Slashdot Mirror
The Epic Ebert Videogame Debate
Via Kotaku, a column at Ebert.com going into some depth on the are-games-actually-art debate. Ebert engaged in a public debate on the subject at last week's Conference on World Affairs. From the article: "Going in to the videogame panel, I'd been hoping the audience (mostly students) would be fired up about the subject and challenge the panelists, but they were unfortunately pretty passive. Maybe they were intimidated by the rather formal (for Boulder) theater setting, I don't know. Ebert began by explaining why he felt a game (particularly the shoot-shoot, point-scoring kind) was not an experience equivalent to that of reading a great novel like, say, 'The Great Gatsby,' because games don't delve very deeply into what it means to be human."
For a second there, I thought the article was about a controversial game coming out on a future release of Ubuntu.
Why is this even a debate? One of the definitions from dictionary.com for art is listed as "The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium."
Going by that definition, videogames are MORE APTLY called art than a photograph, painting, sculpture, or anything else considered art by the mainstream. If you consider that a videogame combines the elements of sounds, colors, forms, movements, AND other elements for the production of the beautiful in a graphic medium, it seems logically sound to count at least some as art.
Of course all videogames aren't art. It's the same concept behind not considering a headshot art, or some jackass banging his hands on a piano as art.
This debate is asinine.
"...games don't delve very deeply into what it means to be human."
So Max Payne didn't delve into how people manage (or fail to manage) grief? And Deus Ex didn't force you to face the moral out come of your actions?
There are plenty of games out there that deal directly and indirectly with human emotions, ethics and morals. IMO, that is dealing with what it means to be human.
The thing is that nobody ever fell asleep from complete boredom playing the "shoot-shoot point scoring" games compared to reading the Great Gatsby.
"Ebert began by explaining why he felt a game (particularly the shoot-shoot, point-scoring kind) was not an experience equivalent to that of reading a great novel like, say, 'The Great Gatsby,' because games don't delve very deeply into what it means to be human."
That's nice and all, but there are plenty of books that fail to delve very deeply into what it means to be human. Maybe not every game is art, but you cannot say all games AREN'T art.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
From the article:
Ebert began by explaining why he felt a game (particularly the shoot-shoot, point-scoring kind) was not an experience equivalent to that of reading a great novel like, say, "The Great Gatsby," because games don't delve very deeply into what it means to be human.
Who says art has to be deep? If my niece draws me a picture of a very lopsided horse, is that not considered art? What if the horse is perfectly proportioned and exquisitely detailed? It still doesn't "delve very deeply into what it means to be human."
I say art is simply an expression of human emotion onto a medium of some sort. Games are definitely an expression of the designers/artists/programmers, intended to communicate "fun".
I just don't get it. Because your average game doesn't tackle the human condition the way a great novel does, games aren't art? By his standards, most movies aren't art, either.
Games are art. Odds are, if there's a serious discussion about whether something is art or not, it's art. It might not be some sort of highbrow art, or pure art, or even particularly good art, but it's art nonetheless.
Most games aren't very good artwork. Even your average "good" game isn't all that great art-wise--perhaps on par with advertising art.
This reminds me of the heated debates over whether rap was music or not. Now it's fully accepted as a form of music. I think the problem is that rap was a new form of music and there were people who couldn't grasp the idea that the current state of music is not to be taken as the totality of what can be music. The same here with art. Video games have expanded the categories of art. Now art is what art was before games, plus games. Just like music is now what music was before rap, plus rap.
Now, if he were to argue that, in the context of art, video games aren't particularly great (although a few are quite good), he'd have a better point. Just like rap isn't really, compared to other forms of music, all that great artfully speaking, even if it is highly entertaining.
I have to agree with the writer. The titular question is poor on its face. Video games form a medium. And just like paintings, movies, music, books, that medium is governed in part (if not overwhelmingly) by commercial forces. It isn't very useful to look at just video games as if similar things were not going in the aforementioned media as well. They have become highly derivative as well, and let's not forget the alienating properties that most post-modern artistic forms go for. Shooters (which is the standard apparently for these discussions) provide, for me, the same effect that most contemporary forms of "high art" do. So to ask if videogames are art, well, seems not futile but the wrong direction to take if you want to seriously consider the aesthetics of the videogames themselves.
Remember how people would argue that comic books weren't art? This is exactly the same. "Comic books have art in them but they aren't art!" etc. blah blah You hear the same thing about video games.
