And he was right.

This. Frick this old homosexual and frick reviewers in general. They just encourage people to have no inner-monologue.

That's so cruel, why was his jaw forced to love in brutal pain and suffering until the day he died, it didn't do anything wrong

He should be exonerated for writing Beyond the valley of the dolls

>his entire career was based off talking shit
>his jaw falls off
Poetic

>this thing is not also this other thing
NOOOOOOO if he says videogames don't exist in the same category as such wonderful products of human culture as "banana taped to wall" and "artist's shit in a can" he's saying it sucks and he's also personally insulting me NOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

>moron who can't understand art makes a gigantic, unfinished vanity piece solely because he thinks it looks cool and it gets placed right next to a statue of a guy literally sucking himself off for reasons he could never understand

12 years later and now we have all been replaced by the self sucking morons, its so over

>wow I made a le cool dragon it took so much effort
You know you're actually supposed to say something with art. Making a generic wooden dragon just because "bro it's a dragon, dragons are cool bro" isn't any more mature than making a crude, provocative sculpture of a guy sucking himself off.

His dragon's tail looks dogshit, the rest of it is probably no better. At least the guy sucking his own dick shows a good understanding of form, and a sense of humor

Have we ever seen the full homosexual dragon statue?

extremely good critique

"art" gays think a jogger doing fingerpainting in 2024 is a masterpiece. I don't take advice from boomers on shit and neither should you.

>it saves you from having to know anything about anything else.

And what the frick do most normies know. Their topics of conversation are basically three things; Yelling at a TV over millionaires who would never give a frick about them playing a game,"how's the weather", or wanting to gossip and spread rumor about the neighbors. Get the frick out of here with this enlightened shit.

>He was 100% correct on a lot of things
I should also add this. Super insightful stuff:

i dont know who these israelites are sorry
also i didnt ask though

He's completely right and the kind of fandoms he mentions were merely the stepping stone for the brutal division of our digital society by ideological dogmas.

Hype huffers btfo, but all the tiresome psychoanalysis past the first paragraph is completely unnecessary.

>you like a thing… alot!?!? NOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!
I’m no sidewalk camper, but i can smell the pretentiousness and contrarianism through my screen.
No wonder Ganker venerates him.

I usually used the same tricks on every woman I ever fricked
Plus I was Chad adjacent in my prime which made shit easy
How's that any different?

I think it was Shadow of the Colossus.

But I'll look like a manchild if I admit I still play games in my 20s to my co-workers!

a lot of stairs scenes with this angle and then the camera changes as you go up/down the stairs

dude, a camera angle doesn't make a video game art because the interaction is the native expression of videogames, resident evil is art by it being an expression through all mediums of his concepts through interaction rather than camera shots which work in tandem with the interaction but alone are totally useless, the first artistic games were the first videogames by conveying a concept through mechanics rather than anything else, it became more complex over time but videogames by being the expression of someone or a group with aspects they control to generate an experience which people can interpret just like movies but on a more complex manner through interaction with a general message and mechanics which generate certain interaction specifically with his own routines are art by it, even without at there still would be art by art not needing to be specific but just an expression of the author or someone else (see dancing, the routines change a lot and are dependant on the one doing it outside of the guidelines, even more when they have a subjective approach, art is a thing of any kind meant to express anything from someone with an idea, something that video games comply perfectly).
fixed camera angles are cool but resident evil isn't art by it but his gameplay and themes.

Art
>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

Games are art by definition

Yeah a urinal is really "capturing imagination" these homies need to shut the frick up

the urinal was a mockery to pretentious art without themes of his creators made to cleanse money through bad art, in general it's a mockery to what most people dislike about art galleries being a fabrication of external people to cleanse money and is sad that the message got derided to make people think less critically and thus generate their own expression rather than the monotony of repeating facets while not understanding their messages by people not wanting to generate expression but to break it and use it to coerce opinion and ideas of everyone.

Art
>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

Games are art by definition

kill that furgay pedophile from what i read here

Isn't that furry an actual pedophile?

>art becomes better the more people that see it

If you ever bought a ticket to the movies or paid for some form of media be it music or television, you allied yourself with the israelite.

someone photoshop him in the AVGN attire

Yeah I love me some french video games and french movies. Fricking moron. They haven't made art or been experts in art since the fricking baroque period. The only thing to come out france for a hundred years is Totally Spies and spicy yellow jacket protest webms.

