Roger Ebert "Video Games Can Never Be Art" Pt 2

MrDeVil909 wrote:

You said, games themselves can't be art, but they can contain art. It's like saying painting aren't art, but they can contain art.

There's a dichotomy there I don't see.

A dichotomy would be to say that it is one or the other. I disagree with Ebert by saying it's both. A painting is just an oily thing like a video game is just a digital thing. Once they are experienced then they are art.

I think we're disagreeing about the means at which to come to the same end. It's my fault for whittling down my CheezePavilion-sized initial post down to 5 sentences.

I'm pretty sure Ebert will carry this position to his death, which is fine. But why does he have to be a condescending prick about it?

Roger wrote:

Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? 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.

Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?" Then let them say it, if it makes them happy.

Tannhauser wrote:

I'm pretty sure Ebert will carry this position to his death, which is fine. But why does he have to be a condescending prick about it?

He just does.

Tannhauser wrote:

I'm pretty sure Ebert will carry this position to his death, which is fine. But why does he have to be a condescending prick about it?

Tannhauser, I'd like to introduce you to Roger Ebert. Roger, Tannhauser.

Ebert is a brilliant egomaniac. That's a volatile combination.

Ebert is wrong, but he is also old, and someday, he will be dead. And us right-thinking people will still be alive. So there's that.

I imagine movies went through the same thing when they were introduced. After all, in early movies the camera was stationary and the scene movement was a lot like a play. It took a good bit of time for cinematographic techniques to be developed and justify the medium. In the context of this discussion, games are just a medium as well. Many of the movie-based techniques still apply, and there are obviously new ones unique to the medium as well. I won't try to argue that a game that doesn't employ any game media-specific techniques isn't art, but I think that's a reasonable bar to set.

Ebert wrote:

Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves?

This gamer is. I don't give half a sh*t what some movie critic, who's obviously not a gamer, thinks about video games.

STFUAJPG

He is a film critic. I wouldn't ask a film critic for his opinions on games any more than I would ask an auto mechanic to do some interior decorating.

Here is his response:

Ebert: Within an art form, there can be good and bad art. That's a matter of opinion, of course. It all comes down to taste. I would not personally find it fruitful to discuss novels with someone who prefers Sparks to McCarthy, however enlightening that might be.

+++++

And here is my reply:

I think this clears things up a bit: to the people who find games to be art, your criticism of games comes across like someone who thinks McCarthy is no better than Sparks. To return to how you conclude the article:

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."

Maybe, but, there's quite a range in between "pathetic" and "Picasso-esque." I think this is the issue (besides the one about artform vs. artwork) people have with your argument for why games are not art: no game measures up to the 'classics' of other art forms, therefore they are all 'pathetic', and therefore, they are not art, because pathetic works in an artform are not themselves artworks.

Then again, does *anyone* in our modern world really measure up to the classics? Games that would be considered 'art' are only a few decades old, if that: how many musicians or filmmakers or novelists or poets from that time period are we comfortable holding up a great?

Is it that games are not great art, or is it that great art is impossible--or at least, so much harder--to create in our post-modern world?

As you wrote discussing great movies (I've put the URL in the URL box above--I went looking to see if you had ever made a list to see how many great movies come from the era of video games, and I found this piece you wrote along the way): When people tell me that "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" or "Total Recall" are their favorite films, I wonder: Have they tasted the joys of Welles, Bunuel, Ford, Murnau, Keaton, Hitchcock, Wilder or Kurosawa? If they like Ferris Bueller, what would they think of Jacques Tati's "Mr. Hulot's Holiday," also about a strange day of misadventures? If they like "Total Recall," have they seen Fritz Lang's "Metropolis," also about an artificial city ruled by fear?
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/...

Ferris Bueller was released within one year of the original Nintendo for perspective--games aspiring to art are a product of the time period of "Total Recall." You say: Too many moviegoers are stuck in the present and recent past, so how can you compare games to movies? That's all video games have: the recent past and the present, a period in which we recognize very, very few artists as great. If "Welles, Bunuel, Ford, Murnau, Keaton, Hitchcock, Wilder or Kurosawa" showed up today, would we recognize them for who they are?

