Ebert Re-Emphasizes That Games Will Never Be Art

[The Lizard of Odd]

Art, like every other aspect of an evolving society, changes. Evolution of society is natural, mostly unpredictable, and GOOD.
As things like technology and laws and beliefs change to meet modern standards, so do definitions. I think the definition of what Art is should also change.
When movies were first becoming popular, were they so widely considered fine art? Or did art critics cry out against them saying that they replaced the human imagination in storytelling? When you read a book, you expand your vocabulary and envision the events on the pages, helping you to grow as a person. The movie does all of this for you, so it can't be art, right?
Of course not. There are artistic movies, and then there are movies that are true works of art, because they help us to expand and grow as individuals.
Same for games. There are games, there are artistic games, and then there are games which are true works of art. Games which have mastered the art of interactive storytelling, stir emotion and get our imaginations rolling. Games that make us think and smile and cry.
Certainly, you can 'win' a game, but to me a game which is a true work of art is one where 'winning' is not the goal, but reaching the end of the story - the same goal in reading a book or watching a movie. I feel this way about Valves games, though it is merely my opinion, as TO ME they have done everything a good game should do perfectly, and it was through a conscious effort on their part.

Those are my thoughts on the matter. Games ARE works of art...as entire entities, and in all of their many, many pieces. If nothing else, they are the pinnacle of human creativity and ingenuity rolled into one.

 

[jamesworkshop]

I don't think MGS or JRPGs are necessarily any more artistic than the aforementioned games. Take that as you will.

Somewhere Hideo Kojima is crying.

It wasn't that long ago that Kojima agreed about games not being art, though.

True


"'I don't think they're art either, videogames,' he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. 'The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art.'"

 

[ASnogarD]

You really want to have gaming associated with 'ART' ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Bed

... this fabulous piece of art was nominated for a much valued art prize.

Sure I could be a barbaric idiot that simply cannot comprehend the sheer volume of nuances associated with the art piece above, or I simply could be someone that refuses to follow the so called art experts, and call a dirty bedroom for what it is... a dirty bedroom.

 

[jamesworkshop]

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27133/The_Art_History_Of_Games_Games_As_Art_May_Be_A_Lost_Cause.php

"Tales of Tales has never been shy about making bold statements. At The Art History of Games conference in Atlanta, GA last week, Michael Samyn and Auriea Harvey, who also worked on The Path, which many pigeon hole as an "art game," laid out their case for why video games are not and never will be art, and why games are never going to evolve."

 

[Hyper-space]

Ebert is old and only remembers the stale color-pallet Atari 2600 days.

Saying that video games cannot be art because they have rules is nothing short of stupid and ultimately useless argument against video-games.

 

[Lucifron]

Who gives a flying fuck about this man and his opinions?

 

[Proteus214]

I'm sorry Ebert, but video games are art. Deal with it.

 

[OtherKevinKline]

Look, Ebert follows a very scholarly, philosophically based tradition in which part of the definition of "Art" is the ability to view it "disinterestedly". Take away from that what you will, but most of the philosophy of aesthetics since Kant has agreed with that position.

Think of it this way; is food art? The longstanding tradition in philosophy of aesthetics is that is cannot be art, because we are too interested in the food not for its artisticness. Our need for food prevents us from ever "seeing food artistically". Food can be a medium for visual art, like paintings and sculptures (Look at anything Iron Chef Morimoto has ever made), but the taste of food cannot be art.

Ebert thinks much the same way about games. Ebert is not saying that Braid didn't look artsy, and Ebert potentially wasn't saying that Braid's storyline was not art or Braid's graphics weren't art. Ebert was saying the "game" portion of Braid, Bioshock, and any other game you care to mention will never be art because it requires "interest". When he says brings up things like points or endings, he's simply saying that because you, the gamer, have something that needs to be done in the game, or at least things that you are supposed to be doing, you can never totally distance yourself from the act of playing.

So again, I don't think most of these posts are responding to Ebert fairly at all. Planescape: Torment is not a game that is art, it is a novel that is art placed with graphics that are art in a way that is meant to be played (which is not art). The whole of the game is not "art", it is merely an entertaining experience composed of pieces of art. In the same way, a game of soccer where the nets are made of stitched together works of Picasso is not suddenly "art", it is simply a game of soccer played around art.

I'm a philosophy student, I've taken aesthetics classes; this is what I've been taught, take it how you will. I happen to think Ebert is right on this one. One day, humanity may develop to the point where we don't need to take interest in the things that entertain us, but right now that seems like complete nonsense, so I just can't imagine it happening soon

 

[Shuvy]

Having just aced an large unit of visual arts theory, his critique is the steamiest pile of shit i ever heard. Modern art chooses to define itself via interpretation. I agree, video games are often CRAPPY art (i emphasis the michael bayesqe call of duty 4) in the mainstream, but only because they lack levels of meaning and interpretation more commonly associated with post-modern art. They art much closer to classical paintings than to modern art of course- games now reflect attitudes and historical conventions rather than challenge them for the most part, appealing to cliches and fears of our times. ( again, i cite call of duty 4)

This is it's essential flaw for an art critic, as art without challenge is not art anymore as far as they are concerned. But of course as the article points out, there ARE challenges in video games to those who know them. For the love of god, whoever here who has played original bioshock knows one of the greatest send ups of video game logic in it's mid game twist- And it is a layered meaningful moment that breaks out form the context of the game and into how we look at games and ourselves.

