Videogames as Art

[Prof. Monkeypox]

Good, good. Honestly I wasn't too bothered by Ebert's statement (and I personally love the man), because I know that he just doesn't understand video games the way others do. This is neither and indictment of him or a claim to greater artistic understanding, it is merely the truth. Few will likely ever understand movies the same way he does (sad for me though, since I like to think I am an informal film critic), and the fact that he can't be moved by games means he'll never be able to experience them in the same way as gamers.

I really felt the reaction was overblown, because even though he made a point of saying that games aren't art, he was one of the few members of old-guard art critics that can say it without also demonizing the entire gaming demographic.

 

[Jordi]

Just because art is subjective, doesn't mean Ebert can't be wrong. It depends on his definition of art. If his definition is that "art is a text, sculpture, painting, or movie", then yeah, games will never be "art". However, it's possible to discuss whether that's a useful definition of art. Wikipedia has the nice and vague definition that "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.".
This of course still begs the question of whose senses or emotions need to be affected. We could say that it is personal for everyone, but then saying "X isn't art", just means "X didn't affect *my* emotions" which says basically nothing since you're just one out of 6 billion people. So I'm thinking that something should probably be classified as art if a significant percentage of the people who observed it had their senses/emotions affected.
And even if you do subscribe to the "art is completely personal" idea, it might be possible to attack Ebert on consistency. Because what is it about movies (or paintings) that moves your emotions so much that could not possibly be included in a game (within this lifetime)?

Anyway, I don't care, because I don't actually think that saying something is art is a compliment. I think I completely hate 99% of all art, especially "modern art", so part of me is glad that games don't get associated with that huge pile of shit. I'm just saying Ebert can still be wrong (although I don't know if he is).

tl;dr: Ebert can still be wrong.

 

[Fearzone]

Yeah, the first order of business in this discussion is to define art.

In a creation vs. evolution school lawsuit, a judge once ruled that "science is what scientists do." We can say that oversimplifies things and go on about the scientific method or empirical data or whatever, but bottom line, I bet there are worse definitions. If someone wants to apply the same definition to art, I can roll with that.

But I would take Ebert's side (and maybe this article's too) that art and gameplay have two different goals and, personally, I would rather have the game designer spend their time and effort on the gameplay rather than art.

Ebert has one self-contradiction. In saying that video games are bad art--he is stating they are art.

I would also argue that making good gameplay is harder than making good art.

 

[TheRocketeer]

In b4 someone calling out the Dice for claiming he wasn't moved by Aeris' death!

I don't think many people would honestly deny that cooking isn't a fine art (they are called the 'culinary arts' by colleges around the world, after all), and yet they have even less in common with pretty much every other art form than video games do with the older media.

 

[wolf thing]

good read and i see your point but you cant say its his opinion because opinion have no right anwser and ebert is wrong. video games are art

 

[Yokai]

Religion should be something you keep within the confines of your own head, and we should all recognize how pointless it is to try and make other people see the fairies that live in your brain.

I may have to quote you on that the next time some missionary shows up at my door, because that is brilliant.

Good article, and I fully agree with the sentiment that Ebert's opinion should have no effect on what others consider games to be. I think stepping out of the train station for the fist time in Half-Life 2 is a wonderfully artistic moment, and people may call me a Valve fanboy, but in the end everyone has their own opinion on what art is.

 

[Doug Scheiber]

Ebert has his opinion formed while seeing the forest atop a hill and looking down into it. On the whole, we see it from the tree house set amongst the forest. For every Shadow of Colossus, there's a handful of garbage like Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust and Def Jam: Icon.

We love the medium, we hate certain titles released, but we dismiss them just as Ebert and his film critic crowd do within their medium. His opinion shouldn't hurt your feelings.

The best part of his musings is that people are talking about video games and having meaningful conversation about the best this industry has to offer. This could lead to a whole new demo of people playing the best the consoles have to offer and, in turn, becomes the best anti-video game article written.

 

[Ewyx]

Oh of course Ebert's opinion isn't as important, however, something people tend to forget is, that he commands a decent amount of respect outside of the gaming community, what this basically means is that Ebert can say whatever he feels like it and people will listen, and a lot of them will agree.

Games do not need this kind of publicity, that's the issue here. He's a public figure and making bold statements like that, should be properly backed up, he should stick to movies, not making statements on an area he clearly has no idea understanding of.

 

[SilverUchiha]

*slow claps*

Probably your best column yet. Speaks the truth and makes excellent points. Many ignorant folks could learn a thing or two from this one.

