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

[mjhhiv]

Working with the assumption that movies are art... what are movies?
I say they are a culmination of previous forms of expression, each of which is itself considered art: Writing, theatre, photography, and music. We have that a combination of previous forms of art makes another form of art.

Video games are a combination of writing, drawing, music, and movies.

To say that video games are not art is to hold the very concept of art to a double standard.

Eh, not so much, in Ebert's view of art. cuddly_tomato pretty much explained why that isn't the case. It's about the basic fact that video games have interactivity. The author doesn't have total control over the experience. The example I gave was that in BioShock, there's a story, but you could walk into a wall repeatedly and miss all of it. You can disagree with that, with no questions asked.

 

[Kyprioth]

You can look at his blog post [a href="http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html"]here.[/a]

So, what do you think about what he says in that post? Personally, I think that games are most certainly art; they have artistic visuals, orchestral soundtracks, and moving/deep stories (Persona 3's story is so deep that it could probably be republished as a work of literature as it is).

It seems to me that Ebert just refuses to accept the fact that a medium which once consisted of solely a bunch of little pixels running around for no purpose has evolved into a form of expression. He also basically says that because he doesn't like video games as much as books, music, movies, and paintings, they can't be art.

Your thoughts?

I tend to agree with the girl at the TED conference more than Ebert. I can't blame him for not seeing video games as art. Obviously he doesn't play them. If you're watching someone else play it, through a YouTube video or what have you, you don't get the emotional investment needed to call the medium art. Don't be so mean to him guys! He's just too old to understand it.

 

[D_987]

The problem I have with the "video games are art" crowd, is the fact they always point to the story, the music or the artwork as a sign that video-games are art...how does that make them art? Those in themselves are not unique to video-games, I doubt you would compare an environment in a video game to a painting and claim the environment is a work of art...

The factor that makes video-games art is the thing that is unique to the medium - the gameplay. I take an example I saw posted on the Kotaku forums about this very article. The user used the example of Mario as art. Mario in himself is not art - the landscapes are bland, the music (whilst famous) isn't a brilliant artistic statement, and he character himself is nothing special. Yet the way he moves, the precise speed he runs at - something very deliberately chosen by the designer - the difference in speed if a button is held - that is video-game art. Those things were all chosen very deliberately to make the game play as intuitive as possible.

Really the problem is in the word - "Art" is very difficult to define.

 

[Giest118]

Working with the assumption that movies are art... what are movies?
I say they are a culmination of previous forms of expression, each of which is itself considered art: Writing, theatre, photography, and music. We have that a combination of previous forms of art makes another form of art.

Video games are a combination of writing, drawing, music, and movies.

To say that video games are not art is to hold the very concept of art to a double standard.

Eh, not so much, in Ebert's view of art. cuddly_tomato pretty much explained why that isn't the case. It's about the basic fact that video games have interactivity. The author doesn't have total control over the experience. The example I gave was that in BioShock, there's a story, but you could walk into a wall repeatedly and miss all of it. You can disagree with that, with no questions asked.

You can pick up a Shakespearian sonnet and burn it and miss all of its content.
Shakespeare has no control over that!

 

[lukemdizzle]

The problem I have with the "video games are art" crowd, is the fact they always point to the story, the music or the artwork as a sign that video-games are art...how does that make them art? Those in themselves are not unique to video-games, I doubt you would compare an environment in a video game to a painting and claim the environment is a work of art...

why not. An environment in a video game is the product of of concept art and level design layouts. ( a combination of fine arts and architecture) a painting of an environment and a video game environment are two very similar things expressed through different two different mediums.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

What an ignorant man. This is my reply on his blog:

I'm going to come right out and say what everyone else seems afraid to point out for fear of looking silly.

This man does not know what he is on about.

He has a narrow minded, uninformed view of games and needs to educate himself on the medium before making such absurdly ignorant statements.

I suggest he play Fallout 3, where the player can simply wander a beautiful, haunting digital world and admire the gorgeous vistas.

Play Bioshock, where the player explores, through the city of Rapture the rocky relationship between Objectivist philosophy and selfish, animalistic human nature.

Or play Ico, and watch a story of love and friendship unfold between two silent strangers.

Then come back and tell me games aren't art.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

This enrages me more than I can deal with. Its presumptuous, close minded insult to all who work so hard to create games.

