Anyone else suddenly "Get" Roger Ebert's opinion?

[Scobie]

DELETED

 

[Zing]

Well, I don't personally owe him an apology. I was on his side from the beginning. Video games just aren't Art, they have Artistic elements, but on a whole they aren't and will never be Art.

 

[Treefingers]

I agree with Ebert on some counts.

Video games sit somewhere between something akin to sport (not art), and narrative media such as films and literature (art). When closer to the former, i don't think that games are art. Football is not art. Chess is not art. Tetris is not art. A deathmatch on COD is not art.

However, when closer to the latter, videogames are without a doubt a work of art (imo). Citizen Kane is art. Bioshock is art.

Perhaps a little bit simplified, but i hope you understand what i'm getting at. Basically, Ebert's whole "game's aren't art because they are something you 'win'" thing isn't totally unjustified.

 

[Cinnamonfloss]

Why are we so desperate to convince people video games are art?
I dont think theyre art. There, i said it.
Sheesh, i really dont care what they are, I just like playing them.
Isnt that what they're supposed to be used for? For playing and fun?

I know that you're just trying to restate that "Video games are fun, why bother with anything else?" and it's an innocent enough statement, but it's complete ignorance to put it bluntly.

Just because you play video games for "fun", like many other people including myself, does not mean that video games should just stay "fun". It's the same argument with movies, "If I wanted a dark drama with conflict I'd read a book!" and then goes to "If I wanted a realistic portrayal of today's society in satire, I'd watch a play!" and eventually down to "If I wanted a deep, intellectual viewpoint on the violence of men, I'd just talk with my professor!" You can't just brush off video games as just "fun" because they can be so much more than that.

Now, look, I love fun games, everyone does, you'd be one of those cinema snobs that doesn't like anything without a "meaning" or those stupid artistic bullshitters claiming that a picture with a woman with bannanas on her head is "pure artistic amazingness!". But video games have a huge amount of untapped potential just lying in wait for someone to utilize it correctly. And when that happens, that can in turn make games better and more fun and more meaningful instead of the same FPS that we are currently forced to endure now.

First of all: no. You've got me all wrong. Calm down. Just because you're somehow deeply offended by my own opinion doesnt give you the right to pull out lies out your butt.
Did i mention anything along the lines that 'video games arent art because they dont have meaning?'
No.
Stop twisting my words and raging, seriously. I can see how angry you are just reading that. It just made me roll my eyes to be perfectly honest.
You've got it all wrong.
Im not saying video games 'arent meaningful'. Im not 'brushing away games as fun'. Im not a 'movie snob' or one of 'those stupid artistic bullshitters'.
Come on, really? If i was, why would i be on a video game forum? Dont be so paranoid.
Whats wrong with video games not being art? You seem to have a problem with that. I just dont understand it. Video games can be a whole media of their own.
You shouldnt bother replying because nothing will change my OPINION.
Youre making me out as some kind of 'anti video games'. Just stop, seriously. ¬¬

 

[Antari]

Art is subject to the eye of the beholder. It will say different things to different people. And Lego can be art too!

 

[Thaius]

And movies are things you watch. And paintings are things you look at.

I guess the fact that you interact with them in the way that you interact with them means that they aren't art.

I would disagree. This was one of Ebert's first arguments, but it's a very anti-progressive one. In other words, "art has never been interactive before, so it can't be interactive now." Since interactivity has not been part of the definition of art in the past, it's assumed it can't be part of it now, but this is not true. Every form of art we have now was once considered not to be art. Even the novel was looked down upon for a time. Simply because interactivity has never been part of art doesn't mean it can't be now: art changes, it evolves as the culture and technology does. If this was not true, Ebert's own precious art of film would not be art.

OT: I see what you're saying, OP. But I also disagree. You even said it yourself, movies end too. But that's beside the point.

The very presence of a story means that video games can also be put in the category of storytelling art: bad writing doesn't disqualify something as art, it simply qualifies it as bad art. To say something's not art because it's not written well is basically to say that unless something is quality, it's not art. And that's just not true.

Beyond that though, many games have been written very, very well. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, the Mass Effect games, and many more have had writing on par with some of the greatest films out there. Sure, the writing in games generally sucks, but I have news for you: it generally sucks in every other art form too. It's a matter of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crud. Most movies suck, most novels suck, and most video games suck.

