Ebert:"Video games are an inherently inferior medium"

[Zadoc]

In an article written by Pulitzer-prize winning film critic Roger Ebert. Ebert expresses his opinion about video games. In the article Ebert states that he believes video games are inherently inferior medium to film and literature, and will never really be considered "art"

From MR. Ebert's emailbag.




Q. I was saddened to read that you consider video games an inherently inferior medium to film and literature, despite your admitted lack of familiarity with the great works of the medium. This strikes me as especially perplexing, given how receptive you have been in the past to other oft-maligned media such as comic books and animation. Was not film itself once a new field of art? Did it not also take decades for its academic respectability to be recognized?

There are already countless serious studies on game theory and criticism available, including Mark S. Meadows' Pause & Effect: The Art of Interactive Narrative, Nick Montfort's Twisty Little Passages: An Approach to Interactive Fiction, Noah Wardrip-Fruin and Pat Harrigan's First Person: New Media as Story, Performance, and Game, and Mark J.P. Wolf's The Medium of the Video Game, to name a few.

I hold out hope that you will take the time to broaden your experience with games beyond the trashy, artless "adaptations" that pollute our movie theaters, and let you discover the true wonder of this emerging medium, just as you have so passionately helped me to appreciate the greatness of many wonderful films.

Andrew Davis, St. Cloud, Minn.


--------------



A. Yours is the most civil of countless messages I have received after writing that I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.

I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.


Linky: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=ANSWERMAN

My response:

After reading the article, a quote from struck me: "Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control."

With the great video games the directors and producers do have complete authorial control over the unfolding events, the plot, the story the dialog, and every aspect of the piece. To allow for interaction the plot may be broken so that the player must either solve a puzzle or defeat an enemy or number of enemies, but these tasks must be done in order for the story to progress. In a game that is truly art - as art is defined - the player has no actual "choice," the player is merely along for the ride and is a helpless participant in the story, romance and adventure that the developers writers and directors intended - just as in film.

I present one of the, if not – the - greatest piece of art in the video game medium: Panzer Dragoon Saga (Sega Saturn, 1998). This experience was an eighteen-hour emotional thrill ride with plot twists and character development that is rarely seen in Hollywood. I was personally more touched by this experience than almost any move that I have seen since. In this imaginary post-apocalyptic world the development team went as far as to invent their own language so as not to lose the sense of realism in the story.

As for becoming more cultured, many of the most artistic games hail from overseas. The cultural influence that Japanese game developers are having on US culture won’t fully be seen for several more years, but with the rate of games with complex story-arcs and in-depth character development coming from Japan, I suspect that writers and directors in Hollywood in the next generation will have had heavy influence from the video game medium.

I personally believe that interactive stories are more artistic and emotionally involving than movies are even capible of being.

[s1lence]

So according to Ebert, video games are for the uncultured. Sweet!!! LOL

[KingCobra]

So according to Ebert, video games are for the uncultured. Sweet!!!

LOL!

Screw Ebert

[njiska]

Three words.

Metal Gear Solid.

[rbudrick]

Thril Kill11!!!1~!!

Sna Andreas!2!!@!!!!!~1

-RO b

[Ed Oscuro]

Yes, I skimmed through it and saw that quote as well.

Bah. Ebert doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about, if you pardon my French. Take Killer 7 (yeah, I know I talk about it too much, but it's the best example I can think of). You've got only one real choice to make for the whole game (aside from choosing to fail the mission). Resident Evil 4? No choices - you're just running along a set path, finding your way. Games are by their very nature all about authorial control; sandbox games like GTA rarely have the polished feel that a linear title will simply because offering choices in games means you need more assets, and even GTA will steadily progress towards a grand finale.

Gamers hate this sort of thing, which is why people delight in "sequence breaking" games like Super Metroid. We like choices. Game designers hate them in the sense that they draw out the development process and complicate bug fixes (oh god, memories of Fallout 2 here).

Some games are more noticably linear than others, but the majority of person-based action games are linear.

[DJ_DEEM]

Thril Kill11!!!1~!!

Sna Andreas!2!!@!!!!!~1

-RO b



HAHAHAHHAH don't forget that new 50 cent game....thats MAD CRAZY FRESH ART FROM TEH STTTTRRREEETTTSS
talkingg bout my ghtetto thugs growing up and killing haters with rocket launchers just like fiddy did in real life! MAN THATS ART!

[kevin_psx]

Ebert should play Final Fantasy 10.


That story ran circles around the lame movie by the same name. FF10 is just one of several examples where game stories are better than movies.

[Snapple]

Roger Ebert gave the Ice Harvest a thumbs up, so what does he know?

[Push Upstairs]

He never played "American McGee's Alice".


I never listened to him about movies so why start when he discusses video games?

[exit]

Silent Hill 2 is another good example, despite the multiple endings, the entire story unfolds nicely and turned into something much more satisfying than majority of the movies released in recent years.

[Vectorman0]

Three words.

Metal Gear Solid.
Exactly what I was thinking. This guy obviously isn't speaking from experience, just from what he has heard from CNN.

And you forgot the sequels which are even more like a movie.

I'm inclined to say that video games are superior. There is major potential which has ben finely shown by the works or Kojima amongst others. Even if most games are pretty bad, the same can be said about movies.

[James]

Video games by their nature incorporate every known aspect of art into one streamlined medium, that is why all of us here love them so much. Roger Ebert really shouldn't be one to judge, he said it himself he has very limited knowledge of video games in general and we all know how stupid you can make yourself feel if you start talking logistics about something you know very little about.

[drummy]

Fuck Ebert, he's an idiot.

[smokehouse]

Give it time. As the hardware gets more powerful and the graphics finally catch up with the game’s content, you will see this turn around. Many, many people still think of the NES when it comes to video games. The 8-bit bleeps, bloops and chunky graphics have been replaced with vibrant colors, amazing soundtracks and compelling storylines, most just fail to realize it.

Games like Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy X, Zelda and others are prime examples of games that are as compelling as movies (and in many ways, more engrossing). One thing that Ebert points out is the control over the story. I consider this to be an evolution of entertainment, you don’t just watch a movie, you take part in it. He was right that games are different from movies and books, he was simply wrong on it being a lesser for of art. The public will come around with time, they just don’t know that yet.

[orangemage]

has he even played a video game in the last 10 years?

[Daniel Thomas]

I wrote about this on V-TNG, and it seems this thread only reinforces what I wrote.

Currently, I'm reading Crime and Punishment. Movies I've recently seen include The Red Shoes, Nights of Cabiria, Juliet of the Spirits, Ivan the Terrible (Parts 1 & 2), Alexander Nevsky, For All Mankind, Salesman, and The Searchers. I'm also now watching Isao Takahata's 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother.

I also happen to have a Nintendo DS, and have killed time with Metroid Pinball, Mario Kart, Tony Hawk, and Castlevania. It's a fun way to waste time, but I'm aware that videogames are, in the grand scheme of life, a waste of time. It's a Hershey Bar, and I'm not foolish enough to pretend that it's the equivalent to a full meal.

I think that when young people make claims of artistic greatness to games, they're starved for the real thing. Also, I don't think criticisms from the grown-ups would sting as much if they weren't far off the mark.

[Kid Ice]

This is coming from someone who's been sitting in the dark for about 40 years watching movies and scarfing down popcorn, people.

