi, I have played some of those games and I find them all pointless. Did you ever read War and Peace by Tolstoy or The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann or Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen. That is great stuff. The games you have listed have stories on the level of crappy movies like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings (not the novel mind you) and other popcorn crap. Yea they are art, I agree, really really bad art. The problem is that games are quite cost intensive>mass market>crap
@TheDuckaDiesel Hi, I have played some of those games and I find them all pointless. Did you ever read War and Peace by Tolstoy or The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann or Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen. That is great stuff. The games you have listed have stories on the level of crappy movies like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings (not the novel mind you) and other popcorn crap. Yea they are art, I agree, really really bad art. The problem is that games are quite cost intensive>mass market>crap
I find it disturbing that no one (not even Ebert) seems to recognize 11:00-13:00. THATS the key part to me. Its the part that game marketing people don't want you to hear. Its the part that could stop video games from becoming the "vast wasteland" that TV is today.
If we recognize games as art, treat them with reverence, than maybe we can end the days of Wii shovelware, and crap re-skinned shooters (MW3, I'm looking at u). THAT is why games must win this debate.To save them from themselves.
Recognizing games as art won't help anything. What will help is having more mature audience members. Media is judged due to audience behavior.
Also, treating games with reverence is a bad idea. If you disagree with me, then I suggest looking up the drama behind Sonic the Hedgehog. Many a Sonic fan treat that series with reverence, yet tore at eachother over the most petty of opinions. If anything, we need LESS reverence since it leads to extreme fanaticism and mindless behavior.
As for ending "shovelware" and re-skinned shooters, alot of that is to be blamed on the audience. Simply put, publishers sell whatever they think will be bought more. The reasons for a mass of niche games and stagnation is twofold.
1: Publishers follow trends. If it succeeds, they will follow it. Trends are formed from sales figures, which is from consumer purchases.
2: Most gamers tend to ignore a game they may enjoy in favor of whatever game gets advertised.
Why do people say she's defending something that doesn't need defending? I think if we are to prove a point we certainly should be defending it. Yes, Ebert's view is jaded, but if someone like him, with a huge reputation, comes out and speaks blindly of something he is not actively engaged in, people will just take his word for it if no one comes out and rebuts. Kellee's arguments are sound, and what strengthens them is that she did in fact concede that first point.
We shouldn´t be shock that such an old man as Mr Ebert can´t really see in what videogames are evolving. Does he ever played any game apart from PONG?
I think any (past, present or future) medium can be used to create art but not that the mediums are art themselves. So I don't believe that video games are art, but I do believe some can be, the same way Mona Lisa is art but not painting/drawing in general.
You can only tell by studying each individual case. Also you cannot rely on sales or critics to rate how "artistic" games are, they're only valued from a ludic perspective by most; a point K.S. doesn't take into consideration.
Ok, seriously guys. I know her, and these some of these (most) negative comments are rude and mostly stupid. So please watch what you say. Could YOU stand and give a presentation to hundreds of people, and still be effective? Think about it, before you post about it. Thanks.
Ok, seriously guys. I know her, and these some of these (most) negative comments are rude and mostly stupid. So please watch what you say. Could YOU stand and give a presentation to hundreds of people, and still be effective? Think about it, before you post about it. Thanks.
Sometimes, when I read youtube comments, I understand why in times past, only people with college degrees were allowed to comment on advanced topics such as "what is art?" and "Is X art?"
In any case, Santiago has some good points here, and so does Ebert. However, the thing no one seems to be discussing, is that the DEFINITION of art is what is paramount. The reductionist view santaiago has here, conflicts with Ebert's. This is the real debate, not these details that keep coming up.
SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT THE MEDIUM YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND THEN YOU GO ON TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU KNOW LESS ABOUT---FILM. have you even watched "a trip to the moon"!?! it is really not as simplistic as you think. and games... oh well just because you have some faggy opinion about games you played as a child being unappealing to you now, doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I hope you die.
people like you is why roger ebert doesn't talk to us anymore.
I think she could articulate the point better, but you can tell that she is REALLY nervous up there. I commend her for taking up that fight and trying to help convince folks. Games ARE art, they're becoming the interactive movie of this time, and will continue to become more like that. You feel emotion when the folks want you to, you lash out in anger just the same. If music/film/paintings can do this to somebody and be called art, why can't video games do the same and also be called art?
In my opinion modern games combine arts like film and music with interactivity. Im not saying all games are art. but when "my" girlfriend got shot in front of my eyes in a game called "the darkness" I really felt that games can have an emotional effect uppon us. (no, I did not cry :-P)
Some great musical composers write music for games aswel as film. such as Hans Zimmer. The visual feel of flow and flower are art in it self for me.
are these things GREAT works of art? maybe, maybe not...
lol... those awkward silences while shes laughing... but i completely agree with this! Minecraft is a great example of artistic games (at least in my mind)
The power of this talk isn't in the "video games are art" argument;
Skip to the last four minutes. Games will grow to dominate our time, our children's time, and the time and attention of artists.
Edward R. Murrow warned us what would happen if television stuck to the path of bland entertainment; his fears came to pass. Video games, for better or worse, will mark the progress of our culture in history.
My 32-bit dreams are the dreams of gesamtkunstwerk, and of ancient stories, and of the epic poems, and of the music of imagination. We won't waste our time proving you wrong, "for we are afar with the dawning, and the suns that are not yet high."
I see where Kelle Santiago is coming from, but it was pretty difficult to understand, the structure of the whole thing was a little messy. But it's nice that she used very simple examples to prove points. The argument is that there are many games that are made purely for interactivity, I believe whether you consider a video game an art really depends on what game it is. I mean I'm pretty sure games like Bejewelled couldn't be categorised as art, but perhaps a game like Final Fantasy could.
A punch in the face has its impact aswell, is getting punched in the face art? Just because a video game has an impact on me it doesn't necessarily make it art.
A video game stops being art when it interferes with my understanding of it, say it introduces an objective that forces me to follow a given path, it forces my understanding of it, objectively. Art is made to be interpreted on a subjective level.
And to Kellee, come back to lectures when you can make a point without quoting wikipedia.
@the4horseman There are moments in games which do not have a reason within the path of the objective. They have been put in the game purely for your subjective interpretation.
@the4horseman So would you disagree that a lot of art has focal points? The artist tries to move your eyes to certain areas of the work and in varying directions. The path you are made to follow in a videogame is the same thing. It's just done more interactively. You can still experience the videogame on a subjective level.
Even you don't consider the games themselves as art, you must at least consider that the parts that make up games as art. The storytelling, the visual designs, and the musical scores. You cant compare video games to other art forms just as you cant compare other art forms to eachother. Comparing a piece of music to something visual like a painting is rather a stretch. They may both bring you to certain emotions but at the same time they do it in entirely different ways.
And this stupid slut doesn't undertstand the contradiction the she makes within her "argumentation" when she says that sports aren't a form of art, and includes this argument in a lecture where she tries to prove that videogames, which stand on a similar basis, are in facto a form of art, differentiating them from sport games. WTF? This is just illogical! Open your eyes! What this bitch is trying to sell you is nothing more than a nonsense fallacy!
i agree, i think she is suffering from a sort of cultural elitism. Which is funny because, it is that same cultural elitism that video games are facing, so one would expect her to have a much more global view of art.
This video sucks big time and this woman is a damn bitch!
Art involves contemplation, pure contemplation, that than be accompanied by a personal interpretation of the author's production. Games involve rules, objectives, interference in the production.
loved this video... this girl really knows what shes talking about... i mean, i study history of art and what shes telling isnt too far from the truth!.. we should really expand and open our minds to new way or forms of art,.. its a shame this form of expression is being so underrated between grown ups.. WE, the young ones, are the future of this world, WE should be the ones who understand what art really is for our time.... just as F.T Marinetti and the FUTURISM in the early XX century stated.
To me they're also art...but it has been art since I first played valkyrie profile or final fantasy 9 (which was my first one btw).
Today it didnt change. Developing a game is no easy task by any means and coming up with awesome storys and ideas for characters, abilitys, and much more feels like impossible without creativity.
I always think of game music when I think of game art too..most music is just epic and I dont think its possible to deny that awesomeness!
"Art is a way of communicating ideas to an audience in a way the audience finds engaging."
Not at all, artists are not aware of what an audience finds engaging or not. Nor do they care. Most groundbreaking art did not appeal to the audience at first.
