Ebert Re-Emphasizes That Games Will Never Be Art

[sturryz]

feel sympathy for mr ebert... anyone who had to endure Dune would be pretty jaded and one sided...

besides he gave Spirits Within a 3.5 out of 4, is anything he says credible even in movie terms? his primary argument is that games are not art... because you can play them...

 

[Tyrannowalefish_Rex]

3 pages and not one person answered the question.

Which one? "Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?"?
I would say because many games stir the imagination and emotions in similar ways that other art does, and because many games are specifically designed to be more artful. It seems to me the gist of Ebert's argument is not so much that games cannot be art in a general sense, but that the results are so mixed up with simplistic gameplay mechanics, that they are always diminished, and the mediocre potential that some stories, characters and setting might have had, is lost. I was also confused that he somehow seems to exclude interactive representations of art from games per se. Well, it's tricky, and I think it's already full up, so I probably won't get into there.

besides he gave Spirits Within a 3.5 out of 4, is anything he says credible even in movie terms?

Actually I also thought that movie was pretty good. Certainly much better than the more recent Advent Children. But it's been years since I saw it.

 

[acosn]

Are video games art? In a strict sense, no. Then again it's that same sense that basically says that nothing except art is art. It's a rather self serving argument where only something made for the purpose of art is art.

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I feel like anyone, even Ebert, would have a really hard time denying Shadow of the Colossus.

 

[Jared]

Again, he is wrong.

They are already art, and have been for a long time. He needs to get his head out his backside and join the modern world

 

[Lord Krunk]

Well, I posted a comment on his blog, and it was published. I posted it on the non-news thread, but fuck it, I'll post it here again.

I really don't think he's in the least bit qualified to make such a blanket statement. It would like me saying "All science is speculation" (I know jack-shit about science), I don't know enough about it and I obviously haven't done the research. It's the same with Ebert.

Anyway, without further ado, what I wrote.

Spoiler

And this is the point where I gave up on Roger Ebert.
Usually, you have reasonable opinions, but in this case, I cannot accept them. It is clear to me that your age is clouding your viewpoint as comes videogames, and I don't think you're qualified to make any sort of objective opinion on them.
Do me a favour Roger, play Grim Fandango, play Planescape: Torment, play The Longest Journey. These are games that stir emotions and contemplation, that cause us to question the very nature of reality. Even non-gamers can understand this.

But no, what you are doing is taking a fleeting glimpse at something you don't understand and condemning it. Imagine if somebody who knew nothing of films looked at Transformers 2 or 300 and condemned the whole medium as immature and base immediately. I think you'd be quite incensed with them, as would I. They're just looking at the most popular dreck and failing to dig any deeper before they come to a conclusion. A rational person would sit them down with some Bergman and Tarkovsky films and see how they feel afterward. I doubt they'd think the same.

Because that's exactly what you're doing, you only taking a glance at the mainstream dreck and condemn it based on what you see. It's bad reviewing technique, because you aren't digging deep enough before reaching a conclusion. I wouldn't mind so much, you aren't a videogame critic, but when you say 'Videogames can never be art', you take it upon yourself, and if you make a statement like that, you'd better know what you're talking about.

Incidentally, none of those games I spoke of are particularly violent. Planescape: Torment, somewhat, but only when appropriate and where it makes sense as relates to the story.
I suggest that you do your research before making such grandiose claims, otherwise this is just an old man ranting about something he doesn't understand.

As I'm sure you understand, nobody wants to be in that position.

Anyway guys, don't worry about it too much.

That's... a really nice post.

I hate to say it, but I can't add any more:

This.

 

[IanBrazen]

you know what, I respect Rodger Dberts opinion, on movies.
he doesn't seem to have much expertise when it comes to games so I dont find his opinion on the subject to be very valid.
its like a history major giving a lecture on chaos theory.

 

[jamesworkshop]

I agree and for much the same reasons Games are games and art is art a game cannot exist without rules thats is what a game is its an activity that offers a challenge or competition against other people or in videogames case machine intelligence that simulates others.

Art doesn't have a framework of rules its not something you play with or engage with skill, logical reasoning or spatial awareness, watching a movie is not a challenge, its doesn't test the audiences abilities in any concrete way like games do.

The simple way I put it is games have rules, art has no rules.

Being art is not a validation of anything, being an artist doesn't make you superior to your audience, games not being art does not make movies or paintings better its makes them different much like how being a writer of novels doesn't make you better/worse than an athlete but you certainly can't say being a writer makes you a sportsman they are two different things.

 

[brewbeard]

I'm pretty sure there was a time when photography -- and by extension, film -- was not considered art simply because it was not an already existing artform.

 

[Pickletron]

I think he's a little bit right, if you use his terms.

Art is subjective. It has to be. What constitutes art is just as subjective as a work of art itself. I think some games are more art than some movies. I'll take BioShock over any movie Meg Ryan has ever been in.

