4.20.10 - 4:30PM
- by
Cole Stryker

Games Are Not Art - Roger Ebert Starts Another Internet Debate

With nearly 2,000 comments appending his latest blog post, Roger Ebert must be enjoying the whirlwind of controversy he's created. Five years ago Ebert declared that video games are not art, sparking a flurry of rebuttals from game designers and journalists. Now he's elaborated with an article denigrating acclaimed video games like Braid and Flower, saying "video games can never be art" and stirring up nerd rage like never before.

Game designers and thinkers have responded. First, video game producer and designer Kellee Santiago, whose presentation on games as art inspired Ebert's response. Santiago says:

It doesn't seem that Ebert has played many, if any video games. And if that's the case, then his opinion on the subject isn't relevant anyways... it's time to move on from any need to be validated by old media enthusiasts. It's good for dinner-party discussion and entertaining as an intellectual exercise, but it's just not a serious debate anymore. As a rapidly growing medium, we game developers have so many other issues deserving of our attention.

Monkey Island creator Ron Gilbert weighs in:

He's not saying that film is art, but that some film is art. Ok, I can believe, under his standards, that no game has reached the level of art, but to say they never will be art is naive and history will prove as such.

Although, he did say "no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form", so I guess that is his escape from the hammer of the future, but it can not excuse the fact that he's never played or tried to understand games at the same level that he does film. If he wants to continually bring this issue up, then he should at least become a quasi-expert in it first or at lease try to understand it.

Speaking as an erstwhile video game journalist and someone who believes that games deserve every bit as much of your adult consideration as any other craft, I agree with Ebert in that they are craft, not art.

A game is a goal that is framed with rules governing the means to achieve the goal. The artsiest game is no more artistic than basketball or chess. Even a well-made marble chess set is not art.

In the same way, a game with a really fun story crammed into it is not art. A game with awesome graphics is not art. Most disappointing is the critical treatment of games like Braid, which is Mario with some admittedly clever puzzle elements, which try to cram meaning into an otherwise meaningless game mechanic.

In the words of my favorite games journalist, any attempt to derive meaning from a game mechanic, no matter how clever, can never sound any sillier than the following:

The stomping of goombas represents the justification of violence in the pursuit of a goal," or "The repetition of the levels symbolizes the futility of life and history's tendency to repeat itself.

Think I'm wrong? Tell me why in the comments.

link:// Roger Ebert: Video games can never be art

Email This

hot on the web

Comments

Add a comment

4.20.10

By David

Highest Rank

I think the "artsiest game is no more artistic than basketball or chess" concept kind of falls apart in this manner: perhaps not every chess game is art, but I would say that the person who invented chess was an artist. Wouldn't you?

Games may be no more than goals framed with rules, but in most cases, someone is thoughtfully taking the time to put all that together. I would call that someone an artist.

4.20.10

By Jeff

Highest Rank

It's kinda frustrating seeing this story highlighted everywhere. I guess it's good for page clicks. Reading Ebert's posts on the subject, it's clear he's barely played any video games at all and never played any of the games he dismisses in the latest post. Why is it that Ebert gets to define a medium which he couldn't be more distant from?

Anyway, he doesn't give any definition of art, and there is no universal definition of art, so there's not much point thinking about it too hard. Art is something everyone defines for themselves.

I don't understand why everyone focuses on the "game" aspect of things. The modern video game is a perfectly legitimate medium for story-telling. Just like film, writing, theater, and song. Is the story of Bioshock diminished because it was told in a video game? Would it become art if it was told through film? Does it matter? It kicks ass regardless, and I'm very happy I experienced it. And at the end of the day, that's all I really care about. Ditto for Braid, and the other games Ebert can judge after seeing a minute long trailer.

4.20.10

By seanfish

Neutral

I absolutely agree with Jeff here that we need to start with a definition of art before we can proceed somewhere, and Cole you don't provide one any more than Ebert does.

You base your authority on being a video game journalist - that's fine, but I don't see how that qualifies you as being an art critic or even a games critic necessarily.

I'm going to let costik of playthisthing.com speak on my behalf here. It's a bit TLDR but provides a lot more scope than discussion than "games ain't art".

http://playthisthing.com/game-criticism-why-we-need-it-and-why-reviews-arent-it

4.20.10

By Peanut

Neutral

As a 25 year old who has been playing video games since I was 5, I can quite confidently say (and I think I speak for most people here), that I have no idea who Roger Ebert is.

4.21.10

By Syd

Neutral

i know right, i was like "whose this fool."

4.20.10

By Sumit Agarwal

Highest Rank

Jeebus, what in the hell is wrong with writers, both on the games side and the anti-games side, who can't for the life of them differentiate between form and content?

You say: "A game is a goal that is framed with rules governing the means to achieve the goal. The artsiest game is no more artistic than basketball or chess."

I say: "A film is a series of frames of celluloid advancing at a fixed rate, often with accompanying sound. The artsiest film is no more artistic than a crosswalk signal or an airport flight status board."

THE FORM IS THE FORM AND NOT AN EVALUATION OF THE CONTENT. A firework is not art. A firework wielded by Cai Guo-Qiang is. A shark is not art. A shark preserved by Damien Hirst is.

It's not the form, it's the person who is using it that defines whether or not something becomes art. It is the emotive, intellectual, or provocative response it produces in those who experience it.

And there is no reason to believe that a human who plays a series of frames at a fixed rate would be any more (or less) effective at producing an emotive or intellectual response than a human who creates a goal with rules governing the achievement of that goal.

4.21.10

By Jeremy

Neutral

I agree with SumitAgarwal that there is a distinction that needs to be made between form and content. Most games contain some form of artwork, created by design artists. Does this mean the game itself is art, or simply that it contains art? The game itself therefore could be considered at the very least a framework for displaying art, among other things.

Is an art gallery itself considered art, as something else that contains and displays artwork? I feel that most would say no, that it is simply a framework for experiencing it. However, this in no way invalidates the quality of the artwork that the gallery contains.

Therefore, it could be concluded that a game, at minimum, contains art. Film also contains art. An opera also contains art.

At what point do these mediums not simply contain art but become art themselves? This, to me, seems like the crux of the argument.