Games Can Never be Art?
Roger Ebert, noted – actually extremely noted – film critic and all around good guy has written a blog post defending his assertion that video games are not art. Actually he writes “CAN NEVER BE ART” which is even wrong-er-er. And then the Internet completely exploded. I have no dog in this fight. I’m a gamer, I love games, I happen to think games ARE art – or at least have that potential – but I really don’t care what a noted film critic who doesn’t play games thinks about it. For one thing, I’m certain that back when film was new, the very idea of films being art was huffed and puffed by all kinds of older-generation Eberts. So he’s old and out of touch – this is a surprise? This is an insult? This deserves thousands of outraged posts against a lovely man whose voice I miss (and can hear in my head) and opinion I still value. When it comes to FILM.
The man has a right to his opinion and doesn’t deserve the hate from a bunch of clearly insecure young gamer men who somehow feel threatened by grampa’s cultural cluelessness. Leave Ebert alone and let him be wrong in peace.
For the sake of conversation, here are some other things that don’t seem like art at first or second glance, but clearly are.
Photography
Computer, especially Apple, design
Architecture
Pop Music
Abstract Art that looks like Finger Painting from a child
Finger-painting from a child, particularly mine
Art is more complicated in that, like film, it’s collaborative. Unlike film gaming doesn’t tell stories well, so Ebert dismisses it. But the art in gaming comes not only from graphics, sound, controls, etc., and but how they mix into something compelling. Why one game is a joy and another a chore is a form of art.
And here are some games I consider worthy of the name “art” – Ms. Pac Man, Tetris, Braid, Flower, Katamari Damacy, Portal, Half-Life, Doom, and too many more to count. These games will be considered art one day, dissertations will be written, museums constructed and experts will weigh in on the cultural significance and other hoity-toityness of games artistic merit.
Meanwhile Roger Ebert belongs in the film criticism hall of fame. Somewhere very prominent. The man has the right to be wrong, stop getting all upset about it and go play an artistic game or something.
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Games aren’t art. And Ebert doesn’t think all movies are art.
GAmes have “art” in them. And there is potential for that art to considered classic.
But take out the game part and that art remains. The game part is just a set of rules. Get away from a set of rules and you don’t have a videogame.
And really I think, because videogames are horribly inefficient at telling stories, that game stories will probably never get to the art level although the possibility does exist. There are better vehicles for telling stories.
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:32 pm
Well, for one thing, art doesn’t require story-telling. For another, there are many examples of “interactive art.”
But games not art? I disagree, but only because I’m 100% sure many video games will be held up as “art” in about 40-60 years and the idea that they aren’t art will go by the wayside. Humans define what artwork actually is, there’s no objective definition and it’s silly to try and find one.
For example: Did you know Aristotle argued that books could never be art, because a book TELLS you how to interact with it while a painting evokes a reaction? That Shakespeare was considered low and uncouth and could never be considered a great writer? That many of the “masters” in painting were considered unartistic hacks?
The goalposts keep moving. It’s a generational thing.
All that stays the same is that the argument is so subjective as to be ridiculous. And time will always make anyone who publishes an opinion like Ebert’s into another idiot in a long chain of idiots who tried to argue that something WASN’T art.
April 22nd, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Just re-read your second point about how if you take the GAME out the ART can still remain. Nice job there, I’m going to have to think about that.
Can’t the way the GAME rules interact with the art (music, graphics, mood) be art? The way it all comes together? That’s how I see film as art – as how it all comes together to create something made of pieces, but also made into a whole.
April 22nd, 2010 at 5:33 pm
Art is subjective.
The moment that anyone truly appreciates something as being art, that very thing instantly becomes art.
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:26 pm
Roger Ebert isn’t God when it comes to art, and he shouldn’t be revered as though he is God. He’s just a critic of what he constitutes as art, and he’s only entitled to his opinion as much as any other person, but all it is is just an opinion.
I don’t worry much about videogames being art as I do about them simply being fun to play and worth putting my money down to own as a masterpiece unto itself.
April 22nd, 2010 at 8:32 pm
Absolutely Vic,
Ebert is a good writer (he won a Pulitzer – but he also wrote Russ Meyer’s terrible Beyond the Valley of the Dolls) and he’s a pioneering movie critic for Sneak Previews -> At the Movies. back in the day I was more a fan of Siskel. But Ebert does represent an old-school and in terms of film talk, he is a legend.