No it doesn't. He never said their work was worthless or bad or anything like that. He said it wasn't art.

I would be hard pressed to call a firemans work art, or a brain surgeons work art, it doesn't mean I don't think it's good.

Yet that's the whole veiled message, is it not? He's basically saying that video games are not art, and movies are art, so, "my medium is better than your medium." It's rather childish for a man his age, if you ask me.

Still waiting on a response to my last post which counters your argument, BTW.

No, he isn't saying that. He is saying that games aren't art.

I never responded to your argument because I didn't see a need. Games are interactive therefore the artist doesn't have complete control over the media he is creating. Individual elements of the game may be art, but the game itself isn't. The closest thing to art in the gaming world would probably be something like Mass Effect 2.

So walking down a corridor, see badies, pause game while you pick powers and weapons, point gun and click click click right trigger, see pixels flail about on screen, walk down next corridor, walk around corner into more baddies, die.

reload.

Walking down a corridor, see badies, pause game while you pick powers and weapons, point gun and click click click right trigger, see pixels flail about on screen, walk down next corridor, walk around corner into more baddies, shoot baddies this time, walk up staircase, get stuck on bit of rubble, spin around endlessly trying to get down off rubble, give up.

reload.

Walking down a corridor, see badies, pause game while you pick powers and weapons, point gun and click click click right trigger, see pixels flail about on screen, walk down next corridor, walk around corner into more baddies, shoot baddies this time, walk up staircase, carefully avoid rubble, walk into room with someone in, cutscene starts, get interested, audio cuts out due to game bug and leaves all the characters with their mouths idly flapping while you guess what they were saying.

No, games aren't art.

your argument is hollow because of the fact that no artist has absolute control of his/her medium. You argument also rules out any aspect of functional art. a person who designs a chair has no control of what somebody will do with that chair, they just set the guide lines through design, sitting. just as a game designer has no real control over a players actions they just set the guide lines.

IKEA is not an art gallery. If art is functional its function is a part of the art contained within it, it isn't incidental to the art itself.

You're repeating the same argument that I already refuted entirely. Not to mention that you're doing it in a profoundly, well...stupid way.

Ha! I knew you would see it my way. This explains your loss of composure - you know I am correct. There isn't anything wrong with games not being art, don't take this so personally.

 

[WestMountain]

He's just an attention whore and want to say things that alot of people reacts to so that he can make more money and get more famous.

But maybe he is right. Would one call a board game art? No, because you are mean't to win the game not admire it, you know what I'm sayin'? :]

 

[TheBoulder]

Wow, the article said that there aren't any games that compare to any great poems or paintings. Well, you see, there has been thousands of years in which art has been made. How many years has there been videogames? Exactly.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Eh, I've gotten to the point where I really don't care what Roger Ebert says. It seems like he's getting to be an old timer who can't stand the new flashy movies of today.

Movies and books are no different than video games, except games are harder to make.

 

[lukemdizzle]

This enrages me more than I can deal with. Its presumptuous, close minded insult to all who work so hard to create games.

No it doesn't. He never said their work was worthless or bad or anything like that. He said it wasn't art.

I would be hard pressed to call a firemans work art, or a brain surgeons work art, it doesn't mean I don't think it's good.

Yet that's the whole veiled message, is it not? He's basically saying that video games are not art, and movies are art, so, "my medium is better than your medium." It's rather childish for a man his age, if you ask me.

Still waiting on a response to my last post which counters your argument, BTW.

No, he isn't saying that. He is saying that games aren't art.

I never responded to your argument because I didn't see a need. Games are interactive therefore the artist doesn't have complete control over the media he is creating. Individual elements of the game may be art, but the game itself isn't. The closest thing to art in the gaming world would probably be something like Mass Effect 2.

So walking down a corridor, see badies, pause game while you pick powers and weapons, point gun and click click click right trigger, see pixels flail about on screen, walk down next corridor, walk around corner into more baddies, die.

reload.

Walking down a corridor, see badies, pause game while you pick powers and weapons, point gun and click click click right trigger, see pixels flail about on screen, walk down next corridor, walk around corner into more baddies, shoot baddies this time, walk up staircase, get stuck on bit of rubble, spin around endlessly trying to get down off rubble, give up.

reload.

