Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[famousringo]

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.

TV is to cinema as sonnets are to haikus. They're both moving pictures, sure, but the contraints of their particular formats lend each a distinct character.

TV is really idiosyncratic when you compare it to cinema. The fact that there are so many episodes allows larger, more intricate stories to be told, but there's a pressure to keep individual episodes self-contained so you don't alienate people who miss chunks of the experience. A TV show doesn't actually need to end, but could be yanked off the networks at any time. Messy medium.