Roger Ebert still maintains that video games can't be art.

[twasdfzxcv]

Didn't read through the whole thread so someone might already make this point.
Video game is not art. Or rather in general game is not art. You might argue that the visual, the soundtrack, the story or even the gameplay are art, and indeed they are. But they're not the game itself, but merely the elements and results. The essence of a game: the rule and the objective, are not art. They're a restrain/format/platform on which the artists express themselves. For example, a game of chess is not art, but how you play it is.

 

[yoyo13rom]

Video games CAN be art! 3 words : Flower and Braid.

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

Don't hate me, but I agree w/ Ebert.

I don't think games should be called art because art is non interactive in my opinion. Movies music and anything you can hang on a wall is art. Any artist who makes you work/play something is being lazy. Screen shots from games could be considered art, but it's only a game you are playing. Cut scenes from a game could be artful, but a game in it's entirety isn't art in my opinion. This is all just silly word play I'll admit, but that's just what I think.

Games are games, art is art.

Are you familiar at all with post-modernism? That whole movement sought (among other things) to break down the barrier between artist and audience by making the two interact. Writers like Borges or Danielewski would arrange words on the page in different ways, in some cases even forcing readers to turn the books on their side or upside down in order to read the words. Andy Kauffman would essentially mind-fuck with his audiences by playing children's songs or reading The Great Gatsby instead of doing the usual standup comedy. Christo would dot the California hillside with yellow umbrellas* (and other such ludicrous landscaping), causing people to come and watch his work. Woody Allen (and other directors) having their actors talk to the audience in the middle of their films. There are so many examples to cite, but I just suggest looking up 'postmodernism' on Wikipedia, you'll find all sorts of artists and works that are interactive in one way or another.

As I see it, video games are essentially a postmodern construction, the developers (or 'artists') creating worlds that we, the players ('audience'), get to experience, which is what art boils down to, creations designed to elicit thoughts and feelings in people. Video games have accomplished this, many times over in a variety of different ways. And this is why I never understood Ebert's stance on this, except that he's old and has become one of the grumpy old farts that considered his precious film silly in his youth, and which many of us will likely be when the next new form of expression comes along.

 

[UberNoodle]

Didn't read through the whole thread so someone might already make this point.
Video game is not art. Or rather in general game is not art. You might argue that the visual, the soundtrack, the story or even the gameplay are art, and indeed they are. But they're not the game itself, but merely the elements and results. The essence of a game: the rule and the objective, are not art. They're a restrain/format/platform on which the artists express themselves. For example, a game of chess is not art, but how you play it is.

I think Mr Ebert is being a little less clear than he can be, and perhaps it is stubborness, but from reading his entry and other comments over the year on this topic, I gather that he means that a 'game' cannot be art.

Now before you jump all over that, think on whether the definition of 'game' might need updating. Is the word still appropriate for the kinds of experiences that we have today? Does it need to be updated, or do we need a new word?

Contrary to popular opinion, Ebert does in fact, allow for a video game to be art, but the caveat is that, in being so, it would no longer be a 'game'. He said it would become a means for conveying story and artistic experience, as are films, books, canvasses and soundwaves. His objection to games is based on an understanding of the word 'game' formed in response to things like Space Invaders, Pac-man, Asteroids and so on. He writes of 'points' and 'levels' and 'shooting galleries'.

In that sense, no, games are not art. Asteroids is not art. It is a toy. Certainly, art (in the sence of skill and craf) went into making it, but the game itself, I couldn't call 'art'. That is why we always see the words 'the art of games', meaning the art WITHIN a game, that formed the game.

So, since Ebert is not going to come here and join us, and since nobody can define what 'art' is by any universal or empirical measure, I think we all just have to accept that he:

1) is working on the presumption that a GAME itself can't be art, though it can be formed of individual peices of art.
2) A game can't be art because he sees the experience as the product of user input rather something orchestrated to fine detail by an artist.
3) He does however allow that a 'game' could be art but would then cease to be a 'game' by his definition.

I think that this could be good food for thought. If a game is a set of rules towards a goal, perhaps we could all consider the definition of 'game' and whether, Flower, Mass Effect, Heavy Rain and so on, really suit the definition.

 

[UberNoodle]

^^^ And that is something that Ebert said. Games could be art in the future.