It’s also worth noting that he made his original video game remark because he was asked. And the linked blog post was because his readers challenged him. Ebert is admirable also because despite losing his jaw and voice to cancer, and being old, the guy Twitters and Blogs like CRAZY.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:04 am
While an undoubtedly admirable man, I think Ebert crossed a line here. I actually like what Vic George said about Ebert playing God. Who is he to decide what art is, or to tell us what that it will “never” be considered art. In my opinion it is considered art right at this very moment.
Basically Ebert broke the basic principal of “To Each his Own.” It’s perfectly alright for him to dislike video games, 100% fine by me and any sensible person out there. BUT, to tell us that they are not art, and NEVER will be art? Well, last I checked that wasn’t up to him. Actually the feeling I got was almost of fear from Ebert’s article. I don’t think he understands video games ( and that’s alright) and the idea of games becoming art maybe kind of rocks his world and he’s trying to convince us never to allow it to happen. Anyway, just the feeling I got from it.
As for the people harassing him about the article, well that’s just bone headed. Really people, doing that just makes him seem more right. The fact that many members in the gaming community feel the need to lash out like this (and it happens alot) shows quite a bit of insecurity. Seems like well hmm, if even the gaming community feels the need to reassure themselves about games by writing hate posts, then the outlook for art status doesn’t look to keen.
On the other hand, the “special” members of the gaming community being what they are Ebert should have seen this kind of trash coming his way. If he didn’t, well then he clearly doesn’t know gaming all that well, and it runs back again to the fact of who is he to say games can never be art.
By my definition (if you can call it a definition) art is something made by man with intent. Example: A tree is not art. A photograph of a tree is art.
Also Gamerdad, I respectfully disagree with your statement about games not telling stories well. For the large majority that is like 80% correct in my opinion. But I’m a little surprised that you didn’t get as wrapped into the Uncharted stories as I guess I did. For me, a good 80% of my enjoyment from games is the story. I often play through a good story driven game quite quickly the first time simply because I wish to find out what happens next. The fact that I get to play that story, well that’s just an added bonus that movies can never provide. The Uncharted series is just one example of really good stories in games, but I think currently Uncharted 2 is the lead for best story/experience in a game.
All in all a very fair article.
I think it would be interesting for you to meet a man named Adam Sessler. Have you heard of him ever before? He’s a great gaming advocate, with his head screwed on right. He’s a host on the popular TV show Xplay on the G4 network. His weekly “soapboxes” are very good, and he often makes some very clever points.
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:03 am
Ebert crossed the line? I guess that’s fair. It’s a blog post, but his isn’t an ordinary blog.
Ebert has a god-like following – meaning only that he has big numbers, many of them powerful in Hollywood and he’s been an opinion maker for 30 years. Not God, but not an invalid opinion to consider. His opinion
He broke the “basic principle of ‘To Each his Own.” Hmmm, what critic doesn’t do that? Even a friend giving you an opinion doesn’t do that. He was asked if this ladies GAMES ARE ART presentation changed his mind about games as art. It didn’t. He laid out why and that’s at least gotten a conversation going. As for his goals, yeah, he doesn’t want games to be art. I’d wager he’s hostile to the concept. But that’s because he’s an old man.
I enjoy games with great story and haven’t played Uncharted 2. I will, I liked the first one, but that story was …just… there. Bioshock is a good example for art and story. But what I mainly meant is that the more you make a story interactive and influenceable, the weaker it gets as a cohesive and artistic story. I suppose a Moby Dick game about whale killing could still tell Moby Dick (maybe even less densely) but Moby Dick the book packs a bigger punch. I
can imagine a world where games do tell good stories. I hope to live in it and think I will!
“I think it would be interesting for you to meet a man named Adam Sessler. Have you heard of him ever before? He’s a great gaming advocate, with his head screwed on right. He’s a host on the popular TV show Xplay on the G4 network. His weekly “soapboxes” are very good, and he often makes some very clever points.”
I’ve met Adam many times – he may not remember me as anything but GamerDad but I actually wrote Tech TV Extended Play reviews for years, and he used to read them. He does a good job even if I think his hair is funny – and I’m sure he and I could talk about a lot regarding this kind of stuff.
Our main insight is, at one time, the paragraph at the beginning of Doom was the story. Half-Life changed everything by finally adding mystery and purpose. It was rightly hailed for it and AMAZING when you first saw it. Now it just looks like a bad example of how to do that..
April 23rd, 2010 at 2:06 am
Ignoring the non-critical mission bits in GTA 4 was a brilliant story. Nico was a great character, the Russain immigrant perspective was well played out, as was the Irish love interest. Most of it was behind the scenes, but the core of that game makes me miss Nico Bellic. I had some problems getting into Lost & Damned and Balled of Gay Tony because of that….