In any case, you end that posting with:

There are no right answers. The questions are the point. They make you an active movie watcher, not a passive one. You should not be a witness at a movie, but a collaborator. Directors cannot make the film without you. Together, you can accomplish amazing things. The more you learn, the quicker you'll know when the director is not doing his share of the job. That's the whole key to being a great moviegoer. There's nothing else to it.

I would invite you to do the same thing with video games: you might surprise yourself with the amazing things you accomplish! Considering you don't even want film viewers to be passive witnesses, but instead creative collaborators, you might find a lot more value in games if you really accept them on their own terms.

(I assume you picked Sparks for his comments about McCarthy, but the interesting twist here is how the game Fallout 3 bears some similarity to McCarthy's The Road.)

Yeah, I respect the guy, but that whole article just seemed like a well articulated version of a forum poster stoking the fire of a topic he already has a firm opinion of, and hoping that people will disagree with him.

MeatMan wrote:
Ebert wrote:

Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves?

This gamer is. I don't give half a sh*t what some movie critic, who's obviously not a gamer, thinks about video games.

STFUAJPG :D

Hear hear. I feel like debates like this are merely a platform for the verbose to show off how more highbrow they are than the average Joe.

So if I say that "12 Angry Men" was my favorite film and I love Kurosawa films (Red Beard and Yojimbo especially), does that give my voice more authority when discussing games as art?

One thing I think would be fruitful is the discussion of whether "production" art can be "classic" art. Because games for as gorgeous as they can be, are by and large production art. Can something that is mass manufactured be art? Is something created from a process less rigid, not under the gun and mechanical more apt to be considered art?

And as long as its a discussion I'm intrigued by it. Its a challenge regardless of the source. Most gamers are intelligent and passionate about their hobby. They aren't challenge adverse in the least either.

Movies are production art. Andy Warhol mass produced his art. All it takes for something to be art is for someone to say, 'Hey, that's art'

Anything else is attempting to be exclusionary. and as *legion* said early on in the thread, art is inclusive, not exclusive.

BishopRS wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

You said, games themselves can't be art, but they can contain art. It's like saying painting aren't art, but they can contain art.

There's a dichotomy there I don't see.

A dichotomy would be to say that it is one or the other. I disagree with Ebert by saying it's both. A painting is just an oily thing like a video game is just a digital thing. Once they are experienced then they are art.

I think we're disagreeing about the means at which to come to the same end. It's my fault for whittling down my CheezePavilion-sized initial post down to 5 sentences.

Ah, ok. It looked like you were saying that a game inherently can't be art because of its mechanical nature. All art is inherently mechanical, the value we give it makes it something more.

As far as i'm concerned, he's changed his view on this issue. He once wrote a review of a game that was definitely in the "wow...this is art!" category.
www.wired.com/gamelife/2007/07/roger...

Fanatka wrote:

As far as i'm concerned, he's changed his view on this issue. He once wrote a review of a game that was definitely in the "wow...this is art!" category.
www.wired.com/gamelife/2007/07/roger...

Thats interesting. Makes me wonder if he soured on games after getting pk'ed in Ultima Online or something.

Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices.

This is taken out of the Wired Article. I know I am not alone here. But with respect to literature, poetry, and cinema I was always under the impression that these are living mediums. Flanary O'Connor is famous for saying that once a story is published, it taken on a life of its own. Often leading down paths the writer never imagined, never intended.

Another fantastic example, We're Not Gonna Take It went from a song of youth rebellion, to a Jingle for Maxi Pads, and a Republican anthem for the Governator.

And I think all of us have had our views on books, or movies, or games we enjoyed as kids whose meaning has changed on revisits in adulthood.

I think the whole 'production art' vs 'classic art' is kind of a farce. I mean, ALL art is produced, and almost all of it is created by people who rely on tested archetypes and techniques to elicit specific responses. Even the whole 'I refuse to explain my art because I want people to make up their own minds' follows certain rules to achieve the desired result. In my opinion, what elevates 'great' art from 'OK' art is the ability of the artist to either break established rules, or change them up in a way that makes them seem new and fresh - a unique angle if you will. Either way, you have to have an acute understanding of 'the rules.'

