July 28, 2007
Back in 2005 film critic Roger Ebert weighed in on the "are games art?" discussion by declaring that games cannot be due to their interactive nature, and are thus stuck in the realm of mere craftsmanship.Last month, game creator and horror novel author Clive Barker (Undying) spoke at the second annual Hollywood and Games Summit (as covered by GameIndustry.biz), and he addressed Ebert's comments, stating that the film critic had a prejudice against what games could be:
We can debate what art is, we can debate it forever. If the experience moves you in some way or another… Even if it moves your bowels… I think it is worthy of some serious study.
I think that Roger Ebert's problem is that he thinks you can't have art if there is that amount of malleability in the narrative. In other words, Shakespeare could not have written Romeo and Juliet as a game because it could have had a happy ending, you know?
Barker spoke about worrying about similar dismissal of his horror novels, because they too weren't seen as "art". Barker explained that escapism is the key:
Gaming is a great way to do what we as human beings need to do all the time - to take ourselves away from the oppressive facts of our lives and go somewhere where we have our own control.
We should be stretching the imaginations of our players and ourselves. Let's invent a world where the player gets to go through every emotional journey available. That is art. Offering that to people is art.
Ebert recently responded to Barker's comments on his blog, and muddies the waters a bit by amending his stance to be that games cannot be "high" art:
Many experiences that move me in some way or another are not art. A year ago I lost the ability (temporarily, I hope) to speak. I was deeply moved by the experience. It was not art.
Ebert dismisses the idea of art presenting choices, asserting that if one is offered 'every emotional journey available', then each is individually devalued:
Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices.
He also took exception to Barker's assertion that art can be linked to escapism. Ebert does not believe that the two are linked by necessity. Great movies can be escapist, but escapism itself does not make "great" art. He also called Barker's desire for escapism as "spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old."
Finally, Ebert puts forth his criteria for accepting a video game as art:
I mentioned that a Campbell's soup could be art. I was imprecise. Actually, it is Andy Warhol's painting of the label that is art. Would Warhol have considered Clive Barker's video game 'Undying' as art? Certainly. He would have kept it in its shrink-wrapped box, placed it inside a Plexiglass display case, mounted it on a pedestal, and labeled it 'Video Game.'
Ars Technica writer Ben Kuchera examines Ebert's reply, and takes issue with the fact that Ebert seems willing to debate whether games can be art, but completely unwilling to step into the realm of gaming to see if his conclusions are well founded, citing gaming as a waste of time and "childish":
I've enjoyed reading the back and forth between Barker and Ebert because I enjoy conversation about art, especially as it pertains to games, but I get upset when Ebert can't be bothered to actually look at what's he's writing about, even topically. If he's going to have a stance on an issue, he needs to become informed about it. He has a large audience, and they deserve better.
CM: The "high/great" art comments only add to the confusion as to what Ebert would actually classify as art. Sometimes he states that games cannot be art, at other times, they cannot be "high" art. So can games be "art" but not "high art"? On the subject of a "smorgasborg" of choices, does that mean that games that are non-sandbox are "art" because they DO restrict the player to an "inevitable conclusion"?
- Reporting from Canada, GP Correspondent Colin "Jabrwock" McInnes
Comments
I have to agree that Aquaman was bad, but I can't say it's the worst game ever. Have you ever played Custer's Revenge?
I've spoken my piece and I've enjoyed your counter-arguments.
You were using much more conceptual definitions of good, true, and beautiful than I was. I like how you expanded and encapsulated the words we were dealing with to make your point.
I guess the only thing we won't agree on at all is the fine art v. pop art discussion. I still think that there is art for the now and art for the ages.
... And that discussion is also one for the ages that a couple of keyboard jockies won't sort out, but had a great intellectual discussion about.
Your mother is a h0m0!
OK... Now that that is out of my system.
Touche on the Bio Dome reference...
"My issue is that we seem to have moved from “I don’t know art but I know what I like,” to “I know what I like and what I like is art.” Just because something is moving to a person doesn’t make that thing art because that person isn’t that important."
You are right. This IS the core of the issue. That's why there is a difference between fine art and pop art.
Most games and movies would fall under the category of pop art: subjectively shallow with a mass appeal.
My original quote was not a definition of art. It was a condemnation of artists more than anything else, but it does bring to the forefront the idea that art is a shared experience of the artist and the viewer, albeit one separated by time. It also opines that this is necessary for anything to begin to be considered art.
