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

[mjhhiv]

One word: Okami. Ebert fails.

See, posts like this miss the point entirely. I'm not trying to be mean, but I think you should read what's actually being argued here, before just throwing random games around that you like.

It's not just a random game I like. It IS art. You can't play it for ten minutes without being able to admit that it's art. The graphics attempt to portray a game world within a painting. Art. The story is an interpretation of old Japanese folklore. Art. The gameplay is a near-perfect balance of slow and fast paced unique combat mechanics combined with platforming and puzzle-solving. Art.

Taken separately, every aspect of the game is artistic. All brought together, they complete the colors on a much more grand canvas, and make a piece of art unique unto itself. Anyone who says otherwise is full of shit. I stand firm on that.

I fear you still miss the point. Ebert's argument, as I understand it, comes from the very definition of art itself. You and he have different opinions on art -- that's totally fine, I'm not saying he is right and you're wrong. I've done my darndest to try and explain it in a previous post.

 

[squid5580]

Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?...

Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?"

Why are stick-up-their-ass art critics so intensly concerned anyway that games are not defined as art?

Do they require superiority? In attacking gamining do they want to be able to look down from their self elevated platform on works that they decry as inferior but are no less capable of engaging emotions, making people think and imitating nature than any piece of "art" that they enjoy.

Lets face it compared to an artistic award winning empty room with a couple of flashing lights [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/1698032.stm] pretty much any video game could be considered a fucking masterpiece.

Why are you so concerned if they are? Do we gamers win if the world agrees that games are art? Do we get cookies if we can change thier minds? DO you require the superiority?

I don't consider a painting of a soup can art. I don't consider a bunch of random splashes of paint art. I don't consider a piece of metal twisted into a pile of junk art. Am I wrong?? Nope because that is my opinion. You may think I am wrong but that is your opinion.

 

[Viciousmf]

i dunno i think he has a point, but then again, it's kinda like some one who listens to music as opossed to knowing how to make music or at least keep a rythem. I personnelly think that video games are art, i've played Rez, Odin Sphere, Record Tripping, ImmorTall, and Killer 7, and thats really all the prof i need.

 

[Nmil-ek]

Eberts the guy that thought Minority report was a deep philosophical film about the human condition and that cruse performance was "complex".

Yeah I'll be sure to take his word with a pillar of fucking salt.

 

[maninahat]

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.

If art is non-interactive, does that mean that the Museum of Modern Art is wrong in calling many of the collections it houses every year "art"? The exhibits I mention are all interactive pieces with artists such as Tim Burton.

And what do you mean by "interactive" anyways? Don't you actually have to interact with a movie by watching it? Or look at a painting? or listen to music? or have to play that music if you don't have a recording? Everything is interactive in one way or another.

I don't consider looking at something interactive.

Books are highly interactive. The reader might not at first appear to exert any control over the narrative or the plot, but he can still physically control a book. He can choose to skip pages, re-read sections, maybe give up halfway through, maybe spoil the ending. The reader has to physically engage with the story for it to actually progress. This is the same for many other art mediums. I don't think interactivity is what prevents a game from being art.

What prevents a videogame from being art (and I agree with Ebert to some extent) is whether they can do anything other than be a simple game (like chess). Beyond this point, I think Ebert is wrong. Many videogames have about much artistic merit as a crossword puzzle - but literature is not just limited to crossword puzzles. When we discuss literature as an art form, Crossword puzzles do not get mentioned. Why should we consider videogames as nothing other than crossword puzzles?

Most videogames have a narrative, a story, a plot, characters, etc. It has everything a story requires. And often, a medium only needs a story to count as a work of art. That's how it works in film or literature. I'm sure if you were to take all of those components from a videogame and put it into another medium, that would be considered art. Hell, it can be done the other way around. The Lord of the Rings and Dante's Inferno were made into games. Does this prevent them from conveying the same artistic message? Sure, they may be inferior works of art to the originals, but they are art forms none-the-less.

 

[SturmDolch]

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.

All art is interactive. If you are not interacting with the art you see, you are not appreciating it fully for what it is.

I posted on my site [http://seventhcirclegaming.com/2009/12/11/video-games-art/] about this, so I'll just paraphrase that. I believe some games are art, yes, but others are not. Much the same as film. To be art, I believe the work needs to have themes and motifs behind it. Bioshock has various deep themes, as does Half-Life 2. But Battlefield 2 and Counterstrike? Not so much. Just like I wouldn't call "Couple's Retreat" a work of art, but "Der Untergang" is.

