Hi. My name is Shelby and I'm here to defend Roger Ebert's right not to give a shit about video games, art or no.
I remember an article a while back in which the man conceded that one of the reasons (perhaps the greatest reason) he couldn't see video games as art was because he simply didn't have the desire to play them. As they stand today, as they are, they don't do anything for him. They don't engage his sense of empathy.
This was flooded with responses, people suggesting games he could—that they felt he should—try. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus chief among them. There were advocates of him not actually playing the game, but of him watching another play through it, turning it into a passive experience, one of observation.
Here's the thing, though. In almost every game suggested (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Flower, Katamari Damacy, even Braid), part of what makes them so special is how they interact with our existing vocabulary as gamers. Not in the way of language, but in the way of interaction. Games such as Shadow of the Colossus are so interesting to us because they transcend our expectations. They do things that we haven't seen a game do before, and that is, in its way, special. That, to us, is artistic, because it engages that part of our brain conditioned to a certain experience and circumvents it, providing us with a powerful, interactive experience along an entirely different channel. This is only so special, so artistic, because we have a background in other video games, in the more general field, through which to interpret these exceptional examples.
Literature works the same way. The Bible is generally a collection of tales about hero and villain, about people being punished for behaving badly. Its methods are straightforward, its language and structure relatively simple and direct. Interpretation of it comes from its content, not from its presentation. In modern literature, not only has the content shifted, but so has the presentation. Writers discover new tricks, use new forms of storytelling to manipulate or inspire the reader.
And movies? Star Wars and The Matrix elevated special effects to new heights, allowing them to immerse and stimulate the audience in new ways. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World creates a new set of story-telling tools for directors, in part by the way it melds three media together, drawing from video games, comics and other cinema in one fell swoop. Opinions of the story and acting not-withstanding, the structure of the movie is, in many ways, utterly unique and inspiring.
But if you had seen one of these movies without seeing another, if you had read only the latest, greatest novel, without any understanding of the history of the form itself, so much would be lost because you wouldn't understand in what ways these films or books were advancing their form and, contrarily, in what places they were actually eschewing tradition, excising features and language felt to be extraneous.
So it is with video games, so it is with Roger Ebert, who admits that, though he does not see games as art, there is no reason he should. Something does not become artistic to you because others say it is, only because you appreciate it yourself. You can say that the Mona Lisa is art because history has declared it to be so, but do you, yourself, see what is artistic about it, specifically? How much of that understanding springs from your knowledge of what it does that others in its form do not? That context is essential, and Ebert admits that he lacks it and has no desire to obtain it. The war can end, now.
@Kiori Hayabusa: Did something happen to Roper and Ebert, by the way? Are they still doing their movie rating? I haven't been quite up on the news with them these days.
@Enervation: Seems like At The Movies was cancelled, but Ebert is starting up a new ratings show with two new hosts. He's not planning to rate directly on the show, but he's still very active on his own site with the Chicago Sun-Times.
@Kiori Hayabusa: If videogames are art, they are closer to performance art than traditional art. Right now, there is not an accepted critical analysis method for videogames. #speakup(Edit comment)
@Enervation: I am a guy who grew up in the 80s, in the 8-bit heyday, but games never appealed to me. While my friends were out feeding quarters into Missile Command machines, I was doing other things that seemed more productive, and that actually fulfilled me. I still see gaming as a giant waste of time. Sorry.
@Kiori Hayabusa: Small problem - Roger didn't choose to "not care" about video games, he chose to have, and share a very definite opinion. If he'd written an article saying he was ambivalet to video games in general, it might have raised a few eyebrows in the "he's behind the times" sense.
But he made a very definite statement; that video games were not and could not be art, at least in his eyes. And once you make a statement you can expect it to be argued. He came out later with explanations and codicils, but did not amend his opinion.
Roger's defiinition of art is very precise, and its parameters do not allow video games to be included. It's not going to take him seeing "that one game" to change his mind, it's going to take him expending his definition. I'm sure there are people who do not see film (as a medium) as being possible to be art, and Roger would likely be as vehement in his debate as many of us are with him.
He's not "wrong", he's just got a slightly different definition of "right". (Edit comment)
@Kiori Hayabusa: Good points. An artistic medium arises organically by referencing what came before it, evolving a grammar and syntax that allows it become increasingly expressive, and a certain fluency as a viewer required to experience it as such. Certainly nobody has the right (nor the ability) to force an appreciation for a particular form of art upon another.
This is in fact the argument that most of us pro-games-as-art folk were making. But where we disagreed with with Ebert was when he claimed that video games in principle could not be art, and that his argument held regardless of ones level of exposure to the medium. He has since retracted that argument.
