Games definitely not art - Ebert News

Art is to who ever views it

Has Been.

This actually makes Ebert come off as a whining kid...

"Games can never be art! Lalalalalalaa...I can't hear you..lalalalala!"

Someone make the man play Okami...

"For him, the emotional destination is picked by the artist, and being able to change that devalues it."

What the...?

Is he claiming that the emotional impact art has on a person is determined purely by the creator? Surely art is, almost by definition, purely subjective?

Ebert: Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices.

So.... games with only one ending could be art, Roger? FFVII, yes; Deus Ex, no. Gotcha.

An artist mate of mine specialises in interactive installations. I'm guessing Ebert wouldn't consider these to be art either.

But then again, they are very high-brow and pretentious, which seems to be the main qualification he's looking for.

Teenage Capcom Fanboys vs. Critical Establishment debate the nature of art. 'Could go either way' says passing imbecile

Okami, ICO, Rez etc. all expected to give evidence, defence's leaked notes suggest following lines of argument

Rez uses stylised wireframe graphics therefore IS ART
Okami is cel shaded and you use a paintbrush and IS ART
ICO has haunting music and when i hear the gulls and see the horizon I feel sad and i cry so IT MUST BE ART

FFS people

I agree with him to be honest.

Art involves an artist conveying a message to the audience. How they receive the message will be subjective and change from person to person. Games and other interactive media allow the user/player to fundamentally change (to varying degrees) the message that is being put across which then warps the artist's original message.

This doesnt mean games are less valuable media or that they should be looked down on, just that they dont fit into the definition of 'art'. That said, the craft, storytelling and design of games can be exceptional and not calling it art doesnt make it any less important.

Like The Nightwatch has a emotional destination. Couple of people lined up for a group pic dressed in medieval clothing. It's like a company day out. Emotional is quite the word. Other than "whoop thta's a fucking big painting" of course.

Oh and most games do have one path (and people bitch it's to linear then). So what's his point, did he only play GTA?

"This doesnt mean games are less valuable media or that they should be looked down on, just that they dont fit into the definition of 'art'. That said, the craft, storytelling and design of games can be exceptional and not calling it art doesnt make it any less important"

/discussion

He's pretty much right....right in that its all about opinions. Art has possibly the most opinion driven definition of any word in the English language.

Does anyone else not care?
Art schmart. Wether I'm bombing round a track in a kart throwing turtle shells at a giant kart driving plant, or raging through athens on my way to battle Ares, or climbing a gaint monstrosity trying to find his weak point, quite frankly I don't give a damn if it's art or not. All I care about is how much I'm enjoying it. How exciting or fun or thrilling it is.

So could all these snobs do me a favour and fuck off and let me enjoy my games? Many thanks.

He gave "Lost Highway" a thumbs down. Go figure.

@ menage

'moist games'

hmm, moist...

WHO FUCKING CARES

According to wikipedia ~ "Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and/or spirit; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas."

By that definition, games ARE art. However, I still don't really care.

@ralph

I changed it for you. Didn't want you to get all excited now:P

From Wikipedia

[i]Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and/or spirit; thus art is an action, an object, or a collection of actions and objects created with the intention of transmitting emotions and/or ideas. Beyond this description, there is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.

...

Something is not generally considered "art" when it stimulates only the senses, or only the mind, or when it has a different primary purpose than doing so. However, some contemporary art challenges this idea.[/i]

So I would say game like Okami, ICO, Bioshock, Deus Ex etc. are art where as FIFA, Bomberman, Unreal Tournement are sports.

Where Sonic, Mario, Doom 3 etc fall in is a little harder to debate.

Wayne +1

This has no bearing on the games themselves, but I suppose it has some bearing on how the industry could be viewed from the outside.

Depends on the game - just as it depends on a movie.

Donnie Darko - or even Transformers - can be considered art IMO. Where as 50 First Dates or Kevin and Perry Go Large are most definitely NOT art.


Same with games. FIFA is not art. Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, Flow, Echochrome, they are ART.

slightly baiting headline like every other site as he says that Games cannot be HIGH art if you read the article. I still think he's wrong, but 98% of games could not be considered to be high art at all, some however are - Rez is certainly art in my opinion for example.

'This doesnt mean games are less valuable media or that they should be looked down on, just that they dont fit into the definition of 'art'. That said, the craft, storytelling and design of games can be exceptional and not calling it art doesnt make it any less important.'

