concerning Roger Ebert and art

[mkiker2089]

Just a few thoughts.

I don't think he deserves vitriol really. For one thing his statement started when Clive Barker was trying to sell a piece of crap game. It didn't sell on gaming merits so he starting referring to it as art. In that context Ebert had little to go on. Clive Barker then began throwing insults about which made it worse. Ebert being clever with words made Barker look like a simpleton, which didn't speak well for games as art, or it's creators for intelligence.

Another thing is that many people have trouble with the word "art." Is it a noun? Is art the object that is created? Is it a verb and art is the act of creation with the object being the after effect? A "work of art" if you will. If you see art as a noun, which most people seem to, then interactive art is hard to understand. A movie is locked in when it hits theatres and music is locked in on the CD. Both are exact entities even if they are in digital form. Sure you can make your own music but it's just recreating someone elses art. The "art" to many is the object.

Who cares what Ebert thinks about games anyway. I don't care if it's art or not. I enjoy them, same as I enjoy movies without the need to label them or elevate them to some snobish level to excuse them for being enjoyable. If anything having something labeled as art would put me off of it more than attract me. Usually the word is bandied about to sell something that otherwise would be ignored. Is Natural Born Killers art for example because Oliver Stone says it's clever? Yes, but is it a good movie. Hell no, it's one of the worst most pretentious pieces of garbage that I've ever seen.