Ebert Re-Emphasizes That Games Will Never Be Art
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Definitions of art on the Web:
* the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"
* the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"
* a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art"
* artwork: photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication; "the publisher was responsible for all the artwork in the book"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I'm pretty sure video games fit into the first definition; the product of human creativity. But why do we care what this guy thinks?
The point he made about Ma Jong was stupid though. Does he think we mean the act of playing video games should be art? How can he consider movies a form of art and Bioshock not to be?
* the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"
* the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be innovative to be good"; "I was never any good at art"; "he said that architecture is the art of wasting space beautifully"
* a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation; "the art of conversation"; "it's quite an art"
* artwork: photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication; "the publisher was responsible for all the artwork in the book"
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
I'm pretty sure video games fit into the first definition; the product of human creativity. But why do we care what this guy thinks?
The point he made about Ma Jong was stupid though. Does he think we mean the act of playing video games should be art? How can he consider movies a form of art and Bioshock not to be?
Ebert, really?
I mean, Art, Movies and Music share an Component with Games.
They served as entertainment for generations.
He is wrong, as always. His double standards for what he view as 'art' clouds what he can see. I mean, we beyond the years of "Beep boop" sounds.
I mean, Art, Movies and Music share an Component with Games.
They served as entertainment for generations.
He is wrong, as always. His double standards for what he view as 'art' clouds what he can see. I mean, we beyond the years of "Beep boop" sounds.
Most games aren't art.
Most movies aren't art either.
Due to corporate influence, it is rare that something (reaching mainstream success) in either media can be considered art. However, art does exist within both categories.
Most movies aren't art either.
Due to corporate influence, it is rare that something (reaching mainstream success) in either media can be considered art. However, art does exist within both categories.
Someone who belives that films are art shouldn't make blanket statements like "no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form." since we are not only living in one of the fastest-paced ages in history, but people were probably saying the same thing about movies a century ago; and there are still people who believe that motion pictures can't hold a candle to live performances.
His attempt to define video games as outside art is pretty poor, not only because it comes down to semantics, but also because he doesn't properly define art. I believe that art is something that you can experience and something that moves you. I looked art up in the dictionary and apparently it is "the product of human creativity."
[small]Well, human for the moment, definitely designed with intent, but I digress.[/small]
Lastly, he's asking for an artistic video game to compare to the greatest works of "poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets" the very least of whom have had at least half a century on video games.
It's his criteria that are the problem. After all, if having a win condition is really preventing video games from becomming art, we could remove it. Would he be happier if it were an interactive story? Of course we can't really expect a film critic to judge video games I suppose.
His attempt to define video games as outside art is pretty poor, not only because it comes down to semantics, but also because he doesn't properly define art. I believe that art is something that you can experience and something that moves you. I looked art up in the dictionary and apparently it is "the product of human creativity."
[small]Well, human for the moment, definitely designed with intent, but I digress.[/small]
Lastly, he's asking for an artistic video game to compare to the greatest works of "poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets" the very least of whom have had at least half a century on video games.
It's his criteria that are the problem. After all, if having a win condition is really preventing video games from becomming art, we could remove it. Would he be happier if it were an interactive story? Of course we can't really expect a film critic to judge video games I suppose.
Judging by what I've seen/read of the man over the years, I believe that Roger Ebert is an intellectual elitist, someone who thinks that movies (and possibly all art) should tell direct, moral-driven stories, so that you and I (the unwashed masses) can sit down, shut up and maybe learn a thing or two from our intellectual betters. Video games do not do this, and so he does not recognize them as art.
I imagine that Roger Ebert doesn't like this, since it doesn't involve us sitting down, shutting up and learning from people who are smarter than us.
To me, this in many ways elevates video games over "art", as those like Ebert define it. Novels, poems, films- they are all passive, unchanging. While a good story may change you, you will never change the story; no deeper insight or flash of understanding on your part will keep MacBeth from descending the road to madness, or make Rick get on the plane with Ilsa. Games are breaking that barrier. They are rapidly progressing towards the state of malleable prose, where the story being told is affected by your thoughts and actions, where you are as much a character and driving force as any NPC.Roger Ebert said:
I imagine that Roger Ebert doesn't like this, since it doesn't involve us sitting down, shutting up and learning from people who are smarter than us.
In this he is right though. What would be Macbeth, both character and the play, if it was just another dude winning it all?! There'd be no bloody point! You wouldn't even know he might have become mad, and what's it like etc..
I have a great amount of respect for Roger Erbert, I think he's a good critic and he's entitled to his own opinion. I don't see why people are begging for is approval of video games as an art form to be quite honest. He's a movie critic and he doesn't agree with us that we think games are an art form... so?. I don't see the big deal. He doesn't think games are an art form... well I respectfully disagree and I'll carry on and play what I think is a form of art, while he carry's on review movies... I wish him good health and I can't wait to read his next review 
. Though I respect the fellow a great deal... that doesn't always mean I agree with him.
. Though I respect the fellow a great deal... that doesn't always mean I agree with him.
Roger Ebert's opinion is invalid, and was outdated by the time the Dreamcast came out. [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-435065682899786051#]
What was it called... The Path, I think (but don't quote me on that, I'm thinking of the game based on Little Red Riding Hood if I got the title wrong). Someone should direct Mr. Ebert towards that and tell him that he's being silly. Plus, he has no particular authority as an expert on games. The games that he'd see from outside gaming culture would be things like Halo, Call of Duty, or Gears--hardly art. I think he should have done a bit more research into games with complex plots, settings, characters, environments, creative ideas, emotions, etc. before making blanket statements about an entire medium.
Off topic: that song is terrifying. It's also quite obviously one of the most accurate portrayals of gamers ever. After all, isn't Xbox Live a community of whiny 12 year olds?
