Roger Ebert: Games Can Never Be Art

[Phillyman]

I really hate when people talk out their asses

You may remember that a few years ago, film critic Roger Ebert irked more than a few people in the games industry by commenting on the games as art debate. Now, on his official blog for the Chicago Sun-Times, Ebert has decided to revisit and expand upon his viewpoint that games are not and never will be art. It seems Ebert was prompted by thatgamecompany's Kellee Santiago who gave an interesting speech on the topic last year at TED.

Ebert admits that saying never might be going too far, but he seems confident that none of us will see the day that games are classified as art. "Perhaps it is foolish of me to say 'never,' because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form," he noted.

Ebert continued, "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."

In her presentation, Santiago pointed to Waco Resurrection, Braid and Flower as three examples of games that "cross the boundary into artistic expression," but Ebert remains unconvinced: "The three games she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic. I repeat: '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.'"

But Mr. Ebert, if you haven't played any of these games, how can you truly comment on their artistic nature, or lack thereof?

Source

[Areala]

I really hate when people talk out their asses

This one gets a blog...God save us from those who don't have a frigging clue.

http://www.retromags.com/forums/blog/6/entry-177-ebert-video-games-can-never-be-art-areala-bullshit/

*huggles*

Areala

[Mister Zero]

Video games are already considered art. I've heard about an arcade machine being put in an art museum somewhere. Or.. maybe that was just in my own twisted mind.

Games are art on so many levels that its not even possible to make his point. Maybe Ebert should just stick to his art films since he's obviously never even played a game in his life.

[E-Day]

E-Day: Who gives a damn whether they can be art or not? Just shut up and play the games.

You can quote me on that. The whole argument is stupid. I don't know why people need to justify their hobby by saying games are art.

[Areala]

I've heard about an arcade machine being put in an art museum somewhere.

Yes, the Smithsonian American Art Museum is hosting a video game exhibit in 2012.

"From the Atari VCS to the PlayStation 3, The Art of Video Games will show the development of visual effects and aesthetics during four decades, the emergence of games as a means for storytelling, the influence of world events and popular culture on game development, and the impact that the games can have on society. It will include multimedia presentations of game footage, video interviews with developers and artists, large prints of in-game screen shots, historic game consoles, and a selection of working game systems for visitors to play. In addition, the public will be asked to assist with the selection of materials for the show by choosing the games that they feel best represent particular moments in the overall timeline."

Pretty cool if you ask me.

Of course, if you're Roger Ebert, you'll probably blame the end of the world on the unveiling of this exhibit. The Mayans saw it coming, man...

*huggles*

Areala

[Areala]

E-Day: Who gives a damn whether they can be art or not? Just shut up and play the games.

You can quote me on that. The whole argument is stupid. I don't know why people need to justify their hobby by saying games are art.

It's not a justification of a hobby so much as it is an acceptance that what is being created in development studios can potentially transcend the simplistic idea of 'entertainment' and instead achieve something higher than that. I don't personally need validation for what I play and enjoy, just as I don't feel my need to validate the music I listen to. But I do enjoy a good debate and discussion of my hobby with others who share my enjoyment of electronic entertainment.

*huggles*

Areala

[E-Day]

It's not a justification of a hobby so much as it is an acceptance that what is being created in development studios can potentially transcend the simplistic idea of 'entertainment' and instead achieve something higher than that.

Again, who cares? Why can't it just be left as entertainment instead of trying to get people to think they are art? I don't see what it will accomplish to have people consider games as art. It's pointless.

[Mister Zero]

They don't really have to consider them art, as they are art by definition in many cases. This can't be changed by anyone's opinion.

[Areala]

Again, who cares? Why can't it just be left as entertainment instead of trying to get people to think they are art? I don't see what it will accomplish to have people consider games as art. It's pointless.

Perhaps for no other reason than to give video games protection under the law? Music, film, comic books, novels and short stories have all struggled for this definition to keep themselves free of the whims of those who consider themselves the "morality police" and would attempt to ban them simply because they don't like them. If video games are art, then it becomes much harder for the Jack Thompsons of the world to get one removed from the store shelves simply for being, in his opinion, offensive.

Better to extend that protection a little too far (to games like the Waco one referred to by Santiago in her presentation) than to not have it at all and see some overzealous crusader try to get a game like Heavy Rain rendered impossible to experience just because you can see one of the characters topless in it for a minute or so.