And, let's face it, from the first Pong console, we all called it "playing a game", not "watching a (interactive) movie". We all used the word "playing" 'cause that's exactly what we knew were doing.
Where's the controversy here??
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cosmology+of+kyo to%22+ebert
Let's face it, Ebert is epic enough as it is.
The stadium is art, what happens in it is sport.
This kind of debate is what I call a "definition debate". If you define your term, it is almost certain that your questions will be answered.
Are videogames "art"? To answer that, define "art". Once you do, you are almost certainly done.
We're getting this second hand, but Ebert offers up a definition to the effect of "art is something that deeply explores what it means to be human". By that definiton, I completely agree that truly artistic video games are rare. Even the examples I can think of that meet that definition are pretty thin on that front.
The reason I think it's important to remember we're in a definition debate is because there is an overwhelming temptation that most people experience to detach from the definition and start fighting as if the definition is obvious to everyone and the real question is whether the definition applies. Resist that, because it's backwards. If you clearly state a definition, it will be (relatively speaking) quite clear whether video games are art, are not art, or whether perhaps some are art.
At this point, you tend to realize that while it's interesting to compare and contrast the value of various definitions, you're not going to find The Definition Of Art. Therefore, you're not going to find The Answer. You should know going into the debate that you're not going to settle anything. You can't.
I enjoy this sort of thing in moderation if done with people who understand what's going on, but the people furiously arguing backwards tend to drown out the conversation pretty quickly, in my experience.
Sera
Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
what do two movie critics and a brain surgeon know about games? i'm sorry, but Ebert and his posse make themselves look like fools because they are clearly talking about something that you can just tell they have almost no experience in.
Homepage
Obiter Ludens Game Blog
I think that Roger Ebert would give games more of a chance if all games came with hot buttered popcorn, like movies.
If I shit on a canvas is it art?
I leave that question to pretentious art fucks with too much time on their hands.
"A rose by any other name would still smell as sweet." I apologize, but that had to be said. On many levels.
I gotta go with Ebert on this one. Games aren't true art... yet. Aside from the previously mentioned Deus Ex, I can't name one other game I've played that has actually stimulated genuine critical thought. Most, if not all, games are simple exercises in rudimentary mechanical and problem solving skills, hand-eye coordination mostly. An interesting thought: the general public definition of what qualifies as 'art' is, as noted, typically applied to things that require a passive audience. We look, watch, and listen. There is no direct interaction. But, 'true art' is argued to be that which compels us to think and/or act in a new or different (and hopefully, positive) way after we have ingested it. Interactive entertainment is something of the opposite, but the action serves only the game itself. There is no direct physical outcome for being a Brigadier General in 'Battlefield 2'. Nor does obtaining grinding a task in WoW make one any more adept at that same task in reality. And, yes, I am confining 'reality' to include only the physical, not the virtual for the sake of this argument, so don't get all metaphysically and philosophically bullshitty. Ultimately, games do not provoke one to action beneficial to mankind, as 'true art' is meant to do.
Some stuff I could get. Regular mainstream art like paintings or sculptures even if made out of trash. I am not a complete idiot and did not need to be told wich was the sculpture and wich the trashheap.
But performance art was too confusing. The only difference between performance art and a mental case on the street seemed to be location. Some "artist" would "perform" for an amazing amount of time and apparently it was all very meaningfull. When you are holding a heavy camera usually you don't think much about what you are actually filming since you are busy with your own work. But when the performer freezes or just twists a single limb for minutes on end you can't help but wonder what the fuck it is all about.
The most amazing thing is that these people all think it is extremely important what they are doing. Considering their efforts as worthy as hospitals. After all they want the same tax money to support them that could also be used to research cancer.
Not that I really mind. It keeps them off the street. Sure a less liberal goverment would force them to get a real day job but would you really want one them to be your co-worker? Jails for the criminals, mental hospitals for the insane and art centers for the totally useless.
I say it harsh but nonetheless that is how most people view "art". Useless crap that cost a lot of taxpayers money but does nothing.
Do we really want games to be like that?
It reminds me off a Yes Minister episode in wich the questions arises why opera (wich the masses do not want) receives subsidy but soccer (wich the masses do want) does not.
Games are not art. In the same way movies and indeed books are not. If it is popular and people freely spend their own money on it then it can't be art. Art does NOT sell.
