text:
Roger Ebert Revisits "Games Aren't Art" Argument
Film critic once again takes on the divisive debate he started five years ago.
"I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art," Ebert writes. "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."
Ebert was spurred to return to the subject by a presentation given at a TED talk last year by Kellee Santiago, co-founder and president of flOw and Flower developer thatgamecompany. Santiago spent most of her presentation attempting to prove that videogames are already art, and Ebert, in turn, spends much of his new blog post responding to Santiago's arguments.
The blog post touches on a number of the usual aspects of this debate, including trying to define what art is in the first place, whether games have achieved a level of art comparable to early artistic expressions like cave paintings, and so on. Ebert also addresses three videogame examples that Santiago says are already art, including Waco Resurrection, Braid, and Flower. Ebert rejects each example (you can read why for yourself in his post), although in his descriptions of the games it remains unclear whether Ebert actually plaid them himself (he does write of Braid, though, that it "exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie").
Ultimately, Ebert arrives at what seems to be the fundamental point of his argument: that "No one in or out of the [videogame] field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets." But he also ends with an intriguing question: "Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?" he asks. "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."
So, do you still care (or did you ever?) about what Roger Ebert has to say about videogames? Judging by the fact that his one-day-old post already has (as of this writing) 420 comments, it seems like this latest round of debate certainly still has some people interested.
See Also
Comments (288)
This shit is wack, son.Posted: May 08, 2010 12:00AM PST by RogerEbert
see title.
Ebert out.
defconawesome: 5 games Ebert should playPosted: May 02, 2010 12:00AM PST by mdee5555
Night Trap, Boogerman, Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball, Burgertime, and Farmville.
who the hell cares in what he thinks...Posted: May 02, 2010 12:00AM PST by nimrod_2000
art should not and cannot be define by a single or group of people. art has no definte meaning..... And I think v.games is an art.
Come to think of it Hideo Kojima creator of Metal Gear series thinks game is not an art... Oh well thats there point of view and correct me if im wrong.
BeautyPosted: May 01, 2010 12:00AM PST by TheOrangeSwirl
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...old man.
Why do you shame us Mr. Ebert?Posted: Apr 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by corruptedly
I just saw Ebert at the Ebertfest last weekend, and I was psyched to be there. This however, makes me sick! His art form wasn't considered art a century ago, maybe time will change his mind. I found this column pretty cool too... http://www.dailyillini.com/blogs/different-perspectives/2010/04/28/video-games-should-be-the-next-exhibit-in-your-local-art-mus.
falconpunchPosted: Apr 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by Davideitle
as someone who isn't impressed by the mona lisa or citizen kane....Posted: Apr 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by rohan_horsemaster
I can tell you that art is in the eye of the beholder. Once upon a time someone asked me "you think professional athletes make too much money??" I looked at her like the walking billboard that she was and said no, they'll get paid whatever they want because you will pay their salary. You will wear their expensive ass jerseys and buy their overpriced shoes and pay 100+ dollars to go to their games and I'll never question it because it's your money and that is what they're worth to you. That is how I feel about art. If Roger Ebert never buys a game and thinks games are not art then he's 100% right, if i think he's full of crap for thinking that I'm right. It's one of those things that is as irrelevant in real life as arguying about god, so there's no reason to even worry about it, instead worry about what your parents tell you about the way you live your life there might be more worth in that.
@EAChankrePosted: Apr 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by Idiot-Savant
I'd have to agree with you. He doesn't get it, so what? It's not like he's in the minority, so unloading all of the poorly articulated rage some of us have built up from parents, family, lovers, peers, goverment, postman, etc. on this one not so bad fellow is a punching bag quality effort. And no kidding about his current cancer-ridden state (not a lot of critics out there without a jaw). This is all he has, commentary, it's not like it's going to change anything anywhere, so I'm riding the apathy-train on this one....
Marcel Duchamp considers chess to be art; why not video games?Posted: Apr 29, 2010 12:00AM PST by NimzoDefense
The Ebert quote mentions his opinion that chess is not art as justification for his rejection of video games as art. Well, arguably one of the greatest modern artists of the 20th century Marcel Duchamp considered Chess art, he left painting to concentrate on chess for 30 years. He went as far as to say "all artists are not chess players,(but) all chess players are artists." Read the book "The Art of Chess" to see more of Duchamp's arguments in favor of chess (or games generally) as art.
If videogames can't be an art form, then nothing can bePosted: Apr 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by mysteriousgamer
Questions to ponder over:
1. are all hand-drawn paintings art?
2. are all sculptures art?
3. is all music art?
4. are all movies art?
5. can an ancient pictograph be art? What about Cuneiform? A Hieroglyph?
The answers to all these questions is yes....and no. If you draw a circle on a sheet of paper and stop, 99.99% will find no artistic value in it, but if just .01% finds value in it, then in my opinion, it could be an art form. It only has to appeal to a limited audience. There is no voting system on what art is. If there was, a whole lot of artists would be out of a job right now--trust me.
One final question:
1. if a movie can be art, and video games contain movies inside them, then can't a video game possibly be considered an art form, at least to a limited audience?
Can We Stop This AlreadyPosted: Apr 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by angelfan91
I don't think the Mona Lisa is art. But that is just my opinion. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Just enjoy what you like and get on with it. More to the point; Roger Ebert is a film critic. He reviews MOVIES!!! Who cares what he has to say about video games.
Games can indeed be art...Posted: Apr 27, 2010 12:00AM PST by SOV3R3IGN
A couple examples of art definitions, I found online.
1. Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.
2. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty
By these definitions, how could games not be art? Ebert obviously has never experienced games like Shadow of the Colossus, or Ico. Why is the art issue with games so important anyways?
@ XABONGPosted: Apr 25, 2010 12:00AM PST by Relayer71
"Ebert is right in pointing out that Chess players don't try to justify their hobby by calling it art - neither should we."
That is ridiculous. Chess doesn't require composers, musicians, level designers, character artists/designers, programmers, voice actors, etc.
Hell, the writing in many Hollywood films is no better than the stuff in most action games. But then you have a script like the one in Planescape: Torment that is possibly better than most of the stuff you see out of Hollywood or on TV or in the latest teeny-vampire romance best sellers.
When you look at a film and judge it as art, you're looking at the complete picture (pun): music, cinematography, acting, writing, direction. And most of those components are present in modern video games and done to a level that is at least equal compared to most films.
Now that's not to say ALL games are art the same way ALL films are NOT art.
And I don't think we're trying to justify our hobby anymore than Ebert is his. Oh wait, Ebert's point is valid because film isn't just a hobby for him, it's probably his life. Well tell that to Hideo Kojima or Shigeru Miyamoto or Peter Molyneaux. Ha, that reminds me - Danny Elfman film/TV score composer wrote the music for Fable.
Anyone kinda upset about this, feel free to check out Mike Thomson's Rebuttal..Posted: Apr 21, 2010 12:00AM PST by Gold_Ultima
http://wii.ign.com/articles/108/1084662p1.html It's a grand read showing of how wrong Ebert truly is.
Who gives a flying farting fuck!?Posted: Apr 20, 2010 12:00AM PST by Mumrik
I don't care if games are art or not. I think this whole thing was blown out of proportion by a video game press dying to justify its existence as more than simple entertainment media. Why else would we be having these great debates about video games as art and games "journalism"? Why else would so many of them wish to get rid of a perfectly functional (but not very artsy) term like "gameplay"? Anyway - "Ebert actually plaid them himself" - Plaid? Seriously? This is the danger you put yourself in when you blindly rely on spell checking.
Mr. Ebert...Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Indygo
BITE ME! I AM NEAR 26 YEARS OF AGE AND PROBABLY HAVE AT LEAST 30-40 YEARS LEFT IN MY LIFE CONSIDERING EVERY MALE IN MY FAMILY HAS DIED FROM A HEART FAILURE OF SOME SORT BY AROUND 60 YEARS OLD. I WILL LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO SEE IF GAME BECOME ART (IF NOT ALREADY!) BECAUSE MOVIES TOOK ABOUT 40 YEARS TO "OFFICIALLY" BECOME ART (citing Citizen Kane of course). THAT IS A LOT LESS TIME THEN THE LIFE EXPECTANCY OF THE AVERAGE AMERICAN. I could argue, but I already tried and found out Casablanca came out after Citizen Kane thus rendering most of points null. I must note that Ebert is stubborn and did not bother to play the games mentioned his blog. You should go read it if you have to comment on this article.
Definatly art.Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by cermerie
Games are art, I mean, look at the games of today. The CG is beautiful, much better than some of the CG in films. I believe games are going to survive longer than film and such. People experience the games, and the move that their own pace, it's so much more closer to you. People put sometimes hundreds of hours in a game. Games are definatly art, and they are probably going to outlive things like films and poems. It is a form of expression of the developer, writer, artists, the music writers, and everyone else on the team.
Games ARE Art!!!!!!Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Mr.LametoWatch
What? There are Space Invader taggers in Europe. You can decorate your walls with Mario sprite tiles. People create lots of art based upon video games. Why? Because video games are art!!! Geez! At least Dragon's Lair & Space Ace is art!
Roger EbertPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by projectrunaway
Why not just leave the man alone? He's a movie critic who reviews movies or course he is going to say Videogames aren't art. Its his opinion and his entitled to share it with the rest of the world but to hold on to every word he says or types in this case and become up in arms in just stupid. It doesn't bother me I love videogames for what they are a form of entertainment and nothing more. To some its art and to others its not art. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone shares the same opinion on things and thats want makes everyone different. Plus the man is not a gamer from what I've read in his blog post, its more than likely that he is playing these games like Braid, Flower, Flow, and Waco Resurrection for the first time. Heck its probably been years since he actually played videogames probably thinks that the world still plays Mario Brothers and Pacman. The fact is that the man is probably not ahead of how times have changed and how games are art.
I'm Sorry RogerPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by HeavensValcrist
Did you say something? I myself along with all the great creators of videogames were too busy ignoring you
@StevenPsych09Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Jedimaster73
Sports, or to be more specific, some players are consider artist most of the beauty of their game or skills. Like Ronaldinho, Ronaldo, Maradona, Messi, that people are thrilled, excited and pleased when they saw the playing. Even one peruvian soccer player (Cueto) is also know as "El poeta" (The poet) because how he played soccer. Now, talking about games. I said that right now we can't say games are art because games can be compare with some other ways of art or somehow, can't be measured in the say ways we do with painting, sculpture, music and others. Games actually go far beyond the definition of art, because they have something from the very begin that any artistic expression had at the same point: Interaction. Games are games as we know, because we can interact with them, control them, play them. We can play an instrument but most of the time, we reproduce a song, a tune, a melody already composed. But in gaming everytime we play, we will have differents results and not reproduce the same one every single game. Also, art feeds videogames, and in this years, in better ways. The production of a game is getting closer and closer to a movie or a big budget tv show. And that's why I believe games can reach the category of art someday... and who knows, sooner than later. As a gamer I undestand who far games can go and transport us, making them look a lot closer to and art masterpiece, but as an artist, the definition of art goes far beyond the beauty of the graphics and sounds (That's why I think graphics aren't everything in gaming) but also is about comunication, armony, composition... something many games lacks for good or wrong. Discussion about "game is art" is more of controversy and egos. Like someone said before me, is not about art and games, but about games that fullfill our expectations. As far as games can do that and people respect games as a serious thing, it must be ok. With time thing will change for better, so don't let useless discussions (Like this or the PS3-Wii battle) stop of looking and enjoy the best of games.
adhominemPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Lucas.Goudie
The people making personal attacks are ebert are pathetic. Disagree with him if you will, I do in some cases, but saying shit like "He'll be dead by the end of the year anyway with all his cancer... Games are basically interactive animation. Last time I checked, they give out shit tons of awards for animation. So fuck you Ebert." is both juvenile and ill informed.
Well...Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by scion_of_life
I would say that there are certain aspects of video games that are art. I am leery of anything designed on a computer because it takes out a lot of the work when it comes to various things. For example, I see Dragon Quest VIII: Journey of the Cursed King as a work of art. Many things in that game were hand-drawn.
Art can be defined as: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. Does that make video games art?
Well, yes...yes it does.
@Jedimaster73 & commenting in generalPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by StevenPsych09
I'm not saying you're wrong, but that is a specific way to define art. A more general way to define art is a form of creation. Which takes his [Ebert's] comparison with sports copletely out of context. Although my art instructor once told me that art is used in everything, Ebert's comparison of competitive sports to an art form of entertainment is beyond ridiculous, but people are allowed to feel how they want about everything. I personally believe games are art as well as music, movies, books, and the wide variety of entertainment and creativity out there. I wont, however, fight and argue with anyone over my ideas versus theirs, it's a complete waste of my time and energy and their's.
Let's just shoot for mainstream acceptance firstPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Stealth_Mantis
There are plenty of people who wouldn't even consider movies as an "art form", so of course not everyone is going to look at games that way. Personally, I don't care whether or not video games EVER get to a point where they are universally considered an art form. All that I want is for video games to at LEAST be considered a viable form of major mainstream media. Video games don't have to be put on the same level as great paintings or poetry, but there is no reason why they shouldn't at least be able to be mentioned in the same category as movies and music. Let's at least get to a point where people don't still cringe when you tell them you play video games, and we can go from there when we get there. One step at a time. It's still a VERY young medium in the grand scheme of things, not to mention that there are still a lot of people alive today that were already deep into adulthood when video games were introduced and were considered toys for quite some time. Let the "Nintendo Generation" get a little bit older and become the people who get to decide what is and isn't art and we'll see where we are then.
Games ARE a form of artPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Magic-Mike-90
Just recently, I have been thinking to myself of how beautiful this or that game was. Anyway, aesthetics is beauty, and that is what is involved with art. There's one tick. Games such as BioShock, Mass Effect and Fallout 3 are all great examples of creativity and imagination. Now, imagination and creativity is required when it comes to art. That's two ticks right there. Finally, gamers such as us can play these videogames, or forms of art, and experience them. Take heed of the word 'experience'. By the way, that's a third tick right there. You see, games ARE a form of art... You cannot simply narrow art down as simply some paintbrushes and a canvas. Art is broad, it's the use of the heart and mind to create things. TV's, tables, houses etc. are all a form of art... How are games any different? All I can say is that, when it comes to determining whether games are really a form of art or simply just games, it's best to experience them for yourselves than just criticise from the sideline, if ya get what I mean. Games such as BioShock, Final Fantasy X etc. required a lot of imagination and creativity from their producers, I'm sure. After these games were finished, the experience in making these games was a fun and challenging one for the producers, and in the end, the developed project can now also be experienced by the public. This is art. If Roger Ebert wasn't renowned for being a aard winning film critic, then he'd simply just be another 'old fart' complaining about videogames.
Well its subjectivePosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Jedimaster73
I'm agree with many things Ebert said, but also there is a point he miss or doesn't understand yet. Games right now are far from beign art. Art is to comunicate something, an idea, a feeling, a story. But games are not just that. They can comunicate a great story, a lot better than many award winning movies, but there are games, great and legendary games that does not comunicate nothing, just entertaint us like Tetris. But everything in this world can evolve and change. So like comics are now consider as art, games can be art. But the path is unpredictable. Personally, I don't care about this argument, because games have one goal: To entertaint people, and if they can do that, We, the players, must be happy for that.
@Joe_BushidoPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by TheBeard
You, like so many people trying to agree with Ebert (and ebert himself at points), are more accurately debating that "playing games" is not art. Saying that games (including chess) are not art is like saying that architecture is not art. Both manipulate the user (emotionally and physically) based on a set of parameters (rules(games), the physical structure of a building, and physics). If the user's experience does not play into the design of the architecture, it is no longer architecture. It's a statue that people can walk through.
Winning or losing is a product of the players(even though the parameters for winning are created by the game's creator). I can still play a game (and enjoy it and understand it) without reaching the end-goal. How many times have you finished monopoly? But you still get the point of the game.
This is the difference between a coin toss, and chess. It's not the end-goal that matters. If the only purpose of the game was to define a winner and loser, tossing a coin would be just as satisfying. In the same way, a paragraph from a book is a work of art, a section of a mural is a work of art, a riff of a song is work of art.
I think over time we've lost what all these classic games represented. Chess peices have names for a reason. In ancient south american culture, the predecessor to basketball wasn't just for enjoyment either. It was an interactive representation of their mythos.
I agree..Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Joe_Bushido
I'm an avid gamer, and I work in the industry as an artist (modeler). I agree with a lot of what Mr. Ebert has to say. Saying "games are art" is like saying "motorcycles are bananas", they're completely different things. The soul of any game, video or traditional, is built out of rules, points, competition, penalties and an ultimate end-goal. That is not art. Art is used to present a game, be it in the aesthetics, cinematography or literature, but the game itself, cannot be art. Braid, for example, is a beautiful game. The art that went into it's presentation is gorgeous. But the core mechanic of the game is not art, it's a puzzle/platforming GAME. It's as much art as a rubicks cube. On the other hand, Flower can be considered interactive art, but it is not a game. Once you take out rules, points, competition, penalties and an ultimate end-goal, it stops being a game and becomes it's own thing. In this case, a wonderful, thoughtful piece of software that uses a game system to present interactive art. I don't understand this need to justify video games as art. They're games, they're amazing, I love them with all my heart and that's why I've based my career, and thus my life, around them. But they're GAMES, not art. I refuse to lie to myself and say "I'm not just playing a game, I'm appreciating a new artistic medium". I'm not that insecure and I don't think myself below people with different hobbies. I AM A GAMER, I AM PROUD OF GAMES, AND I WILL NOT APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
What about Passage?Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by pianoBrad
I'm certainly of the opinion that games are a developing art form.
