Support NeoGAF

[Jex]

Source : Video Games Can Never Be Art

Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to enlarge upon it or defend it. That seemed to be a fool's errand, especially given the volume of messages I receive urging me to play this game or that and recant the error of my ways. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art. Perhaps it is foolish of me to say "never," because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form...

But we could play all day with definitions, and find exceptions to every one. For example, I tend to think of art as usually the creation of one artist. Yet a cathedral is the work of many, and is it not art? One could think of it as countless individual works of art unified by a common purpose. Is not a tribal dance an artwork, yet the collaboration of a community? Yes, but but it reflects the work of individual choreographers. Everybody didn't start dancing all at once.

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.

...Her next example is a game named "Braid" (above). This is a game "that explores our own relationship with our past...you encounter enemies and collect puzzle pieces, but there's one key difference...you can't die." You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game. She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie.

...We come to Example 3, "Flower" (above). A run-down city apartment has a single flower on the sill, which leads the player into a natural landscape. The game is "about trying to find a balance between elements of urban and the natural." Nothing she shows from this game seemed of more than decorative interest on the level of a greeting card. Is the game scored? She doesn't say. Do you win if you're the first to find the balance between the urban and the natural? Can you control the flower? Does the game know what the ideal balance is?


...The three games she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic. I repeat: "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets."
​

Oh dear. At leas the is consistent.

This debate continues to be annoying/pointless. It's only interesting because Ebert is so certain.

Just wait till he see's The Citzen Kane of Games : The Movie!

Replies

Until @ebertchicago actually plays some of the games he criticizes, my response to his last broadside stands: http://bit.ly/Q9cMn

Ron Giblert replies Grumpy Gamer

The writer of the original presentation, which Ebert critiques, responds!
Reply to Ebert

UPDATE - Ebert moves from argument to insult! Hooray!

I'm not too old to "get" video games, but I may be too well-read

Stay classy!

So @rogerebert's last tweet about games proves he's not really interested in mature discussion. Now he's just being willfully insulting.

I really had no issue with him until that one or his argument, but saying he's "too well read"? He may not understand who he's talking to.

Engaging in @ebertchicago 's game of "My art can beat up your art" is cliche, but I'll argue a bit against my better judgment.

It seems that @ebertchicago is intent on conflating two questions.

Whether games as a category can support art, and whether a currently existing game can compare with the great poets are separate concerns.

Answering the latter in the negative will not tell us whether a positive answer to the former is likelier to arrive in 5 or 500 years.

The slippery semantics of "art" and "games" aren't helping anymore than his dismissal of games without rules as "representations of a story"

The fact that several forms of art other than sculpture occur across time does not negate sculpture's standing as art.

Nor does the fact that some games have rule sets disqualify them from artistic status.

To argue that @ebertchicago is too old to grasp games allows him to counter that you are too young to appreciate art

He could, however, correctly argue that a 20 year old who hasn't read a novel carries mistaken assumptions about literature

And you can counter that a 67-year-old who hasn't played a game perpetuates mistaken assumptions about games.

Which is why arguments between unread 20-year-olds and a 67-year-old who refuses to try games are so silly.

@chespace Are you saying that I'm debating the semantics or that Ebert is?

@chespace Exactly

@chespace No, he's playing a shell game with semantics

His dismissal of games without rules as "representations of a story" hints at the shell game.

Suppose dance started as a rule-based competition for mates, and later expanded to encompass all forms of dance now in existence.

Although the original rule-based competition persists, the associated forms aren't precluded from achieving art. (far-fetched hypothetical)

UPDATE 2 - Penny Arcade Weighs In

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.

(CW)TB out.

I get mail every day asking us to weigh in on this Roger Ebert thing. It's really not worth getting worked up about in my opinion. Of course video games are art. They are nothing but art. They are art piled on top of more art.

As Tycho mentioned, Ebert is simply filling a role played out by art critics throughout history. There was the newspaper headline back in 1959 with regards to Jackson Pollock's work that said "This is not art — it's a joke in bad taste." It's a funny line but time has proven it was also completely wrong. Ebert has thrown his hat in with the rest of the short sighted critics who would rather debate what is or isn't art, rather than simply enjoy the work of artists.