 

[_Cake_]

Art is art. Why does everyone try to call everything art. The word losses all meaning then. Books aren't art they are books, music is music, movies are movies.

Who really cares what Roger Ebert thinks about video games. The only games he uses for example are FLOWER and BRAID lmao! Two very simple so-small-they-are-download-only games.

So someone got grandpa a PS3 so he could watch those new fangled blueray movies. He downloads a couple games spends 5min playing them and then takes the next hour writing basically a flamer post. He is ignorant to the subject.

Next we should ask Martha Sewart what she thinks about hardcore Crunk dancing, but she would probably be more informed on the subject.

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

The flaming torches and pitchforks just have to come whenever games get criticised don't they guys?

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TomNewman/20090408/1099/Why_Games_Are_Not_Art.php

If games are art then so are sports. Stadiums can be really well constructed, they can have loads of those chairs a few people have a hard-on for, the outfits can be colourful and well designed, there can be drama, emotion, agony, and all that stuff.

But the superbowl isn't art.

Cuddly, with all due respect, you do miss the point, in that there are numerous video games designed to inspire thoughts and feelings that aren't based around 'Yay! My team has won! ' or 'No! My team has lost! '. They can go for more abstract concepts, like satirizing the concept of the American Dream (Grand Theft Auto, especially the fourth game), or experiencing loneliness or despair (Shadow of the Colossus). And many of them do it in the confines of gameplay as much as they do cutscenes, storytelling, graphics, etc. And Ebert's point that video games are not art because they are interactive pretty much flies in the face of the last century of the development of the arts, including his own precious cinema, so at best he's in denial, and at worst he's holding up a double-standard.

Then again, he did this before in response to Christophe Gans' criticism of his viewpoints on the subject, when he set down a very strict list of criteria that games had to meet in order to become art, including having 'a plot that valued ethical considerations above action' (his words), which if applied fairly to all forms of art, would eliminate even the most classical works of art, and in some cases even elevate games above them (Picasso? Dali? Practically the whole of the Renaissance and the Impressionists would no longer be considered art, and they shouldn't in Ebert's eyes).

I'm starting to think that the very term 'art' should be stricken from our vocabulary, though. The term itself has never given anything of worth to society, philosophy, or discourse, just a bunch of people either being condescending or angry or both. Instead, maybe we should just look at individual pieces, whether it be The Persistence of Memory, Citizen Kane, or Okami, and look what they have to say or contribute to culture, rather than nitpick over whether or not they qualify as 'art.'

 

[nomad240]

Flower, Braid, the adventures of PB winterbottom. Bioshock. I know not every one loves that game but I find the soundtrack and the story mixed with the game play combine into a beautiful strand of work there are parts where the music alone has me on edge or the climax of the story ah me at the edge of my seat.. I can NEVER remember a movie doing either of those in a long time. and those that say the video game story line is save the princess or mis aligned vengece story. I think your a little behind the times... or still palying a wii.. but anyways I would recomend looing into more titles and you'll be able to find more compelling stories.

 

[Nomanslander]

meh....what's in a name?

 

[cuddly_tomato]

The flaming torches and pitchforks just have to come whenever games get criticised don't they guys?

http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TomNewman/20090408/1099/Why_Games_Are_Not_Art.php

If games are art then so are sports. Stadiums can be really well constructed, they can have loads of those chairs a few people have a hard-on for, the outfits can be colourful and well designed, there can be drama, emotion, agony, and all that stuff.

But the superbowl isn't art.

Cuddly, with all due respect, you do miss the point, in that there are numerous video games designed to inspire thoughts and feelings that aren't based around 'Yay! My team has won! ' or 'No! My team has lost! '. They can go for more abstract concepts, like satirizing the concept of the American Dream (Grand Theft Auto, especially the fourth game), or experiencing loneliness or despair (Shadow of the Colossus). And many of them do it in the confines of gameplay as much as they do cutscenes, storytelling, graphics, etc. And Ebert's point that video games are not art because they are interactive pretty much flies in the face of the last century of the development of the arts, including his own precious cinema, so at best he's in denial, and at worst he's holding up a double-standard.

Uhm... yes. I suppose you do have a point. I don't think that games can be considered art by virtue of the fact their very interactivity somewhat precludes their ability to make a point or simply "be" (the exception is Flower, which I think definitely is art).


