Video Games can never be art?

[Architectonic]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

Can video games be considered art?

Wikipedia: "Art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions." This is an intriguing definition, although as a chess player I might argue that my game fits the definition.

Plato, via Aristotle, believed art should be defined as the imitation of nature.

I would argue that both Chess and video games are art. But Ebert disagrees with the above definitions.

Ebert had stated "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."

But yet an increasing number of people claim that videogames have greater emotional impact than novels, films and especially poems. I argue that the best video games are in fact greater artworks than celebrated poems and novels and even paintings of the past.

 

[Melllvar]

Spoiler

Ebert's an idiotic pretentious jackass*. He doesn't even understand what he's criticizing, as shown by the fact that he questions how the games work and are played even while claiming that they "can never be art". And I think there are plenty of games that could (and have been) cited as "worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets," but people like him wouldn't agree with that opinion. In his mind art isn't subjective, it's the domain of a few elite intellectuals and everyone else just doesn't 'get it'.

But when I say McCarthy is "better" than Sparks and that his novels are artworks, that is a subjective judgment, made on the basis of my taste (which I would argue is better than the taste of anyone who prefers Sparks).

Nothing she shows from [Flower] seemed of more than decorative interest on the level of a greeting card. 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?

The three games she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic.

Maybe he should actually try playing games with an open mind before he starts telling people who have made and played them for decades what they can and can't be.

I agree (with Architectonic) that games do make better (or at least equally good) storytelling mediums than movies, plays, novels, etc. these days. For one thing they're interactive: you actually get to be a part of the adventure as it's unfolding. For another thing they're usually tens of hours long, which gives quite a bit more time to develop the story and get involved in the game world. They're largely a composite of other art forms (in the same way a movie might be a composite of writing [script], photography [filming] and theater [acting]). Not that they should be measured by their ability to tell a story (I'd actually argue games are diverging somewhat into two categories: gameplay oriented (stuff like Super Meat Boy) and story oriented (stuff like Heavy Rain), although I think the vast majority try to incorporate both elements (for example Bioshock is split pretty evenly). Storytelling may not equal art, I just use that as one area where I think they've really excelled over other forms. Another would be their ability to create new worlds and imagery (which is often dynamically generated on the fly, unlike in most other mediums).

IMO this is all just standard fear of the unknown stuff, as the above comic indicates. I'm sure when movies were first developed a lot of traditional theater people trashed them as not being high-brow and not true 'art'. Likewise any new musical style always gets trashed by the old cranks that want to argue Beethoven was real music and Elvis wasn't, or Elvis was real music and the Beatles weren't, or the Beatles were real music and... well you get the point.


*In Ebert's defense he is amazingly well educated in literary traditions. As much as I usually hate and disagree with his reviews, he often throws out obscure info I'd never have heard of otherwise (who would have thought The Last House on the Left had been made as a movie four times and was based on a story dating back to a 13th century folk ballad?). But he's still a pretentious jackass.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

How can video games not be considered art? They utilize computer graphics and spatial mapping. Not to mention soundtracks and plots.

 

[Taniwha]

What is this madness?

Of course video games are works of art, no more than film is.
Ebert clearly has no idea what he is talking about, and his views are nothing more than ignorant insults towards today's contemporary artists.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

I like Ebert, but he's out of line here. The link Architectonic posted is fairly old and I think Ebert apologized for his statement at a later date, but I'm not sure.

...I think I was going somewhere but I forgot where.

 

[Ach]

I think that many modern video games are nothing but art, due to the way they blend various forms of art together.
I say this having Assassin's Creed 2 and Assassin's Creed Brotherhood in mind, that take place mostly in the Italian Renaissance, and trully feel like a piece of art, as well as video games.

 

[Lobstrich]

The definition of art (At least the Danish definition) is a an object, which has to be human-made, which provokes feelings (good or bad) and thoughts

Anything can be art.

 

[5k17]

What is this madness?

Madness? This is Sparta!


The only point I'd consider a valid argument against video games being art is their interactivity, which leads to much more variation than in the traditional forms of art and which I do consider basically incompatible with the concept of art; however, this is not enough to categorically consider video games not to be art. But for a game to be art, every major element of it has to be art, as well: The conception, the story, the graphics, etc.

BTW, who in the world is Roger Ebert?

 

[Architectonic]

BTW, who in the world is Roger Ebert?

One of, if not the most well known film critic.

 

[Philosophyking87]

Yes, video games can be works of creative art.