Most REAL artists would agree. If you look at nearly all the great works of arts you would learn that all of them were commercial projects paid in advance. "De nachtwacht" by rembrandt. The "Mona Lisa" by Da Vinci. Great works of art yet made for no other reason then the money.
Perhaps there are two kinds of art. The artsy arts that survive only thanks to goverment subsidies that nobody gives a shit about and the kind that actually sells and can sustain it self. Offcourse that is not "real" art in the eyes of the first group but frankly I don't think that is bad at all.
Think of it like this. Do you know what local delicacy means? It means nobody else in the world wants to eat it. If a game truly became art would anyone really want to play it?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Ebert.com takes you to Ebert & Associates which provides expert legal testimony, scientific exhibits, research and consulting using spatial and photographic evidence in the areas of environmental litigation, land and water rights disputes, criminal forensics, and the management of cultural resources. (Yes I simply copied that from the website)
The summary meant to put rogerebert.com which immediately takes you to the suntimes website.
Does God treat us as servants or friends? Check my homepage.
Honestly, if YOU don't think it's art, then don't bother treating it like art. If somebody else thinks it is, there's bloody well nothing you can say that will make it not so. Just deal with it and get on with life. Reason I'm so (obviously) riled up about the matter is that, being an old time gamer, it seems to me the reason about 99% of the stuff coming out of the industry these days is utter crap--including stuff from major designers--is that they don't treat it as an art. And I miss good games :(
I'll conclude by saying this: I have played games that I considered to be true works of art in their construction and their presentation. Fallout I/II serve as perfect examples of this. There was just something undeniably artistic about the presentation of those games. So don't tell me games aren't art.
The art of games comes from their intricately crafted logic systems and environment (the game's ruleset, if you will.) A well designed game will compel the user in a different way than a book or movie or music. Should we seperate "art" from "non-art" based on the area of the brain that it stimulates?
Games excel at engaging three aspects of the human mind:
* Creativity -- Given a toolset and a receptive environment, a game player is encouraged to express themselves in new ways. (See: The Sims, A Tale in the Desert, Rollercoaster Tycoon, Mind Rover)
* Logic -- A game player has to employ his logic centers to solve puzzles, overcome obstacles, or solve complex tactical situations. (See: Civilization, Lemmings, Combat Mission, Chess)
* Reflex -- Here we exercise the most primitive and vital portions of the brain. Well, not just exercise, but also train to accept new tasks as second nature. Driving a car, typing on a keyboard, or even walking are great real-world examples of this phenomenon. (See: Space Invaders, Serious Sam, R-Type, Street Fighter)
Any traditional art slathered on top of the game is just a visual, audio, or motivational aid. After all, controlling a stack of hitboxes is not as compelling as controlling an expert karate fighter.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Usually 1 extra feat, plus +4 skill points / lvl.
Oh, and Common.
The Great Gatsby was not a great novel. Gatbsy? Not so great either. No one acts or thinks like any of the characters. Well, maybe the narrator. And for the love of God, why is this book discussed in universities?! What has any 18-22 year old college student ever done where he can relate to Gatsby?
I found the book shallow, devoid of interesting narration, and too pigeon-holed towards a narrow economic class in one particular decade. Timeless it is not.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
I don't believe that games are super artistic, but only because most kids don't really like art that much. I wasn't exactly dying to hang out at the art museum when I was younger. I don't believe it's necessarily a dislike for art as much as it's a preference for things more fun.
So are video games and so is art. People keep producing what other people keep buying. As long as the most valuable market segment never matures, then the games never have to go far beyond what they are right now. The target audience is perpetually sixteen years old. Games don't try to match the maturity of the player and they don't have to grow up with the player. They don't even have to be original.
I guess what I'm trying to say is: It's not the games fault that they're not expansive artistic expressions of infinitely interactive universe. Kids don't necessarily want that. It's all about instant gratification, and that's not very artistic at all.
Having played many games with artistic value through my life time, arguing that games are not art seems absolutely ridiculous to me. I know I'm prejudiced, but I can't take anyone who holds the opposite opinion seriously.
I think you can find artistic value in anything.
...our story begins in the 1950s, a time when the world was terrified of communism, but "terrorist" was still a pretty obscure word. A time when society argued on whatever passed for slashdot at the time whether television would ever truly supplant radio in the minds of America's masses. Rollerskates were still a novelty.