Much as Whacko Jacko wants to use the classic Greek definition of art we must also consider that the ancient Greeks considered there to be only 4 elements: earth, air, water, and fire.
Obviously, that definition needs some revision. It is incomplete at best. If we decided to live in Mr. Thompson's static world, there would be no cars, planes, computers, or lawyers... Waitaminute... Would that last one be so bad?
Art is a fluid thing that leaves behind much concrete evidence of its existence. But its definition is constantly changing.
BTW... Thanks for keeping me honest here, Tom.
is weak. You know what Barker meant, Mr. Ebert.
Why are you using a quote from Heinlein that arrogantly claims that modern art isn't real art when you're trying to bolster the notion that a modern form of expression, considered not to be art by a largely irrelevant pop culture critic, is art?
You seem so convinced that nearly everything can be art and yet you attack art that requires you to "sit on your fat overpaid butt and search for metaphors in a static medium." According to your later implications couldn't that also be as valid a piece of art as is art that requires someone to sit on their fat, overpaid ass and search for shines in an interactive medium?
Craftsmanship and craftsmen are done a disservice by the adjective "mere." Most of the media and many of the items that populate our lives are the product of exceptional craftsmen rather then artists. There is nothing wrong with a well crafted object that is not art.
Disliking art does not mean that one does not believe something to be art anymore then someone being "rendered emotional" makes something art.
A game is not art because it is a game and it exists any more then a painting is art because it is a painting and it exists. That someone may endeavor to "create art" - to me that would be the height of arrogance - does not make the results of their toils art. Years of schooling and practice at fine art institutes does not result in the creation of art despite the protestations of those who spent time and money wishing it were so.
Ebert is wrong in his assertion that games cannot be art, however equally wrong are the assertions that all games are art. If all games are art, then wouldn't all movies be art? By extension, all creative endeavors would be art. At that point the notion of "art" will have been devalued so much that it would echo hollowly with no more potency then Heinlein's "pseudo-intellectual masturbation."
Video games art art, more than almost anything else in this world. How can a painting be art, but not the thousands of created images that exist in a video game?
I find video games to be of the highest art, in that they invoke emotion, and are open to interpretation. I don't understand his comment about true art taking you to one final conclusion. There is no fucking way that kandinski meant for his paintings to be interpreted in one way. They are open to interpretation, and I would think that is encouraged by the artist.
Ebert is a fucking idiot. A real imbecile. To think someone could use a good liver.
Video games art art, more than almost anything else in this world. How can a painting be art, but not the thousands of created images that exist in a video game?
I find video games to be of the highest art, in that they invoke emotion, and are open to interpretation. I don't understand his comment about true art taking you to one final conclusion. There is no fucking way that kandinsky meant for his paintings to be interpreted in one way. They are open to interpretation, and I would think that is encouraged by the artist.
Ebert is a fucking idiot. A real imbecile. To think someone could use a good liver.
I take issue with that statement and echo what Cell said. What is the conclusion of the Mona Lisa then?
Or any of the great masterpieces of portrait art? What was Monet getting at with all of those water lilies? What am I supposed to derive from Dali's mosquito-legged elephant? What about Picasso's cubism?
And how many movies exist that leave you with this uneasy question of who's right and who's wrong? The notion that everyone who sees a given movie must inevitably draw the same conclusion is not only horribly flawed, it is completely aloof.
"SHUT UP AND DO YOUR [censored] JOB!! YOU ARE GETTING PAID TO TELL OTHERS WHAT FILMS ARE GOOD AND NOT TO BE RUNNING YOUR [censored] MOUTH ABOUT WHAT YOU PERSONALLY THINK WHAT ART IS!!!"
Again, not that I need The likes of him to tell me what is good to watch.
- Warren Lewis
"Can you talk about the emotional impact of the T-rex revelation in the original Tomb Raider or how unit caps in Warcraft influenced RTS design, or discuss the pros and cons of voice acting in RPGs and how it affects the way the player connects with the characters? No? Then you’re the man in the street."
Brilliant, thank you for that. I've turned this issue around in my head in a million different ways and you definitely smacked one big nail right on the head with that comment.
As to the rest: the debate about what is and isn't "art" has been going on for ages. I always enjoyed debating the meaning and levels of art or the validity of critics and how their worldview effects their understanding until I took a master level history of criticism class. I fully appreciate the level of cultural understanding gained through knowledge of critical theory and history but in exploring the minutia of the field I couldn't help but be left with one question resonating in my skull: "what the hell is the point?"