Why hasn't someone suggested a game like Passage to Ebert?
I've written a response to Ebert's blog post on my own home page: I'd love to hear what you all think! Cheers
Typo's HappenPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Shiningdark
"it remains unclear whether Ebert actually plaid them himself"
Correct: "it remains unclear whether Ebert actually played them himself"
plaid is a pattern:
Pronunciation: \'pladFunction: noun Etymology: Scottish Gaelic plaide Date: 1512
1 : a rectangular length of tartan worn over the left shoulder as part of the Scottish national costume
2 a : a twilled woolen fabric with a tartan pattern b : a fabric with a pattern of tartan or an imitation of tartan
3 a : tartan 1 b : a pattern of unevenly spaced repeated stripes crossing at right angles
EbertPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by NightWolves
You are a movie critic.....NOT a video game critic.
@PretzelPopperPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Thanos_of_MW
You are right...art has a very broad definition. For those of you not in NY, they are having 2 naked models at an art gallery in NYC. They ARE the "art" display. Personally, I don't consider that art at all and some may even think of it as a pornographic display. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/naked_art_exhibit_draws_touchy_crowd_oTa7FFOXUoznDXcA0JcpaJ So as you said, a very broad definition :)
Ebert is clearly not thinking at the right levelPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by PretzelPopper
because he has clearly never played a game with the intent of just enjoying it. If he has played anything he obviously went into with a sour attitude. He is looking at entire games as a whole picture when there is art to be found in the small things gamers take for granted in their games.
-The layout of a track in a racing game can be considered art.
-The weapon locations, spawn points, and lines of sight in a FPS multiplayer map can be considered art.
-The perfect lighting, sound, and timing in a survival horror can be considered art.
Art in videogames is not only to be found in the plot or visuals. Even creating the proper camera, something that seems to be so hard to do for at least half the developers out there, is an art form.
The word 'art' is supposed to have an extremely broad definition that captures many different things from film making to game development to fishing or even basket weaving. People try so hard to define what art is when really it is just the ability of our minds to create something original. There is an art to absolutely everything. People like Ebert need to relax on their tunnel vision. There are over 6 billion artists on the planet. Ebert is likely missing out on amazing things that he'd otherwise appreciate because he chooses to be so narrow minded.
Mmm...Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Thanos_of_MW
...who cares? Ebert is a film critic, not a game expert or is qualified to say anything about anything else. This is just his opinion as a person, so it is not anymore valid than that of Joe Sixpack who doesn't play games. I laugh every time I hear people quoting actors or any other overpaid ham about important issues, as if their opinion carries any weight with anyone who has an ounce of brains. It is just their personal views... who cares besides the morons who idolize these people. On another note, and this is obviously my opinion, a lot of the crap that Hollywood has vomited over the years doesn't qualify as art either.
Anyone who brings his cancer into this...Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by red_11
...is pretty f***ing juvenile. Seriously, where did you learn to debate? In grade school, were you stuck with a Genesis? Did the fat kid argue that Sonic is just running left to right until you hit something and that his Mario World was better? Did you "counter-argue" that he was portly? Anyway...Ebert doesn't play videogames (to my knowledge), so he really has no place commenting on their artistic value. Besides, there are many games that don't have objectives (what he seems to define videogames by). As decies said, anyone who's been watching Hollywood's garbage nonstop for the last however-many years must have lost some sanity by now. He also recently called the remade American Death at a Funeral funnier than the original. So, yeah...
Like Ebert's last question to us even if I somewhat disagree overallPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by BrokenH
We're too hung up on the "Is it art?" angle. Art is just a word and everyone believes differently on what true art is and what it is not. (Aka it is subjective.) Personally I adhere to the hypothesis art can simply exist for the purpose of being fun. It doesn't always have to have profound symbolism wrapped in enigmas. The Sistine Chapel and Botticelli's Venus are no more "deep" than games. One is about the alluring beauty of women and the other is a portrayal of mankind's relationship with the spiritual. Both spirituality and the celebration of the human form are portrayed in entertainment all the time. Just because something is "old" doesn't make it more significant for that fact. Honestly when I sit down in front of a comic book or video game I don't ask myself "Is it art?" I ask myself "Will I enjoy this?".
In the end Ebert makes a decent point by asking a question similar to this. "Regardless of what I think why are gamers so concerned games be classified as art anyway?" To which I would say "I dunno."
Wrong person to askPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by shabs
Roger Ebert doesn't understand what a "game" is in the modern context. He still thinks of it in terms of success or failure states (like a game of chess) rather than as a medium for interactivity. His thoughts of "Braid" are telling, as he thinks being able to replay a section trivializes the "game" aspect. Why are we listening to someone who is a film critic? I don't look to Roger Ebert as an authority on music, for example. His opinion is irrelevant.
PLAID?!Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by henry_bouchard
Fuck you EbertPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by ChomskyKnows
He'll be dead by the end of the year anyway with all his cancer... Games are basically interactive animation. Last time I checked, they give out shit tons of awards for animation. So fuck you Ebert.
Decies STFUPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by GaseousOcelotCakeMan
We're trying to whine, join us in our whining or go away
Horrid examples.Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by Lucas.Goudie
The one game I've ever played that I consider art would be Passage.
To make a game that qualifies as art means doing something different, generally. Mainstream games will not be art for a very long time, not until costs go down (if they ever do).
People who call ebert an idiot, you are fools, he's a great film reviewer, and a better writer than most (if not all) videogame enthusiasts.
It's quitePosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by solid_smark
obvious that Ebert has never played a video game in his life, and besides should we actually care what a hackneyed movie critic has to say on an industry he's not a part of.
Ebert is correct?Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by decies
Games have reached a level of chick scratches as far as musical composition and graphical sublimity in side scenes/movies. However there are no good examples of game art transcending the bounds of terrestial explaination. Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel and Botticelli's Venus come to mind. It isn't fair to argue with comparisons, but it needs to be said that Final Fantasy VII or whatever does not match any granduer that comes from past creations of Rembrant or Johannes Vermeer.
Its a tough argument to deal with, but I think it gives the gaming community something to work behind, maybe not create all games for the sake of entertainment woven with rules that pull you along. How about games created for the desire of being created? I cannot see this happening at least any time soon, the industry is driven by money and money requires more than just a desire of an artist. A wishful patron with the resources to carry a team of graphical artists with some creative minds in the bunch, perhaps? There is I admit expression in graphics, but it can't be easily seperated from competition to other rival game makers. Just some thoughts.
UmmmPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by ZiggyMoShriff
So If I draw a picture its art and if I write a script its art and if I make a music its art… are not all of these things present in nearly every videogame?
Completely wrongPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by beanburritos
He refused to provide his definition of art past some flowery exposition about nature and the artist's soul. Games have, for a long time, been vehicles for expressing ideas and emotions. Whether or not games have been used properly to express strong ideas is another discussion. However, Ebert completely underestimates Braid: the time reversal is far from just some undo effect. It is a necessary function to the game that, ultimately, demonstrates that time itself can influence one's perception. By the end, you have become so used to time manipulation that you don't realize that it's your own perceptions being manipulated.
flame baited by a film criticPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by kid_atomic
There is no art, the art is a lie.
Coming from the guy whos show's getting canceled?Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by GaseousOcelotCakeMan
If games can finally be construed as art, then we gain respect from the world. We become the same as a 'movie buff" or that guy who collects grandfather clocks. Except we are the best assholes in the world, and that scares people.
lolPosted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by sepewrath
and exactly who made Ebert the authority on what an extremely subjective thing such as art is? Unless I missed the memo, no one did, because no one can. The same way he would say a movie is art, there is a bunch of pretentious artist or art lovers who would say a movie is just a movie. And to answer his last question, what does the feel the need to define what art is and what art isn't?
Art rhymes with fart...heh,heh,heh!Posted: Apr 19, 2010 12:00AM PST by BrokenH
Biggest question is "Do you care it's art?". Art is just a word. Everyone has a different opinion on what true art is. Only reason I occasionally slip and call myself an artist is because illustration is so closely associated with that genre. If parents see a kid finger painting on the wall either they'll slap him or try to be nice and say "You're a lil artist Billy, just don't eat those paints m'kay?" I'm sure there are people out there that state my stuff somehow fails to meet their subjective criteria. I've simply learned to do what I love regardless of what certain individuals think.
To me games that incite emotion, thought, and offer innovative gameplay are beautiful creations. Regardless of whether or not they are "art" I've experienced gaming worlds with much better characterization and plot development than a big block buster movie or pretentious Indie film.
MEDIA MEDIUMPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by pasteurize
video game
mass media
mass media
"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."
Ebert is more accurately defined as film reviewer than art critic. That he doesn't understand the formalitive function of art critic and art historian on media histories reveals his limitations. One cannot cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, fimmakers, and novelists because "greatness" within the arts does not solely rely on the quality of an artist's work. An artist, however great in his own time, does not place himself in the collective memories of future audiences - it is the art critics, historians, and influenced artists who decide which figures in history are great.
Though, perhaps Ebert does understand the role of critic in media/art history. "Video game critic" is a title that has been disfigured and misused by jounalists who are really game reviewers and glorified advertisers, hype junkies and fanboys. Those who make video games are not failing to make art. It is the game "critics" who have failed.
Haaaa and what's with the reference to poets twice? Funnee no one talked about that yet
Games can be interpreted in a subjective matter!Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by v4next
I have talked to many of my friends on the subject of, and deeper meanings, of particular games. And many times we each have had a unique interpretation of what happened in a particular game, and what said games allude to in the real world. If you've never experienced this, what have you been playing? (examples: Metal Gear Solid series, Deus Ex series, Half Life series, Portal, Bioshock series)
Who really caresPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by v4next
He's just another A-typical elitest, thinking he is the judge of what is and what isn't "Art." All I can see is a person who doesn't want to move with the times, someone who is so far behind the curve of what all us gamers have seen & experienced, that he just wants to ignore it all and stay in his own little world. Coz if game studios do not contain artists, then how come they dont just employ factory workers, at mininum wage, to make the games? Of course they're not artists - any joe-blow can make a game...
A disconnected, over the hill criticPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Pacrone527
Take what Ebert says with a grain of salt. He is a failed screen writer that made a career of criticizing people who could achieve what he couldn't. For him to make such broad and frankly stupid remarks is the only way he can stay relevant. He knows nothing of this industry much less it's very popular and well known creators. Shigeru Miyamoto has achieved Walt Disney like status, but I bet Roger Ebert has never even heard of him.
Why is it...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Ruffini_the_dog
Why is it that people who haven't really played games or just picks up the popular more recent ones can actually give an accurate and well rounded answer about games as an art form?
Not a quality judgement, JEEZ!Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Wolvie
>>There are plenty of movies out there that if you saw a movie for the first time ever and someone told you that film is an art form, you'd think they're out of their mind.
You're missing the point. All bad movies are ART. Movies without character or structure or narrative are art. This isn't a quality argument, this is a categorization. Bad Boys 2 is art just as Citzen Kane is art. You cannot approach Art as a quality judgement of a product. Either all video games are art, or none of them are. Nowhere in anyones definition of art(I hope) will you find that art is supposed to be a quality judgement. Even the toilet hung on the wall is art, the fact that it's bad art, or seemingly pointless DOES NOT ENTER THE DEBATE!
ReplyPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Wolvie
>>Editing? Editing to you, makes a movie art? Every game has deleted content that has to be sifted through and cut before something makes it into the final product...much like movie. If someone can smear shit on a canvas and pass that off in a gallery as art, but the guy who shaped the beautiful world of Cyrodil in Oblivion with its miles of rolling hills and forests isn't. Well then the only wrong ones here are you and mister Ebert.
Editing a film and editing a video game are two incredibly different things, and even then the similarities are moot because editing in film came first. I've been down the editing debate before, and I'm not going to commit myself to pages and pages of argument as to why editing is such a crucial and special thing just so I can "win" an argument. There's no winning this debate. If you're interested in why editing is so important and special for film go pick up a book and enlighten yourself a bit, never did any harm. It's like my argument that Heavy Rain for example is a cinematic game. It's essentially a movie with annoying gimmicks thrown in it, a sub form of another art form, but not an art of its own.
If you throw a hodge podge of other art forms into a big art festival, the resulting festival itself is not art, just the art elements within it. My argument is that games borrow from other established art forms, I've yet to be convinced that games have ever brought anything new to the table that would qualify them to be an art themselves. They're the festival in this example. A game is a game, and video games are games with art elements like cinematography and music thrown into them.
i told my friend about thisPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by MangledMailMan
he immediately said games werent art, even though hes an avid gamer myself. he immediately assumed i meant all games. he then admitted that there are some games that could be considered art, but not many.
i would say a vast majority of games could not be considered art, plenty have artistic qualities, and only few are true art.
bioshock, killer 7, earthbound and shadow of the colossus are the only games ive played that i would consider art. plus ico and heavy rain even though i havent played them.
Durp..Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by jediphoenix
If someone can paint a bunch of black dots on a white board, autograph a toilet, or have their dog dip its paws in paint and run over a canvas and call it art, I'd like to think that games can be considered art as well.
But guess what, it's ALL SUBJECTIVE.
There are plenty of movies out there that if you saw a movie for the first time ever and someone told you that film is an art form, you'd think they're out of their mind.
You can state that games aren't an art, and you can state that games ARE an art - but don't state something so subjective as the interpretation of what art is as FACT, as so many ignorant people have done.
Good grief.
WolviePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by pandasnyper723
Editing? Editing to you, makes a movie art? Every game has deleted content that has to be sifted through and cut before something makes it into the final product...much like movie. If someone can smear shit on a canvas and pass that off in a gallery as art, but the guy who shaped the beautiful world of Cyrodil in Oblivion with its miles of rolling hills and forests isn't. Well then the only wrong ones here are you and mister Ebert.
The Sum Of Its PartsPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Spankulo
One could argue that seeing as how a video game is comprised of individual elements that are easily defined as art (musical score, concept art, scripting, cinematography, directing) that the final product is then in itself a work of art.
One way or the other, art in all its forms is about interpretation and it's up to everyone to decide what they believe can and should be valued as art.
Oh and incidentally, Roger Ebert is an aging, embarrassingly irrelevant jagoff, who really just picked a fight for no reason this time...I might bring my dog over to Roger's home and let him leave ol' Rog some "art" on his lawn...I'll debate him all day on that...
he might not be wrongPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by SirPolarBear
well games arguably cannot stand alone as art.. they can have an artistic direction with an intriguing story that leaves you with certain emotions (like films/books), but as a whole they are programs that are played uniquely by each person to come to a set conclusion. If you compare the medium to books, then a game could be like a choose-your-own-adventure, which includes "gameplay". Most people would agree these types of books could not be called art.
On the other hand, I think it is an opinion on what is percieved as art, so if you think it is art... then it's art. The above is just my idea on it.
"it remains unclear whether Ebert actually plaid them himself" - plaid?? come on, 1up
the only games i consider art are.....Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by EGMforever1989
Ico, Shadow of the Colossus and The Last Guardian. Period.
Children children childrenPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Alfred_P_McLovely
I agree with Ebert. It's embarrassing how upset gamers get over this.
wizkid007Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by arandomninja
"Art is supposed to be interpretted in an subjective manner. Games are not, they are meant to be finished."
so are films.
but ya know, what gets me isn't that he doesn't think games are art. ask 10 different people to tell you what art is and you'll get 10 different answers. no, what really gets me is this:
"Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care."
that's arrogant. he's right, we don't care. we don't need his blessing to play our games. why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? what kind of question is that? i could ask why aren't movie buffs content to watch their movies and simply enjoy themselves? or why aren't literature buffs content to read their books and simply enjoy themselves? or why aren't painting enthusiasts content to look at their paintings and simply enjoy themselves?
on top of that, he brings this shit back up, then he basically says why don't you guys just let it go? he had no problem resurrecting the issue, he just didn't want anyone to oppose his view, apparently. and THAT'S what makes him come across as an elitist douchebag here.
Seriously guys?Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Wolvie
You're going to say it's a shame that Eberts cancer didn't keep him from sharing his thoughts? Fucking SHAME ON YOU. That's disgusting. Yes, he's a movie critic, but that doesn't mean he's not qualified to give his opinion after a life long love affair with the arts, and if any 12 year old gamer posting garbage like the above thinks their opinions are more thought provoking or interesting than things Ebert has to say, THEY ARE MISTAKEN.
Well...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by OrangeFire
he obviously doesn't play video games often (otherwise he would think differently). It's just not his thing, I guess. But after playing Bioshock, Prince of Persia, Mass Effect, and old Sonic games, it's clear video games have some sort of "art", however dissimilar that that art may be to Ebert's definition of the term.
But if art can have an emotional impact on a viewer, and games have had that impact on gamers, from story line (Halo) to level design (Super Smash Bros. Melee) to acting (voice acting, in other words, like Bioshock's audio diaries) to MUSIC (Halo), which is a form of art to Ebert, and all of those combine together, then yes, where's the confusion?