I liked her presentation, but the bottom line is games don't owe an explanation to Ebert or anyone else for that matter. People have been debating what art is for centuries. Then Ebert comes out and says not only that he KNOWS what art means, but also that video games are definitely NOT it. He even posted a revision of his statement saying Oh I've actually only played two games in my entire life. FANTASTIC Ebert! Lets all preach on subjects we don't have the first F***ing clue about....
This question was asked 10 years ago, its relevance now is only that it's mainstream. This same question came up in classes in 1998. So, that's a decade of lag time before TED covers it. I don't think Waco Resurrection is really deep or meaningful . . . LOOM is a great early example of a game that was non-violent and won critical acclaim, btw.
What makes me sick about this talk is that rather than proving Ebert wrong, she tries to convince him otherwise, almost like trying to impress an older brother. She compares games in their current state to cave paintings for crying out loud. For fucks sake Heavy Rain is pretty much a movie! Video games have progressed much further than she says, and already exist as art. Just take a look at Bioshock, MGS4, or Fallout 3. THOSE GAMES ARE ART.
@hippiezombie In arguments, you don's aspire to prove others wrong, but convince them of your view or to reach a compromise. You'll get nowhere simply by saying the other persons wrong and you're right.
She is a terrible spokeswoman for the advancement of video games as art. She is inarticulate and her points don't address the issue enough. She often goes off topic and only gives a few decent explanations of the topic at hand. I do believe video games have the potential to exist as art, but they're a long way off from achieving true artistic merit. The medium is very young, other artforms have existed for thousands of years and it will take time for video games to grow into an artform.
I bet when moving pictures first came out, some snob said "MOVIES CAN NEVER BE ART".
He probably wasn't heard though. The internet, after all, hadn't been invented yet to spread his controversy to a huge audience at practically no cost.
This woman is a terrible advocate because she concedes her first point. The fact is that video games are worthy of comparison with great paintings, composers and poets. Portal is definitely a better puzzle game than the Mona Lisa ever will be - but Beethovan's 9th symphony is probably a better piece of music, mainly because, you know, Portal isn't a piece of music.
Any mention of Valves work would have proved her point too easily. She dosen't want to put Valve on a post though because she is afraid of the obvious fact that they are the only real game company right now producing uninterpretable-as-anything-but-art games.
Good point. She's a dev arguing for games being art, but she's not going to give competitors free advertising. Hence she only uses indy titles as examples. Even though she does mention Braid, which is almost as obviously Art as Portal, her ability to advocate is limited by the fact that she's involved in the industry.
Huh, I guess this is what critics are for. If games could get 'mainstream' journalists to be intellectually pretentious about them this whole 'debate' would go away.
@bassboy2100 That's exactly the point. Any attempt to compare games and paintings is comparing apples to oranges, therefore any discussion of which is better "as art" is going to be totally pointless. The word art itself has no agreed definition.
@IncredibleGoliath I think she is just trying to convince people in the first place that videogamees are worthy in general. Video games have suffered a kind of stigmatism for the past 30 odd years, especially when the arcades came to be. And the reasons people don't see it as an art form is because it's interactive, unlike the mona lisa, books, film and music. Art has never really been interactive until video games showed up. So there's the little argument there.
if you know ANYTHING about art/music beyond a casual observer, you know how to compare and contrast their core similarities of which there are MANY. Paintings, writing, and music have been linked ever since the Enlightenment whenever art was allowed to be art for the first time.
Seriously don't post anything unless you know what you're talking about.
if you know ANYTHING about art/music beyond a casual observer, you know how to compare and contrast their core similarities of which there are MANY. Paintings, writing, and music have been linked ever since the Enlightenment in the late 1700's.
Seriously don't post anything unless you know what you're talking about.
@IncredibleGoliath Her point was that pictorial art started as chicken scratches and evolved, pretty sure she was saying Video games are evolving more toward a fine art, but isn't quite there yet.
@IncredibleGoliath I've read your comment several times and I still don't know what you mean. Are you being facetious? Are you saying that the Mona Lisa is a puzzle game? Category is not what Santiago is arguing; Ebert was arguing that. Her concession that no one has come up with a worthy comparison doesn't mean that she's a "terrible advocate," it's just a statement admitting that traditional art is awesome. It doesn't mean that video games will never be as awesome, or that they're not art.
@simplythebestgirl Conceding that no one has come up with a 'worthy comparison' is a concession too far, because it implies that the way to judge whether something is art is by comparison with other art from other catagories. That really isn't the case. There is already enough of a diversity of form within the 'classic' arts that you can't judge the merit of (say) a play by comparing it with a statue. The same fallacy was once used to write off cinema as an artform as well.
@IncredibleGoliath her now take what you said and say it this wa is Beethovan's 9th symphony is better than the Mona Lisa because thats the comparison you have just said. she did not say that is equal no se said they can be just as great as those pieces.
@leo222 /thread? lolno, I believe you entered the wrong url into the adress bar, sir. Clearly you meant to go to a website where "/thread" would be relevent. You know what I'm talking about.
Don't personally think games will ever stand a chance of being seen as art (at least not seriously) until they're comfortable with their own strengths; lifting (badly) the storytelling conventions seen in cinema or comics (and VERY rarely, literature) will only ever establish them as symbiotic, leeching from the other media for their content.
@jayextee I also think that games could offer so much more; developers should ideally look heavily into ALL other entertainment media, and then use games as a platform for offering that which the other media do not. Games are not interactive movies/narrative.
It's also not clear why so many feel they need to justify their pastime as 'art'. I love games, but hate the thought of them as art. Seriously.
@jayextee Well going by what you said then the Movie industry already considers Games an art form for they are leeching from games. Granted they are usually bad but still.
The only people who have the right or freedom to criticise games or define them as art or not is the people who ACTUALLY PLAY THEM. Ebert commited an act of reviewer treason by not reading about, playing or examining (in any detail) the games he wrote off. Try: Execution - Knytt Stories - Flower - and tell me video games cannot be art - go on. I dare you.
@soulstudiosmusic While I can agree with two of your choices, I did not like execution. While I have to concede to it being art, it really begs the question as to whether it is a game or not. Games like Execution and Passage dissapoint me because of their under-achiever style. They put forth little effort into actually making a fun, engaging, well-made game, and more effort into trying be intellectual with their "message".
@KamenWeil Art is not only about positive emotions. Take visual art for example. Good paintings are not only pretty paintings, take a look at Jackson Pollock. Or in music, listen to Penderecki or Stravinsky, where dissonance is everywhere. Or in literature, take Ulysses by James Joyce which is chaotic and unengaging. I think that saying that videogames should allways be fun and engaging is going against the definition of games as art
Sorry lady, Will Wright was more convincing on his presentation of video games as art. So much details for Mr. Ebert to debunk. Games use so much imagination to create, even more than movies, writing, music, paintings so how can they not be art? Most games comprise of all those factors, and contributing the key interactivity that can set them apart from being a static form. Consider the major flaw of "games not art": Guitar Hero is a simplified version of on stage performance. yeah.
I just realized that this argument has more than 2 sides:
Videogames are not art
Videogames are art
Videogames have artistic elements, but as a whole are not art.
That said, I believe the first statement is false, but there is no right answer between the second two statements, and is up to your own personal beliefs on the matter.
I myself don't see art and interactive medium to be mutually exclusive.
Art is a product of creativity. Video games parallel every other artistic medium in every way except for one: Interactivity, yet they still hold true to all of the principles of art (I'm talking about game creation, not playing the game).
But the greatest rift in this argument is simply our own definitions. I, for one, believe everything is some form or another of art. It's expression of our creativity, and simply doing anything in life is a product of our brains creating.
However, it's obvious that that's not a consensus among most people. So in order to ever conclude this debate, you'll have to first conclude the original debate this is merely a portion of: "What IS and what is NOT art" (a debate that has gone on for eons, I might add - good luck concluding it).
A common argument brought up time and time again in that debate is "The Definition of Art." Again, a whole new debate. Yet every definition I've seen just makes me believe art is all you do.
So to truncate this timeless argument, though I'm absolutely certain it will not work, I invite you to draw your own conclusions then drop this irrelevant topic, based on the following:
Figure out YOUR definition of art. If you can't do that, then you can't reasonably sway anybody else's opinion
Figure out what that MEANS. Definitions don't mean squat if you can't explain it.
Figure out your Line. Now that you've defined art, define what is NOT art - for that is a much harder task.
