Topic: Ebert Says Games Are Not Art (Again)

[sirean_syan]

From Gamespot.

It's the old debate really, but some new updates to Ebert's side of the argument. I'm not entirely sure how he can make a few of his points considering he has no problem with movie's being art, but I'd suspect it has to do with a bit of snobbery and just the general subject matter of games (which isn't really helping the games as art side of things).

What probably strikes me as the most absurd bit is this.

Ebert sees it, "art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices."

So, there's no such thing as vague art or art that allows the viewer to decide things for themselves? I guess you can pretty much just throw out the entire non-objective art movement along with every open-ended movie as well.

[Quemaqua]

Yeah, that's a particularly ridiculous argument.  Where he's wrong is that he tries to use that as a negative.  The point is that games are a NEW kind of art, an interactive medium that combines OTHER art forms into an amazing whole.  It's a different kind of art to be sure, but you can't tell me that creating an entire UNIVERSE with the Elder Scrolls games, not only a literary one with history and politics and landscapes, but a physical one with people and trees and objects, isn't art.  You tell me that, I label you a fucking idiot.  You play Silent Hill 2 and tell me that isn't an amazingly artistic twist on standard horror, made to surpass every horror film ever made because of the interactivity, and I label you a fucking idiot.

I could go on, but I'll save my ammo for the podcast.   

[K-man]

Art is in the eyes of the beholder.  We can argue semantics all day, but ultimately the individual decides whether or not something is "art".

This only raises a ruckus because Ebert is a highly visible (and not just because he's a lardass) spokesperson for the movie industry.  His argument is full of holes.  Too bad he's too involved in his own industry to realize that.

[idolminds]

I can't take Ebert seriously in this debate simply because he has zero frame of reference. What sort of games has he played? Pac-Man? His take on what modern game are is probably stuff hes seen in the news, which means GTA and Manhunt. Ebert probably has no idea games like Ico even exist.

Its like asking a ditch digger if brain surgery is a more labor intensive job.

[K-man]

Actually during his last gaming-related spat he did cite Shadow of the Colossus, recognizing that it was a "pretty" game but that still did not make it art in his definition.

[idolminds]

Yes, but did he play it or just have someone explain it to him. If I explained Saving Private Ryan as some WW2 movie where these dudes have to go save this other dude...doesn't really give you the same impact.

[Schlotzky5]

I couldnt disagree with Ebert more. I forget who said it but I remember the quote quite well

"Cheesy art provides answers. Great art poses questions."

So art doesnt lead you to an inevitable conclusion, but open your eyes to something you havent questioned before.

[Xessive]

The fact that games involve viewers/players automatically makes them art. If no one interacted with or reacted to games they wouldn't really be art. They'd just be.

[Cobra951]

His argument is flawed in any case.  There are plenty of games that lead to one inevitable conclusion.  Not reaching this conclusion, as in getting a "Game Over" and giving up, is just like not looking at all of a painting, or walking out on a movie halfway.  So by his own definition, these games would be art.

[MysterD]

In my mind, art is something that can capture a moment in time (like say a painting or photography pictures would) or a series of many moments in time (like books, movies, games, and music, etc...) forever.

Books/novels, games, movies, music -- they're all art to me.

About Ebert -- he's not a gamer, his opinion on games being art or not don't matter to me. I do respect his opinions on movies, though.

[MysterD]

And again, Ebert back on his stance games aren't art.

[Xessive]

Ebert is entitled to his opinion. The more we argue it the more we validate it. It's best just to ignore it.. and him.

Don't get e wrong, I think the man is brilliant but at this juncture he and I will have to agree to disagree.

The more I read about this argument the more it starts to sound like "Blue is not a colour! Now, red, that's a colour! And it's way better than blue!"

[ScaryTooth]

I like the guy, but I completely disagree with him on this.

[K-man]

Whether or not he believes that video games are art does not affect me in the slightest.