Its not artPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by wizkid007
The making of the game can be considered an art and have aspects of art in them, but the premise of art doesnt have an end like a game does. Art is supposed to be interpretted in an subjective manner. Games are not, they are meant to be finished.
Funny..Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by wolfgang12
I thought he couldn't talk anymore, after the neck cancer and all. Shame.
Odd that a film critic would think thisPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by ScatPants
Considering that the two genres have so much in common. For example: Writing, set design, costume design, cinematography, lighting, sound design, acting, etc. etc. Seems funny for someone to be so short sighted. I guess it's similar to when people said impressionism wasn't art, and I'm sure in the early days of their mediums People probably said film and photography weren't art.
@WolviePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by botcocker
You still haven't explained WHY it's important if you're defining something as an art form.
And as I said editing is, essentially, the refinement of the filmmaker's work. As the painter refines his sketch or the writer refines his first draft. You take a raw, unfinished piece of work and tweak it, rearrange it, manipulate it, add here, cut there, until you are satisfied with the finished product. So forms of editing predate film just as forms of interactivity predate video games. The differences are merely technological.
Not ArtPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Mr.Donatti
Games have pieces of art in them, but as a whole it's not art. It's just a video game. Stop outsmarting yourselves and play games.
He tells us games arnt artPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by King_MoneyMike
then turn backs and says "why do you care?" LOL I think the real question is "Ebert why do care to tell us something over and over that we shouldnt care about? Why do care so bad that the devs feel as if they created a work of art? Does it hurt you? How can he say things like games arnt worthy of comparison with old great pieces of art and poets? FACT: most poets and artist werent even famouse until long after there deaths."
ReplyPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Wolvie
>>I don't see why the possession of some unique quality that can't be found in other mediums is the fundamental factor in defining somethig as art. And even if I did concede that point I'd argue that interactivity and mutability are factors that set video games apart from preceding mediums even more than editing sets film apart from its predecessors. Editing is simply the filmmaker's way of doing what many artists do across all mediums; that is refine their work before presentation.
It is if you're defining something as an art form. Like I said all the individual pieces of gaming are definately art. I'd argue that interaction in your entertainment as the thing that sets video games apart from other art forms is completely incorrect. Interaction in theater and cine has existed LONG before the first video game. It's not exclusive to games. Interactive entertainment doesn't hold a candle to the importance of editing.
@pulp onerPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by King_MoneyMike
what about the people who put the effort and passion into making the game? What are you even talking about "killing sprees"?? what....
A Game's Unique FeaturePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by tomspug
Is called "user interaction"...
If a game can make you think or feel something by either watching a "performance" in a game or by "living" the role of a character, how is that different from watching a movie or reading a book? The same arguments people are making now that games aren't art is the same argument people were making about movies in the 19th century.
MehPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cyberxion!0!
What I find more amusing than the debate itself is the fact that gamers tend to get their panties in a wad any time they perceive an attack on their favored hobby. So what if Ebert doesn't think that videogames are art. Does his opinion somehow invalidate your own? Nope. So why all the venom?
If we gamers were capable of maturity as a group, we'd just note his opinion, shrug our shoulders, and then move on to something more important. Instead, I see a mountain of posts giving the guy a textual drubbing for no other reason than that he holds a slightly unflattering opinion about videogames. That seems like a pretty extreme reaction to something so ultimately unimportant. I think the small handful of folks who are debating the topic with some civility are doing it right. I only wish they weren't the minority.
As for myself, I don't think I want or need videogames to be art. I certainly appreciate the artistry that goes into a given game, but it's not the reason why I play them, and it will never be.
I'm sorryPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by botcocker
I don't see why the possession of some unique quality that can't be found in other mediums is the fundamental factor in defining something as art. And even if I did concede that point I'd argue that interactivity and mutability are factors that set video games apart from preceding mediums even more than editing sets film apart from its predecessors. Editing is simply the filmmaker's way of doing what many artists do across all mediums; that is refine their work before presentation.
UghPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Wolvie
Film has editing, which makes it completely unique as it's own art form. Video Games don't have a factor that makes them their own art.
Feel free to express what you think games have going for them that makes them more than just games, cinema, music etc.
Why editing is importantPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Wolvie
"Film editing is part of the post-production process of filmmaking. It involves the selection and combining of shots into sequences, and ultimately creating a finished motion picture. It is an art of storytelling. Film editing is the only art that is unique to cinema, separating film-making from other art forms that preceded it (such as photography, theater, dance, writing, and directing), although there are close parallels to the editing process in other art forms like poetry or novel writing. Film editing is often referred to as the "invisible art"[citation needed] because when it is well-practiced, the viewer can become so engaged that he or she is not even aware of the editor's work."
"On its most fundamental level, film editing is the art, technique, and practice of assembling shots into a coherent whole. A film editor is a person who practices film editing by assembling the footage. However, the job of an editor isn't simply to mechanically put pieces of a film together, cut off film slates, or edit dialogue scenes. A film editor must creatively work with the layers of images, story, dialogue, music, pacing, as well as the actors' performances to effectively "redirect" and even rewrite the film to craft a cohesive whole. Editors usually play a dynamic role in the making of a film."
"Film editing is an art that can be used in diverse ways. It can create sensually provocative montages; become a laboratory for experimental cinema; bring out the emotional truth in an actor's performance; create a point of view on otherwise obtuse events; guide the telling and pace of a story; create an illusion of danger where there is none; and even create a vital subconscious emotional connection to the viewer, among many other possibilities."
Not quitePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Wolvie
>>The point of contention that Ebert seems to be arriving at is that games - a set of rules that provide a structure for activity - are not art, and at this I think most people can agree. A game of baseball or chess is not art. However, video games differ from what games have, up until now, been traditionally labeled as. They are more than just a set of rules. The actual playing of a video game may not be seen as art, but the games themselves certainly are. Video games have become a medium for storytelling and visual and musical art in the same way that films are. If you take out the interactive elements of a video game - that is, the actual playing of the game - what you are left with is a film, and films can be considered art. Refusing to classify video games as art simply because they require interaction from the audience is hypocritical. If you're watching a movie on a home theatre, you need to push a button to make it play. Does that mean movies can no longer be considered art?
There is more to video games than just the game. The game aspect is simply one portion. There's music. There's a visual arts aspect. There's animation. There's voice acting. There's a narrative. And you're right! The music in a video game - even the cheesiest 8 bit stuff - is art. As are the visual design elements. Even the terrible voice acting is acting, and even the most miserable dialog is writing. But just putting all of these arts together does not create more art. I can throw an arts festival that has painters and musicians and dancers and a theater troupe, but that doesn't mean festivals are art. Just that the festival aggregates all of these arts.
This is where you get a little cross. Movies are the same thing. It's photography and music and acting and writing mixed together. Close! Cinema is an art form in and of itself not because it's an aggregation of other art forms but because it brings something special to the table: editing. I don't have the time or inclination to get into why editing in film is so unique in these comments, so look up the wikipedia for a good place for you to go if you want to know more about this. Suffice it to say that editing is unique to cinema (and don't get semantic with me and say there are editors that work on books), and that means anything that uses edited together images - cartoons, television shows, commercials - fall under the bailiwick of cinema. It's the same way that everything from noh to mime to improv to staged readings fall under theater. If anything the argument would be that video games are sub art, or artful. But they are not an art of their own.
on the sports/games comaprisons.Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Gamemasterflex18
Because games are a medium to create, as opposed to the other examples. You can't create using the game of Ma Jong, basketball, or football. You can crete using things to play them, but the act of playing the sport is not art because it does not create.
as for the "Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form" argument, that is bullshit. Movies have been around for a little over a hundred years, and they were considered art 50 or 60 years ago. Games are almost 40 years old and still have not reached the full potential because of narrow minded thinking on subject that Ebert exemplifies.
Ebert, stick with films. Its the only place you seem to know what the fuck youre talking about. and even the occasionally you baffel me. still, fun to read.
he's an assPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by SuperSledge
and who really cares what he thinks anyways
Games are art, playing them isn'tPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Arcade_Wiz
I absolutely think that the creation of a game is art. And a game itself, is art.
Playing a videogame is not art. (With the exception of creative tools within certain games.)
I think this is where too many people and critics outside (and inside) of the gaming community get hung up. They think that gamers are declaring the experience of play as art, which is not true. The majority of us are just saying that videogames, as a medium, have just as much a right to be considered "art" as the written word, paintings, music, or film. In fact, most games are an interactive amalgamation of all of those mediums.
Those people who are arguing that playing videogames is art, I can't agree with. Is watching a film art? Is the reading of a book or poem art? Is listening to music art? No.
As A...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Pulpo_Oner
Graffiti artist,vandal,bomber, whatever the fuck you want to call it,no I dont like that he tries to tell someone else what art is.
but honestly I dont think that painting (classical or modern),
or music are art.
I think that art is the energy you put into what your passionate about.
so is Halo3 art? no.
is my 12 long killstreak,an the work that went into making it art?
sure,in my opinion.
Games aren't artPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by TPoppaPuff
Games are games. Sports are games. Nothing that is a game can be art. Real life can not be art either. Just like a hammer and chisel or the tools used to create conventional art. With that said, games, sports, and real life all have far more potential artistic merit than typical 'art' ever can. Art is a captured moment of beauty. Artistic merit is defined by the emotional resonance in what naturally occurs. Happenstance and quality are the two bases for which art is valued. Conventional art, unlike real life and video games, are not happenstance. Everything is placed there. There's no natural beauty in most conventional art because you only see what the creator wants you to see. Conventional art is forced. Contrived. Fake. What you read or see in books, theatres, and exhibits pale in comparison to what is possible on your console. Most conventional art is busy trying to perfect only 50% of the equation and not do anything about the other half. A virtual world is the closest thing to actually being there, which means it is in fact a better medium for art than film, book, and sculptures. It is also an infinitely harder medium for art to appear in because it must occur by itself, otherwise you're lowering yourself to some other conventional medium.
That's why Michael Jordan never campained for basketball as art; it isn't. But many of those games he played are worth millions more in artistic value than the Hurt Locker ever could.
A Real Life TrollPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Discred
I personally think video games are art. If he doesn't think it is and he wants to beat the dead horse, let him. Don't get upset just because he's saying something that doesn't agree with you. Ignore the bastard. We don't need his smug remarks about how video games aren't art.
Ebert's game credentialsPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Malev721
Roger Ebert gave both Tomb Raider movies & Hitman 3 stars; Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within 3 1/2 stars!
So to him, these movies are far more artistically profound than any of the games they were based on.
What an assholePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by donnykarabotsos
First off, I've been busting my ass making art for games for 6 years now. How the hell can you say it's not art? That makes no sense at all. It's infuriating.
Just A ReminderPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Robstradamus
Roger Ebert does not play video games. He admitted so himself.
Would you invest your money in a given field if your stock broker just told you that he doesn't have a clue about that industry?
I don't know a damn thing about fixing let's say, walls and building houses. Would you listen to me if I walked up to your paid, experienced contractor and told him "hey buddy, you're doing this all wrong".
Hell no you wouldn't. The only travesty here is that some easily influenced schmucks are going to listen to this old fool. Because that's exactly what he is-biased towards his specific medium he's deemed to be "his", and fears what he doesn't know. He fears what he thinks may be gaining ground on his precious films.
Ebert wasn't saying this when he first discovered gaming. No, he began saying it when he began to feel fear. It's just his reaction to lash out.
That's it. That's all there is to it. What does a film give us a game doesn't? A director with a vision? What truly makes some schmuck like Eli Roth an artist and keeps Hideo Kojima or David Cage from being one? Games have scripts, much like films. They have dialogue, actors and actresses, storyline, plot, acts and entire crews putting in tireless efforts to create something original.
Not only are games art but the finer details can be considered artistic as well. The writing of the scripts and lines. The artists who design and render the characters and scenery. This is all cancelled out because I'm holding a controller instead of allowing a director to simply feed me a moving picture? Games do what films do anyway, and that's plant you firmly into the experience, whether it's a movie director intending for you to feel as if you are the main character, or the lead designer/director actually putting you in the shoes of the hero, you're telling me it can't be art because I need to press buttons?
Lest we forget Roger, theatre was once an art form that took film as seriously as you now take video games. Funny how that works.
This entire argument is just a byproduct of the fear of one old man.
WhoaPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Obsoletesoul
It is very amusing to see how many people take offense to what a movie critic has to say on this medium. Actually, it is a little scary too, considering how many people said they want Ebert dead. It doesn't matter if videogames are considered art or not, seeing as it will have zero impact on the maker's and gamer's lives. The world will keep spinning, and we will see the release of another Pokemon game, as if nothing happened at all.
I play music, and if someone says it is not art, I could care less. It is to me and I do not need anyone's approval to make me satisfied. That is the true level of happiness in what you do. If you just seek other's approval, you are doing something wrong.
Why does anyone...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Gixman
even pay attention to him? cause i sure don't. if he thinks games aren't art that's entirely his opinion. i don't even listen to the guy when he explains reasons to go see or avoid particular movies. one person's opinion might not matter to someone else.
Besides he's probably just says that because the game industry rakes in more money then any hollywood movie. and also he's probably only used to living in the Atari or pong era of gaming lol.
personally in my personal opinion i do think of video games as art because games have better stories then movies.
hit it on the headPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Greendewey
I don't care if games are art or not. What a useless argument. Games are fun and interesting and thats all I care about.
Why are gamers so concerned with outside validation? Gaming industry is doing fine and making plenty of great games and will continue to do so without needing to be labeled "art" or "not art".
STFUPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Pookiechan!!!
Games are art. If some old fart thinks he can say they're not, I can say they are.
Why should I care? Well for you "sit back and mind my own-business" types (who i think are totally utter douche bags), if you love something, you support it and defend it. Why?
TO PRESERVE IT YOU DOUCHE BAGS. I hate when people go "durr hurr why should i care wut dis guy says". Because his retardation may be influential. So fight back with actual intelligence. Games are some of the best art ever. The most detailed art. Visual, storytelling, and soundtrack. Look at games like Okami, Final Fantasy (certain ones), Persona (just the monster designs themselves are abstract, exotic, and artistic), Shadow of the colossus (some of the best designs ever).
That shit is art man. If you can't feel it, you're just, I don't know, a bum fuck nobody sociopath.
CriticsPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Sly_Foxem
It has be to kept in mind that critics, such as Roger Ebert, are people who see themselves knowledgeable individuals that believe they have a high authority on their criticism and people should follow their example and listen to them. The reason why they are successful is that people do listen to them because they make logical and reasonable arguments; what the audience that follow these critics don't see is that critics are people who won't let anyone prove them wrong or say they are in the right no matter what the argument is, which can be said about people in general. A person can be has his or her own view points as a critic would and be respected for that. What's going with Roger Ebert is that his audience would agree with him because he makes his arguments more sound than a child's or an individual in an Online community that would resort to flamming or blamming if people do not agree with them, no offense.
So in sort, the problem isn't with the critics; the problem is with the audience for taken their words seriously as a religion. People can take their reviews and criticism as advice or helpful information, but they should at least come to their own conclusions without causing a fuse over it
Oh Ebert..Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by pandasnyper723
Somebody made a chocolate Jesus and that was art, a few years back and "artist" put up some orange archways throughout Central Park and that was art, emo kids spew out terrible poetry in coffee houses and that's also called art.
But if you look at Shadow of the Collossus, MGS4, Ocarina of Time or any goddamn game which is a visual interpretation of a persons creativity and do not call it art. Well i'm sorry to say I'm going to have to unplug your speak n spell that you talk from.
Does this mean animated movies are also not art?Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Trox3985
I dont understand how a modern video game with voice acting and cut scenes isnt considered art. Ok I'll give it to him that maybe a game like Pac-Man or Mario Bros. isnt art. But to say that a game such as Metal Gear Solid 4 or Gears of War arent art is crazy. Metal Gear Solid is basically an interactive movie. And just watch the Maria scene from Gears 2 and tell me that isnt art. I could feel Dom's pain and anger from that scene and that to me is art. If you consider a Disney movie art then video games should also be considered art. Thats like a painter telling a sculpter that he isn't an artist because he doesnt like the form of art the other person does. I doubt this guy has even played a game recently if ever. Gaming is a form of digital art and anyone that can't see that is blind and has no business blogging about it.
count me among those who...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by lyfestory
.. dont really care what games are.. i enjoy them, as he says we should... thats all that matters to me... i enjoy the games as they are... forms of entertainment... just as i enjoy movies and music and all sorts of other things... and thats the way i hope it stays....
It can be and will be.Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by heavyweather77
Games could and, in my opinion, should be art. Most games don't come close to the mark of great literature and film, as Ebert says, but many do: Okami is my current favorite example of a very artisticly done game, and, from what I've seen of them, Shadow of the Colossus and Ico are similarly compelling and beautiful. Planescape: Torment is a great creation, as well.