Somebody should pay you to write an article tbh.

The issue isn't games being treated as art, the issue is games being treated as what soft sheltered upper class californians, canadians, and parisians think "art" is

it makes you indian

Better question: why do they have to be?

>art is knowing how to encode an experience that can't be put into words
So... literature, including poetry, is not art?

>but originally it was not high art, it was not made to be hanged on the wall of a palace to be admired by the few. it was basically a trinket to be sold to tourists, there is no original piece of this since these images were mass produced among many others, the worth of a single print did not exceed that of a cup of noodles,
It is true that it was not concieved as "high art" because the very concept of "high art" - or in fact, the term "art" did not exist in Japan at the time. The notion of "high art" is something the west has invented only a few centuries ago, as a response to mechanization and industrialization of production. And the concept of art itself carries a very specific, culturally bounded western notions. Japan - before being confronted with western culture and literally being forced to invent a new term to correspond to western notion of art (which would become bijutsu, literally "the way of beauty"), only had the notion of dó/jutsu: which means literally means "a way" or "a path", but here it's used in the sense of "technique" or "mastery".

To Japanese, the object was never the thing that really mattered. It was the process that was defining art. The craft, the techné, the method.

It's also absolutely not true that the painting itself was a "trinket for tourists". While printing allowed for large(r) scale of production, and lead to situation where there is no such thing is "original work" - only older and newer print series - it was still seen as an object of highest value and achievement, and the prints themselves, especially from renowned authors such as Hokusai, were still very expensive, way out of a league for most of the population. High fidelity, distinct color prints like these were printed in series of 200 copies or so each year.

>So why exactly do people want games to be seen as art?
Why do you assume that it's about what people want?

Because people don't want to be seen as wasting their time with pure entertainment, if you're self-aware that you're consuming a product innately lesser and not meant to be thought about, it results in insecurity.
You can see this with how the games pushed as "art" are often just games that had cool stories. Silent Hill 2 doesn't really have any of its game mechanics relate to its narrative or themes, yet somehow it's a great work of art. Bioshock was what got thrown at Ebert constantly when he wrote that initial article, the game that has a literal morality system where to be evil you have to kill crying girls. It's like if Duke Nukem decided to take itself seriously.

There's a great contradiction with games as well, where people gladly go on and on, prop up constant defenses for the games people have agreed are art, yet disregard other ones. Resident Evil as a whole gets disregarded, despite being on of the first game franchises to have its own dedicated writing company headed by a legendary Japanese TV and film writer, simply because it's zombie SF. It probably is one of the franchises that actually has gameplay congruent with its narrative, the first game in particular poses the challenging of fully solving the case (hence "You've Closed This Case Completely" or something along those lines on the ending title card), and you're set up against a guy who succeeds through your failure to do that. It's a story of human love for others and innate values of trust against pessimism, a guy who literally sells everyone he knows out, and the games even go back to deepen RE1's themes.
When Wesker gets brought back, that recontextualizes the bad ending of RE1 as his complete victory over the player- you abandoned everyone and everything to reach your conclusion, so the case isn't closed, and Wesker wins. It's genius.

And nobody considers it because there's not enough hacky twists about dead wives or how gamers are obedient dogs.

feminist analysis isn't legitimate criticism, it's women whining about dumb shit so they can larp as intellectuals.

And that's basically should have been it, but the riot he caused with that article is proof in itself that it had to be written.
It's like the Mohammed drawings of vidya.

>he didn't like my religion
>and also he wanted a guy to frick with the academy awards
Wow, what an butthole.

>This is a purely modern phenomenon and is the product of social media (yes, really).
You do realize the person in OP's post, and the whole surrounding controversy, already proves you absolutely, 100% wrong, right?

Why are you trying to larp as an oldgay in such a pathetic way?

Guess if i had fun cumming over your mother masterpiece portraits they are not art anymore, sorry.

By that logic no large movies can be art either.

>OK, so they should be used as a platform to support social change
That's not what art is supposed to be. That's what art is supposed to be according to politicians who have no soul, only power interests.

>The guy spent his whole life shilling for and defending the artistic merit of israeliteslop
Well the guy is famous from turning an originally very insular, purely academic discipline of cinematology, into a incredibly popular american day-time TV show.

How exactly do you think he managed to achieve that? You think it was through applying strict, non-pandering, academically rigorous opinions? Or would maybe pandering to the widest possible demographic be a more logical way to sell yourself to american masses?