Ebert's reasoning seems flawed upon closer examination. It seems to me that he thinks games cannot give the subjective experience that a film or book can, intimating that everyone gets pretty much the same experience playing a video game and that there's no room for personal interpretation of the thematic elements within as everything is linear and set up the same way for all players. I can understand this to a certain degree. Two people playing Super Mario Brothers are more than likely going to have the same experience.

He also seems to either be ignorant or dismissive of the different aspects of making a game. Behind the scenes of most game companies probably looks a lot like a movie studio when making a film. There are scripts, set designs, costume designs, music score, actors...the only difference between cinema and many games is the level of user interaction, and that may be what he believes the barrier to be, which seems weird. Art is supposed to get a reaction and draw the viewer/reader in and challenge their preconceptions.
If a movie suddenly paused while you were watching it and gave you the option to decide what happens, is that movie ceasing to be art? If the creator of the work intended it to be one way and that was scrapped in favor of giving the viewer a choice then, yes, I guess you could say the creator's artistic vision had been compromised. However, most games these days are written with numerous endings and paths that are just as valid as as any other one. In fact, that's what's so great about games with a great narrative; you can go back and do things differently and experience the story from a new point of view. Movies are not so fluid. Stories are told in the same 3 act structure that plays were written in centuries ago, and when someone breaks with that tradition and steps outside that structure they are hailed as geniuses (Tarantino, Christopher Nolan)when all they really did is tell a story the way they wanted to.

The long and short of it is that some games and movies are crap, some are good and some are art. Just because it's art on film does not mean all film is art.

 

[bakonslayer]

Games aren't art.
They are more.

 

[gallaetha_matt]

I wouldn't knock Ebert so much. He's New York's third most popular film critic - after Gene Siskel and Jay Sherman. OH SNAP!

Seriously, he was in that one episode of The Critic, anybody that voiced themselves in that show gets a golden season ticket to say whatever they want.

I tried to read the blog post so I would have some objective opinions, but his website crashed my laptop. Three times in a row. All I have left is insults and vague references to 90's cartoon comedy.

Also - what the hell was that video at the end of the article? I watched a minute of that thing before I could take no more. Honestly, am I on the sex offenders registry now? Because that's ideally where I'd really prefer not to be.

 

[GeneralGrant]

It's all semantics and doesn't matter.

 

[Lord Krunk]

self imposed snip

That's... a really nice post.

I hate to say it, but I can't add any more:

This.

Really?

Yay!

I wrote something intelligent for once! Party time!

 

[SMOKEMNHALO2001]

"Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?"
Why should I care about a guy who isn't involved in the videogame industry and doesn't play videogames. I mean common he mentions that videogames are about getting points? Really?! High scores have been dead for quite some time, I'm sorry but if your definition of a videogame comes back from you seeing a pinball machine or frogger you need to stop right there and realize that you are no expert on the subject. It would be like me saying that I don't like movies because the black and white bothers me and I wish we could hear the actors voices instead of reading the text on the screen.

What are talking about? High scores are still being used, they're not dead at all.
Besides, Erbert has become jaded towards mainstream movies, I don't care much for games being called art I think it's stupid.

In your average single player game (which is really what could be considered "art") there rarely are high scores. Sure they exist in multiplayer and such but when you're arguing things like Heavy Rain they don't have a scoring system. Score systems really are an old system for games where you run around and get bs points for collecting items and such.

In that, I see what you're talking about.

 

[conflictofinterests]

This is mostly an argument of semantics. People who say "x" medium is not "art" probably have a different definition of "art" than the people who disagree with them. I don't have a concrete definition of art, but in order for me to convince anyone that something is or is not art, we'd have to have the same definition. As art is difficult to fully define in the first place, and relies heavily on, not only personal opinions but on immediate and personal emotions associated with the piece in question, it's rarely going to be something two people can reach a consensus on, let alone all of us arguing on blogs and threads and whatnot. Mainly, it depends on whether your definition is more inclusive or exclusive.

 

[Jumpingbean3]

There is another thread like this and I already put my full view in there so if anyone care you can find it in the posts and comments section of my profile.

 

[JeanLuc761]

Although I have great respect toward Roger Ebert as a movie critic, he has absolutely no support on which to stand on on that subject. That's only his view, nothing else.

Let the games's audience pass judgment on games, not movie critics. Those self-appointed defenders of the "arts" have no knowledge whatsoever of games, its audience and the story-telling of that media. They can argument until the end of time, it doesn't make them expert in games and its multiple incarnations.

Personally, some paintings, a couple of Picasso come to mind, don't qualify as art, but I'm no expert on painting. So, in the end, it all comes down to the eye of the beholder, or the consumer of said media.

Mr Ebert, stick to movies. We, gamers, will decide which game qualifies as art.

You summed up my feelings perfectly. A wonderful movie critic, but that's where he should stay.