One thing that separates art from non-art is a singular creative vision and purpose. Most games are full of compromise, and that keeps them from being art. The rise of independent game developers, however, means that games can and will continue to become more the work of individual creative minds than profit-driven committees, and that will raise the bar of how emotionally compelling they can be. Art is tied to beauty-- in all of its disparate forms, including complicated sensations of pain and confusion-- and some very beautiful games have started to emerge in the last ten years. Music, animation, landscaping, the creation of a virtual environment... in many ways, I see video games as the logical next generation of art, comparable to architecture in its all-inclusiveness.
I find it to be self-evident that games like Okami and Ico will prove to be the most important games of this era, precisely because of the cohesive vision behind each of those games. When a talented and skilled creator puts his soul behind something, be it a game, sculpture, or piece of music, the result is art, and I'm very excited about the beautiful things the gaming medium will give us in the future.
Regardless of what Ebert says. Oh, yeah, and his taste in movies sucks balls.
180 posts damnPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by stealth_king
The man really has opened the flood gates, and with good reason theres a flood to.
Not gonna read all the posts but can assume the most common answer as to why we want videogames to be art is because art is protected by the constitution. How many games now have avoided being banned or censored by uptight conservative groups like MADD or all around pricks like Jack Thompson because the Supreme Court declared it art and thus protected? You cant compare videogames to things like basketball and Mah Jong.
Basketball and Mah Jong dont have characters and storylines and dialogue and plot. Its simply (in the case of basketball) people running up and down the court with a ball. And no the commentators arent providing dialogue, their providing what their name says, comments. But in dialogue what videogames and books and movies have, you often get controversial topics. The sheer fact that people got upset about a gay character in GTA4's Ballad of Gay Tony (and you dont even play him) alone should tell you games are stimulating debate and discussion.
Isnt art my ass. Alright Bioshock may have heavily borrowed from Ayn Rand's work but her work is considered art (whether or not you like it doesnt change the fact its art), so why isnt Bioshock art if it merely changed some names and clothing? Or what about Mass Effect? For the longest time now everyone says Mass Effect is like Star Trek and last I checked people are still watching Star Trek, attending conventions, and arguing who was the better captain (my vote is for Kirk).
For fuck sake what does this man need to convince him games are art?
Big A-list Movies: big budgets, long production time, actors, writers, producers, rehearsing scenes, complex characters, narrative, sometimes touching controversial topics, etc.
Big A-list Games: big budgets, long development time, voice actors, writers, publishers, rehearsing scenes, complex characters, narrative, sometimes touching controversial topics, etc.
Some names are changed but they have the exact same job. Hell the biggest sign of all videogames are art like movies? Videogames also have annoying bitchy critics.
ya know...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by yagamikun
Roger Ebert is an ancient MOVIE critic who has given "two thumbs up" to many, many movies I've personally snubbed. For him to have an opinion on gaming, and for the general gaming public to be so raised by it, is absolutely silly. He is coming from the viewpoint of somebody who just doesn't get the skill involved in even making a simple character animation...yet he gives Pixar movies great reviews because they are movies. Even though so much of the same technology and artistic expression used to create these CGI movies are found in today's games, he fails to see the connection because it is a swarm of media he just doesn't "get." And...that's ok! It's the same reason so many parents will buy any "game" for their kids because they see it as an extension of what they may have played when they were younger then take the game back to the retailer screaming that it has a foul word or boobies in it. I've heard so many times, "they don't make games like they used to", just like my parents said of animation, "they don't make cartoons like they used to" (referencing Loony Tunes).
Video games are just another form of artistic expression used to entertain people that some people will get, and some will not. Some will take the time to understand the time and effort it takes from talented groups of individuals to create a piece of compelling software...then some will play Damnation and write off video games as useless drivel. Art is in the eye of the beholder and it doesn't really need to go deeper than that. Video games DO have a history, and as my generation (x) moves on to replace the baby boomers, we'll see more and more the influence video games will have made on society as a whole.
Why this mattersPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cairnius
Like I said on my blog, I don't really care whether Roger Ebert thinks games are art or not, but that's not the point. It's the discussion itself which is important.
Video games used to be the sole refuge of the geek and the nerd. Now they are fairly mainstreamed, and I would posit that the current quality of our games is in no small part due to this mainstreaming. The more legitimate and "normal" gaming becomes, the more people are interested in it, the more people decide to study game design and computer programming or whatever requisite skills the best game designers are going to require for success, and hence the more people we have producing games in total, and the more quality games get produced.
The current quality of our games is not simply an expression of the state of our current technology. If there hadn't been creative people fascinated with games and their potential, we wouldn't have had this explosion of video game development. Therefore, it is worth engaging with major cultural figures like Roger Ebert on the subject, because it throws gaming further into the light of the mainstream.
There is value in the journey here. People get to hung up on the destination.
hell...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by xWhackoJacko
..i think games are more artistic then movies 9 times out of 10. It takes far more work to make a game, far more talent, and more creative geniuses working on a game then to make a film.
Film is generally way more funded, and far more exceptable amongst people as art.
Ebert is just an old fart who still thinks of video games as little kids toys and Mario jumping on walking Mushrooms. He doesn't know shit.
I don't get him....Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by straiven
Movies have directors. Games have directors. Movies have producers. Games have producers. Movies have editors. Games have editors. Movies have designers. Games have designers. The comparisons go on and on. The only difference I can really see is that you can interact with games. Yeah, movies these days are now being displayed in 3D...but its not really the same. Its a total slap in the face to the hardworking man and women in the gaming industry to say their craft is not a work of art. Holy hell! Take a look at Uncharted 2. Out of all the hard work that was put in that masterpiece he still has the jewels to claim games are not art. Most movies take about 6 months to complete. We got cames that are in development for over 3 years! Give it a rest, Ebert. There is art in the hobby a lot of us here on this site enjoy.
Games are Art.Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by TonyLoomis
Metal Gear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots is ART.
does everything that a film does, and even better in some instances. I mean if the Mona Lisa is considered art (and I've seen it in person) than MGS 4 is art. The Mona Lisa is just there were as, MGS 4 is living and breathing.
Sorry Roger, your wrong and you suck. go 'talk' to somebody else with your dumb a** opinions because us gamers don't buy it.
Michael Jordan? Bobby Fischer?Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by BlazingAero
Is he fucking serious? He found the wrong analogy. We are not supposed to relate this argument to people who play a sport or game very well.... we're speaking of those who CREATE videogames - not those who PLAY them. These creators are using artistic talent. Graphics design, music, story, levels, etc.... art. Those artists should be able to take pride in what they do - In many of their minds, that's their life's work. They're not on a fucking assembly line, connecting corresponding pre-made parts or anything.
My theory: Ebert's just upset that he's JUDGED art all of his life, and wishes that he CREATED it. So using non-sequitary analogies to determine what art is(n't) should fill the void from his lack of creative perspective. He's never formed any emotional attachment to videogames either, so he has no way of seeing the beauty in them. Sorry, Ebert.
Seriously...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by HyrulePrincess
how can Video Games not be art! Take Super Mario games or Zelda games for example, through the years they have always been so profound. The creators pay attention to detail and add wonderful music scores, not to mention all the beautiful worlds you can explore. How can something made from all these forms of art NOT be art itself? It's like saying a human gave birth to a puppy instead of a human baby.
Since when...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by johnjardel
does Roger Ebert dictate the definition of art?
And since when does anyone give a shit about his opinions on anything other than film?
Making a big deal about a film critic's opinions on an entirely different medium makes the the "Games As Art" movement look a little desperate for affirmation. Besides, his article itself (regardless of what 1up says) doesn't actually present counterpoints to the TED talk's examples. He just explains his opinions on the 3 second clips presented in the talk and the speakers presentation of said game. I'm pretty sure he didn't actually "plaid" any of the games in the article.
If anyone should be mad at anyone, be angry at the speaker who didn't even come close to presenting the actual depth of the indie games or arthouse game movement. I wouldn't even call it a good primer.
switchSTRIKEPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by GomezGomita
said the guy who´s constantly trying to convince us that videogames are AS GOOD as cinema... or ARE cinema... not impressed, for example, by saying that MGS in not art he is denying the fact that shujo murata, yoji shinkawa, norihiko hibino, harry gregson williams,etc, are true artists... which I think it´s ridiculous, and what is he then? he is an artist!!!, cut the emo crap kojima san!!! he just want to be a rebel boy, a ¨martyr¨, he just want to be ¨the legend of the most creative game developer who always said that videogames bla, bla, bla
Like asking whether something is "Love" or "God"Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by parklife444
Art is such an ill-defined concept. So what is Ebert trying to say? That a game has never been enriching? Has never contained a well-written sentence? A pretty picture? An interesting use of perspective? Has been made without profit motive? Has been hung on a wall?
Art Critics... Can't Stand Them!Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by crissbones
It really is annoying when someone decides "what is art and what isn't" and we all have to listen to them because they know what "real" art and culture is and us "uncultured" people don't know nothing. Well, those people need to get off their high-horses and quit being snooty and "all-mighty"! Sick of their crap.
I love reading Ebert's movie reviews...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by spooie
But the guy really has no clue when it comes to games. I'm convinced the only game he's ever played was TMNT on the NES. And if you've read his review of the first TMNT movie, you'll realize that he seems to think it was based on such.
Regardless, now that George W. Bush isn't in the white house, and he can no longer last out into tirades against his administration every other week (though, god bless him, he tries), he's going to need something familiar to fall back on that doesn't require much of his thought, so expect more on the gaming front.
Hideo Kojima says video games are NOT artPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by switchSTRIKE
Here's the proof:
JustcallmeCoryPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by GomezGomita
yeah, but not only cinema, in animation too!!!, and if you guys still are so worried about plot and characters, every visual art has it, cinema, animation and comics, SO STOP COMPARING VIDEOGAMES WITH CINEMA!!! MARIO, ZELDA, DRAGON QUEST, TO NAME A FEW, THEY ALL HAVE WEAK PLOTS AND WEAK CHARACTERS (not in terms of design) MOST OF THE GREAT VIDEOGAMES IN HISTORY ARE ALL ABOUT GAMEPLAY AND CHARACTER DESIGN, THE ART RESIDE ON THESE TWO POINTS. PLOT, SCRIPT AND NARRATIVE ARE SECONDARY, EVEN ON RPGs AND HORROR GAMES...
@kite runner againPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by emulator-slave
...and btw as a Dick/Kubrick/Trumbo/Linklater/Pahaliniuk fan I agree with you that those are great movies and books.But I think you'll find in time that they are not quite as profound as you would like to think(in fact Fight Club is a hypocritical POS).I know your mentality because I used to be like you.Then I evolved and realized that taste and intelligence are completely unrelated.Stop looking down on everyone and you might actually enjoy life.
@Kite Jargon...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by emulator-slave
Well,well,well.Isn't someone smug and self-satisfied?My fellow Canadian your half-baked opinion does a dis-service to your supposed intellect.Saying"these books and movies that I like are art"shows that you truly don't understand the nature of the argument.
BTW stop telling people you're Canadian.People like you are the reason Canadians are swiftly gaining an international reputation as arrogant snobs.
roger's right....Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Gunnera
It doesn't matter what his opinion is.... maybe if it was a major person from the video game industry. He certainly has a right to his opinion. How can someone be expected to realize there is an art to (some) games when you've never been sucked into a beautiful experience in some of these games out.
This guy doesn't know what he is talking about.Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by cobra872
Some of the greatest games and the greatest creators have only been around for a small number of years. And he's comparing them to great poets, filmmakers, and novelists? Films have been around for over 100 years, while poetry and novels have been around forever.
Video games have been getting increasingly popular, and have only been getting better and better every year. And I guarantee you that video games will reach the same status as movies in time, while some of the greatest creators such as Shigeru Miyamoto will be recognized.
Roger Ebert...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by scatteredshores
First off, that entire blog post said absolutely nothing, other than "I have never played a video game". He may have, but this is not obvious in his post. It would amaze me if he has played even one of the games he has said aren't art(though I do not agree with the selected examples of video game "art"), but I agree; most video games are in no way artful or stunning or moving in any way. Many of the games I would consider art are never going to be brought to Roger Ebert's attention, for he is not a gamer. The problem is that much of what a game delivers does so through 'feel', the emotions and ideas that are transmitted through interaction. Ebert, in his ignorance, attempts to absorb that via osmosis and misses the point entirely.
Sometimes I think vid games are more art than some moviesPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by sparks24
It's true. I look at some current movies, like Avatar, and I say "Now that's art!" But I also look at some games, like Resident evil 4, World of Warcraft, and (some parts of) the Metal gear solid series and also say "That's art!" Honestly, teh definitoin of art is so broad that it HARDLY restricts itself to just movies and music. But, I'm not going to give my definiton of art, because the word art itself is inherently subjective and very broad. I think Ebert is expecting people to believe him because of hsi experience in teh movie industry, but honestly I hear him say so much ignorant crap about MOVIES (didn't he give the spongebob movie a thumbs up?) that I do not find him a reliable source of information and insight.
@ AverageToaster:
I dunno...a lil game called zelda? Halo? FFX? There are actually many if you think about it...
haha @77th-BrigadePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by kiteJargon
I also used the wrong form of "write". I instead put "right". Didn't catch that eh? I'm not trying to be condescending, I'm merely playing to my audience. I'm just asking for certain people to explore a few more realms than games alone. Sorry man, should've proof read.
Art is in the eye of the beholder, this dummy can't see thatPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by BigBacon87
Why does he figure his word means anything to anybody concerning art. He might be the most famous critic in the world(because Siskel died) but at the end of the day he just needs to get over himself BECAUSE he's nothing more than a damn movie critic. If you can call a book or a movie art then you can call anything with a story art really. Why is poetry art? If a game involves poetry is that poetry not considered art? I hate when clown-shoes like this guy go flapping their gums. It's obvious that he does not know a damn thing about what he's talking about nor does he have any solid arguments to back his mouth up. Stick to your own industry jackass we don't acknowledge your OPINION in ours.
Games aren't art, but VIDEO games arePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by d2druid
The point of contention that Ebert seems to be arriving at is that games - a set of rules that provide a structure for activity - are not art, and at this I think most people can agree. A game of baseball or chess is not art. However, video games differ from what games have, up until now, been traditionally labeled as. They are more than just a set of rules. The actual playing of a video game may not be seen as art, but the games themselves certainly are. Video games have become a medium for storytelling and visual and musical art in the same way that films are. If you take out the interactive elements of a video game - that is, the actual playing of the game - what you are left with is a film, and films can be considered art. Refusing to classify video games as art simply because they require interaction from the audience is hypocritical. If you're watching a movie on a home theatre, you need to push a button to make it play. Does that mean movies can no longer be considered art?
In a few, rare occurances, video games have been made entirely into art, including the interactive portions. 99% of the time that's not the case, but there are a few cases where it can be seen that way. Heavy Rain, for example, simply would not work as a film. The interactive elements force an emotional involvement by the player that would not be there if the player were simply observing. Because every action or mistake can have dire consequences on the characters and story, to the point of who lives and who dies, the player has that much more investment in the world.
Another example would be the puzzle game Lumines. The simple fact that each and every action by the player alters the appearance and music in the game, the player is actively involved in creating a piece of art just by playing.
It's clear that Roger Ebert has never played a modern video game, he's only watched clips on youtube. It's extremely disappointing that a critic is making snap judgements like this without even experiencing what he's judging. He trudges through awful movies all a time as part of his job, but even the best video games aren't worth his time? Disgraceful.
HrmPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by 77th-Brigade
I feel kind of bad because kiteJargon's (somewhat) educated sounding post, while sounding entirely condescending (fun fact: we also spell colour with a "u" aren't we fascinating and better than all of you?), was entirely ruined for me by the fact that they used an apostrophe improperly in the word "your".
Grammar nazi, ho!
As for the argument, art is really what you make of it. Yes, Roger Ebert doesn't feel that video games can be works of art. I do, albeit that only applies to a very small amount of them. If you think something is art, someone saying it isn't doesn't make it any less artistic in your own mind, and that is really all that matters. There's not a whole lot of reason for people to get so huffy over things like this. It makes us all look like a bunch of ragers.
I think it is artPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by ninjamunkey01
If you can call a painting of a scene, with no artisic changes, just a photorealistic picture art, then you can easily call a game striving to mimick real life art.
I dont see his point at all. Does he just say this becuase its all made p of 1's and 0's instead of a paintbrush?
Fact is the times are changing, just like they always have. T start with art was created with whatever was at hand, then paints came in and over time more and more ways of creating art have emerged, with the newest art pieces being huge structures made of steel and aluminuim.
This is just another progression, no its main idea is not to be art, but then political posters are made to convey a message, not to be pretty, but we call it art.
No one will ever agree though, theres really no definite answer. But Id say that gmes, for me, are art. They have come about through human imagination, it is an interpritation of a cetian subject, and has meaning to it.
I think that anything can be art. Im about to study architecture andf so in art Ive been reaserching buildings. its the same as games, there are some buildings made first and foremost as living spaces, and then there are some made with the way it looks in mind at first. How is that not just a giant sculpture if it is done in that way?
Just like a game, if a game is mostly about the art style, rather than the actual game, then yes its art. Pixel junk eden is an example. Terrible game but visually its brilliant =P
Why......?Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by kiteJargon
Why do gamers get so offended by this debate? I haven't the slightest clue. Do you enjoy your games? Then go play them and stop looking for validation of your favourite(yes, this is how we spell it in Canada) pastime. It almost makes me laugh when gamers get in a huff about this topic. Granted there have been some good points made on the side of defining them as art such as the censorship issue, but that doesn't really come into play in North America. Go and take a look at places like Australia and New Zealand who often get censored or banned games. But this is a government issue and not the topic of debate here.
