Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[Reasonable]

Grahamhsu said:

Reasonable said:

Grahamhsu said:
@Reasonable I believe all of us have the ability to become Remy, you say Collette is a craftswoman and she certainly is depicted as such in Ratatouille, but the mere fact that she understands food and how flavors work already gives her the tools needed to go one more step into the level of Artist.

Of the 4 years I've spent at the conservatory I've seen Linguini's turn into Collete's and some even go on to become Remys. I've seen players with masterful technique, some with higher technical skills than the teachers, but extremely lacking in musical ideas, and I've seen these players in a mere 2 years mature so much musically I couldn't believe they were the same person.

I'd have to disagree (not with what you've personally seen) but as to likely levels of improvement.  In the end, no matter how much anyone studies, they are not going to be a Kubrik or a Wells or a Picasso or a Shakespeare (I know I'm picking the tip top but it's easiest to make the point there).

I do believe that probably all of us could easily be better at almost anything but putting in effort - in fact as I said that goes towards enjoying art as well (whatever the medium).  The more you understand the more you can appreciate.  For example, sticking with the examples from Ratatouille, Colette clearly understands the medium of food way more than Linguini, but of course if he tried really hard he could improve and perhaps get to Colette's level.  But while Colette (as presented) might become a minor artist herself, I believe the film is accurate and correct in its thesis that in the end we all have an upper limit and they differ.

The Incredibles (also by Bird) also echoed elements of this sentiment.  Some people are just smarter, faster, better whether at art, counting, rowing, running or whatever and while we can all improve ourselves I really, really doubt we can all hit the top tier.  In the end one by one we'd hit a barrier, where native talent (the creative spark if you will or your basic physical makeup for sports) would not be enough and not amount of learning or practice would take us further.

I do take the optimistic view, which I hope comes across in my posts - but I also doubt the ability for everyone to reach the highest pinacles of any endevour.

Well for me when I meant Remy I didn't exactly mean Kubrick, Heifetz, etc anyone of the top just anyone in the level of artist. Of course if all of us hit the top-tier than what would the top tier be, therefore not all of us can be "the best" eventually the art would just evolve one step further if a occurrence like that were to occur.

As for limits, I believe the only limit in any artist's life is time, native talent will always improve.The arts are about what is being human, so as long as a person experiences human emotions, feelings, life, he/she will undoubtedly improve in the arts as well. As long as you learn and practice correctly you will always improve, Beethoven's quartet music is actually extremely similar in certain ideas to early 20th century classical music, he was so amazing he brought a new era of music "Romanticism", and predicted where music would go 100 years later.

Oh for sure.  I totally believe in the ability to constantly improve and learn.  As far as I'm concerned if I ever reach 90 years old I still want to be learning stuff and improving my abilities where possible (probably not something like the long jump or wrestling!).

I just mean that we all start at a different point and we will all hit a different ceiling at some point.  For example I find Einstein's work facinating, but I could study for the rest of my life and never reach a point equal to what he hit when he published his General Theory of Relativity (I know, he's another top of the tree example!).

I think no-one should feel they can't aim for something, I just think equally it's sensible to realistic about what your own upper limits might be as well - we simply can't all be Kubricks, Einsteins and Picassos and no amout of effort will enable us to equal them - not because they were "better" in some sinister superior way, simply because chance happened to gift them with certain abilities that enabled them to excel to a level not just above average but at a peak that couldn't be achieved without their innate talents.

Love the feedback and ideas BTW.  This is rapidly becoming my favourite thread in a long time - no bitching about graphics or 360 vs PS3 or how Alan Wake is going to be the best game technically or no it's not God of War 3 easily beats it, etc. just some interesting discussion with lots of good ideas and thoughts.

When it's like this I really appreciate the internet and the freedom for discourse it provides.

EDIT: BTW when you said "The arts are about what is being human" I couldn't agree more.  That is one of the key elements for me in any experience of art.