Walking down a corridor, see badies, pause game while you pick powers and weapons, point gun and click click click right trigger, see pixels flail about on screen, walk down next corridor, walk around corner into more baddies, shoot baddies this time, walk up staircase, carefully avoid rubble, walk into room with someone in, cutscene starts, get interested, audio cuts out due to game bug and leaves all the characters with their mouths idly flapping while you guess what they were saying.

No, games aren't art.

your argument is hollow because of the fact that no artist has absolute control of his/her medium. You argument also rules out any aspect of functional art. a person who designs a chair has no control of what somebody will do with that chair, they just set the guide lines through design, sitting. just as a game designer has no real control over a players actions they just set the guide lines.

IKEA is not an art gallery. If art is functional its function is a part of the art contained within it, it isn't incidental to the art itself.

You're repeating the same argument that I already refuted entirely. Not to mention that you're doing it in a profoundly, well...stupid way.

Ha! I knew you would see it my way. This explains your loss of composure - you know I am correct. There isn't anything wrong with games not being art, don't feel so bad about it.

there comes a point where somebody argues their point so poorly that it is irrational to even attempt to reason with him. you obviously have NO knowledge of the arts, especially functional arts. Your newest point makes no sense because the union of form and function is what makes functional art, art. you should just stop.

 

[MiracleOfSound]

Check out his equally dumb review of Kick Ass:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100414/REVIEWS/100419986

Interestingly, he used video games in a negative context in this review too.

The guy just has a way of missing the point of things. He's not as clever as the hordes think he is.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

Eberts the guy that thought Minority report was a deep philosophical film about the human condition and that cruse performance was "complex".

Movies are not art, confirmed.

 

[Chamale]

Instead of insulting Ebert for his poor perspective, someone should give the man a copy of Shadow of the Colossus, Katamari Damacy or Heavy Rain.

Wait, why are all the artistic games that come to mind Playstation-exclusive?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The flaming torches and pitchforks just have to come whenever games get criticised don't they guys?

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TomNewman/20090408/1099/Why_Games_Are_Not_Art.php

If games are art then so are sports. Stadiums can be really well constructed, they can have loads of those chairs a few people have a hard-on for, the outfits can be colourful and well designed, there can be drama, emotion, agony, and all that stuff.

But the superbowl isn't art.

 

[swordless]

Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?...

Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?"

Why are stick-up-their-ass art critics so intensly concerned anyway that games are not defined as art?

Do they require superiority? In attacking gamining do they want to be able to look down from their self elevated platform on works that they decry as inferior but are no less capable of engaging emotions, making people think and imitating nature than any piece of "art" that they enjoy.

Lets face it compared to an artistic award winning empty room with a couple of flashing lights [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1698032.stm] pretty much any video game could be considered a fucking masterpiece.

Why are you so concerned if they are? Do we gamers win if the world agrees that games are art? Do we get cookies if we can change thier minds? DO you require the superiority?

We may not get a cookie but it would be nice to see some coverage of games where its worth as a way of inspiring thought or exploring morality was examined rather than how they are a tool for corrupting the minds of children. Violence in movies can be seen as a harrowing lesson in about self-destruction but violence in games is just seen as a way to turn kids into killers.

Recognising video games as an art form obviously wouldn't stop those sorts of stories but it does still seem that games are seen by many as a childish pastime of little value and that has been an argument against any sort of mature game being allowed by those looking to ban them. Maybe if more people saw that, at least in certain contexts games can have an artistic value as well then perhaps there would be some defence to that.

I'm not saying that games are a better art form that paintings, sculptures or movies so no I am not looking for superiority. A little equality would be nice. People can and do debate the artistic worth of individual films as it is accepted that films can have artistic merit. To simply dismiss all games as having none just seems incredibly closed minded.

 

[lukemdizzle]

The flaming torches and pitchforks just have to come whenever games get criticised don't they guys?

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TomNewman/20090408/1099/Why_Games_Are_Not_Art.php

If games are art then so are sports. Stadiums can be really well constructed, they can have loads of those chairs a few people have a hard-on for, the outfits can be colourful and well designed, there can be drama, emotion, agony, and all that stuff.

But the superbowl isn't art.

no but the stadium in which the superbowl is played is. just as the game world in which the player interacts with is. that was probably the worst analogy you could have used.

 

[Small Waves]

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.

I would say that music is pretty damn interactive, unless you mean to say remixing is not art.