What are games? They are simulations played out within a set of very structured rules. Games can be won or "beaten". Everybody will bring up games like NOBY NOBY BOY and thing of that nature which have no ending, let alone set goals. I respond with saying that "games" like this are not technically games, they are more like hobbies such as gardening. These hobbies I suppose can be considered art but they are never the examples that get brought up when this issue arises. It's always things like Braid or Flower which are a couple of the least artistic games to come out recently. Sure the sprites or the backgrounds are pieces of art, but when you bring it all together both of these games are pretty standard fair. They are closer to the traditional Super Mario Brothers structure than most people can see. They both have "levels", braid even has "worlds". Does anyone say "Oh I just beat level 2-1 of the Mona Lisa (or insert any piece of undeniable art that you see fit)"? No. It's like saying Monopoly or any board game is art. There may be art on the board or the pieces but that doesn't make the game itself art. I could probably write a very in depth essay on the subject but frankly this isn't the place for it. I don't like arguing with someone that is so steadfast in their beliefs that they will not listen to reason and logic.
Now go play your games people and have fun pwning noobs.
To the people that think they are getting major life lessons or truths from games like Braid I emplore you to go read a book. Even interesting ones like Fight Club or Trainspotting, or anything by Philip K. Dick will do the trick. Go watch 2001: A Space Odyssey, Johnny Got His Gun, or Waking Life. No game I've ever played/beaten has ever touched me in the way that the examples above have touched me. For the record I'm not one of those people that believes that EVERY book or movie should be considered art, as most clearly cannot. The "video games" that we all love and play today are not art. Some indepedent projects like Every Day the Same Dream are pretty damn close but I would not define that as a game. It is attempting to be interactive art which has been around for a long time, though now it has reached a new medium. Hmm guess I did get a little long winded there.....
uh roger...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by emulator-slave
...games may or may not be art.But games indisputably contain art.All music by definition is art.All I need to say is any FF game and Ocarina of Time.Nuff said.
Besides Eberts only saying this shit because he loves movies so much and video games are an ever-increasing threat to that medium.They get harder to tell apart every day(for good or ill.)
I guess art is something that you don't have to thinkPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Zerothe
just watch and not take part in something someone else has done. Games you don't get a scripted ending in everything and that be it. I know some do but I am getting to another point. You make choices and get a good or bad effect where as with a movie, of which I love as a form of entertainment, you get whatever the creator wants you to see. Awsome. In music you can also get your own meaning out of it. Someone here said if I blow up your house is that art ?? No. Your just trying to get peoples attention off of the subject with a stupid statement. Kind of like the can God make a rock he can't lift statement.
ArtPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Soylentx
I've always thought that art was simply anything that transcends mere technique and becomes beautiful. Thus, martial arts, dance, even a well-played sport could be art.
Maybe my definition is too broad for the guy who wrote "The Bra of God." That was certainly not art, but I bet Ebert would argue that it is.
Whatever. He's obviously never played Flower. He's also completely retrograde and out of touch. There were critics who thought Picasso and even Mozart were crap. He's just spouting an opinion, and it's a stupid one.
Remember, if he was any good at anything real, he would do it, instead of simply being a critic.
I definitely give more weight to Kojima on this one, though I still disagree.
art?Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by jeffRocket
the first time the pencil touches paper to sketch out an idea for a character it is "art"
Complete buffoonPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by codo
Who pays any attention to his movie critique anyway? The kind of people who stand at the theatre discussing which celebs are dating who, and have absolutely no interest in entertainment, but the quality of the film grain and any number of other insignificant parts of a movie
FunnyPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Fletcherhea
I think this old whack shared a hut under a bridge, he actually knew the original troll, and its where he got his tremendous skills.
Art as a emotional responsePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Wolvie
>>Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions
First, that's an incredibly broad way to describe art. If I decided to blow up your house would that be art?
Quoted from another source.
"With that definition I think we can say games are not art. They may be artistic - having beauty, or carrying subtextual meaning (you can see sports as metaphors for many things) - and they may be used as art objects - an exquisitely hand painted Monopoly board, for instance - but games are not art. The carved chess pieces are art, the actual playing of the game of chess is not (although, and this is really only going to serve to confuse the matter, but I have to be fair, a film of that chess game would be). The moves of a baseball pitcher as recreated by a dancer are art; on the mound they're simply artful. But in the end a game is simply a series of rules that the players follow. Those rules are not intended to communicate ideas or feelings, but simply to facilitate play. If rules themselves were art, the US Congress would be the most prolific artists of our time."
Sorta agree with WolviePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Bombader
Games are a mesh of arts thrown together, though some people would say "programming is an art" despite no one thinks of it as such. Frankly it doesn't matter if it's art anyway since we play them to have fun, not to look at it. It's like saying Board Gaming is art because it took someone to draw pictures on the cards, board, and dice. I think Warhammer games require some art to color the grey pieces you get
Or maybe a Novel, which tells a story, taken a step further is a Text adventure, or a visual novel, are these considered art as well? Can a game that is only one long text ride with no options considered a game? Can a multiplayer game be considered art, considering it's aim is not to tell a story?
See it's a much harder question to answer, one that really no one really cares about despite the fact so many people are up in arms over it. We aim to have fun with video games not wonder what they did in the background, we only do that if it's a crappy game.
Or maybe the "Graphics better than gameplay" are also the same people touting it as art, which make me wonder if Bayoneta could be considered art. When I play a game I know I don't think about how pretty the sky is, or how rendered my enemy is, only how frustrating Gears of War's checkpoint system is at times.
games are artPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by herzog_zwei
Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions
thats the definition term for art, how does that not directly describe videogames as a genre?
Lets chose a game that exemplify all qualities that "decide" art.. film, writing, music, expression..
Mass Effect
Final Fantasy ( i suppose the current installments would be better for the "uneducated")
Castle Crashers
Brutal Legend
or maybe some old school love that decided for many why we even play vidoegames at all
Battle Tank
Section Z
Herzogzwei ( my fav game of all time)
Mega Man
I could easly spend all day recounting my memories of 30 yrs of game playing. Anyone that could call " Gone with the Wind " art and then call "Mass Effect" anything but, has obviously never played the game and is bias. They simply want to argue for arguments sake.
And then the comment about citing a game of worth or note to be compared to great works of film, music, or literature.. u need to talk to someone who plays games. The list would be quite extensive depending on who u talk to.
personally.. the game journalist i most admire is Dave Halverson (playmagazine), i think he needs to go have a discussion with Ebert and educate the poor man about how he wasted the last 30 yrs of life missing out on some great games.
In my opinionPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Wolvie
The great misunderstanding of this debate is that gamers seem convinced that video games as art is a quality debate. Quality perception is not relevent to the debate of games as Art.
In my opinion, games cannot be art because they had nothing new to the table that could define them as art. Film brought in editting, which is why film, all film, regardless of quality, is art. I can't think of a single element video games have brought to that table that hadn't been explored before hand. Interactivity, the most popular argument I hear for why games are unique, is not true at all. Film had introduced interactivity countless times long before even PONG. They either are classified as games IE. Peggle, or more cinematic interactive cinema, ie. Uncharted Heavy Rain. Video Games really are combinations of several other art forms, cinema, music etc.
unacomnPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by arandomninja
"If Ebert says games aren't art, I'd like to see him how he defends toilet seats hung on art gallery walls as being art, because a lot of art snobs consider that art."
6 billion awesome points to you for that.
HA!Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Furysetzer
Whatever, Old Man Ebert. We know you just want some new publicity. Video games already subscribe to a number of definitions of the word art. Maybe you should look it up sometime.
Games have been art for a long time ...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Rich_C
... if you can argue that film is art. Since games have been getting into movie type art direction and storytelling for years now. I'll stick the year 1998 in there as a mark. Wonder how many games he's actually played through?
Roger who?Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Weirdwolf72
Do we even have to listen to a totally irrelevant individual? We buy and play games because we enjoy it. Same as we watch movies. Not on the say so of a self appointed important man who thinks he knows everything.
The mere fact that he again did a Jebus Christ on the subject speaks miles on how videogaming as a medium of entertainment has evolved..........no one even pays a hoot on what Roger who says anyway.........
-_-'Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Swiftoid
I think RedSwirl said it best on Twitter: "I'll just say that I'll listen to @ebertchicago once he actually experiences and researches the medium he's talking down to".
What he saidPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by InfectdMushroom
@Cairnius Well thought out post to the man. Good work. =)
That man...Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by burton_bandit
is not to be taken seriously. He is a moron. I added him on twitter a while ago and gave it about one day to see his tweets before deleting him. He was the first I have ever deleted too since I hardly ever use the service. Can't stand him and i'll never trust his word nor take him seriously,
Hideo KojimaPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by switchSTRIKE
Hideo Kojima says games aren't art... This guy works in the industry and makes one of the most impressive game out there and still believes video games are in no way art.
Here's the interview where he talks about video games being art:
Old people never changePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by InfectdMushroom
In modern society old people like to all think they know everything and anyone else is just inexperienced. They all think they know whats best and their opinion, since it caries more years, means more. Personally I have never cared much for this guy or his ex gay lover. He bombed Old School and that movie was one of the best. This guy wouldnt know comedy if it slapped him in the face. As far as art goes technically by his definition there are no artists and it would be impossible to become one cause unless your medium predates him it is not historical enough to be art. In my opinion if a dude in Chicago can glue bikes together and place them around town as fucking art then there is no reason this hack cant understand why we see what our favorite devs create as a work of art. Screw you you old tart. Glad you wont be around much longer to give reviews on movies your old ass just dont understand due to your decaying and all.
Roger Ebert sucks.Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by MooseyMcMan
He trashed KickAss, which was (for lack of a better word), kick-ass. He's just being stubborn at this point, as there are games that are WAY artsier than a lot of movies out there.
@JdGPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Hunnter
JdG puts it very nicely.
It is incredibly unfair to compare the entirety of videogaming to the best of the best of the other mediums of entertainment.
Most of the stuff that comes out in Music, Films, Books, Drawing/Painting and other areas is pretty sub-standard at best. (IMO)
In my honest opinion, i see more and better games coming out of Gaming than there is good music, films and books coming out. (when was the last time you heard of a decent painting these days?) The other ones can't even compete to the interactivity of gaming.
Yes, books do make a unique case since you have to imagine the world yourself, and i have a pretty crazy imagination.
But it is still a static world, the words on the page define the world you imagine to a very specific structure, games don't have this limitation imposed on them, you are the one who defines what happens within a world, YOU make the story. (most games that is)
Whether it is driving around a town like a decent citizen or stacking cars up and blowing them up with a bazooka, then going to the internet cafe (in the game), it will be different for everyone.
Roger is just pretentious in every sense of the word. He is just trolling for hits, that is all.
I don't know why anyone listens to him, especially considering the fool hasn't even played a game.
He is just playing word-games to try and screw the meaning in to his apparent dislike for gaming.
He just doesn't get it, he doesn't get it at all. And he never will. He will refuse to change. It is his way. An old dog set in his ways.
CarePosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by TheBleakCorner
You have to wonder whether you actually care what this man thinks. Or anyone else for that matter. The fact that he is a known critic doesn't make his opinion any more valuable than anyone elses. Art is in the eye of the beholder. For me personally, art can be anything that actually moves me. And videogames have done so as well - hence, to me some videogames are art.
I don't have time....Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by botcocker
...to argue with this ignorant man, though I'll point out that the fact that he equates video games to sports shows he's thinking about the subject in completely the wrong way. And as someone who's never felt art needs to be some kind of deep, soul changing experience(and by the way, people often find deep, soul changing experiences in places you might not expect), I'm sure I'd never be able to see eye to eye with anyone in the "video games aren't art" camp.
Now, I'm going to play some art.
ERRRRGPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Amylian
Here is my response...
What the hell? Why am I so much concerned about this...He is overrated...!!!
It is if it isPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by unacomn
Mikey Neumann from Gearbox Software wrote the best case about games being art. A game is art if it's creator says it's art.
That makes a lot of sense, because art is about expressing something. If a game expresses the thoughts and feelings of it's creator, than it is art.
If Ebert says games aren't art, I'd like to see him how he defends toilet seats hung on art gallery walls as being art, because a lot of art snobs consider that art.
If he really wants to see games that are art, he should stay away from mainstream games. Go for the classics that most modern publishers are trying to erase from history and bury them under a ton of shovelware.
Already responded on his blogPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Cairnius
My response:
"Mr. Ebert –
I have a BA in Broadcasting and Film from Boston University, and a MA in New Media from Emerson College. I have been an avid gamer for 32 years. I currently build and teach online courses at Simmons College in Boston, MA. I give you my credentials to establish that I have approached the digital realm from the perspectives of critical theorist, enthusiast, and educator.
I am saddened that this opportunity to re-engage you on the subject of video games as art was spent on a response to Kellee Santiago's TED presentation. I am aware that Kellee is a member of an indie game development studio which was hailed as a "breakthrough developer" in 2008, but I have never heard of her, nor can I find any games she has worked on which I have heard of. With all due respect to Kellee, she is not an appropriate representative for any debates with you per whether video games are, or are not, art.
That duty should fall to the major figures of the gaming world, people like Shigeru Miyamoto, Sid Meier, or John Carmack, video game developers whose work, like that of the greatest artists, have stood the test of time as some of the finest work ever produced in their medium. Those men are also very unlikely to engage in this debate with you because they are too busy making games. Therefore, the gaming world is automatically at a severe handicap when engaging with you in this discussion.
Understand, please, that some of the vehement reactions you have received in regards to your comment "Video games can never be art" come in no small part due to the knowledge that you don't play games. Part of what defines a game is interactivity, therefore one who does not play video games is at a severe disadvantage in making any attempts to truly understand them, if such a thing is even possible; and therefore any judgments as to the artistic quality of video games issued by one who does not play them can strike some people as galling.
I personally feel that it is the job of our community to engage you with the very best of what video gaming has to offer, to pique your interest in the hopes of inspiring you to pick up a controller and cross the vital threshold of interactivity, which would make you truly conversant and may inform your opinion as to the artistic merit of video games.
From the perspective of an experienced video game player as well as someone versed in critical theory, as good as her intentions are Kellee Santiago does a horrible job of selecting games to hold up to you as "art." It is an uphill battle to begin with, because there is already an acknowledged lack of critical language around gaming. It doesn't help when the samples held up to you would pass no litmus test of exceptionally-high quality by those of us who do attempt to opine on the merit of video games on a regular basis.
It is worth noting that Shigeru Miyamoto stated outright at this year's BAFTA awards that he never said video games are art. The conversation strikes me personally as a fool's errand if our goal is to seek a definitive answer. There is no definition of art we can all agree upon – how, therefore, are we to hold anything up to the question of whether it is or is not art and expect an answer which is devoid of subjectivity? Especially if that potential art form is still in its infancy due to the historical limitations of the technology upon which it depends?
I beg you, if you ever should desire to look into this topic again, please – find a hardcore gamer who also has a basis in critical theory and ask for their recommendation as to which games you might find some interest in. I would personally point you at Heavy Rain for the PlayStation 3. While it is the work of a fairly new game developer, it does stand testament to the maturation video gaming has undergone over its four decades and may shed a different light on your thinking.
Thank you for your time, sir, and for your thoughts on this matter."
Ebert is overratedPosted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Denatus
It's sad that Ebert is considered in such high regards. His view on too many movies doesn't make sense. He gave Avatar the highest possible score for example.
For me it's very easy:
Art (graphics) + Art (music) + Art (code) = Art
There can be bad art, but's in the eye of the beholder.
Seriously.Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by Misterpants
Now he's just trolling. Don't feed the troll.
Really?Posted: Apr 18, 2010 12:00AM PST by AllShamNoWow
"No one in or out of the [videogame] field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets."
Is that seriously his best argument? Really?
Since when is the definition of art, "Something that can be worthy of comparison of great poetry, film, and novels." You can just forget the absurdity of his quote in the first place and just look at the definition and you'll realize video games are a perfect example of art.
Just a Thought...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by JustcallmeCory
After reading the article and about 20 comments, I think if we were to be candidly honest with ourselves we would see that the issue arises from an unclear and ambiguous definition of what we consider "art". Now, I'm no philosopher, but if anything can be benefited from this article is that it really forces us, as gamers, to make a distinction or a relation between the two. In my humble opinion, I think "video games" are games played on a video display for recreation and entertainment and are manipulation by the player.
However, "video games" have taken on a more dramatic and complex nature. There is a main character, character development (RPG's, Survival Horror, etc), voice actors, and story lines that seem to come right out of a Hollywood blockbuster. There's been a performance behind most of the games that I've played in the past and from what I see, the trend is to develop games using these same elements.
With this in mind, movies and video games seem to have a lot in common! But what's' the difference? Well, when I play a game I don't primarily look at whose screenwriter, or the voice actor, but I look at the graphics, control, playability, sound, etc. When I look at a movie I look at a plot, the actors, the genre, the acting (is it believable?), and the premise.
A video game seem to incorporate the same as movies, but is there any art? Yes.
