I’d like to thank Roger Ebert.
The world’s most famous film critic, and noted long-time opponent of the idea that games can be art, has written another article explaining why games are not art, cannot be art and never will be art, at least within the lifetime of anybody alive today. He bases this argument on two assertions: that art requires complete authorial control:
I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist. (…) Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices.
And that games are crap:
[V]ideo games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.
It’s an odd thing to read from the man who once gave a game this glowing review:
The richness is almost overwhelming; there is the sense that the resources of this game are limitless and that no two players would have the same experience. (…) There is the sense, illusory but seductive, that one could wander this world indefinitely. This is a wonderful game.
But I don’t plan to refute it here. I’m just glad to see the status of games being seriously debated in a forum outside the usual gaming websites. That’s not to say Ebert makes a well-considered argument: his opinions about games are based on cursory descriptions and brief clips of game footage rather than personal experience, his attitude is condescending without being well-informed and his reasoning is incoherent; after all these years it’s still not clear exactly how Ebert defines art. However, he at least considers games worthy of serious consideration, above the level of the average scaremongering politician or dismissive opinion writer. That hardly makes him unique, but most of the serious debate about videogames occurs on websites dedicated to games, such as this one, pitched at an audience who are already well informed and deeply familiar with the topic; the message cannot travel beyond the sphere of people who read games sites.
By denying the status of videogames as an art form on his blog, Ebert has opened up the possibility that his readers (of whom there are millions, with drastically varying levels of interest in videogames) will give the idea some thought and form their own opinions. Of course I hope they think he’s wrong, as I do, but it’s not all about convincing people. The fact that the debate is occurring at all outside games’ home territory – that has to be worthwhile.
Related posts:
Tags: art, debates, roger ebert
I was just looking through the comments on Lynden Barber’s website, and there’s another Fraser! Too weird…
Anywho, I won’t deny the potential the video game format has to create art. But so far the only thing that’s come close has been Facade: http://www.interactivestory.net
I can’t help but ask, Fraser (the new one!): what are the elements of Façade that you contribute to it being the closest example of art potential in videogames? Say, in contrast to the ‘usual suspects’ of Braid, Flower, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, et al?
Not meaning to steal Fraser’s (the other one’s!) possible follow up comment, but curiosity has gotten the better of me.
Harry: I have to admit that the only one of those games I’ve heard of is “Shadow of the Colossus”!
I take art to mean anything that activates our brain into asking questions, and brings us to a higher state of consciousness. Most games lower our state of consciousness into the fight-or-flight nature we share with animals.
Facade gives us interaction, while not giving us any real way to “win” the game. Things are kept complex and difficult, the way life is.
I’m aware that by my definition most Hollywood films are not art, and I’d agree that they’re not.
Haha, well I’m not going to touch the parallels between medium definitions either, as I feel that sort of discussion is eternally regressive. But kudos for mentioning Façade in the first place, as I always thought it was predominantly to the privy of academics.
If it’s similar experiential interaction you’re looking for, you should try Tale of Tales‘ output, or most any contemporary interactive fiction; The Graveyard and Galatea are some of the more popular starting points.
Both outlets shed much of the traditional definitions of games (e.g. challenge, winning states, a ‘protagonist saving the world’ narrative), and is probably why both examples – along with Façade – aren’t referenced to higher degrees when the videogame web speaks of ‘games as art’; especially in contrast to the non-inclusive ‘usual suspects’ mentioned in my previous comment.
Hi Fraser. This is unusual; we’re a rare breed.
I like your definition of art, particularly the way it reflects how subjective and personal art can be. An object might be art, but it only becomes art through our experience of it.
Harry’s suggestions are both good examples of a particular kind of art game. I’d add Machinarium, a game that splits the difference between the seriousness of most art games and the silliness of most commercial games.
Façade is a very interesting game, far ahead of its time in some ways. It seems like a prototype for a new form of interactive drama – and yet to my knowledge nobody has even come close to replicating that level of autonomous social AI in the five years since Façade was made, let alone surpassed it. It goes to show what an enormously difficult technical problem the game was trying to overcome.
One thing that’s notable in the last few years of games is the proliferation of pets. The dogs in Fable II, Fallout 3 and Torchlight have all been quite lifelike and convincing, simply because the level of AI these games use is just about sufficient to model dog behaviour – but not human. For human characters, we still rely on pre-written scripts to convey a sense of life; even Façade had to do this, although its approach was rather brilliant.
We’re nowhere near being able to program a convincing human character, even one that was deaf and mute. I’d be interested to see how well a game could simulate a realistic gorilla or chimpanzee, though.
[...] Allison of RedKingDreams thanks Ebert for opening the door to so many people about the ideas of games and art and hope they believe him [...]
Ebert would need to review more than a single game, while praised, to form an opinion. Sort of like watching Criterion DVDs.
[...] of that is why earlier this year I thanked Roger Ebert for giving his opinion on games. He was being a crotchety closed-minded fool, but he was treating [...]