Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[Kasz216]

Khuutra said:

Kasz216 said:

Khuutra said:

You would be somewhat surprised: the academia's response is slow, but their definition is ultimately reactionary rather than authoritative: it will take time, but if the people take games seriously for long enough as pieces of art, then the academia will be forced to do the same, and Super Mario Bros. will be treated with the same awe and respect as something like Metropolis.

Is it really an eventuallity though?

I mean, I don't think even TV has gained widespread acknowledgement as art.  It has yet to throw off the shackles of being "the idiot box" although some cable shows and TV documentries are finally working to change this perception.

I think Ebert is probably very right when he says we won't be living here if it is ever accepted as such.

I'd have to ask Rubang, but isn't TV .... well I suppose you could make an argument that it's not derivative of cinema, but that's how I've always thought of it.

Give me a while, that one has me scratching my head.

But yeah, I think it's an eventuality. Certain TV series are studied, though it's generally given a status beneath cinema as a rule. Maybe not for something like The Twilight Zone.

But yes! Eventuality. Give it time. Mario will prevail.

I suppose it's stupid to be against mario.

I kinda think, unfairly though it may be, Videogames also get the TV stigma and more so, just because videogames are played on a TV.  It sounds stupid, but I think the act of sitting infront of a TV is just in general decryed by some parts.  That art like that needs to be ventured out of the house to expiernce.