There is character design, architecture, and music. I've seen things in games that were just as magnificent as the Sistine chapel. I also think a lot of game designers were strongly influenced by art. Just take a look at the infrastructure and architecture in some of these games! The metropolis in Final Fantasy XIII is' huge! That took a lot of visual creativity.
Both the elements in movies and art are present in video games. I think that games have just "evolved" overtime because of the demand we have for our leisure time. We want to maximize the enjoyment of it, feel it, a real 'escape', and live it (costumes = weird). So video games aren't 'art' Mr. Ebert. It incorporates art. They aren't movies; they incorporate the same creativity. Do I care that it isn't art? Should I care? I think if we begin to put it in a 'fence', then we may potentially choke what future games can bring to us. We may not have what we have today if we do. P.S. I didn't proof-read this so sorry for the typos.
What I don't getPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by JdG
Is why a new medium has to be compared to the "best" and "greatest" examples of the other older more mature mediums to be able to compete. I mean, SyFy channel movies are films and films are "art" right? So why not compare videogames to Mega Shark vs Giant Octopus? or I don't know a Michael Bay film? Why must they always say things like: "videogames can't compare to Citizen Kane". And it's the same with books or poetry, never mind the crapload of well...crap that get's written every year, no no, let's compare videogames to the guys that defined modern prose and modern tropes, yeah, that sounds fair.
Screw that, the fact that they HAVE to compare them to THE BEST OF THE BEST of other mediums, to me, shows videogames at such young age are already an artform.
Seems to me,Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by CaseyD503
That beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just because some douche movie critic doesn't feel games can fit into the "art" category, doesn't mean they cannot. I for one feel that games are a form of art, many games have inspired me far more than some traditional artworks.
What a toolPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by solidfenix
I hope he dies from being crushed by a barrel thrown by a giant monkey......oh cruel irony he would yell!!!
ContraryPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by weaponx.jb
I hate to burst your bubble Mr. Epert, but any medium, be it comic books, cartoons, drawings, movies, video games, even children's doodlings, are all considered art forms. If it conveys the artist's and development team's artistic expressions and own personal style, then in my book it is considered art.
Russ MyersPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by LazaroCruz
You wrote:
"Roger Ebert used to write softcore porn. If that was common knowledge all of the morons who blindly follow him would probably change their tune. Besides, anything that someone crafts is art. Hell, even a hammer and a nail are considered art on some level."
If your referring to the films of Russ Myers than I have to say, regardless of whether I agree with Ebert's current argument about games, that you are totally off base.
No matter how silly, campy and dated those old movies seem, they are light years ahead of anything video games have accomplished to this date. Peeps with their noses held high up in the air who consider Myers' films "low-brow" or as you stated "soft-porn" really have little understanding of Cinema as an artform.
Which in the end makes you not that much different than Ebert when he talks about games.
Futz emPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by ak1man
While he is entitled to his opinion I whole-heartedly disagree.It is apparent that he can not be swayed because he is a hard headed donkey and a snooty no-it-all so...Fuck em, no gamers or industry enthusiasts should be looking to him for validation of what we all know is art.
It has come close, but I can't say it is art yet.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Wellman
Games like Okami, Shadow of Collossus and a handful of others have knocked on the door of being art, but ultimately, games as a whole especially the most popular stuff are so far form art, it isn't funny.
There is no need for it to be taken as a art form, gaming is a very young medium and unlike say comic books (which is still debated in some circles if it is art due to its superhero core) , it is constantly evolving with technology. There is no debate because for games to be considered art you need something that can be both beautiful and touch audiences in way that they say "Damn...".
Ultimately, just because gaming has achieved that acclaim yet, doesn't mean it won't, but let the fan boy fire mellow, because if you think it is there now, you are tripping on something that should be illegal. Real Art is more then being niche or intelligent, its about hitting more then a target audience, its about instilling in something a grand scale that even the most simple boob has to be impressed by or question. As I mentioned, some games come close, but that doesn't make gaming a legit art form and rushing to try to claim as such is just showing how it isn't..
Well...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by jhmdf1
Art is what you make of it. I find some games very deep and amazing... leaving me more satisfied by a movie could. So, I don't think there is a exact "answer" to this. A LOT of movies now a days are no where near what I would call "art".
It's the same old argument...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Game__Warden
The same thing was said about the novel and film at the early points of their inventions. He's right that it doesn't matter what he thinkgs, it's just ironic that he doesn't see the similarity in his comments to those made long ago. Plus, to compare all videogame players to Michael Jordan and Bobby Fischer is condescending. Gamers are, for the most part, sitting back and soaking in this giant production that 100's of people worked on. That sounds like some other art form I've heard about...
um...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by joe76
i dont understand why someone would think that video games are art in the first place. sure art, or drawings, are used in the creating of a game, but when i think of art i think of hundred year old paintings collecting dust in a museum, not a program on a disc i paid 60 bucks for. If i remember right, wasn't it Rockstar games that tried to say that GTA games were "art" so people or congress would leave them alone, which is a joke because GTA games are nothing but trash, but thats a different article all together.
Here's what I think.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by markm1982
He doesn't play games. There. He cannot properly judge the two things being compared. You can observe movies, but you have to PLAY games. If you don't you just don't get the experience no matter how well it is described to you.
Regardless, why does anyone give a fuck what Roger Ebert thinks about video games? Why are people trying to convince him different? Stop caring that someone doesn't appreciate games as art. It's fucking pathetic.
heavy rainPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by jellybeanmaster
id say if art is about looking at something, then that game is definitely art
How is this debatable?Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by DeadAsBefore
This isn't even an argument to be had lol. You have to use artwork to make images, for the background, characters, etc. Art. How is it not art when it comes from actual art? Makes no fucking sense to say it isn't art. What a retarded debate. That right there alone proves anything he says about it is wrong. That took about 30 seconds to say. He probably thinks homosexuals are not human beings either lol. "Umm actually, they are aliens from another planet." lol.
ebert.......Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Ssnake
i gotta say hes an idiot on this topic, im sorry but when you take into consideration what it takes to make a game, games ARE art. In the process of making a game what to designers do? they draw out their ideas on paper and write out the story for it. Art in the form of drawings, models, animations...etc. all come together to make a video game, according to him all these forms of art put together do not = art?
Thats like me saying if you mix sprite, coca cola, dr pepper and root beer together it doesnt = soda, its still fucking soda and in the same sense games are still art because it takes art and creativity to make them. People say games arent art, they're entertainment...................SO ARE FUCKING MOVIES AND BOOKS THEN, why do you watch a movie? to entertain yourself, why do you read books? same fucking reason. Im studying game design and if games are not art, then why am i getting a bachelors degree in art? Also saying that flower and braid arent art is really stupid, especially flower, flower reeks of art, its like an interactive painting. Ebert doesnt play games so until he does(which will most likely be never) hes probably not gonna get it. Game have moved me more than many movies and saying they're not art and saying movies are is retarded. I think games are an art form, sure some are horrible art and some are amazing just like everything.
on another note, what the hell kind of writers does 1up have? i mean come on they dont even know how to spell "played" they spelled it plaid "in his descriptions of the games it remains unclear whether Ebert actually plaid them himself "
In art classPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by TWrite
you can paint a picture of biforcated cows floating in pudding, and no one will tell you that you are doing math, because regardless of how terrible it is it is still a form of art. I can buy a $15 painting from Walmart and it's still art, just mass produced and terrible. If all it takes to make video games art is to put a frame around my TV and hit the pause button, then so be it. If Jonathan Blow had painted a picture of Braid on canvas he would be free to call that art, but because he created thousands of pictures on a computer and allowed us to experience them at our own pace it ceases to be art? Let Ebert call video games whatever he wants to preserve the sanctity of what he thinks of as art. Until he comes around I'm going to go look at some of his kind of art and admire the breasts they so meticulously painted.
Why Argue About It?Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by The-Hero-of-Time
This is a debate that will live on forever, simply because both sides of the spectrum will never see eye to eye on the subject. Now...Roger Ebert is, to the best of my knowledge, the only one who's been open about this particular matter. But why should we as gamers really care about what he has to say? He doesn't represent the society of art so what's the point of getting worked up about it? Judging by 95% of us here, his vision of art is different than ours, and because he chooses to compare his idea of art while taking a blow at video games is to most of us...insulting.
I'm not a fan of Roger Ebert, never have been. Quite honestly I just never agreed with what he has to say, be it movies or something else. But I do agree that we as gamers, who know what video games are really capable of, should pay no mind to his comments. I believe games are art, I've believed it even before Ebert made this statement 5 years ago. It didn't change how I felt about them, in fact, it made me appreciate them even more. So one guy thinks games aren't art...over 80 us think they are.
What is artPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by DudeL
My personal definition of what art is is that it is the espression of your creativity and skill. I use this definition to say that many things can be considered art, such as sandwich making. When you make a sandwich, it involves your understanding of what flavors go well together and how well you can maintain the form of a sandwich, requiring creativity and skill. If the act of making a sandwich can be art, then so can video games.
As for Ebert, while he may be a grumpy old man on his stance on video games, he is still a brilliant man in his own field. Many great people have had flaws but those flaws don't get in the way of people respecting them. For example, Winston Churchill was a great leader but he was predjudice against Indians, as many British people where. Still, we admire him for leading his country in a difficult time.
@MediaSapien-Your post is probably brilliant but it is too damn long for me to read as a comment. Can you please make it a blog?
Art is not funPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by chi_chi_felipe
Have you seen that Piss Christ or whatever? Lame. Now, let me send piss Christ through a maze with some power ups, and that shit turns mad fun.
AHHH, EBERT SAYS GAMES ARE NOT ART. AAAAHHHH!!Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by TreyIM2
SO EFFIN' WHAT?? Does it really matter? Do we need validation of what videogames are by a film critic or anyone else, for that matter?? That's HIS opinion. I just know that I, MYSELF, enjoy playing videogames, time to time. That's ALL that matters, and that's ALL that should really matter to the individual.
Ho boy. This again.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Axel_IX
Honestly, I doubt any honest to goodness gamer (Well, at least any of the people reading the article.) even cares what he has to say on this topic. I don't. I know full well what my position is, and in my opinion, a movie critic should stay out a field that he probably isn't thoroughly versed in. So, Roger Ebert, stop talking about this topic. It just pisses people off.
Now, if you don't mind, I have some Tactical Espionage Action to get back to.
Seriously?Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by ToonLink97
If he considers movies to be art, why aren't games like Silent Hill and Metal Gear Solid (essentially playable films) considered art?
His mind seems to be based on a biased and 1980's thought. He probably still envisions kids playing Pacman with quarters. The gaming industry has evolved since then.
Really, he has no say in this. He seems to have never played a video game that is beautifully emotional (Ico, Shadow of The Collossus, The Wind Waker, Okami).
According to www.dictionary.com he's wrong...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by frozencasket
I hate to be so anal about it but in the numerous defintions listed I can see more than one where games would qualify as 'art'. He's just a narrowminded old man unwilling to accept newer mediums. It's not much different than our mothers and fathers telling us how bad our generation's music is/was.
fuck roger ebertPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by MangledMailMan
bioshock, shadow of the colossus, earthbound, and heavy rain just to name a few. to deny that some games arent works of art is just plain ignorant.
Oh yeah? Well, Avatar wasn't art either, so there! And futhermore-Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by AngryGhandi
Goddamn it Roger, just let it go.
Pretentious Fuck.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by DanteSF
As always, Ebert's pretentious ass can blow me.
I work in the Smithsonian's American Art Museum in Washington DC, and let me tell you if the peice of black fiberglass leaned up against the wall or the 24 mile long peice of white vianl known as the "Running Fence" can be considered art, then a game sure as hell can be.
EBERT and confused gamers!Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by GomezGomita
The only ones who can state if videogames are or aren´t art are we, the gamers... and game creators, if you are not a gamer you simply can´t look at the whole picture, first of all , if you are not a gamer and if you are not a game creator, you can´t judge gameplay, and If you can´t judge gameplay you can´t judge the narrative, all of you, open your fuck-='g eyes!!!, videogames are not cinema, It´s just another language, another narrative logic, if you guys keep on comparing and trying to emulate cinema through videogames, that´s exactly when videogames will cease to exist as a true art form and it will loose complete identity, that´s why I will always defend miyamoto, suda, mikami, kamiya, inaba, inafume and ueda, they never break the GOLDEN rule, wich is gameplay above all, and that´s precisely were the art of videogames reside, script, graphics and atmosphere are secondary!
Would you kindly?Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by VEGAPRIME
Roger Ebert has never played BioShock. None of his arguments would survive a ride through Rapture, it´s story, it´s characters and twists. He´d be surely surprised on how wrong he has been...And how there´s no Hollywood movie in the last 20 years that is comparable to BioShock.
BioShock is gaming´s Citizen Kane, period.
AverageToasterPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by GomezGomita
no?, MGS, MGS2, MGS3, MGS4, SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS, F.F 4,5,6,7,9, do I have to list em all!?...
one other thing, art in videogames, or in cinema, or in comics, or in animation, ARE NOT the mix of your 4 ¨rules¨!!!
Sorry EbertPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by halochief_90
You're a great film critic, but don't quit your day job. Hell, I wouldn't even consider the examples mentioned as art. Even if Ebert somehow managed to play a whole 3 games in the last five years, you think that constitutes a judgement on the subject as a whole?
Ebert can post his personal vindication for choosing his medium to his diary, not to some place where he knows it's going send his blog to the roof. Even game journalism is better without snobby opinions like this.
gachPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by GomezGomita
ROCKBAND... ART!!!???, What the hell are you smoking man!!!
I love video games, but Ebert is right.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by XaBong
Well, Ebert is obviously biased towards film and sounds like he's never touched a video game in his life. Doesn't mean he wrong, though... Even though I feel that games "d'auteur" like ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, and Metal Gear Solid are closer to what I think of as art than almost everything that comes out of Hollywood, I still think of them as mostly trivial diversions that suceed in being really entertaining because of their originality. But without even getting into the debate over what art is, when the best examples we have of games as works of art are still pretty silly (I hate when people talk about Braid as if it were on the same level as In Search of Lost Time), I have a hard time thinking of video games as a whole as an art form. Ebert is right in pointing out that Chess players don't try to justify their hobby by calling it art - neither should we.
@MediaSapienPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by SaviorMachine
EXCELLENT post. I'm guessing that that came from your weblog...?
HilariousPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by SorryComic
"Old man doesn't understand why youngins so excited about new 'interactive electronic medium'"
Some one call The Onion.
I don't care but...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Xian042
If movies are art, then so are games, plain and simple. Sure games have some maturing to do until they become as highly regared as iconic peices of art like the Mona Lisa, but we are coming close. A hint is developers are creating hit games using older technology, these have a better chance of becoming "timeless" classics that anyone can fall in love with no matter how many years go by.
Pretty soon nobody will care about Modern Warfare 2, it will be old hat, but those same people that ditched MW2 will still love games like Tetris.
Yes, Tetris is a work of art.
Any more time debating this subject is a waste of time.
Moving on...
WRONG.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by gach
I consider Shadow of the Colossus, the MGS series, Flower, Rock Band all art. But if films are considered art, and black hawk down is considered art, then the COD series must be considered art as well.... but I don't consider COD art really.
High and mighty?Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by andyrew
Roger Ebert used to write softcore porn. If that was common knowledge all of the morons who blindly follow him would probably change their tune. Besides, anything that someone crafts is art. Hell, even a hammer and a nail are considered art on some level.
Of course video games are art.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by sewageking
I've always thought of art as really being anything that evokes a particular emotion or feeling from a person, as long as it is intended to evoke such an emotion. By that token, it could be argued that any game, even one without any sort of story, is art. Because for a game to succeed, it must evoke some kind of emotion or feeling from the player. Even something as seemingly simplistic as a game of Pong can cause the player to feel a variety of emotions.
Ironically, the games we typically label as "artsy" - such as Flower - don't really evoke emotion as well as more traditional types of games do. Because of that I don't think that Flower and Braid were the best choices to convince Ebert that video games are art. I think that a game with strong cinematic elements, like Metal Gear Solid, would have been better to convince him because it is closer to what he knows best. Not to say that Flower and Braid are less legitimate artistic expressions than Metal Gear Solid, but they are intended for people who already understand games, which Ebert clearly doesn't.
The man having an opinion on video games is likePosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by GeorgieBoysAXE
A Turtle expressing some sort of profound opinion on the faults of Sky-Diving, meaning he's really no one to express such an ignorant & brash statement, he obviously even has yet to even play the games he was so quick to dismiss in his pompous blog...dick head.
Who caresPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by ohJTBehaaave
Let the guy have his opinion. The poor bastard looks like he's got one foot in the grave! And while this is a sort of jerky argument... the guy writes one of the best blogs out there.
This argument falls into the same area of... is Rap really music... or is it just simply Dr Seuss type rhymes being thrown over some pre made Casio music? Every song sounds the same basically(awful) if you're not a fan of it. Are Rappers musicians in the same sense as say Slash playing guitar is? Imo... if you can't play an instrument you're not considered a musician. You may be a performer or whatever... but musicians play instruments.... or actually sing.
And then you have the is Bowling really a sport? Fat, drunken idiots are Bowling 250 games. And are Race Car drivers really athletes?