There is a science to art, even if you don't understand the science behind it.

Guy's not a gamer. His opinion about games is worthless, and that's all there is to it.

LarryC wrote:

Guy's not a gamer. His opinion about games is worthless, and that's all there is to it.

God help me if I ever have to say this again, but I agree with LarryC.

It makes about as much sense as me (who doesn't watch movies that much) arguing with him about the artistic merits of movies.

Though, for the record, I really, really want to get him to play Planescape and hear what he says about that. It's archaic, verbose, and damned smart. Sounds like a good fit.

(To clarify, I have a huge amount of respect for Ebert, but he's out of his depth on this one. It's a fun conversation to have, which is kinda why I'm posting instead of just rolling my eyes and moving on, but still.)

LarryC wrote:
Guy's not a gamer. His opinion about games is worthless, and that's all there is to it.
God help me if I ever have to say this again, but I agree with LarryC.

That's pretty much everything my thoughts exactly. Launched a blog today with my first post discussing that very thing. It's pretty much just some BS rhetoric.

I don't think that Ebert is being particularly condescending. That only appears to be the case if you accept that art=good and not-art = bad.

Ebert's problem with games has to do with their interactivity. He is of the opinion that art must have an artist. The interactive nature of games makes the gamer a co-equal creative force with the developer.

In this way of thinking, the more a game is like a film (rails/cut scenes) the less it is like a game. I'm of the opinion that innovation will change the way we look at the difference between creative activity and art. Until then, I believe that Ebert may have a point, but it isn't an important one. (I think he recognizes this as well. Games don't need to be "art" in the classical sense in order to be important, creative, and vital.)

To use another analogy, dance can be an art form, but it is only considered art when a choreographer dictates steps to a dancer who is observed by an audience. When a group of people perform the dance at a ball, it is considered an activity. Playing games is more of an "activity" than it is a "performance". But I think that distinction isn't really important or is tied to a pre-digital world where the distinction between audience and participant was more important.

It is hard to call games art because it is hard to say who the artist is. Is it the designer? Is it the player? New technology rarely fits into the categories of old technology. I don't think it is terribly important that games don't fit neatly into the pre-digital categories.

Ebert doesn't have a problem with games. He has a problem with publicizing an opinion on something he doesn't know anything about. He thinks all videogames are like chess. Some games are. Some games are not. Until he has a more comprehensive library of games under his wing, it doesn't make sense to take his opinions on it seriously.

Oso wrote:

Ebert's problem with games has to do with their interactivity. He is of the opinion that art must have an artist. The interactive nature of games makes the gamer a co-equal creative force with the developer.

No, I think his problem is...

...well, his problem is that he goes back and forth and is inconsistent with his usage of words and concepts. Like, you know: 99% of the internet anytime they try and engage in debate ;-D

However, best I've been able to figure, it's that he doesn't think games can rise to the level of artwork even though video games are an artform. He also does not think very many movies are are 'works of art' either.

Again, like so many internet debates: a person spends all this time making a big, grandiose statement on what they know is a controversial topic, and leaves out their radical, alternative premise which makes their argument a far different one from that which is going on in the culture at large.

His response to me was:

Within an art form, there can be good and bad art. That's a matter of opinion, of course. It all comes down to taste. I would not personally find it fruitful to discuss novels with someone who prefers Sparks to McCarthy, however enlightening that might be.

and my response is:
________________

I wouldn't bold people who simply agree that they get no more out of games than you do: I'm sure Sparks could put a post on his blog asking about the quality of McCormack's writing and get a lot of people who say they were no more moved by McCormack's than Sparks.

I do hope Shadow of the Colossus changes your mind; on the other hand, if it doesn't, I wouldn't put any more faith in that than failing to convince someone who didn't believe movies were art by showing the Battleship Potempkin.

That's kind of the joke: people ask "when will there be a Citizen Kane of gaming" and sometimes the response is "well, maybe never, but Shadow of the Colossus is sort of gaming's Battleship Potempkin."

In the end, maybe gaming isn't art: maybe it's *beyond* art, maybe it's *better* than art. Games--games that rise to the level where people of taste question whether they are art--combine the emotional connection of art with the physical connection of sport with the intellectual connection of puzzles--maybe it deserves its own concept because it collapses the mind/body distinction, the reason/emotion distinction.