So Ebert says games aren't art. That does not make it true. I say games are art and last time I checked, I was beating Michelle Obama, Oprah and Taylor swift in Time's 100 most influential people list.

-Gabe out

Update 3 -

Scott Sharkey on the debate - http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/29092

Video Games are Art - Yahtzee's view.

From The Atlantic Why Video Games Are Works of Art

 

[blame space]

he's right btw. quit thinking about your joystick-twiddling thumbs as experiencing art. if anything, in the right situation, you're creating art; and even in that case, it's more of a collectivist performance art than anything.

play games to have fun. it'll be art when you have real choices and consequences, when you can actually effect the story you're participating in. until then, it's just fun pressing buttons.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

Shattered Memories.

 

[BocoDragon]

If games aren't art:

Then a zen garden is not art.

A building's architecture is not art.

A sculpture is not art.

Performance art is not art.

Only Ebert's narrow-minded definition of a linear story in books or movies is art.

 

[Sixfortyfive]

Ebert has been saying this for a while and probably won't change his mind. Why do you care?

 

[jett]

Ebert can be so narrow-minded sometimes.

 

[ZAK]

Beating a game is kinda like finishing a movie. It gets truer and truer each day, it seems.

 

[blame space]

If games aren't art:

Then a zen garden is not art.

A building's architecture is not art.

A sculpture is not art.

Performance art is not art.

Only Ebert's narrow-minded definition of a linear story in books or movies is art.

if me taking a shit is not art:

music isn't art.

a painting is not art.

a movie is not art.

art is not art.

 

[brandonh83]

In my opinion art is simply creativity, but furthermore it's an extremely subjective term and I kind of roll my eyes everytime I see someone say something isn't art. When you paint a picture, many might say, hey that's art. But all you did is create an image. It might be a spectacular image and your craft may be impeccable, but still, all you did was pick up a paintbrush and let your imagination run wild. How that's any different than creating images for other mediums, even if it's on a computer (which, guess what, still takes a radical amount of talent/skill) is an alien concept to me. Songwriters are often called artists; can someone please explain to me the difference in creativity and skill between a musician, a filmmaker, or art directors in videogames?

All I'm saying is that I don't think "art" is a term that is as limited as some people make it out to be.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Wouldn't adhering to previous game mechanics make it more like a game and less art like? So which is it Ebert.

While I disagree with him he does make a great point... There is no game that you can cite which can compete with the best films, novels, poems, etc. Of course I imagine it will happen some day... and it definitely won't happen through corporate means, since they are always more interested in the profit rather than creating art.

The biggest developer I see pulling it off? VALve. They are a developer in control of their own destiny and have already made wonderful games, but they only scratch the surface in the ways they can become an art form.

 

[Lunchbox]

games are toys you have fun with

if it was "art" i wouldnt touch it with a ten foot pole, like hipster music

 

[Rabbit Lord]

I agree with him that currently games aren't art, maybe someday though.

 

[Cep]

Why do we care what this man says?

 

[dallow_bg]

I agree with "wordy fortune cookie".

 

[Bernbaum]

'Games are art' proponents need to make less citations of Braid and flower and instead testify to the polygons that make up Bayonetta's awesome rack.

 

[badcrumble]

His silly 'one-artist' definition seems like an attempt to get away from the fairly clear fact (from his earlier statements on the subject) that he doesn't believe that anything interactive can be art. Furthermore, he attempts to further win via definition by saying that anything with rules and goals cannot be art (which is silly). He's also frightfully close-minded about ever giving a chance to something that might possibly convince him otherwise.

That said,

"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."

is entirely correct, and I don't know about my lifetime, but it's likely to continue to be the case for decades to come.

 

[rainking187]

Really? How many shitty movies does he review? What exactly makes Catwoman art, but Braid is not?

 

[The Faceless Master]

Santiago concedes that chess, football, baseball and even mah jong cannot be art, however elegant their rules.

i've seen many a play in football that i'd consider to be art, and i'm sure chess and baseball fans would agree.

