After Roger Ebert, a renowned movie critic, made statements criticizing games for lacking artistic merit, personalities within the entertainment industry and creative minds alike have tried to convince him otherwise.
Going so far as to say that “video games could never be art,” Ebert rationalized his comments by stating, “Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form.”
This has prompted Alex Garland, author of the book The Beach and screenwriter of 28 Days Later to fire back, calling the comments made by Ebert “insane.”
"It's an incredibly stupid thing to say, though I say that without knowing anything about what he said beyond what you've just told me," Garland said to Edge [thanks CVG]. "How could you anticipate where games would be in 30 years? How could you possibly do that?"
"There's so many reasons why he's wrong," Garland added. "What he's talking about is an art form at a very, very early point in its life... It's just bullsh*t. It's a stupid, ill-informed thing to say."
Ebert later admitted that he was a “fool” for making his comments.
“What I was saying is that video games could not in principle be art. That was a foolish position to take, particularly as it seemed to apply to the entire unseen future of games," Ebert acknowledged back in July. "This was pointed out to me maybe hundreds of times. How could I disagree? It is quite possible a game could someday be great art."
Ebert still said he believes video games can never be art. "But I should never have said so," he added. "Some opinions are best kept to yourself."
Garland wrote a draft for the Halo film that was never made, and he also wrote for the upcoming Enslaved: Odyssey of the West.
6 Comments
September 2, 2010
Ebert's comments are more out-of-touch than insane. He's a very smart man, but he is far removed from the variety of main stream media that exists today. While he is obviously still heavily involved in film, he doesn't (nor has he ever to my knowledge) played games or ventured into other alternative forms of interactive entertainment.
September 2, 2010
These comments do seem to keep a fading media star in the headlines and minds of an enormous market of movie watchers who otherwise would be completely ignoring his opinions. Thats not Insane, that's completely rational for a man in his position.
Didn't we used to call it trolling?
September 2, 2010
Stop writing articles about Ebert, I really don't give a shit what he has to say and nor should gamers yet the media keeps his idiocracy relevant. Guy doesn't know shit about games and therefore doesn't earn the right to have an opinion about them just like I don't have the right to say fracking sheep doesn't feel good, tho I'm sure it does... Every aspect of a game is a form of art, music, dialog, visuals and the emotions you feel throughout (thinking of Mass Effect and Bioware in general). Art is suppose to evoke emotions which most games do. So why was this article written? Doesn't say anything new since the last 1 which doesn't make sense to re-write the same thing giving Ebert's retardation on this subject more power.
September 2, 2010
MALICE!
September 3, 2010
Yeah—this whole story just needs to die.
From Mass Effect to Flower, games can be Art. (And I do mean capital "A".)
September 3, 2010
Lardyrevenger!