Thursday, July 01, 2010

Ebert's Response!

I don't think Mr. Roger Ebert expected to receive the attention he did after stating that video games are not, and will never be art. The original drama played out back in April, but now he has posted a followup going into more detail and clarifying his stance.

Now openly, Mr Ebert, you have given some good reviews to bad movies, and bad reviews to good movies. You give covariance to films that are, by all accounts, B list and have equated them to modern art. I'm still at a lost why he would have chosen the position that he did regarding video games not being art. But I am glad that you have gone back, re-thought your position, and are open to the idea that video games could, one day in the future, be art. Maybe not now, but some day.


I should not have written that entry without being more familiar with the actual experience of video games. My error in the first place was to think I could make a convincing argument on purely theoretical grounds. What I was saying is that video games could not in principle be Art. That was a foolish position to take, particularly as it seemed to apply to the entire unseen future of games. This was pointed out to me maybe hundreds of times. How could I disagree? It is quite possible a game could someday be great Art.

You should have started with Shadow of the Colossus. You know. That game Adam Sandler was playing in Reign Over Me? Which you probably gave a decent score, however I can't seem to find it anywhere in the universe of the internet your review of this film. That would have completely changed your perspective of games as art.

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for taking the time to leave a comment.

We ask that you please do not include any offensive, sexist, or derogatory language - otherwise your comment will be removed.