August 3, 2007
Author Steven Kent (The Ultimate History of Video Games) has weighed in on controversy sparked by film critic Roger Ebert's contention that games are not art.Kent, whose perspective comes from more than two decades of tracking games, forwarded his thoughts on the topic, which originally appeared on VH1, to GamePolitics:
With his statements about video games, Roger Ebert now joins the ranks of flat-worlders who decried Evolution as a heresy and stated that Rock and Roll could never be counted as music.
The irony here is that just a century ago, social snobs made the same pronouncement about cinema, claiming that motion pictures were somehow inferior to theater and not an expression of art. That the artist and the player form a unique partnership in the outcome of games does not disqualify games as art, it proves that the definition of art needs to be updated.
The word “Art”, at least as Ebert and other critics know it, was created before the introduction of interactivity. Now that interactivity is a fact, the word art should expand just as the word “World” expanded to describe a globe instead of a flat plate in Columbus’s day.
Kent views the creators of games as artists in the true sense:
The truth is, game designers such as Shigeru Miyamoto and Hironobu Sakaguchi have drawn together many accepted forms of art for a long, long time. From the moment that Miyamoto decided his first game would tell a story, storytelling has been an integral part of game design. Sakaguchi wove themes from traditional Japanese lore into the first of his Final Fantasy, the metaphors he drew were art, not craft. Other designers such as Tetusya Mizuguchi, David Jaffe, and Sid Meier have included such wild and beautiful artistic and literary flourishes in their work that their games seem to transcend the medium.
Also, it is worth pointing out that while viewers to take a participatory role in games, they seldom determine the outcome. Designers create endings for their games just as authors create endings for their books. That the player may fail to reach that ending does not suggest that the player has somehow altered the outcome any more than the failure of a reader to finish a novel would suggest that the reader has altered the ending of that book.
It does not matter how long it takes the player to collect all of the stars in Super Mario 64, Yoshi will still meet him when he finishes. Yes, players can determine which team will win the season in the Bigs or the outcome of a fighter’s career in Fight Night, but that is part of what makes those art—they bring sports to life. Forty years ago, Yoko Ono attended held an art exhibit in which she wore a black dress and invited viewers to cut snippets from that dress a pair of scissors. Non-participatory? We can debate the merits of Ms Ono’s work—I am not a fan, but her work was accepted as art nonetheless.
In his blog, Ebert summarized the “vast majority” of games as being point-and-shoot or scavenger hunts. He left out sports games such as Madden NFL, the top selling game of 2006, racing games, strategy games, and fighting games. When Ebert asks “How do I know this? How many games have I played?” I am left to rub my head and say that I am wondering the same thing. How many games has Mr. Ebert played?
As the man who penned the screenplay, Beyond the Valley of the Dolls, Mr. Ebert should be aware that not all endeavors in an artistic medium qualify as art.
Comments
Yet I suppose Ebert has never seen a silent hill game, or judged them solely on the merits of the movie.
"I thought that the Transformers movie was awesome. It had great special effects, awesome action, and even a decent story with some funny moments. It was not art. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was art. I didn’t find Gone With the Wind particularly interesting, but it was art."
Even within an art medium, there are works that would not be considered art by many. Even within Gameboy's example, some would disagree: I'd bet the animators who worked on Transformers thought it was art.
I happen to share Gameboy's opinion on each of his examples, but that doesn't mean I expect everyone to agree. The point is that games, like movies, paintings, sculpture, and even nature, deserve the opportunity to be considered art. Not all games will fit squarely within that classification, but the medium should not be excluded as a whole.
"Not all art is art. Let’s at least allow some to be."
- Which again shows that none of the people in this debate know what they're talking about. Check the "philosophy of art" or "aesthetics" bookshelf at your libraries, people - I'm quite sure there's not a single definition of art launched within the last 100 years that excluded the possibility of a game being art.
See, games, in my opinion (and I'm pretty passionate about them myself) contain artistic elements and some games contain more of those than others (I also find the idea that game making is artistic - something beyond rules and mechanics keeps me playing Civ far longer than I should) but I also subscribe to the notion that art is the creator conveying a greater meaning.
That's my personal or subjective definition of art and so many games fall so short of this it's hard for me to elevate games into that category.
What this probably boils down to for me is that, to me, it doesn't matter if games are ever considered art by society in general. I don't need society to tell me what to like and why and when it comes to games I'm FAR more concerned with playability, mechanics, and fun then I ever am with higher purpose or any meaningful message the developer is trying to convey.