Finally, I might as well leave you with my opinion on the subject. I've already stated my definition, but since most people's views aren't as all-encompassing, then try this:
Panting/Drawing ~ Graphic design ~ Art
Music ~ Singing ~ Vocals ~ Talking ~ audio of any of the above ~ Art
Writing: Poetry/Fiction/(even)Nonfiction ~ choose your own adventure novels ~ Art
What do audience demand and sales have to do with designating anything as "art"? Is art just a popularity contest? Art now deemed great wasn't always popular in its own time, usually because it broke with convention (formally an in terms of content) in ways that viewers found strange or uncomfortable. "What went wrong with American culture?" Here it would be worth addressing its vast commercialization, sales and market testing, the very things she boasts her gaming products have excelled at.
The perseverance some have in their zeal to define art remind me of those who wish to define love. On both sides of the argument lie futility and egotripping. It is entirely, irrevocably, and universally relative.
Video games right now are like cave paintings. It is about entertainment and not fun, not art. Maybe someone will make a game purely for artistic purposes, until then, it's not worth arguing about.
@malcolmX213 So here's what I get from this. Art cannot be art unless people make something entertaining into a horrendous process that although does not satisfy the uncultured masses, clearly proves it's art because of the so-called thought process behind it. Thus, Michaelangelo's paintings, which painted for patrons who wanted a good painting to, for lack of a better word, entertain themselves and their guests, and Shakespeare's plays, made almost solely for entertainment, are not art.
All I'm saying is no one makes video games to be art. Maybe there are a handful where the creators were really passionate and wanted to express themselves, etc. These are quite rare. Maybe Psychonauts qualifies.
@malcolmX213 I get what you mean, and I do agree partially, but many designers aim for an engaging piece. I think should count as an artful purpose.
It's the same thing with novels. Back then, people didn't believe that novels were literature. They claimed that because novels were not expounding enough on writing's inherently philosophical and structured intent. Today, the first creators of novels are now hailed as masters. Interesting how they were only aiming to create a good story, not art.
Flower on PS3 is a perfect example of a video game as art. It combines music and a very distinct visual motif to tell a story. Roger Ebert ought to know better. What a pompous jackass.
"Games are awesome and cool. Here are some anecdotal similarities with other entertainment-delivery media which rely upon genre and spectacle. I will make no distinction between content and presentation technology used to sell it. Pretty!
So, like, games are art, right? Please email me if you want to help me make money talking about this. Bye!"
I don't really care if everyone else sees video games as art. I do.
There is no other medium that makes me feel the same range of emotions or the same degree of emotional connection.
Make a picture, song or movie demonstrating an ethical conflict, and the observers can see the artists intention, however, playing a game where you have to make a choice and the conflict will resonate with much more force.
Games to me are art, however, I am past caring about why other people have their eyes closed.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
B--O--R---I-N--G
She got nice build, but she's not very sexy though.
The entire 'art debate' is moot and retarded.
Also, shittypedia should be taken with a grain of salt. I would prefer Britanica and Webster as a reliable source (and, hopefully with time, Citizendium).
Did anyone read Ebert's response to this? He seriously has lost his touch. His writing is a rambling mess that has no purpose except to show his distaste for this new medium. There's really no more validity in what he says; I think now he just likes to hear himself talk, figuratively speaking.
@SexyMelon thats very true, but in his blog, he was just talking out of his ass. Usually he can actually write and provide solid criticisms, but this time it was just an attack on Ms. Santiago's minor slip-ups.
I wonder how many old people (60 and up) actually have played videogames.
I think you are mistaking having a feeling with art. That is not art. The problem is that Video Games other than the reasons I have already said cant be art but the fact is that there are no games in which you could name 100% that is art. Final Fantasy is a bad example because its still constrained by the game. There hasn't been named a fairly good representation of a Video Game that could be interpreted as art.
It's like watching people stumble around for a definition they have not found yet. There are proclamations that art is feeling but that would subjugate art itself.
@TheTruth006 Okay you've made a bunch of claims about rules and the differences between video games and other forms of art.
You still won't answer my main question at this point: Why does any of that mean that video games aren't art? The only decent way to answer that would be to share with us your definition of art.
@TheTruth006 No, you didn't, and it seems you are avoiding it. I want your definition of art and that will hopefully tell me why you think art can't have rules.
And its not that art cant have rules, its that they don't. Games have rules that are build for the goal of the game. Art does not have a "goal." So far to my knowledge no game has been made to not have a goal. I think people may think the things like the game design are art which is rightfully so but the game isn't.
Art is life. Graphic Design by definition as life to the lifeless. Pong is the consummate example because it is lifeless. Video Games are lifeless and the design is to hide the fact that they are. That's why Graphic Design is an art.
....also, i reasently played Zeno Clash.That game is art at the beginning, but when you get into the story and characters you find that, as Gabe at penny arcade puts it:
Back in the 90s when i played x-com for the fourth time, not to finish the game, but to create made up stories about the soldiers and their relations, when i cried at the end of the world in Final Fantasy VI and when i flew my spaceship in Elite 2: frontier, not for profit anymore but more to see new races and new planets - the "game" element was irrelevant. It was pure art.
The word "art" is almost entirely without meaning because it is overly broad as it is often used. In the case of this presentation... let's consider...
Waco resurrection isn't art. The whole performance act might be, but probably isn't.
Braid isn't art.
Flower might be art.
Myst is art, and is more than a decade and a half old.
I would argue that not all movies are art - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen isn't, and indeed, perhaps most aren't. And remember, art does not mean good.
In any case, when talking about art, no opinion is valid, because the emotions stirred by it are subjective. We seek different things, and we can find them only in certain places. The only thing we can do, is to press our senses against something new, and hope we find a pleasant feeling.
She says that games such as chess, no matter how elegant their rules are. However, the performance of players within those rules might be considered art. A chess player might make a brilliant scheme along the game, just as a Metroid player might make a brilliant execution of a speedrun. Braid was an excellent example of a literary work of art, but Mirror's Edge would've been a visual example, and perhaps De Blob might be a musical example, and both of those games depend on performance.
The error is to assume anything as abstract as art can be proven. Like there is some kind of intrinsic piece of metaphysical evidence that just *needs* to be gleaned out of the ether somehow (perhaps with a cotton swab and a DNA lab?).
Put out an ad for someone to provide you with evidence, and you'll have a line of post-graduate students with reams of grant applications in hand. We're wasting valuable time arguing about the open door in front of us.
Art. Art is an expression. Art is an expression of how one feels that can be interpreted by dozens of different people thousands of different ways. As an 'artist' (I count poetry to be art, it's your choice whether or not it is) I believe video games merely serve as another medium on which the artist to paint on, the singer to sing on, and the poet to write on. It is truly the culmination of the three into one masterpiece of artistic work. That being said, I know you've already picked a side.
Unfortunately this rambling and somewhat confused speech answers no questions and proves nothing. The speaker knows a great deal about video games but does not have a good sense of art history, of the history of the development of mediums, or of some of the philosophical issues around art. I'm not saying video games aren't art, though I haven't seen any yet that seem worthy, but she doesn't apply her definition to any of the games she cites. This is not university-level research.
Art is short for "artifice". In the times before the Renaissance paintings and sculptures were not attributed to their creators. "Homer" probably never existed as a single human entity. The relationship of the creator to the creation, and of the audience to the creation is what art is based on. Art is NOT based on the relationship of the artist and the audience. It's not about whether or not a person presents themselves to the world as the fragile, luminous "artisté".
It's about artifice. Does the work communicate something about life in an intentional way? Does it mimic reality by representation? Does it mean something? If it means nothing, then it is decoration-- craftwork (Kraftwerk anyone?). But meaning finds it's way into things often without the realization of the artist, and much more often without the understanding of the audience. People who try to tell other people that something is not art are only fooling themselves.
Art does not belong to the intellectual elite. It does not belong to those with "taste" and judgments about the taste of others. If it means something to someone, then it is art. That which is not art being those things which all humanity can agree are not art. Art is about communicating. A latrine in an art gallery, propped on its side IS a comment. It's part of a conversation. It means something to someone. Art is much more than any one person can let it be. Don't try to hold dominion over it.
The only problem I have with this video are the examples.
I also believe video games are art, but I would have gone with older and, in my opinion better, examples, like Okami, Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger, Valkyrie Profile, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus... those examples are numerous, and seem much stronger under scrutiny.
I'm glad she chose Braid as one of the examples. It is one of the only games to date that has ever truly hit me on an emotional level. I played through the game twice and literally went through all the texts multiple times thinking about all the possibilities. They seem to be endless, but every time I went over it, I found a story that could be any of ours, my own included. I guess I want to say that just because it's not a Picasso, doesn't mean it isn't art.
