In trying to prove that video games are art, Kellee Santiago uses as examples games which are trying to be art in a way that compares with film. It's not surprising that when comparing these games to film, using that framing, that Ebert would find it lacking.
But what about a classic game like Super Mario Bros? It doesn't have a complex story told on wordy fortune cookies, it's not trying to force a particularly complex emotional experience, and it's not beautiful in the way of modern games. However, I'd still say that it's art. A different kind of art. One that's not comparable to film as so many examples here are.
Look at Mario himself: There are so few pixels to work with but not only is he clearly a human, he actually has character. From his overalls to his 3 pixel mustache. The world itself is a unique fantasy of plumbing, princesses, and mushrooms. The music, due to technical limitations, is a bunch of repetitive beeps and boops but is infectious and never gets annoying even after days, months, even years of playing. The shrubs and the clouds are the same -- something that went unnoticed by players for decades. The first 5 seconds of the game shows you, not tells you, everything you need to know to play it. It's beautifully designed. But it's not the same kind of art Ebert is critiquing here and it's not the kind of art that Santiago portrays either.
Seems to me that as an outsider to gaming Ebert, whom I respect, misses out on many gaming opportunities. I'm not sure what lofty definition of art he is using but I've played games that run the entire emotional spectrum. Cinematic games like Uncharted 2, reflective games like Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, funny games like Monkey Island, 'art house' games like Braid, suspenseful games like Resident Evil. These games cover many systems over a long stretch of time, to expect a movie critic to keep up would be asking too much. But he should understand that this would be like me, a casual movie watcher, saying Citizen Kane is boring.
Shadow of the Colossus was indeed very artsy, but I think its prequel Ico was better by miles and miles. Also the perfect argument against Ebert's take on video games.
A trailer of some sort: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQ-0vqHAro
Really just a gesamtkunstwerk. The soundtrack, the choreography and the storyline really work well together. The game falls under a puzzle genre I believe.
I agree wholeheartedly save for that I would have picked other examples for good suspenseful games, such as Silent Hill or Parasite Eve. More recently, I would add Heavy Rain to that list, though it's a completely different genre-- I've seldom seen a game that can evoke such powerful emotions.
Ebert is criticizing games without actually playing them, just watching other people talk about them. This is like saying movies aren't art, because if all you do is read movie reviews, you will never read a movie review that can compare with Infinite Jest or The Grapes of Wrath.
Braid is better art than any movie that came out last year.
He's saying that video games are games, and that games are not artforms. You don't have to play hockey, or watch hockey games, to say that a hockey match is not a work of art.
Ebert seems to be saying that the artistic elements in a video game (the text, the graphics, etc.) are subsidiary to the over-riding purpose, which is game-play. So, while Braid may contain beautiful images, the primary purpose of those images is to further the game scenario; similarly, where the graceful moves of a Michael Jordan dunk may resemble choreography, and contain a certain beauty, his primary purpose was to put the ball through the hoop, not artistic expression.
If books can be art (as he concedes), then graphic novels like Maus clearly are as well. If graphic novels can be art, it's hard to argue that an interactive graphic novel wouldn't be. Therefore, his logic has be that there's some threshold of interactivity across which you lose your artistic merit. It doesn't make much sense.
In the end I think this is very much like the "comic books" vs. "graphic novels" debate, and his problem is that he (a) doesn't like video games and therefore (b) is very unlikely to be exposed to the vanishingly small number that are conceived of or executed as art.
the author doesn't actually claim its impossible, his main point is that "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets."
I promoted this article not because I think that he's correct, but because I think this article is a brilliant example of a highly intelligent person getting something dead 180° wrong. Ebert is obviously quite intelligent, and a damn fine writer, but he misses much of what makes video games a compelling and beautiful medium for art. Just because one can embed poor prose or low-budget animated cut scenes doesn't mean that the medium is limited to just such things.
Don't tell me that the surreal landscapes of NiGHTS into Dreams weren't art-- I spent many hours as a kid exploring every nook and cranny of those levels all while trying to run away from the dreaded alarm clock. The start of the fourth level of NiGHTS forces you, the player, to make a choice that ultimately draws you into the game even more-- you must trust that you have enough control of your environment to jump off of that cliff and fly. Don't tell me that there isn't art in that beautiful moment when you realize that the rules of the game have changed so beautifully.