Or to counter Pichi's argument above... one of the definitions of art can be unpleasantness. Lots of wonderful, meaninful, and enriching artworks (films, books, paintings) can be unpleasant as experiences - but that doesn't detract from their meaning and value. I can't imagine playing a game like that and enjoying it.
I had an idea a while back whereby everyone watching a film got to vote at certain points (hand held controller, x options) as to which direction it should take.
Now I know it's silly at the end of the day, cost, complexity, people being retarded generally amongst others. Also that it would no longer be a normal film either and the built up immersion would probably be out the window. You could do it quick though, everyone gets 5 seconds to vote say while a character ponders something.
But it wouldnt have to ruin the plot necessarily, just at certain points you got to influence a characters actions based on what you yourself might do? The rest of the film would then roll from there. Maybe with future choices to be made.
It's possible anyway, even if not likely. DVD extras could take on a whole new life. See many different versions that you missed in the cinema!
Even back in the day I can remeber a few games trying to fuse games with art that weren't the most pleasant either. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Seed_(computer_game)[/url] For example.
Gameply wasn't particuarly pleasant either as I recall...
What do you mean agreeing that games (or many games) aren't art? I'm sorry, but I don't consider ALL movies as art. I thought that the Transformers movie was awesome. It had great special effects, awesome action, and even a decent story with some funny moments. It was not art. The Lord of the Rings trilogy was art. I didn't find Gone With the Wind particularly interesting, but it was art.
The same applies to games. Madden 20XX is not art. Final Fantasy 12 was art. Halo is arguable, but probably not really art. To me its a question of IF games can be art. Ebert arrogantly claims they aren't. And (though I haven't read his sports counter argument) I don't think that is a relevant point. They are completely different. Let's compare the Rain forest to a steak dinner since we're at it.
The point is: Not all art is art. Let's at least allow some to be.
Some of the greatest artworks conveying lighting were painted for the sole purpose of practising; some of the most beautiful and expressive paintings were simple portraits commemorating some person with no deeper meaning intended; som of our most beloved statues were crafted because somebody paid for them to be made according to their specifications;
some plays that we consider classics were considered drivel in their time because mere satire wasn't REAL ART; the dramatic tales from Greek days were scorned as non-art because they fictionalized and trivialized the stories of the gods, etc.;
novels were not deemed art in their nascent days because they were cheap, tawdry, had no moral the Victorian times considered worthwhile, and supposedly drove young people to horrific acts in emulation; comic books originated as a form of entertainment, and still isn't accepted as art by more stodgy sorts who ignore the masterpieces of meaningful dialogue in the light of pure entertainment comics which they can't accept as art, and by the above definition, like most paintings, aren't art;
when movies originated, they were considered pure entertainment and foolishness with no possibility of artistic merit; most Hollywood movies today are meant to be entertaining with little if any "redeeming social value" or deeper meaning; when what we consider classic music came out in its earliest days, it was scorned because it wasn't telling a story the way opera and such did, and today's contemporary music frequently has no story or moral but instead is purely entertaining, shallow, or story-driven.
The problem with denying videogames a classification as art for any of the reasons people put forth is that, if those standards for qualifying as art are used, most of what is accepted as art must be stripped of that title as well.
When we use any classification system for art that permits all of the other art forms to qualify, then videogames meet all the criteria--and some videogames being sheer entertainment with no deeper meaning no more disqualifies videogames from being art than similar examples deny plays, music, novels, other writing including poetry and comic books, movies, or sculpture/3-D art the qualification of art. Holding a double standard so that all the accepted art forms still qualify despite having the same detractions as videogames have is short-sighted and willful blindness.
You can still have fun with movies and books, so why exclude games from art? Games can be as much as as the other type of medias. If something touches you and emotes with you, then it can art to you, IMO.
Art is a word that has no specific meaning, it has many meanings but the main one that comes across often is "a form of work done by a human"; which describes virtually every expression of art that exists, and this meaning can apply to video games as well.
Some critics, and I think even Steve Kent mentioned before (I'll try to find the old article) is that games may not be considered art anymore when you get into non-linear games, while linear games can be considered art.
I want games to get deeper, but I feel that some factors impair the creativity that exists. For example, its been proven that making a new franchise sells less and thus, lower profits...; while old franchises (even long ones like FF) sell like hotcakes. With the old demographic of gamers becoming even more of a minority, I worry that many titles won't push the envelope of being great so they can focus on attracting the new demographic that Nintendo has been grabbing...