Decent writer, but still. If you ask me videogames are inherently superior to movies and especially television, because of the interactive/problem solving/goal achieving/socializing aspects.

[unwinddesign]

I wrote about this on V-TNG, and it seems this thread only reinforces what I wrote.

Currently, I'm reading Crime and Punishment. Movies I've recently seen include The Red Shoes, Nights of Cabiria, Juliet of the Spirits, Ivan the Terrible (Parts 1 & 2), Alexander Nevsky, For All Mankind, Salesman, and The Searchers. I'm also now watching Isao Takahata's 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother.

I also happen to have a Nintendo DS, and have killed time with Metroid Pinball, Mario Kart, Tony Hawk, and Castlevania. It's a fun way to waste time, but I'm aware that videogames are, in the grand scheme of life, a waste of time. It's a Hershey Bar, and I'm not foolish enough to pretend that it's the equivalent to a full meal.

I think that when young people make claims of artistic greatness to games, they're starved for the real thing. Also, I don't think criticisms from the grown-ups would sting as much if they weren't far off the mark.

In the grand scheme of life is a very broad statement. Most forms of "entertainment" can be seen as little more than blips on the radar of life. Then again, they can be seen as huge ones as well -- it's all how you classify them.

Everything we do can be classififed as a waste of "time."

Personally, games like Deus Ex really changed the way I thought, looked and examined the world I live in. If that's not some form of art, then I don't really know what is. No literary work has had such a profound effect on me, nor has any movie that I've seen done that. The fact that I was the main character unravelling a massive conspiracy was the key element in the whole process.

[Rob of the Sky]

Is gaming art? I would say that it is. But what is art? Art is a subject that differs from person to person. I believe that art is a showcase of a person's creativity. The medium of which he/she showcases their creativity is entirely their choise. Whether they write a book, sing a song, draw a picture, film a movie, or program a game, they are making art. Granted gaming is a newer medium compared to literature, drama, visual art, or music, but it's still artistic in nature. A typical video game requires a story, believable characters, many twists and turns, images of the characters and backgrounds, music, etc. All of these elements are considered art, so why shouldn't video games be considered art. That's why I believe that video gaming is art.

[DJ_DEEM]

if some of that abstract stuff i see at museums can be considered art why cant this? just look at it for the style, hell i think games with neat graphics such as katamari are just as much art as anything else, but hey what do i know i enjoy movies such as die you zombie bastards and jesus christ vampire hunter.

[Hypnotuba]

It's kind of interesting to think about whether games are art, but I personally don't think it matters. Games don't need to be "legitimized" as art to have value. And are all movies or music considered art by default? Is "Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo" art? I honestly have never seen it; I'm just using it because it seems to be considered to be dreck, and Roger Ebert hated it. No offense to anyone who may like it.

But I can't imagine watching that movie would be a better use of my time than playing Shenmue 2, or Rez, or any number of other games that have I have enjoyed and been moved by.

So, if you want to say that terrible movies are still art, but brilliant games no matter how well executed aren't. . .that's fine, but who gives a crap? The experience that the brilliant game gives you would be much more valuable than the terrible movie.

Many games have made a lasting impact on me for different reasons, from Ultima IV or Metal Gear or Rescue on Fractalus when I was young, up to now with games like Eternal Darkness or Radiant Silvergun or Jet Grind Radio. My life is better, even if it's in a small way, for having played these, and other games.

Many albums and movies have made a lasting impact on me as well. . ."Close To The Edge" by Yes, "The Flat Earth" by Thomas Dolby. . .and movies like Metropolis or Head (the Monkees movie. . .seriously. . .no, really :))

My life has been improved by all those games, movies, and music. The movies and music don't have greater value to me than the games, so it doesn't matter if games are art, or if games are, as Roger Ebert put it, "inherently inferior"

Whoa. . .that is one long-winded post. . .I should change my username to Windbagnotuba. . .???

[squidblatt]

I wrote about this on V-TNG, and it seems this thread only reinforces what I wrote.

Currently, I'm reading Crime and Punishment. Movies I've recently seen include The Red Shoes, Nights of Cabiria, Juliet of the Spirits, Ivan the Terrible (Parts 1 & 2), Alexander Nevsky, For All Mankind, Salesman, and The Searchers. I'm also now watching Isao Takahata's 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother.

I also happen to have a Nintendo DS, and have killed time with Metroid Pinball, Mario Kart, Tony Hawk, and Castlevania. It's a fun way to waste time, but I'm aware that videogames are, in the grand scheme of life, a waste of time. It's a Hershey Bar, and I'm not foolish enough to pretend that it's the equivalent to a full meal.

I think that when young people make claims of artistic greatness to games, they're starved for the real thing. Also, I don't think criticisms from the grown-ups would sting as much if they weren't far off the mark.

I completely agree with you.

The only way I can see video games becoming art is if they cease to be seen as narratives and start being examined as a kind of Human/Computer Interaction.

[Crazycarl]

Ebert is a good critic, but like most critics they really don't see the video game as an art form yet. Mainly because it is such a new art form (i balieve the art didn't come in the 70's but closer to late 80's and 90's) and it's still in its infancy so it still very sceptical of a media. People also must realize that the industry did crash, so I can't blame for Ebert for seeing it this way. The other problem is the constant crapping out of unoriginal material by the buisness. Constant clones of games of games with little to no art to them (GTA comes to mind) also might have persuaided his desision.

I love games with great artistry and stories that of great novels and movies. That's why when I get into the industry that will be my main focus. But for people who wonder what i think which games are of gread artistry here is my list:

Ico (of course, some of the best art direction i have seen, and a fantastic story to boot.)
Shadow of the Collosus (never felt that bad about playing a game.)
Beyond Good and Evil ( very good about political conspiracy)
XIII (very good story, and art style with the cel art. i wish they made a sequal)
Jet Set Radio (very good modern music, and very clever art style)
Metal Gear Solid 1 2 and 3 (Some of the best story telling out their right now)
Fatal Frame (great at horror, I balieve better then any horror movie out to date)

and many more i promise, these are a few I love.

[njiska]

Ebert is a good critic, but like most critics they really don't see the video game as an art form yet. Mainly because it is such a new art form (i balieve the art didn't come in the 70's but closer to late 80's and 90's) and it's still in its infancy so it still very sceptical of a media. People also must realize that the industry did crash, so I can't blame for Ebert for seeing it this way. The other problem is the constant crapping out of unoriginal material by the buisness. Constant clones of games of games with little to no art to them (GTA comes to mind) also might have persuaided his desision.

I love games with great artistry and stories that of great novels and movies. That's why when I get into the industry that will be my main focus. But for people who wonder what i think which games are of gread artistry here is my list:

Ico (of course, some of the best art direction i have seen, and a fantastic story to boot.)
Shadow of the Collosus (never felt that bad about playing a game.)
Beyond Good and Evil ( very good about political conspiracy)
XIII (very good story, and art style with the cel art. i wish they made a sequal)
Jet Set Radio (very good modern music, and very clever art style)
Metal Gear Solid 1 2 and 3 (Some of the best story telling out their right now)
Fatal Frame (great at horror, I balieve better then any horror movie out to date)

and many more i promise, these are a few I love.

There's more to this art form then just story, there's also presentation and game play. Just like movies have cinematography and effects.

The problem is that no one can truely define what is or isn't art because art is after all a subjective term.