He's got an opinion and he's free to express it, just like the rest of us.  I don't see why people are insistent upon trying to convince him that he's wrong.

[PyroMenace]

His last few paragraphs come off as quite contradicting. Why does it concern us? He seems to denote gamers that we all strive to see games as art, then why does Ebert go to great lengths to express why they are not?

I just found it a little naive for him to assume that we should all be content of not being concerned with the thesis at all.

[gpw11]

Yeah, trying to define what art is.  There's a worthwhile endeavour. Props.

[Ghandi]

He's got an opinion and he's free to express it, just like the rest of us.  I don't see why people are insistent upon trying to convince him that he's wrong.

A board full of gamers and you don't see why?

[Cobra951]

If I declare to the world that videogames are not art, nobody would care.  So convincing me that I'm wrong is not worth the effort.  But when a respected,well known critic says the same thing, it does matter.  That's the difference.  That's why many people want to change his mind, or discredit him.

[Xessive]

I didn't read the entire article, does he at least admit that games contain and promote art work? If he missed that point then he's clearly lost his perspective.

[Pugnate]

If I declare to the world that videogames are not art, nobody would care.  So convincing me that I'm wrong is not worth the effort.  But when a respected,well known critic says the same thing, it does matter.  That's the difference.  That's why many people want to change his mind, or discredit him.

[Pugnate]

By the way I don't completely disagree with what Ebert says, as things stand in the video game industry today. I do wonder if video games will ever have their Citizen Kane, or if they reach reach the status of being art without becoming more of a film.

I didn't read the entire article, does he at least admit that games contain and promote art work? If he missed that point then he's clearly lost his perspective.

No, he doesn't mean that games don't use pieces of artistic visuals, or artistic music. He is talking about games as a whole.

Take Bioshock for example. The soundtrack, the visuals are all very artistic etc., but can you call the whole package art? Yes, there are tons of artful elements in it, but then, you are also running around for ten hours shooting the shit out of the people you see. There is nothing artistic about that aspect of it. Sure, some of the killings you do in the game serve a larger purpose, but most are there to simply serve the needs of a gamer. 

His point is basically that a video game is primarily objective and challenge based, and that there is nothing artful about that aspect of it, in and of itself. You can have a game with great story telling, beautiful artwork, a soulful soundtrack, in an overall package that comes together almost poetically... but it still won't change the fact that you experience these elements through an objective based journey, that either has you shooting a gazillion enemies, or trying to win every race, or whatever... objectives that don't serve any purpose, other than satisfying the needs of a gamer.

His point seems to be that if you remove those elements of it, you could achieve art, but then you aren't left with a game, but a movie.

When I think about it, Heavy Rain seems to be a pretty good example of what he is saying.

Consider the movie, Transformers 2.

Yes, the score is artful, and yes, there are other individual elements that can be considered artistic. But can the movie itself, be considered art? Not in a million years.

[MysterD]

By the way I don't completely disagree with what Ebert says, as things stand in the video game industry today. I do wonder if video games will ever have their Citizen Kane, or if they reach reach the status of being art without becoming more of a film.

No, he doesn't mean that games don't use pieces of artistic visuals, or artistic music. He is talking about games as a whole.

Take Bioshock for example. The soundtrack, the visuals are all very artistic etc., but can you call the whole package art? Yes, there are tons of artful elements in it, but then, you are also running around for ten hours shooting the shit out of the people you see. There is nothing artistic about that aspect of it. Sure, some of the killings you do in the game serve a larger purpose, but most are there to simply serve the needs of a gamer. 

His point is basically that a video game is primarily objective and challenge based, and that there is nothing artful about that aspect of it, in and of itself. You can have a game with great story telling, beautiful artwork, a soulful soundtrack, in an overall package that comes together almost poetically... but it still won't change the fact that you experience these elements through an objective based journey, that either has you shooting a gazillion enemies, or trying to win every race, or whatever... objectives that don't serve any purpose, other than satisfying the needs of a gamer.

