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

[mechanixis]

I agree that they aren't, but not that they can't be.

Right now video games are too commercialized to become art. The industry is more concerned with making money than making statements. The manpower and time - and sheer volume of content a game tends to demand - makes it difficult to execute a full-sized art piece without falling back on what's marketable; BioShock, a game generally revered as far on the artsy side of the spectrum, is 90% about shooting dudes. Imagine if BioShock never fell back on marketable cliches about violence and empowerment - would anything really be lost if the game was about exploring the city sans constant gunfighting? A highly-intelligent First Person Shooter is still just a First Person Shooter. When you kill someone as part of a conversation in the Mass Effect games, it has so much more weight than the hundreds of people you kill casually during the combat sections. But those sections are still in there, because they're part of what we imagine to be a requirement of a 'video-game'.
But games without this rather mindless, over-the-top action focus are less marketable and tend to be a lot shorter. Maybe someday we'll get games without this marketing padding. Heavy Rain seems to be a definite step in the right direction, though it occasionally falls into old trappings.

 

[archvile93]

He's a narrow minded moron which is why I never gave a shit about his uninformed opinion in the first place.

I agree that they aren't, but not that they can't be.

Right now video games are too commercialized to become art. The industry is more concerned with making money than making statements. The manpower and time - and sheer volume of content a game tends to demand - makes it difficult to execute a full-sized art piece without falling back on what's marketable; BioShock, a game generally revered as far on the artsy side of the spectrum, is 90% about shooting dudes. Imagine if BioShock never fell back on marketable cliches about violence and empowerment - would anything really be lost if the game was about exploring the city sans constant gunfighting? A highly-intelligent First Person Shooter is still just a First Person Shooter. When you kill someone as part of a conversation in the Mass Effect games, it has so much more weight than the hundreds of people you kill casually during the combat sections. But those sections are still in there, because they're part of what we imagine to be a requirement of a 'video-game'.
But games without this rather mindless, over-the-top action focus are less marketable and tend to be a lot shorter. Maybe someday we'll get games without this marketing padding. Heavy Rain seems to be a definite step in the right direction, though it occasionally falls into old trappings.

First of all, how would you make Bioshock without gunfights, those splicers didn't exactly seem open to rational discussion so of of course you shoot them; it'd be pretty ridculous if you didn't. Also with your logic movies aren't art either since, just like games, very few do anything other than try to be marketable. Even The Dark Knight tries to be marketable since with you logic that's what the fight scenes are for.

 

[D_987]

environments in a game can be symbolic of a story, and they can have subjective implications and meanings. liberty city, silent hill, and rapture are good examples of this. You don't see it as much in games as you do in paintings which is unfortunate but game environments can include subjective themes. some paintings have no symbolic themes, just tones of mood which is common in game environments.

So what you're saying is - everything is art.

The environments themselves are there only to support the gameplay itself - the areas hold no subjectivity because all that is around the player is explained to them - if it isn't the explanation is simply not relevant to the player at that time.

Take Liberty city - it's a place with a variety of buildings designed to give the player an area in which they interact with NPC's and vehicles - following pointers to view the next section of the story. Is the environment art - no.

There's no subjectivity to it because the game explains to the player why the city is the way it appears through the storyline. There is no subjectivity to it, there is no other purpose for those building being there. Thus it isn't art.

 

[lukemdizzle]

environments in a game can be symbolic of a story, and they can have subjective implications and meanings. liberty city, silent hill, and rapture are good examples of this. You don't see it as much in games as you do in paintings which is unfortunate but game environments can include subjective themes. some paintings have no symbolic themes, just tones of mood which is common in game environments.

So what you're saying is - everything is art.

The environments themselves are there only to support the gameplay itself - the areas hold no subjectivity because all that is around the player is explained to them - if it isn't the explanation is simply not relevant to the player at that time.

Take Liberty city - it's a place with a variety of buildings designed to give the player an area in which they interact with NPC's and vehicles - following pointers to view the next section of the story. Is the environment art - no.

There's no subjectivity to it because the game explains to the player why the city is the way it appears through the storyline. There is no subjectivity to it, there is no other purpose for those building being there. Thus it isn't art.

no Im saying that when utilized correctly you can make art out of anything. anything can be used as a medium as long as it communicates creativity effectively. I can see where your coming from and Id agree that allot of game environments are not art. but they can be. game environments are not just for gameplay. thats why you have art directors on development teams. the environments convey the mood and themes of the story. Liberty city could have been just a series of cubes which you move around but instead it is created to be a living breathing world with personality and satire.

 

[la-le-lu-li-lo]

"One could think of it as countless individual works of art unified by a common purpose." Isn't that exactly what a video game is Mr. Ebert?

[P.S. TL;DR is bold shit plus spoilers.]

I wonder if Mr. Ebert would define this as art?

Spoiler: Hmm?

[/spoiler]
What is art? I quite like dictionary.com's definition: [i]the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.[/i]

There is nothing [i]beautiful[/i] or appealing to me about a blank canvas. I'm sure the artist had a "vision", but since when did that become an excuse to turn whatever shit they created into an art form? It is also, not "of more than ordinary significance." It's a blank fucking canvas.

