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

[Phase_9]

Roger Ebert should try playing videogames and savoring their story and design rather than jumping on the common bandwagon.

On the other hand, maybe he's worried that if he acknowledges them on par with videogames, he'll have to start reviewing them, or even worse get one-upped by someone willing to do so.

 

[GamingAwesome1]

Biased and uninformed.

Play Silent Hill 2 THEN come back to *****.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Twittered by Ebert himself: Siskel and Ebert play a violent video game:

Now, is this more or less violent than Kickass?

 

[Burningsok]

Wow I'm starting to loss respect for this guy, what dumb thing to say, any wise person would know that ANYTHING and EVERYTHING is art.

 

[Burningsok]

oh and don't try and explain to me I'm wrong, it doesn't have to be man made for it to be art.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

I respect your point of view, but I respectfully disagree. Art is not defined by sophistication (minimalism). Big Mac can't be art because it has a function outside of itself, to provide nutrition. Games, like all other art medium, has no other function other than itself. Like I said, I think that most games are bad works of art, but that doesn't make them any less form of art. I mean, if something as unsophisticated and without depth as running water could be considered art, then games are definitely art. That's the way I see it.

Roger Ebert is expressing his opinion as is his right. I don't feel that games are really art, most paintings or films have a plot more intricate than 'save the princess' or 'blow shit up on a poorly defined revenge trip' and those that don't aren't really art either. Art is about expression and most films and games are about entertainment.

Almost any game is incredibly, ridiculously shallow when compared to a book, purely because it seems you can either have a broadness of experience or a depth. Since games need to factor in choice they seem to end up hollow. So sorry but no, games could be art, games can try to be art but are most games worthy of being called art? Of course not.

Actually, entertainment is a form of expression. Art isn't defined and restricted to plot. Maybe the range of experience and depth is art. A haiku has only a brief experience, but the art is in its brevity. Similarly, games without depth displays the art of the superficial. Games without any experience displays the art of inexperience. kurt vonnegut's Slaughterhouse Five is art, but it is satirically without depth, intelligence, coherence, and experience, and in that way they are filled with depth and experience.

The hollowness is an art itself.

I definitely feel that games are art, but like any art medium, some games are bad works of art, and some are great works of art.

Well someone else asked me about my stance and I clarified a little. Basically I feel that games as a medium have the potential to be art but just aren't sophisticated enough yet. Give it ten or twenty years for the medium to settle down and become established and I think you'll start seeing art. At the moment I just personally feel that games aren't ready to be made as art, the medium is still having its' palette assembled.

But the good news is that as gaming becomes more and more corporate you'll have people flying off to go their own way, games will be made artistically soon enough. i've just never seen one yet I'd describe as an art form.

Not that not being art is bad, a big mac isn't art but it's damn enjoyable.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

-delete-

 

[razormint21]

I'm tired of arguing with this man indirectly. Fine, let him keep his opinion. We dont have any right to change it. Is he an authority on what is and what is not art? He's just a film critic who's well established in the industry. He's not a gamer to know both sides of the tale. He's just a biased old man whose opinions are given highlight because he acts like an indifferent prick who shuds mainstream media...

My opinion is that Games, whether making them or playing them is an art.

 

[Dexiro]

The definition of art is "a product of creativity".

Pretty much EVERY game can potentially be defined as art. Even grey shooters like MW2.
Not all art is visual either. Creativity goes into the game design, script, game mechanics.

You could go as far as saying Pong is art because creativity was needed to utilize computers as entertainment.

 

[Burningsok]

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.

That's a silly thing to say. Art should evoke an emotional response. And have you never danced to music? Or been to a gig? Smiled like a twat during an exciting movie or just had to finish a chapter of a book? I'd say that's pretty interactive.

So anything that evokes emotional response is art. Anytime you dance or go to a live show it is art. Smiling is interacting w/ a book. O.K. I see what you mean, and I still don't agree.
Just cause you like something and enjoy it, it is art. What if you don't like it? Is it still art? You can use those reason for some pretty nasty things and I don't think you'd want that to still be considered art.

Um YES it's still art. doesn't matter whether you like it or not, someone else might like it. Art doesnthave to make you feel positive emotions, there's lots of art that gives us a negative feelings.

