|
by casual observer 11/18/2005, 11:27am PST |
|
 |
|
 |
|
Yeah well, literature is going to stop being an art as well, what with being totally fucked by massive, popular, passive forms of entertainment. Video games'll get up there, but Ebert will probably have the excuse of being dead rather than being forced to admit his mistake. That weasely, roly-poly little imbecile.
Let's put things into perspective.
A video game is a form of (inter)active entertainment, where the 'reader', that's everyone from retards locked away for stealing quarters, to failed pseudo-intellectuals having a mid-life crisis at the age of 25, actually has to wrestle the story out of the (often) unyielding grasp of the medium. If you're Fabio it takes a whole lot longer to get the entire 'message' out of a game than it would if you were, say, Korean.
Film is the opposite, the story is in motion constantly, the viewer is just watching shit happen to other people without any input on what's going on. You just have to sit there and digest the narrative, often as toxic as the popcorn kernel fragment stuck to the back of your throat. It's going to move on whether you want it to or not. The irony is that people often compare video games with film because they're both relatively modern and they're visual, but the languages they speak couldn't be further appart. A tangential discussion is why games insist on being linear (aside from it just being easier to make them that way) but y'all don't really give a fuck.
A book, however, is an entirely different matter. You have to involve yourself with the book, you have to breathe life into it by interpreting and creating its imagery in your own mind, but it's still an essentially passive form of entertainment, unless you're reading a "Choose your own adventure!" hack job. You're being told a story, you're still along for the ride, but you're the one painting the scenery. This takes effort, a skill-set of its own, much like video games do, but with a much slower process, lacking the artificial adrenalin rush of putting a virtual 7.62 round into someone's skull. Another tangent is looking at Jack Thompson today and the church around the time of the renaissance; in particular a few of the characters from Don Quijote ("Who?" you might ask, to which I reply, "Fuck you, you uncultured peasant"). Books were accused of pretty much the same sins video games are getting sued over now. Regardless, the point is this. Given the fact that literature requires so much more effort than a film, and it's less immediately rewarding than a video, popular culture will lean away from books like they did from the old-fashioned storyteller; the guy who knew the Illiad by heart before it was ever written and recited with much flair. Literature's quickly being relegated to an intellectual elite, which just loves to jerk itself off at every opportunity with its own greatness, rather than producing something 'great'.
So, where does that leave us with our type-writer-wielding asshole? Nowhere really, this was completely off to the side of him and his statement. What we -can- say, with the above dissertation in mind is that Film and Literature are already far enough from each other to allow Videogames to bridge the gap. So, Ebert will eventually be proven to be a hack, laughed at by generations wielding the indisputably perfect Dual Shock, learning how to do open-heart surgery, dynamically creating a new symphony called "Adagio for X-tetrahedron", or playing some WW2 game. Whether games are art or not isn't the point. As (I think it was fezzbort) said they're still young, they'll come around to being -regarded as- art eventually. Weapons, machines, buildings, and everything that's wrought with human hands has an aesthetic value, after all, and video games have no purpose other than to entertain; there's just no other way they can go but to become art, eventually. Look at such things as theater and film itself, they all went through the same process. Now all we need is Charlie Chaplin or Euripides to come around and whip things into shape. |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
Ebert stands firmly on the "not art" side, dreams. by Fussbett 11/17/2005, 6:20pm PST 
It doesn't help that a retard is posing the question to him by FA-BI-OH! 11/17/2005, 6:30pm PST
Well, Ebert himself gave Spirits Within 3 1/2 stars NT by Siskel and Ebert 11/17/2005, 6:34pm PST
It's not really fair to make a one-to-one comparison with films or books... by Fullofkittens 11/17/2005, 8:26pm PST
There's also the fact that Ebert is a fuck ass. by Fussbett 11/17/2005, 11:27pm PST
Re: There's also the fact that Ebert is a fuck ass. by casual observer 11/18/2005, 11:27am PST
Fussett doesn't deserve credit, FoK does. NT by casual observer 11/18/2005, 11:29am PST
