Roger Ebert's Take on Gaming as Art

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

I guess it doesn't take a lot to figure out his stance based on the link.

I posted my response to it at www.themadspin.com just in case it doesn't get added via moderation. I imagine it will, but just in case.

I have to say that he presents a compelling argument. As did Santiago.

I think games are moving into an area that is more emotive, and I applaud anything Santiago's thatgamecompany creates, because they're pushing the boundaries of what gaming is all about.

However, for me the verdict is still out. But, even as an artist, I think I might have to agree with Ebert's question of why gamers should care about games being considered "art."

This argument has always driven my crazy to be honest. Art is such a vague term that it is hard for me to not consider games art. I have talked with all the students in my art classes on the subject and a majority of them feel that games are not art. They say that but 3D renderings, Pixar movies, etc are art.

The only part that really hurts games in the definition is "deliberately arranging elements" because with an interactive media the player in many cases has the option to move/destroy many elements in the environment. Although the way levels are set up, assets are inserted into the environment all of that is deliberate they do not just randomly throw all of these objects in.

In reality I do like his point about why do people really care if it is considered art. In reality most people do not care if they are considered art and feel no need to justify their game playing. I have just always seen it as sort of disrespectful to all the hard working people who make these games. If a Pixar movie is considered art I just do not see how a game can not be....

Rye0077r said:
I have to say that he presents a compelling argument. As did Santiago.
I think games are moving into an area that is more emotive, and I applaud anything Santiago's thatgamecompany creates, because they're pushing the boundaries of what gaming is all about.
However, for me the verdict is still out. But, even as an artist, I think I might have to agree with Ebert's question of why gamers should care about games being considered "art."

Because, if you enjoy something and it brings you various forms of emotion, why would you not defend it's integrity with other mediums that provide similar things? Whether video games constitute art is obviously a personal opinion in its core, because it depends on your definition of art and whether you've encountered any video games that have met these standards. All I know is, I have had this criteria met by video games numerous times, as well as probably millions of others have. If that doesn't constitute art, I don't know what does.

I think Roger Ebert's stance on video games never being art is because he does not like them or feel any emotion towards them. He does not see them as more than silly games. Many games have definite narratives, and while not all stories in games are that good there are quite a few gems. That combined with the aesthetically pleasing way they display the story makes some games pieces of art in my opinion.

A game takes a few different components (music, narrative, 3d models, and cinematic cutscenes) which by themselves are usually considered pieces of art and puts them together, so I think the sum of the parts should also be considered art.

aliborio said:
I think Roger Ebert's stance on video games never being art is because he does not like them or feel any emotion towards them. He does not see them as more than silly games. Many games have definite narratives, and while not all stories in games are that good there are quite a few gems. That combined with the aesthetically pleasing way they display the story makes some games pieces of art in my opinion.
A game takes a few different components (music, narrative, 3d models, and cinematic cutscenes) which by themselves are usually considered pieces of art and puts them together, so I think the sum of the parts should also be considered art.

Exactly, I could not agree more. Especially being on the Irrational Games forum Bioshock (as well as Bioshock 2 ) are two examples of how well all of these elements can blend together.

Santiago has taken several steps in the right direction, however perhaps it is possible that her approach is not winning over a new audience as much as it is exciting people that already harbor an appreciation for games.

Ebert is right on some accounts, the video game does require the “viewer” to actually be a “player”, it requires effort on the part of the observer in order to complete its affect. I do not think that this attribute alone should allow critics to dismiss it as “non art”.

There have been modern art expositions which require the viewer to participate in some way, really all art is more or less defined by the reactions that it generates from its audience.

The idea that we must dismiss is that art is a static and concrete thing that cannot be molded and remolded time after time by a participant in that art. Where Ebert says that the imagery, music, and cinematic may be considered art separated from each other and given back their original platforms (radio, framed and on a wall, on the silver screen, etc.) I argue that it is the combination of all of these forms together integrated with game-play that really makes video games a unique and important member of the “art” community.

As much as I respect Mr. Ebert as a critic of films, I have never sought his opinion on Art at large and therefore this review holds little water for me personally and, to be frank, it comes off as disingenuous and haughty on his part.

