Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[Khuutra]

Grahamhsu said:

Khuutra said:

It is impossible for a story to be visually stimulating without visuals. Or, if you prefer, to the blind. Any one aspet is always expendable, it just means that art is experience differently by different people.

And your perspective is a valid one, sure, but it's still needlessly narrow. My view of art comes from art in literature, and similarly I would not leave a bunch of literature students in the hands of someone whose entire concept of art is based around the whole of sensory inputs.

Jeesus I'm not trying to pick a fight with you khuutra I'll agree if you placed your lit students in my hands they would have no hope of pursuing their literary dreams. I am merely trying to say both our viewpoints are needed for our roles. As for visually stimulating without visuals, to me the second you imagine anything, whether you imagine a sound, picture, etc. your sensory inputs are stimulated, IE anything that occurs in our imagination is actually semi-real. Musicians before we play any piece of music must already know what the sound is in our head, which is why I say it need not exist in reality but only in our mind to already be stimulating. Same concept of getting a song stuck in our head except we mold the song in our head before we bring it to the physical realm.

I just realized I was probably coming across as rude or antagonistic, and that wasn't my intention. I'm sorry. That's my bad. I'm not trying to pick a fight either.

I understand what you are saying. I don't thinknn it's necessarily related to the question of whether or not games can be art: I mean, music is the same with or without actually seeing the orchestra, yes? When I go and see my sister-in-law perform in her orchestra, I often listen with my eyes closed because the images communicated to me are very different from the literal image of the music being played.