I don't get the "message" of this post by FA-BI-OH! 11/18/2005, 12:23pm PST
Summary: There was no "message" in my post, just like everything else I post. by Observing Casually 11/18/2005, 1:53pm PST
perhaps the solution is to stop posting NT by FA-BI-OH! 11/18/2005, 8:51pm PST
Re: There's also the fact that Ebert is a fuck ass. by Creexul :( 11/18/2005, 12:27pm PST
Re: There's also the fact that Ebert is a fuck ass. by Souffle of Pain 11/19/2005, 3:21pm PST
EBERT CLARIFIES by Fussbett 11/30/2005, 3:40am PST
Re: EBERT CLARIFIES by I need clarification 11/30/2005, 12:58pm PST
Re: EBERT CLARIFIES by jeep 12/09/2005, 5:24pm PST
Well I have no idea what you're talking about by I need clarification 12/09/2005, 5:39pm PST
I'm standing right here! (in the background, but still in the frame!) by Alfred Hitchcock 12/11/2005, 4:49pm PST
Yeah, and whatever happened to me? by David Lean 12/11/2005, 4:49pm PST
Hey guys, what's going on over here? by Howard Hawks 12/11/2005, 4:49pm PST
You fucking bastards. Always leaving me out. by John Ford 12/11/2005, 4:50pm PST
Hello. I directed Rosemary's Baby AND Chinatown! by Roman Polanski 12/11/2005, 4:50pm PST
I didn't do much of anything, I guess. by Francis Ford Coppola 12/11/2005, 4:50pm PST
... by Charlie Chaplin 12/11/2005, 4:51pm PST
What'd you just say? by Billy Wilder 12/11/2005, 4:52pm PST
Ah, leave him alone, Billy by Francois Truffaut 12/11/2005, 4:53pm PST
Bonjour, Frenchie! by Orson Welles 12/11/2005, 4:53pm PST
Fuck, that fucking Jeep guy is a MORON by Coen Bros 12/11/2005, 4:54pm PST
Hell, even I made at least once great movie. by Spike Lee 12/11/2005, 4:54pm PST
Boy, things have changed since my day... by DW Griffith 12/11/2005, 4:55pm PST
Speaking of change, intellectual montage anyone? by Sergei M. Eisenstein 12/11/2005, 4:56pm PST
I can get behind that by Sergio Leone 12/11/2005, 4:58pm PST
John Carpenter makes the list, but I don't?? by George Cukor 12/11/2005, 4:59pm PST
Half of Kurosawa but NONE of me? by Woody Allen 12/11/2005, 5:03pm PST
You're all fucking faggots by Kenneth Anger 12/11/2005, 5:24pm PST
I think we can all agree on the fact that NT by Jeep is always horribly wrong 12/12/2005, 12:34pm PST
Also, a little point about the Russians: by motherfuckerfoodeater 12/12/2005, 1:13am PST
Re: Also, a little point about the Russians: by Don Pistacho 08/17/2007, 1:31pm PDT
Re: Also, a little point about the Russians: by motherfuckerfoodeater 08/18/2007, 1:50pm PDT
In fairness, this is a good point. by motherfuckerfoodeater 12/12/2005, 1:09am PST
Re: EBERT CLARIFIES by Andrew 11/30/2005, 2:59pm PST
Re: EBERT CLARIFIES by Don Pistacho 08/17/2007, 1:35pm PDT
Was it Rescue Rangers Hentai? Because I think I played that one. NT by Jerry Whorebach 08/17/2007, 2:39pm PDT
A local Big Lots has that game for $3 by Johnny Merzbow 08/17/2007, 3:21pm PDT
Hey, remember this thread? by Fussbett 06/09/2007, 1:15am PDT
Re: Hey, remember this thread? by motherfuckerfoodeater 06/09/2007, 1:35am PDT
Fussbett responds (!?) by Fullofkittens 12/11/2005, 8:44am PST
Re: Fussbett responds (!?) by Ice Cream Jonsey 12/11/2005, 1:42pm PST
Addendum: Ebert on games, circa 1994 by Siskel and Ebert 12/22/2005, 12:45am PST
Holy shit. by Lizard_King 12/22/2005, 12:08pm PST
I know that we have to hate Penny Arcade because Jhoh misspells it and by because they run a charity BUT 06/09/2007, 2:03am PDT
Re: I know that we have to hate Penny Arcade because Jhoh misspells it and by Jhoh Cable o_O 06/09/2007, 3:08am PDT
And I said back in 2003 that they should publish twice a week by Ray of Light 06/09/2007, 5:45am PDT
Boy I hope this one isn't too dated! by Jhoh Cable o_O 06/09/2007, 11:21am PDT
Likewise! by The New York Times 06/09/2007, 1:32pm PDT
Re: Likewise! by Jhoh Cable o_O 06/09/2007, 2:02pm PDT
Re: I know that we have to hate Penny Arcade because Jhoh misspells it and by Fussbett 06/09/2007, 7:19am PDT
Clive Barker says Ebert wrong. Ebert disagrees. by Fussbett 07/23/2007, 1:15am PDT
In a democracy, anything can grow up to be art, provided it's popular enough. NT by Jerry Whorebach 07/23/2007, 2:51am PDT
Ebert scores some youth-culture cred with his choice of reading material. by Jerry Whorebach 07/23/2007, 3:59am PDT
I forgot to make fun of that. by Fussbett 07/23/2007, 9:58am PDT
Re: Clive Barker says Ebert wrong. Ebert disagrees. by Belbo Jacopo 07/23/2007, 7:10am PDT
Re: Clive Barker says Ebert wrong. Ebert disagrees. by motherfuckerfoodeater 07/23/2007, 9:25am PDT
But Ebert must know what good art is because he's a movie critic. O_____________ NT by Jhoh Clbbl O_____O 07/23/2007, 9:59am PDT
I tried to watch that one time because Polonius was Bill Murray. BIG MISTAKE 8( by Jerry Whorebach 07/23/2007, 5:35pm PDT
But not Broken Flowers. I actually really liked that one. NT by Jerry Whorebach 07/23/2007, 5:49pm PDT
|
|
