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

[FightThePower]

"No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets."

Bioshock? Homeworld? There's two.

Storytelling is an art form, film-making is an art form, painting/drawing is an art form. Games combine aspects from all three, so how can they not be art?

The problem with his argument is that he assumes that video games are just games. Which they aren't; it isn't just about completing the game, beating the other player or the computer, it's also about the experience. You don't read a book just to finish it.

 

[siledre]

I think ebert has no interest in what is art, he only cares that people pay attention to him, anyone can have an opinion on what is and isn't art, if it was created by human hands, even rendering drawings on a computer, I don't see why it can't be considered art, and besides, there are movies out there right now that have used gaming graphic engines, games as art forms, I would have to say yes, why not.

 

[MONSTERheart]

Someone should show Ebert a high resolution panorama of the sun rising for the Capital Wasteland.

Really, though, everything is in some way art. Literally every man made object in your house is art. Somewhere in some studio some artist had to make some decision as to how to design and construct the object in a way that contributes to the appeal or function of the object.

Just as a movie director has to plan out his shots/angles to convey the emotions that he is trying to, a game designer must make sure the in-game camera shows the player what he wants them to see (The conversations in Mass Effect and the fixed camera angles in God of War come to mind).

Sorry, Roger, but your wrong.

 

[Shynobee]

Roger Ebert is expressing his opinion as is his right. I don't feel that games are really art, most paintings or films have a plot more intricate than 'save the princess' or 'blow shit up on a poorly defined revenge trip' and those that don't aren't really art either. Art is about expression and most films and games are about entertainment.

Almost any game is incredibly, ridiculously shallow when compared to a book, purely because it seems you can either have a broadness of experience or a depth. Since games need to factor in choice they seem to end up hollow. So sorry but no, games could be art, games can try to be art but are most games worthy of being called art? Of course not.

So you're definition of art is that it must have a deep plot? I'm not saying its wrong, I just want to clarify.

 

[SoldierG65434-2]

The other point I agree with him on is: why are we so concerned with all this "games are art" stuff? I own Shadow of the Colossus, I love the game, I don't feel the need to tell all my friends about how artistic it is. I own and love Silent Hill 2 and feel that it tells it's (beautiful) story in a way that is far more visceral and impactful than just text or film could ever be. However, I don't need to justify me playing it by calling it art.

I think it's because many of us don't like to think we're being looked down upon by self-proclaimed artistic elitists. It feels condescending to me, anyway.

I can tell you, as a musician that has played for judges that everyone looks down on everyone. I eventually stopped caring what the judges had to say because I enjoyed music far more when I played it for me or an audience.

If you enjoy playing games, then play them. Don?t create an excuse for something that you enjoy.

 

[Grayjack]

Okami would like to have a word with him.

 

[Wakefield]

Why do games have to be art?

 

[ADDLibrarian]

A musician interacts with an instrument; can they not call what they create "art" because they are interacting with it? Likewise, a painter painting, a writer writing? Just because something is interactive does not make it "not art". Isn't the very nature of art to interact with something, whether you are watching or listening, in order to get a response? Art is not inert.

So me interacting with say, my toilet, will give me art?

Nein.

But there is some shit that people will call art.

The definition of art is in the beholder, therefore, what can be considered art is in the eye of the beholder as well.

 

[cuddly_tomato]

He is absolutely correct, games aren't art because they are interactive. They might contain elements of art, but they aren't art any more than a museum is art.

A musician interacts with an instrument; can they not call what they create "art" because they are interacting with it? Likewise, a painter painting, a writer writing? Just because something is interactive does not make it "not art". Isn't the very nature of art to interact with something, whether you are watching or listening, in order to get a response? Art is not inert.

No because the man strumming the guitar isn't the art, the sound he makes is. Likewise, the man moving his brush on the canvas isn't art, the painting he completes is. The art is not the physical substance or the creation of the media, but it is the essense of what the media represents. Games don't really have this, by virtue of being interactive.

 

[mjhhiv]

Half of what this guy says is so damn boring and formulaic and he shows a complete lack of writing skills in his delivery of it. I'm not saying I could do any better, but pick up any old issue of Empire and read one minor review offhand, and chances are it'll be at the very least on a par with Ebert's work. So anyway, why should I care about the opinion of a film critic (who is pretty "meh" at criticizing films) when he says that a medium of which he has next to no knowledge and very little awareness of "cannot be art"? Especially when he is part of a generation of which a very tiny few are gamers?

Now this... this is a tad ridiculous. Like I said earlier, I'm a big Ebert fan, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. But to say that he's just an average writer is just not true. You make it seem as if you've never read any of his actual work, other than this blog post. Is that true? If it is, we don't need to argue over it.

 

[Snotnarok]

Compared to the garbage movies that have come out lately? I think games destroy movies, movies can't pull you into the experience like a game can.

And I have no idea what this goon is talking about, Games aren't art? You mean the paintings of concept art sculpting the character models? Building sets? Writing a script? Emotion in voice acting? They're ALL artforms and they're combined into one. So whatever his argument was it's moot because a lot of games have more art put into them than other mediums. There's no arguing it, games are art because there's dozens of artforms going into some of these big name titles.

 

[Andantil]

Looks like Ebert's never played Ico or Shadow of the Colossus.

 

[Harrowdown]

Aesthetically, they're undeniably art. You'd have to be thick to deny it. I mean, has he even seen the graphics of Crysis? Aside from the visual aspect, games can have engaging storylines (GTA IV, The Force Unleashed, Mass Effect), powerful atmosphere, creative concepts (fallout 3, the most artistic mainstream game around), and well developed characters (GTA IV(again)).

 

[lukemdizzle]

This enrages me more than I can deal with. Its presumptuous, close minded insult to all who work so hard to create games.

 

[Darmort]

Games *can* be art. Other games cannot be art.

This art, however, depends on a person's point of view. I personally consider Bioshock to be art, but this was only after I talked about some of the underlying themes about Bioshock with other people, rather than talking about the game itself.

In short, Ebert's trying to talk bigger than he actually is once more. He will never consider games art, so I'm not sure why we're all still bothered, personally.

That, and I'm pretty sure he never actually gave us what he considers art compared to Santiago, who he "ripped into" their own definition of art, art being a completely subjective medium...