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

[Bruce Edwards]

If you take the view that Art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions, then I would argue gaming is one of the most artistic fields of endeavour - as its interactive nature allows game developers to directly access these feelings in ways that static or non-interactive mediums cannot.

However, if you believe my good friend Dictionary.Com, then art is:

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

In which case only the very best of anything will ever be art, regardless of medium. You can have a painting, but only a beautiful or significant or appealing painting will be art. Likewise with games - Bioshock (as it has beautiful art direction) may be defined as art, whereas a Pong-knockoff would not.

 

[boholikeu]

I hate this argument, but I will say this: Ebert is no lightweight, dismissing him outright will get you nowhere. He is probably the best and most influential film critic of recent American history and his opinions have weight, just dismissing him with "You're wrong Braid/Bioshock/Pong is art" is, well, an insufficient tact to take.

He usually is an argumentative heavyweight, but in this case his lack of knowledge in the subject is clearly handicapping him. The comment he makes about Braid's mechanics being akin to cheating at chess is just ignorant, as anyone even remotely familiar with the game will tell you.

So, I've read this article and I might blow your mind because, while I don't necessarily agree with him I can see where he is coming from. Really, I can see why he said what he said about Braid, it's easy to say "of course it's art, look at all that creative prose and those impressionistic backgrounds and beautiful soundtrack", but that doesn't make it a game that is art, that makes it a game that has art in it. For the game to be art, the actual act of playing it has to be artistic...as in if you stripped out all the beautiful art and great soundtrack and "great" prose and played it with stick figures on a black background would that be an artistic communication...to that end I wouldn't necessarily disagree that Braid doesn't really communicate the idea of "time, decision, and the human condition"

Actually if you stripped the game of the art and soundtrack it still would communicate roughly the same themes. The whole "time/decision" thing is pretty much only expressed through gameplay.

Also, as an aside, I doubt many people who finished the game would say it's about "time, decision, and the human condition". That's really only a small part of what the game is trying to say. I mean, they state that message in the game's trailer for pete's sake, and when was the last time a movie trailer wrapped up a deep film into one convenient phrase?

I read it, and it made lots of sense. I'm guessing that half the people came in here huffing and puffing. I'm betting they didn't even read it. As he said, he doesn't believe that games are art. Its an opinion. That's it.

The problem for those of us that have read it is that his reasoning is flawed. He essentially says games can't be art due to interactivity, but that's just plain wrong. Very few developers would tell you that interactivity inhibits the expression of their artistic vision, and I would guess that most say interactivity helps it.

In short, it's a bit like someone saying that novel can't be art because a person's imagination warps the artist's original intent. That person is certainly entitled to their opinion, but very few people would hold that up as a valid argument.

 

[Pimppeter2]

I read it, and it made lots of sense. I'm guessing that half the people came in here huffing and puffing. I'm betting they didn't even read it. As he said, he doesn't believe that games are art. Its an opinion. That's it.

The problem for those of us that have read it is that his reasoning is flawed. He essentially says games can't be art due to interactivity, but that's just plain wrong. Very few developers would tell you that interactivity inhibits the expression of their artistic vision, and I would guess that most say interactivity helps it.

In short, it's a bit like someone saying that novel can't be art because a person's imagination warps the artist's original intent. That person is certainly entitled to their opinion, but very few people would hold that up as a valid argument.

Regardless, it's like if someone told me the sandwich I'm eating was a not a sandwich but rather Pizza. Either way it tastes pretty fucking good.

 

[boholikeu]

I read it, and it made lots of sense. I'm guessing that half the people came in here huffing and puffing. I'm betting they didn't even read it. As he said, he doesn't believe that games are art. Its an opinion. That's it.

The problem for those of us that have read it is that his reasoning is flawed. He essentially says games can't be art due to interactivity, but that's just plain wrong. Very few developers would tell you that interactivity inhibits the expression of their artistic vision, and I would guess that most say interactivity helps it.

In short, it's a bit like someone saying that novel can't be art because a person's imagination warps the artist's original intent. That person is certainly entitled to their opinion, but very few people would hold that up as a valid argument.

Regardless, it's like if someone told me the sandwich I'm eating was a not a sandwich but rather Pizza. Either way it tastes pretty fucking good.

True. Part of the reason I'm so concerned about it is because I really respect Ebert, and it saddens me to see him arguing about a subject he's basically totally ignorant about.

To continue your allegory, it's like if the person telling you it's a pizza is someone you really like and respect. If they keep going around telling people that sandwiches are pizza they are only going to embarrass themselves. That's why I feel the need to correct them.