Off topic: that song is terrifying. It's also quite obviously one of the most accurate portrayals of gamers ever. After all, isn't Xbox Live a community of whiny 12 year olds?
Every time I see this arguement the ending of Planescape: Torment is the first thing that comes to mind.
It made me really wonder what would change the nature of a man. How that change could be affected. What cost that change would require. It uses an interactive story to make a very fine point about how we all have motivations that we may supress, but they are always present and color every relationship we have. The kindness of lies. The terror of not knowing the truth. The greater terror of actually knowing it.
Chris Avalone created the equal of Citizen Kain of the medium. Anyone who doubts he is an artist is deliberately trying to ignore the facts to make their point.
It made me really wonder what would change the nature of a man. How that change could be affected. What cost that change would require. It uses an interactive story to make a very fine point about how we all have motivations that we may supress, but they are always present and color every relationship we have. The kindness of lies. The terror of not knowing the truth. The greater terror of actually knowing it.
Chris Avalone created the equal of Citizen Kain of the medium. Anyone who doubts he is an artist is deliberately trying to ignore the facts to make their point.
Totally agree on Planescape Torment. I'd also choose it as the Citizen Kain equivalent of games.
What I think Roger Ebert is getting at is that games will never be considered 'high art'. According to postmodernism just about anything can be called art, but what becomes respected and canonical by the critical world is a different story entirely. It's worth remembering though that highbrow art only becomes highbrow in one of two ways: either it's created by self-serving egotists who exist to pander the critical establishment with clichés of intellectualism, and thus gets seized upon immediately; or it is met with initial hostility and critical disparagement before several decades insight allow us to see that it was ahead of its time. And so it is with gaming. On the one hand we have people like David Cage attempting to define for us what our concept of 'art' should be, while on the other hand games with a serious cultural resonance have been met with hostility by the establishment. Grand Theft Auto's decade long association with murderous teenagers was really just a smokescreen to distract from the fact that it was holding up a satirical mirror to the hypocrisies of Western society, a portrait the establishment refused to accept.
In my humble opinion, however, the single biggest problem that stands in the way of gaming ever becoming established as highbrow art is how it is tied to redundant technology. Books can always be read, paintings can always be seen. But games require that you have access to the system they were designed to run on, be it a console or an OS. So for a person interested in studying GTA San Andreas in twenty years time, they will need to have access to either a PS2 or a PC - and if the PC's OS is not backward compatible, then they'll need to track down an earlier OS to play it. It's a lot of effort to go to, whereas anyone interested in understanding the impact of Salinger's magnum opus needs simply to go to their local bookstore and pick up a copy of The Catcher in the Rye. And given that abandonware is still lumped in with piracy by the games industry, I doubt this will be enough to preserve these titles for posterity.
In my humble opinion, however, the single biggest problem that stands in the way of gaming ever becoming established as highbrow art is how it is tied to redundant technology. Books can always be read, paintings can always be seen. But games require that you have access to the system they were designed to run on, be it a console or an OS. So for a person interested in studying GTA San Andreas in twenty years time, they will need to have access to either a PS2 or a PC - and if the PC's OS is not backward compatible, then they'll need to track down an earlier OS to play it. It's a lot of effort to go to, whereas anyone interested in understanding the impact of Salinger's magnum opus needs simply to go to their local bookstore and pick up a copy of The Catcher in the Rye. And given that abandonware is still lumped in with piracy by the games industry, I doubt this will be enough to preserve these titles for posterity.
I don't care much for the opinion of some whiny movie critic who's been on the job a bit too long, frankly, the man probably only thinks in terms of Pac-Man, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's more contemporary than that, Halo. Honestly, it seems like films and video games are more alike than similar in a few aspects, most movies are just there to make cheap bucks off cheap appeals to emotion, I can honestly equate your run-of-the-mill romantic comedy with your run-of-the-mill FPS, only difference is the target audience.
One could argue that video games are a deeper art form than pictures, music, and movie because in all of those you stand on the out side looking in to experience them, but in video games, you experience the events as the character, and in the truly great games, you feel what that character feels. It just feels weird to say that video games aren't art, you experience them just as any other medium considered to be art.
I've said this I don't know how many times, but:
Roger Ebert is still right.
Games that try too hard to be interactive movies (Heavy Rain) fail to be games, games that have cinematic parts in the more traditional sense cease to be games until the cinematics are over and control is returned to the player (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, and don't say quick-time events count as "control"), and the games that have objectives and succeed at the "game" portion have no pretense toward being an art form (all the games I like to play.)
I also agree with Roger that gamers get WAY too snippy about this shit---threaten their artistic sensibilities and gamers will get their panties in a bunch arguing the point. I liked gaming better when it was about shooting aliens, stomping on mushrooms, or building cities.
Roger Ebert is still right.
Games that try too hard to be interactive movies (Heavy Rain) fail to be games, games that have cinematic parts in the more traditional sense cease to be games until the cinematics are over and control is returned to the player (Final Fantasy, Metal Gear Solid, and don't say quick-time events count as "control"), and the games that have objectives and succeed at the "game" portion have no pretense toward being an art form (all the games I like to play.)
I also agree with Roger that gamers get WAY too snippy about this shit---threaten their artistic sensibilities and gamers will get their panties in a bunch arguing the point. I liked gaming better when it was about shooting aliens, stomping on mushrooms, or building cities.
Okay, his opinion is that games can't be art, and my opinion is that he is too much of an uptight *insert expletive here*.
Seriously, just because you can beat a game doesn't mean you can't experience them. In fact, you experience the game in the very process of beating it.
Seriously, just because you can beat a game doesn't mean you can't experience them. In fact, you experience the game in the very process of beating it.