@Kiori Hayabusa: If all you are saying is that Ebert has a right to an opinion and art is subjective to an individual, then yeah sure, why even bother debating about art?
However, if art has a specific definition, and context matters, then Ebert is plain wrong. He doesn't know the context. So he should not be making a statement on whether videogames are an art form or not.
@Kiori Hayabusa: Art is in the eye of the beholder, therefore is subjective. An opinion. That is all.
Because "what is art" is such a philosophical question, there can be no definitive answer.
In my experience, there are very few transcendant video gaming experiences that have lodged themselves in my mind, affected me, made me a different person than I was before I started playing. Whereas without stopping I could reel off a top ten of great films that have touched me on a number of levels.
Therefore my own experience is that video games are much less likely to be great works of art, but it is possible. A remote possibility, but ever present.
Unfortunately the massively oversaturated "first person shooter" genre is so dull and recycled it's the equivelent of your average Hollywood popcorn comedy flick. Perhaps worse.
@Kiori Hayabusa: Mr. Ebert posted the link to this on his twitter. I was expecting the comment to be from someone with just as little experience with game as Ebert, but was pleasantly shocked when I saw that these words were from a fellow Kotaku reader. Its really quite refreshing that someone who appreciates games can come to this rational conclusion. I agree 100%.
"Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself."
The thing is, though, how would it be any more of a "giant waste of time" than entertaining oneself (and perhaps spending time with friends) in other ways that don't receive this kind of criticism?
Gaming has progressed quite far from the likes of Missile Command in the span of less than thirty years.
@Kiori Hayabusa: I think a major part of the problem with Ebert expressing this opinion is his status as a critic, a reviewer, and a thinker.
There are tons of people, such as wizardofgosz, who don't think games are worth their time, that think games aren't art, etc. However, they're also not a renowned critic who is nationally known for their intelligence and previous work.
There's also the problem of audience: Ebert speaks to movie goers, enthusiasts, and the general public. Do we really need someone who has been lauded as having a significant, and worthwhile opinion to declare something will NEVER be art? Or even that he thinks it ISN'T art? Sure, it's his opinion and he's certainly entitled to it. However, it's also a bit unfair to the community surrounding games, because we don't have an Ebert to oppose him.
In addition, I find it quite bizarre that, as a movie critic, Ebert can't fathom how games could possibly be art, ever. For such a young and quickly evolving medium, it seems narrow-minded and foolish to say something will NEVER be art.
I think it also matters whether or not you want to try to label an entire game as art, or say a game is artistic because it has components that are artistic. Braid, for example, could have an artistic narrative, but not game mechanics. Or vice vesa, I'm not trying to argue one or the other. The point is that I think games can have components that aren't exclusive to games (narrative, cinematography, art direction, etc.) that are artistic, and thus make the game artistic. Why? Because the entire point of a game is, at heart, to interact with something. If you are playing a game with an "artistic" narrative, then you are interacting, at some level, with a work of art. To ignore this idea proves a certain amount of both ignorance and stubbornness to accept a new medium; we don't strip a movie of it's "artistic label" just because artistic narratives have been around since before movies were even dreamed of, we see how the narrative compliments, and is complimented by, the other facets of the movie.
So, in summation, I think that Ebert is well entitled to his right to not care about games, but his position and his past achievements make his declaration not only obstinate, but hypocritical as well. And if no one stands up to such a renowned voice spouting utter nonsense, why should even gamers take the medium seriously?
@Kiori Hayabusa: I think a major part of the problem with Ebert expressing this opinion is his status as a critic, a reviewer, and a thinker.
There are tons of people, such as wizardofgosz, who don't think games are worth their time, that think games aren't art, etc. However, they're also not a renowned critic who is nationally known for their intelligence and previous work.
There's also the problem of audience: Ebert speaks to movie goers, enthusiasts, and the general public. Do we really need someone who has been lauded as having a significant, and worthwhile opinion to declare something will NEVER be art? Or even that he thinks it ISN'T art? Sure, it's his opinion and he's certainly entitled to it. However, it's also a bit unfair to the community surrounding games, because we don't have an Ebert to oppose him.
In addition, I find it quite bizarre that, as a movie critic, Ebert can't fathom how games could possibly be art, ever. For such a young and quickly evolving medium, it seems narrow-minded and foolish to say something will NEVER be art.