 

[ArmorArmadillo]

Actually if you stripped the game of the art and soundtrack it still would communicate roughly the same themes. The whole "time/decision" thing is pretty much only expressed through gameplay.

Also, as an aside, I doubt many people who finished the game would say it's about "time, decision, and the human condition". That's really only a small part of what the game is trying to say. I mean, they state that message in the game's trailer for pete's sake, and when was the last time a movie trailer wrapped up a deep film into one convenient phrase?

"What is Braid trying to say" is a big discussion not worth getting into right now, but I mostly agree with you. I'm just trying to break down the point I think he's trying to make, which I think is important in forming the Games ARE Art counter-argument.

That said, I think determining if something is or isn't art is largely an unsolveable debate because nobody is working with the same definition of art, and too often "is X art" degenerates into a circuitous version of "is X good".

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

If people don't want games to be dismissed as inferior non-art than that means they have to accept the medium as a whole...saying "Bioshock is art, Halo is not" is as bad as saying "Painting is art, Movies are not"

Well, no.

One is a judgement between examples of one medium whereas the second is judgement between media.


Saying "Bioshock is art, Halo is not" is more akin to saying something like "Alexandr Nevesky is art, Happy Gilmore is not"... not that I'm saying Bioshock is art, I'm too much of a Deus Ex fan to do anything but glare at it accusingly.

 

[boholikeu]

"What is Braid trying to say" is a big discussion not worth getting into right now, but I mostly agree with you. I'm just trying to break down the point I think he's trying to make, which I think is important in forming the Games ARE Art counter-argument.

That said, I think determining if something is or isn't art is largely an unsolveable debate because nobody is working with the same definition of art, and too often "is X art" degenerates into a circuitous version of "is X good".

Heh, totally agree with you about the whole "what Braid is trying to say" thing. I briefly considered writing up a deconstruction of the game on Ebert's blog, but then I thought better of it. =)

Anyway, my problem with Ebert's argument is that by his own definition games would be considered art. The only reason he thinks otherwise is due to a lack of knowledge about how game developers use interactivity. From what I understand, he still thinks that interactivity prevents artistic control.

 

[Thaius]

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.

This is one of the huge problems I had with Eberts original statement: since when did the qualifier of non-interactivity exist within art?

We've never really had interactive art before video games. Nowhere, and never did anyone ever say that art couldn't be interactive: it is simply not part of the definition at all. Art, like many other things, has to change as it evolves: now that there is such a thing as interactivity within artistic items, we should add it to the definition as film had to be, and even as literature once had to be. And adding interactivity is not lazy, in any sense of the word: it's not a matter of making the consumer do something for you, it's a matter of figuring out how they can take part in your creative experience: that's not easy, and any developer would definitely take offense to this.

OT: Ebert lost all respect in my eyes when he made his original comments, and this recent ignorant, biased justification here isn't exactly regaining him points in my book.

 

[KidGalaxy]

Roger Ebert puts forth an interesting idea in his denunciation of videoames as art, he says "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."

Heavy Rain, the most obvious example, does not have strictly defined rules, points, objectives, or outcomes. These are all transient properties within the game, they can change, and their changing causes the others to change (for instance, you attempt A, but fail, and this failure can cause multiple effects, which can change the player's objective.) And how would one score a play-through of Heavy Rain? I don't think you can, without resorting to completely arbitrary valuations (you get 1 point if character A survives, unless you formed a close bond to that character, then you receive 2 points, unless he told a bad joke, then you only receive 1 yaddayaddayadda. I guess that the question that I am trying to take out of Ebert's essay is this: When do games, such as Heavy Rain, stop being 'Videogames' and become 'a representation of a story, a novel, etc...'? And isn't a movie essentially a representation of a story?

Ebert's last sentence then betrays him, he says that "Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them," in reference to novels and plays and movies. So, we can conclude that he is operating from the premise that in order for something to be considered a 'videogame', you must be able to beat it, to "win". Now, I have played Heavy Rain, and I assure you, that while I did finish the game, I did in no way "win". So, if we take away that part of his argument, we can see that the definition of a videogame (which Heavy Rain indisputably is) becomes much more malleable.

My point is this, I don't think that videogames can be as narrowly defined as Ebert tries to define them. You can't exactly hold that against him, he is a movie critic after all, and doesn't necessarily know much about videogames (which makes you wonder why he presumed to write about them...), and, for his examples, he used solely those games featured in Santiago's talk. I think that if he were to broaden his horizons he would find that videogames as a whole, even if they are not there yet, are moving much more quickly to the the holy plateau of "art" than he thinks, and that the videogame as art is not so far-off.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Nowhere, and never did anyone ever say that art couldn't be interactive: it is simply not part of the definition at all. Art, like many other things, has to change as it evolves: now that there is such a thing as interactivity within artistic items, we should add it to the definition as film had to be, and even as literature once had to be. And adding interactivity is not lazy, in any sense of the word: it's not a matter of making the consumer do something for you, it's a matter of figuring out how they can take part in your creative experience: that's not easy, and any developer would definitely take offense to this.