Prehaps a better question would be the one that EA is founded upon, "Can a videogame make you cry?" Can a game inspire emotion in players the way that a movie or book can?

[Sothy]

He probably just sucks at video games.

[Crush Crawfish]

I could care less about one man's misguided and uniformed opinion. Art is, of course, relative; Though I'd suggest Ebert take into account some of the best examples of artistic video games (Such as Shadow of the Colossus, Killer 7, and Chrono Trigger) before he makes a generalization on an entire medium.

****SPOILERS FOR SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS AHEAD****

Personally, I beleive video games are superior because of the interactive elements presented within them. For example, let us take into account the example of Shadow of the Colossus. Your main task in the game is to defeat the 16 colossi and save the girl. However, at the end of the game, you learn that the colossi were actually protecting the pieces of a demon known as Dormin, and by killing them you have released a great evil from its prison.

Now, I personally felt geniunely gulity after this revelation. The creatures were only doing their duty, and it was I who brutally slaughtered these gentle giants without so much as a second thought. This feeling, of genuine gulit and remorse, is simply not something that could be acheived by a non-interactive medium such as film or literature.

***SPOILER END*****

I'm not discrediting other art forms. I'm simply saying that each individual medium is capable of acheiving its own form of expression. It's simply not fair to compare two entirely different forms of artistic expression and then conclude one to be "superior" or "inferior." In art, there is no such classification. There is only difference.

Sorry about the long winded rant, but this is something that i'm rather passionate about. I beleive video games to be one of the most underrated and misrepresented art forms in existence, so I'm just letting off a bit of rationalized steam. :)

[portnoyd]

He probably just sucks at video games.

Pretty much.

He has admitted before that he doesn't play them. So how would he know? Authorial control is a monstrous copout. That's like saying a director's cut ending makes a good movie bad. He's just afraid of media and expression taking a new path. You've never had a choice - you could never control the story's destiny, and now you can.

Let's translate that response of his:

"I don't know much about videogames, nor do I play them. Since I never care to experience them, they must not be good enough compared to the material I review."

I mean, honestly. Do you want us commenting on how the movie industry is utter shit right now? That the decline in tickets sales is directly related to the shitfest invading movie theaters? How about we shit all over your medium?

No one has cited a game that is on par with the holier-than-thou works he holds in such high regard? According to whose standard? His?

Beyond Good & Evil? The insanely layered story of MGS1-3? Is anybody home?

He finds them wastes of time, he says it right at the end. End of story. He won't try them, his answer is a copout, and he can't be bothered.

Hypocrite.

[le geek]

Never say never, but for the most part he's right. But it could happen in the future.

The bottom line is this, Most Narrative Videogames (and most of the games mentioned in this thread) are still trying to mimic Films (and summer blockbuster/comic book films at that). Unless/until they find their own paradigm, they won't grow as a medium.

I would argue that ICO and what I've read about Shadow of the Colossus are heading in the right direction.

Cheers,
Ben

[mezrabad]

I'm actually pretty torn by Ebert's statements, not because of who said them, but because they're not obviouisly flawed and ridiculous.

How does a great work of music make us more civilized, cultured or empathetic? Don't get me wrong, I love music, classical or otherwise, but one of the reasons I appreciate it is for its intricate beauty, lots of parts working together to make an experience that can literally make me cry. But what does it teach me about the human experience other than that beauty can fill me with a joy that moves me to tears?

Can't a game do that? Or is it just devices from other disciplines within a game that move us? Is Ico beautiful because of the artwork? the music? the story? or the gameplay? Is the gameplay a work of art or is it just a vehicle to move you different areas so you can appreciate the scenery, hear more music and advance the story?

Whatever. I can't dismiss it and I can't accept it.

[sirhansirhan]

Ooh, this topic is like cake for me. Some background: I'm an employed film critic, I teach film at the college level, I have a BA and an MA in film studies, and I help program a film festival in my town. And yet, I'm here, so I obviously like video games to an arguably obsessive degree. (Also, I was there at rogerebert.com weeks ago when Ebert first wrote the comments quoted in this thread.)

Here's my initial, pared down response:

1) Video games are an art form, without question.

2) Video games are capable of being as great an art form as any other.

3) This one is key: Video games are not now and will not in the foreseeable future be as great an art form as the current major art forms. The main reason for this is the narrow marketing--while novels and music and films and television shows and paintings etc. etc. are spread all over and directed at every audience conceivable, the vast majority of video games are directed at young-ish males. Now, before you hit the "quote" button and argue with me, I realize that there are a number of games directed at non-young-ish-male audiences, and that wider-than-anticipated audiences often embrace the games the developers targeted at these young males. Regardless, the ratio is way off compared to other mediums, and (again I'm speaking in generalities) games not directed at young males tend not to do as well on the market.

That said, I think anyone that argues the story of any video game is greater than the best novels, films, or whatever is more likely than not severely uneducated. Comparing video games to films is like comparing pornography to films at this point (filmed pornography, that is; and yes, I am aware that porn films are still officially films); while the vessel is there to create great stories, the product is almost always aimed at our short attention span-having, instant gratification-seeking culture, and it is just too much trouble to make the effort of writing a good, innovative story when going straight to the fucking is way easier.

Do some video games have great stories? Yes. Is the judgment of art forms subjective? Yes. Meaning: arguing about this is a pretty fruitless endeavor. Ebert is a film critic and defends films; you guys are gamers and you defend video games. Everyone's logic checks out to me.

[Ed Oscuro]

That said, I think anyone that argues the story of any video game is greater than the best novels, films, or whatever is more likely than not severely uneducated.
That's true, but that's not all he said. The reason game stories are usually so far behind novels and films is that those multimillion-dollar budgets are being spent on non-story content, quality assurance, marketing...everything but hiring a professional screenwriter, usually. There also are conventions modern games adhere to that can limit a writer's ability to produce a compelling story (especially if they're unfamiliar with game production or wanted to create an epic with dozens of characters, as Sudo 51 wanted to with Killer 7), but this isn't an inherent flaw in the medium.

[Famidrive-16]

Thril Kill11!!!1~!!

Sna Andreas!2!!@!!!!!~1

-RO b

man he tottally hasne't played crash bandicoot raceing that game kix a$$

[Gamereviewgod]

I posted a piece on this over at Blogcritics. It's not the piece, but the discussion in the comments has been solid:

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/12/06/004047.php

[Ed Oscuro]

The reason game stories are usually so far behind novels and films is that those multimillion-dollar budgets are being spent on non-story content, quality assurance, marketing...everything but hiring a professional screenwriter, usually.

LOL Seen a lot of movies lately? I do and guess what, that's exactly how most of those million dollar budgets are spent also. And when they do get it "right", it's often b/c it's based on proven material.
Yeah, definitely.


...his reasoning (“no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.”) would disqualify enough movies to the point that the local Blockbuster could be run out of a coat closet
Well put! LOL

[Push Upstairs]

(anyone who thinks 'Domino' is worth watching needs a catscan...)

Maybe he just likes seeing Keria Knightly's boobies (well, what *IS* there anyway.)

It's hard for anyone to consider what is and isnt art because there isnt a fine line that defines "Art".

The problem I find with Eberts opinion is that he seems to have focused on the plot aspect instead of either the art contained within the game or even the music that goes along with it.