Along came a man - a musician, some would say - named Elvis. His music was generally modified from the tunes of slaves. And oh was there ever an uproar. Roger Ebert, Sr.: "That certainly isn't music! Beethoven, Bach, Brahams - that is music! Elvis, why, his band doesn't even number in the dozens of people! It's even worse than the devil's jazz! Any man that would shake his-- his pelvis-- in such a way is hardly a man - a DEMON is he!". And Elvis sold millions of records and up until recently has been a household name (until the estate changed hands and tradition went buggery-up, at least)
The 50s gave rise to the 60s, and soon the Ebert Srs. of the world had a new demon to contend with - The Beatles! "At least Elvis was a nice boy. I mean, the haircut and everything. Perhaps the future shall look back upon him with a rosy eye, as they shall Warren Harding, and realize that he was merely a symptom of his troubled, communist-infected times. But these Beatles - their hair is the devil's work, and the noise they make is not Art! Four men playing those flash-in-the-pan electric instruments can never produce Art!". And yet the Beatles gathered a small following over the years, and are still remembered today.
The early 60s gave way to the mid 60s, and the Beatles were back in the center of controversy. Music critics declared that Sgt. Pepper's was hardly Art, that Art could not be made with the aid of a devil electronic synthesizer - it was hardly even Real Music! And lo, Frank Zappa came with his answer - "We're Only In It For the Money", being composed and performed entirely on natural instruments (albiet with crafty tape manipulation). And the masses winced - this was not Music! Music, Art, whatever you want to call it, was about how a Boy loved a Girl, or perhaps about how a Girl loved a Boy. Certainly, Music was not about how American Womanhood was phony, nor something that would attack the very institution of America's policemen - why, the police never shoot innocents in Art - and Music, Art, was absolutely nothing that contained such disgusting and wholly inappropriate bodily noises! Frank Zappa is currently looked on in musical circles as perhaps the single most "important" (whatever that means) American Composer to escape the 20th century, even if the original Mothers of Invention disbanded less than two years after We're Only In It For the Money's release.
And so on and so on the debate continued - the 60s became the 70s, and prog came out, but it was apparently too "pompous" to be Art, and the entire debate became less and less relevant as time went on. Hell, the critics of Shakesphere's time wouldn't call him "Art" -at the time, Shakesphere was the pulp disposable garbage of the common peasent - or at least, so I learned in my tax-funded primary education. Who knows for real. Anyway, basically something needs to be really dead and not relevant to current goings-on in the world before it will be called Art, because the way these art snobs throw the term around, it basically means History + Emotion - heck, the Sex Pistols will probably be considered Art in 500 years, assuming we don't nuke each other off the planet or DRM all the music to death by then.
Basically, Ebert (and most critics) seem to be bemoaning the lack of "innocence" in the industry. I relate to some degree - focus groups and deliberate manipulation have replaced the Happy Accident in the mainstream spotlight. But truly, it becomes an issue of Those Who Can Create Art, Create Art; Those Who Can't Create Art, Become an Art Critic - as so perfectly captured by Matt Groening in the Life Is Hell comic.
I really don't know where all this leads. Much as I per
Gravity Head, and the rest of the Experimental Gameplay Project
Dada: Stagnation in Blue
Cloud
Katamari Damacy
Facade
Flow
Orisinal
The ______ Agenda
Ebert began by explaining why he felt a movie (particularly the girls gone wild kind) was not an experience equivalent to that of reading a great novel like, say, 'The Great Gatsby,' because movies don't delve very deeply into what it means to be human.
Did you?
Art is that which communicates the values of the creator or performer. Seen in this way, everything we create and do is art.
Using some of your examples, when a person designs clothes, a font, or a can of soda, they are necessarily promoting those values they hold. For instance, a can of soda is designed the way it is because the designer believes that a can of soda ought to be easily carried, stacked, and consumed. Similarly, speech is an art, because the manner in which one speaks communicates the values that the individual possesses regarding appropriate vocabulary, depth, and tone.
When art is looked at this way, that which is considered "Art" by most people is really that which is primarily intended to communicate values instead of these values being secondary to functionality. Picasso's "Guernica" and the paintbrush used to paint it are both art, but "Guernica" is considered Art because its primary purpose is to communicate Picasso's values; the paintbrush is only meant to apply paint to canvas, and not evoke any feeling on its own.