Art is aesthetically pleasing Video games are aesthetically pleasing The creation of art requires creativity The creation of video games requires creativity Art evokes strong feelings and emotions Video games evoke strong feelings and emotions. Art demands discussion, debate & criticism Video games demand discussion, debate & criticism Art thrives on passion from those creating & experiencing it Video games thrive on passion from those creating & experiencing it Video games are an art form.
@ActionCarl Meaning, that someone somewhere has said the same thing about movies, TV, paintings, reading books, etc., etc. Yet we consider all of them to be forms of art.
Also the argument that there is beautiful music and name composers doesn't not change the fact that all this is meant to benefit the rules of the game. Even developers agree that they "enhance the gaming experience." You've all heard this lingo. Just toting out names and adding adjectives only dresses up a problem. These properties are meant to serve the game. They don't act alone.where as a movie, picture, or music act on breaking the rules a game acts on hiding the rules.
It feels like that scene in Dead Poets Society where Robin Williams tells the kids to rip out the pages of "critical analysis" because when you play a game you could have all the music in the world from HGW, all the best writing, and all the best effects but it doesn't change the fact that its still a video game inhibited by the execution of its own rules. Haze is a great example of this, so is crysis. It's almost enough to rip out your hair, isn't it.
Also, consider the fact that Super Mario is recognized more often than Mickey Mouse, by most accounts. And Shigeru Miamoto would probably be the prevalent designer.
Hell, Nobuo Uematsu has put on concerts because of his fame from Video Games. Is that music art? If so, it springs from games, so why would it be art in one medium and not another?
Graphic designers work on computers for countless hours. Writers create dialogue, scenes, and the frames for a story. From Concept Artists to Sound Artists - sometimes even actual singers and orchestras (MGS4 had Harry Gregson-Williams do the score), they are all involved in creating one experience for a person.
And all these artists working together create something other than art?
@SmokestackOrchestra Easy, because it's a game. In 100 years schools won't force you to play Braid and write an essay on what the developer was trying to express through braids element of rewinding time.
What a bad talk. Watch a John blow talk and you will have much more of it. Yeah games are art but shitty art for the most.nuff said
BanjoSick 5 days ago
The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management.
Duccio came not by usura
nor Pier della Francesca.
Entertainment ≠ Art.
zbouaerg 2 weeks ago
Some videogames are art. And some aren't. That's why videogames cannot be placed in either category; videogames are sometimes to be interpreted through the way YOU personally want it to, (like a painting) or the way the creator of the game wants you to (like a book). Videogames often have near-infinite possibilities and paths, so they cannot be interpreted the same way each time. I believe art is, in essence, something that is made for another to enjoy. Videogames do that. So perhaps they are.
Koopaino 1 month ago
the moment she quoted wikipedia i stopped the video
madddawgg2 1 month ago
@madddawgg2 because you have never looked up wikipedia to fact check?
emmahouli 1 month ago
@emmahouli wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but it should never be used as a cited source.
madddawgg2 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@emmahouli wikipedia is a good starting point for research, but it should never be used as a cited source.
madddawgg2 1 month ago
games are not art ---------- get over IT! you IQ is that of poopy
jjjjjjsungodjjjjj 2 months ago
As long as games are mostly judged on technical terms ("graphics are dated but passable", "there are texture pop-ins", "the sound effects lack power", "visually there's nothing to be impressed with" and then use the technical considerations to give a score, I see the "games are art" argument a pointless one.
Give Rogert Ebert a film shot in B/W, and if the movie is a good piece of storytelling, he will not go like "visually, the movie looks dated because it was shot in black and white"
nemirc 2 months ago 2
@nemirc A distressing and valid perspective...
Undkor 2 months ago
What is this woman so nervous about?
Hayashigame 2 months ago
@Hayashigame
oh, I dunno - maybe the fact that she's giving a presentation infront of hundreds of people at a prestigious academic conference?
T800System 2 months ago
Fumito Ueda!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MD0K 2 months ago
He's an ignorant stubborn dildo licker.
JerichoCross777 3 months ago
Really? she choose Wako as an examaple? that's like picking Transformers to prove that movies are art. Of all the great games she has to pick that one? I doubt it's a coincidence that she knows the creator, and is one of the only people who considers it art
VoiceSee4 4 months ago
I want to kill this bitch. I like her less than Ebert. Flower is the furthest fucking thing from "art"- same goes for her other two ass-tastic examples. Goddamn it: After reading his article and about Kellee's argument, and then all of your equally fucking retarded comments and retorts...I have to say that, within a certain context and frame, I'm on Roger Ebert's side. Fuck the decadent videogame industry and its mind-numb consumers.
quackajack13z 4 months ago
The Witcher, Mass Effect, Mafia, Neverwinter Nights 2, Fallout 3, and so on...
These games are synthesis of cinematic videos, great dialogues, fantastic stories, good music, architecture, drawing and graphic design. Plus, they make YOU the main character and give you chocies. They are uninqe experiences in so many ways, and are way more than just fun.
They are ART at it's best, reaching and affecting your mind and emotions.
TheDuckaDiesel 5 months ago
@TheDuckaDiesel Hi, I have played some of those games and I find them all pointless. Did you ever read War and Peace by Tolstoy or The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann or Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen. That is great stuff. The games you have listed have stories on the level of crappy movies like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings (not the novel mind you) and other popcorn crap. Yea they are art, I agree, really really bad art. The problem is that games are quite cost intensive>mass market>crap
BanjoSick 5 days ago
@TheDuckaDiesel Hi, I have played some of those games and I find them all pointless. Did you ever read War and Peace by Tolstoy or The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann or Ghosts by Henrik Ibsen. That is great stuff. The games you have listed have stories on the level of crappy movies like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings (not the novel mind you) and other popcorn crap. Yea they are art, I agree, really really bad art. The problem is that games are quite cost intensive>mass market>crap
BanjoSick 5 days ago
God Waco resurrection looks like it sucks ass... The other games are cool though
TheRealCMeta 5 months ago
Wait, Jenova Chan? J-E-N-O-V-A Chan?
trect18 6 months ago
I find it disturbing that no one (not even Ebert) seems to recognize 11:00-13:00. THATS the key part to me. Its the part that game marketing people don't want you to hear. Its the part that could stop video games from becoming the "vast wasteland" that TV is today.
If we recognize games as art, treat them with reverence, than maybe we can end the days of Wii shovelware, and crap re-skinned shooters (MW3, I'm looking at u). THAT is why games must win this debate.To save them from themselves.
n16pr 8 months ago
@n16pr
Recognizing games as art won't help anything. What will help is having more mature audience members. Media is judged due to audience behavior.
Also, treating games with reverence is a bad idea. If you disagree with me, then I suggest looking up the drama behind Sonic the Hedgehog. Many a Sonic fan treat that series with reverence, yet tore at eachother over the most petty of opinions. If anything, we need LESS reverence since it leads to extreme fanaticism and mindless behavior.
laughingfurry 7 months ago
@n16pr
Continuing...
As for ending "shovelware" and re-skinned shooters, alot of that is to be blamed on the audience. Simply put, publishers sell whatever they think will be bought more. The reasons for a mass of niche games and stagnation is twofold.
1: Publishers follow trends. If it succeeds, they will follow it. Trends are formed from sales figures, which is from consumer purchases.
2: Most gamers tend to ignore a game they may enjoy in favor of whatever game gets advertised.
laughingfurry 7 months ago
Why do people say she's defending something that doesn't need defending? I think if we are to prove a point we certainly should be defending it. Yes, Ebert's view is jaded, but if someone like him, with a huge reputation, comes out and speaks blindly of something he is not actively engaged in, people will just take his word for it if no one comes out and rebuts. Kellee's arguments are sound, and what strengthens them is that she did in fact concede that first point.
blasterchief123 8 months ago
Ms. Santiago is weak at defending something that doesn´t need defending at all.
volajmateodor 8 months ago 2
We shouldn´t be shock that such an old man as Mr Ebert can´t really see in what videogames are evolving. Does he ever played any game apart from PONG?
p1ngu1no 10 months ago 2
I would say that games like Chess and Go are art comparable to the Mona Lisa...
beppo05 10 months ago
I think any (past, present or future) medium can be used to create art but not that the mediums are art themselves. So I don't believe that video games are art, but I do believe some can be, the same way Mona Lisa is art but not painting/drawing in general.