In the article Ebert discusses the differences between artists’ rendition of nudes. He notes that while all of the artists work from nature and therefore are adhering to Plato’s definition of art some artists are more talented than others and, as such, some artists create art while others do not. How do we know the difference between “art” and “not art” he asks rhetorically, “We just know” he answers.

Yes, we can all tell “art” from “not art”. We just know. For me, I know that a video game is an acceptable artistic platform.

Just my two cents.

As I said in my blog post, if we start using the worst examples as deciders of what is or isn't art, then we have to only use films like American Pie 2 or Beerfest as examples of why films aren't art.

You've got guys like Kojima who, rightly or not, want to plant virtual seeds that flower into trees so that when you destroy a tree in a Metal Gear game you feel the guilt of its full life. (I don't have the article in front of me, but some of you will remember this from a few years ago I'm sure). That's certainly a less pop centered angle and exists entirely in the realm of the spiritual or divine.

I think if we're giving Ebert's claim (that Katherine mentions in her post above) that games are just a hybrid--well welcome to movies. In fact, many films use the exact same aspects. Combine still image, audio (even non-diegetic audio making it even more of a radio background) and you get film.

Again, it's just an old dude who doesn't like or understand rock & roll so he wants to convince us all it's the devil's music.

When I talk about the "worst examples" I mean the Waco/Branch Dividian game he mentions--which no gamer I'm aware of really even considers--let alone considers art.

I also love the social constructs at work when considering what the origins of art are, should be and will be. It's very easy for Ebert to ask, "Why do gamers care if they're considered artists."

More importantly, why should outsiders work so hard to say that game makers aren't artists? It's a little self serving to argue away a form of intellectual bigotry by simply claiming the people under attack are the ones who should get over it and not the attacker.

However, when guys like Roger use their very sturdy soap box to negate the art of an entire group of people--it begs to ask why he cares so much that he doesn't want to see art evolve. When did we decide that interaction with the divine suddenly took it out of the realm of the divine? Ok, I'm done for now.

@tomrslever Ok, I was playing Devil's advocate in my post, so maybe I sounded like I was taking Ebert's side... Let me clarify...

I agree that art is very subjective, and anything can be art. (Take for instance any of Damien Hirst's chopped up and preserved animals. I would not call that art, but a lot of art galleries would and do!) While I think there are compelling arguments on both sides, ultimately--as many have stated--it all really goes back to your perception of what is art.

For me, games are art in the sense that it can be enjoyed and appreciated...or not.

Just like a dead shark...Suspended in a giant formaldehyde-filled plexiglass box...In the middle of a museum space.

One word:

"Ōkami"

That is all

Okami is brilliant.

I wonder what Ebert would say to playing a game like Okami....

I think he would just find a reason as to why he does not believe Okami is art. He would probably just say that it is aesthetically pleasing but has no real emotion behind it like you would find in a film.

If anyone plays it and thinks that there's no emotion behind Ōkami they would be a heartless bastard!

I got this via twitter today, retweeted it and now I'm posting it here.

I think it's a great response to this topic--one I wish I'd written.

http://multiplayersingleplayer.com/2010/04/20/painting-can-never-be-art/

I live in Europe. What's up with his (still) huge popularity? Are you all still buying The Chicago Sun-Times newspaper? Is it your TV nostalgia, growing up watching him, that makes you read his stuff and follow him on Twitter, people?

I don't need Ebert to tell me what to think about movies. Or what he thinks to think about 'ART' or 'video games'. His mind is narrow. His fingers not up to the task (game controller OR texting).

Reading film reviews, is like going out on a date and letting some stranger chew the food for you before you eat it. I know! Disgusting! Right?

The Internet = No Country For Old Men?

Speaking of old; last time I enjoyed a piece on film theory and aesthetics must have been in the "Cahiers du Cinéma" a while ago.

To be fair, reading film reviews is sometimes like watching a guy vomiting up rotten beef and going, "Hmm, I'm glad I didn't eat there because that guy didn't look like he enjoyed it much."