Anyone who has played Metal Gear Solid knows how Psycho Mantis' blurring of the fourth wall stretches how you think of playing the game. You, the player, have to make a physical action to get through the battle. Throughout the rest of the game, you are continually making choices about how you get through each challenge-- choices that other characters are aware of and will react to. The impact, ultimately, of such choices is that you empathize with Snake in ways that would not be possible in any other medium.
Others have given many other good examples, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. For my part, however, I will be content to share my 2¢ on the matter and to point attention to this important conversation.
The thing that has always troubled me about Ebert's argument is that its strength seems to depend greatly on the kinds of games you present in rebuttal.
Take board games or sports games, for example. They've been around since the earliest years of civilization. We have played them all that time, but never drew a comparison between them and art like what a painter or musician would produce.
Yet, suddenly it became a debate when we got to video games because we could start inserting all the other art mediums as desired, while still retaining the interactive, unpredictable nature of previous games. And so we go out on this mindless quest to find the most moving games we have ever played and show them to the critics.
I think that what this suggests is that we have to either expand our definition of art to include all the interactive forms(including toys, board games, and sports) or define two kinds of art - the interactive, and the authorial - and view them as complements to each other.
I was waiting for someone to mention Metal Gear Solid! Hideo Kojima's genius is evident throughout the entire game. I remember that the game had me so on edge, I had to drink water and go to the bathroom every 5 minutes. For the whole day.
Moby Dick, written in 1851, wasn't widely regarded as a work of art until after World War I.
To counter Ebert's summary: Why are the self-appointed guardians of the ramparts of canonized art always so jealous in protecting it from being invaded by newcomers? This story has been repeated over and over again with portrait paintings, Impressionism, architecture, novels, cinema, and everything in between. It's an old and tired plot, and one he should certainly be familiar enough with to disdain.
I think it's unfortunate that Ebert comments on games while he has clearly not played them. This is quite evident with his discussions of Braid and Flower.
To answer a question he posed: why do gamers want games to be recognized as art? Because most of us have played some game, be it Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Flower, or another game, and thought, "this game is beautiful." We think the developers of these games deserve accolades and they deserve to have the game recognized for what it is - a piece of art.
I don't wish to insult Ebert - he is a man I admire for many reasons, but I don't really care about his opinion in this case. One man's opinion about whether games are art or not is not of importance to me, especially since he does not appear to have experienced very many games - apart from Chess.
Bingo. So much of the beauty and art to games is shaping the experience of playing them. How can you (to reuse an example) appreciate the artistry of Heavy Rain without holding the controller and struggling with the characters? Much of the gameplay derives from that the awkwardness and sensitivity of the controls are tied to the emotional state of the character, which is difficult to perceive from just watching.
Or, say, tactile sculpture. I'd argue all art requires audience participation. Suspension of disbelief on film, hell any symbol or metaphor in any medium has to be actively analyzed.
I'm surprised that Ebert doesn't see the importance of whether games are defined as art, given what happened to film. In 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that films were not art, and thus not protected by the First Amendment, and therefore may be freely censored. The decision was not overturned until 1952. I don't want this to repeat with videogames. (I wrote about this in one of my own articles: http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2009/12/im-not-evil-i-just-play-... )
Ebert flirts with definitions of art, but never provides his own. This is the biggest problem by far with his essay. Maybe his definition really is something that flat-out can't include videogames. But when he simply says "videogames can't be art" without explaining what he means by art, we can only fill in the blanks with our own definitions. It's no wonder gamers get enraged by this. And they say, "Of course games are art, look at Bioshock/Braid/Flower/etc.!" And Ebert looks at these games not with the gamer's definition of art, but his own, and says, "Of course these are not art."
It's pointless and inflammatory and it can't possibly go anywhere constructive until Ebert defines his terms and explains just what he means when he claims videogames are not art.
Is the game scored? She doesn't say. Do you win if you're the first to find the balance between the urban and the natural? Can you control the flower? Does the game know what the ideal balance is?
Which really does show just how close-minded he is on video games. He's not even approaching looking at them as art, he's just looking for the Win.
I wonder if he judges art by the same standards. Is it scored? Does poking the painting make it change colors? No? I guess it's not art, then.