The success and fame of Ebert's movie criticism was specifically predicated by his mediocrity as a critic, and his ability to correctly read what the massive audience wants to hear. If he was a good movie critic, he would never became popular in the first place.

>>don't have to buy sculpture expansion to see something other than paintings
>>don't have to buy impressionist or flemish masters dlc
You've never been into a large museum, they have specific exhibits you pay extra for, which typically include sculptures or paintings by a specific artist or of a specific genre.

You didn't even bother reading his essay on the subject.
>A year or so ago, I rashly wrote that video games could not be art. That inspired a firestorm among gamers, who wrote me countless messages explaining why I was wrong, and urging me to play their favorite games. Of course, I was asking for it. Anything can be art. Even a can of Campbell's soup. What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it.

>How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports.

>I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist. Would "Romeo and Juliet" have been better with a different ending? Rewritten versions of the play were actually produced with happy endings. "King Lear" was also subjected to rewrites; it's such a downer. At this point, taste comes into play. Which version of "Romeo and Juliet," Shakespeare's or Barker's, is superior, deeper, more moving, more "artistic"?

I especially like Ebert's rejection of a "moving experience" being high art.
>Many experiences that move me in some way or another are not art. A year ago I lost the ability (temporarily, I hope) to speak. I was deeply moved by the experience. It was not art.

His jaw dropped from hearing the retaded statement "video games are art".

Unfortunately, it seems he had the opposite effect. A bunch of failed film and media arts students flocked to video games to try to prove him wrong. And what came of it was the "art game" genre, which is not a genre, but a category of poorly designed and/or severely mislabeled games, since everyone involved in this debate (Ebert included) was a moron who didn't actually play or like games.

First: Art can and is censored, some arts are too breathtaking to be safe for weaker mind, other arts are not adequate with their surrounding and necessitate to be kept in more appropriate place, if less accessible.
Second: by that logic anything is art, shit on a plate is art, embezzling&money laundering is art, propaganda&disinformation is art. scams are artful.

Video game is still art but it never really mattered.

I care about the status of video games as art because art is given exceptions in most obscenity and censorship regulations around the world. With video games not being legally art, it's permissible for governments and corporations to censor the industry to death. That's why I care.
My definition of art is anything that's made with the intention of communicating an internal experience from one person to another. Basically expression with a medium of choice. Gameplay loops are implemented and experienced with exactly the same intent, to make other people experience the fun ideas you had. This definition is a superset of "telling pretentious stories and trying to be profound."
You're right that art itself needs to be defined for the sake of this discussion, but so long as you refuse to do so the present legal definitions will be used to attack your hobby.
You're just not seeing how this affects video games. If video games are not legally considered art, then you can be legally punished for producing them.

Games can incorporate art, just like product packaging incorporates art.
Neither is itself art.

and videogames are based around manual input of code through a tool, thus are an artistic endeavor, the same as musicians not getting any music through music creation software if they don't put any effort, ai is just copied art from others to generate non creative copies rather than anything else, thus aren't art from the person and removes the intent of making art on the first place while at the same time being trash and awful, the computer inputs the things the person made to generate a result in the other it steals from others, one creates the other just replicates, art is the creation itself and videogames not made with ai comply with this, thus follow the definition of art as a medium of expression, the tools changing don't remove this just like using a different brush which can make certain things doesn't remove a drawing from being art.

No it’s more like pretentious Hollywood rejects keep flooding in to the industry and make games into movies.

videogames are objectively art, the thing is that you don't have to do anything to make them because it's inherent, ebert had a moron opinion and movie game tards are dumb by removing the thing that makes videogames art which is interaction.

videogames started as science investigation endeavors and then made into products without interest or care, they weren't coerced too by their development going to other places rather than the us and having a variety of independent creators and messages, it was the opposite of propaganda, today that's different but like any medium it has a non propagandistic start which has to be cared and maintained to represent the points of the ones who create it (there are still by this reason not propagandistic things on any medium, they just have to be encouraged more even if they majority or not).

here's a question these same people believe theatres/drama to be an art thing, would it still be art if the audience were allowed to vote on the sequence of events after each break?

yes, there are theater shows which literally do that, it isn't uncommon on most theater, if you ask or tell the crew you can get a different ending on any popular theater exposition just by asking the actors.

>Its always thematically experimental or tries to improve upon what's already been done.
This never happens