His point seems to be that if you remove those elements of it, you could achieve art, but then you aren't left with a game, but a movie.

When I think about it, Heavy Rain seems to be a pretty good example of what he is saying.

Consider the movie, Transformers 2.

Yes, the score is artful, and yes, there are other individual elements that can be considered artistic. But can the movie itself, be considered art? Not in a million years.

Movies, music, and books are pretty much linear affairs - they have a start and a finish (even if the events ain't told in chronological order). These works of are don't change. They really are NOT meant to be change. There is no decision-making, interaction, or anything b/t them - video games often have those 3 things books, music, and movies just so happen to be missing. Each time you go through a movie, music, or book - they're going to be the same exact journey for the viewer/reader/listener/listener. Though, b/c (some of) these works often have so much content packed into them - the viewer might see on numerous replays different things and be able to see things from ever different viewpoints; actually see some things they missed on a previous viewing (in-jokes; able to figure out some of the symbolism they missed before-hand); etc etc. And really - I think that is what make art...well...art.

While gaming might have the "Game" element thrown in for measure and be the primarily element in most cases, there is just so much other extra artistry and wizardry here - I just don't know how it cannot also be considered art. There are becoming more and more - especially in the Triple-A games - on the level of movies w/ high-production values w/ outstanding music, technical graphics (Crysis), artistic graphics (Borderlands, Ico, etc) and amazing stories (Mass Effect 2). Some of these games, are linear as hell - w/ one final vision and outcome to the story (Final Fantasy series) - that Ebert might consider it art, if they just tossed the "game" element out.

From my (old) PC Webster's Dictionary, here's what art is defined as:
"1. art \"art\ n 1 : skill acquired by experience or study 2 : a branch of learning; esp : one of the humanities 3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill 4 : the use of skill and imagination in the production of things of beauty; also : works so produced 5 : artfulness 
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.  All rights reserved.

[K-man]

A board full of gamers and you don't see why?

Here's the way I see it.  He has an opinion.  I personally believe that there are holes in his argument, but it ultimately does not affect me or my desire to play games.  He's a movie critic that says video games aren't art. Big deal.  Let him have his opinion.  He's obviously rather entrenched in his viewpoint, so why waste the energy trying to convince him otherwise?  And hell, even if he did agree that games were art what would that accomplish really?  It's not like video games are going to reach some magical level of acceptance on his word. 

[Cobra951]

Just on a hunch, I looked up interactive art.

Interactive art is a form of installation-based art that involves the spectator in a way that allows the art to achieve its purpose.

Classroom time.  Compare and contrast Final Fantasy XIII with the subject and examples in this article.  Does it fit the mold?  I invite Mr Ebert to participate.

[idolminds]

I saw this posted on TIGSource forums (indie gameS)

I think the thing to remember is that it isn't Roger Ebert's club, and most of the people in the club have no problem with games. Hence why art museums are putting on game-focused exhibits now and again.

Also, ugh, I can't get my thoughts sorted out pre-coffee, but if anything, Roger Ebert's love of film is more of an inspiration than his half-formulated thoughts on video games. Great films grew up out of a discourse engendered by films people loved regardless of the fact that they were perceived as trivial.

People who are like "someday we'll learn to make real art games" don't seem to get the fact that real art films weren't considered art simply because they got to some objective level of quality, but because people became entrenched enough in the medium to understand its idiosyncratic language and use that to express themselves. This is the same deal with games. Roger Ebert doesn't get it because he can't see how Braid puts the pain of loss into a critical response to Super Mario Bros. (and come on, how cool is that?). He's missing the point entirely.

So I don't know. Ebert is an old man, he's had a tough life, he's been through a ton and he really has done a lot for film criticism. I don't think people should be out and out bashing him, but no matter what you say to him about games, he just isn't going to get it. Not because he's stupid or whatever, but just because he hasn't grown up in this medium of expression.