>Her next example is a game named "Braid" (above). This is a game "that explores our own relationship with our past...you encounter enemies and collect puzzle pieces, but there's one key difference...you can't die." You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game. She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie.
Anyone else reminded of Michael Jordan trying to play baseball?
I started writing a big long winded argument but really, Ebert is trolling here. Creating controversy for his own benefit. His rambling half formed ideas, much use of spurious philosophical definitions of 'Art', make me think he doesn't really believe any of it himself.
I think he believes half of it: that no games rising to the level of good art (let alone great art) currently exist. The rest, where he's forced to tie knots in the definition of both "game" and "art" to prove one can't be the other is a lot iffier.
It's a pity he didn't limit himself to the argument about whether any games which are "good" art currently exist, or else we could be having a much more interesting discussion. Personally I think that Half Life 2, say, is far better than many of the movies to which Ebert gives four stars, but not quite good enough to kick it into the stratosphere of what's truly great.
I guess that video games are probably the hardest medium in which to create great art. It used to be said that filmmaking was the hardest medium since it combined most of the others; music, writing, photography etc. Gamemaking is even harder since you have all those other elements plus the need for gameplay.
The writer has clearly never played one of the set pieces in HL2. Nuff said.
A more expansive answer: the writer dwells a lot on the visual. But remember art is expansive; it is about evoking a reaction in people. I still recall a particular set piece battle in HL2:Ep2(the one in the tunnel with the Antlions) with the building music and tension - brilliant and evocative. Art.
[Games require points to be games, Art does not consist of points, therefore Games are not Art.] This is a fallacy of necessity. I wouldn't take it too seriously.
One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
Ebert's opinion is rather polemical. I sat in on a panel he did a few years ago on this topic but this "points" thing seemed to be his ultimate sticking point. It looks like his opinion has changed much since then.
It's a pity Ebert isn't here, but I wonder if he could be convinced by some crazy examples. Let's take a great film like, say, Psycho. Now let's add a single point of interactivity; Janet Leigh starts taking a shower and you can, playing as Norman Bates (uhh, sorry if I just spoiled the movie for anyone) click one box to go and stab her, in which case you see the rest of the movie, or click the other box to not stab her, in which case you see a title card that says "Marion finished her shower, had a good night's sleep, and escaped to Mexico, married a fisherman and lived happily ever after".
Now, that wouldn't be an improvement on the original (though now I've typed it I kinda want to play it) but is it enough to push it from "art" into "not art"? Let's assume this was the actual original form in which Hitchcock, in a fit of originality, decided to release Psycho in the first place.
I'm not a fan of arguments over vague definitions. However, I've come to believe that something is art if someone believes it is art. Hence, I would say that this author is incorrect.
As much as I love video games, I agree with him. I don't think games can technically be art. Though, they are meaningful.
You have to draw the distinction somewhere. Art isn't a plastic definition, and it is at least generally understood to describe things that translate into our minds, and expand into something more.
The thing that makes a game a game are game mechanics. I don't call game mechanics art in the same way I don't call reality art. Now, I do believe the music in a game can be artful and the story too... but not the thing that makes a game a game. A game is like an enclosure for a lot of wonderful experiences, but I don't see why people are so personally caught up trying to see the enclosure for more than it is. A simulation.
That being said, I do believe that video games are a valid medium to spend your time with. A game functions best when the environment plays a large role, something like an archaeological dig. Exploration games like Myst or Shadow of the Colossus use the medium to it's best potential. There is an awe that those games animate through something like osmosis. You absorb the things in games in a way you simply cannot in any other medium. This has value.
"No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets."
I'd nominate Alpha Centauri -- it profoundly affected me, and linked me to a much greater exploration of human philosophy and scholarship than I might otherwise have encountered.
[+] [-] wvenable|16 years ago|reply
But what about a classic game like Super Mario Bros? It doesn't have a complex story told on wordy fortune cookies, it's not trying to force a particularly complex emotional experience, and it's not beautiful in the way of modern games. However, I'd still say that it's art. A different kind of art. One that's not comparable to film as so many examples here are.
