Roger Ebert still maintains that video games can't be art.

[Booze Zombie]

I still think that some asshole putting his thumb up or down means nothing, at all.
Of course, that's not the issue, the issue is: are video games art?

Yes.
It's in the name "VIDEO game", videos can contain art, video games most certainly can contain art as well.
If the rather tedious medium of movie is art, so can also video games be art.

 

[mjhhiv]

I'll qualify my post before I say anything else: first, I am an unabashed Ebert lover. He, in my opinion, writes the best reviews (video games, movies, music, what have you) of anyone currently living on this planet. Even when he goes off into politics on his blog, I read them, because his writing contains so much wit, and so much talent.

Now then. The "Ebert doesn't think video games are art! Ha, what an oldie!" thing gets thrown around too much, without people actually ever knowing what he says. If you read what he's saying, he actually makes a very pointed, very specific argument as to why they are not. It has to do with authorial control.

Say, for example, you're playing BioShock. There's a very good story in there, with more intelligence than in many movies -- I think we can agree on that. But before a player can actually reach any of that "art", they first have to physically do something. They could just run into a wall in the first level, and miss the whole thing. In a movie, the director tries to evoke emotion out of a viewer, and there's very little to break that experience.

I'm not sure if I agree or disagree, and frankly, I don't care. I don't think anyone should care. The fact of the matter is that we all like games, and this argument certainly doesn't do anything for any of us. I don't think Ebert respects video games (he often chastises movies for being too much like a game) -- this is a different beast. That, we have a right to be upset about. But I think what he's saying is that it merely can't be classified as art, which is fine. He has a right to his opinion, and the argument isn't nearly as anti-video games as it is made out to be.

Also:

Who's Roger Ebert?

For serious?

And:

Citing "Waco:Resurrection" as a video game does nothing but show his ignorance on the subject.

He only cites this, as his blog post is a direct response to a video on TED that mentions Waco.

 

[Woodsey]

"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."

What makes it a game is not the points (a rather crude view of games) but the interactivity. In the majority of games these days, the point of the game is to progress the story and to experience it.

I'm guessing he thinks that, because games are more complex in their purpose, they cannot be art. Well, a painting is one image, a film is many. Films have an outcome (one of the things he lists as prohibiting games from being art) and they - arguably - have interactivity (if only the most minimal of sorts).

He misses the point: a game can offer you objectives and a story, where he believes a game can only offer you either or. And in the case of the latter, he believes it ceases to be a game.

"Although the player must don a Koresh mask and inspire his followers to play, the game looks from her samples like one more brainless shooting-gallery."

Yeah, and the Mona Lisa looks like a lady taking a shit if we're going on face value - so what's your point?

You can see throughout his pompous little blog that he has no interest in games, and isn't bothered to consider them:

"These days, she says, "grown-up gamers" hope for games that reach higher levels of "joy, or of ecstasy....catharsis." These games (which she believes are already being made) "are being rewarded by audiences by high sales figures." The only way I could experience joy or ecstasy from her games would be through profit participation."

Oh, finally:

"The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. I rest my case."

Again, so?

He's just spent an article arguing that, amongst other things, films are an art form: do films not use all of those categories? And were artists never commissioned to paint? Architects never given the money to build and design?

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Okay, I'll agree with him on one point, video games as a whole are not art. However the storyline, the world, the character and environment design and the music are art. Even though many games seem to put almost no effort into these areas, there are enough games that do to make up for it. Same with movies, anyone can make a film that consists entirely of two people punching each other, no one would even consider calling it art. However add some music, some expositional dialogue, a reason why they're fighting, costumes, play around with the camera angles and bam, it's art. Ebert's biggest quarrel seems to be with the lack of interactivity, which I don't agree should be a requirement of art.

 

[Sensenmann]

Who said that Fun games cannot be art?
Who said that artful games are not fun?

Braid (So it seems) communicates an engaging message and is artful, while being fun.
I consider the Bioshock franchise to be art. It portrays a world, they player is placed in this world, is immersed in this world and interacts thoroughly with this very world.

The point which many make when this argument comes up is that games can be art, but perhaps many people (*cough*Rockstar*cough*) are not letting it mature, by making it mature. A recent GDC rant commented on this and spoke of how Cactusquid's games are games, just not mature games, for he spends little thought on them.

If we contrast GTA (mindless criminality, drugs and rascism) and Halo (shoot the poorly described aliens of course) with the Bioshock franchise (ponder free will and morality) and another game with a very deeply woven backstory (such as Batman Arkham Asylum), you'll likely find a contrast, a contrast perhaps even definable as art.

 

[Snarky Username]

Citing "Waco:Resurrection" as a video game does nothing but show his ignorance on the subject. I'm not saying ignorance is a bad thing, we are all ignorant. I'm assuming no one on this forum is omniscient, unless Jesus decided to check out some Zero Punctuation videos. The problem is, though, when people who have no knowledge on the subject decide to critique it as art or not. I will agree the majority of video games are not art. But the same goes for movies. If anyone decided to tell me that "Scary Movie" or "Date Night" was art, I would respond by punching them in the face. But for ever few hundred piles of shit, there's at least one Godfather, and or every few hundred shitty games, there's at least one Silent Hill or Half-Life.

 

[mjhhiv]

One word: Okami. Ebert fails.

Dude, what about "The Path"? I mean, seriously. Anyone who's played this game will know -exactly- what I'm talking about.

Looks like Ebert's never played Ico or Shadow of the Colossus.

