Monday, September 10, 2012

Ebert VS Games

Megan W.
Joslyn R.
Jenn M.

Ebert point 1
Defining what is art. Ebert actually never provides his true definition of what he feels art actually is. Its seems that he is just saying he knows what art is but is not willing to place his own definition to the argument.

Stanton's article is the best counterpoint the above point made by Ebert.  Stanton highlights the issues with placing a finite definition on something as obscure and subjective as artistry. Stanton plays into Ebert's exclusionary tactic of placing games outside the realm of art when he states that art is subjective and every person's idea of art is as varied and vast as the people on this Earth.

Ebert point 2

Ebert hasn't seen anything that can be classified as art within the gaming community.

Brockway counters this in his article "Who Framed Roger Ebert," by clearly pointing out what Ebert has said repeatedly - Ebert hasn't actually played any games and is not very informed on the world of gaming. This means that Ebert is providing an opinion on something he has little to no knowledge of. Ebert is simply exerting what Brockway states is an exclusionary line between what is art and what people define as art. Brockway  succinctly states, "Art is a word that denotes exclusivity, but in the current day its meaning can only ever be inclusive. What is art? Art is what any single person considers to be art. There is no such thing as an objective definition, because all that anyone can ever truly know of something is their own experience. When the only possible judgements are subjective, a belief in the existence of a category of things that are 'art' is absurd" and clearly from Ebert's stance in his article he is being absurd stating that games can never be art.

Ebert point 3

Ebert states that he can agree with Santiago's opinion that art is a progression from something like cave art to  the work done in the Sistine Chapel but that in order for games to reach that level of progression it will take millenias and therefore will no be seen in our lifetime.

Again Brockway provides a convincing counter to this point made by Ebert. In his article "Why Ebert is Wrong: In Defense of Games as Art" Brockway does something that Ebert and Santiago does not do - he provides evidence of game that in his context, purpose, and game play can be seen as art (for those wishing to have that title placed on games). By explaining his position on why the game Rez, Brockway shows how he came to the conclusion that this game can be considered art and by supplying evidence for his conclusion he validates it instead of it just seeming like he is giving a biased opinion as Ebert and Santiago clearly do in their works.

No comments:

Post a Comment