I think it also matters whether or not you want to try to label an entire game as art, or say a game is artistic because it has components that are artistic. Braid, for example, could have an artistic narrative, but not game mechanics. Or vice vesa, I'm not trying to argue one or the other. The point is that I think games can have components that aren't exclusive to games (narrative, cinematography, art direction, etc.) that are artistic, and thus make the game artistic. Why? Because the entire point of a game is, at heart, to interact with something. If you are playing a game with an "artistic" narrative, then you are interacting, at some level, with a work of art. To ignore this idea proves a certain amount of both ignorance and stubbornness to accept a new medium; we don't strip a movie of it's "artistic label" just because artistic narratives have been around since before movies were even dreamed of, we see how the narrative compliments, and is complimented by, the other facets of the movie.
So, in summation, I think that Ebert is well entitled to his right to not care about games, but his position and his past achievements make his declaration not only obstinate, but hypocritical as well. And if no one stands up to such a renowned voice spouting utter nonsense, why should even gamers take the medium seriously?
I remember an article a while back in which the man conceded that one of the reasons (perhaps the greatest reason) he couldn't see video games as art was because he simply didn't have the desire to play them. As they stand today, as they are, they don't do anything for him. They don't engage his sense of empathy.
This was flooded with responses, people suggesting games he could—that they felt he should—try. Ico and Shadow of the Colossus chief among them. There were advocates of him not actually playing the game, but of him watching another play through it, turning it into a passive experience, one of observation.
Here's the thing, though. In almost every game suggested (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Flower, Katamari Damacy, even Braid), part of what makes them so special is how they interact with our existing vocabulary as gamers. Not in the way of language, but in the way of interaction. Games such as Shadow of the Colossus are so interesting to us because they transcend our expectations. They do things that we haven't seen a game do before, and that is, in its way, special. That, to us, is artistic, because it engages that part of our brain conditioned to a certain experience and circumvents it, providing us with a powerful, interactive experience along an entirely different channel. This is only so special, so artistic, because we have a background in other video games, in the more general field, through which to interpret these exceptional examples.
Literature works the same way. The Bible is generally a collection of tales about hero and villain, about people being punished for behaving badly. Its methods are straightforward, its language and structure relatively simple and direct. Interpretation of it comes from its content, not from its presentation. In modern literature, not only has the content shifted, but so has the presentation. Writers discover new tricks, use new forms of storytelling to manipulate or inspire the reader.
And movies? Star Wars and The Matrix elevated special effects to new heights, allowing them to immerse and stimulate the audience in new ways. Scott Pilgrim vs. The World creates a new set of story-telling tools for directors, in part by the way it melds three media together, drawing from video games, comics and other cinema in one fell swoop. Opinions of the story and acting not-withstanding, the structure of the movie is, in many ways, utterly unique and inspiring.
But if you had seen one of these movies without seeing another, if you had read only the latest, greatest novel, without any understanding of the history of the form itself, so much would be lost because you wouldn't understand in what ways these films or books were advancing their form and, contrarily, in what places they were actually eschewing tradition, excising features and language felt to be extraneous.
So it is with video games, so it is with Roger Ebert, who admits that, though he does not see games as art, there is no reason he should. Something does not become artistic to you because others say it is, only because you appreciate it yourself. You can say that the Mona Lisa is art because history has declared it to be so, but do you, yourself, see what is artistic about it, specifically? How much of that understanding springs from your knowledge of what it does that others in its form do not? That context is essential, and Ebert admits that he lacks it and has no desire to obtain it. The war can end, now.
#speakup (Edit comment)
This is the internet. Anything goes.
#speakup (Edit comment)
#speakup (Edit comment)
#speakup (Edit comment)
#speakup (Edit comment)
Personally, I hold to him no blame for his opinion. Everyone is allowed their own opinions.
#speakup (Edit comment)
#speakup (Edit comment)
#speakup (Edit comment)
But he made a very definite statement; that video games were not and could not be art, at least in his eyes. And once you make a statement you can expect it to be argued. He came out later with explanations and codicils, but did not amend his opinion.
Roger's defiinition of art is very precise, and its parameters do not allow video games to be included. It's not going to take him seeing "that one game" to change his mind, it's going to take him expending his definition. I'm sure there are people who do not see film (as a medium) as being possible to be art, and Roger would likely be as vehement in his debate as many of us are with him.
He's not "wrong", he's just got a slightly different definition of "right". (Edit comment)
This is in fact the argument that most of us pro-games-as-art folk were making. But where we disagreed with with Ebert was when he claimed that video games in principle could not be art, and that his argument held regardless of ones level of exposure to the medium. He has since retracted that argument.
#speakup (Edit comment)
If all you are saying is that Ebert has a right to an opinion and art is subjective to an individual, then yeah sure, why even bother debating about art?
However, if art has a specific definition, and context matters, then Ebert is plain wrong. He doesn't know the context. So he should not be making a statement on whether videogames are an art form or not.
#speakup (Edit comment)
Because "what is art" is such a philosophical question, there can be no definitive answer.