 

[saintchristopher]

First of all, no one has the final say as to what is and what isn't art. Art is, more than almost anything else, the most subjective concept in the world.

A work of art is a thing that makes YOU, the viewer/reader/player/listener, feel something.

Therefore not every painting, sculpture, film, song, book, or game can automatically be called a work of art, because they may not necessarily make you feel something.

They can all be called artistic endeavors, as evoking emotion is their ostensible goal, but whether they achieve that is entirely up to you.

So guess what? Were you moved by the death of Aeris in Final Fantasy VII? that means that cutscene was a work of art.

Were you given to pause, if only briefly, before you pulled the trigger on The Boss in Snake Eater, because you were aware of the gravity and significance of Naked Snake's action? Well, that boss sequence looked very pretty, and had lots of artistic conceit about it, but it was that moment, every second that you hesitated to shoot The Boss, that was the work of art.

And I'm not even arguing that you can call an entire game a work of art because of one artistic moment it may have contained. All I'm saying is that we should recognize what actually makes a game art: Anything that moves you.

 

[Turkey Braveheart]

This is the same guy who claimed that the Star Wars prequels and Matrix sequels were brilliant films, so I've pretty much written him off.

 

[Giantcain]

Roger Ebert can fuck off.
Some games are considered art by those that see it. But why does every form of entertainment need to be quantified as art to have any supposed value. If you don't like it fine, but don't dictate to those of us who do appreciate it what is and isn't of merit.

I would probably be more open to his opinion if he had any worth within a gaming community, but he's an old man who see his beloved cinema being, rightfully, over taken by another form of entertainment.
Cinema, like books and theatre before it will always have a place as part of a varied and open minded culture. If only narrow minded individuals like him would afford us the same consideration.

muramasa: the demon blade is art as all the visuals are really good pieces of art the bosses are really stunning

 

[SoldierG65434-2]

Prepare your pitchforks, but I actually agree with him to an extent.

To me, you can't "win" art. It is just expression. You can win games. Games can express ideas and emotions, but that is all just pretense for manipulating a character to win. In order for a game to be just art, to me, you can't be able to win. But, removing winning or losing from a game makes it no longer a game.

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, but 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.

And, more importantly, why do gamers care about what a film critic says about thier prefered media?

 

[evilartist]

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.

Who says art is non-interactive? Art as books can often draw you in and immerse you with the story. Movies are the same way. You use your senses (sight and hearing) to become immersed with the events unfolding. Art is always interactive to some degree so people can feel a sense of enrichment in their lives. Games are the same way.

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.

Likewise, there are tons of movies that are nothing more intricate than 'blowing shit up' and there are tons of games that actually have intriguing stories. And btw, art is also meant for entertainment, and games are also a form of expression for some developers.

 

[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.

"Some of the earliest examples of interactive art were created as early as the 1920s. An example is Marcel Duchamp?s piece named Rotary Glass Plates. The artwork required the viewer to turn on the machine and stand at a distance of one meter.[4] The idea of interactive art began to flourish more in the 1960s for partly political reasons. At the time, many people found it inappropriate for artists to carry the only creative power within their works. Those artists who held this view wanted to give the audience their own part of this creative process. Aside from this ?political? view, it was also current wisdom that interaction and engagement had a positive part to play within the creative process.[5] In the 1970s artists began to use new technology such as video and satellites to experiment with live performances and interactions through the direct broadcast of video and audio.[6] Interactive art became a large phenomenon due to the advent of computer based interactivity in the 1990s . Along with this came a new kind of art-experience. Audience and machine were now able to more easily work together in dialogue in order to produce a unique artwork for each audience.[7] In the late 1990s, museums and galleries began increasingly incorporating the art form in their shows, some even dedicating entire exhibitions to it.[8] This continues today and is only expanding due to increased communications through digital media."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art

Yes. I don't give a crap what wikipedia says on this. I don't care much for the turner prize either, or calling a decomposing cow art.

I may not know what I like but I know a lot about art. Art is defined by the artist, not by the beholder. If it is interactive it isn't art. No matter what that site [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_while_John_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_had_a_better_effect_on_the_teacher] may say.

 

[ADDLibrarian]

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.

 

[evilartist]

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.

 

[mjhhiv]

My question is, why does it matter if games are considered art or not? Does that somehow change their purpose? Rather pointless argument if you ask me.

Quote from Ebert: "Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care."

In other words, I definitely agree with both of you.