+1

Maybe what he meant was tat games cannot be art, but can contain art. Whether they're the same is a different matter, and I personally think that a game which contains art, for the player to see is art itself.

@ralphwolfenstein:
In reference to me saying he should play Okami?
I'm not a capcom fanboy or anything, and I'm not crying boo-hoo about anything...

As the first poster said "art is to whoever views it"...
If it evokes emotions for you you can call it art...
Therefor art can be just about anything..

I don't like the fact that a lot of people still want art to be some elitist group...The dada movement showed what art was all about...It was about jack shit in the end...It's all subjective...So a statement like "videogames can never be art" is just thoroughly wrong..."Videogames can never be art to me" is acceptable...

It just takes an IMO to be sensible...

Art is bullshit. Die.

At risk of being labelled a troll, can I just politely enquire why anyone is bothered whether someone else thinks games do (or do not) constitute art? Art is a very personal thing - someone else's viewpoint about what you consider art shouldn't matter, as long as you extract enjoyment from it in some fashion.

as always, three words for him: just play ico

Have him play Silent Hill 2 and then tell me it's not art. The storyline alone has more emotional truth in it than the average movie. Ignore the graphics, ignore the gore. Just focus on how the creators wanted you to feel while playing the game.

Yes, its linier, but so are books and movies.

Who gives a fuck what Ebert thinks about games, anyways? Seriously, he's probably never even played one, and about the only thing he knows is likely that it's the medium threatening the one paying his wages.

The concept of only strictly linear or fixed art as promoting emotion is bizarre; even if games haven't truly managed it yet (I think), what is a better way to inspire emotion than by reacting to the actions of the 'viewer' (I'm pretty sure you could do a game to match Picassos Guernica quite easily, and I'm quite dissapointed ones never been attempted)? And that's if you fall into his definition of art, which (as was pointed out) isn't even the sole one.

Plus I'd wager he's entirely ignoring non-commercial games like mod or student projects; which is bizarre, as doing so is pretty much equivalent to defining the artistic value of film through Jerry Bruckheimer and ignoring entirely the 'arthouse' scenes prevalent in any sort of media open to public use.

someone buy him a Wii ffs

to cheer the miserable so and so up

What for?

I think it's actually in video gaming's best interest not to be considered 'art', given that 'real' art (a) earns sod-all (b) reaches too small an audience to be of great social worth (c) is generally pretentious, swaggering, overblown.

/devil's advocate

EDIT: I forgot (d) gives short shrift to the idea of having fun

He's full of shit; he's probably never played a single video-game his entire life so why he feels he can comment on their worth is pretty amazing.

And he's wrong about the idea that giving the player choice and interactivity somehow breaks down the whole concept of what art is about. The way you play the game and how you interact with the game-world has been specifically chosen and meticulously designed, down to every single enemy placement and bump-mapped wall, by the game developer.

And those who say it's not important how games are interpreted, whether as art or otherwise need to remember that the whole games industry is built upon hard work from people who devote themselves to making games with every bit of seriousness and dedication as any film-maker, painter or writer.

Games can be whatever the developer wants them to be. This is why games are much loved, the freedom they have, compared to a movie, is vast.

At the end of the day, it comes down to ones opinion.

"For him, the emotional destination is picked by the artist, and being able to change that devalues it."

Hmm, he REALLY wouldn't get on with Post-Modernist literary criticism. (Neither did I for that matter).

Videogames are an artform in the sense that they can be used to tell a story, or to explore abstract concepts, just like novels, movies and other narrative/visual media. Whether or not any game has ever reached the lofty heights of being a work of Art is an entirely different matter. I'd say that some of Mel Croucher's more esoteric experiments - Deus Ex Machina, ID - represent interactive performance art, but that's open to debate.

What's annoying is when someone says that not only are games not art, but they will never be art. To say that a creative field that utilises writers, artists, musicians and actors is incapable of ever producing a work art is maddeningly shortsighted.

But then, whenever I've encountered this argument it's always come from hardcore cinemaphiles with a very limited understanding of the gaming medium.

@afghan_jones re "Games and other interactive media allow the user/player to fundamentally change (to varying degrees) the message that is being put across which then warps the artist's original message."

That would mean that the developer has no control over what the game does to the "message", which isn't true at all. In some cases, what the game allows you to do to the perceived message is an integral part of delivering it (e.g. Shadow of the Colossus, Knights of the Old Republic). This is something that traditional art is incapable of, and I don't think Ebert will ever grasp this concept.