Now it is true that video games can be used for reasons other than storytelling: some games are made for competitive purposes, and many are made just for fun. Just like movies have training videos and documentaries, and literature includes technical documents and political propositions: hardly art, but still involving artistic aspects of the form which they use. But it doesn't disqualify the medium as a whole from being a storytelling art, it simply means that some games will include different aspects of that art, whether it's only the visual aspects or also the storytelling ones. But the need for context, the need for a story in our games definitely brings it into the realm of storytelling art.

Or is there something I'm missing about what you said?

 

[Uber Waddles]

Movies can only be watched and interpretted. No matter what you do or say, it has an ending to it. The end MAY make you think more (see Inception) or challenge an important issue, but it has a beggining and an end.

The difference? All that time in between, instead of it being an actor, its us (controlling the actor). Just like a movie, games can make us think after we beat the ending, inspire us, or just entertain us. In a movie, the goal is what the actors want to achieve. In a game, its US.

Everything is an art. Art ranges from Finger Paintings, To the Mona Lisa. And EVERYTHING in between. You get a lot more FInger Paintings then Mona Lisas, but they exist.

As for removing all tension, I disagree. Lets look at Pokemon. Final Battle of the Elite 4, all out of Revives and Potions. 30 Hp left for you, 140 for the opponent. The next move could decide this battle. Sure, if I fail, I have to restart, but its STILL a tense moment. Same for a lot of games. Just because you WIN doesnt mean anything.

To put it into movie terms, a Game is like a Movie, except the director doesnt get to cut out the mistakes for the final version.

 

[The Austin]

Spoiler: I actually thought of a counter argument to Eberts' arguments: Red Dead Redemption.

Think about it. Red Dead Redemption has all of the workings of a movie or a piece of art.
It has a central theme, that of injustice. It has a character, that is deeper than just a character, he is an archetype, representing the pinnacle of the western man. Hunter, gatherer, lawman, and villain.
And despite what Ebert says, you don't "win" Red Dead Redemption. When it comes down to it, you always loose.

That of course, is a very small paragraph of what I mean. I COULD wright a paper on this damn thing. In fact, it probably should.

 

[spartan231490]

Honestly, I've never really bought the whole "video games are art" thing. I don't think movies are art either. They are entertainment. Art is something that invokes a particular emotional response in a passive observer. That's what i think. for me, music is really the only form of entertainment that qualifies as art.

 

[Macheteswordgun]

Okay, first, the whole idea of something not being art because you "win it" is odd. Movies shouldn't be art because they end, yet Ebert believes there are movies that are art. A painting can't be art because it can be contained in a museum. Choosing a random reason something can't be art isn't a particularly strong argument.

The second problem with your statement is that you base it on your reaction to the game Limbo. Not everyone is affected the same way by art. Art by it's very nature is subjective.

Take Jackson Pollack for example. I look at his stuff and think, "Dude spilled his paint on his canvas, thought it looked cool, did it some more." But some people look at Pollack and say, "Look at the incredible amount of emotion in this painting!"

Just because you, or Ebert if he every actually did, played a game and decided it wasn't art, doesn't mean it isn't. Just because I play a game and decide it is art, doesn't mean it is. Over the years, "art" has been defined by culture as a whole. One man's opinion doesn't make something art to the whole world, it just makes something art to that one man.

So whether or not you think Limbo is art doesn't really support Ebert's opinion. It supports your opinion. Just because Ebert doesn't think something is art, that doesn't support your opinion. Art is in the eye of the beholder, to use a cliché phrase.

Over time, what culture as a whole considers art changes dramatically. Shakespeare is considered a master playwright now, one of the great Western artists, but when he was alive, his plays were considered, by certain influential people, as trashy works of populist sentiment. He was disregarded by elite commentators like Ben Jonson. Not so unlike the way commentators like Ebert scoff at certain things today.

Many artists were failures while they were alive. Artists like Vincent Van Gogh only gained fame after they died and people looked at their works in retrospect. Many artists are disregarded if they have a style that is before their time.

Whether or not video games will be defined as art by society as whole is not something I am interested in predicting. I play games because I like playing them, whether or not they are art. Something doesn't have to be described as art by society as a whole for me to enjoy it as such.

This man gets an internet cookie

 

[duchaked]

honestly I don't care about whether or not gaming is art and I care even less about Ebert's opinions (his movie reviews? please, retirement called decades ago)

1. the gaming community doesn't owe him an apology, and he doesn't need to say anymore about it either
2. everything is art nowadays...

 

[FinalHeart95]

Art is defined by the person that is experiencing it. For me, games are art.

If you think games are art, then games are art for you too. For Ebert, games are not art.