See, posts like this miss the point entirely. I'm not trying to be mean, but I think you should read what's actually being argued here, before just throwing random games around that you like.

 

[internethobo]

If movies are an art, so are video games. I see no way of disputing this.

As argued by 2 Escapists in this post, one of the differences is the interaction in games, and in some cases, the altering of the story through interaction and choice. In a movie, you can't kill of a side character for shits and giggles like you can in "Mass Effect 2".

But on the topic of the thread, I think a) this guy has a serious distaste for games, which corrupts his thinking a bit. When he discusses the games, his vocabulary certainly doesn't portray him as "a friendly, open blogger". He acts like his massive ego crushes the possibility of games being seen as art. Second, gamers aren't always the ones who want to see games as an art, the ART DESIGNERS do. Character designs, level design, story choice (in some cases, such as adventure games where the stories are rigid) are things that some designers would like to be considered art. Would I like games to be considered art? Maybe, maybe not. But this man shouldn't be the one deciding it.

 

[Kurokami]

As much as I respect Ebert, this is bull. How are some games these days different to movies? What makes Heavy Rain any different to a thriller movie?

The constant nagging,



Press X

Edit (I thought my boss walked in): To elaborate a wee bit, I do agree that Heavy Rain can very much be considered on the same level as a movie, his argument (no matter how much I disagree however) can be that Games are a medium of art rather than art itself, its like a canvass rather than a painting. (which I disagree with, as a game isn't judged based on one feature)

 

[The Random One]

Both he and the speaker he mentioned are essentially taking advantadge of the fact that art cannot be easily defined. You can pull definitions from Plato to Wikipedia to 4chan to your heart's content and you'll never fit one that meets every expectation.

However, he defended his point poorly, which essentially was 'I saw a speech about these games and watched a trailer of them, and remain unconvinced.' That's like saying, 'I read the inside of a Metallica CD case and listened to free 10-second samples of their songs, and remain unconvinced heavy metal is real music.'

I, particularly, prefer a definition of art as loose as possible, and that essentially anything anyone thinks is art can be art. Even chess, or soccer, or a crucifix in a bucket of urine as someone mentioned before. It may be bad art, but it's better than getting tangled on a no true scotsman fallacy.

 

[lhin]

Don't hate me, but I agree w/ Ebert.

I don't think games should be called art because art is non interactive in my opinion. Movies music and anything you can hang on a wall is art. Any artist who makes you work/play something is being lazy. Screen shots from games could be considered art, but it's only a game you are playing. Cut scenes from a game could be artful, but a game in it's entirety isn't art in my opinion. This is all just silly word play I'll admit, but that's just what I think.

Games are games, art is art.

books are books, movies are movies, paintings are paintings, pictures are pictures, and sculptures are sculptures......amidoinitrite?

true enough majority of games are mediocre run of the mill shooters,rpg....etc but ask your self.

How many art pieces (books,painting,photos..) have made you go "HOLY FUCKING SHIT THIS IS AWESOME!!" or at least deeply moved, cause in my short 19 years of life, those moments that make me go like that are pretty low and they all varied. One when I saw the rice terraces in the Philippines and the other when I realized I've finished playing Ico, shallow sure but who has a the rite to tell me that? surely not some old fart.

Anything can be art, but we all must remember art is subjective to the viewer.

You may see a Masterpiece, I see a 5 year old's hand painting
You see perfection, I see nothing but a statue
You say Pinnacle of Human Engineering, I just see a house.....just a house
You see it as just a video game, I say it's art

then again I'm just some random guy on the internet, so what do I know?

 

[SonicKoala]

I'm inclined to agree that one cannot really compare video games to other forms of "art", such as poetry, literature, or film, because yeah, video games are going to come off as inferior to those art forms (in my opinion, anyway).

That being said, I don't think you should compare them - do you ever see people comparing Shakespeares' sonnets to the works of Stanley Kubrick? No, you don't, because that would be fucking stupid. Each art form has its own unique features which make it great - although video games certainly aren't as capable at expressing ideas and meaning, that's not a quality which would be detrimental to a game's overall value; if the game in question does happen to express meaning, well then that's a bonus mark, but it's not essential. Things like story-telling, graphical design, engrossing and (most importantly) fun gameplay - these are the things which make video games stand out. Oh, and I am of the opinion that video games offer a level of immersion which is unmatched by any other art form.

It just seems to me that Roger Ebert has an extremely narrow-minded view of something he really doesn't understand, and in all honesty, given his age and his profession, I don't blame him. He has spent his entire life engrossed in the world of cinema - is it really any surprise that when somebody comes along and says "Hey, Roger, look at this neat video game - isn't it an amazing piece of art?", he responds with what is essentially a more eloquent version of "Uh..... bullshit?". I personally consider cinema a greater form of art than video games, but that doesn't mean that video games aren't art.

 

[antipunt]

Dude, what about "The Path"? I mean, seriously. Anyone who's played this game will know -exactly- what I'm talking about.

 

[Casual Shinji]

The simple fact is that Ebert does not get games, just as most people around his age don't get games. And so he also cannot grasp the fact that games can be art. Plus, Roger Ebert doesn't have the final say so in what can and can't be considerd art, wich he acknowledges himself.

I don't think that Santiago lady knew what she was talking about, though.

 

[rabidmidget]

It depends on your definition.

That is the root of so many arguments.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

He is absolutely correct, games aren't art because they are interactive. They might contain elements of art, but they aren't art any more than a museum is art.