 

[blame space]

art is made by an artist. video games are played by players. is this seriously still contested?

you're manipulating an image in a predetermined scenario that a group of developers created. it's like people believing in god and saying: "my life is art!"

 

[Ceebs]

I for one tend to agree with his statement. You are either giving control to a player which can distort the message, or you take away the control and are left with something that is somewhere between a movie or book, but is not really a game anymore.

I don't think games have to be pure entertainment, but they are not art in the traditional sense. If a game ever wanted to be considered art, it needs to stop relying on aspects of other art forms, and use the medium in a new way.

 

[Rated-Rsuperstar]

The fact that he's yet to play a game makes his opinion invalid.

 

[blame space]

if it was "art" i wouldnt touch it with a ten foot pole, like hipster music

wow

 

[Big One]

he's right btw. quit thinking about your joystick-twiddling thumbs as experiencing art. if anything, in the right situation, you're creating art; and even in that case, it's more of a collectivist performance art than anything.

No, not even close.

Video games are made through a creative process, compiling together multiple mediums into an interactive experience. Video games are made of art, and to the core (their programming) is a form of human creation. All art really is, is human creative expression, and the video game creating process is all about that. You can also express the common artistic messages you do in literature, painting, and music in video games.

 

[Dresden]

Who knows if games are art. We still find it difficult to define what art truly is, and what definitions we have are still subject to change.

"Meh" is the best answer I have for this. Who cares? Just play games for enjoyment, just like how people told stories for fun, how epic verses were composed and committed to memory, how some dude sitting on a rock thought to himself, "hey, that girl I like would look totally swell as a bulging rock figure!"

I'm not sure why people get so passionate about this, on both sides of the spectrum. Games don't need to be validated as art. Maybe general acceptance of the industry as something above just commonplace entertainment will happen one day. Until then, who gives a fuck. Play what you like and stop trying to justify thumb-twiddling as an artistic endeavor.

 

[Big B]

Baseball is art. I mean, have you seen Mike Gonzalez? Poetry I mean art in motion.

And someone show Ebert Noby Noby Boy.

 

[blame space]

No, not even close.

Video games are made through a creative process, compiling together multiple mediums into an interactive experience. Video games are made of art, and to the core (their programming) is a form of human creation. All art really is, is human creative expression, and the video game creating process is all about that. You can also express the common artistic messages you do in literature, painting, and music in video games.

someone coding your ability to do something restricted by an input device is incomparable to a piece of art made to stand on its own; to mean something.

 

[GreekWolf]

I liked him better when he was about 200 pounds heavier. He seemed jollier back then.

 

[Jex]

That said,

"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."

is entirely correct, and I don't know about my lifetime, but it's likely to continue to be the case for decades to come.

True, but thats like going back to 1915 and saying "All these movies are dumb, none of them are as good as a Shakespearean play".

 

[Phaethon0017]

I always thought art was in the eye of the beholder. How two people can look at a painting and then say it's either amazing or utter crap. That happens so often with video games how could one say that isn't art? The fact that games are so subjective and that multiple people can take away so many different things from them leads me to believe that they are the definition of art.

But this whole debate isn't even about art, never was. What you have is a far older generation who just can't interpret them at all and can only equate them to the people who they see interpret them. "My grand kids play video games, and they're stupid as hell. Art is smart, hence games are not art." Anyone can look at a painting, watch a movie, listen to music, but with video games if you can't pass a basic hand eye coordination test, you're screwed.

 

[dimb]

I for one tend to agree with his statement. You are either giving control to a player which can distort the message, or you take away the control and are left with something that is somewhere between a movie or book, but is not really a game anymore.

Distort the message?

The whole point of art is the for an individual to interpret a message on a personal level.

 

[Shard]

Somebody get Ebert a copy of Planescape: Torment.

 

[UltimaPooh]

True, but thats like going back to 1915 and saying "All these movies are dumb, none of them are as good as a Shakespearian play".