By the way I don't completely disagree with what Ebert says, as things stand in the video game industry today. I do wonder if video games will ever have their Citizen Kane, or if they reach reach the status of being art without becoming more of a film.

Thats just the thing. Gaming will have its "Citizen Kane", and we might already have it. Its just not going to be like the movie industry version. CK is lauded for how it made use of the movie medium, cinematography and story. The gaming CK is going to be a benchmark in gameplay, not necessarily story. Different mediums, different goals. What about Tetris? The Mario platformer? Pac Man? Timeless games.

It kind of reminds me of movies when the technology first appeared. What were people used to? The stage, vaudeville. And most early movies were basically vaudeville in front of a camera. It took a while before movies became movies like we think of them today. The game industry is kind of in that same place. Though we started out ok doing our own thing because the technology wasn't there to imitate movies, once we got that tech we started to mimic movie structure. Hopefully we eventually move past that.

[MysterD]

I saw this posted on TIGSource forums (indie gameS)
 Thats just the thing. Gaming will have its "Citizen Kane", and we might already have it. Its just not going to be like the movie industry version. CK is lauded for how it made use of the movie medium, cinematography and story. The gaming CK is going to be a benchmark in gameplay, not necessarily story. Different mediums, different goals. What about Tetris? The Mario platformer? Pac Man? Timeless games.

It kind of reminds me of movies when the technology first appeared. What were people used to? The stage, vaudeville. And most early movies were basically vaudeville in front of a camera. It took a while before movies became movies like we think of them today. The game industry is kind of in that same place. Though we started out ok doing our own thing because the technology wasn't there to imitate movies, once we got that tech we started to mimic movie structure. Hopefully we eventually move past that.

This is going to be an interesting thing....

When Bioshock dropped, everybody was basically calling it the CK of gaming...as it really questioned the whole so-called "illusion" of choices in gaming. Not only that, but the storytelling was superb - and the way it approached telling the story. Sure, a lot of this stuff was done in System Shock 2 - but that game wasn't a big-seller and was PC-only.

But, really - I still think the best game ever written in the prose department was Planescape: Torment. No game's prose is even in the league of that game's prose. At that time, yes - PST looked amazing. And its artistry - especially on that Infinity engine - was something to behold. You know, I don't think we'll ever see a game as well-written in the prose department as PST - since games have just made such leaps and bounds in technology over the years, doing that kind of amount of prose would be quite ridiculous. Look at games like say Divinity 2 and any of the Assassin Creed games - my god, the amount of different animations those games have going on, they don't need to describe it in words to the level that PST did.

EDIT:
Kotaku responds to Ebert.

[Pugnate]

Movies, music, and books are pretty much linear affairs - they have a start and a finish (even if the events ain't told in chronological order). These works of are don't change. They really are NOT meant to be change. There is no decision-making, interaction, or anything b/t them - video games often have those 3 things books, music, and movies just so happen to be missing. Each time you go through a movie, music, or book - they're going to be the same exact journey for the viewer/reader/listener/listener. Though, b/c (some of) these works often have so much content packed into them - the viewer might see on numerous replays different things and be able to see things from ever different viewpoints; actually see some things they missed on a previous viewing (in-jokes; able to figure out some of the symbolism they missed before-hand); etc etc. And really - I think that is what make art...well...art.

While gaming might have the "Game" element thrown in for measure and be the primarily element in most cases, there is just so much other extra artistry and wizardry here - I just don't know how it cannot also be considered art. There are becoming more and more - especially in the Triple-A games - on the level of movies w/ high-production values w/ outstanding music, technical graphics (Crysis), artistic graphics (Borderlands, Ico, etc) and amazing stories (Mass Effect 2). Some of these games, are linear as hell - w/ one final vision and outcome to the story (Final Fantasy series) - that Ebert might consider it art, if they just tossed the "game" element out.