And to be honest shouldn't we make up our minds? Is it art or a sport? Can't really have it both ways. So by the Cyber-Athletes' leagues definitions it wouldn't be art either would it?
Any BioWare game (well, maybe not Shattered Steel and MDK2) is a good rebuttal in this case.
Sigh.
So am I the only one who played Ocarina of Time, and Ico?
For some reason this guy thinks Myst is the pinnacle of art in games. Well, each to their own...
He then goes on to say how he's watched people playing Doom 3 and decided that it doesn't count on account of that type of game being "purely mechanical". Now admittedly, Doom 3 isn't exactly renowned for it's artistic merit, but it seems to me that he simply doesn't actually like playing anything that isn't a series of static images. He's not actually been playing any games at all, despite what he himself might think.
The games he mentions he has played - 7th Guest, Myst, and The Resident's Bad Day on the midway - these were all FMV "interactive movie" games released around 93-95. If that's what he considers the peak of the artform then he's very misguided indeed.
Kayamon
I am 3d engine coder (http://telejano.berlios.de./ And making a 3d engine feels almost like painting (I also paint) and doing photography. This mean 3denginemaking =~ painting + photograpy + maths, so... 66.66% pure acepted art.
;D
More on that... I use my 3d engine to explore artisting ideas. How to make snow that feel snow?,.. What look to get that feel?, and others.
As I work on other business, and my mind is free, I let my sould explore the in and outs of some 3d engine design ideas. And this feel exactly like pre-viewing on your brain something you can hand draw.
Some 3D engines even use the painter algorithm
-Woof woof woof!
There's no question that there is art in games, a sort of art in designing/making games- but is a game as a whole really art?
I think there is a group of people that want games to be art so that it affords them protection from censorship. There is another group of people that want games to be a professional sporting thing so that it affords legitimization from another angle, but there are some conceptual difficulties reconciling those two things.
My opinion is that art is too limited a concept to be applied to games. Games can be bigger than art- they are more like real life in a way, where life contains both art and interaction and competitive activities and many other things that aren't art, but it would be stupid to try and argue if real life is art or not. Games are games.
How can you not consider a game like Tetris art?
I'm not talking about any particular implementation of the game; it's the very concept that is just completely impossible in the real world. The type of thinking it invokes could not have been possible in any other wya than through a video game.
Surely something that manages that must be considered art?
p.s. Rembrandt, Michelangelo and Da Vinci weren't considered "art" when they lived; it was just a profession for which they were paid hourly wages. Surely it was a well-paid job but considered no more enlightened then, than it is considered enlightened to be a well-paid businessman nowadays.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
I had written a LONG post, but Firefox crashed... Second and much shorter attempt:
I agree with him for most games (99% or so), but there are some notable exceptions. Planescape:Torment for instance, that whole game is centered around questions such as "Can anything change the nature of a man? Would you REALLY want to be immortal? What is a valid philosophy of life (Dustmen, Godsmen, Sensates)?"
When I was asked the question "What can change the nature of a man?", with along list of possible answers such as "love, death, faith, regret, nothing", I froze. I had to go for a long walk before I could answer that question.
That if anything goes deeply into what it means to be a human, and it did it in ways few other media or artform could.
Some other games that, while maybe not asking such big questions about life, have touched me emotionally:
Final Fantasy 7
Grim Fandango
Longest Journey
Fallout
Knights of the Old Republic 2 (would have been even better without the butchered ending(s)).
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
Computer games are very much a potential basis for artistic expression, and are often used that way. Whether this be through music, sound, visuals, or their combinations, artistic expression unarguably exists there.
Mods and movies made using games, such as Red vs Blue also fall into the 'art' category. People have been expressing themselves artistically through this medium for so long now we barely consciously register it.
It takes moronic comments like Ebert's to remind us that games today are as foreign a country today as film was to theatre goers in 1908.
His comments are rather like saying film has no basis in art, using "Dumb and Dumber" as your sole basis for that argument.
Videogames are art, the full name is Interactive Theatral Computer Powered Gameplays, is is theatral, but like some theatral perfomances, are spectator interactive.
-Woof woof woof!
Is there a latin term for "the act of snobbishly dismissing an argument based because it uses a common source and offering an sourceless/uncited counter argument"?
