Are video games art?

Ebert’s column has a certain “hey you kids, get off of my lawn” feel to it. New creative forms often meet resistane from the old schoolers of the day. There was a time back in the 17th and 18th centuries when some highbrows didn’t think that novels were art and I’m sure that there were some early in the 20th century who said the same thing about movies. Hardly anyone now would make that arguement. And while there is nothing creative in playing a video game there is quite a bit involved in making one. I’m sure if the inventors of basketball and American football had to create a new sport every year or so creating sports would have been considered as an art.

And we should remember that Shakespeare wrote his sonnets so people would consider him to be an artist because, of course, all those popular plays that he churned out weren’t true “art”.

I write this from the perspective of a philosophy grad student (and BTW, Ken, I have to agree with you — those people who treat the phrase “the heart wants what it wants” like a profound moral truth are usually just trying to justify some egoistic tendencies to which they would otherwise never admit). My personal favorite idiocy in the linked article is Ebert quoting Santiago quoting Ebert: “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.” In other words, no one has ever produced a truly great video game. Therefore, he seems to imply (twice), video games are NOT art.

A college freshman who is halfway through a critical thinking course should be able to identify this as a textbook example of the straw man fallacy. All this proves (assuming Ebert is correct) is that video games are not GREAT art. And Santiago doesn’t dispute that. Neither does Ebert dispute that those first cave drawings are, in and of themselves, art, no matter that the artists in question — standing at the beginning of their discipline — failed to display the technique and sophistication of a Rembrandt, a Picasso, or a Monet. So if these games have enough art-like qualities to them to qualify as art, then it shouldn’t matter that they are, to use Ebert’s dismissive appellation, “chicken scrtaches” compared to what will come.

So do they? Let’s see…character and set design, music, sound effects…oh, this is just silly. Are video games art? Of COURSE they are. I’d like to hear someone of a contrary mind explain to me why Avatar is art (of any stripe) and Halo isn’t. Both tell stories, and guide the patron through them. Both involve worlds that are largely graphically rendered — and the rendering itself should be sufficient to qualify both as art, IMNSHO. The only difference is one that arguable works in the favor of video games — there, the art isn’t complete without the active participation of the spectator.

Actually I think Ms. Santiago did a poor job of portraying games as art. I would not agree, with her, that games were at this point so pitifully weak in artistic value.

For me, the Halo epic was more emotionally gripping and intense than any Star Trek movie (I’ve seen all but ST5).

Ico and Shadow of the Colossus create a poignant dark world about loss and love that betters Cameron’s Titanic, having experienced both.

I hate the loathsome nobleman Kefka, from the ancient Final Fantasy VI, far more than Colonel Landa from Inglourious Basterds.

For every movie that emotionally stirred or intellectually engaged me, I can name a game that moved me in the exact same direction, and often just as much (I admit not always).

Games are certainly less accessible than movies – it takes many hours to fully experience a game. In that regard, perhaps games are less “efficient” at delivering their impact. On the other hand, a novel takes far long to give its message than does an Ansel Adams photograph. But this does not invalidate the novel as art.

I’m an artist, and I’m 37. I very much enjoy Ebert’s writing, particularly when he backs me up for loving Phantom Menace and Indy 4. That said, I’ve considered writing him about this remark, and his remarks that anyone who enjoyed Revenge of the Fallen was simply “wrong”. I read endless glowing defenses of threadbare old horror movies and even junk like Cloverfield on the internet, yet I’m apparently the class dunce because I can sit and enjoy the daylights out of ROTF. I can understand a giant robot fight movie not being to everyone’s taste, but come on. Some people get off watching cars drive around in a circle. Heidi Montag has an actual career. I’M the idiot because I loved a loud, photo-realistic movie where robots turn into vehicles and blast each other?

Video games are absolutely art. How do I know? 1. Their creation entails actual “video game artists”. 2.Google will lead you to honest-to-god gallery shows, featuring expensive wall paintings of Pac-Man and Mario. 3.Try playing BioShock for five minutes and then tell me it isn’t art. I love Rog, I just feel he’s not looking at the whole picture here, pun intended.

…yet I’m apparently the class dunce because I can sit and enjoy the daylights out of ROTF.

Well, you are. Make no mistake about that. Carry on, though.

Transformers 2 was long but a lot of fun. I would think that was the point of the flick. (I found it a little adult for a movie based on a Saturday morning cartoon show, but I thought that of the first film too. To be fair, the first film was much better) In the end, I’d say you can enjoy any movie you like, and it really doesn’t matter what anyone else -critics for sure- think. I really enjoy the Beach Party movies, and if I go by what I read, I’m the only one. (The Fat Spy included, by the way) Really, though, what does it matter to anyone else? We have a system where guys can lock themselves away with countless hours of porn and that’s not a problem, so there’s no reason you can’t enjoy Transformers 2.
And it has been argued that porn stars are ‘artists’ so that would make porn art. I doubt anyone outside the industry will ever buy that though.