What it all comes down to is... who gives a shit! Think whatever you want... because there really is no 100% right answer.
PS- I'm never Wrong!
"Art is in the eye of the beholder"Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by sonikirby
So I don't give a DAMN what Ebert says; I think video games are art and, therefore, they are. End of discussion.
I don't have to cite the fact that art has no real definition, and anyone can define what it is.
I don't have bring up the argument that video games can, if you're smart enough to analyze them, tell you just about as much about life as any other form or "art."
I don't have to bring up the examples of Bioshock and Metal Gear Solid 4 as the most stunning existential works of literature presented (as of now) in the 21st century.
I don't have to say that many consider art to simply be what you enjoy, and a gargantuan amount of people enjoy video games.
Nope. All I have to say is that no one person can define art, as it is subjective to each and every individual. "Art is in the eye of the beholder."
So suck my big fat dick, Ebert. Except jk about the suck my big fat dick part, I still love your film reviews.
Ebert can't speak for everyone, and he doesn't.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Ivakia
What I've always considered to be a justifiable definition of "art" was anything that moved me in some way; something that caused me to think profoundly about something in my life, left an imprint on my mind, or came to influence my thoughts and beliefs over time. I've felt these sentiments from films, literature, artwork, and videogames.
When I was about sixteen years old, my brother, three of his friends and I all sat together and vowed to complete Kingdom Hearts. This was the first time that I had ever experienced anything to do with Japanese culture - the themes, storyline, and images of the game were unlike anything I had ever seen. The fact that a videogame was able to relay this kind of cultural insight into somebody put it on the same level as a work of art to me - I felt the same sentiments about Kingdom Hearts that I did about any painting or book.
What's even more important, however, is that I shared the experience of Kingdom Hearts with a group of friends and a member of my family. It was a social experience - arguably more profound than I could've ever felt with a work of art or a film. A game relies on your input; you control the main character, you influence his actions in some way. Being able to experience that with my friends was an unforgettable moment, and trying to interpret the crazy images and story of a game like Kingdom Hearts was especially fun.
So, from this experience, I think that Ebert is absolutely wrong concerning his judgement about videogames. Of course, you're going to have blockbusters that are graphically superior and intellectually inferior, but there are movies (and to some extent, artwork) that also fit this category. Is Transformers a work of art? Is Avatar a profound film or a popcorn experience? I mean, I can still remember playing as Sora and listening to the haunting music of Traverse Town...but I can hardly remember what the hell happened in Transformers that had any sort of impact on me.
Ebert has made a broad generalization after having played three videogames. To dismiss such an evolved medium also displays a hint of ignorance on his part - look at some trailers of the upcoming The Last Guardian and try to tell me that it doesn't look like it has spawned from the mind of Miyazaki.
I take...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by EvilWorldwide
Ebert's opinion of things outside of movies about as serious as I take game crittics opinions of things outside of games. Not very.
Either way, this argument is as dumb as people yelling about which is best, Family Guy or South Park.
LudologyPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by MrArmageddon
Maybe he should read Ian Bogost and Jeser Juul and many other MIT professors (and other scholars) who have been writing on this very subject since before the media become so damn fixated on the subject.
It's called ludology, the study of videogames. It's been discussed for longer than most people realize.
you're right, ebertPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by th3chosenon3
SOME games are trash...SOME movies are trash, too. and so are some movie reviews now that i think of it...
and to clarify: i dont believe that gamers really DO care if their entertainment is considered art. but in support of the hardworking teams that slave for these production studios, they DO care if their "craft" is appreciated.
Roger Ebert Can Suck My Donkey KongPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by MediaSapien
by Marque Cornblatt
Minor spoiler alert for Assassin's Creed 2 and Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2
Roger Ebert and his POV.
In 2005 Roger Ebert famously stated that video games are not art. After an outpouring of online reactions debating the topic and chipping away at his assertion, he then went on to clarify his stance that video games could not be "High" art, arguing that the agency (participation) of the viewer removed the creator's authorship of the work, and therefore games would forever be "less than" other art forms. In fact, he asserts that interactivity helps to define games as more akin to sports than art. This clarification not only failed to support his original claim, but actually opened a door to deeper discussion of the meanings of art, authorship, audience and agency.
Ebert's frame of reference is certainly well informed by his vast and deep knowledge of movies, film history and contemporary definitions of narrative. But his perspective is severely myopic and overlooks many aspects of the art debate which don't deal with narrative. Part of his problem may be larger than his personal experience. A quick survey of critical writing on video games shows a relatively recent interest in the topic. In a field only 30 or so years old, the critical theory was at first slow to develop, and until a few years ago, most literature on the subject dealt almost exclusively with the concept of narrative as the way to dissect and study games. Considering that the game industry grew up in the shadow of movies and TV, it makes a certain amount of sense that narrative would be the obvious entry point for study, but pigeon-holing games as the younger sibling to traditional media does not address the full scope of meaning within games, and (as is the case with Ebert), can severely limit one's ability to fully understand their impact on culture.
Art and narrative are not the same thing, and Ebert's presumption that interactivity is a hindrance to artistic expression is flat-out wrong. There are many, many games that can be cited to argue this point, but I will limit my discussion to a few recent popular titles, including Assassin's Creed II and Call of Duty, Modern Warfare 2. But first…
What is Art?
I can't answer that. Neither can you. Truly nobody can. Ebert is no better suited to answer that than anyone else. To my knowledge there has never been an accurate or concise definition of the word art. It might be spelled with only three letters, but its a big word, covering a wide range of cultural ideas and concepts. From the earliest prehistoric cave paintings through to today's battling robot performances, the concept of "what is art" has been stretched thin in an effort to accommodate an ever-growing palette of materials, processes and ideas. However for the sake of discussing this topic clearly, the idea of art has to be defined within this context.
One of the best analogies I even heard came from a professor at SFSU. She stated that the world of painting (art) could be viewed like a multi-layered wedding cake with a huge bottom cake layer supporting a stack of smaller layers with a tiny top layer. This cake represented the different kinds of painting, and how they fit into the definitions of high and low art. The bottom layer was populated by paintings of family and friends and pets – examples of personal artistic and creative expression, but perhaps not the kind of work that critics would care about. The middle cake layers represent work that is more focused and professionally driven, like student work or medical rendering, but is still unlikely to cause an art world stir. The top and final cake layer – the smallest one – is representative of the exclusive, rarefied (some might even say elitist) world of museums and galleries and the highly commodified art that fills those spaces. For all its simplification, the wedding cake analogy works quite well. It validates all of the cake layers as kinds of art, but understands that there are varying degrees of cultural value associated with each.
Historically, any new form of creative expression has faced resistance from the art-world status-quo. Video, new media and other cutting edge technologies have all faced resistance as "art" even as they were adopted into the artist's toolkit. Consider that now we generally accept the ubiquitous wall-mounted flat panel LCD screen as a fixture in most museums and galleries, but it wasn't that long ago when a monitor wouldn't have been there at all, except perhaps as an extension of the wall text. Now, any contemporary gallery without a big LCD is considered woefully out of sync. The traditional resistance to video and digital media as legitimate art forms is all but extinguished.
It may have taken years or even generations for new technologies to be uniformly accepted as an art form, but in an age of increasingly fast change, these barriers and debates are occurring at a pace to match. Photography had it's detractors and deniers for years, as did film and later video. Now these media are universally accepted as art genres. To be clear, not all photography, film and video is art, in fact most uses of these technologies are NOT art, but rather commercial and/or industrial. Each of these technologies are used for activities and purposes outside the world of art, but the growing acceptance that one can use these media to create art is undeniable. But just as most paint worldwide is used to cover walls and buildings or even portraits of family and pets, a small amount is still used to make fine art. The same can be stated for games. Most are not art, and don't try to be. However some games transcend that definition because of the one aspect that overshadows many other qualities in the art/not art debate.
From my perspective with (holy shit) 11 years of professional art study, the best and only definition of art I've ever found to be personally useful is essentially the one of intent. Not the creator's skill or experience or chosen genre, but their intent. One person picks up a brush and paints the exterior of a garage, another person uses that same brush to create a portrait. What determines if the garage or the portrait is art? The intent of the painter is often the best gauge. This does not mean that intent makes for great or even good art.
By contrast consider the Cloaca, a series of industrial machines assembled into an assembly line, the purpose of which is to literally create shit. Feeding food into one end of the line causes it to be treated by several chemical reactions which simulate digestion, breaking the food down and extracting nutrients and energy as it moves from chamber to chamber. The remaining output which exits the far end of the machine is literal waste. This machine has been set up and operated throughout the world. It is made from industrial components and offers little in the way of aesthetics beyond an ever-growing pile of smelly shit. Yet this machine, which has been displayed in museums and galleries through the world is undeniably considered art, even "high" art. While I admit an affection for the cloaca, I personally feel that a lot of art, even the most well intended, is not very good. IMHO, most art IS shit, and not by design. Very little stands out as good, and even less as great. But this discussion is not about good vs bad art. It's about art vs non-art. Either way, it is the creator's intent that guides our response, and it's that response that ultimately answers the question of art for each of us.
What is Video Game Art?
The debate "Is it art?" remains challenging when trying to come up with a blanket statement addressing whether games are/are not art. Because the answer is both yes and no. Game CAN be art, and most game are NOT art. The difficulty (or trap) is trying to define the tipping point, that specific moment, quality or feature that can be isolated and defined as the transcendent element that makes a thing art. Narrative isn't it. As Ebert has pointed out, games, like interactivity in general, have qualities that conflict with traditional ideas of artistic expression as a fundamentally one-way exchange, in which the artist creates the painting, novel, play or symphony and the audience is a non-participating observer. By comparison, interactivity and games offer the audience an active role in the story or game, and allow the experience to be directed not by the artist, but increasingly by the audience. This notion of "agency" is at the heart of many critiques of video games. However in a world filled with interactive art populating museums and galleries worldwide, the agency debate is becoming increasingly irrelevant.
While games are quickly becoming a culturally dominant form of storytelling, as an industry it still lags far behind TV and film in terms of telling sophisticated, subtle narratives. Many games, if not most, struggle under the weight of too many disparate goals, and frequently the game narrative gets the shaft. Creating a game with a cohesive story which is also visually compelling and fun to play can be a real challenge, and it becomes easy to disregard games with flawed narratives, low res graphics or complex control schemes as NOT art. However, none of these qualities directly relate to the issue of games as art.
Let me repeat that: Graphic quality, narrative cohesion and cutting-edge interactivity do not directly contribute to the idea that a game is (or isn't) art.
While relying on such qualities to frame the art debate can be helpful, just as often reliance on these features can be misleading, especially when faced with games that have little or none, like Tetris. So do non-narrative games have a bigger challenge to be taken seriously as art, or less? Flower, the DLC from Playstation is a great example of a game with no narrative, vague goals, and little inherent meaning, yet its beauty and subtle charm make it a title frequently referenced in this debate as an example of games as art. It elicits this reaction not because of story, cutting-edge visuals or gameplay – it doesn't really have them. Rather, it is because of the reaction within the player that the game inspires – a peaceful, meditative transcendence that strips away many conventions of the game genre in favor of a pure aesthetic experience. The game transcends Ebert's videogames-as-sports analogy by removing all qualities of narrative, points and scores, winning and losing. With these elements stripped, the experience becomes instead purely aesthetic and emotional.
Call of Duty Modern Warfare 2 vs. Assassin's Creed II
A great game to dissect for this discussion is the recent Ubisoft release, Assassin's Creed II. It embodies many hallmarks of excellent game creation and has specific elements that seem to pertain directly to this debate. The game takes place largely during the early Renaissance in Florence and Venice and follows the adventures of Ezio, an assassin whose story seems ripped right from the pages of art history. The locations are accurately and faithfully rendered and the game world is populated by real historical figures. The narrative takes full advantage of these features to present a game literally dripping with historical, artistic and cultural significance. One of Ezio's patrons in the game is Lorenzo di Medici, whose murder Ezio helps prevent in a scene taken almost verbatim from historical records. Another character in the game, who provides our hero with information, secret weapons and even a ornithopter ride is none other than Leonardo da Vinci himself. Throughout the game, as Ezio gains wealth and prestige, he is tasked with building his villa into a palace. One mini-game actually involves collecting oil paintings from vendors throughout the game, including many recognisable works by Renaissance masters. All of these visual and narrative touches create a game of unique cultural significance.
Plus, Assassin's Creed is fun. The game is beautiful on every level. Gameplay is accessible, satisfying and epic. The story spans years but never gets old. In short, this is a near perfect game in every way. I can't think of any major criticism to lay on it. Yet when I filter this game through the "Is it art?" debate, the answer I come up with is no, this is not a work of "high" art (to use Ebert's definition). It is a perfectly produced game, which showcases the creative talents of hundreds of people, and even luxuriates in historical and cultural relevancy. And as much as I love this game, it fails on a fundamental level to move me emotionally. To be sure, the game is filled with jaw-dropping beauty, and plenty of "whoa" moments, but none of those images or moments effect me on a deeper emotional level.
Using the wedding cake analogy, this game would be positioned near the highest point in the middle layer (an excellent piece of commercial art), but would fail to reside in the topmost layer. Would those who worked on the game agree? Probably not. From their perspective, Assassin's Creed II likely represents a crowning achievement in creativity within the game industry, and they would be right in feeling so. But was their intent to create a deep emotional experience. I don't think so. Their goal seems to be creating a fun, beautiful and culturally rich (and financially successful) game. And by that measure they have succeeded.
COD MW2 is another recent game worth discussing. It was notable as the single biggest release of any property in any entertainment history. Economically it dwarfed every movie opening weekend ever. Although most critics and gamers focused on the highly polished multi-player aspect of the game, this essay is limited to the single player campaign.
COD MW2 is a great example of a popcorn blockbuster – an ultraviolent wargame, with a narrative modeled on the contemporary world politics, but ratcheted up to a level that would give Tom Clancy vertigo. The single player campaign is one of the most emotionally intense experiences ever presented in a game. The game dev's clearly learned a great deal from the release of the original MW, taking the best parts of the early game, and cutting out the filler. The result is a short, emotionally draining experience that plays less like a cohesive story, and more like a series of epic set-pieces and vignettes, loosely tied together by voice over narration that plays during load screens. This VO narration is confusing, the voices all sound alike, and it does little to move the story forward. I found myself tuning out these cutscenes instinctively because paying attention to them and trying to keep track of mostly faceless characters was diminishing the experience. By contrast the game itself, the levels and maps, were so expertly crafted and presented that almost every scene had moments where I had to pause the game simply to give myself time to take in and process everything I was seeing and experiencing. Many of these were just like the previously mentioned "Whoa" moments from AC2, perfectly executed moments that could only be seen and experienced within a game, like stunning locations, ultra-tense stealth missions and perfectly rendered fight scenes.
But more than a few of these moments went beyond the "whoa" factor and entered into a whole different realm, when the ideas themselves actually overshadowed the game's rich presentation. Moments like defending suburban Virginia from invading foreign forces, emerging from a bunker in DC to see the Washington monument blown to pieces, and literally fighting room-to-room through the White House. (to any gamer who also played Fallout 3, seeing the destruction of DC in MW2 works as a kind of meta-prequel to Fallout's crumbling DC wasteland and helped to imbue these scenes with emotional weight).
Finally there is a scene in MW2 surrounded by some controversy. Potentially disturbing enough that there is an option to skip it, the scene places the player squarely in the middle of a mass murder, not just another gunfight or battle, but as a participant in the wholesale slaughter of hundreds of innocent, unarmed civilians. The player can choose to hold their fire out of distaste for the task (as I tried to do), but the character is compelled to participate lest they blow their deep cover with the bad guys. Ultimately, the player feels trapped and guilty regardless of how their in-game character behaves. Playing through this level the gamer is ultimately forced to reconcile the real world context of violence that videogames usually ignore. This is not an easy task for the designers, and although the scene is still handled in a way that would seem juvenile on TV or film, I consider it a minor milestone that they succeed in eliciting a real, emotional response from me. I have personally killed dozens ( maybe hundreds) of thousands of digital enemies in 3+ decades of gaming, and I rarely if ever stopped to consider them as tangible or real people in any way. MW2, and this scene in particular, resonated with me in a way that forced me to reconsider that unexamined position. During this moment in the game, my heart raced, I had to stop, pause the game, and really consider whether my actions were moral.
Does my experience make MW2 art? Probably not by Ebert's point of view, but maybe anyway. Does the game serve the same purpose that art serves? Yes, without question. It was one of the most moving and emotional experiences I have ever had with a piece of fictional media – or entertainment of any kind. Did the game creators intend to present such deeply resounding experiences? I think they did.
As crazy as it sounds, even to me, maybe COD MW2, an ultra-violent, commercial piece of interactive fiction, has actually achieved the status that Ebert so firmly rejects. Perhaps we are seeing one of the first of many games whose intent and execution lift them up into the top layer of the wedding cake.
He couldn't be more wrongPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by chrono77
If anything certain videogames, especially RPGs are like a super form of art ( Containing visual artwork, linguistic, ambiguous experience etc ) . Art is the expression of self, and it also a subjective.
Games with rich storylines such as the final fantasy series and unique, creative originally conceived characters are by all means an art, and even the act of playing and experiencing the game is interconnected to this embodiment of art, through the expression of playing and subjective interpretation.