...just write games so beautiful and fun and good that nobody argues that it's "not art"? The novel was considered shallow entertainment at one point- poetry was art, that Dickens guy was just a good read. That attitude changed when the preponderance of fabulous novels forced people to recognize the form. Literally, by the time they started taking novels seriously, there was something for everybody- Austin, Tolstoy, Sterne, Cervantes, Trollope, etc.
Comic books have the same problem, except that by now, there's enough range in the medium to entertain any given critic. Don't like Maus? What about Jimmy Corrigan (who I hate)? Or American Splendor? The list is endless.
When there are enough games that everyone can appreciate at least one great game, they'll be ushered into the museum.
However, if anyone decided that our blessed videogames are not art, gad- get the torches and pitchforks. I think the distinction needs to be made between what is artistic and what is fine art. I find the design of a late '60s stingray to be quite artistic, but i wouldn't compare it to a fine painting.
So, come on guys... we're not gonna protest? Were not gonna protest! Were not gonna protest! Gutter is a...
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.-TJ
Perhaps he should pick games that do. I mean, I can see his point that games aren't "art" if playing, say, the original DooM, but then you got games like Half-Life 2; same genre, same basic mechanics, yet it plays different because you're not just trying to "kill the bad guys," you're trying to follow the narrative. Just like a movie.
It's as if he expects that the majority of titles need to be "artistic" before the form itself can be considered as such. Perhaps he should take a second look at what he does for a living, and take note of the reams and reams of shitty movies that come out every year and re-evaluate whether movies are "art" anymore than games, because right now, both are merely corporate money-making machines rather than forms of expression.
...and the article was actually about Q-bert?
The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously.
Ah, the good old "I played a 3-d shooter and it wasn't art, therefore all games ever cannot be art." bilge.
Eh, I read a paperback novel and it wasn't art, therefore books aren't art.
I saw "Home Alone 2" and it wasn't art, therefore films aren't art.
I watched "Extreme makeover home edition" and it wasn't art, therefore TV programs can't be art.
Slashdotters reply with variations on "what about the $EMOTION in $FAVOURITE_GAME". Correct but predictable.
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Ebert says that games are not the equivalent of Charles Dickens. He is 100% correct.
Neither is photography. Neither is sculpture either.
Neither is music. How much does a symphony or abstract music delve into "what it means to be human" by use of anecdote?
Much of what we consider to be art today historically was created as entertainment for the masses. (Kabuki theatre, Liszt virtuosic performances with fans passing out in the isles, Shakespeare, etc).
Ebert's definition is extremely limited, and therefore is bound to fail when he makes any sort of broad, sweeping statement. I imagine 20 years from now the next generation will look back at him much as we do at people who felt "photography" would never be an "art" several generations ago.
These are stupid, badly framed questions. so is "Are videogames art?"
Pick specific games, then ask "Is mario 64 art?", "is Space Invaders art?". Perhaps then people can at least have a hope of debating the implied yes/no answer without going round in tedious circles trying to debate what exactly it is that they are being asked.
For my two cents, my intuition of whether something is art or not is simple - "is it an expression of passion and imagination". The difference between good art and bad art to me is the level of passion and/or imagination.
By my metric both mario 64 and space invaders are art. For fear of sounding like a hippy, I also consider both of them beautiful.
McDonaldland on the other hand is not art. There is no passion or imagination. (if there was it is totally undetectable to me).
(1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
Okay. Let's take you at your word.
You say if you "make something and say it's art" that counts. Does the game industry actually send out this message? Does it, in any significant way, make claims about its work being art? That's not the message I'm getting as a member of the buying public. Honestly, I think the people who produced Legend of Zelda - Windwaker could make a claim to it -- but "art" is not among the big messages they're cranking out to encourage us to buy the thing, is it? It's only within the industry that they might use the word-- speaking of the pretentiousness you so deride?
On the other side of your terms, does the audience for games -- the people who "buy or view it (or whatever)" -- regard the games as "art"? Unprompted, if we asked 1,000 game buyers at a store why they were buying their games, I'd bet a miniscule percentage would use the word "art." So games fail your second term, too.
Neither the game studios nor their audience is likely to identify games as art without some sort of leading question. Does that pass the "art" sniff test?
Anyway, Roger Ebert is really making an argument about whether games are worthwhile as art. He'd probably agree that the TV series "Blind Date" is a sort of post-modern "art," and actually the guy wrote a soft pRon movie in his youth -- so snobbism of the sort you describe, maybe not so much.