I suppose one could say that the plot is important but its been previously noted that not every movie thats churned out qualifies as "art" either.

[Rev. Link]

I never listen to what any critic has to say about movies, so why should I listen to what this guy has to say about games?

Besides, I don't care one bit about games being considered "art". I just want them to be fun.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Considering what "Art" has devolved to in my lifetime I'm rather pleased to not have great games lumped in with "Art" such as the portrait that one guy made of The Holy Mother out of elephant poop. Whooho!

Gaming story arcs however for the most part, in agreement with Ebert here, are complete shit IMO. I just don't look to video games for an engaging plot/story... WHY? I'm not in the practice of setting myself up for dissapointment, that's why. Once bitten twice shy... **coughFF7cough** I mostly play games to excercise my mind (strategy/puzzle) or reflexes (fighting/beatemup/shmup). Video games (in tha past and currently) play very well to these experiences.

I'll admit there are games that tell a story, where the story is the focus of the game... but, I feel, these games will come into their own at a later point in time. When will a story focused video game interest me? When it follows a story structure without that "led by the nose" feeling and reduces the campiness and horrid dialog by 40 fold. I haven't seen anything on the "All your base" scale recently so it appears to me that there is hope for the future.

In short Ebert should have said that Video Games have not reached the point of "Art" but may... given time. I belive in the future he may have to eat his own words.

[lendelin]

Ebert is right – and terribly wrong! Right in his analysis of the fundamental characteristic which sets games apart from any other form of entertainment and art, wrong in his assertion about the potential of games to become ‘art’ based on a traditional understanding of it. I find the quote interesting not because of his criticism but because he points to a very important challenge of game design today.

UNIMPORTANT:

Reading through the thread, there are misunderstandings a plenty.
Getting rid of the most common misunderstandings:

1) Ebert does not question that there are bad and ridiculous movies, nor would he deny that poems, novels or movies are forms of entertainment; therefore the reference to Adam Sandler movies misses the target of his valid criticism.
2) He doesn’t put up a strawman by comparing Hamlet the drama to Aquaman the game, neither should we compare ‘Shadow of the Colossus’ to ‘The Waterboy.’
3) It is not a question of marketing games to teenagers or the origins of games as a kids business. Ebert denies games the potential to become art, no matter how much they mature or how long they will be around.
4) It is not a question of the elusive ‘art is in the eye of the beholder’ and the longstanding historical discussions about what art is and is not over-stuffed with certain ‘qualities,’ neither is he an educational dictator; rather, Ebert presents a very open-minded, minimalistic and therefore inclusive understanding of art;

however it is a very longstanding, traditional concept of art which necessarily excludes new media, and that is exactly the crux of his reasoning.

IMPORTANT:

Ebert points to a very fundamental characteristic of games which traditional art critics never came to grips with: INTERACTIVITY. A movie, opera, poem, statue, painting or novel is permanent, unchangeable, static. Independent of necessary different perceptions and interpretations of the audience (whose existence is also a big condition for art), the created object is fixed and closed. The artist creates something, and it cannot be changed once released to the public. It doesn’t matter what we think about it, where we put it, how it is used, or intentionally or unintentionally mishandled (text left out, painted over, etc.) or what specific purpose it fulfills. The object itself is there and cannot be changed.

This understanding of art is rooted in the emphasis of the artist and his creation who always has control over his art. This is what Ebert meant by “authorial control,” it is there even for movies which are a big team effort. In the end, the director decides what goes into a movie, how it goes into a movie, and what is left out. Even as a team effort, no matter how many make important decisions, the movie itself cannot be changed.

Games are not unchangeable by nature. Games are interactive, after all they are games and meant to be played. The created object is not static. Reading, listening, watching are passive in relation to the object, playing changes it.

This is absolutely true and it is not an issue of new sandbox games where gamers are given more choices. These choices are illusions anyway because smart gamedesigners lead the gamers on a hand giving him the feeling of making choices in a very limited setup which leads to the same restricted goal.

It is a matter of Galaga and Super Mario Bros. As soon as you play athese games, the game is never the same. It changes. It depends how well you play it, gives you choices how fast you play it, and the created object itself is not static. The object itself changes based upon who plays it. After all, if there were no choices and the object itself wouldn’t dramatically change through interactivity, game designers of every era wouldn’t struggle with the fine line between challenge and frustration.

This is fundamentally different from different perceptions of static art objects due to intentions, temporary emotions, intelligence, and other factors of the audience. No matter where, when and who looks at a van Gogh, the object itself is always the same. Same goes for the text of a drama no matter which director and actors interprets it.

@ gamereviewgod: This is the reason why your criticism in your blog isn’t valid. Games give you choices indeed, and a director or writer can change the object, even in a second edition or remake, but it is always his decision. The passive audience has no influence over the object. However, your criticism is valid when it comes to identification with the story, but this is a different issue going beyond Eberts starting point. You emphasize the possibilities and variations of the perceived story by an audience based upon the decision of the same artist (pacing, storyflow, and in the end identification with game content), Eberts definition of art is based upon authorial control of the presented object and intentionally excludes perception. As soon as YOU stress the potential different decisions by the same artist in order to capture similar real life problems and invoke emotions, Ebert would say: “Exactly! The decision of the one who creates the object is what makes it art!”

Geez, I wrote too much. Dang. My apologies to the ones who actually read it. I’ll leave the following to another (shorter) post tomorrow.

The Q remains: can games be art despite interactivity? I’d argue they are art BECAUSE of interactivity. Games are not less, they are more and can open possibilities directors, poets, writers and composers can only dream of.

The secret lies in its character as an all encompassing medium which can be changed by gamers. One of the problems is story telling; but the intent of games is also to present a ‘challenge.’ We cannot reduce games to good stories told, this would mean a cheap copy and mimicking of novels and movies.

The puzzling problem is: how can challenge and good storytelling be married? How can stories be incorporated into gameplay so we play (and do NOT change) the story and not merely watch it? Or are they exclusionary? Can both be achieved without compromising one of them? There are indicators that game designers are on a good way to achieve this goal.

It is a hard nut to crack, but in the end we’ll have games which are not called games anymore, virtual playfields worthy of comparisons with a classic by Dickens and Goethe; and Ebert and a lot of other intelligent people might apologize. :)

[Ed Oscuro]

How can a view on the proper definition of art be simultaneously open-minded and closed to new entries?

[Icarus Moonsight]

The puzzling problem is: how can challenge and good storytelling be married? How can stories be incorporated into gameplay so we play (and do NOT change) the story and not merely watch it? Or are they exclusionary? Can both be achieved without compromising one of them? There are indicators that game designers are on a good way to achieve this goal.

My point exactly... though your post is infinately better phrased than my own. :D


How can a view on the proper definition of art be simultaneously open-minded and closed to new entries?

Two words: Elitist Pricks

[Tron 2.0]

Ebert is a grizzled old man meh :P

Now if he said video games that are made into movies, as being the worst thing "hollywood" has ever done... i'd agree with him then ;)

Ebert needs to stick reviewing movies.. and nothing more don't 'quit your day job bub ;)

[Gamereviewgod]

Games give you choices indeed, and a director or writer can change the object, even in a second edition or remake, but it is always his decision.

But doesn't the game maker do the same thing? You can't do ANYTHING outside of what they created. For instance, in NBA Jam, I can't run out of the stadium and begin battling a storm of orcs. So while the game may be played in different ways, it's still a closed experience.