 

[Solidplasma]

Brilliant, Yahtzee, Brilliant. See, guys? Yahtzee is an intelligent human being; he doesn't just "caper" for your amusement. Stop assuming everything he said is meant to be funny. The TL/DR was supposed to bait you, so don't post unless you read the article.


Anyway, I think that the cause for most all human conflict is difference in opinion. Look at terrorism: extremists in religion murder because they disagree. Internet trolls have isolated themselves in the real world due to their constant, arrogant pontification, so they go online to shout their opinions some more, but with a twist: This time..... they are anonymous. Oh dear. But, it would appear that as long as just a few people disagree to the extreme, we will never have world peace. Live and let die, folks. But what does that matter? It's just my opinion.

 

[Outright Villainy]

Nail on the head with this article. I brought up the very same point in the forums before, that art by it's definition is completely subjective, and someone who understands nothing of the medium should hold no sway on people hugely invested in it. The only thing I would want is for people in the games industry itself to consider games' potential as art, and not mere entertainment. Whatever you define art to be, the important thing is that more and more people set the bar high in terms of rewarding stories and emotional experiences. Ebert has not influence in games or game development so his opinion is just that: His opinion.

 

[Cuppa Tetleys]

I believe Yahtzee has a really interesting view on the whole topic. When you say 'art' you generally think of old paintings and pieces of music that are critically acclaimed (possibly over analysed) across the world. Although your immediate thought would be 'no, gaming can't be art' because it's expressed in an electronic manner - something rather recent compared to Shakespeare, once you listen to his view it makes sense. Although gaming isn't surrounded by 'bearded tossers' over-analyzing things, it is enjoyed by people of all ages and backgrounds, thus making it an almost more valuable form of 'art' in its own way.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

To me it's like a PS3 fanboy saying 'lol halo is shit'. You can't respect an opinion based on having no experience of that which they have the opinion on.

Unless he's played a reasonable amount of videogames, he can't really form a valid opinion on them surely?

However, forming an opinion on video games without actually playing, is surely like reviewing movies with the sound off, or with a blidnfold on and only listening to the dialogue.

However , he's well known and probably got asked a tricky question and said ..something, rather than 'err', which never comes across as a good answer to anything.

I'd have had more respect for him if he'd just said 'I'm a movie reviewer, I can't really pass judgement on video games as I don't play them.'

Of course, I might not be so ready to criticise if he hadn't slammed Kick Ass just for not being on his moral wavelength, instead of you know, reviewing the movie.

I'd say a vast amount of art is balls, and only art because a famous artist made it then gave it a name. If Tracey Emin wrote a crappy flash game where you shoot used tampons at the Pope's face, art critics would be in rapture at this exciting new wave of artistic expression, yet Ico and the like get bugger all.

In short, Games are not Art, because an artist hasn't said they are.

 

[Dan Shive]

I heartily endorse this event or product.

 

[Jared]

I suppose we can never change his mind...but still, I dont see how he cannot accept it as art...its an art form, and it does everything that art does (if not more)

I just think hes sour on something

 

[Eversor]

It's funny. Music is art, literature is art, visual art is, well, art, cinematography is art, so how can games, the combination of all the former types of art, be anything but art? It's a fallacious opinion and it holds no ground.

 

[RadicalDreamer90]

After my ludicrously long rant on Eberts page, I concur to Yahtzees sentiments. Though I've always had a thing with letting people roll around in Ignorance. Just like me to want to drop kick some sense into them.

 

[Pirce]

In about three weeks some scientist is going to come out saying that he has found a way to give machines the ability to breed and you are going to have so much crow for dinner.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

I always wanted to know how that dirty bed was considered art. It rather reminds me of a piece of art in the Seattle Art Museum--imagine nine glass bottles, arranged in a 3x3 square, sitting on their bases. On top of them, originally balanced, now cemented, are nine others, stuck neck to neck. On top of those, base to base, are nine more, with nine above that. It strikes me of something you'd wake up to after a night you don't really remember, hungover as hell, sitting on your table, still sticky from the occasional spilled bit of booze. Sure, it's flounted as "art", but it's more a drunken act that someone framed. It's not anything profound, or inspiring, but its still called art. Any one of us could do it, and no one did because it never seems like art. To us, it's not, but to him (and the Seattle Art Museum) it most definitely was.

 

[Jaebird]

Well said, Yahtzee. And I will openly admit that I was teary-eyed when I saw Aeris die in Final Fantasy VII, because it was a character that I felt invested in to care enough about (ignoring the Phoenix Down joke). Hell, she was the second character in fiction that I've ever cared about to the point it made me sad when they were killed. The first being Dinobot from Beast Wars. (Yes, I know he was later revived, but his second sacrifice was nearly as good as the first.)