You can only tell by studying each individual case. Also you cannot rely on sales or critics to rate how "artistic" games are, they're only valued from a ludic perspective by most; a point K.S. doesn't take into consideration.
skulldyvan 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ok, seriously guys. I know her, and these some of these (most) negative comments are rude and mostly stupid. So please watch what you say. Could YOU stand and give a presentation to hundreds of people, and still be effective? Think about it, before you post about it. Thanks.
DirectingTheJoker 10 months ago
Ok, seriously guys. I know her, and these some of these (most) negative comments are rude and mostly stupid. So please watch what you say. Could YOU stand and give a presentation to hundreds of people, and still be effective? Think about it, before you post about it. Thanks.
DirectingTheJoker 10 months ago 3
Sometimes, when I read youtube comments, I understand why in times past, only people with college degrees were allowed to comment on advanced topics such as "what is art?" and "Is X art?"
In any case, Santiago has some good points here, and so does Ebert. However, the thing no one seems to be discussing, is that the DEFINITION of art is what is paramount. The reductionist view santaiago has here, conflicts with Ebert's. This is the real debate, not these details that keep coming up.
n16pr 10 months ago
SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ANYTHING ABOUT THE MEDIUM YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND THEN YOU GO ON TO TALK ABOUT SOMETHING YOU KNOW LESS ABOUT---FILM. have you even watched "a trip to the moon"!?! it is really not as simplistic as you think. and games... oh well just because you have some faggy opinion about games you played as a child being unappealing to you now, doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I hope you die.
people like you is why roger ebert doesn't talk to us anymore.
aiueoVVVeiimiiVVVsan 11 months ago
she's great.. luv the presentation .
mstrlekar 11 months ago
I think she could articulate the point better, but you can tell that she is REALLY nervous up there. I commend her for taking up that fight and trying to help convince folks. Games ARE art, they're becoming the interactive movie of this time, and will continue to become more like that. You feel emotion when the folks want you to, you lash out in anger just the same. If music/film/paintings can do this to somebody and be called art, why can't video games do the same and also be called art?
blade55440 11 months ago 2
In my opinion modern games combine arts like film and music with interactivity. Im not saying all games are art. but when "my" girlfriend got shot in front of my eyes in a game called "the darkness" I really felt that games can have an emotional effect uppon us. (no, I did not cry :-P)
Some great musical composers write music for games aswel as film. such as Hans Zimmer. The visual feel of flow and flower are art in it self for me.
are these things GREAT works of art? maybe, maybe not...
ruudhollenberg 11 months ago
Games ? .. Art?
GART!!!
DarkTenka 11 months ago
I'm not sure what incrediblegoliath is talking about, maybe I just missed her saying that? *confused*
Advenger22 11 months ago
lol... those awkward silences while shes laughing... but i completely agree with this! Minecraft is a great example of artistic games (at least in my mind)
MrCreepssssBOOM 11 months ago
Actually, the gas furnace is the new fireplace of the american home. Boom!
glorg 11 months ago
interesting argument... not very good public speaker.
92keys524 11 months ago
The power of this talk isn't in the "video games are art" argument;
Skip to the last four minutes. Games will grow to dominate our time, our children's time, and the time and attention of artists.
Edward R. Murrow warned us what would happen if television stuck to the path of bland entertainment; his fears came to pass. Video games, for better or worse, will mark the progress of our culture in history.
nestletreb 1 year ago
My response to Roger Ebert:
"we are the music makers,
and we are the dreamers of dreams"
My 32-bit dreams are the dreams of gesamtkunstwerk, and of ancient stories, and of the epic poems, and of the music of imagination. We won't waste our time proving you wrong, "for we are afar with the dawning, and the suns that are not yet high."
nestletreb 1 year ago 8
I see where Kelle Santiago is coming from, but it was pretty difficult to understand, the structure of the whole thing was a little messy. But it's nice that she used very simple examples to prove points. The argument is that there are many games that are made purely for interactivity, I believe whether you consider a video game an art really depends on what game it is. I mean I'm pretty sure games like Bejewelled couldn't be categorised as art, but perhaps a game like Final Fantasy could.
jinmunsuen 1 year ago 2
Minecraft. 'nuff said.
aniki91344 1 year ago
IS GAMEZ ART!?!
motivosa1 1 year ago
i agee santiago.
but seriously, improve your speech.
ThinkWithPortals 1 year ago
A punch in the face has its impact aswell, is getting punched in the face art? Just because a video game has an impact on me it doesn't necessarily make it art.
A video game stops being art when it interferes with my understanding of it, say it introduces an objective that forces me to follow a given path, it forces my understanding of it, objectively. Art is made to be interpreted on a subjective level.
And to Kellee, come back to lectures when you can make a point without quoting wikipedia.
the4horseman 1 year ago
@the4horseman There are moments in games which do not have a reason within the path of the objective. They have been put in the game purely for your subjective interpretation.
cha0sthunder 1 year ago
@the4horseman So would you disagree that a lot of art has focal points? The artist tries to move your eyes to certain areas of the work and in varying directions. The path you are made to follow in a videogame is the same thing. It's just done more interactively. You can still experience the videogame on a subjective level.
ThaGMan51 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheHash2ow What you have read.
smiguelmato 1 year ago
Even you don't consider the games themselves as art, you must at least consider that the parts that make up games as art. The storytelling, the visual designs, and the musical scores. You cant compare video games to other art forms just as you cant compare other art forms to eachother. Comparing a piece of music to something visual like a painting is rather a stretch. They may both bring you to certain emotions but at the same time they do it in entirely different ways.
EmPtY7even 1 year ago 4
*that she makes
*fact
smiguelmato 1 year ago
And this stupid slut doesn't undertstand the contradiction the she makes within her "argumentation" when she says that sports aren't a form of art, and includes this argument in a lecture where she tries to prove that videogames, which stand on a similar basis, are in facto a form of art, differentiating them from sport games. WTF? This is just illogical! Open your eyes! What this bitch is trying to sell you is nothing more than a nonsense fallacy!
smiguelmato 1 year ago
@smiguelmato
i agree, i think she is suffering from a sort of cultural elitism. Which is funny because, it is that same cultural elitism that video games are facing, so one would expect her to have a much more global view of art.
ccasperw 11 months ago
This video sucks big time and this woman is a damn bitch!
Art involves contemplation, pure contemplation, that than be accompanied by a personal interpretation of the author's production. Games involve rules, objectives, interference in the production.
smiguelmato 1 year ago
@smiguelmato Mad?
spawn1390 1 year ago
loved this video... this girl really knows what shes talking about... i mean, i study history of art and what shes telling isnt too far from the truth!.. we should really expand and open our minds to new way or forms of art,.. its a shame this form of expression is being so underrated between grown ups.. WE, the young ones, are the future of this world, WE should be the ones who understand what art really is for our time.... just as F.T Marinetti and the FUTURISM in the early XX century stated.
agusprox 1 year ago
To me they're also art...but it has been art since I first played valkyrie profile or final fantasy 9 (which was my first one btw).
Today it didnt change. Developing a game is no easy task by any means and coming up with awesome storys and ideas for characters, abilitys, and much more feels like impossible without creativity.
I always think of game music when I think of game art too..most music is just epic and I dont think its possible to deny that awesomeness!
FrozenStarkiller 1 year ago
I agree that video games ARE art, but in my honest opinion this presentation was really really bad.
Dionysus24779 1 year ago
@madnessism
Sorry.
lidsvillebrown 1 year ago
roger ebert pressed the dislike button 20 times
hunterelf 1 year ago 2
Kellee was never great with presentations....
she's pretty good at what she does though. Looking forward to Journey, I am!
CandyHam 1 year ago
"Art is a way of communicating ideas to an audience in a way the audience finds engaging."
Not at all, artists are not aware of what an audience finds engaging or not. Nor do they care. Most groundbreaking art did not appeal to the audience at first.
armyofmeisbliss 1 year ago 2
@armyofmeisbliss Exactly, that's actually the definition for entertainment.and to a certain degree even for advertising.
katmandu2k 1 year ago
I completely disregard this lecture on the grounds that this woman doesn't know jack shit about video games or art.
kingtophe009 1 year ago
I almost watched this, but this lady is a terrible speaker. Is this 5th grade?
fadeaway2112 1 year ago
Comment removed
u2ber87 1 year ago
Comment removed
OysterOfDoom 1 year ago
I liked her presentation, but the bottom line is games don't owe an explanation to Ebert or anyone else for that matter. People have been debating what art is for centuries. Then Ebert comes out and says not only that he KNOWS what art means, but also that video games are definitely NOT it. He even posted a revision of his statement saying Oh I've actually only played two games in my entire life. FANTASTIC Ebert! Lets all preach on subjects we don't have the first F***ing clue about....
