Ebert: Videogames will NEVER be art

IRHari

IRHari

CAGiversary!
Feedback
3 (100%)
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

Careful clicking the link, there were a shitload of comments on this article and for some reason they're all loaded on the page, so it may take a while to load.

Basically Roger Ebert tries to take apart the argument of a lady who cites 3 games as evidence that videogames are indeed, art. 2 of the games she cites are flower and Braid.

His argument is the way she's described these games has not made him interested enough to play those games.

Now to me, the question is, has he ever played a video game? Apparently he has, he even reviewed one for wired magazine although it was a point and click from 1994 that very few people probably heard of (sorry to Cosmology of Kyoto fans out there.)

I think this is a weak argument. It would be unfair of me to criticze movies as 'not art' without watching a lot of movies. Not only a lot of movies, but ones that are viewed by most people as 'art' like Dr. Strangelove, Casablanca, etc.

For him to rely on someone else's description of the game, decide he's not interested in even playing the game, yet still decry games as 'never art' is kind of unfair to me.
 
I remember laughing years ago when i was younger, Ebert said the power rangers movie sucked. I thought it wasn't surprising that an old man hated a kids action movie.
 
One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
Click to expand...

I see this as the main flaw in Ebert's argument. He's setting up a false premise and establishing the debate in a way where he could never be convinced otherwise. He's saying games can't be art if you can "win" at it, and it can't be a game if you can't "win" at it. He's not really leaving any room, and I think he debate is further weakened by the fact that he doesn't even go so far to give any examples or try to persuade people to his point of view on this fact. He just establishes these boundaries, and that's it.

I allow Sangtiago the last word. Toward the end of her presentation, she shows a visual with six circles, which represent, I gather, the components now forming for her brave new world of video games as art. The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. I rest my case.
Click to expand...

If I'm understanding Ebert's point, it's that he's sarcastically pointing out that the circles undermine the argument. I'm assuming Ebert is a man who thinks movies can be art. Does he not think that movies could easily fit into any of these circles? Do movies not require developing or money or publishing, etc. Hell, you could apply these to many forms of art, which is the point I think Ebert so smugly missed.

--

My opinion on this is that, while I do think games could be art, I don't think there is yet a solid example to convincingly prove it. I think a main reason for that is video games have largely come about in a time when the main desire behind most mediums is profitability. It's not like there are people sitting at EA and Blizzard talking about how they want to create a game that really moves people.

Of course, some of this has to do with the fact that creating video games are expensive and require a lot of people. It is only up until recently (and, really, if we're talking art going all the way back to the beginning of humanity, 15-20 years is extremely recent), that it's become a medium accessible to more people. When you think about it, that is unlike any other medium that could be considered art. I think now that we're seeing people able to develop games as a hobby rather than a job, we may start to see some games that push the boundaries as these people will have more freedom in what the games do rather than being strapped down by trying to recoup the money that goes into them.
 
Who cares what Ebert thinks?

When it comes to movies, Ebert has a feel for the modern American pulse. But if I want a video game review I'll hit up IGN, metacritic, or the reviews section of Gamefaqs. All three sites have more credibility then Ebert on video games - meaning when it comes to Flower (PS3) I'd take the word of ccdude1445 over Ebert.
 
I believe that traditionally something is considered art if it has no other purpose than just being. Problem is that things traditionally considered art like films and music can be said to exist for entertainment or profit. So if those are still to be considered art, then i don't see why games can't be too.
 
camoor is correct.

Ebert is a critic of only one form of media; why are we asking him about another - or worse, getting bent about it?

*Particularly* when he wears his stubborn refusal to indulge in said media like a badge of crotchety old-man honour?
 