There seems to always be development houses that take the risks, and I'm glad they do, so I try my best to support them (looking at you pandemic ;o)...
Meanwhile, a few new franchises come out this month.... so give them a try! :)
In some of my fiction set in the future the theater experience is much like a videogame or multiple-ending film. You can pay extra to rent or buy glasses that allow you running control of the plot through audience voting. You can buy a cheap seat and just watch, or have even more deluxe glasses that allow you to chat with others outside the theater or inside via text during the movie. I see movies going into this direction, especially as physical actors become replaced more and more with digital models of the actors. One day instead of being paid for the performance an actor may only be paid for their likeness, unless they want to continue the fine work of pros of motion capture like Andy Serkis.
I look forward to the future of films and videogames, especially zombie and vampire in focus. Hell, before long you may be able to pay to watch a movie where a character based on your own digital likeness is a hero or a villain thrust about a wild plot. That or be in a videogame more than a mere Mii or customized skin. Your glasses could render you in on the fly inside a matted area set aside digitally to accept ranging models. Or a smaller party could all be in a movie with other characters, on top of skins a top pre-rendered or motion captured action. Or it could be like some crazy live voting experience in a crowd where you vote on one another's chances to star in key parts of the movie. They already make custom children's DVDs with older technology, but it would have to be more live to really keep people's attention.
Ah...the future. :)
As for complaining that games have a prescribed ending, I've not been able to change the ending of any DVD by watching it repeatedly. You don't know a game's ending until you finish it - and there can be plenty of plot twists along the way.
RE4 had probably the best developed story of any game I've played in the last few years. Simple it may be but the continuation and the characters/bosses/locations are fantastic. It deserves a place in the zombie hall of fame along with the best films imho.
Games will also only get deeper and more complex as time goes on, the industry is still in its creative infancy although many impressive titles have allready been released.
For me, the idea of games as art includes everything that goes into the game, much like what a culinary chef would concern himself over. The design process and technology just puts me in awe. The worlds inside a game are great but the whole effect, even that fresh cart/console plastic smell really tips the balance for me.
We care because a influential critic dismiss video games as toys and a pointless medium,we care because we grew up with video games and shared many memories with mario the doom guy sonic and Sir Daniel Fortesque shared their joys and pain, and now in this day games have gone beyond the 2 dimensional backdrops and charatcers while I might rant on the core of gameplay devolving games have very much become the new hollywood and take as much effort to bring to the lil screen.
To simply dismiss it all as the old guard dismissed the world being round,or the earth revolving around the sun, we care because if we do not care then it will always be dismissed and no change will come.
..Nice dig on the screen play too.
Of course he only listed those, he can't risk leaving openings for the uninformed to do research.
That said, Steven Kent effectively owned that statement.
and IMO, we should just revoke the definition of art altogether, because there are just too many ways to interpret it. Like in Family Guy when Chris became an artist, and did a work of his dad instead of what his mentor wanted, they went ballistic and said it wasn't art, even if the image had some feeling behind it.
The First Amendment doesn't protect art, it protects expression. What you're talking about, the SLAPS (Serious Literary, Artistic, Political or Scientific merit) test relates only to obscenity legislation. It's part of the three part Miller Test that was established to determine what is obscene and, therefore, not protected speech.
EVERYTHING is protected speech unless it's obscene. Please people, if you're going to have this dialog then educate yourselves.
Start here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_amendment
Then this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
Then this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel
And this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imminent_lawless_action
Here's an issue with 'games as art' that is very relevant and should be considered. Anything that has political or artistic value is protected under the First Amendment. Movies, plays, books, paintings, music, etc. have this protection. It allows the creators to say what they want to say, however they want to say it.
By dismissing an entire medium as not art, you are dismissing anything within that medium that does actually have artistic merit. The government is trying to use back-door censorship on the games industry 'to protect children'. This makes the status of games as art is very important. It is once again an example of a generation in control not understanding a newer medium that is gaining popularity every day.
If you compare Final Fantasy VII to movie BaseketBall, which one really should be considered art? Don't get me wrong, I love BaseketBall, but aside from some subtle social commentary, Final Fantasy VII is much more artistic. Why should it not have the same protections as BaseketBall? I'm not saying the Final Fantasy VII is a game that is controversial or is in need of protection, but it's a clear example of a video game being able to outshine a movie. Why should video games be dismissed when so many movies aren't worthy of the title of 'art'?