Zatki 1 year ago 39
I'll point this out
Drawings -> Paintings -> Movie -> Games
Games are the evolution of art.
Suph373 1 year ago
@Suph373
also 3d paintings, 3d paintings with smell and floorshaker...
TomiTapio 1 year ago
I don't like art. Does that mean I'm unsophisticated?
Avirosb 1 year ago
@Avirosb No, just makes you lame....
phongbong 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This question was asked 10 years ago, its relevance now is only that it's mainstream. This same question came up in classes in 1998. So, that's a decade of lag time before TED covers it. I don't think Waco Resurrection is really deep or meaningful . . . LOOM is a great early example of a game that was non-violent and won critical acclaim, btw.
herbg3 1 year ago
Comment removed
herbg3 1 year ago
What makes me sick about this talk is that rather than proving Ebert wrong, she tries to convince him otherwise, almost like trying to impress an older brother. She compares games in their current state to cave paintings for crying out loud. For fucks sake Heavy Rain is pretty much a movie! Video games have progressed much further than she says, and already exist as art. Just take a look at Bioshock, MGS4, or Fallout 3. THOSE GAMES ARE ART.
hippiezombie 1 year ago 4
@hippiezombie In arguments, you don's aspire to prove others wrong, but convince them of your view or to reach a compromise. You'll get nowhere simply by saying the other persons wrong and you're right.
Suph373 1 year ago
She is a terrible spokeswoman for the advancement of video games as art. She is inarticulate and her points don't address the issue enough. She often goes off topic and only gives a few decent explanations of the topic at hand. I do believe video games have the potential to exist as art, but they're a long way off from achieving true artistic merit. The medium is very young, other artforms have existed for thousands of years and it will take time for video games to grow into an artform.
mkwilding 1 year ago
Not art? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?! To me, art is anything man-made that evokes emotion. The video games I play evoke extremely strong emotions.
dLimboStick 1 year ago
I bet when moving pictures first came out, some snob said "MOVIES CAN NEVER BE ART".
He probably wasn't heard though. The internet, after all, hadn't been invented yet to spread his controversy to a huge audience at practically no cost.
Exequian 1 year ago 4
I would say Heavy Rain is art, but most would say Heavy Rain isn't even a game, but a interactive drama.
SilentBat 1 year ago
@Alaron251 First regular broadcasting in America was in 1928, first regular broadcasting in the UK was in 1929.
mnbnbf 1 year ago
This woman is a terrible advocate because she concedes her first point. The fact is that video games are worthy of comparison with great paintings, composers and poets. Portal is definitely a better puzzle game than the Mona Lisa ever will be - but Beethovan's 9th symphony is probably a better piece of music, mainly because, you know, Portal isn't a piece of music.
There. See how easy that was?
IncredibleGoliath 1 year ago 31
@IncredibleGoliath
Any mention of Valves work would have proved her point too easily. She dosen't want to put Valve on a post though because she is afraid of the obvious fact that they are the only real game company right now producing uninterpretable-as-anything-but-art games.
Tidalwolf 1 year ago
@Tidalwolf
Good point. She's a dev arguing for games being art, but she's not going to give competitors free advertising. Hence she only uses indy titles as examples. Even though she does mention Braid, which is almost as obviously Art as Portal, her ability to advocate is limited by the fact that she's involved in the industry.
Huh, I guess this is what critics are for. If games could get 'mainstream' journalists to be intellectually pretentious about them this whole 'debate' would go away.
IncredibleGoliath 1 year ago
Any game is a better game than a static painting. You're comparing apples to oranges, you have to look at the intended message and emotions.
bassboy2100 1 year ago
@bassboy2100 That's exactly the point. Any attempt to compare games and paintings is comparing apples to oranges, therefore any discussion of which is better "as art" is going to be totally pointless. The word art itself has no agreed definition.
IncredibleGoliath 1 year ago
@IncredibleGoliath I think she is just trying to convince people in the first place that videogamees are worthy in general. Video games have suffered a kind of stigmatism for the past 30 odd years, especially when the arcades came to be. And the reasons people don't see it as an art form is because it's interactive, unlike the mona lisa, books, film and music. Art has never really been interactive until video games showed up. So there's the little argument there.
jinmunsuen 1 year ago
@IncredibleGoliath
if you know ANYTHING about art/music beyond a casual observer, you know how to compare and contrast their core similarities of which there are MANY. Paintings, writing, and music have been linked ever since the Enlightenment whenever art was allowed to be art for the first time.
Seriously don't post anything unless you know what you're talking about.
There, see how easy that was?
shankpeterman 1 year ago
@IncredibleGoliath @IncredibleGoliath
if you know ANYTHING about art/music beyond a casual observer, you know how to compare and contrast their core similarities of which there are MANY. Paintings, writing, and music have been linked ever since the Enlightenment in the late 1700's.
Seriously don't post anything unless you know what you're talking about.
There, see how easy that was?
shankpeterman 1 year ago
@IncredibleGoliath Her point was that pictorial art started as chicken scratches and evolved, pretty sure she was saying Video games are evolving more toward a fine art, but isn't quite there yet.
octoNinja 11 months ago
@IncredibleGoliath I've read your comment several times and I still don't know what you mean. Are you being facetious? Are you saying that the Mona Lisa is a puzzle game? Category is not what Santiago is arguing; Ebert was arguing that. Her concession that no one has come up with a worthy comparison doesn't mean that she's a "terrible advocate," it's just a statement admitting that traditional art is awesome. It doesn't mean that video games will never be as awesome, or that they're not art.
simplythebestgirl 10 months ago
@simplythebestgirl Conceding that no one has come up with a 'worthy comparison' is a concession too far, because it implies that the way to judge whether something is art is by comparison with other art from other catagories. That really isn't the case. There is already enough of a diversity of form within the 'classic' arts that you can't judge the merit of (say) a play by comparing it with a statue. The same fallacy was once used to write off cinema as an artform as well.
IncredibleGoliath 10 months ago
@IncredibleGoliath Ah, I get it now, cool :) Good points.
simplythebestgirl 10 months ago
@IncredibleGoliath her now take what you said and say it this wa is Beethovan's 9th symphony is better than the Mona Lisa because thats the comparison you have just said. she did not say that is equal no se said they can be just as great as those pieces.
DredDust 7 months ago
Birth of television was in England, dunno why she mentioned America so much.
Alaron251 1 year ago
She had some good points but I think that the point of view from where she analyzed the medium as an art form was pretty shallow :/
Cossner 1 year ago
@leo222 /thread? lolno, I believe you entered the wrong url into the adress bar, sir. Clearly you meant to go to a website where "/thread" would be relevent. You know what I'm talking about.
KamenWeil 1 year ago
Also, Hideo Kojima, David Cage, Hinoboru Sakaguchi, Shpigeru Miyamoto, Sid Meier, Chris Taylor, American McGee, Peter Monyleux, Yasumi Matsuno, Gabe Newell,...
I think this industry have enough artists now.
aquapendulum 1 year ago
*cough*Heavy Rain*cough*
aquapendulum 1 year ago
Don't personally think games will ever stand a chance of being seen as art (at least not seriously) until they're comfortable with their own strengths; lifting (badly) the storytelling conventions seen in cinema or comics (and VERY rarely, literature) will only ever establish them as symbiotic, leeching from the other media for their content.
jayextee 1 year ago
@jayextee I also think that games could offer so much more; developers should ideally look heavily into ALL other entertainment media, and then use games as a platform for offering that which the other media do not. Games are not interactive movies/narrative.
It's also not clear why so many feel they need to justify their pastime as 'art'. I love games, but hate the thought of them as art. Seriously.
jayextee 1 year ago
@jayextee Well going by what you said then the Movie industry already considers Games an art form for they are leeching from games. Granted they are usually bad but still.