I think the Penny Arcade post captured it pretty well.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/4/21/

[quote name='tycho']
There are many, many replies to Roger Ebert's reeking ejaculate, from measured Judo-inspired reversals of momentum to primal shrieks which communicate rage in a harrowing, proto-linguistic state. Thatgamecompany's Kellee Santiago chose to respond to him, which gave the whole thing a kind of symmetry, seeing as it was her TED Speech that drove that wretched, ancient warlock into his original spasm.
That was very polite of her, behaving as though she were one side of a conversation. For what it's worth. Which isn't much, honestly, because this weren't never a dialogue. He is not talking to you, he is just talking. And he's arguing
1. in bad faith,
2. in an internally contradictory way,
3. with nebulously defined terms,
so there's nothing here to discuss. You can if you want to, and people certainly do, but there's no profit in it. Nobody's going to hold their blade aloft at the end of this thing and found a kingdom. It's just something to fill the hours.
Also, do we win something if we defeat him? Does he drop a good helm? Because I can't for the life of me figure out why we give a shit what that creature says. He doesn't operate under some divine shroud that lets him determine what is or is not valid culture. He cannot rob you, retroactively, of wholly valid experiences; he cannot transform them into worthless things.
He's simply a man determined to be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the human drive to create, and dreadfully so; a monument to the same generational bullshit that says because something has not been, it must not and could never be. [/Quote]
 
Lord have mercy, even though Penny Arcade is right - their writing style is so hard to read. It's like they are masturbating with 17th-century literature and cleaning up with pages from a thesaurus.
 
I think saying never is way to strong.

That said I mostly agree for him that at least for me it's hard for games to be art. For me games are just entertainment and time wasters. I have a hard time with interactive art personally, to me art is an artists creating something designed to get a specific reaction out of people who "get" the piece. With interactive media that's tougher to do.

But for me, I'll never play games for the purpose of enjoy the art--I play them to have fun. If I want art I'll go to a gallery or museum, or watch a artsy movie or go see a play etc. But again, to each their own and it's silly to say that games can never be art.

But that's just me, and everyone has their own idea of art and what it is or should be etc.
 
Ebert has no business in this genre of multimedia anyway. Video games are created from the very basics of said 'art'. There are moving pictures with ever-changing pieces of art throughout them. There are stories told, characters developed, lives lost. Some games are terrible, as there are terrible films and novels. He is what he is: A film critic (with some common 'art' knowledge). He's an old man not ready to catch up with technology. What use was it for this Ebert to attend a discussion (or what you will call it) regarding video games? I repeat, he had no business being there. He is using his status to attract conflict. Conflict gives him more attention. More attention gives him more fame. Ignore his conflicting, and quite repulsive, outlook on a form of art he has not yet attempted to understand.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Lord have mercy, even though Penny Arcade is right - their writing style is so hard to read. It's like they are masturbating with 17th-century literature and cleaning up with pages from a thesaurus.[/QUOTE]
:rofl:
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ebert is a critic of only one form of media; why are we asking him about another - or worse, getting bent about it?

*Particularly* when he wears his stubborn refusal to indulge in said media like a badge of crotchety old-man honour?[/QUOTE]

This is the part that annoys me about this whole argument (because, let's face it, you can't call this a debate). Ebert has no interest in having an intellectual discussion on what could be a very interesting topic. He just picked a fight and would rather shout his point of view than do anything to educate himself or try to understand other points of view so he can further refine his argument. Even in this blog post of his, he acknowledges the games brought up, but quickly dismisses them with a series of (arbitrary) questions he could've easily answered himself. He's arguing from an ignorant point of view with loose guidelines that he himself is defining. Why gaming sites feel the need to report on this every time it comes up is beyond me.

Because, really, the guy is essentially a forum troll. Yes, he's a very influential movie critic, but that is pretty meaningless in this argument. As Tycho points out, Ebert does not hold the keys to what is and is not considered "art". He's just a curmudgeonly old man who can best be compared to parents in the '50s saying "Rock and roll isn't music! It's just noise!"
 
Allow me to play devil's advocate here for a second...

One of the key points Ebert brings up is what makes a game a game and not a movie. In making this distinction he brings up things like rules, logic, reason, points, and the ability to win or lose. These attributes lead to some interesting conclusions.