[Ulticron]

*HIGHLY SARCASTIC* Yeah there's no effort put in video games, I mean it's not like people spend countless hours desigining and programming these games. No craftsmanship what so ever and no plot either. Definately not art.

Ebert is a pretentious prick that doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to video games. One of my majors was computer programing and I can appreciate the hell these game makers go through. Not to mention even the simple old games like SMB have a plot. He admits he knows jack about games yet he makes snap judgements about them. When he gets a degree in computer programing and graphic arts design and has produced about a dozen video games and played and beaten about 100 games then he can open his mouth and say something, in the meantime he needs to do himself and the world a GREAT BIG FAVOR and shut the hell up!

Ebert doesn't know a good movie when he sees it an he certainly doesn't know shit about games!

PS: Sorry for the extreme profanity, but I REALLY hate this bloated, worthless prick.

[Dahne]

Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.


What is it about games that makes people perfectly willing to acknowledge that they have no idea what they're talking about, and then act as though they're an expert?

I think the best example is Metal Gear Solid 3, in the fields near the end (you know what I mean...). Hideo even said, you have no choice, the character has no choice, you don't want to do it, but you have to.

I consider movies inherantly flawed just by the problem of length. Two hours is just not long enough to get to know a charcter enough to really care about them. That's the beauty of the anime series; you've got so much longer to build your characters and story. Games are the same. That's why all the movies are based on games with no storyline to speak of; the good ones would never fit into that tiny restrictive format. There's never been a movie that broke my heart in the way MGS3 did, and I highly doubt there ever could be.

[lendelin]

How can a view on the proper definition of art be simultaneously open-minded and closed to new entries?

Because Eberts definition is a minimalistic and very broad one and therefore inclusionary as possible; however, he would probably agree that authorial control is certainly not enough for art, there has to be other qualities, otherwise a cookbook would be literature and art.

Where he is narrow minded is the interactivity question which necessarily excludes games. He does not overcome the big separation line between the audience and the art object.

[lendelin]

2) He doesn’t put up a strawman by comparing Hamlet the drama to Aquaman the game, neither should we compare ‘Shadow of the Colossus’ to ‘The Waterboy.’

By his own words, that's exactly what he's doing.


No. he doesn't say take the best of one field and compare it to the worst of the other field which would be a cheap shot. He says take the best of the best of the two fields and compare them, and one of them doesn't come even close.


The story is the same, and it always unfolds

the same way. The only "fork" in the road is if you are killed (and the story ends prematurely).

Limited choice is still a choice and changes the object. The story might be the same and is independent of players choices, but games don't consist of stories alone. The game (according to Ebert the wannabe art) is still changed by the player. (see also response to gamereviewgod below)


If I walk out of a theater during a movie, throw popcorn, yell, hit the screen with a laser pointer - the movie I was watching is still art, even though it wasn't the intended experience.

Yep, your experience is different, but the movie itself is still the same. You can influence your own experience with the movie, you can stand on your head watching it or throwing an egg at the screen, but you cannot influence the movie.


What of movies that allow you to incorporate alternate scenes/endings, alternate sound tracks, alternate camera angles? You can watch the Matrix and configure it so that a little icon will appear at certain points in the movie, and you can choose whether to click on it and learn more about a particular scene, or to simply ignore it.

Still, the shot alternate scene cannot be changed by you, and the director might explain why he left the scene out. A commentary doesn't change it, it is an interpretation and information. The content of the movie cannot be changed by you.


Who's to say art can't be interactive?

That is the question -- Ebert says, and he might be wrong.


If you've ever seen a group of musicians jam (and I'm talking a true jam), any one person can alter or completely change the style and direction of the music.

The changes and improvisations are made by the performing artists, not by the listeners (audience). The art object is still finished and closed and thrown at the audience. I cannot influence game design unless it is intended as such (but I can influence the game) -- like in RPG maker; but then you become the artist, the finished product is there, and ready to be played and changed by gamers.

[Joker T]

Who gives a crap what he says? He gives every movie 2 thumbs up @_@

[lendelin]

Games give you choices indeed, and a director or writer can change the object, even in a second edition or remake, but it is always his decision.

But doesn't the game maker do the same thing? You can't do ANYTHING outside of what they created. For instance, in NBA Jam, I can't run out of the stadium and begin battling a storm of orcs. So while the game may be played in different ways, it's still a closed experience.

The intended choices for games are still choices influencing and changing the game as it is. It is not static. Limited choices do this as well. The problem applies to Galaga and to Fable. If someone creates intentionally an object which can be influnced, changed by the audience by giving them two or thirty choices, it is still an open object to be played with.

The point is that games can and should be played in different ways, always, from the beginning of Baers Brown Box. That is their nature, and Ebert says this prevents them from being art.

The crux of Eberts reasoning is that there is a big separation line between audience and art object, and neither the artist nor the audience can cross it. While art depends on the existence of an audience, they are strictly separated. As soon someone crosses the line, he becomes artist or audience.

To play devils advocate:

1) Lets assume van Gogh intended his paintings to be played with, is ist still art? If we had the choice to put the sun one inch to the left or right, remove or add a figure in the background, make the famous dark blue sky of van Goghs paintings a bit lighter or darker, does the concept of art still work? We certainly can influence games this way.

The point is that art is something exceptional, has certain qualities to it, which isn't the gift of everyone. I'm sure Ebert is heavily against the 'democratization' of art which says everyone can be an artist, every creation is art. (which was challenged in particular in the sixties)

2) Aren't you the one who wrote in a very good post (!) some time ago that todays games give you too many choices (save points, weaseling out of challenges) so they become too easy? If a game designer gives you so many choices which changes the game experience dramatically and alters the game (within the limits and chosen game design), doesn't he give up authorial control in Eberts sense? The game can or cannot have linear simplistic challenges, but is it up to the gamer (audience) which alters the quality of the game itself.

Again, the audience (gamer) becomes part of creating the object, it is in flux, it is moving, it is not closed and finished and therefore not controlled by the game designers, the separation line between artist and audience is blurred.

The Q is: is this limitation or a new possibility for art which some artist actually dreamed of?

[Gamereviewgod]

Still, the shot alternate scene cannot be changed by you, and the director might explain why he left the scene out. A commentary doesn't change it, it is an interpretation and information. The content of the movie cannot be changed by you.

Now, I see where you're going with that. However, it is up to the person to select that scene. By choosing to play a new moment, it could radically alter the film. No, we're not changing the actual filmed product, but we are making the decision to change the pacing, and dependent on the scene, alter the work as a whole.

For instance, in one of the classic screw ups in film history, there was a deleted scene in Die Hard that explained why Bruce Willis's shirt ended up turning black. Everytime I watch the movie, for most of the second half, all I can think of is WHY that guys shirt is black. If that scene was reinserted via DVD, it does change the film overall and gives it a better feeling of cohesion (and why that shot was removed I'll never know).


Lets assume van Gogh intended his paintings to be played with, is ist still art? If we had the choice to put the sun one inch to the left or right, remove or add a figure in the background, make the famous dark blue sky of van Goghs paintings a bit lighter or darker, does the concept of art still work?

This contradicts what you said about the DVD. It's not a major change, but it is a change.


Aren't you the one who wrote in a very good post (!) some time ago that todays games give you too many choices (save points, weaseling out of challenges) so they become too easy?