TheHanyou 1 year ago
There is an endless list of games she could have picked from that are great examples of art:
Ico,shadow of the colossus,eternal darkness,the final fantasy series,MGS,silent hill, ocarina of time, psychnauts all come to mind
TakeruKamiya 1 year ago
The only people who have the right or freedom to criticise games or define them as art or not is the people who ACTUALLY PLAY THEM. Ebert commited an act of reviewer treason by not reading about, playing or examining (in any detail) the games he wrote off. Try: Execution - Knytt Stories - Flower - and tell me video games cannot be art - go on. I dare you.
soulstudiosmusic 1 year ago
@soulstudiosmusic While I can agree with two of your choices, I did not like execution. While I have to concede to it being art, it really begs the question as to whether it is a game or not. Games like Execution and Passage dissapoint me because of their under-achiever style. They put forth little effort into actually making a fun, engaging, well-made game, and more effort into trying be intellectual with their "message".
KamenWeil 1 year ago
@KamenWeil Art is not only about positive emotions. Take visual art for example. Good paintings are not only pretty paintings, take a look at Jackson Pollock. Or in music, listen to Penderecki or Stravinsky, where dissonance is everywhere. Or in literature, take Ulysses by James Joyce which is chaotic and unengaging. I think that saying that videogames should allways be fun and engaging is going against the definition of games as art
senarodrigo 1 year ago 4
Sorry lady, Will Wright was more convincing on his presentation of video games as art. So much details for Mr. Ebert to debunk. Games use so much imagination to create, even more than movies, writing, music, paintings so how can they not be art? Most games comprise of all those factors, and contributing the key interactivity that can set them apart from being a static form. Consider the major flaw of "games not art": Guitar Hero is a simplified version of on stage performance. yeah.
Rubensaccnt 1 year ago
I just realized that this argument has more than 2 sides:
Videogames are not art
Videogames are art
Videogames have artistic elements, but as a whole are not art.
That said, I believe the first statement is false, but there is no right answer between the second two statements, and is up to your own personal beliefs on the matter.
I myself don't see art and interactive medium to be mutually exclusive.
FlipLogic 1 year ago
Art is a product of creativity. Video games parallel every other artistic medium in every way except for one: Interactivity, yet they still hold true to all of the principles of art (I'm talking about game creation, not playing the game).
But the greatest rift in this argument is simply our own definitions. I, for one, believe everything is some form or another of art. It's expression of our creativity, and simply doing anything in life is a product of our brains creating.
FlipLogic 1 year ago
@FlipLogic
However, it's obvious that that's not a consensus among most people. So in order to ever conclude this debate, you'll have to first conclude the original debate this is merely a portion of: "What IS and what is NOT art" (a debate that has gone on for eons, I might add - good luck concluding it).
A common argument brought up time and time again in that debate is "The Definition of Art." Again, a whole new debate. Yet every definition I've seen just makes me believe art is all you do.
FlipLogic 1 year ago
@FlipLogic
So to truncate this timeless argument, though I'm absolutely certain it will not work, I invite you to draw your own conclusions then drop this irrelevant topic, based on the following:
Figure out YOUR definition of art. If you can't do that, then you can't reasonably sway anybody else's opinion
Figure out what that MEANS. Definitions don't mean squat if you can't explain it.
Figure out your Line. Now that you've defined art, define what is NOT art - for that is a much harder task.
FlipLogic 1 year ago
@FlipLogic
Finally, I might as well leave you with my opinion on the subject. I've already stated my definition, but since most people's views aren't as all-encompassing, then try this:
Panting/Drawing ~ Graphic design ~ Art
Music ~ Singing ~ Vocals ~ Talking ~ audio of any of the above ~ Art
Writing: Poetry/Fiction/(even)Nonfiction ~ choose your own adventure novels ~ Art
Film ~ Movies (tasteful or not) ~ Art
Wooden puzzle boxes ~ Art
Videogames (tasteful or not) ~ creativity ~ Art
FlipLogic 1 year ago
@FlipLogic
The Art Institute
Game Design: Bachelor of Arts
Who can argue?
Rubensaccnt 1 year ago
What do audience demand and sales have to do with designating anything as "art"? Is art just a popularity contest? Art now deemed great wasn't always popular in its own time, usually because it broke with convention (formally an in terms of content) in ways that viewers found strange or uncomfortable. "What went wrong with American culture?" Here it would be worth addressing its vast commercialization, sales and market testing, the very things she boasts her gaming products have excelled at.
lidsvillebrown 1 year ago
@lidsvillebrown
Intelligent discussion in YouTube comments is making me uncomfortable.
madnessism 1 year ago 2
@madnessism ROFL!! I couldn't help it.
RyuHirakashi1 2 months ago
The perseverance some have in their zeal to define art remind me of those who wish to define love. On both sides of the argument lie futility and egotripping. It is entirely, irrevocably, and universally relative.
huckfinnaafb 1 year ago
Video games right now are like cave paintings. It is about entertainment and not fun, not art. Maybe someone will make a game purely for artistic purposes, until then, it's not worth arguing about.
malcolmX213 1 year ago
@malcolmX213 So here's what I get from this. Art cannot be art unless people make something entertaining into a horrendous process that although does not satisfy the uncultured masses, clearly proves it's art because of the so-called thought process behind it. Thus, Michaelangelo's paintings, which painted for patrons who wanted a good painting to, for lack of a better word, entertain themselves and their guests, and Shakespeare's plays, made almost solely for entertainment, are not art.
thissparrowbites 1 year ago
@thissparrowbites In case anyone didn't get the vibe from up above (which I'm sure SOMEONE out there didn't), I was being sarcastic.
thissparrowbites 1 year ago
All I'm saying is no one makes video games to be art. Maybe there are a handful where the creators were really passionate and wanted to express themselves, etc. These are quite rare. Maybe Psychonauts qualifies.
malcolmX213 1 year ago
@malcolmX213 I get what you mean, and I do agree partially, but many designers aim for an engaging piece. I think should count as an artful purpose.
It's the same thing with novels. Back then, people didn't believe that novels were literature. They claimed that because novels were not expounding enough on writing's inherently philosophical and structured intent. Today, the first creators of novels are now hailed as masters. Interesting how they were only aiming to create a good story, not art.
thissparrowbites 1 year ago
Flower on PS3 is a perfect example of a video game as art. It combines music and a very distinct visual motif to tell a story. Roger Ebert ought to know better. What a pompous jackass.
voiceofreason01 1 year ago
"Games are awesome and cool. Here are some anecdotal similarities with other entertainment-delivery media which rely upon genre and spectacle. I will make no distinction between content and presentation technology used to sell it. Pretty!
So, like, games are art, right? Please email me if you want to help me make money talking about this. Bye!"
moeskido 1 year ago 2
I don't really care if everyone else sees video games as art. I do.
There is no other medium that makes me feel the same range of emotions or the same degree of emotional connection.
Make a picture, song or movie demonstrating an ethical conflict, and the observers can see the artists intention, however, playing a game where you have to make a choice and the conflict will resonate with much more force.
Games to me are art, however, I am past caring about why other people have their eyes closed.
Shridder 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
B--O--R---I-N--G
She got nice build, but she's not very sexy though.
The entire 'art debate' is moot and retarded.
Also, shittypedia should be taken with a grain of salt. I would prefer Britanica and Webster as a reliable source (and, hopefully with time, Citizendium).
Foxstab 1 year ago
Did anyone read Ebert's response to this? He seriously has lost his touch. His writing is a rambling mess that has no purpose except to show his distaste for this new medium. There's really no more validity in what he says; I think now he just likes to hear himself talk, figuratively speaking.
stevkh5 1 year ago
@stevkh5 It's the natural cycle. I'd be more concerned if old hum-buggers didn't reject new things.
Remember Rock, the Satan's music? That never worked out, did it?
SexyMelon 1 year ago
@SexyMelon thats very true, but in his blog, he was just talking out of his ass. Usually he can actually write and provide solid criticisms, but this time it was just an attack on Ms. Santiago's minor slip-ups.
I wonder how many old people (60 and up) actually have played videogames.
stevkh5 1 year ago
@stevkh5 It's the small things that give away your true nature, I suppose.
SexyMelon 1 year ago
Art is anything you do outside of basic survival.
MegaSmack 1 year ago
Yes, video games are art! Everything can be considered art!
antdude 1 year ago
I think you are mistaking having a feeling with art. That is not art. The problem is that Video Games other than the reasons I have already said cant be art but the fact is that there are no games in which you could name 100% that is art. Final Fantasy is a bad example because its still constrained by the game. There hasn't been named a fairly good representation of a Video Game that could be interpreted as art.
TheTruth006 1 year ago
It's like watching people stumble around for a definition they have not found yet. There are proclamations that art is feeling but that would subjugate art itself.
TheTruth006 1 year ago
@TheTruth006 Okay you've made a bunch of claims about rules and the differences between video games and other forms of art.