On Ebert's terms, though, does the game industry concern itself with "deep" explorations of what it means to be human? You use the examples of the first two Fallout games. I played and enjoyed those. They had some great qualities, those games: great atmospheric music; a sense of a larger world and open-ended choices; classic post-apocalyptic sci fi imagery and setting. Did choosing between being "Small Framed" or not cross the threshhold to deeply explore what it meant to be human, though? Not really. Does one walk away from the game thinking about what it means to be alive, or whatever it is art does to you? Not really.
So is Ebert's little debate thing a snobbish waste of time? Personally I think people oughta be challenging the industry to think of itself this way. You look at the three big console makers, and Sony and MS are committed to the idea of "art means more pixels in the picture so it's sharper." Pretty lame. Nintendo, among the three, seems to see itself as producing some sort of larger "games as art" thing. And the /. spinoff from Ebert's little contrived discussion has just made me think about that a little more. Good result, right?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
The argument is about whether games are art, not whether playing games is art.
i also dont see how there is a debate
its more art than anything else
more people pour more time and energy into video games than almost any other kind of art, including movies which in many ways are very similar (and are treated as art by law)
is a telephone a communications device? is a Car a transportation device?
The problem may actually be the fact that there has not been enough time for games to develop a statis as artistic. Popular music, for example, was not considered art until the Beatles released Sgt. Pepper's. Video games may just need that one game which has an appeal that transcends gamers and is accepted by the masses as truly great.
On the other hand, board games have been around for quite a long time. Even though we have classics such as Monopoly, I have never heard anyone refer to a board game as art. It is true that video games by their nature allow the developer more freedom and vision with elements like story, tone, and characters but it is important to consider that traditional games are not usually considered art.
Game development is not a mindless activity; it takes care, time, enthusiasm, and insight. To see that and still insist that the products of this are not art is just plain insulting.
When Gutenburg's printing press first went into production, the first book printed was the famous Gutenburg Bible. The second book printed was not a play, a novel, or any other work of fiction. It was a strategy guide for a game known as "Chess".
Unlike movies or books, games are interactive and the player's experience is caused by their actions. Many modern games try to combine this with a cinema-like experience, but don't be fooled: if the story was more important than the interactivity, the medium would be a book or movie.
Longevity is an oft-used measure of books and art in general. While the movies Ebert spent his time reviewing "Rambo the First Blood Part II", "Rocky IV", and "Back to Future" in 1985, we were playing Tetris and chess. Who still watches Rambo anyhow?
-- Political fascism requires a Fuhrer.
Hunter Weapon!
I'd suggest that alot of the better Interactive Fiction works are also artistic. Galatea is a good example:
http://www.mindspring.com/~emshort/galatea.htm
In any case, it's absurd to suggest that adding even the tiniest bit of interactivity or fun removes all artfulness. In any case, Ebert's complaints are not issues of medium, but of genre. Games are only not art because they aren't trying hard enough.
You may not like it. You may not think it's good art,
but Indigo Prophecy is art.
Most assinine argument ever.
Who said art has to make you "feel" in order to be art? Who said that it had to elicit emotions? Who said it *had* to do anything.
I cannot think of one great 'traditional' artist who would agree with a single argument being put forth against the classification of video games as art.
A major characteristic of art is that it is without definition. If it happens to be "bad", "shallow", "immoral", etc, this has no bearing on whether it is or is not art. If it does "make you feel", "make you think", "affect you" this again has absolutely no bearing on whether it is or is not art.
Man, Dali would shove a raw egg down most of throats proclaiming the definition of art here.
In the Great Gatsby, you read about a fictional story that delves into humanity. It's all passive. Games tend to bring out that humanity in YOU, even on a relatively basic level. Granted, that aspect of your humanity will also be basic, but arguably just as important. I believe games are just a different kind of art that invoke a different kind of response. Maybe Ebert just doesn't understand the change. I don't think he's railing against videogames, though, he's actually making some objective comments, which I like. I just happen to think he's wrong.
-Moses
I think that most of us can at least point to at least a few games and draw parallels to other works traditionally recognized as being "art". I've heard examples such as FF7s "death of Aris" evoking similar emotional responses to parts of other traditionally dramatic narratives, Oblivion exploring the human condition, Max Payne exploring what it means to be human, Myst retains a similar high level of visual artistry to most traditional paintings... the list goes on.
