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

[kingpocky]

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...
. . .
Sure, you could say that movies aren't art because you have to be able to communicate with just the camera angles and screenwriting and acting are separate mediums that just happen to be featured.

I don't quite get what you're saying. You've summed up what his argument is well enough, but it seems almost like you're saying that argument is somewhat reasonable, or deserving of respect - even though you yourself have pointed out the massive hole in the argument that sinks it like the Titanic.

If you follow that line or reasoning, not only does it mean that movies aren't art, but they don't even have the potential to be art, since there is nothing that could change a movie from being "something that has art in it" to actual art. It's at least hypothetically possible for a game to communicate something artistic purely through gameplay. Movies have nothing about them that is significantly unique from all other forms of expression. Even camerawork, which you mentioned, already existed in the form of photography, and before that, the use of perspectives in visual art.

 

[ArmorArmadillo]

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...
. . .
Sure, you could say that movies aren't art because you have to be able to communicate with just the camera angles and screenwriting and acting are separate mediums that just happen to be featured.

I don't quite get what you're saying. You've summed up what his argument is well enough, but it seems almost like you're saying that argument is somewhat reasonable, or deserving of respect - even though you yourself have pointed out the massive hole in the argument that sinks it like the Titanic.

If you follow that line or reasoning, not only does it mean that movies aren't art, but they don't even have the potential to be art, since there is nothing that could change a movie from being "something that has art in it" to actual art. It's at least hypothetically possible for a game to communicate something artistic purely through gameplay. Movies have nothing about them that is significantly unique from all other forms of expression. Even camerawork, which you mentioned, already existed in the form of photography, and before that, the use of perspectives in visual art.

Well yes, that's the point. It does sound reasonable until you follow through and find the point that kills it.

 

[TheRundownRabbit]

Ebert is just a jackass

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

I made the mistake of bringing up this subject with a friend of mine who is very 'artsy,' and he pretty much brushed off the whole thing by saying, amongst other things, "Why does it matter? Does it make a game better to be called art?" While he did have a point there, the fact that this is also a point that Ebert makes (in a roundabout, insulting way) seems fairly interesting myself. On one level, they're actually right. Shadow of the Colossus or Batman: Arkham Asylum don't become any better if you apply the label of 'art' to them, because those qualities were there all along. Fair enough, but by that logic, does calling anything 'art' improve it? Of course it doesn't.

Which brings me to another point the anti-games-as-art crowd brings up: one criticism I've seen raised in these very forums is that the 'games are art' crowd are just trying to cover up their own insecurity about playing 'frivolous and childish' things. There might actually be some truth to that, but again, that same logic seems to apply to all forms of art. Art is largely considered to be frivolous since it mostly deals with abstracts and ideals (though it has definitely been shown to improve critical thinking and other necessary skills).

Ultimately, I think the way we should be looking at this debate is, 'Should we recognize and respect creativity in the games industry?' Creativity, especially in America, has been under attack for a long time, so I think it's important to do both. Games are a creative media, much like any other, but if they have to be deemed as inferior for completely arbitrary reasons, then I guess so be it. Mindsets change, one way or another.

 

[XMark]

The way I see it, interactivity is another artistic medium.

 

[MetalLegs012]

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.

You suggest that an artist that makes you work or play their art is being lazy. That statement is false in so many ways, for example, when one reads a book don't they have to sometimes struggle to decifer meanings or symbolism? Or when one tries to find the double and triple meanings in the word play Shakespeare's plays. Also, to say that games are just games, no different then, say, Monopoly is another fallacy. I would never consider a game like Shadow of the Colossus as "just a game" when I am in stunned awe of the enviroment and the Colossi themselves, or when I am filled with crushing guilt at having killed inoocent creatures for a fool's errand.

 

[Timbydude]

http://pc.ign.com/articles/108/1084661p1.html

A new second opinion on the topic, by IGN. I think the author makes a fairly good argument.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

when one reads a book don't they have to sometimes struggle to decifer meanings or symbolism?

Not at all. Instead one can decide that the need to decipher something means that the author either failed to clearly convey their message or they were being a smarmy smartfuck obscurist deserving a smack in the head.

 

[boholikeu]

when one reads a book don't they have to sometimes struggle to decifer meanings or symbolism?

Not at all. Instead one can decide that the need to decipher something means that the author either failed to clearly convey their message or they were being a smarmy smartfuck obscurist deserving a smack in the head.

The question is where do you draw the line? Obscure references? Stream of consciousness writing? Difficult vocabulary? I agree that something shouldn't be difficult just for the sake of being difficult, but every medium requires at least a certain amount of effort on the part of the audience.