I've know more than a few performance artists over the years who'd take offense at it as well. There's been a fringe push for increased interactivity in the arts for decades (even longer in certain artforms - avant-garde theatre has always had a massive thirst for interactivity... every few years some group or another makes some extravagant pronouncement about their 'further blurring the line between audience and actor'.)

Also, if interactivity is a disqualifier... then there is no art because observation is an interaction. Ask a quantum physicist if you don't believe me. =)

 

[sheogoraththemad]

well braid is art

 

[lockeslylcrit]

Roger Ebert has obviously never played or seen Shadow of the Colossus.

 

[michiehoward]

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.

Music is a interactive medium of art IMO

 

[michiehoward]

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.

Music is a interactive medium of art IMO

Actually let completely amend my previous statement

All art in a interactive medium, painters, sculpters, architects, musicians, movies would be pretty useless if no one was there is appreciate them. no one to hear, see, watch, listen. the majority of artists would not create their art without a audience to aim for


oh and ebert is wrong

 

[kingpocky]

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.

That's a silly thing to say. Art should evoke an emotional response. And have you never danced to music? Or been to a gig? Smiled like a twat during an exciting movie or just had to finish a chapter of a book? I'd say that's pretty interactive.

So anything that evokes emotional response is art. Anytime you dance or go to a live show it is art. Smiling is interacting w/ a book. O.K. I see what you mean, and I still don't agree.
Just cause you like something and enjoy it, it is art. What if you don't like it? Is it still art? You can use those reason for some pretty nasty things and I don't think you'd want that to still be considered art.

It's true, it's hard to define art and be complete without allowing almost anything to be called art. I personally think saying that art is anything that evokes an emotional response is a rather poor definition. However, it's still far better than your definition. So art consists of "Movies music and anything you can hang on a wall"? Not only does that allow for ridiculous things to be art (Like an employee training video or a map of Arizona,) but it's completely arbitrary. What is it that makes these things art, beyond just asserting that they be defined as such? Games can have every quality that we associate with art, so the only way to disqualify them is to say they aren't art because they're interactive. Yet no one has managed to come up with a reason for why interactivity causes something not to be art. You could come up with equally reasonable arguments for why any particular medium isn't art.

 

[DrHoboPHD]

I am unsurprised that there are people who are important in other mediums of art who look down on video games.

While yes, there are obviously video games that are nothing short of art, video games are still largely seen as juvenile children's toys by older people. It's understandable that people of an older generation have difficulty moving past misconceptions and stereotypes, and for someone like Roger Ebert seeing these 'children's toys' being considered art would seem almost insulting to the medium he has been a part of for so long.

Don't get me wrong, what he is saying is still very ignorant and based entirely on outdated generalizations and misconceptions, and he is also being arrogant in assuming he is in a position to decide what is art (especially when he is passing his judgment on things he clearly has very little knowledge of) However, just about everyone here has had moments similar to his, so let's not be too hard on him.

 

[DoctorObviously]

Thinking exactly like the OP. Gaming is a new art form. While there aren't many games that can be considered art yet, there will be more in time.

 

[Doc Cannon]

I read it, and it made lots of sense. I'm guessing that half the people came in here huffing and puffing. I'm betting they didn't even read it. As he said, he doesn't believe that games are art. Its an opinion. That's it.

I read it and while I agree that it's his opinion, he's being a very condescending about it.

 

[shadow skill]

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.

This is one of the huge problems I had with Eberts original statement: since when did the qualifier of non-interactivity exist within art?

We've never really had interactive art before video games. Nowhere, and never did anyone ever say that art couldn't be interactive: it is simply not part of the definition at all. Art, like many other things, has to change as it evolves: now that there is such a thing as interactivity within artistic items, we should add it to the definition as film had to be, and even as literature once had to be. And adding interactivity is not lazy, in any sense of the word: it's not a matter of making the consumer do something for you, it's a matter of figuring out how they can take part in your creative experience: that's not easy, and any developer would definitely take offense to this.

OT: Ebert lost all respect in my eyes when he made his original comments, and this recent ignorant, biased justification here isn't exactly regaining him points in my book.

I'm a software developer who doesn't do anything game related and I take offense. Heavy Rain is a supreme example of using the interface to manipulate human behavior. I have alot of respect for that team.