Again, as this article points out this art critic probably has never played or researched games- which ,yes, are rarely more than simplistic children's playthings, but in the end are designed by adults with an eye for distorting and remeasuring reality to appeal to the senses.

Games are art (obviously some more than others), and the art world's attention seeking elitism necessitates rejection of new forms ( btw, look it up there are a good deal of accepted virtual artists whose medium IS games as this article suggests). This is the academy and monet, salon versus the impressionists.

 

[rsvp42]

Frankly I don't want games to be art. When it becomes art it's when self-important twats start having massive communal wanks over stuff and talking about imagery. Art sickens me.

This. You have the right idea.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

Hey, he mentioned poets twice and sports stars exclusively. Sports and arts are as far separated as a tub of butter is from a hamster.

Also, though I've never played it, Okami looked extremely art...ish. Also, Dragon Age Origin and, Mass Effect played like a pair of chose your own adventure books.

 

[rsvp42]

I think the main thing is that element of play. To me, The Game and the fact that you Play it is more important than the passive consideration of games as art. I think the real question is not whether games are art, it's whether Play can be an artistic expression. I think there's already forms of interactive art out there, set pieces that engage the viewer and may even require them to physically interact. I know there's civic sculptures where part of the artistry is the way the community interacts with them. So there's a precedent for something like Play in art, but only time will tell if a video game can garner the same artistic respect.

I think the other issue is that some "Art" is just that: art. It has nothing else going for it. The artist creates it, puts it in a gallery or field, and people go to look at it or whatever. The art is only art and serves little other purpose beyond artistic expression and perhaps making a statement. Games, however serve as a form of entertainment, catharsis, a source of competition and camaraderie. Some games are e-sports and some pass the time on planes or car trips. In some ways, the utility of games as a means to happiness raises them beyond the question of art because a game doesn't need the "Art" label to be useful or pertinent. That "My Bed" piece above that ASnogarD linked to? That would be nothing were it not for its status as "Art." Video Games? Still a great form of entertainment and storytelling without it.

So even if you call Games art, it doesn't quite capture all they are, and that's why I'm unconcerned with convincing the old fogies.

 

[The Bandit]

Points? Really? The last game I played with points was Super Mario Bros.

When the Nintendo guy said this, I listened. I disagreed with him, but I respected his opinion because he's a video game expert. This guy obviously doesn't know what a video game is, so why should I give a shit what he thinks?

 

[Delusibeta]

I'd like to imagine that this article was prompted by the mention on Rock Paper Shotgun's Sunday Papers column yesterday.

Ultimately, Ebert's argument in this column is full of holes, of which I imagine the vast majority of which has already been driven through in this thread. The biggest one is that he's not arguing that games can never be art, but rather dismissing someone's presentation. Sure, her first example was dire, but the way Ebert dismissed Braid and Flower suggested more about how much he knew about these games (not much) than if they are art. And then there's the whole problem of "what is art?" and "why can't *insert medium here* be art?".

 

[thesmurf45]

Could you count garry's mod as art? Yoy can't win garry's mod

 

[DocBot]

I really want to attack this methodically and a one-by-one point counter-point to Roger Ebert's two articles on this subject. I want to say I'm a fan of his reviews and I also love video games, but I have to side that video games ARE art and based on his articles (the other one being this: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070721/COMMENTARY/70721001) I'm just going to list every reason why he says video games aren't art and why that is a load:

1) (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports....These are the things Mr. Ebert said most games involve. I just looked at my collection and yes while many involve pointing and shooting, a lot of them do don't and even the games that involve pointing and shooting, saying they do is like saying a lot of movies involve acting. It's a no-brainer point that is in the core of video games and Penn & teller when they created Desert Bus showed us why video games have a lot of shooting and fighting. From Uncharted, to Halo, to Ikaruga, to Fallout 3, to Fallout 1, I've shot people in all of these, I had to choose who I shot and I shot them but not in the same way. Second thing he mentioned was a lot of games are treasure and scavenger hunts, so if that is a platform of making video games not art what the hell were the Indiana Jones movies or National Treasure? Both of those fall under the same concepts of doing various things to figure out the thing to get the thing in time to save the thing. Fill in the word thing with whatever you want and I bet you got a movie. You will also have probably a very good game. And, lastly, the player controls the outcome? If that was true then I would have made quite a few bad games much better games. Games like Heavy Rain are rare and even then the outcome isn't pinpointed to my exact will. I would've made the end of Fallout 3 less epic and more like an ending, and I would've made Demon's Souls end with me going into the afterlife and letting the Old One do what it wants. No, video games don't have controlled journey like a movie, I could jump and do things for some reason you don't. But, the other die to this coin is that us as the masses of people who enjoy video games we can only do what the programmers allow us to do. In Trine the knight can't make boxes and use the grappling hook, that's why you have to switch. Cheats like god mode and no clip that are exclusive to video games do nothing more but to skip set pieces as say a fast forward in a movie. They go outside the boundaries of original conceptualizer's machinations to a different realm. But, fundamentally we as gamers and Mr. Ebert as a movie viewer all do what the creators of our beloved mediums do what the creator's of those mediums want. I am being controlled through Bioshock I use plasmids and guns and walk through Rapture. I?m not in Cincinnati walking a freaking Dalmatian; I?m firing lightning out of my hands and then smacking a Splicer in the face with a wrench. There are games like Portal where even the designers said they had testers do things in the game they had not intended. But, if we look at movies, actors will adlib things changing the script or the director will add something the writer had not intended for the sake of what the fans are saying they would like to see. The human touch changes even the most rigid ideas. He goes on in his article featured on The Escapist just to do one thing attack the person at TED trying to make examples of why video games are art. You know why Michael Jordan wouldn?t say the basketball game he played is art? Because it?s not, no one goes in intending to know the outcome; it was not a machination of someone?s talents into a creative piece. A basketball game is not art but it is damn impressive in the same level. The argument in your article Mr. Ebert as to why a basketball game or a chess game are not art is so invalid that why not ask why me working at my boring minimum wage job for cash when uninformed people like you are considered to be in any way right about a medium you have no real expertise in is fair?.or art? It all comes down to what art is in our minds. But something created for enjoyment with different shades and genres and ideas of what we should feel through expression itself. Some of it is mindless entertainment while some of it is meant to capture more emotion. You can find yourself playing a game by yourself on a rainy Tuesday afternoon or you can be drinking beers with your friends shouting and hollering as you all go into a death match together. You can collect them because they are rare, love one and hate another because of the way it plays and its message. It?s a creation; it?s alive and makes many people enjoy it. Video Games are art in every sense a movie is art. You know why a video game version of Citizen Kane hasn?t been made? The entertainment industry is so picky and diluted and somewhat wrong that everyone wouldn?t be able to agree on something of a masterpiece level. Just like movies, when was that last movie like Citizen Kane? Maybe it was Citizen Kane since that?s the example people are using. I bet some person who rated the writings of amateur and experienced writers thought movies were too primitive and, ?stupid? to be ever art. And, in their lifetime they wouldn?t be proven wrong. But, you think they?re wrong right Mr. Ebert? You think movies are art. Well in the same sense as movies, video games sure as hell are art and I would love to know why they aren?t.

 

[squid5580]

3 pages and not one person answered the question.

Which one? "Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?"?
I would say because many games stir the imagination and emotions in similar ways that other art does, and because many games are specifically designed to be more artful. It seems to me the gist of Ebert's argument is not so much that games cannot be art in a general sense, but that the results are so mixed up with simplistic gameplay mechanics, that they are always diminished, and the mediocre potential that some stories, characters and setting might have had, is lost. I was also confused that he somehow seems to exclude interactive representations of art from games per se. Well, it's tricky, and I think it's already full up, so I probably won't get into there.

besides he gave Spirits Within a 3.5 out of 4, is anything he says credible even in movie terms?

Actually I also thought that movie was pretty good. Certainly much better than the more recent Advent Children. But it's been years since I saw it.

The only problem with Spirits Within was it had Final Fantasy in the title. He had the oppurtunity to review it as a non gamer.

Now for the question. It isn't if they are or aren't. That to me is entirely subjective. It is the pointless nerd rage that I dont understand. Is games as art or not art harmful to the industry in any way shape or form? Would kidnapping Ebert and treating him to a session of Clockwork Orange VG style going to change his mind? It just seems to me that we have big problems happening in the industry today and to get worked up about such a trivial issue like "OMG a non gamer doesn't appreciate our hobby" seems pointless.

 

[boholikeu]

I don't think MGS or JRPGs are necessarily any more artistic than the aforementioned games. Take that as you will.

Somewhere Hideo Kojima is crying.

Man, I hope so. Maybe then he'll realize his games are much more artistic when they are actually games.

 

[sln333]

I think Ebert's a good guy, but I disagree with people who think games can't be art. I think some games are mindless fun (multiplayer-focused games, or objective-focused games like Modern Warfare 2 and Stuntman), some are great games, and some are great games with an artistic sense. Movies have story, games have story; movies have cinematography, games can have cinematography (animation); movies have actors, games have animators and voice actors, etc. Some games these days look like movies, and they can immerse you more than movies, so why can't they be art? Mass Effect, Alan Wake, Uncharted, and some others come to mind.

 

[dangitall]

This is simply turning the fear of the unknown into poking fun of the unknown. Not worth anyone's time, in my opinion.