The reason I would qualify this as art is that it doesn't contain a key element which makes almost all games games; competition. Even if you are playing a single player game, you are competing against the machine every time you run into a flock of baddies. When you play Tetris, you are trying to stop those blocks from reaching the top. With Flower, there are no arbitrary barriers to finding the point of the "game". No competitions to face or walls that much be breached. This is the point about the similarity of a game to sport, not that the actual competition is the point of the message the game developer is trying to make, but the fact that without this competition it could hardly be considered a "game" at all by most - Flower didn't do too well .

This isn't to say I defend Ebert on this, as the vast majority of utter tripe that flows from the bowels of cash-hungry Hollywood studios even less artistic than Pac-Man. Transfuckingformers 2 was most definitely not art. In fact gathering every copy of it and blowing them up Mythbusters style would be more of a boon to art than the Mona Lisa. I haven't seen an artistic film for... well... Bladerunner maybe?

I even think that "good" films (inverted commas because this is subjective) are not art. Saving Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Naughty Nurses 12 (excellent soundtrack BTW) are fun to watch, but aren't art.

Then again, he did this before in response to Christophe Gans' criticism of his viewpoints on the subject, when he set down a very strict list of criteria that games had to meet in order to become art, including having 'a plot that valued ethical considerations above action' (his words), which if applied fairly to all forms of art, would eliminate even the most classical works of art, and in some cases even elevate games above them (Picasso? Dali? Practically the whole of the Renaissance and the Impressionists would no longer be considered art, and they shouldn't in Ebert's eyes).

I'm starting to think that the very term 'art' should be stricken from our vocabulary, though. The term itself has never given anything of worth to society, philosophy, or discourse, just a bunch of people either being condescending or angry or both. Instead, maybe we should just look at individual pieces, whether it be The Persistence of Memory, Citizen Kane, or Okami, and look what they have to say or contribute to culture, rather than nitpick over whether or not they qualify as 'art.'

I would respond to this, but I completely agree with the third paragraph, agree with some of the second (I can't stand Picasso), and you seem a bit too clever for me anyway.

 

[Skooterz]

Her next example is a game named "Braid" (above). This is a game "that explores our own relationship with our past...you encounter enemies and collect puzzle pieces, but there's one key difference...you can't die." You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game. She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie

Ebert, old boy, I think you've missed the point of video games completely. It's supposed to be FUN. Not DEEEEEEP, like you seem to think is required for something being art. Art is by definition the product of human creativity and expression, it doesn't need some subliminal message to suddenly be slapped with the "this is art" label. Now I'm not claiming that ALL games are art, that would be going to far, like saying that all movies are art, but games have the POTENTIAL to be art, just like anything else. I think you should go back to giving shitty movies five stars, you're no good as an art critic.

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

le snip

Uhm... yes. I suppose you do have a point. I don't think that games can be considered art by virtue of the fact their very interactivity somewhat precludes their ability to make a point or simply "be" (the exception is Flower, which I think definitely is art).


The reason I would qualify this as art is that it doesn't contain a key element which makes almost all games games; competition. Even if you are playing a single player game, you are competing against the machine every time you run into a flock of baddies. When you play Tetris, you are trying to stop those blocks from reaching the top. With Flower, there are no arbitrary barriers to finding the point of the "game". No competitions to face or walls that much be breached. This is the point about the similarity of a game to sport, not that the actual competition is the point of the message the game developer is trying to make, but the fact that without this competition it could hardly be considered a "game" at all by most - Flower didn't do too well .

This isn't to say I defend Ebert on this, as the vast majority of utter tripe that flows from the bowels of cash-hungry Hollywood studios even less artistic than Pac-Man. Transfuckingformers 2 was most definitely not art. In fact gathering every copy of it and blowing them up Mythbusters style would be more of a boon to art than the Mona Lisa. I haven't seen an artistic film for... well... Bladerunner maybe?

I even think that "good" films (inverted commas because this is subjective) are not art. Saving Private Ryan, Goodfellas, Naughty Nurses 12 (excellent soundtrack BTW) are fun to watch, but aren't art.