Which is why he will ultimately be wrong.

It was the same when sound came into movies, then when color came, when TV replaced radio, etc. Some people just don't have a knack for understanding trends.

 

[BocoDragon]

This version of "art" that Ebert is talking about is actually a theology.

What exactly does he mean when he says games are not art?

It's not good or respectable? It doesn't "express the qualities of 'je ne said quois'?" It doesn't serve society? It's not the work of a single pretentious auteur?

What is it exactly? It seems vaguely crazy to me to just talk about this without defining it in some way which encompasses many forms of art which have been accepted in the past: dance, visual design, music... etc.

There's a reason why the cave paintings were considered humanities first art. Because it didn't matter one lick to anthropologists whether it was "high art"... "real art" or whatever it is Ebert was really talking about. They just said "creative expression: check. It's art".

Here's what Ebert's really saying whether he knows it or not: Games are not good art.

Of course it's art... any anthropologist would say so.

 

[badcrumble]

Games are absolutely, 100% art in the sense that they are wholly open to interpretation, analysis, and criticism. They're just shitty art (qua art).

 

[Basileus777]

This article is just an argument of semantics made by someone who has never played video games. It's not particularly interesting.

 

[Skiesofwonder]

Shattered Memories.

This. 100 times this.

But after reading that I have to think that Ebert will never change his way of thinking. Not only is he stubborn, but he doesn't even play the games he is critiquing. Ebert would not read a synopsis from someone on a movie and judge the product by that alone. Shame shame.

This article made me loss a little bit of respect for Ebert.

 

[Big One]

someone coding your ability to do something restricted by an input device is incomparable to a piece of art made to stand on its own; to mean something.

No it's not. Both are a result of creative expression. If input devices are restricting it from being art, then having to sit in front of a television or a movie screen is restricting movies of being art.

 

[Yagharek]

Whether or not it constitutes an arbitrary definition of 'art', the 'art' of games is in the act of play.

To wit, Tetris, Super Mario Bros, Space Invaders, Doom and Pac Man all constitute the gaming equivalent of art, and they do not require pretentious stories or aspirations of grandeur.

 

[blame space]

Games are absolutely, 100% art in the sense that they are wholly open to interpretation, analysis, and criticism. They're just shitty art (qua art).

fuckin' nice. now this i can get behind. feel free to consider MGS art now, folks.

 

[Yoboman]

Why would we care for the opinion of someone who doesn't even play games?

 

[L00P]

games are expensive so it must be art

 

[ArachosiA 78]

I don't know what qualifies Ebert to make such a judgment. That said, I do agree with him 100%

I have a BFA and am a lifelong gamer, so I feel I am somewhat qualified in saying that games are not art. I can't imagine how they ever could be art, but I suppose it's possible someday.

 

[NotWii]

I loled at "wordy fortune cookie".

That is the weakest part of most games

 

[Teddman]

He's simply too old.

 

[rainking187]

Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience me recognizing the medium as an art form...

Fixed. Video games are art as far as I'm concerned, don't really give a shit what he thinks.

 

[blame space]

input devices

television or a movie screen

implying input

hmm..

 

[Jex]

Which is why he will ultimately be wrong.

It was the same when sound came into movies, then when color came, when TV replaced radio, etc. Some people just don't have a knack for understanding trends.

That's what makes his statements even more ironic, because he must be aware of the history of film and film criticism.

 

[BocoDragon]

I don't know what qualifies Ebert to make such a judgment. That said, I do agree with him 100%

I have a BFA and am a lifelong gamer, so I feel I am somewhat qualified in saying that games are not art. I can't imagine how they ever could be art, but I suppose it's possible someday.

What is the definition of art?

Are you sure you don't mean, games are not good art/high art?

 

[dimb]

But after reading that I have to think that Ebert will never change his way of thinking. Not only is he stubborn, but he doesn't even play the games he is critiquing.

Ebert wants to give video games a chance. But he's tweeted that he has been stuck on the tutorial for Hey You Pikachu for the last two months.

 

[Beezy]

He's right. Now sit down, gaming hipsters.