 

[Fappy]

And people think Ebert's opinion on video games matters...? He admits he has a bias for film and never claimed to have infinite wisdom regarding this topic. You might want to get his opinion on the next big movie but who gives a shit what he thinks about games?

 

[Angelcraft]

Games are art the same way movies are art. There is a director, a visual interpreter, a story developer, and an audience. Honestly...

 

[Caiti Voltaire]

Given the mainstream games that he has likely been subjected to in what is likely something he could sue someone for given the poor quality of the general mainstream copypaste titles, I can't really blame him for his position, but he really does speak out of a certain degree of ignorance.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

when one reads a book don't they have to sometimes struggle to decifer meanings or symbolism?

Not at all. Instead one can decide that the need to decipher something means that the author either failed to clearly convey their message or they were being a smarmy smartfuck obscurist deserving a smack in the head.

The question is where do you draw the line? Obscure references? Stream of consciousness writing? Difficult vocabulary? I agree that something shouldn't be difficult just for the sake of being difficult, but every medium requires at least a certain amount of effort on the part of the audience.

Well, if we accept 'art' as communication instead of... whatever else, I take a spartan view and say if you make something more difficult than is necessary to convey meaning then you're either sloppy, in love with your own style of prose or easily impressed with what passes for your wit.

In the end, with people burying everything under overcomplicated bollocks, Art becomes a puzzle game. One of those annoying ones where they don't give you any context or instructions and you have to spend hours doing all sorts of oddball research if you care enough to get your head around it, which most people don't.

Of course at art school they wanted to burn me for a heretic so I might be a bit bitter.

 

[boholikeu]

when one reads a book don't they have to sometimes struggle to decifer meanings or symbolism?

Not at all. Instead one can decide that the need to decipher something means that the author either failed to clearly convey their message or they were being a smarmy smartfuck obscurist deserving a smack in the head.

The question is where do you draw the line? Obscure references? Stream of consciousness writing? Difficult vocabulary? I agree that something shouldn't be difficult just for the sake of being difficult, but every medium requires at least a certain amount of effort on the part of the audience.

Well, if we accept 'art' as communication instead of... whatever else, I take a spartan view and say if you make something more difficult than is necessary to convey meaning then you're either sloppy, in love with your own style of prose or easily impressed with what passes for your wit.

In the end, with people burying everything under overcomplicated bollocks, Art becomes a puzzle game. One of those annoying ones where they don't give you any context or instructions and you have to spend hours doing all sorts of oddball research if you care enough to get your head around it, which most people don't.

Of course at art school they wanted to burn me for a heretic so I might be a bit bitter.

Well it really depends on what you're trying to say and your audience. To use a video games example, Braid is a very difficult game, but that difficulty perfectly matches the main point of the game as well as its intended audience (people that grew up on old platformers).

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Well it really depends on what you're trying to say and your audience. To use a video games example, Braid is a very difficult game, but that difficulty perfectly matches the main point of the game as well as its intended audience (people that grew up on old platformers).

The core of my point of view is that for some reason far too many people, especially people involved in creative works, feel that for something to be "art" it must have reduced accessability. Something that elevates it above anyone walking in off the street, taking in whatever experience the artwork is offering, and simply getting the entire message (or whatever). People have every right to do that with their own works but what they don't have the right to do is to impose that on other people's works.

 

[eelel]

He just comes off as an ass.

 

[ArmorArmadillo]

And people think Ebert's opinion on video games matters...? He admits he has a bias for film and never claimed to have infinite wisdom regarding this topic. You might want to get his opinion on the next big movie but who gives a shit what he thinks about games?

He's a popular, respected critic who is influential to a great number of interested people (including myself), and if gaming wants mainstream acceptance as a potential art form (which could be important for artistic titles getting acceptance, respect, and most importantly funding) that could be important.
Of course, his opinion is never the be all and end all, but it isn't meaningless either.

 

[MetalLegs012]

I'm not saying that attempting to find meaning qualifies something as art, instead, I think that art is something that is more then it originally appears to be. An example would be the type of paintings that are put up in chain restaurants like Eatin' Park. Such paintings only exist to give an air of sophistication to a bleak setting, that tend to be passionless depictions of a landscape or a portrait . Forms of "art" such as these have no meaning or care put into them, they just exist. Now, videogames that have love and passion and hopefully some symbolism put into them are what I think of as art. So, from my point of view Shadow of the Colossus is art because of the obvious heartfelt care put into it, in addition to the enviroments and Colossi. On the overhand, a game like Madden NFL '10 is not art. Also, I'm sorry about responding late, but my computer was running slowly so I exited out of the Escapist.