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."

Comments

What the fuck?

[Spazntwich]

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.

Re:What the fuck?

[Bieeanda]

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.

So does a cartoon. So does a movie. I can guarantee you that most of the first and a woeful number of the second don't qualify as anything approaching art. Art is not just what Dictionary.com prescribes, nor is it a checklist akin to the sales points on the back of a box of software.

Video games are a medium. To claim that they are art because they combine some of Column A with a couple of bits from Column B, with a side from Column C is ludicrous. On the other hand, declaring that games can't be art is just as laughable. Unfortunately, most games are trite, simple-minded affairs. The ones that go beyond that tend to be pastiche or bog-standard genre pieces at best-- and while that's fun, it doesn't exactly push the envelope of human understanding.

Re:What the fuck?

[PakProtector]

Going by that definition, videogames are MORE APTLY called art than a photograph, painting, sculpture, or anything else considered art by the mainstream.

There really should be a latin term for "arguing by looking through the dictionary for a definition that supports your side."

Will Argvmentvm Ab Definitie work for you?

Re:What the fuck?

[BecomingLumberg]

I don't think its a moot debate. Would you call the game 'Sorry!' art?

It has colors, movents, forms, and arguably sounds (as I have yet to play an overlapping round of 'the silent game' with my niece while playing). I would certainly call it entertaining (especially if the power is out) but I would never assume it is art. Video games are hard to charachterize because they imbue both the qualities of a game and that of television.

The core of this debate revolves around what is indeed art. For me, most modern art (the kind where they glue together a blender, a broom, and a trash can and call it 'Hollywood') is not art, its a way to get broken crap out of your apartment. Modern sculpture is different, for me. Due to its subjective nature, one can really only speak for their personal kingdom... for me, that is confined to the squiggly gray thing between my ears. That said, I would be much more inclined to look at Myst or an RPG as art, where i would see a shooter like Unreal as more of a simulation (of non-reality). And you are entitled to your opinion. I encourage you to take down all the paintings in your dwelling and replace them with close-ups of Lara Croft's 'shading'.

I thought they already decided this...

[hackwrench]

http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Cosmology+of+kyo to%22+ebert

Mr Ebert - you are right.

[Seraphim_72]

Yup, he is. Doom3 will never be on any level as Citizen Kane. And the knee-jerk reaction is to twst it back, Citizen Kane is no Doom3. But I guess I would go the other way. Doom3 is no Citizen Kane, but no film version or Romeo and Juliet is worth even a spirited High School performance of that play. To take it even further, No modern performance of Romeo and Juliet can even hold a candle to reading it, if you have had the proper education to understand it, or lived the originals. So here we are, back to reading. Mr Ebert, you are right, the new media isn't as good as the old media, but your films suffers from the same.

Sera

This is getting old...

[Shinkage]

I'm getting really sick of a bunch of pretentious asses trying to definitively tell me what IS and ISN'T art as if there were some kind of objectively absolute standard for determining such a thing. Listen you idiots--if I make something and say it's art, and other people buy or view it (or whatever) and they say it's art, then guess what? IT'S ART, and it doesn't matter what anybody else says. That. Is. The. Whole. Damn. Point. Really, you can argue that modern art (for example) isn't art at all, but I'm afraid that'll leave you having to deal with a whole bloody lot of museums the very existence of which disagrees with you. There are honestly more kinds of art than can be found in a museum in any case. The building of fine furniture is an art. Architecture is an art. Both these activities have very strict guidelines and rules governing their performance, they have specific desired outcomes, but they're art on top of that none the less.

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.

Godawful Gatsby

[Baby Duck]

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.

Making game engines feels like art-making.

[Tei]

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.

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 ;D

I agree partially

[LarsWestergren]

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)).

Re:As regards FPS's...

[stony3k]

Exactly, Ebert seems to think that just because the creator does not control how his/her creation is consumed, it is no longer art. And I think that's a pretty narrow view - one could argue that we view Shakespeare's work very differently today than he intended them to be - that does not make them any less 'art'.

Also consider that some artists definitely look for more 'interactive' media - some sculptures come to mind, and I seem to recall that there have been stage plays where the audience is asked to participate. Not many, but it's been a part of the art scene. Video games just take this to a whole new dimension - which is a good thing, IMHO.

Re:I hate these debates.

[earthbound kid]

I agree with you completely, but I'll chip in a little more. People seem to very easily confuse the question "Is it art?" with "Is it good art?" If you look around this discussion you can find several (up modded no less) examples in which the quality of the work is taken as a proxy for whether it "is art" or not.

The whole conversation is quite pointless.

A much more useful conversation -- can we enjoy games as deeply as we enjoy other kinds of art?

I wrote a paper in college arguing yes. Long story short: video games contain the same formal elements as other kinds of artwork, so there's nothing stopping you from enjoying them on that level, and on top of that the play elements that comprise the game are interesting and potentially enlightening.