Now, that's not to say that I find all minimalism to [i]not[/i] be art. Untrue. For example, designing a room in a minimalist design can be very aesthetically pleasing. It can be beautiful, appealing, and "of more than ordinary significance." It takes time and an eye for simple beauty to pull of a successful minimalistic room.

[spoiler=This, for example... I personally would consider art.][img src=http://www.bestinteriorhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/Modern-Minimalist-Living-Room-with-White-Sofa.jpg][/spoiler]
Let's hop over to a game now. Mirror's Edge fits this particular example [u]perfectly[/u]. In case you didn't play the game, which was enjoyable but nothing spectacular, the [i]visuals[/i] were certainly art. The way they used colors, or rather, a lack of color was quite beautiful to me. As an example, I pulled up an image of a building from the game. [spoiler=Minimalistic use of color][img src=http://techgage.com/articles/graphic_cards/settings/jan_2009/mirrors_edge_thumb.jpg][/spoiler]
[b]So which of those three is art? The blank canvas, the minimalist room, or the visuals from Mirror's Edge?[/b] The latter two in MY personal opinion.

Now, what about photography? Technically [u]I[/u] can create art with a camera. It takes "vision", [small]God I hate that word[/small], to "create art via photography". Here's an example of a photo I'd consider art. [spoiler=Mostly for the use of color, angle, and the beauty of the subject herself.][img src=http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4045/4454609260_41fae04cb8.jpg][/spoiler]

Back to video games. Let's take Lightning, from FF13. Let's take this image specifically. [spoiler=Lightning is art.][img src=http://www.videogamesblogger.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/lightning-character-art-from-final-fantasy-13.jpg][/spoiler]
Art, right? I think so. It's beautiful, appealing, and once again, "of more than ordinary significance." Now, from what I gather, the game in [i]itself[/i] is beautiful, is art. As is, to some, Mirror's Edge.

[b]Photography vs Graphics? Which is art?[/b] Both, once again, in my humble opinion.

And before I waste my ENTIRE day making this post... Let's finish up with my final arguments.

MGS4 is a perfect example of art. Not only does it have beautiful graphics (take that photography!), it has an intricate storyline with admirable and lovable characters who grow with the story (take that novels!), but the way some of the cutscenes are done would do [i]any[/i] cinematographer proud (so take that movies!).

Take this still here. [spoiler=ART!][img src=http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3/image/article/875/875766/metal-gear-solid-4-guns-of-the-patriots--20080521004457582.jpg][/spoiler] That is art no matter what. It's beautiful, and hell, it even holds a [i]significance[/i] that other forms of art can't.

Here, a nice painting of flowers. [spoiler=It took me a while to find one I'd actually consider pretty.][img src=http://www.artistsnetwork.com/upload/images/Zhen_Orchid.jpg][/spoiler] That's art right? It's less pretty than the MGS4 still though... So why can't MGS4 be considered art? It is, damn it.

Here's a picture of a cemetery. [spoiler=Art, right?][img src=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_ckBlasgNSzg/SM1gK_2ZFvI/AAAAAAAAHfs/VkMrN98Gr30/s400/Cemetary+In+Blue.jpg][/spoiler]

So again, how the hell can you not consider games art?

[b]What I believe... Is that video games are changing art, adapting it to this new medium for artistic expression. Art is evolving once more. They are able to keep up in aesthetics, beauty--they can be just as appealing and provocative. Video games can most certainly, be art. Not all of them are, by default, but the select few can certainly be considered art.[/b]

[small]Glad I got all that out. I should publish that post. D:[/small]

 

[JWW]

A film critic doesn't consider videogames artistic.

We care...why?

[small]Giant post above[/small]

 

[Giest118]

I like how the "games as not-art" people's argument hinges mostly on the fact that video games are interactive. Pretty much take two irrelevant concepts and say that they directly oppose each other? Nice way to support your position.

That's like if I said that a house is not made of wood because it has a fridge in it. See how stupid that sounds?

 

[Rensenhito]

Roger Ebert is afraid of change. Anyone else getting that vibe? He's afraid that this new thing called "video games" is gonna usurp his silly little archaic notion of what art is. To put it bluntly, he's extraordinarily pompous. His basic point is that video games are not art because he says they can't be.
I do agree with the statement that there haven't been any games that can compare with the great poets, playwrights, sculptors, etc, but art doesn't have to be UNIVERSALLY GOOD to still be art. Art is there for the enjoyment of its audience, and every medium has its own audience. Just because Ebert doesn't belong to the group of people who choose to draw enjoyment from video games doesn't mean that he's allowed to think that video games "can never be art." That sort of thinking is the root of oppression.

 

[Aptspire]

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.

wow...Silent Hill 2 had a MUCH greater palette than this(and is a realized Kafka world...) although he is a self-proclaimed minimalist and therefore, can successfully defend himself with a 'it's what I do'

 

[Aptspire]

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.

Because art as a whole needs to be subjective - to have a different meaning, an interpretation. A painting has this - a game doesn't.