You still won't answer my main question at this point: Why does any of that mean that video games aren't art? The only decent way to answer that would be to share with us your definition of art.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
I already did.
TheTruth006 1 year ago
@TheTruth006 No, you didn't, and it seems you are avoiding it. I want your definition of art and that will hopefully tell me why you think art can't have rules.
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
No, I did, we had a long conversation about it. Did you even look back?
TheTruth006 1 year ago
And its not that art cant have rules, its that they don't. Games have rules that are build for the goal of the game. Art does not have a "goal." So far to my knowledge no game has been made to not have a goal. I think people may think the things like the game design are art which is rightfully so but the game isn't.
TheTruth006 1 year ago
@TheTruth006 how can the process of creation be art and the final product not be art
link991 1 year ago
@TheTruth006 I'm sorry, not seeing it. Do you mind stating it clearly in your next comment?
whalenbrowne 1 year ago
Art is life. Graphic Design by definition as life to the lifeless. Pong is the consummate example because it is lifeless. Video Games are lifeless and the design is to hide the fact that they are. That's why Graphic Design is an art.
TheTruth006 1 year ago
....also, i reasently played Zeno Clash.That game is art at the beginning, but when you get into the story and characters you find that, as Gabe at penny arcade puts it:
"They are art piled on top of more art." .
brighteye007 1 year ago
Back in the 90s when i played x-com for the fourth time, not to finish the game, but to create made up stories about the soldiers and their relations, when i cried at the end of the world in Final Fantasy VI and when i flew my spaceship in Elite 2: frontier, not for profit anymore but more to see new races and new planets - the "game" element was irrelevant. It was pure art.
brighteye007 1 year ago 28
Silent Hill 2 is art. Heavy Rain is art. Katamari Damacy is art. So the notion that a video game could never be art is wrong-headed and silly.
shophet125 1 year ago
The word "art" is almost entirely without meaning because it is overly broad as it is often used. In the case of this presentation... let's consider...
Waco resurrection isn't art. The whole performance act might be, but probably isn't.
Braid isn't art.
Flower might be art.
Myst is art, and is more than a decade and a half old.
I would argue that not all movies are art - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen isn't, and indeed, perhaps most aren't. And remember, art does not mean good.
TitaniumDragon 1 year ago
In any case, when talking about art, no opinion is valid, because the emotions stirred by it are subjective. We seek different things, and we can find them only in certain places. The only thing we can do, is to press our senses against something new, and hope we find a pleasant feeling.
SekundesC 1 year ago
She says that games such as chess, no matter how elegant their rules are. However, the performance of players within those rules might be considered art. A chess player might make a brilliant scheme along the game, just as a Metroid player might make a brilliant execution of a speedrun. Braid was an excellent example of a literary work of art, but Mirror's Edge would've been a visual example, and perhaps De Blob might be a musical example, and both of those games depend on performance.
SekundesC 1 year ago
The error is to assume anything as abstract as art can be proven. Like there is some kind of intrinsic piece of metaphysical evidence that just *needs* to be gleaned out of the ether somehow (perhaps with a cotton swab and a DNA lab?).
Put out an ad for someone to provide you with evidence, and you'll have a line of post-graduate students with reams of grant applications in hand. We're wasting valuable time arguing about the open door in front of us.
rasguead0 1 year ago
Art. Art is an expression. Art is an expression of how one feels that can be interpreted by dozens of different people thousands of different ways. As an 'artist' (I count poetry to be art, it's your choice whether or not it is) I believe video games merely serve as another medium on which the artist to paint on, the singer to sing on, and the poet to write on. It is truly the culmination of the three into one masterpiece of artistic work. That being said, I know you've already picked a side.
mohawkninja909 1 year ago
Unfortunately this rambling and somewhat confused speech answers no questions and proves nothing. The speaker knows a great deal about video games but does not have a good sense of art history, of the history of the development of mediums, or of some of the philosophical issues around art. I'm not saying video games aren't art, though I haven't seen any yet that seem worthy, but she doesn't apply her definition to any of the games she cites. This is not university-level research.
lidsvillebrown 1 year ago
Art is short for "artifice". In the times before the Renaissance paintings and sculptures were not attributed to their creators. "Homer" probably never existed as a single human entity. The relationship of the creator to the creation, and of the audience to the creation is what art is based on. Art is NOT based on the relationship of the artist and the audience. It's not about whether or not a person presents themselves to the world as the fragile, luminous "artisté".
jszczepaniak 1 year ago
It's about artifice. Does the work communicate something about life in an intentional way? Does it mimic reality by representation? Does it mean something? If it means nothing, then it is decoration-- craftwork (Kraftwerk anyone?). But meaning finds it's way into things often without the realization of the artist, and much more often without the understanding of the audience. People who try to tell other people that something is not art are only fooling themselves.
jszczepaniak 1 year ago
Art does not belong to the intellectual elite. It does not belong to those with "taste" and judgments about the taste of others. If it means something to someone, then it is art. That which is not art being those things which all humanity can agree are not art. Art is about communicating. A latrine in an art gallery, propped on its side IS a comment. It's part of a conversation. It means something to someone. Art is much more than any one person can let it be. Don't try to hold dominion over it.
jszczepaniak 1 year ago
The only problem I have with this video are the examples.
I also believe video games are art, but I would have gone with older and, in my opinion better, examples, like Okami, Final Fantasy 6 and Chrono Trigger, Valkyrie Profile, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus... those examples are numerous, and seem much stronger under scrutiny.
Shadozcreeping 1 year ago
I'm glad she chose Braid as one of the examples. It is one of the only games to date that has ever truly hit me on an emotional level. I played through the game twice and literally went through all the texts multiple times thinking about all the possibilities. They seem to be endless, but every time I went over it, I found a story that could be any of ours, my own included. I guess I want to say that just because it's not a Picasso, doesn't mean it isn't art.
mcmeister89 1 year ago
joe3710 1 year ago
Video games aren't art because they're a huge waste of time, they're more akin to drugs like heroin and methamphetamine.
ActionCarl 1 year ago
@ActionCarl The same could be said for any medium though.
TheGizmofromPizmo 1 year ago
@TheGizmofromPizmo ಠ_ರೃ
ActionCarl 1 year ago
@ActionCarl Meaning, that someone somewhere has said the same thing about movies, TV, paintings, reading books, etc., etc. Yet we consider all of them to be forms of art.
TheGizmofromPizmo 1 year ago
Also the argument that there is beautiful music and name composers doesn't not change the fact that all this is meant to benefit the rules of the game. Even developers agree that they "enhance the gaming experience." You've all heard this lingo. Just toting out names and adding adjectives only dresses up a problem. These properties are meant to serve the game. They don't act alone.where as a movie, picture, or music act on breaking the rules a game acts on hiding the rules.
TheTruth006 1 year ago
It feels like that scene in Dead Poets Society where Robin Williams tells the kids to rip out the pages of "critical analysis" because when you play a game you could have all the music in the world from HGW, all the best writing, and all the best effects but it doesn't change the fact that its still a video game inhibited by the execution of its own rules. Haze is a great example of this, so is crysis. It's almost enough to rip out your hair, isn't it.
TheTruth006 1 year ago
Also, consider the fact that Super Mario is recognized more often than Mickey Mouse, by most accounts. And Shigeru Miamoto would probably be the prevalent designer.
Hell, Nobuo Uematsu has put on concerts because of his fame from Video Games. Is that music art? If so, it springs from games, so why would it be art in one medium and not another?
nexusparanoia 1 year ago
Graphic designers work on computers for countless hours. Writers create dialogue, scenes, and the frames for a story. From Concept Artists to Sound Artists - sometimes even actual singers and orchestras (MGS4 had Harry Gregson-Williams do the score), they are all involved in creating one experience for a person.
And all these artists working together create something other than art?
That's absurd.
nexusparanoia 1 year ago
Best argument: How can anyone, ANYONE, play Braid to the end and not call it art?
SmokestackOrchestra 1 year ago
@SmokestackOrchestra Easy, because it's a game. In 100 years schools won't force you to play Braid and write an essay on what the developer was trying to express through braids element of rewinding time.
SAMj3sus 1 year ago
@SAMj3sus What makes you so sure of that? Besides, when did critical academic response become the litmus for art?
Also, have you been to university recently? People write papers on far more banal stuff.
SmokestackOrchestra 1 year ago
@SmokestackOrchestra True, people might write papers on things they consider trivial and boring but chances are that their banal subject points