Ebert is a movie reviewer who fancies himself a critic of popular culture. His status is based entirely on the value that we have assigned to movies coupled with our tradition of celebrity worship. The authority he assigns to his opinions and his sense of importance are completely manufactured. Movies really aren't that important.
The larger question of art is larger then anything I could hope to deal with in a blog comment. Suffice it to say that my opinions have changed dramatically over the years. The key, to me, is the separation between the "craftsman" and the "artist." I'm a reporter and a writer and so I consider myself a craftsman, not an artist. I have, in the past, been accused of being an "artist" even as I have been accused of creating "art." My arrogance is not so complete that I will embrace that moniker and I am no longer so forgiving that I will apply it unilaterally to anyone who shows a creative spark.
I have seen artistry in games and I have played games that are undoubtedly important but I would be hard pressed to proclaim any game, in and of itself, a "piece of art." That is not to say that they are not very important as avenues of expression or methods of personal exploration, only that my admittedly strict and amorphous criteria have not been met. I fully accept that games can be art, though.
People listen to him based on his celebrity and professional status and he demeans and cheats his audience by pontificating on a subject he literally knows nothing about.
and with that, I give you MY example of Games as "High Art":
Archive.org Curator's Choice Award:
http://www.archive.org/details/014900
I'm not really sure there's necessarily such a huge disconnect here. One only need look at Warhol's works to realize this. My main problem with Ebert's criticisms vis a vis games vs. "high art" is that he is judging the entire media form by genealogy as opposed to evaluating individual games on their own merits.
As the ruling in the landmark St. Louis arcade case pointed out, many forms of art go out of their way to be interactive. When Shakesphere introduced the witches in MacBeth, they became such popular characters that some believe he later added a new scene starring them. When Sir Arthur Conan Doyle killed off Sherlock Holmes, readers were so furious that he rewrote the book so that he didn't actually die. I don't need to explain the matter of the Star Wars Expanded Universe. If interactivity automatically negates the artistic value of something, why do so many works of art strive to become interactive (and sometimes succeed)?
Rodger Ebert may know his movies, but he clearly doesn't understand much else. And I think that's why he's saying what he is. His whole career centers around film. The last thing he wants is to see another medium overtake it.
I don't care about whether or not videogames are "art" because I am more concerned with if I like something or not than what label people put on it.
I think it far more interesting that while Ebert got tons and tons of feedback from gamers he remained adamant in his stance. When a famous writer said something about it he suddenly became a lot more reasonable. Elitist to the core.
or Riven...
or Exile...
OH, WORLD! WHAT HAST THOU COME TO?!
A film critic could talk all day about the use of lighting in a single scene and how a particular director's ability to break up narrative invented a whole new genre. Joe in the street would say it was a decent film but a bit boring near the end.
Can you talk about the emotional impact of the T-rex revelation in the original Tomb Raider or how unit caps in Warcraft influenced RTS design, or discuss the pros and cons of voice acting in RPGs and how it affects the way the player connects with the characters? No? Then you're the man in the street.
I'm amazed that someone involved in the movie industry can have such a closed mind, the whole purpose of Art is to create discussion, it's form and presentation are totally secondary.
He's not.
"Art" is a fluid concept and depends on who is interpreting it. Video games COULD be art-leaving the possibility that it IS for some and IS NOT for others. It is not "never" automatically. Stick to your movie reviews, Ebert.
What is the inevitable conclusion of the Mona Lisa?
Signed,
Cell
"When it comes down to it, critics really don’t know shit."
I agree, going a little OT, I remember when Shrek came out, and critics gave it low reviews. Yet, it was one of the most popular films that year. I know that because I worked at a Showcase Cinemas that was showing it for about half a year while most other movies were in theatres for about half as long at most. I can't even remember all of the movies that came out after Shrek that stopped showing before Shrek stopped.
I still trust his opinion on movies.
It's that simple.
Nightwing2000
NW2K Software
He misses the point. Art does offer many different emotional journeys, but it does not offer all the choices to each individual viewer. The viewer at best because of personality, mood, time of day, etc. is offered by art only a few emotional journeys per each viewing of the artwork (maybe sometimes limited to 1). That's why art is so important to return to later, as you find something different that hadn't been there before for you.
If art is something that inevitably leads to a singular conclusion, then why is so-called "high" art endlessly debated by experts and laymen? For e.g., from my previous post, the Mona Lisa. Some may look at it and conclude that "we’re all narcissistic bastards who look for ourselves in other people." Others may look at it and endlessly debate what her smile means.