 

[Thaius]

snip

Hey man what took you so long to get involved? I was expecting you here sooner! Son, I am very disappoint. ;-P

Hey, it's summer break and 10:00 AM here. I saw the thread, but had to wait until I actually woke up to write a coherent response. But if I get a response, I will be here for quite a while, you can be sure of that.

EDIT: Oh dang, and that post you quoted was great. Mad props to Scobie for that. I'm tired of people telling us to just shut up and enjoy our games.

 

[Silk_Sk]

These were basically the responses I expected. And I don't really disagree with them. They all state true facts and are perfectly logical from the perspective of a gamer. As a gamer myself I entirely agree. But I also believe a shift in perspective is necessary.

Here's where I think the misunderstanding comes from the gamers side. Games have lots of art in them so they must be art right? Not necessarily. The core of a game for the most part is still just that; a game. It just looks really nice. Other mediums have their own methods and techniques to produce emotion. Games have just copied them. All the creepy and fantastic moments you would define as art in a game are things you could find in a painting or a movie. Take a screenshot of a game and you see art all over the place. But is the game itself art? Isn't it just a bunch of mechanics with art plastered all over it? Maybe for now. Gaming hasn't developed into it's own specific niche art-wise yet. But it's starting to.

Here's where the argument is right now at it's core as I see it.

Ebert: "Games are something you win. Hence, not art."
Gamers: "Just because it's something you win, doesn't mean it's not art." and "You haven't played games so we won't listen to you."

That second one is the most dangerous one. You have to understand him before you try to make him understand you. Otherwise this won't go anywhere but circles because neither side really understands the point the other is making.

I'll reiterate. This

Spoiler

The problem with Roger Ebert's opinion is that he's never played a video game in his life, much less the ones we consider "art".

He was juging Video Game's "art" merits among "Movie Art" merits, but that is downright impossible. While games that we consider "art" and movies people consider "art" do have some similarities (mainly evoking an emotion of some kind), the way the two mediums interact with their audience, how they reward them, how the audience participates with it, etc... are completely different.

This is why Ebert should have kept his mouth shut. As a movie critic, Ebert can certainly vouch for Movies as art. But his opinions are invalidadted when he starts talking about Video Games as art becase he's never played them. I'm not saying his opinion is worthless, or that it doesn't have merit, but it's like if Ice-T criticized Mozart's operas because "They dun have them jankiness to dem!", they're two different genres/mediums and you cannot compare them the same way.

I personally think that Video Games can be art, whether you can "win" them or not. I absolutely adored Shadow of the Collosus, I teared up at the end. And to an extent, Elite Beat Agents is "art" to me, though that explanation is left for another time I suppose. Movies always have to end, that doesn't invalidate their artistic merits. You can apply many tropes to video games that are used in movies, but it's very limited to which ones you can compare.

Spoiler

This guy nailed it perfectly. The whole reason his opinion drew so much ire was the fact that;
1) He had done no research at all on the subject
2) Film critics are not qualified to discuss the merits of gaming artistry, just like literary critics cannot criticize film artistry.

All in all his opinion was incredibly ignorant; the fact he has never even played a game before makes it all the worse.

is entirely the wrong attitude to take.

While I agree with the gamer side of the argument, I believe it's important to look deeply into Ebert's side in order to better understand what kind of art games actually are. It was this Clive Barker quote in Ebert's semi-apology that got me thinking.

"I think that Roger Ebert's problem is that he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written 'Romeo and Juliet' as a game because it could have had a happy ending, you know? If only she hadn't taken the damn poison. If only he'd have gotten there quicker."

"You can lose a game." or "What happens to the characters is up to you" are not valid points at all.

However, what are valid points are these. "Games are not games anymore. They are experiences." and "Art is something purposefully created to induce an emotion. Hence games=art."

But these points are just the beginning of our understanding of the medium as an art form. This supports arguments that have been made before that games are art in it's infancy. Games like SotC and Bioshock are glimpses into what Ebert believes is art. But until games like that are more common I don't think or want him to change his opinion.

 

[Hawgh]

Step one: does anyone have a widely accepted a priori definition of art? I rather doubt it.

Secondly, what is your definition of winning a game? That you make it to the end of it's campaign? That you experience all the content? That it tells you so?

Complaining that your lack of suspension of disbelief prevents you from enjoying a game's story no more critisises stops the game from being art, than complaining that a movie's plot progression is easily deducable with a watch and knowledge of the hollywood model would stop it from being so.

Also: not all games end with undeniable triumph for everyone involved. I distinctly remember how the ending of Soul Reaver 2 was rather lacking in the personal triumph department.

To summarise: I don't buy it.