Roger Ebert recently wrote a blog [http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html] defending the statement:
"I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art."
To convince us of that same principle he attacks a recent TED talk held by game developer Kellee Sangtiago. I agree with him that the talk was ineffective at convincing anyone that games are art. That however does not defend his statement, one I completely disagree with. In response I wrote a small thesis on the subject of art and gaming, which I can't seem to post on his blog. :-/ I'm blaming this crappy comp. I figured that there's bound to be some people who would be willing to discuss this here though, so consider this repost as the discussion opener.
Whether games can be or can't be art is always a matter of semantics. Your [Ebert's] main flaw is his complete bypass on the subject. The only relevant passage is: "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game." which defines art as a product which you cannot win. Going through his other arguments he seems to consider art something you can experience. So the only things you tell us about your definition of art is that it's a something, which you can't win but can experience? I cannot win my shaving cream yet I experience its gentle caress and am frequently immersed (facially) in the product. What points you give us that you consider important are not useful for defining art.
Neither are they useful for excluding video games as art. For the definition of games, you provide some more detailed handles. "It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome." Though admittedly, I can't see any reason why something can't be art (even high art!) because it has rules and an outcome (books and movies have beginnings and endings which you must proceed between in chronological order. Endings are certainly the outcome of the plot and the chronological requirement is certainly a rule). Even if I could I disagree with the definition: a video game means nothing more than an interactive medium, often with audiovisual presentation. Win conditions aren't necesarry: Dungeons and Dragons is about as old as you and never had a win condition. In the case of video games there's an entire genre which does not feature win conditions, role playing games - it's impossible to win these games any more than it's impossible for an actor to win a play or a character to win a book.
As for my position in this discussion (which I think I've made abundantly clear in my response but will elaborate on), I formulate art thusly: (!)non-research media intended to (1) convey the zeitgeist, (2) critically examine an idea and/or (3) to exceed on their peers usage of the media.
Obviously this definition is very wide and leads to a lot of things being art. Even the bottle of shaving cream could in this case be art. Which is why the difference between the highs and the lows needs to be carefully argumentated. So far, I've seen games be art. Obviously in the third category, though as it is possibly the easiest to satisfy I haven't seen any which I'd consider good art. The first and second are harder to satisy, and I'll make a quick examination on Sangtiago's suggestion.
Flower and Braid obviously make an attempt to fall into the second category. Flower examines the balance between rural (natural) and urban (civilized, mechanized). However its examination can hardly be called critical, neither in the sense of opposing doctrine nor in the sense of being thorough. Braid might actually succeed because its mechanics, and the rarity with which their use is disrupted, compel most players to contemplate the power to reverse time, more thoroughly than I've seen other media to date. I agree that it has some issues which make it shy from high art, but as a midlevel piece I consider it succesful.
Walco's Resurrection seems bend on representing (possibly critically examing) the American mindset. As I'm well acquainted with neither the game nor the mindset, I can't draw a conclusion here, but it seems like just a bad representation so a bad piece of art.
I'd like to point out that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' Hot Coffee mod, and the public outcry, is a wonderful, clear example of the American zeitgeist, but unfortunately, as Rockstar never intended this, it fails as art.
To be honest, I agree with the theory that games have never produced art close to the great poets and their companions. But that doesn't mean that they haven't produced art equal to the mediocre poets - and that is something, that can only grow greater.
"I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art."
To convince us of that same principle he attacks a recent TED talk held by game developer Kellee Sangtiago. I agree with him that the talk was ineffective at convincing anyone that games are art. That however does not defend his statement, one I completely disagree with. In response I wrote a small thesis on the subject of art and gaming, which I can't seem to post on his blog. :-/ I'm blaming this crappy comp. I figured that there's bound to be some people who would be willing to discuss this here though, so consider this repost as the discussion opener.
Whether games can be or can't be art is always a matter of semantics. Your [Ebert's] main flaw is his complete bypass on the subject. The only relevant passage is: "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game." which defines art as a product which you cannot win. Going through his other arguments he seems to consider art something you can experience. So the only things you tell us about your definition of art is that it's a something, which you can't win but can experience? I cannot win my shaving cream yet I experience its gentle caress and am frequently immersed (facially) in the product. What points you give us that you consider important are not useful for defining art.
Neither are they useful for excluding video games as art. For the definition of games, you provide some more detailed handles. "It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome." Though admittedly, I can't see any reason why something can't be art (even high art!) because it has rules and an outcome (books and movies have beginnings and endings which you must proceed between in chronological order. Endings are certainly the outcome of the plot and the chronological requirement is certainly a rule). Even if I could I disagree with the definition: a video game means nothing more than an interactive medium, often with audiovisual presentation. Win conditions aren't necesarry: Dungeons and Dragons is about as old as you and never had a win condition. In the case of video games there's an entire genre which does not feature win conditions, role playing games - it's impossible to win these games any more than it's impossible for an actor to win a play or a character to win a book.
As for my position in this discussion (which I think I've made abundantly clear in my response but will elaborate on), I formulate art thusly: (!)non-research media intended to (1) convey the zeitgeist, (2) critically examine an idea and/or (3) to exceed on their peers usage of the media.
Obviously this definition is very wide and leads to a lot of things being art. Even the bottle of shaving cream could in this case be art. Which is why the difference between the highs and the lows needs to be carefully argumentated. So far, I've seen games be art. Obviously in the third category, though as it is possibly the easiest to satisfy I haven't seen any which I'd consider good art. The first and second are harder to satisy, and I'll make a quick examination on Sangtiago's suggestion.
Flower and Braid obviously make an attempt to fall into the second category. Flower examines the balance between rural (natural) and urban (civilized, mechanized). However its examination can hardly be called critical, neither in the sense of opposing doctrine nor in the sense of being thorough. Braid might actually succeed because its mechanics, and the rarity with which their use is disrupted, compel most players to contemplate the power to reverse time, more thoroughly than I've seen other media to date. I agree that it has some issues which make it shy from high art, but as a midlevel piece I consider it succesful.
Walco's Resurrection seems bend on representing (possibly critically examing) the American mindset. As I'm well acquainted with neither the game nor the mindset, I can't draw a conclusion here, but it seems like just a bad representation so a bad piece of art.
I'd like to point out that Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas' Hot Coffee mod, and the public outcry, is a wonderful, clear example of the American zeitgeist, but unfortunately, as Rockstar never intended this, it fails as art.
To be honest, I agree with the theory that games have never produced art close to the great poets and their companions. But that doesn't mean that they haven't produced art equal to the mediocre poets - and that is something, that can only grow greater.