To Convince Ebert, More Than Braid, flOw and Flower Should Have Been UsedPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Pacario
This is interesting, as I just wrote a blog some weeks back here in regards to this subject. At the time, I was complaining that Nintendo was making too many simplistic games for the masses and thus undermining the belief that games can be art, especially when looking at masterpieces from Metal Gear Solid to Final Fantasy to Nintendo's own Mario and Zelda titles. I even mentioned Ebert in the post.
Anyway, obviously Ebert is wrong, as some games are every bit as beautiful as the most stunning painting or cinematic movie. However, I concede that he does have point when it comes to the average game's narrative. Most storylines in games still have a long way to go before they can match the classics in both cinema and literature.
Anyway, he's not a gamer so he's not exactly the most respected voice on the matter, is he? I do think, however, that using Braid, Flow, and Flower were not the best examples to convince him. Yeah, the games are pretty, and the narrative in Braid is certainly interesting, but there're certainly games out there with more complex stories and more dynamic characters than those examples. Ebert needs to play a game in which he becomes attached to the characters and maybe learns something. Then he'll see the 'art' in the medium.
It depends.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by vinny_87p
Games are inherintly entertainment. The were made and designed to entertain. Occasionally, like in the case of Flower and Metal Gear Solid 4, they rise to that level and are then art. Movies, books, music, and even paintings are the exact same way. Are Terminator, Transformers, or Saw art? Fuck No. But occasionally a film like Green Mile rises to that level.
The issue is the vast scope of games...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by The_Nintendo_Us
and Roger commits a failicy by attacking that, a similar arguement could be made that movies are not art because in fact the ad for the slap chop or the sham wow isnt art. nothing is art when you judge it by its most rudimentary form(checkers, ads, 2nd grade writting assignments). His arguement about player interaction is flawed as well because in an advanced game, the play does not control all of the ellements... Majong isnt art roger, your right, but mashing buttons in order to get a charicter to perform a difficult/strenuous action, the gradual leveling up of a chariter/ guilding a well liked chariter to a goal that you also feel like you want to achive is...
artPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by buckaroobanzai
A new artistic medium is seldom recognized as such when it first comes into being. Something tells me this argument will be rediculously moot in a generation or two. After all, how long did it take writing to become art after hundreds of years of simple ledger-keeping and monument-labelling? Video games already incorporate multiple ideas that are themselves already understood to be art-forms i.e. story-telling and visual illustration. To claim that a combination of established art forms can't be art seems a bit silly to me.
Have a stroke and die alreadyPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by solidfenix
He's a fucking hack. What the hell does anyone care about what that douche thinks? He reaks of failed wannabe filmmaker. He sits on his fat ass and watches movies and gives an opinion on them and makes millions on it. Movie critics are jokes. The fact he gave Kick-Ass a 1 outta 4 is a testiment of how far behind the times this clown is. He's a relic and troll apparently....oh and Citizen Kane sucked
wtfPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by mindlesspit
" he asks. "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."
Ok that is pure crap, you can't compare chess, basketball, football, and mah jong to video games, those are treated as sports, no one even considers them a type of art.
Video games companies hire illustrators, the LA lakers do not, all video games require artists to help create the worlds that make them.
I personally am a bit undecided that video games are art, but thats mainly because I don't have the means to support either arguement, but when u compare video games to sports... thats just retarded.
Sigh...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by LotusisAustin
If someone sets out to create art, then the finished product is fucking art. It doesn't matter how anyone else sees it. How hard is that to understand. Who gives a fuck about Roger Ebert anyway, he has proven time and time again that he is not relevant, and should not hold sway over anyone anymore. Take a look at what he said about Kick-Ass and how he judged the film, not on its quality but on his feeling toward an 11 year old girl being trained to kill. Then take a look at some of his other scores for films that are not only far more morally reprehensible, but serious about their subject matter. I fucking hate this guy and I used to have the upmost respect for him.
The odacity of a man that would say that something will NEVER happen is fucking astounding.
You know I don't even care if videogames are ever considered art by society. What really grinds my gears is this old fuck spouting off uneducated absolutes like he is the lord of all art forms. He is a film critic.
Just strangePosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by SaviorMachine
I think this argument really centers around what a person's definition of art is, because if the games-aren't-art argument hinges on whether games, to date, have produced examples of timeless artistic quality, then it's a spectacularly weak argument. Using that kind of logic, wouldn't we have to conclude that, say, fiction never became art until Shakespeare (or whatever great literature the speaker favors)? Music never became art until Beethoven, paintings never became art until Michelangelo, and so on?
When we're talking about whether a thing is art--not about whether it's good, or great, or comparable to "the classics," whatever we consider them to be--we're talking about a qualitative value, not a quantitative one, as there is something in the nature of its expression that makes an article of media a piece of art rather than a mere communication, or sport, et cetera. So, pop music is art, even if you think that country music sucks and that mainstream hip-hop has little to say about real life. Any given listener may not relate much to these, but that doesn't stop them from being art. It just stops them from being relevant to such a listener.
This all seems so intuitively obvious to me that I don't understand why there is any discussion about it, and although I respect Roger Ebert's long history of insightful movie criticism, I think that his perspective on this topic is a surprisingly shallow one.
So is Ebert an art critic?Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by RyokuKun
Ebert watches movies and writes about them? And by hes measures movies is art. The problem is that non of the big art fields accepts movies as art, so is he really the right guy to argue if games is art?
In my view games is art, as is movies. The argument to what's art is not an objective one, since art is subjective.
So if Ebert doesn't think games is art, then just ask the simple question: "If art is subjective to a person, and the person has never experienced the art, can he judge the art?" But maybe he thinks art is objective? Maybe we should let him decide what art is? Or at least Ebert himself seams to think thats a good idea.
Ebert probably never played a game in hes all to looong life, so maybe he should shut the **** up. You would never let a person that never seen or played football judge a game, why let this guy judge this?! ^_^
It is ArtPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by SteveLmx
Video games are and have always been art. There are gems there are crap and there are brilliant out there titles that blow your mind. It's a book a soundtrack and an interactive experience all in one. Anyone who doesn't see this is too old and has a shrunken set of balls.
Video Games= ArtPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Teigaga
As Average toaster said, games themselfs consist of Art in the form of music, Visual art/design and narrative. I would say that there is no reason why a game must tick all boxes perfectly in order for it to be considered art. A painting is just a painting, it doesn't have a piece of music to accompany it for someone to call it art
I would argue that from a visual stand point, art in games easily surpasses film. I still think games have a way to go in terms story telling but the worlds that developers manage to create in games like Mass effect are simply mind blowing and far more detailed than worlds created in most literature or fim.
At the end of the day i dont think its that important what anyone says, If you feel its art, than its art.
RelativityPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Raciend
I do believe games CAN be art. Most of them are just entertainment tho. Even the few games that are made with some arty thoughts are foremost entertainment. Flower is art, yes, Braid is also art. Fallout is not art, Need for Speed is not art.
People says movies are an art form, but it is not. A movie CAN be a piece of art, but 99% of the movies out there are not art. My favorite movie is Anchorman, but I would never consider it a fantastic piece of art, but damn: it is funny!
This dude (sorry, I have never heard about him before) says game-making never will reach the same level as film-making on the artscale, but he is a movie critic . A critic of the high arts (like panting, classical music and so on) would say that filmmaking is not an art, and will never reach the prestige of Mozart, Picasso or Michelangelo. He is right in say that, just as this dude in this article is right. But, their truth (sort of) is not the absolute. If I believe games to be an art form, it is for me. So when I say Flower is an fantastic piece of art, I am right, but when he says it isn't, he is also right. I am playing the shit out of Rogue Galaxy atm, and I am loving it, but I would never call it art. Ico on the other hand I think of as art. The feeling that is given to us, and the fantastic and special way it is given makes it a piece of art for me.
I have a bachelor's degree in fine artPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by SamuraiTerry
At a personal level art is subjective. At a professional level the "art world" dictates what is and isn't art. The "art world" is made up of art critics, writers, artists, and gallery/museum curators. As of today the "art world" doesn't view video games as art. I can go check my many art history books and there hasn't been a chapter about video games... yet. I've been to many galleries and haven't seen a Nintendo kiosk set up anywhere (which might be a genius idea now that I say it). Is this fair? Nope, but such is life.
To get a good understanding of how the "art world" works check out the movie "Who the #$*! is Jackson Pollock." I believe its on the netflix instant view. It shows how a woman can find a Jackson Pollock painting and then proof that its one of his paintings with forensics. However since the "art world" doesn't have a paper trail of its existence, then it isn't his. The painting then is basically black listed and nobody will buy it or display it.
Am I a bad guy for thinking Ebert's right?Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by CuteIgor2
Not necessarily about the "videogames as art" topic -- which is debateable -- but when he pretty much asks "Who cares?"
Gaming has come a helluva long way in the last four years alone in terms of social acceptance. The days where just admitting you play videogames could get you beat up in school are long behind us. Let society take the wheel from hereon out. Whining about petty issues like this only pushes our medium backwards.
Lets See..Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by propelledfoot
According to wikipedia "Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions."
I believe games DO JUST THAT. They all create some type of emotion, or feeling.
StopPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by luminaire28
bringing up this neverending dumbass argument, please.
I used to like EbertPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by EKGTrooper
Now I think he is fading from the peoples minds and he is throwing out a futile attempt to remain seen, or dare I say, relevant. His perspective is of someone who is not a Gamer. His views and opinions are not viable, nor should anyone be taking him seriously. It is as if I walked into an Art Gallery and sounded off in front of America that no one painter has ever made a piece of art. I know absolutely nothing about painting, but my opinions should still hold water, right??
No. He seems to think that film is more art than games, but given the chance to defend that I am positive I could put him in his place. Games like Heavy Rain, for example, carved out a level of immersion and storytelling that no movie could ever dream or replicating. This in itself does not mean it qualifies as art, but it seperates itself so much from any other medium that to say it can't be art is just ignorant. I have played too many games in my time that moved me and made me feel a whole avalance of emotions that other forms of media, for example, were never able to replicate. This is all the proof I need.
Art is supposed to make you feel. It is in the eye of the beholder, though, and everyone has a different view on what qualifies it. I'll be damned though if I just sit here and listen to him claim that the cookie cutter movie business is more artistic than the game industry.
I disagreePosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by HighWindXIX
At least for me, video games are indeed an art form. The point of playing games for me in this day in age isn't to "beat" the game or "win," but to experience the story. Video games are unique in that more than any other medium, they truly allow us to be swept up into a world and experience it. Gamers these days aren't as concerned with scores as they were 20 years ago and I'm guessing before long, those concepts will be gone from games as they move forward. I'd have to read Ebert's blog to fully respond to what he said but I don't think he understands what games are these days.
One person's art is another person's WTF?Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by rangergirl
My question is "why can't games be considered art?" There are some pretty bizarre artforms out there - performance art, anyone? That guy that wrapped a bunch of islands in pink plastic wrap? If that can be considered art, I don't see why video games can't. Especially some of the more recent games, where visual style and music play a huge part. So again, I ask: why can't games be considered an artform? That's a rhetorical question, by the way.
I pity anyone that thinks this matters.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by BananaJane
Just play the damn games.
Ebert doesn't know art.Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Baldr
Ebert embodies Plato's Ion. Ion is a poet, actually he not a real poet, but only recites Homer's poems. When Socrates confronts Ion about his poetry, he turns out to be a chump because he doesn't really know what true art is.Ion uses the same arguement for what art is that Ebert uses, and that makes me laugh.
I say games are artPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by SPARTAN0040
btw anyone see that WB Animaniacs where they made fun of him and added butter to his movie popcorn right from his big fat gut :)
old fartPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by very_valea
Roger Ebert is old and crusty. dont forget
senior citizens dont always understand video games.
AccuratePosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by DaInfamous06
"it remains unclear whether Ebert actually plaid them himself"
Anyways, I don't exactly disagree. I still say he is more than a little bit pompous and pretentious. Video games are the art example of summer blockbuster action movies.
this isn't even an debatePosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Silver_Tongue
a video game is a creation of one's mind including music, visuals and storytelling....if all of those things are indeed art, Then how the fuck are video games not? Sit me in a room with Ebert, I'll say that exact sentence verbatim and then leave him to his stubborn false thinking
This guy has obviously never played Heavy RainPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by ms546372819
or any videogame at all if he has a veiwpoint like this, probably just scared that videogames will continue to overtake the film industry
That is the nice thing about art....Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by ronin55T
it doesn't ask to be categorized or to be judged....it simply exists and we as a society determine how valuable it is to us as a culture by how its remembered and preserved. I have fond memories of my early gaming days and they don't need someone else's opinion to justify them as great memories of something I thoroughly enjoy. Time will always tell and we, the gaming community, will end up shaping how this medium is considered in the future by society.
Art isPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by frootlooped22
Something that is created to invoke an emotion in the viewer in and of itself
A game is something that you do to have fun. You can have an emotional response to it but it's usually in relation to what's going on in the game. Am I winning? Am I losing? Am I lost? etc etc.
Some games I think go for this emotional response like Shadow of the Colossus. Others are more about being entertaining i.e. Super Mario Bros.
"He Just Doesn't Get It"Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Patchinko
I read Ebert's article last night after reading his even more disappointing review of the film "Kick-Ass", which he seems to have understood for the satirical commentary that it is, but which he also panned for being a satire "of what?" (Well, Ebert, it's a satire of how our society allows young kids to read violent comics, play violent videogames, and watch violent movies but does not allow them to be violent physically in the real world despite all those media teach them about violence--felt pretty obvious that was the message watching the film, but I digress.)
"Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?"
Perhaps he should have reflected upon that a bit longer before hitting his "submit" button.
Gamers, and I include myself here, are passionate about the subset of games that are on the level of "art" precisely because people like Ebert denigrate artistic creations by saying they are not, nor will they ever be, art. Particularly people like Ebert who have clearly never played a game of that caliber.
Then again, I don't think it's so much the definition of "art" that catches Ebert up, but the definition of "game". He thinks of games like basketball or chess--games where only score or defeating an opponent is the goal. He fails to realize that many videogames are of a different ilk than those types of games. Gamers have all experienced plugging in a cheat code and rampaging through a game with an insane score, and they all know that doesn't feel the same as the experience of genuinely playing it through. This is an example of how artistry infilitrates game design. It takes creativity and skill to create a game that can be appreciated for it's beauty and emotional power--such as Braid, or the games Kellee Santiago's company makes (flOw and Flower). It's difficult to make a game that has emotional power without a series of cinematics (which would qualify the cinematics as art, but not the game), but they are out there.
I honestly do not think someone like Roger Ebert is qualified to comment on the subject in the first place. He knows his movies, but he does not know videogames (and, to be frank, his opinion of movies is often very biased and unthoughtful--which makes it fairly unsurprising to see him spouting off about things he's underinformed about without putting a lot of thought into them).
Well...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Lazarius
"Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?" Ya see, the reason I think gamers care more than the examples he gives, is that video games are more related to entertainment like music, books, tv and movies. All four of which are accepted by just about everyone nowadays. However video games are still rejected and percieved as a childs toy to people who have never played one. Convincing others that games can be art will finally get us a foot hold within the rest of the entertainment business and not have to be looked down upon anymore when we claim we're avid video gamers. Or I could be talking out my ass right now, but either way I can't understand why it's so hard to think of games as art. Movies did it eventually and it did not take longer than 75 years, so I believe we will still be around when we get there.
What?Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Buddha_Enescu
If Okami isnt art, then I dont know anything anymore.
Art is the product of human creativity. Videogames can be art.
AverageToasterPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by switchSTRIKE
Ever played Ico or Shadow of the Colossus?
Spelling mistake!Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Capn_Seamonkey
Sorry Kris, but last line of the 4th paragraph (before the parentheses) "unclear whether Ebert actually played them himself"
Average ToasterPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Epic Greenman
Zelda: The Wind Waker, Fallout 3, and GTA IV say hi.
Art Matters, And It Requires A DefinitionPosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by DoctorProfessor
I'm surprised that Ebert doesn't see the importance of whether games are defined as art, given what happened to film. In 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that films were not art, and thus not protected by the First Amendment, and therefore may be freely censored. The decision was not overturned until 1952. I don't want this to repeat with videogames. (I wrote about this in one of my own articles: http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2009/12/im-not-evil-i-just-play-that-way-player.html )Ebert flirts with definitions of art, but never provides his own. This is the biggest problem by far with his essay. Maybe his definition really is something that flat-out can't include videogames. But when he simply says "videogames can't be art" without explaining what he means by art, we can only fill in the blanks with our own definitions. It's no wonder gamers get enraged by this. And they say, "Of course games are art, look at Bioshock/Braid/Flower/etc.!" And Ebert looks at these games not with the gamer's definition of art, but his own, and says, "Of course these are not art."It's pointless and inflammatory and it can't possibly go anywhere constructive until Ebert defines his terms and explains just what he means when he claims videogames are not art.
Art is subjectivePosted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Groovin_Dalai_Lama
To some it is to some it isn't and to each their own. I just want good gameplay and a good story.
Ebert is...Posted: Apr 17, 2010 12:00AM PST by Sneenlantern
an idiot.