From my (old) PC Webster's Dictionary, here's what art is defined as:
"1. art \"art\ n 1 : skill acquired by experience or study 2 : a branch of learning; esp : one of the humanities 3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill 4 : the use of skill and imagination in the production of things of beauty; also : works so produced 5 : artfulness 
(c)2000 Zane Publishing, Inc. and Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.  All rights reserved.

I read your post, and I have NO idea why you even quoted me, or how anything you said is relevant to what I said. Read my post again. Did not say that games don't have artistic aspects to them, but can they be considered art as a whole when at the core they are designed from a commercial perspective to appeal to gamers?

Bioshock is a fine game with plenty of artistic achivement, but I can't consider it as a piece of art as a whole myself.

. Some of these games, are linear as hell - w/ one final vision and outcome to the story (Final Fantasy series) - that Ebert might consider it art, if they just tossed the "game" element out.

That's his point... at that stage they aren't games anymore.

I saw this posted on TIGSource forums (indie gameS)
 Thats just the thing. Gaming will have its "Citizen Kane", and we might already have it. Its just not going to be like the movie industry version. CK is lauded for how it made use of the movie medium, cinematography and story. The gaming CK is going to be a benchmark in gameplay, not necessarily story. Different mediums, different goals. What about Tetris? The Mario platformer? Pac Man? Timeless games.

It kind of reminds me of movies when the technology first appeared. What were people used to? The stage, vaudeville. And most early movies were basically vaudeville in front of a camera. It took a while before movies became movies like we think of them today. The game industry is kind of in that same place. Though we started out ok doing our own thing because the technology wasn't there to imitate movies, once we got that tech we started to mimic movie structure. Hopefully we eventually move past that.

Yes I agree that in that sense we have had our CKs. Games like Pacman and Tetris as you mentioned.

I just meant our CK in the sense of art. I can't call Pacman art.

If you examine a great movie like Citizen Kane or The Godfather, or a great painting, or a great symphony, or a timeless piece of poetry, you will note that every scene, every brush stroke, every note, every verse is deliberately placed, and an integral part of the package as a whole.

If you look at video games, at their core, the elements that define them as games, serve no purpose other than satisfying our gamer needs. And that's what I think Ebert means, when he says video games can't be considered an art form. Can something with such a commercialized formulatic core be considered art?

Again, if you look at the ten hours or so of shooting in Bioshock... what purpose does it serve other than defining Bioshock as a video game? And if you remove that aspect of it, you are sorta left with an interactive movie.

Anyway it is a subject that I'd like to think more on.

[Xessive]

In my media transformations course (which I just completed) we consider games (interactive experiences in general) art. We've been digging deep into the theory and assessment of interactivity, harmony of art, science, and technology, etc.

The flaw in Ebert' argument is that he's condemning the entire genre of games from the single perspective that they are essentially toys (which can be argued to be art as well). That would be like saying that all video work is not art, based solely on the objectives of commercials and advertisements.

I get the impression that if you want to get under Ebert's skin, don't attack him, attack his passion: cinema. Either way, by his logic if games are not art then neither are films nor musical performances.

[idolminds]

Just keep bringing up Hot Tub Time Machine. That should work.

[MysterD]

In my media transformations course (which I just completed) we consider games (interactive experiences in general) art. We've been digging deep into the theory and assessment of interactivity, harmony of art, science, and technology, etc.

The flaw in Ebert' argument is that he's condemning the entire genre of games from the single perspective that they are essentially toys (which can be argued to be art as well). That would be like saying that all video work is not art, based solely on the objectives of commercials and advertisements.

I get the impression that if you want to get under Ebert's skin, don't attack him, attack his passion: cinema. Either way, by his logic if games are not art then neither are films nor musical performances.