-throws up hands-
I respect Ebert - he's earned his chops Vally of the Dolls or not. I mean, come on people, show a little respect to the most successful and influential critic in the history of the world whydon'tcha? Sure, he's old, out of touch, and doesn't play games... but he's not an idiot. And I think he wrote a decent argument about this.
I like Kent and his argument is pretty good too, FWIW. I also like his book.
But you know what? Why the F*** do we even care?
See, I don't want game devs to even think for a second about how the medium of the videogame is percieved versus other art forms. Don't. Please don't. Just make them good, innovative, fun, and worth the price.
When I put a game in, I'm not looking for art. I'm not looking for a meditation on the human condition. A subjective experience. Or any of the other "college circle jerk" claptrap.
I want them to be fun.
I can see both sides of this debate and I don't care. I want games to be fun. Period. That's the only goal developers should have. Lets leave the pretention to the other mediums. So, any developers reading this, don't worry about what Ebert thinks of what you do. Don't worry about anyone but gamers really. Just keep making games fun and leave the silly labels out of it.
If you ask me, and at the risk of offending people here, I think the debate isn't about art at all. It's about GAMERS being insecure and wanting to wrap the art label around their hobby so they won't feel so insecure.
Shrug it off!
Play some games!
Have fun!
Let the weenies (no offense intended to Ebert or Kent) debate the things that don't matter.
This is a very important issue to make game developers.
haha burn!
I'm with Mr steve kent on this one.
Ebert is just on the wrong side of history, which is truly ironic.
This is an excellent counterpoint. I originally accepted that Ebert was right because he was describing it as not fitting the current definition of art, but his insistance on the matter is a snobbish "my opinion is a fact, and your opinions don't matter." Fortunately, opinion decides art.
Paul,
I'm not sure if I've ever told you, but Roger Ebert has never enjoyed my greatest confidence. He strikes me as a bit of a pompous, arrogant old git. So, when he says that video games aren't art because they're interactive
(read his ramblings at http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/articleAID=/20070721/COMMEN...), I have to give a bit of intellectual scoffing. I need you to play mediator for me, because I know you'll tell me if I'm just being an ass.
Look at this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Leda.jpg). What do you think if you don't know what it's about? If no interpretation is given to the art, it's some goose-on-lady action from the Rennaissance. It is in fact Michelangelo's version of the myth of Leda and the Swan. Is interpretation of a source interaction? And if not, is Michelangelo's masterpiece just cheap Italian porn?
I thought it sounded a bit silly in my head. Tell me what you think.
-G.
Part of my responce (which I typed up late at night):
Hmm... you hate him huh? I never really pay attention to the guy. But I have heard of this infamous rant. Though I haven't read it or heard it.
Game as art. That's another thing I try to comprehend. Even as I type this at 11:53 on a Sunday night, I argue with it. But lucky for you, I have just reached my final opinion.
Video games ARE art. On many levels. Alot of games not only have these pretty graphics (Gears of War, Metal Gear Solid 4) and art styles (Okami, No More Heroes, Geometry Wars) but great storylines and writing. Legend of Zelda and Final Fantasy are examples. Somewhere in the game industry, clogged with dime-store concepts and 'dur violence kil kil kill lol' its great to know there are some companies who usually accept these ideas.
The art can be used as a showcase for the artists who took part and the writing the same thing.
They actually tried that a few years back. It didn't work. Imagine if you're always outvoted by the rest of the audience - not exactly a pleasant cinema experience.
When I go to a movie I'm looking to experience something created by someone else - I don't really want input. I'm not looking to be creative in a move but I am looking to enjoy a creative experience.
"Yes, players can determine which team will win the season in the Bigs or the outcome of a fighter’s career in Fight Night, but that is part of what makes those art—they bring sports to life."
He is suggesting that recreating an experience is art and that's simply not true. It is certainly the height of craft and reflects a mastery of the tools and materials available but it is not art. Artistry may well be involved in the process, though.
That brings up another point. Because a work may include many aspects that are, on their own, art that does not mean that the completed result is art. As you add more medium layers to a work you exponentially increase the required mastery to successfully craft a work of art.
I think games have the potential for great art, but I'm not sure any have achieved that yet (although I'd be willing to argue for Ico, perhaps). But the potential is huge, because they can tell stories in a way no other medium can, and Ebert is, of course, a moron.
do really bad movies still qualify as art? if so, i think games qualify
what square and most of the other companies do is art.