Then again, he did this before in response to Christophe Gans' criticism of his viewpoints on the subject, when he set down a very strict list of criteria that games had to meet in order to become art, including having 'a plot that valued ethical considerations above action' (his words), which if applied fairly to all forms of art, would eliminate even the most classical works of art, and in some cases even elevate games above them (Picasso? Dali? Practically the whole of the Renaissance and the Impressionists would no longer be considered art, and they shouldn't in Ebert's eyes).

I'm starting to think that the very term 'art' should be stricken from our vocabulary, though. The term itself has never given anything of worth to society, philosophy, or discourse, just a bunch of people either being condescending or angry or both. Instead, maybe we should just look at individual pieces, whether it be The Persistence of Memory, Citizen Kane, or Okami, and look what they have to say or contribute to culture, rather than nitpick over whether or not they qualify as 'art.'

I would respond to this, but I completely agree with the third paragraph, agree with some of the second (I can't stand Picasso), and you seem a bit too clever for me anyway.

I agree somewhat with your point about competition, but when I look at that word, I also see the word 'conflict,' which is one of the basic building blocks of storytelling. There has to be a conflict of some sort in a story, even if it's about a dude picking his nose (the conflict: Man vs. Booger! ), otherwise there is no story. Video games still have primarily basic conflicts in their stories, but the medium is still growing. Story-based games are finding new ways to express conflict, tension, and all that delicious narrative-syrup that has become easy in other forms of art (*wince* there's that word again) from centuries of practice. Of course, your example of Flower does bring up a good point that video games don't necessarily have to a)have conflict, or b)have a story. I think developers should be encouraged to use the medium to do all sorts of expressive ideas, and would do well to take lessons from paintings, drawings, or architecture even.

I will disagree with the notion that interactivity defeats making a point, though. What makes Silent Hill 2, for example, such a terrifying game is the simple act of wandering around a seemingly abandoned town, expecting some grotesque, doll-like monstrosity to pop out and kill you, even if it doesn't happen. Or Assassin's Creed where the controls actually work better when the player inputs them with Zen-like calm rather than the usual frantic mashing, a realization that goes hand-in-hand with Altair's own spiritual awakening as he becomes more aware of the context (or, the 'truth') of his actions. And there's a reason that wandering the cities or listening to the radio stations in the Grand Theft Auto games has become just as, if not more, popular than the freedom to commit various felonies: namely, that it all showcases the sharp social satire at work in those games. The interactivity of games definitely helps drive home certain points in an entirely unique way.

Edited for P.S.: I think Ebert has tended to move towards a more modernist viewpoint over the last 20-30 years, all things considered. The modernists largely were deeply distrustful of technology, hated what was popular, and thought we were pretty much at the end of times (largely due to the impact of World War I), and you can see the first two reflected in his views on videogames, and the latter in some of his more Jeremiad-ish screeds decrying the fall of culture, intelligence, etc. Such a weird shift for him, too, considering that the film industry that he is a part of, benefitted greatly from the rejection of modernism (the unimaginatively named postmodernism) that followed World War II, but I suppose it can't be helped.

 

[The DSM]

The dude is just afraid that is special little art critic group wont be filled with bearded tossers any more.

Its the same reason every other form of media hates video games, they know how big it is and how much bigger its going to get and are all scared shitless.

Also, I have never heard of this Ebert dude before but he sounds quite dickish.

 

[SpaceCop]

I don't think that games can be considered art by virtue of the fact their very interactivity somewhat precludes their ability to make a point or simply "be" (the exception is Flower, which I think definitely is art).

The reason I would qualify this as art is that it doesn't contain a key element which makes almost all games games; competition. Even if you are playing a single player game, you are competing against the machine every time you run into a flock of baddies. When you play Tetris, you are trying to stop those blocks from reaching the top. With Flower, there are no arbitrary barriers to finding the point of the "game". No competitions to face or walls that much be breached. This is the point about the similarity of a game to sport, not that the actual competition is the point of the message the game developer is trying to make, but the fact that without this competition it could hardly be considered a "game" at all by most - Flower didn't do too well .

Sorry to badger you with these little things, but.. competition within, say, a single player game? Isn't that quite like the conflicting motives that contribute to the rising action of any good narrative? The protagonist is trying to do something that clashes with the motivations of the nearby antagonists, so conflict arises. Granted, in a game most often the conflict is represented by gunfire... The biggest differences I can see are that in games the short-term motivation of the audience often closely mirrors that of the protagonist, whereas in the average movie the audience isn't necessarily as in-synch with the protagonist's desires. And in a game the audience is the driving force that propels the protagonist to fulfil those motivations, rather than a passive, amorphous observer.