Maybe the best thing to compare gaming to is gourmet dining. Someone of artistic skill prepares an interactive experience for the audience to undergo. Saying games are not art because they are interactive and you can win is no different than saying gourmet cuisine is not art because you feed yourself and you can finish your plate.

The thing about Citizen Kane is that critics refer to it as a point by which film-making moved beyond copying written works and pictures and established film-making tropes and techniques that have since become mainstream.

Gaming has had an example of such a work: Super Mario Brothers. And unlike Citizen Kane, SMB was a worldwide phenomenal hit, and continues to be great fun for a whole lotta people. SMB has since gone on to represent gaming to the general public. Mario continues to be the face of gaming for generations of gamers and nongamers alike. How many people today even know what Citizen Kane is?

I would turn the question around: When will film have a Super Mario Brothers?

LarryC wrote:

I would turn the question around: When will film have a Super Mario Brothers?

Don't ask.

CheezePavillion wrote:

I wouldn't bold people who simply agree that they get no more out of games than you do: I'm sure Sparks could put a post on his blog asking about the quality of McCormack's writing and get a lot of people who say they were no more moved by McCormack's than Sparks.

Careful you don't conflate quality with art. What a player gets out of a game has little to do with whether or not games are art. Art doesn't have a monopoly on emotional response or meaning. That is to say, games can be deep, rich, emotional, and meaningful creative activities without being art, as defined by some.

Is there at least general agreement that games and art are two separate categories? If we can agree that a neighborhood poker game isn't art or family monopoly night isn't art, and Man U vs. Arsenal isn't art then there is room to talk. The logical ramifications of Ebert's argument are that IF the genre we now call "video games" become art in the traditional sense, then they will, by definition, have to stop being games. For example, "The Natural" is art. "Hoop Dreams" is art. The Yankees vs. the Red Sox isn't. A pick-up game of basketball isn't. If "interactive digital entertainment" more resembles the former, then we can call it art but not games if it more resembles he latter, then they are games, but not art.

I love games. I think that a lot of artistic talent goes into making them. I think they are expressive. I think they are creative outlets. I also have zero problem with a well-reasoned argument that lumps them in a separate category from art. Art, as traditionally defined, is separate from craft. It is separate from games and it is separate from sport. Craft, games, and sport are wonderful activities that don't suffer by being separate from art.

Games like Chess can clearly be differentiated from anything called art. Games like Mass Effect 2? Nope. It's basically the same thing, only with interactive parts.

Oso wrote:
CheezePavillion wrote:

I wouldn't bold people who simply agree that they get no more out of games than you do: I'm sure Sparks could put a post on his blog asking about the quality of McCormack's writing and get a lot of people who say they were no more moved by McCormack's than Sparks.

Careful you don't conflate quality with art. What a player gets out of a game has little to do with whether or not games are art.

That's the thing: Ebert's statement "games are not art" does exactly that--it conflates quality with art. As he goes on to explain himself, we find that he considers very few movies to be art because he considers them to be too low in quality to be artwork even though they are part of an artform.

I love games. I think that a lot of artistic talent goes into making them. I think they are expressive. I think they are creative outlets. I also have zero problem with a well-reasoned argument that lumps them in a separate category from art. Art, as traditionally defined, is separate from craft. It is separate from games and it is separate from sport. Craft, games, and sport are wonderful activities that don't suffer by being separate from art.

No, crafts are art, they're just not *fine* art. As for games and sports, I'd say the same thing I did to Ebert: how often do you play a game or sport where your opponent is not trying to defeat you, but to set tests of skill in front of you in order to bring forth out of you the same kind of emotion you would get from a book or a movie?

EDIT: Never mind, I was being too dismissive. Short version is that Ebert is a film critic and games aren't films. That doesn't mean we should dismiss his opinion out of hand but let's also not act like this guy gets to define the terms and the validity of, well, pretty much anything rests on his yay or nay.

I wouldn't dismiss his argument out of hand, if his argument actually made sense. It doesn't. His position only reinforces the view that he doesn't really know what's what in gaming.