Look at Mario himself: There are so few pixels to work with but not only is he clearly a human, he actually has character. From his overalls to his 3 pixel mustache. The world itself is a unique fantasy of plumbing, princesses, and mushrooms. The music, due to technical limitations, is a bunch of repetitive beeps and boops but is infectious and never gets annoying even after days, months, even years of playing. The shrubs and the clouds are the same -- something that went unnoticed by players for decades. The first 5 seconds of the game shows you, not tells you, everything you need to know to play it. It's beautifully designed. But it's not the same kind of art Ebert is critiquing here and it's not the kind of art that Santiago portrays either.
[+] [-] bmalicoat|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jimmyjim|16 years ago|reply
Really just a gesamtkunstwerk. The soundtrack, the choreography and the storyline really work well together. The game falls under a puzzle genre I believe.
[+] [-] cgranade|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lotharbot|16 years ago|reply
http://www.playauditorium.com
[+] [-] lacker|16 years ago|reply
Braid is better art than any movie that came out last year.
[+] [-] michael_dorfman|16 years ago|reply
He's saying that video games are games, and that games are not artforms. You don't have to play hockey, or watch hockey games, to say that a hockey match is not a work of art.
Ebert seems to be saying that the artistic elements in a video game (the text, the graphics, etc.) are subsidiary to the over-riding purpose, which is game-play. So, while Braid may contain beautiful images, the primary purpose of those images is to further the game scenario; similarly, where the graceful moves of a Michael Jordan dunk may resemble choreography, and contain a certain beauty, his primary purpose was to put the ball through the hoop, not artistic expression.
[+] [-] tptacek|16 years ago|reply
In the end I think this is very much like the "comic books" vs. "graphic novels" debate, and his problem is that he (a) doesn't like video games and therefore (b) is very unlikely to be exposed to the vanishingly small number that are conceived of or executed as art.
[+] [-] dustingetz|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cgranade|16 years ago|reply
Don't tell me that the surreal landscapes of NiGHTS into Dreams weren't art-- I spent many hours as a kid exploring every nook and cranny of those levels all while trying to run away from the dreaded alarm clock. The start of the fourth level of NiGHTS forces you, the player, to make a choice that ultimately draws you into the game even more-- you must trust that you have enough control of your environment to jump off of that cliff and fly. Don't tell me that there isn't art in that beautiful moment when you realize that the rules of the game have changed so beautifully.
Anyone who has played Metal Gear Solid knows how Psycho Mantis' blurring of the fourth wall stretches how you think of playing the game. You, the player, have to make a physical action to get through the battle. Throughout the rest of the game, you are continually making choices about how you get through each challenge-- choices that other characters are aware of and will react to. The impact, ultimately, of such choices is that you empathize with Snake in ways that would not be possible in any other medium.
Others have given many other good examples, and will undoubtedly continue to do so. For my part, however, I will be content to share my 2¢ on the matter and to point attention to this important conversation.
[+] [-] chipsy|16 years ago|reply
Take board games or sports games, for example. They've been around since the earliest years of civilization. We have played them all that time, but never drew a comparison between them and art like what a painter or musician would produce.
Yet, suddenly it became a debate when we got to video games because we could start inserting all the other art mediums as desired, while still retaining the interactive, unpredictable nature of previous games. And so we go out on this mindless quest to find the most moving games we have ever played and show them to the critics.
I think that what this suggests is that we have to either expand our definition of art to include all the interactive forms(including toys, board games, and sports) or define two kinds of art - the interactive, and the authorial - and view them as complements to each other.
[+] [-] oz|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wooster|16 years ago|reply
"Once upon a time there were good American novels and bad ones, but none was thought of as a work of art."
http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7197.html
Moby Dick, written in 1851, wasn't widely regarded as a work of art until after World War I.
To counter Ebert's summary: Why are the self-appointed guardians of the ramparts of canonized art always so jealous in protecting it from being invaded by newcomers? This story has been repeated over and over again with portrait paintings, Impressionism, architecture, novels, cinema, and everything in between. It's an old and tired plot, and one he should certainly be familiar enough with to disdain.
[+] [-] kevinh|16 years ago|reply
To answer a question he posed: why do gamers want games to be recognized as art? Because most of us have played some game, be it Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Flower, or another game, and thought, "this game is beautiful." We think the developers of these games deserve accolades and they deserve to have the game recognized for what it is - a piece of art.
I don't wish to insult Ebert - he is a man I admire for many reasons, but I don't really care about his opinion in this case. One man's opinion about whether games are art or not is not of importance to me, especially since he does not appear to have experienced very many games - apart from Chess.