To my mind, the audience participating in the protagonist's overcoming of obstacles and satisfying of motivations doesn't make games have any less potential as a medium for storytelling. You and I are naturally operating under different definitions of art--mine probably being significantly more wishy-washy--but at the very least I'd say that something that has the capacity to tell a story also has the potential to be art, in every sense of the word, and it's the quality and execution of said story that makes the most difference.

I think Mr Ebert is being a little less clear than he can be, and perhaps it is stubborness, but from reading his entry and other comments over the year on this topic, I gather that he means that a 'game' cannot be art.

Now before you jump all over that, think on whether the definition of 'game' might need updating. Is the word still appropriate for the kinds of experiences that we have today? Does it need to be updated, or do we need a new word?

Contrary to popular opinion, Ebert does in fact, allow for a video game to be art, but the caveat is that, in being so, it would no longer be a 'game'. He said it would become a means for conveying story and artistic experience, as are films, books, canvasses and soundwaves. His objection to games is based on an understanding of the word 'game' formed in response to things like Space Invaders, Pac-man, Asteroids and so on. He writes of 'points' and 'levels' and 'shooting galleries'.

In that sense, no, games are not art. Asteroids is not art. It is a toy. Certainly, art (in the sence of skill and craf) went into making it, but the game itself, I couldn't call 'art'. That is why we always see the words 'the art of games', meaning the art WITHIN a game, that formed the game.

I'd guess the phrase "video game" has cemented itself too deeply into our society to ever be pried loose. We could try relabelling story-centric games "interactive narrative" or something to that effect. But that phrase would probably see about as much use as "sequential art"; that is, it would make its sole appearances in resumes and sarcastic pretension...

People know Games as Games. If anyone wants society to perceive them otherwise we'll probably have to reinterpret the word, rather than pick a new one. Watchmen doesn't lose anything for being a comic, Schindler's List doesn't lose anything for being a mooo-vie. I'd call Bioshock art (original as I am) and I'm cool with it being a game too, rather than an Audience Propelled Narrative Experience.

...I think I'm meandering off topic here.

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

Are you familiar at all with post-modernism? That whole movement sought (among other things) to break down the barrier between artist and audience by making the two interact. Writers like Borges or Danielewski would arrange words on the page in different ways, in some cases even forcing readers to turn the books on their side or upside down in order to read the words. Andy Kauffman would essentially mind-fuck with his audiences by playing children's songs or reading The Great Gatsby instead of doing the usual standup comedy. Christo would dot the California hillside with yellow umbrellas* (and other such ludicrous landscaping), causing people to come and watch his work. Woody Allen (and other directors) having their actors talk to the audience in the middle of their films. There are so many examples to cite, but I just suggest looking up 'postmodernism' on Wikipedia, you'll find all sorts of artists and works that are interactive in one way or another.

As I see it, video games are essentially a postmodern construction, the developers (or 'artists') creating worlds that we, the players ('audience'), get to experience, which is what art boils down to, creations designed to elicit thoughts and feelings in people. Video games have accomplished this, many times over in a variety of different ways. And this is why I never understood Ebert's stance on this, except that he's old and has become one of the grumpy old farts that considered his precious film silly in his youth, and which many of us will likely be when the next new form of expression comes along.

It sounds like your saying everything can be called be art. Plus it doesn't help your argument when you make ageist remarks. But by your logic, can you tell me something that isn't art?

I'm not saying everything is art. I said something that is designed to create an emotional or thoughtful response is art. So, something would have to have the intent behind it, like a painting, a sculpture, a film, a street performance (troubadors, for example), etc.. What wouldn't be art? Grass, trees, dogs, missiles, staplers, and so many other things. Sure, some of us assign emotional value onto them, but no one created them with the express purpose of having someone look at/interact with it and consider what it has to say.

As for the ageism, all I can say is I've never taken kindly to Ebert's condescending attitude, and he has gone from championing a new form of expression in his youth to condemning one now that he is old. And like I said, many of us will probably do the same once we get to a certain age(I'll probably wake up and find myself amongst those ranks). That's just how things go. But, if you prefer, I'll retract the 'grumpy old man' comment.