Look at Mario: highly original; highly inventive; highly valuable as a video game character—with very unique music to boot. Although, traditional forms of art (like poetry, paintings, and novels) often cover universal and general themes of humanity to say something special about what it is to be human, or what our condition seems to be (or capture some aspect of life that seems timeless and everlasting). Video games often do not seek to truly capture some important aspect of humanity; they merely seek to entertain. Surely traditional forms of art are also forms of entertainment, but it's no doubt clear that they seem more elevated and esteemed from this perspective. (Although, this doesn't make traditional art superior as a type of art; I think it merely makes it different).

So while I would say that video games are indeed works of art (and can be considered "great works of art"), in and of themselves, I do think they might be in a different category in comparison to the traditional works of art which have been created in the past. And ultimately, this seems to be the case of some critic with a preference for traditional art using bias and prejudice to dismiss an entire type of creative art, merely because it does not meet his particular standards of artistic taste and preference. Surely some of the greatest works of art have involved meaning and universal theme, but not all of them must. Perhaps some day in the future, some of our greatest video games will be hailed and treasured for their originality, inventiveness, and sheer overall creativity.

 

[Joohanh]

My definition of art:

Something that is created by a sapient being, which is meant to

a) achieve beauty
b) impact the observer

What this means is, all movies, games, books, pictures et cetera are indeed art. They are not equal (though evaluating is subjective), but they are all art.

 

[snafupants]

They absolutely can, and they are dangerously close. Operating within a multimedia platform does not preclude something from being art; in fact, this may enhance the appeal if all facets (e.g., writing, music, presentation, etc.) are done right. Films were initially scoffed at but are now regularly seen as viable forms of art.

Because the game recently came out, is extremely popular, and frankly kicks ass, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 makes for a good example. The game modestly makes the player pull the trigger on ethical decisions at emotional moments in the game; and although it does not dramatically affect the outcomes, it does make for philosophical fodder. Questions concerning the value of lives and the political import of violence frequently come up as you play through the game. Personally, it made me reconsider the possible role of (preemptive) violence in international affairs...which as a pacifist was unexpected.

When you analyze the more hefty moments in a play or novel through the lens of one character, what are you looking for? Firstly, decisions that she makes that exemplify her character and, secondly, how those decisions change over time. Games can definitely deal with these questions in a serious way; and with some help from music and correct framing, can be equally if not more potent than conventional art forms.

 

[pjoa09]

no wonder Hitler hated art scholars.

they are fucking full of it.

 

[Jesse]

Wow you guys are over complicating it. Of course it's art. If a child can draw on a wall and they call it art almost anything can be called art.

 

[RubberDucky451]

I believe video games are art but some are obviously better than others. I would compare the Call of Duty series to a Michael Bay action movie, which is a lower form of art in my opinion. There are however, more artistic video games like Shadow of the Colossus, Heavy Rain, Alan Wake and Katamari Damacy.

 

[Joohanh]

I believe video games are art but some are obviously better than others. I would compare the Call of Duty series to a Michael Bay action movie, which is a lower form of art in my opinion. There are however, more artistic video games like Shadow of the Colossus, Heavy Rain, Alan Wake and Katamari Damacy.

Exactly, good sir.

 

[Gluon the Ferengi]

I remember reading that article by Ebert. I think he played like 5 minutes of some obscure video game based on The Simpsons franchise and then used this as a basis to denounce all of video gaming.

Too bad no one could show him Deus Ex, Thief, the Final Fantasy games, KOTOR, Planescape Torment or any of the better, more narrative oriented RPGs.
Let's face it, games like these have better, more extensive plots than most movies.
They're essentially playable novels.
He might even be able to see some good in some old school titles such as Quest for Glory series or King's Quest. A jaded critic might even get some real amusement out of Leisure Suit Larry, or Space Quest.
It would be hard not to be won over by Grim Fandango.
Yet I imagine he would have still quit after 5 minutes and come up with multiple excuses to hate all PC/video games.

I've actually put some thought into this issue before.

 

[pjoa09]

I find Grand Theft Auto a great illustration of the decades they depicted. (albeit a bit too exaggerated)

Max Payne was amazing too with their depressive Apartment feel. Can't say that about the movie.

SILENT HILL!

Resident Evil 4 ?

Tekken?

I can't go on, that guy needs to use a graphic modeling program.

 

[Philosophyking87]

I believe video games are art but some are obviously better than others. I would compare the Call of Duty series to a Michael Bay action movie, which is a lower form of art in my opinion. There are however, more artistic video games like Shadow of the Colossus, Heavy Rain, Alan Wake and Katamari Damacy.

This sums up my position as well.
Any form of expression and creativity can be called art, but there are degrees of art based on levels of sophistication, among perhaps other variables.
Perhaps video games, as a form of art, isn't as refined as other forms of art -- but that wouldn't make it a form of art incapable of producing masterpieces.