Then I suggest Portal, a game where you can see the Antagonist's final intents as being either justified or not, depending on the interpretation you make of the hints laid on your path to said-antagonist

 

[la-le-lu-li-lo]

A film critic doesn't consider videogames artistic.

We care...why?

[small]Giant post above[/small]

Don't judge me! >_>

Roger Ebert is afraid of change. Anyone else getting that vibe? He's afraid that this new thing called "video games" is gonna usurp his silly little archaic notion of what art is. To put it bluntly, he's extraordinarily pompous. His basic point is that video games are not art because he says they can't be.
I do agree with the statement that there haven't been any games that can compare with the great poets, playwrights, sculptors, etc, but art doesn't have to be UNIVERSALLY GOOD to still be art. Art is there for the enjoyment of its audience, and every medium has its own audience. Just because Ebert doesn't belong to the group of people who choose to draw enjoyment from video games doesn't mean that he's allowed to think that video games "can never be art." That sort of thinking is the root of oppression.

I think he's thinks his word applies to all mankind. Did he invent art? Did he ever even create a piece of art himself? Doubtful. He should correct "video games aren't art" to "video games aren't art to me." Then we'd be okay.

 

[Cody211282]

I would like to remind him that some games have better story's then 90% of movies, so maybe movies are not art anymore

 

[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.

And there I would agree with you. Sports and art are two separate mediums unto themselves. However, we still call certain photographs taken of football games art. We also call certain buildings art, some of which may very well be sports stadiums. Saying "games are(n't) art" is a very generic statement, one which I don't think anyone is arguing for or against here. But just as certain specific buildings are art, just as certain specific photographs are art, so too can certain specific video games be art. And why not? Simply defined, art is anything which invokes an emotion, or had intended to invoke an emotion in the observer. At least, that's my definition of it. The first given dictionary.com definition of art is as follows:

"?noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art

And like it or not, games have indeed met the criteria for both my definition and the dictionary definition of art before. They will meet that criteria many more times in the future, as well.

Individual aspects of a game hold art definitely. There is the artwork of the creatures, structures, meshes, etc all within a game. There are the environments. There is the music. There is the story and the voice acting (rarely).

But throwing it all in a vat then pumping out something the other side which is an amalgamation of these elements doesn't create art, because what you have now is a competitive (even single player you have to beat the machine) interactive activity.

The only "game" I *might* be willing to budge for would be something like Flower [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flower_%28video_game%29] on the PS3.

But simply adding interactivity to a medium does not disqualify it from meeting the criteria of one's specific definition of art. Nor does it disqualify it from meeting the dictionary's definition of art. When a game touches you emotionally, are you likely to try to dissect that emotion bit by bit to try to decide which element of the game is causing it to bubble up? The game's music, story, characters, graphics, etc? Or are you more likely to simply say, "the GAME made me happy/sad/angry at (this) part."

What do emotions have to do with it? If ones dog dies that can move you more profoundly than any art you have ever seen, that doesn't mean that Fidos Corpse will be sold at an auction any time soon.

The latter has always been the case in my experience. Making the game as a whole, art. Because without all of the elements of the game's design working together, it may very well have not given you the same heightened sense of meaning, or specific emotion at all.

That just means that the game is well made, that doesn't make it art. People get very emotional and attached to their team, particularly if the team play well, that doesn't make it art either.

 

[D_987]

Then I suggest Portal, a game where you can see the Antagonist's final intents as being either justified or not, depending on the interpretation you make of the hints laid on your path to said-antagonist

Ah, see you've taken my point completely out on context - we were discussing a game environment - not a game storyline. The games storyline in of itself is not art.

 

[NeuroticMarshmallow]

Videogames has no less merit than any book,film,music or painting because they're all going after the same goal of entertaining or enlightening. It seems that at the end of the day,what people define as "art" is not by definition but by opinion. OK I get that. Its very difficult to call something like say film art as a whole and realize you are putting films like Citizen Kane and battlefield earth in the same category. You have to draw the line somewhere. But what I don't get is how you can take a whole subcategory of expression and say it isn't art. So the film Transformers 2 is far more "artistic" than Metal Gear Solid 3 just BECAUSE how its made.

I don't really want to click the link cause I know I'll just bounce off the walls.I have never knowN what to think of Roger Ebert. When he likes a film he makes good points. But when he hates a film-his reasons often seem arbitrary.

Seriously. I still don't get where this bias comes from.

 

[Captain Karma]

I am suffocating in smug reading this thread.

 

[D_987]

I would like to remind him that some games have better story's then 90% of movies, so maybe movies are not art anymore

Yep, possibly one or two games (most of which use movies to tell their storyline) may have storyline better than some movies - therefore movies are not art despite the fact the vast majority of films, even blockbusters tell a better story than most games...

Good point -_- [small]/sarcasm[/small]

 

[Giest118]

I would like to remind him that some games have better story's then 90% of movies, so maybe movies are not art anymore

Yep, possibly one or two games (most of which use movies to tell their storyline) may have storyline better than some movies - therefore movies are not art despite the fact the vast majority of films, even blockbusters tell a better story than most games...

Good point -_- [small]/sarcasm[/small]

You have succeeded only in demonstrating that you only play games without good stories.