Yeah, that was me, but I'm not entirely sure how it applies here.


If a game designer gives you so many choices which changes the game experience dramatically and alters the game (within the limits and chosen game design), doesn't he give up authorial control in Eberts sense?

Just by touching the controls we're giving up "authorail control." To what extent doesn't make a difference in this debate, at least I don't see how it does.


Again, the audience (gamer) becomes part of creating the object

Not really unless there's an extreme case not coming to mind. For instance, in Roller Coaster Tycoon, I can create a park anywhere I want, but I can't hire someone for the drink stands. It's still a confined world by the rules.

[Richter Belmount]

nani desu ka?
Killer 7?(which someone has mentioned before I havent been more confused in my life than with that little piece of art im still trying to figure out its story.
But I Ebert enjoyed the hell out of harry potter or chronicles of narnia(seems to lord of the rings to me) and chicken little, or yours mines and ours.

[Dahne]

He says take the best of the best of the two fields and compare them, and one of them doesn't come even close.

I have never seen a movie that moved me anywhere near as much as MGS3 did.

[Ed Oscuro]

Now, I see where you're going with that. However, it is up to the person to select that scene. By choosing to play a new moment, it could radically alter the film. No, we're not changing the actual filmed product, but we are making the decision to change the pacing, and dependent on the scene, alter the work as a whole.
This is simply a possibility opened up by games. You can't change the pacing of a game of Gradius, and in the world of 3D games there are still many ways of determining a game's pacing - at least as many as were had in the days of 2D.

[Tron 2.0]

Who gives a crap what he says? He gives every movie 2 thumbs up @_@
That's why roper is there to give 2 thumbs down :evil:

[lendelin]

Still, the shot alternate scene cannot be changed by you, and the director might explain why he left the scene out. A commentary doesn't change it, it is an interpretation and information. The content of the movie cannot be changed by you.

Now, I see where you're going with that. However, it is up to the person to select that scene. By choosing to play a new moment, it could radically alter the film. No, we're not changing the actual filmed product, but we are making the decision to change the pacing, and dependent on the scene, alter the work as a whole.


By the same token you could argue that fast forwarding changes the movie, or starting in the middle of a novel, or skip a section of a novel "radically alters" the novel.

Every added and offered scene in itself is still a finished product which cannot be changed or influenced by the viewer. You cannot change actors, their clothing, the pacing or the dialogue. In a game the mere offering of a bonus level or a voluntary side mission isn't what Ebert meant with giving up authorial control; as soon as you play the bonus mission, THAT is what changes it and makes it open compared to closed.

You can hop in SMB2 in various directions, destroy enemies or avoid them, there is a lot at every moment in the game you can do, and that is the essential part of the game. It is interactive. The frame is the game design and the choices programmers give you. Limited choices are still choices which alters the game.

Show me an interactive novel, statue, or movie. Show me a novel where you can change the text. Show me a movie where you can change lightning, camera angles, dialogue, or the appearance of actors, then you convince me.


For instance, in one of the classic screw ups in film history, there was a deleted scene in Die Hard that explained why Bruce Willis's shirt ended up turning black. Everytime I watch the movie, for most of the second half, all I can think of is WHY that guys shirt is black. If that scene was reinserted via DVD, it does change the film overall and gives it a better feeling of cohesion (and why that shot was removed I'll never know).


see above, the added scene can still not be altered by you.


This contradicts what you said about the DVD. It's not a major change, but it is a change.

The example of the van Gogh painting is the equivalent of a game, that it can be changed was my point, and it doesn't contradict at all what I said about DVDs.


Just by touching the controls we're giving up "authorail control." To what extent doesn't make a difference in this debate, at least I don't see how it does.

That is exactly Eberts point. The extent doesn't play a role according to him, he's very rigid, but it sure did in your original blog which you contradict now: Limited choices, ok, but still enough control to be qualified as art. (blue key here, yellow key there, but the game still leads you the same goal, the door)

...and I agree with you here!!!! That is one of the keys where you can get Ebert: how much control is enough? I think he used a very rigid measure of authorial control, and therefore his criticism about games is valid, no question. But do we really need such a radical concept of authorial control for art?

Why in the world can't art be interactive to a certain degree?

...and from there you get to the Qs which really interest me for game design: stories told with gameplay not movies; invoked emotions and identification with game content through gameplay not texts or movie sequences (if someone cries over a movie sequence, he still cries over a movie not what makes games games: interactive gameplay); the balance between challenge and good stories told (linearity of stories versus the nonlinear gameplay).

...after all, I don't wanna make up stories in a game, that would be ridiculous, they should be told to me, and that means I have to play them. Can we actually play a story and not just read or watch it in a game?

It is easier for game developers to say let's make a game with a good challenge than lets make a game with a good story; and every movie sequence in a game is for me the failure of game designers to let me play the story elements. Game designers don't pay enough attention yet how powerful, multilayered, and engrossing stories in games can be. I would hang over every game designers bed the sentence 'whatever can be played should not just be told.'

Instead of focusing what makes games great and sets them apart from other forms of art and entertainment, game designers stuck in a rut copying movies and novels. How ridiculous and embarrassing would it be if we had during a movie pick up a controller and push a button? It destroys every cvareful pacing, tension build-up, identification process with the movie, but still we accept it for games to sit through a movie sequence; which does nothing else to interrupt, not enhance, the identification with an interactive game.

...and about Ebert: there is a belittling component in its comments about games by not acknowledging the potential games have. It is true that no game has yet the complexity, elegance, wisdom, new thoughts or self-reflecting level good novels or poems or movies have. It would be ridiculous to compare the best games to a Dickens novel, or Thomas Mann or a Rilke poem. lets face it: stories in games are still a poor excuse for focusing on gameplay.

...but game designers getting there. Games will overcome the childish 'safe the princess' story and already are on the way to tell good stories. But they have to be played. The scriptwriter for games, which will develop in the next twenty years for games going beyond hiring just professional authors once in a while (Indigo Prophecy, Advent Rising), acnnot make a good game. like the scriptwriter for movies cannot make a good movie. It is up to game designers to figure out how to incorporate stories into gameplay.

...and then games may be regarded art even if game designers aren't eager to be regarded as artists. Sometimes I ask myself, why in the world are we gamers so eager that games are acknowledged as 'art?' Why do we want these great little things we enjoy so much to have such a social recognition? Can't they just be games?

Do we really need the acknowledgement of the ever flip-flopping artsy-fartsy types who in one decade regard 'Dirty Harry' a terrible, trivial and dangerous fascist movie, and one decade later discover its artful qualities at French film festivals?

By not going this route of eager acknowledgement, it is my belief that games have every potential to be as great, entertaining, intellectual, engrossing, and mind-inspiring as great novels and movies. There is no fundamental obstacle which can't be overcome to achieve this goal. They can be as silly, trivial, just entertaining, and artful as every movie; and this will happen in a very structured corporate environment as well as with an independent developers scene with new and innovative ideas which then will be tarnsformed and swallowed by corporations; and the same cycle will start from anew.

Don't follow intellectuals, let them follow games. There is no doubt in my mind that games have a potential movie directors can only dream of. In the sixties there wre artists and art forms which tried to overcome the big seperation line between audience and art object. (happening scene, statues and mobile sculptures which could be played with and changed, theatre which required the input of the audience). It seems that in the least of all places this goal might be realized -- with the former so silly, disrespected, playful and childish videogames.