The question I pose is that 95% of the examples given by Slashdot posters are examples of games that CONTAIN art, not games that ARE art. This is because a lot of the rudimentary definitions of art contain specific criteria to be met by individual mediums. I have heard the arguement that a game has art, but if you took away all the cut scenes from that RPG, it would scene to contain art. I have two problems with that... for one, you've just defined art out of games, as cut scenes are movies, not games. In a cut scene, all gameplay stops, more often than not, the player puts down the controller, and watches events unfold on the screen for a couple of minutes, this is not a game, this is a movie. Now, I love cut scenes, and I love movies, but if you require cut scenes in a game in order to qualify as "art", you've just defined art out of the GAME altogether.
Even before we need to define "what is art", we must, then, ask "what is a game?" Many games are an extension of traditional narrative forms. RPGs are mostly a combination of cinema and literature, with an interactive element thrown into the mix. Myst could be considered a series of paintings, all of which may exude the same criteria as those in an art gallery. Is Myst, then, in its artistic definition, no more than a simple art gallery? What about if we were to remove all of these elements? If Myst was played as a text based adventure, could we begin to look at its puzzle elements as having artistic qualities? The real meat of the definition of gaming is in the process of which the player progresses through the game world. IE: Myst could be a game without the imagery, but it would simply be a gallery without its interactive puzzle elements.
The problem is, from a medium standpoint, no game explores any medium that isn't already included in the definition of another art form: still visuals, moving picturess, music, literature, even skulpture are all represented in games, yet you can break almost any game into a collection of these pre-defined elements. The only constant that breaks the mould is interactivity. Is interactivity, in of itself, then, a separate medium? (let is keep in mind that games are not the only interactive form out there) Can it in itself contain artistic qualities?
These are the REAL questions we should be restling with... not whether FF7s cutscenes are good enough to qualify as "high art" or "good art". Most of the statements I've heard are entirely subjective in nature, and betray the writer's opinion of the work at hand. Art should be more than that, is possible to dislike a work of art while still realizing that it is, in fact, artistic. One must come to terms with the fact that a harliquin dime novel fits the definition of art as much as a Shakesperian tragedy, although its quality and value may be up for speculation. Let's not get sidetracked by these personal value judgements if we are to truly define the artistic elements of a medium.
Multiplayer Gaming (defined): Sitting around, discussing single-player games with my friends, at the bar.
Has anyone heard of "performance art"? "pop art"?
I think there's a very narrow definition of "art" being tossed around here. Is ballet art? Is syncronized swimming or figure skating art?
Is he really saying that video games aren't art because they don't explore the same themes that particular books or movies do? Because books and movies explore many themes, with many different types of narratives, genres, etc.
I think we're all getting wrapped up in an argument about what Roger Ebert likes. I don't give a shit what Roger Ebert likes, and there's really no reason to argue it.
I like Fajitas. Can we build a thread on that? Anyone for or against?
Games really have nothing to do with art they are only about gameplay and how to make that gameplay better.. Everything in a game caters, or at least should cater, to the gameplay not beuty, not a deeper message, not anything that art is created for.
The problem with this whole debate stems from two things.
1. Games have art built on to them. (Such as his Myst example.) That means people will take that art and hold it up as an example of what games can do. What people miss is that that 'game art' is just the old forms of art bolted on. E.g. the storylines told through text in an RPG, in the real world thats called a book. The cut scenes in most games, these are called movies. etc. etc. These snipets of art enrich the experience but they are not a part of the gameplay which is what defines a game.
Think of the greatest and purest games of all time. E.g. Tetris. There is no art there, (Well there is but in a different meaning as in its a finely crafted game.) there no particular beuty. (Unless you like shapes made out of 4 squares.) You dont play a game of Tetris to feel emotions or take away a deeper understanding of anything. You play it because its addictive fun. (and yes I am aware most movies dont make you feel emotions or give you deeper understanding. However, while Tetris is the pinnacle of gaming and offers no art experience. Movies that do the same are considered bad films.)
2. People have a strange tendancy to take deep offense to something they have created not being called art, if there was ever the possibility that it could have been art in the first place. Im not entirely sure why this is. Games are still going to be made, and they will still be fun with or without the art label. Chess and Go are not pieces of art yet they have entertained and arguably been more important to people for centuries.
I really dont see how a game can be considered art. Whats more I dont see why a game needs to be, or even why it should aim to be, considered art.