Slashdot Mirror
'Games Are Not Art' - The Fault of Game Journalists
Roger Ebert has gone on record stating that he doesn't think games are art, and may never be up to the level of film as a medium. Kyle Orland responds on the Video Game Media Watch site, saying that if anyone is to blame game journalists are at fault for that perception. From the article: "The question of whether or not games are art is a hotly contested one, and one I don't want to get into in depth here. Suffice it to say I think they are, as far as they are capable of providing deep emotional experiences that can change the way we look at the world. If you agree that games are art (or will at least grant me the premise), here's another question more relevant to the focus of this site: Have we, as critics, given people like Ebert enough reason to believe that games are art?"
Remember that the mainstream view of the Games industry is the MTV Video Game Awards and the XBox commercials. Nobody ever gave Ebert a copy of Myst, Monkey Island, Ico, or any of the other classics of the art.
It doesnt matter whether some splipper wearing pipe smoking anal rentetive thinks that games are art or not, the industry will still keep pumping millions upon millions of pounds into it anyway, because people keep on buying. I wouldn't have said that the latest Star Wars film was art but it sold didnt it? Made a bit of money didnt it?
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
What constitutes art for one person may be a stack of scrap iron to another. I don't think we should care much about whether Ebert thinks video games are art. What difference would it make anyway? Last I heard the video game industry isn't so strapped for cash they're looking for NEA money.
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
Define "art".
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The question of "What is art" is not an easy one to answer, but IMO most games are not art. My working definition of art is as follows:
Art is that which is created by an artist with the intention of communicating with their audience.
Most games are not attempting to communicate, but are rather trying to entertain their audience.
Is paint art? Of course not. It's a medium. Games can be created artistically or not, just like paint can be used to express truth and beauty or simply to cover a wall.
There is a structural reason for [video games being inferior to film and literature]: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.
The appropriate question, therefore, is: does the introduction of player choices into a material inherently undermine the authorial control of a work of art, videogame, book or otherwise?
I think the answer is no. But search for "interactive movie" and you can see where the argument comes from.
-Rob
Biblical fiscal responsibility
Every single comment so far is about Ebert. Attacking him for being fat, or for having a stupid opinion. I think we can all agree that games can be art. We can all site anecdotal examples of games that raised goosebumps, made us laugh, or made us cry. Ebert is not the world's definitive voice on aesthetics, and to his credit he made a very qualified statement there - games are not art to him.
But that's all beside the point. Ebert's comments provide context for a very good article here, one that raises a lot of excellent points. The video game press is extraordinarily pathetic. Something won't be considered "serious" art unless it evokes intelligent critical discussion, not fanboy-esque 8 page reviews that focus on the graphics, speculate on the frame rate, and the quality of the sound.
Imagine if all art were reviewed the way video games were. If Premiere gave movies ratings on their special effects, if Rolling Stone scored music according to the sound quality of the recording, if the New York times spent long periods of time talking about how good the typeset was of the new Phillip Roth novel. Who would read such garbage? Why do we?
Great art - perhaps even true art - transcends its medium. Its fans and evangilists don't get caught up in the nuts and bolts. We can acknowledge and admire the Mona Lisa's revolutionary use of perspective, but that's not what stirs our emotioins when we look at it.
"How is this possible?" his teacher asked, "Have you not trained eight years under my tutelage?
"My opponent was an authority. I could not overpower him." sighed the student.
Master Huang replied, "It matters not. All opponents are equally defeatable. Did you not learn the First Precept?"
"As we all did on our first day of training: 'Ignorance is the foundation of debate. That which is understood is not debatable.' But I did not understand the topic at all, and I still lost!" whined the student.
"Idiot!" exclaimed the master, "Your ignorance is not at issue, it is your opponent's. He who understands this cannot be defeated, even by the Jade Emporer."
"But my opponent was skillful! He does nothing but argue about pointless matters all day! How can I a student of only eight years defeat such a man?"
Master Huang was moved to pity, and decided to give the student one last lesson. "I see you have not learned," Master Huang said. "Either I am a poor teacher or your are dull student. Nonetheless I will try one last time to teach your the use of the First Precept. Attack me as your opponent did!"
"Master I dare not!" exclaimed the student, "You are most venerable and I do not wish to dishonor you!"
"You dishonor me by your cowardice!" roared the Master. "Show me your opponent's attack!"
The student reluctantly began, "Games are not art..." but was instantly dumbfounded to find himself upside-down and flying through the air. "This is most wondrous!" thought the student, as he watched entire continents slip away below him. He began to wonder how far he would travel, when he suddently slammed into something hard and fell to the ground. He looked up in wonder to behold the Seven Pillars of Heaven. He had been hurled twelve thousand li in a space of a few breaths.
The student felt a pang of concern as to how he would return, when a sound drew his attention. He was stupefied to see Master Huang relieving himself on one of the Pillars. "Master, how did you arrive here so quickly?"
"Quickly!" laughed the master, "I could gone to each of these Pillars in turn, peed on it, and returned in the time it took you to get here!"
"How is this possible master!" cried the student, "Teach me the secret I beg you!"
Master Huang said nothing but pointed high on the Pillars. The student saw that each pillar had a word inscribed on it in characters like flame as tall as an earthly mountain. Together these words made the phrase:
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
What's interesting is that this argument is old...and I'm not talking about the argument over whether or not video games are art. Every time a new artistic medium arises, participants (artists, critics, educators, people involved in the business around other mediums) claim that the new medium isn't "art".
Many universities are still entrenched in the debate over whether or not to consider photography a classical art. One-by-one, educational institutions are accepting photography as a form of classical art. The fact is that over time, new mediums are eventually accepted as art, and the naysayers lose. The media with which Roger Ebert is a critic, film, was not always considered art either. There was debate over this media as well. Of course, TFA puts this argument much more eloquiently than I can.
It is irrelevant whether or not there is a unanimous acceptance of video games as art. All it takes is a critical mass of participants to consider a media art, and it's pretty much there. The credibility of an art form amongst educators doesn't really matter, except maybe in a legal (first amendment) sense.
The fact is that this is more of a generational issue. Video games are especially new to a fellow like Ebert, who is entrenched in the media that he is famaliar with. It is clear that Ebert is stuck in his ways and does not want to accept any new media into his worldview. Ebert admits to making a judgement of video games while being unfamaliar with video games. He claims that since the user is required to make choices and participate, that it is somehow inferior to other forms of art. I tend to disagree, since the viewer/reader/listener must take an active role in interpreting the art, thus taking an active role and making decisions in the outcome of their experience in the work itself.
-Turkey
To me, any work that requires creative thinking and stirrs up emotion, is art. Anything that does not, is not.
Brave New World is Art. Citizen Kane is art. Casablanca is art.
Pearl Harbour? That is not art. It is an escape, sure, but it is not art.
Same with games. Quake 3 is art. Mario Kart is not.
Sure, there is art in the game, obviously (the characters, etc). But the work as a whole is not art unless it evokes some kind of emotional presence.
Now, art is subjective. Just because Pearl Harbour does not evoke an emotional response in me does not mean it would not in someone else. To that person, it is art.
Basically, the crux of it is, it doesn't matter WTF Roger Ebert or Ghandi or God himself thinks is art. All that matters is what is art to you?