Art has evolved, numerous times from static things that don't move or change (paintings; murals; literature; photography; music; etc) to not-so-static things such as Ebert's favorite thing: movies (where the pictures move).

And now, especially over the last few decades, art has really evolved again - as now, video games are delving into the question of "Is this art?" Even more so, as production has gotten better in the voice-acting and story aspects.

Yes, I'm saying it now - I think games are art.

[gpw11]

Yes, I'm saying it now - I think games are art.

This is the only thing you will ever hear me say about the subject:

You're saying it wrong - don't say "games are art", say "games can be art".  The only thing that IS art is art. A medium can't in itself be art but can hold the potential for art.  OH HEY THIS IS REALLY ABSTRACT AND DUMB.

[MysterD]

Again, if you look at the ten hours or so of shooting in Bioshock... what purpose does it serve other than defining Bioshock as a video game? And if you remove that aspect of it, you are sorta left with an interactive movie.

Bioshock's world is a destroyed one - a dystopia and a half. Left here are the remains of mutated monsters/humans (depends how you look at it), who've over-abused the plasmids (drugs) to turn them into steroid-like maniacs. As the player, you are plunged into this world, trying to survive in this world given to you. When you watch a movie, you're viewing what's happening and trying to observe everything happening. You don't participate in this world - you're a watcher. You don't try to survive in this world; you just sit back and watch it all unfold as is.

When you watch Pitch Black movie, you're watching their character of Riddick interact in this world - the actor is the player here, if you want to look at it, that way; and he has to play by the script's and/or director's rules. (Sometimes, they ad-lib). Games take a different approach - as they often make you a main character(s) in this world and you interact in it, in some shape or form. When you play Chronicles of Riddick: Butcher Bay, you ARE Riddick and are thrown into this world.
 
Bioshock is an interesting example b/c of its storytelling. If you just never listen to the audio tapes, you wind up playing what is a full-on game - there's only really a few scenes forced on the player to witness in-game (which aren't cut-scenes - but you witness them in-game as you play like Half-Life 2 is known for doing); one actually literal cut-scene in the game (around 2/3rds into the game); and an ending (there's 3 different endings; 2 main endings (good or bad); the other's a variation of one of the endings). If you do listen to the audio tapes you pick-up - you're basically playing a cross b/t a game and a movie - which is what most games these days usually aim for.

[Pugnate]

The flaw in Ebert' argument is that he's condemning the entire genre of games from the single perspective that they are essentially toys (which can be argued to be art as well). That would be like saying that all video work is not art, based solely on the objectives of commercials and advertisements.

I see what you are saying, but while you've got a lot of video work that is clearly not art, you also have a lot that clearly is.

It isn't as obvious for games.

Either way, by his logic if games are not art then neither are films nor musical performances.

Please explain.

[Xessive]

I see what you are saying, but while you've got a lot of video work that is clearly not art, you also have a lot that clearly is.

It isn't as obvious for games.

Please explain.

GPW brought up the point of the medium versus the abstract concept. That's what I meant regarding Ebert's assessment of games. He's condemning the entire medium, saying it is not a viable channel for artistic expression.

[idolminds]

Interestingly, Ebert reviewed a game quite a while ago. He liked it.

[angrykeebler]

I have a feeling Ebert is just the world's best troll

[MysterD]

I have a feeling Ebert is just the world's best troll

Naw, he ain't got nada on MyD.

[Xessive]

[MysterD]

X, stop feeding me!

[MysterD]

Kellee Santiago responds to Roger Ebert.

Her piece is the one, which caused Ebert recently to re-open this debate and re-iterate his stance against.

Ebert asks me in the section on "Flower," "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?"

Well, it only takes you 2-3 hours to find out – about the same time you'd dedicate to a film! I'd be happy to send you a PS3 with a copy of the game installed on it so we can discuss in more depth.

Art is in the eye of both the creator and the beholder. And as those two groups of people grow and change, so will the definition and perception of art.