 

[dontcallmemuffin]

little big planet says otherwise

 

[Criquefreak]

Huh, so they're not art because he doesn't like it... god complex much? But seeing as the movies that tend to get his best reviews are the ones with bribing ability, I've never put any stock in his opinions anyway. Or perhaps it's the fact that rather than sitting there passively taking it all in, games instead strive for audience participation, which would get in the way of him judging and dismissing them because then he'd be taking some small degree of blame for being a part of it.

In a way, I'm more inclined to consider many games art when compared to the static visual arts. Art is often attributed to being open to interpretation, many games can actually change story and outcome based on a player's actions making a player/audience's interpretations more meaningful. The player/audience participation brings thoughts and feelings to a story that will alter the outcome, more so than any book can accomplish; first or third person participant point of view with the potential of being at least mildly different just by the controller changing hands.

In addition, the amount of work that goes into a successful game outweighs most other artistic mediums. Rather than just letting the audience decide, game studios have to prepare their works to account for an audience's tastes. Besides which, the art form of gaming is more resistant to accidental rubbish being passed off as genius work. Plenty of painters have gotten away with randomly flinging paint at a canvas and selling it; without solid gameplay, no game can ever hope to be hailed as a must play.

 

[karpiel]

To say that games are art now is to give intellectual credibility to the sorts of garbage and unoriginality that has dominated the popular imagination over the past decade. That is a travesty in and of itself.

 

[Riobux]

I think it depends how you define art. However, one thing I have to say is this: If you can describe a movie as art, then you don't have a right to say video-games can't be art. It's either images, or it's images and moving images (interactive or non-interactive).

That's really my view of art. For me art is entirely about interpretation. If something can be interpretable in different ways, then it's art. You could have a song that just consists of a slow drum beat with vocals played backwards just describing love in a emotionless fashion. That can be art, since for one person it can be a parody of the music scene, and to another it can be displaying the silliness of putting love into words. I do cite Silent Hill 2 as being an example of art, just because of how symbolic it is but yet you can play through it on a linear flat level and appreciate it as just a tale. However, you could build upon it by saying this:

Spoiler

Eddie was a symbol of James denying it was his fault and that she deserved to die. Eddie's death symbolically showed that James was willing to take responsibility for his actions. That yes, he did murder his wife, but he didn't do it out of hatred of her and that she deserved it. That he was finally willing to take responsibility and that it was his fault he smothered her

If something can be interpreted in more than one way due to symbolism with no right or wrong answer, it's art. Which considering most expressive means can be interpreted differently, is a broad definition.

 

[Kair]

First you need a solid definition of art. Lack of logic impedes many debates.

 

[sneeky033]

my definition of art is any product which takes skill to produce. music, books, visual art, and video games all take skill to create with high quality.

 

[Often]

Ebert chooses to classify as art: beautiful visual media such as paintings, well written stories, and well crafted music. Any argument that these media, when combined, cannot be art is invalid because he accepts movies as art. So by his own definition of what he accepts as art, regardless of what he set out to say, video games are art. What he means to say, is that he does not like video games, nor understand them. Fair enough. I don't like his opinion as a critic. Does this mean he's not a critic? No, it just means he's a bad one.

He's a bad critic because you disagree with him? What's the point of being a critic if a 'good one' is one that agrees with common consensus? A good critic expresses themselves well about what they examine, from their own point of view. Whether or not you agree is not their concern. Once they have said what they have to say, you are free to input your own thoughts. Yet, to say that he is a 'bad critic' only shows that people today are illequipped to handle subjectivity unless it is their own, which in that case, is 'truth'. There is a misconception today that reviews and critics are somehow based on empirical or universal measurements. That is simply not the case and never has been.

Sorry, the very last sentence was supposed to be more of a joke than serious criticism. But yes, I think he's a bad critic in this particular case, because he is ignoring evidence, not supporting his opinion with anything substantial, and making blanket statements. He's not saying the words 'I don't like video games'. He's saying the words 'Video games cannot be art'. A GOOD critic could say 'I don't like video games and/or this particular video game because...' just like he does with movies. He's using the position of a critic to define an entire genre of entertainment that he doesn't understand, and that's just wrong. That's why I say he's a bad critic. To define, he may be an intelligent man, but he is a bad critic when it comes to video games, because he just doesn't understand them, doesn't know them, and doesn't care to know them. So he shouldn't try to use his position as a critic to claim to be an authority on the subject.

 

[Shock and Awe]

He may be a great critic of movies, but he ain't much else.