Dick Ward writes: "Last week the internet was abuzz yet again with the Twittering of angry gamers because Roger Ebert refused to categorize videogames as an art form. But really, why does it matter?"
Whether something is art is in the eye of the beholder. I've disagreed with so many of Ebert's movie reviews. I've loved things he's hated and hated things he's loved. To me this is no different.
And what kind of gamer you are. The majority of movies aren't art. But there have been so many movies throughout history that enough of them were bound to become pieces of art, just enough so we can consider movies in general as art. If every movie that I've seen were just mainstream cow dung, I would never consider movies as art. The thought of "art" probably has never crossed those people who love watching mindless mainstream movies anyways. In any case, Ebert hasn't played any games at all. So how would he know whether certain games can be considered as art or not? To me, Ico and Shadow of the Colossus were art. The Last Guardian will be next. ^_^
I've never bought the 'pick and choose' argument. If you're considering 'Ico' art, then I think you've got to consider 'Gears of War' art too. You can call it bad art,but if one is art, then why isn't the other? Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are great games, but why is 'Ico' art while 'Mega Man 2' is just a game?
Agreed. Art is subjective so there's never going to be a consensus on whether games is an art medium. Some people think taking a bathroom urinal and turning it on its side is art, some do not. To each their own.
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.