Back in April, Roger Ebert made a very controversial (well to us gamers at least) article that video games are not art. Safe to say, he was criticized and flamed (a lot) from gamers all over. Some may good points and others were complete idiots. It seemed that no one would be able to change his mind.
Actually the only person that could change his mind is Ebert himself which he just did. Simply put, he came to realize that if he doesn't play games, he shouldn't have made the comments:
I thought about those works of Art that had moved me most deeply. I found most of them had one thing in common: Through them I was able to learn more about the experiences, thoughts and feelings of other people. My empathy was engaged. I could use such lessons to apply to myself and my relationships with others. They could instruct me about life, love, disease and death, principles and morality, humor and tragedy. They might make my life more deep, full and rewarding.
Not a bad definition, I thought. But I was unable to say how music or abstract art could perform those functions, and yet they were Art. Even narrative art didn't qualify, because I hardly look at paintings for their messages. It's not what it's about, but how it's about it. As Archibald MacLeish wrote: A poem should not mean, but be.
I concluded without a definition that satisfied me. I had to be prepared to agree that gamers can have an experience that, for them, is Art. I don't know what they can learn about another human being that way, no matter how much they learn about Human Nature . I don't know if they can be inspired to transcend themselves. Perhaps they can. How can I say? I may be wrong. but if 'm not willing to play a video game to find that out, I should say so. I have books to read and movies to see. I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place.
It's always great to see someone that after everything that happened, can admit that he was a fool.
Roger Ebert Takes Back His Video Games Not Art Comments
- O.G.
source original-gamer.com
