Matt Paprocki points to Roger Ebert's commentary on whether games are art.
Games are software, and until the Singularity, all software is only as good as experiencing a simulacra of realism. You can only follow arcs of intent within the game that pre-exist. Thus, it is hard to call them art.
The landscape of the game, like a film or a painting, on the other hand, is open to interpretation and layering of meaning. This is artistic, but the art is in the player's mind.
Thus, games in and of themselves are not art, but a player's artistic sensibilities may be induced by playing a game.
Of course, the same reasoning could be applied to other forms of creativity. Is a bad film art, or is my artistic reaction to the film art?
Technorati Tags: games, art, ebert, film, criticism, review,singularity opinion
- ► 2010 (23)
- ► 2007 (110)
- ► 2006 (173)
- Quiz Time 13 - The Blogosphere
- Some of the Best Books of 2005
- Easy Ajax: A Case Study
- Watching Star Wars
- Birds At Newport Aquarium, Cincinnati
- Technology Trends 2005 and 2006
- del.icio.us downtime and the new Venture Capitalis...
- It's Quiz Time 12
- Halo 2 Canada
- Meri bhi Christmas
- The Challenge Of Choice - Best Lists Of 2005
- Something This Way Comes
- The Best Essays Of 2005
- Operation Duryodhana Nets Politicos, Bloggers Exul...
- Coders, Superheroes, Microsoft and Raga Rock
- Texas wins Major League Cricket Interstate Tournam...
- Miss World 2005 Is Miss Iceland,Unnur Birna Vilhjá...
- Mohammed ElBaradei Wins Nobel Peace Prize 2005
- Creative ad rips off Katamari Damacy
- Microsoft Launches Windows Live Local
- It's Quiz Time 11
- Are Games Art? Ars Longa, Ludus Brevis
- Xbox Game Review: Serious Sam II
- ▼ December (23)