In my experience, there are very few transcendant video gaming experiences that have lodged themselves in my mind, affected me, made me a different person than I was before I started playing. Whereas without stopping I could reel off a top ten of great films that have touched me on a number of levels.
Therefore my own experience is that video games are much less likely to be great works of art, but it is possible. A remote possibility, but ever present.
Unfortunately the massively oversaturated "first person shooter" genre is so dull and recycled it's the equivelent of your average Hollywood popcorn comedy flick. Perhaps worse.
#speakup (Edit comment)
#speakup (Edit comment)
That's all well and good, but he didn't just say video games aren't art, he said they can never be art.
[blogs.suntimes.com]
His "apology" was not for making that statement but for expressing it.
[kotaku.com]
"Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself."
#speakup (Edit comment)
The thing is, though, how would it be any more of a "giant waste of time" than entertaining oneself (and perhaps spending time with friends) in other ways that don't receive this kind of criticism?
Gaming has progressed quite far from the likes of Missile Command in the span of less than thirty years.
#speakup (Edit comment)
#speakup (Edit comment)
There are tons of people, such as wizardofgosz, who don't think games are worth their time, that think games aren't art, etc. However, they're also not a renowned critic who is nationally known for their intelligence and previous work.
There's also the problem of audience: Ebert speaks to movie goers, enthusiasts, and the general public. Do we really need someone who has been lauded as having a significant, and worthwhile opinion to declare something will NEVER be art? Or even that he thinks it ISN'T art? Sure, it's his opinion and he's certainly entitled to it. However, it's also a bit unfair to the community surrounding games, because we don't have an Ebert to oppose him.
In addition, I find it quite bizarre that, as a movie critic, Ebert can't fathom how games could possibly be art, ever. For such a young and quickly evolving medium, it seems narrow-minded and foolish to say something will NEVER be art.
I think it also matters whether or not you want to try to label an entire game as art, or say a game is artistic because it has components that are artistic. Braid, for example, could have an artistic narrative, but not game mechanics. Or vice vesa, I'm not trying to argue one or the other. The point is that I think games can have components that aren't exclusive to games (narrative, cinematography, art direction, etc.) that are artistic, and thus make the game artistic. Why? Because the entire point of a game is, at heart, to interact with something. If you are playing a game with an "artistic" narrative, then you are interacting, at some level, with a work of art. To ignore this idea proves a certain amount of both ignorance and stubbornness to accept a new medium; we don't strip a movie of it's "artistic label" just because artistic narratives have been around since before movies were even dreamed of, we see how the narrative compliments, and is complimented by, the other facets of the movie.
So, in summation, I think that Ebert is well entitled to his right to not care about games, but his position and his past achievements make his declaration not only obstinate, but hypocritical as well. And if no one stands up to such a renowned voice spouting utter nonsense, why should even gamers take the medium seriously?
#speakup (Edit comment)
There are tons of people, such as wizardofgosz, who don't think games are worth their time, that think games aren't art, etc. However, they're also not a renowned critic who is nationally known for their intelligence and previous work.
There's also the problem of audience: Ebert speaks to movie goers, enthusiasts, and the general public. Do we really need someone who has been lauded as having a significant, and worthwhile opinion to declare something will NEVER be art? Or even that he thinks it ISN'T art? Sure, it's his opinion and he's certainly entitled to it. However, it's also a bit unfair to the community surrounding games, because we don't have an Ebert to oppose him.
In addition, I find it quite bizarre that, as a movie critic, Ebert can't fathom how games could possibly be art, ever. For such a young and quickly evolving medium, it seems narrow-minded and foolish to say something will NEVER be art.
I think it also matters whether or not you want to try to label an entire game as art, or say a game is artistic because it has components that are artistic. Braid, for example, could have an artistic narrative, but not game mechanics. Or vice vesa, I'm not trying to argue one or the other. The point is that I think games can have components that aren't exclusive to games (narrative, cinematography, art direction, etc.) that are artistic, and thus make the game artistic. Why? Because the entire point of a game is, at heart, to interact with something. If you are playing a game with an "artistic" narrative, then you are interacting, at some level, with a work of art. To ignore this idea proves a certain amount of both ignorance and stubbornness to accept a new medium; we don't strip a movie of it's "artistic label" just because artistic narratives have been around since before movies were even dreamed of, we see how the narrative compliments, and is complimented by, the other facets of the movie.
So, in summation, I think that Ebert is well entitled to his right to not care about games, but his position and his past achievements make his declaration not only obstinate, but hypocritical as well. And if no one stands up to such a renowned voice spouting utter nonsense, why should even gamers take the medium seriously?
#speakup (Edit comment)
User action
Thread action