In the article, they bring up things like Mah-Jong, Chess, and Basketball. The argument could extend to board games (or games in general). The difference between a painting or statue and a (board) game are the same as the difference between a game and a movie - rules, logic, points, the ability to win or lose. Yet games have been in existence since...forever...yet are there any games that are classified as art?

However, as anyone will tell you, a video game has more than just rules and points. It has video, soundtracks, picture-esque scenery, and carefully crafted models. Whenever someone is playing a video game, and I mean really playing the video game, how much are they paying attention to the environment, or how beautiful the boss is? When you're playing a game, your mind is focusing on the rules/logic/points, with the experience of the environment being delegated to a secondary task at best and gets completely ignored at worst. If you are actively experiencing the environment and taking everything in, you probably aren't playing the game much. One could certainly argue that most examples of "games as art" are considered art in spite of the game, not because of.

So, the question for me, is can the things that make a game a game ever be art?
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']In the article, they bring up things like Mah-Jong, Chess, and Basketball. The argument could extend to board games (or games in general). The difference between a painting or statue and a (board) game are the same as the difference between a game and a movie - rules, logic, points, the ability to win or lose. Yet games have been in existence since...forever...yet are there any games that are classified as art?[/QUOTE]

Depends.

IMO you touched on the one solid layer games can be considered art. There are chess sets that are considered works of art. Ditto on Mah-Jong sets, the architecture of basketball arenas, and even basketball shoes (in a pop art sense). In this vein, the environments and characters of videogames can definately be considered art.

On shakier ground you could say there is artistry in the rules of a game. When a person says that Poker is more entertaining then Blackjack this is in part a critique of the rule system. As for me, I appreciate the complexity of chess, I appreciate it's rule system more then tic-tac-toe. To me rule systems can be evaluated as art.

At a base level, IMO gameplay (live or recorded) is typically only considered art in a metaphorical sense. However I expect this line to blur in the world of videogames. Similar to a pick-up basketball game, a bunch of frat boys firing up Madden or Modern Warfare 2 will probably always be considered nothing more then a competitive match or a good time. However what about games like Guitar Hero or DJ Hero that are based on the arts? These games are in their infancy right now, but one day I predict people will be able to use real instruments to play these games and will be able to create unique songs in-game.
 
[quote name='camoor']IMO you touched on the one solid layer games can be considered art. There are chess sets that are considered works of art. Ditto on Mah-Jong sets, the architecture of basketball arenas, and even basketball shoes (in a pop art sense). In this vein, the environments and characters of videogames can definately be considered art.[/quote]

I think it's definitely agreeable that the elements of a game can be art. Could be Chess sets, as you mentioned, or the setting of Rapture in Bioshock. However something composed of a bunch of works of art does not necessarily result in a work of art. You could play Monopoly with Michelangelo's David, the Mona Lisa, and the Venus de Milo, but you're still playing Monopoly.

Here's an open question - if you took a game you consider to be art, and removed everything that made it a game...all interactivity, all points, all rules...so that it was a normal movie...would you still consider it art? I personally have no idea if art-people will ever consider games to be art (nor do I really care), I just have my doubts that the things that would make a game art would intersect with the things that make a game a game.
 
[quote name='Salamando3000']Here's an open question - if you took a game you consider to be art, and removed everything that made it a game...all interactivity, all points, all rules...so that it was a normal movie...would you still consider it art? I personally have no idea if art-people will ever consider games to be art (nor do I really care), I just have my doubts that the things that would make a game art would intersect with the things that make a game a game.[/QUOTE]
...

The first one to make a Metal Gear Solid joke is a bad person.
 
I fail to see how this is either political or controversial. This thread reminds me of a Star Trek geek arguing with a Star Wars geek about why their favorite series is art and the others isn't. By arguing against Ebert's view you validate his estimation and give legitimacy to him, a man that doesn't play video games and considers the Dirty Harry series to be fascist propaganda.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top