[+] [-] cgranade|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jjs|16 years ago|reply
I wonder if he's willing to make the same statements about participatory theatre.
[+] [-] r0s|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DoctorProfessor|16 years ago|reply
Ebert flirts with definitions of art, but never provides his own. This is the biggest problem by far with his essay. Maybe his definition really is something that flat-out can't include videogames. But when he simply says "videogames can't be art" without explaining what he means by art, we can only fill in the blanks with our own definitions. It's no wonder gamers get enraged by this. And they say, "Of course games are art, look at Bioshock/Braid/Flower/etc.!" And Ebert looks at these games not with the gamer's definition of art, but his own, and says, "Of course these are not art."
It's pointless and inflammatory and it can't possibly go anywhere constructive until Ebert defines his terms and explains just what he means when he claims videogames are not art.
[+] [-] Groxx|16 years ago|reply
Is the game scored? She doesn't say. Do you win if you're the first to find the balance between the urban and the natural? Can you control the flower? Does the game know what the ideal balance is?
Which really does show just how close-minded he is on video games. He's not even approaching looking at them as art, he's just looking for the Win.
I wonder if he judges art by the same standards. Is it scored? Does poking the painting make it change colors? No? I guess it's not art, then.
[+] [-] dustingetz|16 years ago|reply
so opine the academics, but the video gamers probably beg to differ.
[+] [-] endtime|16 years ago|reply
Anyone else reminded of Michael Jordan trying to play baseball?
[+] [-] kindly|16 years ago|reply
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/11/charlie-bro...
"If you don't play games, you're not just missing out, you're wilfully ignoring the most rapidly evolving creative medium in human history."
[+] [-] r0s|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hugh3|16 years ago|reply
It's a pity he didn't limit himself to the argument about whether any games which are "good" art currently exist, or else we could be having a much more interesting discussion. Personally I think that Half Life 2, say, is far better than many of the movies to which Ebert gives four stars, but not quite good enough to kick it into the stratosphere of what's truly great.
I guess that video games are probably the hardest medium in which to create great art. It used to be said that filmmaking was the hardest medium since it combined most of the others; music, writing, photography etc. Gamemaking is even harder since you have all those other elements plus the need for gameplay.
[+] [-] chaosmachine|16 years ago|reply
Roger Ebert on Braid.
[+] [-] tptacek|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ErrantX|16 years ago|reply
A more expansive answer: the writer dwells a lot on the visual. But remember art is expansive; it is about evoking a reaction in people. I still recall a particular set piece battle in HL2:Ep2(the one in the tunnel with the Antlions) with the building music and tension - brilliant and evocative. Art.
[+] [-] paulgerhardt|16 years ago|reply
One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
Ebert's opinion is rather polemical. I sat in on a panel he did a few years ago on this topic but this "points" thing seemed to be his ultimate sticking point. It looks like his opinion has changed much since then.
[+] [-] hugh3|16 years ago|reply
Now, that wouldn't be an improvement on the original (though now I've typed it I kinda want to play it) but is it enough to push it from "art" into "not art"? Let's assume this was the actual original form in which Hitchcock, in a fit of originality, decided to release Psycho in the first place.
[+] [-] psyklic|16 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RevRal|16 years ago|reply
You have to draw the distinction somewhere. Art isn't a plastic definition, and it is at least generally understood to describe things that translate into our minds, and expand into something more.
The thing that makes a game a game are game mechanics. I don't call game mechanics art in the same way I don't call reality art. Now, I do believe the music in a game can be artful and the story too... but not the thing that makes a game a game. A game is like an enclosure for a lot of wonderful experiences, but I don't see why people are so personally caught up trying to see the enclosure for more than it is. A simulation.
That being said, I do believe that video games are a valid medium to spend your time with. A game functions best when the environment plays a large role, something like an archaeological dig. Exploration games like Myst or Shadow of the Colossus use the medium to it's best potential. There is an awe that those games animate through something like osmosis. You absorb the things in games in a way you simply cannot in any other medium. This has value.
[+] [-] DaniFong|16 years ago|reply
I'd nominate Alpha Centauri -- it profoundly affected me, and linked me to a much greater exploration of human philosophy and scholarship than I might otherwise have encountered.