For me the definition of art is fairly simple. Art is something that is created by one person or many people, to entertain, to provoke thought, to decorate, or just for the hell of it. Art is made for other people to enjoy, and not for the artist himself. (Ebert says that the experience of not being able to speak was emotionally provoking for him but it was not art. He is right, it was not art for him. But for others around him, for an audience, it would be art.) That is one thing that I believe is required for art.....an audience.
He reminds me of my English teachers who asked "what was the author thinking when he wrote this." (I wonder when the jets game is on today?).
And art does whatever, not lead to an inevitable conclusion. Raum put it the right way.
I sent him third-world farmer as an example of a game that should fit his definition.
or B) A fellow scouser and creator of many books and brilliant stories who has made a living being creative in many fields who also knows about games and so knows about the topic wich is being debated.
Ebert has his right to an opinion but i'll only respect it when he actually knows what he is talking about. Its the same with wacko jacko he has a bad opinion on games yet has shown time and again he is ignorant of the medium.
I reject his premise of choice prohibits high art. I can choose to interpret many works in many ways. I can't really think of games as high art yet myself, mainly because video games are new and still building themselves up. Look at artwork throughout human history, it has taken them a long time and through many versions to become what we know today as art.
I think another issue here is that games are commercially driven, and there is always a huge disconnect between commerce and art. I think this is an underlying prejudice that many of us (probably myself included) are guilty of.
Most of those games have an inevitable conclusion.
And by his definition, choose your own adventure books are not art
I find it especially humorous and hypocrtical when you consider this came from the same man who wrote Russ Meyer's Beyond The Valley of the Dolls and is proud of it to this day. If you've seen it, it's easy to dismiss it as a bad movie. Yet it's revered by many including film geeks like myself, and would go as far as to say that too is art.
Ebert has a track record for dismissing what he doesn't understand. Back in the day when he did Sneak Previews with Gene Siskel, I remember both of them panning many a Sci-Fi or Horror film which have since gone on to become classics. Also if you can find it, look for his essay called "Why Movies Audiences Aren't Safe Anymore" in which he tears apart now classics like the Friday the 13th, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street movies.
When it comes down to it, critics really don't know shit. The only difference between them and us is they get paid for their opinions.
Still, it does seem kind of odd to use a definition of art made by a society that believed half the things you see in a Fantasy RPG really DID exist....
"The ancient Greeks defined art as that which points the viewer of it to what is good, beautiful, or true."
Maybe the fact that they were an ancient civilization has something to do with that. Also, a source would be nice.
"That is the definition then, and that is the definition now."
Says who? YOU?
Who are YOU to decree what is art and what is not? How much discretion and eloquence have YOU shown in the past?
"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a video gamer."
~
Jack Thompson
You like to quote Winston Churchill, who wasn't an artist so much as he was a diplomat. And yet you never quote Walt Whitman, Oscar Wilde, or Isaac Asimov; maybe that's because their works aren't exactly children skipping in fields of flowers.
"Maybe gamers should get an education before they start holding forth on these things."
The one who truly lacks an education, Jack, would be you.
Otherwise you would've learned Law School lesson 101: No Ad Hominem attacks.
However in mr.opininateds case saying music,pictures,movies are art and games (a combination of those 3)are not is just him being a moron.
I disagree on your supposition that our definition follows directly from the Greek tradition. As the world grew, Germanic and Russo influences changed the perception of art greatly as did, more recently Chinese, Japanese, and Middle Eastern schools of artistic thought. They heavily reshaped how we think about art.
I say that trying to hold to an outdated definition the Greeks came up with a couple of thousand years ago is absurdist fantasy on our resident attroney's part. The Greeks didn't use metaphor in their art like the Japanese did. They also didn't use graffiti to effect political change through art as the Mexicans did.
But... That definition does give us a place to start.
Good, beautiful, and true.
Let's start with true.
OK... Video games, even sports games, are fantasy / fiction / a lie. However you want to read it.
Many games point to themes of the importance of bravery in the face of adversity, the harsh reality of war (Haze looks awesome and well thought out, BTW), the importance of love / family, financial management, the fundamentals of commerce, or even that through inaction you are likely to be unable to avoid negative political change.
What is good? Good question.
I think that it's more important when you are directed to what is not good. When you have a choice to see what you could do about the truly evil.
Cecil from FFIV... I want to start with him. (With the rerelease of FFIV for DS being developed I thought him apropos)
He starts off as a dark knight. Someone who channels the forces of darkness for a corrupt king. He finds his redemption on Mt. Ordeals and searches for a way to end the reign of a king who is slaughtering innocents to expand his kingdom's power.
