| Khuutra said: One hting in particular I do take issue with is Ebert's assertion that games do not have their masterpieces comparable to the greater works of literature or cinema. That simply isn't true. Look at Super Mario Bros. Well, I also take issue with his definition of "art" and his assertion that art is based on taste (which is something he puts forth in the comments), as the two ideas don't mesh well and I don't agree with either anyway. But yes, he's right when you allow him to set down the rules and definitions of his own discourse. |
I sadly think most gamers don't see Super Mario Bros as art.
Which in of itself is an issue. Of the groups claiming videogames are art... they have varying defintions. For some it would be the flawless level design of a game like Super Mario Brothers.
For others it is the atomosphere of L4D and how it perfectly puts you in what it would feel like to be in a Zombie Apocolypse.
Others would compare it to something like Animal Crossing, where there is no real goal, and you are just given a big world in which to make your own stories.
Others yet still, would say it was like Metal Gear Solid and it's use of cutscenes to be like a movie.
Others see the opposite as true, that it's telling the story without having to rely on cutscenes, cutscenes being a sign that you can't tell a story properly in a game setting.
While in art there are often many different movements... in general all except the newest kinds are seen as art by the experts.
Modern art experts will still tell you DaVinchi's work is art.... etc. Among the experts who "decide" art, there is largely a consesus.
Additionally, there really aren't even any "experts" yet who could fully identify which of these claims if any are valid.