Even if there's no emotional validation required for you, surely you can respect that one person or one group of people shouldn't be responsible for what everyone else is allowed to watch, play, and derive enjoyment from, yes?

*huggles*

Areala

[unknown3125]

Art is in the eyes of the beholder. But yes video games are art, interactive art.

[E-Day]

Lots of things that are considered art are kept from stores shelves and banned at various outlets. I don't see how games being labeled as art will help them. They are doing just fine the way things are.

For the record, I don't consider music, books, or movies as art. They are music, books and movies. The only thing I consider art are paintings. The good paintings; not that crap you can buy where someone threw some paint on a canvas and claims it is art. I can do that. And if I can do something, it's not art

[Areala]

Lots of things that are considered art are kept from stores shelves and banned at various outlets. I don't see how games being labeled as art will help them. They are doing just fine the way things are.

For the record, I don't consider music, books, or movies as art. They are music, books and movies. The only thing I consider art are paintings. The good paintings; not that crap you can buy where someone threw some paint on a canvas and claims it is art. I can do that. And if I can do something, it's not art

I guess, as a creativity-driven person, I simply cannot understand why you wouldn't consider a poem or a piece of music a work of art. If that's truly the way you feel, then there's obviously nothing that anyone can do or say to change your mind, but it seems awfully narrow in vision to restrict "art" to one medium alone when there are hundreds of ways of putting colours on a flat surface with the idea of creating an image that don't involve using paint. If you're being honest, though, then I value your honesty. I can accept it, even though it confuses me.

*huggles*

Areala

[Mister Zero]

I'm glad we have a good, friendly discussion/debate on our hands!

I don't think it's about bringing a new face to games, at all. It's just the fact that so many things about games are actually art, and the coming together of those factors into a game is another form of art in itself. There's not really much to be considered, people have their opinions on the subject, but by the definition of art games would be included. Books and movies are actually other examples of forms of art, whether anyone feels that they are or not. They are art by definition, which is above anyone's opinion.

Here are some of the various definitions of art:

The products of human creativity. The creation of beautiful or significant things. A superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation. Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings.

Modern games bring together many of the stated mediums, be they the art direction(character/sprite/background art), the score/music, the writing and dialogue, cut-scene cinematography, or general direction and design of the game itself. Many smaller pieces of art come together in one final, finished larger piece of art.

Of course, this isn't ALWAYS the case, but in most instances it actually is.

The arts are activities such as music, painting, literature, cinema, and dance, which people can take part in for enjoyment(again, video games), or to create works which express serious meanings or ideas of beauty.

Arts or art is used in the names of theatres or cinemas which show plays or films that are intended to make the audience think deeply about the content(certain games also do this), and not simply to entertain them.

If you describe an activity as an art, you mean that it requires skill and that people learn to do it by instinct or experience, rather than by learning facts or rules.

* Fishing is an art.

* ...the unscientific arts of seduction and romance.

* The art of mastering a video game.

And so we have many examples.

[Schloss Ritter]

Just dug up this thread to add:

They did a whole section on this in this month's (July, volume 207) issue of gameinformer, pages 39-47, featuring as examples: Shadow of the Colossus, Mass Effect 2, Heavy Rain, Braid, Super Mario Bros, Little Big Planet, and Bioshock. Though they refer to SMB as "childlike in presentation" instead of respecting how advanced it was for its time, it's still a pretty interesting article.

[Data]

Oh my God! Roger Ebert is a Duck-Tard! I don't know why people even listen to an old biddy like him. I'm young at heart, and my tastes are far more developed than his. I enjoy movies that get 1 or 2 stars out of 5 and hate the ones that get 4 or 5 but I must be my own judge of this. I will put no faith in what he thinks is good or is not. I do value his description of plot lines. With that information I can usually make a decision as to whether I will see it soon or later.

Maybe this Roger Ebert should try playing some Wii with his grandbabies and see how much more enjoyable it is than trying to sit them down in front of a two hour snore-fest that he recommends.

The fact that videogames are a larger business than movies is upsetting for Roger. He's an old stuck up geiser from the 50's. I don't blame him for not liking videogames or even understanding the specialized work that is only given to a select few gifted people who can create the artwork for a videogame. We have varying opinions of what art is and is not so let it be. I bet he remembers the first pinball machines. I would consider those art as well.