Historical research about games and the industry, the interpretation of games already srtarted as well as the unaviodable and necessary nostalgia. The former is in its infancy, and so is interpretation becasue academics didn't come to grops with interpretation methodology for games which is in some aspects diofferent than interpretations for written texts and movies; but it started already and is on a good way.

I wouldn't desperately run after the recognition of art critics. If they follow games and take them seriously one day, that is good enough for me.

[lendelin]

@lendelin
We obviously have different definitions as to what art is. I say something can be art regardless of whether or not there's an audience for it. If Mozart or Van Gogh destroyed their works instead of sharing them, that doesn't mean what they created wasn't art.

There is no art without an audience. Write the best poem, put it in a drawer, never read by someone, it is not art. It needs the communication with an audience. Not a very intuitive idea, but it still holds up.


Typically, most famous artists only become famous after they die; while they're alive their works are often ignored or ridiculed. Years later when people accept it as "art", it's only because their perceptions have changed, not the artist's works.


Typically, there are as many famous artists which are highly regarded during their lifetime and their art survives death as are ignored or ridiculed ones which gain critical acclaim after they died. Rubens lived like a nobleman in Amsterdam while Rembrandt had a short period of recognition, and died in poverty. Some are good businessman, some are not. Boecklin was regarded as THE painter of the century, he's still important, but the overlooked Gauguin is regarded today rightfully as much more influential for the 20th century than Boecklin. Andy Warhol is celebrated, he might be forgotten in 50 yeras, that is the uncertainty of an artist, and the uncertainty of important politicians.

Ridiculed, 'ignored' or failed art has an audience, otherwise the art wouldn't be ridiculed or failed to be acknowledged. Overlooked art like the paintings of van Gogh or Gauguin had an audience, both were exhibitioned in galleries in Paris, however, their paintings didn't sell. The brother of van Gogh tried to get him acknowledged, he failed. However, the artists did expose their art to an audience.

Ups and down in perception of art during an artists lifetime and after death is a given. In all of these cases, authorial control remains. If perception is constantly in flux but the art itself remains the same, isn't that one of the big key elements of authorial control?

With your other evaluations I completely agree. (see post above)

[Ed Oscuro]

Typically, there are as many famous artists which are highly regarded during their lifetime and their art survives death as are ignored or ridiculed ones which gain critical acclaim after they died. Rubens lived like a nobleman in Amsterdam while Rembrandt had a short period of recognition, and died in poverty. Some are good businessman, some are not....Andy Warhol is celebrated, he might be forgotten in 50 years...
I have a hard time imagining Warhol forgotten, as much as I'd like to...on the note of the old Dutch painters, I have to note that there are also tons of painters whom, while being highly regarded in the art circles, don't get nearly the same recognition as Reubens and Rembrandt (for example), despite having comparable works.

The whole illusion of the "most masterly of the master painters" comes crashing down a bit, I think, when you see what some of their contemporaries did. Rembrandt still gets the edge as many of his contemps weren't as good with light and creative grouping of their subjects, as evidenced by the picture hanging opposite Rembrandt's "Night Watch" in the Rijksmuseum: The Meagre Company (http://www.rijksmuseum.nl/aria/aria_assets/SK-C-374?lang=en&context_space=aria_themes&context_id=7164)

When you're face-to-face with the paintings, though, brushwork makes much more of an impression. I'm also quite infatuated with the non-Vermeer (though those are great also) Dutch still lifes.

[Cryomancer]

Since when does art need an audience? And even if it does, the artist saw it. so there's an audience. It's perfecrtly reasonable to have personal art i would say.

[lendelin]

Since when does art need an audience?

It always did. Art needs some kind of public discourse. Art is about the discourse of contextual messages.


And even if it does, the artist saw it. so there's an audience.

It is not about the artist and what he takes in, it is about the art object exposed. If you never read the best poem ever written to someone else and you are the author, you can walk around in public and they know you, but they don't know your art. There is no 'personal art.'

[lendelin]

Every added and offered scene in itself is still a finished product which cannot be changed or influenced by the viewer. You cannot change actors, their clothing, the pacing or the dialogue.

Getting back to games for a moment, let's examine laserdisc games. A large number of them, such as Cliffhanger, use footage from previously-released movies. Once a joystick is attached to it, it's no longer "art"? Doesn't it still fit your criteria? What if the footage used was Casablanca or Gone With The Wind? I don't see how that would 'de-artify' something.


Ebert would say absolutely not, this is not art. Me, who would give up some extent (very unspecific, I admit it) authorial control say: I don't know since I never played a laserdisc game. It all depends to what extent you can change the essential content of the movie.

If it is just footage in between game sequences (like Lord of The Rings by EA) I'd say yes, these sequences are still art in its own right. Not as a movie by Peter Jackson becasue they are put in a completely different context into another medium with a very different function than just to be viewed. They are expositions of interactive gameplay. In the new context they are art because I regard games as a medium withe every potential to be art.


So if I can sit down and paint an accurate reproduction of say, the Mona Lisa, I couldn't consider myself an artist unless I showed it to someone? How many people constitute a valid 'audience' then?


First, if you copy the Mona Lisa, you are just a copycat (if it is a exact replica) or it could be potential art if you make enough changes and give it your own touch which is then an idependent interpretation of it (which was done, authorial control over your potential art remains).

...and if you don't show it to someone, yep, it is not art. It is a strictly private affair. There is the possibility that sketches and outlines done as practice never see the public light becasue the artist chooses to withheld it, but still these objects are done in order to go public. If they are revealed after the artists death to the public, yep, then they become art.

Art is about the public discourse of contextual messages. If it is just about you and the Mona Lisa which never is shown to someone else, then this is a personal love affair or nightmare, but not art.


How many people constitute a valid 'audience' then?

One, just one.

Geez, these are difficult hypothetical Qs. This is like asking is masturbation sex? :)

[Gamereviewgod]

and about Ebert: there is a belittling component in its comments about games by not acknowledging the potential games have. It is true that no game has yet the complexity, elegance, wisdom, new thoughts or self-reflecting level good novels or poems or movies have. It would be ridiculous to compare the best games to a Dickens novel, or Thomas Mann or a Rilke poem. lets face it: stories in games are still a poor excuse for focusing on gameplay.

I'm confused. Are you saying just the story portion of a game is art? Ebert just gave a general reason, and I'm not so sure he was focused on the story. At least, that's not what I took from it. I think visually alone games can pass as art.


This is like asking is masturbation sex?

Well? ;)

[njiska]

This is like asking is masturbation sex?

Well? ;)

Yes it's a one-some.

[lendelin]

and about Ebert: there is a belittling component in its comments about games by not acknowledging the potential games have. It is true that no game has yet the complexity, elegance, wisdom, new thoughts or self-reflecting level good novels or poems or movies have. It would be ridiculous to compare the best games to a Dickens novel, or Thomas Mann or a Rilke poem. lets face it: stories in games are still a poor excuse for focusing on gameplay.

I'm confused. Are you saying just the story portion of a game is art? Ebert just gave a general reason, and I'm not so sure he was focused on the story. At least, that's not what I took from it. I think visually alone games can pass as art.