I don’t really keep up with the critics. Many years ago, I noticed the basic pattern was that whatever the critics hated usually turned out to be the best pictures. So I moved along and decided to make up my own mind on what came out. I guess I like Leonard Maltin. He’s always championing the restoration and release of things like the John Wayne collection (anywone who likes Island in the Sky AND the High and the Mighty is OK in my book). I wrote a letter to him once, Maltin struck me as a very warm and friendly man. I will say that, whenever I saw him on television, Ebert always came off as sort of a bully.

It was a lot simpler when I was a kid watching any old monster movie I could find on the tube. ‘Good’ or ‘Bad’ had less to do with the production values than it did how much I enjoyed watching it. Under those rules, for me, From Hell It Came and The Navy vs The Night Monsters were ‘good’ movies. These days, I’ve developed into a confused mess. I know and enjoy a good movie when I see it (your flicks like Hondo, The Last Command, Them, Island in the Sky), yet I still find myself ready, willing, and eager to sit thru stuff like Invasion of the Blood Farmers (which I haven’t seen yet) looking for a fun time. You’d think that after watching a few really great films, I’d be less anxious to see bad ones, or even mediocre ones. But I still have that copy of The Beast That Killed Women, and it shares shelf space with Yankee Doodle Dandy and Gone With The Wind. A flick has to pretty terrible before I toss it (which, so far, is pretty much limited to Superchick and the Midnight Movie Massacre).

I, for one, have never been in love with the idea that one persons opinion should be taken higher than anothers simply because they are in the media. People like Roger Ebert need to learn they don’t have the final say over our culture. Tastes are always changing and expanding. Ultimately, we, collectively, as a culture, are the ones who decide what is art. Not what a bunch of stuck up snobs think.

And, while Ebert becomes more reactionary, he also loses a certain discrimination in taste. He likes everything, these days.

I have not played many video games because I was never very good at them, but I have seen people playing most of the great ones. As a reactionary type myself, I will say that I see art in video games, but I’m not sure if the games constitute art as a whole. There are obvious artistic parts of video games — cinematics, character design, and so forth — but in order to call a video game art in itself, I would have to be convinced that gameplay is an art form, and of that I’m just not certain. Perhaps I would be, if I’d played the games myself — or perhaps I’d believe the opposite.

All that being said, two of the scariest watching experiences I’ve ever had period were “Silent Hill 3” and “Eternal Darkness: Sanity’s Requiem.” The former, in particular, had me squeezed in a tiny ball in the corner of a crappy dorm-room sofa, whimpering into my clenched hands — and I wasn’t even playing it!

Oh, and the heart absolutely wants what it wants, no doubt about it, but that doesn’t mean you should ever listen to it.

Honestly, I’ve always considered the people who create the visuals for movies and games to be the real modern equivalents of Michelangelo and da Vinci rather than “abstract” hacks like Picasso or Jackson Pollock. When I hear conservatives lament the disappearance of beauty in art, I can only think: stop looking for it in the MoMA, that’s not where our artists are!

Ebert is increasingly aware of his own mortality and, as such, I think is starting to think about his place in history. Not just film history, but history in general. Which is why we are treated to his opinion on the recently immigration law in Arizona–seriously, who truly cares what a film critic has to say about that? His opinion is neither more nor less informed than my own.

I can’t escape the feeling that his thinking in recent years lies along the path of, When I’m gone, people will read my stuff and say, “My God, this is the greatest political thinker of the age! And we had him doing movie reviews, for crying out loud!”

I tend to regard Ebert as I do most critics–he’s a total genius when he agrees with me, and an utter dunce when he does not. :)

Halo is a big steaming coil of mediocrity with a cookie-cutter storyline.

Which makes it totally different from the last ten years of Hollywood blockbusters because…um, because…ah…er…

I think I agree most strongly with Sandy. In my opinion, Ebert simply didn’t make a coherent argument.

In principle, the article shouldn’t be hard to write.

1) Define art.
2) Show that games either fit this definition or not.

Otherwise, there’s no content to the discussion.

Personally, I have a very broad definition of art: I’d call it a feature of a [thing] which has no practical application, and which generally is intended to provoke an emotional response in the audience.

It’s not a perfect definition, especially since art and engineering can overlap, but I think the sorrowful narrative of Ico or the crushing despair of losing SAN in Call of Cthulhu qualify as art.

I hate making a correction so late (especially when the original post is now almost old enough to drive!) but the movies have been regarded as art or at least a potential art form from nearly the moment they were invented; the French term film d'art dates from at least 1908, probably earlier. And I admit to being an Ebert partisan (disagreed with his politics, loved him as a critic and person), and would have loved to have known what he would thought about the current AI in art debate.