Same with game reviews. I'm too busy to go out and buy or try everything--though I did get roped into Kung Fu Panda by my nephew until I realized it was an Activision title. Try to explain to your nephew that Activision games aren't allowed in your system--it's a hard thing to explain to a five year old.

At any rate, as a console gamer I love sites like Metacritic that let me find out a consensus opinion. Yes, I still wind up disagreeing with people on games like Demon's Souls (in which the press mistook lazy for hard core), but at the very least I avoid sinking my money into titles that might not be worth it.

This is especially true if you pay attention to which opinions you value. I mean, if we're not to value opinions about our hobbies then no blog or forum post (ours included) would be worth reading or commenting on. Yet, here we are. So clearly we either have the egos required to share our thoughts with others as if they're gold plated--or we want to be a part of a discussion.

I think Ebert is aging and losing his youth and edge, however, he's been a pretty solid and balanced mediator for film criticism for a couple of decades. We have critics for a reason, good and bad, and sometimes we have to filter out that part when we disagree with them.

To return to my original metaphor, imagine we see a guy on a date spitting out his food while his date seems to be enjoying it. While she sits there clearly happy--yet increasingly uncomfortable--he makes a huge scene about the quality. None of the other diners are as animated as he is and seem like they want him to leave so that they can finish eating.

If you see this while waiting for a table--there's a good chance you're going to give the place a try, because there is only one extremely loud voice. However, you will be waiting to see if any of his complaints are there.

For people who don't do research, don't have strong opinions and don't like to do a lot of critical thinking--perhaps they'll be unable to distill which critical voices are important. Certainly anyone who's been sucked into the MTV culture can be told which songs to like, which bands to buy, which clothes to wear etc. They do it no matter how appalling it might be to their internal critical voice.

However, for those of us who think critically, follow the trends that speak to us and ignore the others, there is no danger in having critics or paying attention to them. We are all critics--we just don't all have microphones or paychecks for being critics. Even the voice used to denounce critics is a critical one and steeped in irony.

What we have to be are responsible critics and we ought to reserve our commentary to the fields we command respect in. As a literature, music and social construct guy--I'm not really qualified to make bold claims about physics or math--and I'd feel foolish if I tried. Ebert showed all of the ego, but none of the professional responsibility required of a critic when he commented on games--a subject he's vastly unfamiliar with as it's a medium in which he doesn't participate.

The problem is that he still has an enormous presence and in my mind used his voice and influence irresponsibly and with no foundation. This becomes even more frustrating when he's not talking about a subject such as, "I don't like games," or, "I just don't get games," but instead the far more pointed (and click-through ratings inviting), "games will never be art."

So, in this case, Ebert came into our restaurant and started chewing other people's food and then trying to feed it to them like birds--small children with their mouths open, no voice of their own, begging to be filled by what he chooses to give them.

I shared this article with my class today; outrage ensued.

This article seems fitting for this discussion.

http://www.joystiq.com/2010/04/22/paris-has-a-new-video-game-museum/

Duders, I need FIVE thumbs down to unlock the 'Rebel' achievement. But still a nice discussion.

I still don't get the Ebert love. Nobody cared to explain. It's ok.

I play along with the mixing of 'product reviewer' and 'art-critic' (two different subject, always mixed up, when it comes to film reviews and video games equally).

I say, unless you yourself never learned how to enjoy a great meal or tasted the subtle differences between Bordeaux wines, no 'critic' can teach you. That's not his game. He wants to be praised for his own superior tastes. Alexander Pope at least was funny. I can see the joy in reading well written reviews, filled with pun and cultural meta-memes. Some writers used to be pretty good doing this.

I still do not understand why, of all people, Ebert stirred such a ruckus amongst 'you guys'. An old man making his newspaper happy for getting the eyeballs and clicks, and the old man himself, getting a hard-on for thinking (and you LET him) that his opinions are still relevant.

Ever tried to explain to your grandparents this Internet and videogame thingy? Would they get the differences between Battlefield and MW2 or the updates/changes with each WoW patch? (Don't come with 'Jeff Green' - he's not a grandparent yet! )

buckybit said:
Alexander Pope at least was funny.