He fights for the little guy.
He embodies good.
We Love Katamari has you looking to refill the universe with stars and planets for the people of Earth. (Mostly cuz your father is a a tool, but I digress...)
To Kratos the gods of Olympus are petty and pretentious with no concern for each other or mankind. They are merely pawns to be played with. He wishes to change the course of his destiny and end the corruption of Olympus. He's an anti-hero looking to do good.
Yes... Most good in video games can be trite. But it's there.
Beautiful.
I'm going to mention two titles and end my contribution to the beauty discussion: Okami and Shadow of the Colossus.
Now... I think I've addressed the Greek definition fairly well, but what about the other things I've mentioned: use of metaphor and morality / political statements. Both have long been topics of art.
For morality and political statements, I will turn to the Metal Gear Solid series and the unreleased Haze.
Most people know what MGS is about so I won't go into detail, but Haze is going further than MGS. Haze shows a mercenary army that equips their soldiers not only with the best weapons and armor, but with a drug that enchances their abilities and also prevents them from seeing the effects of war. No blood, no dead bodies. While on the drug, they don't even have to deal with the psychological effects of war. The problem is the withdrawal is a killer.
It is more than a simple question of right and wrong, good and evil. It makes you think about the nature of war itself and how we treat our soldiers.
For creative use of metaphor, I'm stuck for a gaming reference (Lunch break at work isn't long enough for me to get all of this out), but look at Kabuki theatre versus traditional Greek plays and tell me the use of metaphor was anything close.
I'm going to give some ground by admitting that many games may not even be art. But, I'm sticking to my guns for their being a difference between fine and pop art and that most games would be pop art.
Fine art versus popular (or pop) art has been argued for many years by many people smarter than most of us here. But I maintain that there will be art that is created that will / can not be understood by everyone, but uses its medium in revolutionary ways and sends many a person on a journey of emotion and discovery that will effect them for a long time afterwards.
I think that pop art has a much more limited scope to its message and usually doesn't affect someone as deeply or for as long. Peanuts versus Pablo Picasso. Charlie Brown and his gang pointed us towards what is good and right and true, didn't they?
So did Picasso, but he made you look at things from a radically different perspective.
To me games are art. Why not? Everything that goes into them is art, story, image, animation, music, I would even go so far as to say that programming can be art. (I know I can't understand what i am looking at when viewing code but the results can be beautiful)
I think the essential problem Ebert has is interactivity. In my opinion, interactivity is the future of art. When someone can create something that allows someone else to play and rearrange it, but still maintains a message or a feeling, to me that is a piece of art that is apart from many other art forms.
Does that mean that all games are art? Not necessarily, they should strive for it, but no not all games are art. Just as not all paintings, music, or pictures are deemed art. Something that is created with a clear intent, a message, or a goal is art to me.
Roger Ebert, in his film criticism, operates under auteur theory.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auteur_theory
Briefly, auteur theory says that the director/producer of a film is the film's "author." As such, the film should be viewed as an expression of that one person. And while auteur theory has its critics, it still forms the basis of almost all film criticism to this day, much as John Maynard Keynes's theories form the basis of economic thought today. For example, the film adaptation of "Sin City" (2005) had three directors credited, and the Directors Guild of America had a kitten over this since Frank Miller had never directed a film before and the DGA generally frowns upon co-directors anyway. (Rodriguez resigned from the DGA rather than tolerate this.)
So Mr. Ebert's argument is that, since videogames (no matter how story-driven) are a user-driven medium, the director/producer is not really in control of the message or the experience. Likewise, this is why he might not see Sam Raimi's "Spider-Man 2" as high art, since Raimi was using Marvel's Spider-Man comics as the basis for the film and the film's many producers (including Stan Lee) no doubt had a great deal of input into the film. In other words, Raimi wasn't in control of the message or the experience - not really.
I am not saying that Mr. Ebert is correct in his assertion. In fact, I disagree with it entirely. I won't elaborate for the sake of brevity (this post has gone very long as it stands). Nevertheless, it is very important that, if you are going to argue with a venerated film critic like Mr. Ebert, you have to understand where he is coming from and be able to counter his argument.
My response was actually directed at our jackass attorney friend above, hence the evolution remark. As to Mr. Ebert, well, I don't listen to him anyways because I go to the movies for free, so I'm not losing out even if the movie is bad.