No, that is not what I'm saying, but I admit I'm guilty like many others of focusing on stories in this debate. I noticed it is all about stories when it comes to the Q if games might be regarded art sometime, and this is a big bias, even a misconception of games.

It is (like I did) loosing the focus on the most important aspects of games by emphasizing story content: games are an all encompassing medium, only comparable to opera and movies in this regard. Music and sound, dialogue, visuals, story and plot, even text, form one impressive product, and it is truly unique because of interactivity.

This is exactly the main problem of reviews of games: we necessarily distinguish between the common deprtments of game reviews, (which is very practical and makes sense) but few reviewers can pull it off to evaluate the interdependency of the compartments and can't show how and why they are in balance or not -- which is the most important part of a game experience. The often written sentence that the game is more than the sum of its parts is not enough.

I think the focus on story happened because 1) it is the most unresolved problem of game design, and 2) because it is the most powerful tool besides game control to achieve identification with content. (sound does it, graphics too, but even in movies the emphasis is on a good story told)

What is strange about the Ebert quote is his emphasis on visuals when he says: "That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept."

Why is that? Why not as a musical experience? Why not as an experience of a moving story? Why did he pick 'visuals'?

I think this bias is an indicator that Ebert underestimates games as an all encompassing medium (given that his definition excludes games necessarily) because he has limited experience with games. After all, the first thing you see in games are visuals, and they are mighty impressive in the meantime.

This is a good start that games will be accepted and taken seriously sometime. Not even an Ebert can deny that graphics in games can at least "aspire" to artistic importance. Not bad at all. :)



This is like asking is masturbation sex.

Well? ;)

I leave that to the Supreme Court and Hilary Clinton. ;)

[lendelin]

This is like asking is masturbation sex?

Well? ;)

Yes it's a one-some.

Yep, and if you do it in public, then masturbation becomes art.

[njiska]

This is like asking is masturbation sex?

Well? ;)

Yes it's a one-some.

Yep, and if you do it in public, then masturbation becomes art.

Unless you're Paul Reubens that is.

[Ninja Blacksox]

Movies I've recently seen include The Red Shoes, Nights of Cabiria, Juliet of the Spirits, Ivan the Terrible (Parts 1 & 2), Alexander Nevsky, For All Mankind, Salesman, and The Searchers.

So.

You only watch Criterion DVDs?

Oh. And "The Searchers?"

Heh.

Guess what?

Ebert is correct.

Oops!

-A Boy

[Promophile]

Ebert gave Gigli a passing review. can we really trust his judgement?


http://movies.yahoo.com/shop?d=hv&cf=info&id=1808404170

[Nature Boy]

I read Mr. Ebert's stuff all the time, and what struck me as his best point was this: time. Video games that require massive amounts of time to complete (like any story driven RPG) can't compete with a 2-3 hour movie. It just requires too much commitment, and as such won't be taken seriously as an art form.

(I'm paraphrasing of course but the gist is correct).

I have to admit I agree with him. However I also don't care if video games are considered art or not. It's just a lable, and I care not a whit about it just like I don't care if someone wants to label my favourite band as Pop or Punk or Alternative or Rock - it's the thing itself that matters, not the label.

[sirhansirhan]

I read Mr. Ebert's stuff all the time, and what struck me as his best point was this: time. Video games that require massive amounts of time to complete (like any story driven RPG) can't compete with a 2-3 hour movie. It just requires too much commitment, and as such won't be taken seriously as an art form.

(I'm paraphrasing of course but the gist is correct).

You know, I'm an admirer of Ebert's work, but this specific point of his (and now yours) stuck out as being particularly ill-informed. What about, you know, books? One of my favorite novels of all time, Infinite Jest, took me in the neighborhood of 40 hours to read.

[Dimitri]

I couldn't help but think of how music, movies, and games all share one thing in common: Corporate publishers trying to make money off a medium, and independent creators (dirctors, writers, musicians, programmers...) working their hardest to expand the bounds of their medium, subsequently having their work swallowed up by the corporate publishers.

It really shouldn't be the medium that dictates what is and isn't "art", it's the subjective experience. And my subjective opinion is that anything that requires imagination can be art. Even ingenious computer code can be art, I'd say.

Or going by the classic definition, when you watch a debugger run, it can be quite trippy and make you space out. ;)

...what an aimless post this was...

[Berserker]

Ebert should stick to what he knows. I'm betting there were people just like this who said the same thing about film when it was still new and fairly unexplored. They're from a completely different era, failing to grasp the scope of what something new is truly capable of.

It doesn't really matter much anyway, since it's likely that he, along with most of us are probably going to be dead and buried before it comes into its own and is truly recognized as a powerful artform, and the people of that time will have this along with some other silly quips to point and laugh at when it's so plainly obvious by then, seeming equally as silly as someone saying "film has no capacity to be an artform!" now.

That's my guess anyway.

[Nature Boy]

You know, I'm an admirer of Ebert's work, but this specific point of his (and now yours) stuck out as being particularly ill-informed. What about, you know, books? One of my favorite novels of all time, Infinite Jest, took me in the neighborhood of 40 hours to read.

A valid point, and I'm sure we could find all sorts of instances where, say, a complete body of work (like the Lord of the Rings trilogy) takes far longer to watch than, say, playing Ico does through to completion. Or point out that the movie Titanic lasted longer than the actual sinking of the ship did, but on the whole I'd still say that the initial point is valid as stated.

[GarrettCRW]

Funny thing happened on the cover of the new OPM:

"The OPM Interview-Hideo Kojima!

'A Videogame is not art.'"

I swear, you can't make stuff like this up. ;)

The poster takes no responsibility for Mr. Kojima's comments. Though he did laugh his ass off for a hot minute.

[Berserker]

Hideo Kojima is a badass.

[Ed Oscuro]

I read Mr. Ebert's stuff all the time, and what struck me as his best point was this: time. Video games that require massive amounts of time to complete (like any story driven RPG) can't compete with a 2-3 hour movie. It just requires too much commitment, and as such won't be taken seriously as an art form.

(I'm paraphrasing of course but the gist is correct).

You know, I'm an admirer of Ebert's work, but this specific point of his (and now yours) stuck out as being particularly ill-informed. What about, you know, books? One of my favorite novels of all time, Infinite Jest, took me in the neighborhood of 40 hours to read.
Great point.

Furthermore, I'd point out that people who really know art - say the paintings of the Dutch Masters - spend far more than 2-3 hours observing just one painting. I could spend 2-3 hours in the Rijksmuseum looking at the Night Watch alone (not to mention many of the other paintings by Vermeer, and certain still lifes), and by then I'd probably learn the brush strokes and other subtle details fairly well. Few people can do this because, first of all, few of us are in a position to simply take a bus to Amsterdam; secondly, there are crowds to contend with.

I think this is actually one of the points where electronic entertainment is superior to prerecorded media such as films or audio: you can spend as much or as little time with something as you wish, if this is the designer's intention. Riven is a decent example: you can spend hours toying with things. Movies suck in this regard: some people inevitably will think certain scenes aren't presented in enough detail, and others will think that the same scene drags on too long. A movie director is always able (theoretically) to simply place an image on the screen and let it sit there while the audience soaks it in, but if it hangs up there for more than 10 seconds people are going to be annoyed.

Knowing you can simply walk away from the image completely alleviates the problem.

Of course, I can always walk out of a movie I don't like, or switch to a different podcast.