April 23rd, 2010 at 9:25 am
I challenge anyone who says that games aren’t art to play Mass Effect and just try telling me with a straight face that the story isn’t worthy of a place among the great sci-fi stories of our generation. The argument that something as stupid as a series of vertical lines painted on canvas can be considered art simply by virtue of the fact that they are painted on canvas, but a masterpiece such as BioShock cannot simply by virtue of the fact that it is interactive is just ridiculous. Has anyone here ever seen performance artists? People who do things like cross a gap between two buildings so slowly that no one even sees the movement, they just eventually make it across. So, we call this art, but not Metal Gear Solid…. riiiight. Lady GaGa. We call her music art, but not Valve’s Half Life. Makes no sense. The notion that video games are not art is simply ridiculous. I’m not going to pin anything on Ebert. He’s just expressing his opinion, and he has just as much right to do that as anyone else. I’m sure he’s a good man, just wrong. People are entitled to their opinions, no matter how stupid or misinformed said opinions may be.
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:40 pm
Meh. Art is ultimately subjective. I personally consider the following text representation of a penis art.
8===D
Remember, one of the most influential pieces of art from the 20th century was a urinal!
April 23rd, 2010 at 1:52 pm
That guy is on steroids. Some definite ‘roid shrinkage.
April 23rd, 2010 at 8:34 pm
Thanks for the fair response GamerDad. Some more good points. That’s really cool that you wrote reviews for Xplay back when they were extended play. I personally am not fond of their review writers of the past few years, but Adam remains the same.
And Some Guy……why is that penis grinning at me?
O.O
April 24th, 2010 at 12:26 am
Oh and Some Guy’s shocking…..errr…..art? 😛 ….. made me forget to add:
If you haven’t yet played Uncharted 2, then maybe I’ll send a review of it your way. Also, I wrote a review of the first game for an english class last year and really enjoyed writing it. I know you already have a review of the first one, but since I already wrote it….would you mind if I sent it in? I’d modify it a bit to include the kid factor idea.
Would you mind if reviews were emailed to you via attachments in .doc format? Or do you really prefer to have it in the message body? I ask because I like to write things using Word so I can format nicely to include pictures and the like. But if you prefer, I can always copy paste into the message body.
Thanks Again!
April 24th, 2010 at 5:20 pm
I’m with Hannover and Some Guy, games are art because I consider them as such, because art is totally subjective. Games may never be art to Roger Ebert, and that’s fine, although I think his argument was a bit weak, simply because he was trying to force the concept of art to fit some arbitrary definition when there isn’t one single definition that works for everyone.
Ultimately, though, it’s irrelevant. Bioshock is a masterpiece whether or not we decide to label it art.
I don’t know if Some Guy’s 8===D penis falls under my definition of art, though. But hey, that’s the nature of subjectivity.
April 26th, 2010 at 3:37 am
The boardgame community is have the same discussion at the moment. A woman has created a boardgame where players try to load little figures onto a train.
< **Spoiler Alert:... After playing for awhile it is revealed to the player that they're loading people onto trains to ship them to a concentration camp.**>
The game is not all that “fun” to play in the opinion of boardgamers, but it does evoke strong emotion in some people.
There are many similarities here, sure a game might contain some art, but can the game itself (how it interacts with the player, etc…) ever be art?
I would argue that ICO (the PS2 game) would be a great candidate for “Art” either within a game or as a game. I’ve not been swept up into the “mood” of a game like I have for ICO. Remembering my exploration of the deserted castle, with the beautiful visuals and wind whistling through the towers, still gives me chills. I’m fine if you don’t want to call that game “Art”, but some section of that game (the visuals, the presentation, whatever) is far more evocative to me than any performance or presented art.
April 26th, 2010 at 12:04 pm
I’m just glad we’re not debating whether 3D is just a fad anymore.
Art progresses and changes and is art because someone made it. Simple as that. There has never been a definition of art that isn’t couched in the aesthetic of the person making the definition.
But art is not about what we like, it’s about what we create; whether that is a video game, painting, book, chair, dance, or opinionated blog post that is as incorrect as it in inflammatory.
May 3rd, 2010 at 7:04 pm
@Matt: it took me 5+ years to finish Shadow of the Colossus. Why so long? I didn’t *like* the game. I didn’t enjoy playing it, after a while, and I would not play it again. But I am quite sure it would not have had the emotional impact it did if I had just watched a half-hour speedrun through the game on YouTube. All I can say is
“…Argo!”