Quoted for truth. I wonder how many people here have to read Pope these days. I didn't get to Pope until grad school. Although they teach Pope and then ask you to never write that type of scholarly paper.

I think the last panel in this Penny Arcade comic says it all for me.

Yea that's what I'm saying they have artists who create art for the game and they put all this art together and its no longer art?

aliborio said:
Yea that's what I'm saying they have artists who create art for the game and they put all this art together and its no longer art?

There's so many different elements of art in there, it ain't even funny - voice acting; music; animation and character modelling; narrative; story-telling; etc etc. Ebert does acknowledge this, through his article.

Linear games (without multiple endings) might have the best chance at Ebert maybe considering a game art - as the outcome will always be the same to the story and game itself, no matter what the player uses for in-game equipment.

It seems to Ebert, the act of having a player instead of a viewer makes him define it not as art. I think that's what he's saying.

We could also make a point that at times - especially cut-scene heavy games - they take control away from the player and can turn them into a viewer for a time period. Many games - especially modern-era ones - do have the player view what's going on, wrestling the controls away from them for a short time-period.

Games are art, if you ask me - albeit, it's a different and an evolved form of art namely b/c of the interactivity factor. Though, the interactivity factor is what I really love about gaming - which is something you can't get out of movies, book, and music.

mysterd said:
I think the last panel in this Penny Arcade comic says it all for me.

Yep.

First of all, in my defense, if I could draw I'd have drawn Ebert as a cranky grandpa when I blogged about this.

Second, I totally agree. In a way, the editing process for film is akin to someone playing a game. You have multiple takes and you have to decide which one to go with. If anything, gaming is the first art form that really invites the participant to become a collaborator in the art.

It bridges some of the gap between the story teller and the audience by making them an agent of the narrative, a director of the flow and arc of story and even, at times, the cinematographer.

Is it a young art form? Yes, but can you imagine how we'll be interacting with games in 50 years? When we're old enough to collect what's left of social security--we won't even recognize gaming as it is today--and there will surely be people out there bringing even more artistic clarity to the room.

I'll never get why the gaming community gives a shit what this guy thinks.

progglerock said:
I'll never get why the gaming community gives a shit what this guy thinks.

I think its more of a case of someone with the ability to speak to many people practically trivializing a younger generation's work.

But ya, who cares what he thinks.

drewjamicks said:

progglerock said:
I'll never get why the gaming community gives a shit what this guy thinks.

I think its more of a case of someone with the ability to speak to many people practically trivializing a younger generation's work.
But ya, who cares what he thinks.

Let him. The only reason he's taking the time to write about videogames is because he's compelled to -- by fear. He knows the industry continues to grow in popularity and financially, and he feels what he's grown up loving is being threatened by it. He's just another angry talking head to add to the list of grumpy old men powerless to stop the changing times.

progglerock said:

drewjamicks said:

progglerock said:
I'll never get why the gaming community gives a shit what this guy thinks.

I think its more of a case of someone with the ability to speak to many people practically trivializing a younger generation's work.
But ya, who cares what he thinks.

Let him. The only reason he's taking the time to write about videogames is because he's compelled to -- by fear. He knows the industry continues to grow in popularity and financially, and he feels what he's grown up loving is being threatened by it. He's just another angry talking head to add to the list of grumpy old men powerless to stop the changing times.

Perfectly described, A majority of the people I ever hear making these claims of games are not art have some sort of ulterior motive to say that. Most of the students who I speak with about this about are looking to get into movies so they fight to say movies are art but games are.

drewjamicks said:

progglerock said:
I'll never get why the gaming community gives a shit what this guy thinks.

I think its more of a case of someone with the ability to speak to many people practically trivializing a younger generation's work.
But ya, who cares what he thinks.

I really do like him a lot as a movie critic - and that's pretty much where it ends.

I don't expect him to know a lot about games and understand them, since that really is NOT his field of expertise.

I think movies, video games, novels, books, comic books, graphic novels, paintings, photography, and a lot of different things I probabyy ain't even mentioned ARE art. Anything made by humankind that can really capture something and make people really question it and really think about it - that's art to me.