Wow. The weeks starts with an interesting debate. Not bad in a gaming world where too many only seem to get really fired up when discussing what console is the best or if Peter Moore has stolen the One ring from Bill Gates and is headed for Mordor.

But to the issue:

I would generally side with Ebert as almost all computer games I have played are more interested in entertaining the user, rather than transmitting emotions or ideas - wich is the essence of art. That is how simple it is. Of course, the whole mess gets complicated when trying to decide of what quality the emotions / ideas have to be to qualify for art. Laughter and humour are often disqualified (hence the reluctance to award Oscars to comedies), the same is true with lust (porn or art?) and also being generally entertained with a combo of violence, suspense and problem solving (as with most computer games).

It is important here also to remember that Ebert will not call most hollywood-movies art. There is of course art inside a movie or a game, but mostly it is smaller than what we can call "the sum of entertainment." If the sum of entertainment is larger than the sum of art, then it is not art. I just made this up, but it sounds good.

Therefore some aspects of a game can certainly be called art (such as artwork, animation, music etc.) but as a whole, it usually falls apart when gameplay is introduced. I'm trying really hard to make myself believe that the art/sound and arty presentation in Rez were more important elements than trying to stay alive and having fun shooting stuff, but I cannot do that.

Some games are probably art, i just haven't played them or recognized them as games. Ico comes close though. It is a tremendous emotional experience. However, the entertainment aspect of the game is still it's major function.

Edit: Deleted wiki's art definition that I see is already quoted 20 times or so.

there are those in the art world that maintain that cinema and even photography cannot be classified as art, so games will never convince the purists. but i would argue that some aspects of game design have definately been of artistic merit in past titles.

I think it's a mistake to automatically gravitate towards narrative games as examples of Games As Art, since most game narratives - even the ones we hold up as the best on offer - are fairly trite when compared to heavyweights from other media.

Abstract games like Vib Ribbon are much more likely to fit in with modern art thinking. If someone created a wireframe rabbit that reacted to sound, devolving down the evolutionary ladder with each stumble, and put it on a plasma screen in the Tate Modern, people would fall over themselves to deconstruct its meaning. Do the same with a joypad and it's apparently just mindless entertainment.

Does Leonardo's 'Mona Lisa' have parallax scrolling, 8-bit colour, and smart bombs? No!!

GAMES FOR TEH WIN!!1!!1



Or something like that.

Games are not art, and gamers are not sportsman, both video games and gamers are exactly what it says on the tin. Only obsessed gamers with mental problems will disagree

DanWhitehead: You are on the right track indeed. Shame most gamers are about as ignorant as the critics.

Well I also must say that this these ppl who say games like Okami are art are pretty lame.
No, they arent art. They are games. U dont call movies and cartoons art too just because they are entertaining and "visually in their own class"

But most importantly, who gives a s*it? I can live with the fact that im playing "just" games, not games of art..

Actually I prefer that way.

@decap:
I'm one of those who rolled out Okami... :)

Again I restate that I understand the definition of art as being completely subjective...
If someone sees something as art, then it is, end of story...
Art is way too similar to opinion, and can therefor not be cemented so to speak...There is no wrong vision here...

But as you say, who cares, let's play games damnit...

Has anyone ever played a game that exists *purely* on an aesthetic level ?

I would put games more into the sort of world of things like design, architecture, etc - where the item has a purpose beyond looking good.

Appreciating the aesthetics *and* the engineering wins for me every time.

Who cares if games are considered "Art"? A cow in a glass case is considered art these days and we all know how interesting that is. The only decent 'art' left is music (and most of that is shit).

Games actually TRANSCEND art, they are a notch or two above. Art is mostly a passive "admire me" concept, games are visceral, interactive, and ultimately more useful/creative medium (if done right). When the concept of 'Art' was first used, no-one could ever have imagined the things that video games could do.

Games have artful moments but while they are mass produced in identical copies they won't get the approval of the snobs - they are not unique, they are consumer goods.

Where music differs (while stil being mass produced) is that listeners get different things from the same song, most games generally present stuff on a plate to you in a direct fashion (linear progression, dull stories). Certain games try to be unique to each user but it's never going to be proper 'art' by the established standards. And that's a good thing, if you want your video games to be only useful to stick on a wall and look at once a month while cooing and billing with some highbrow friends then good for you, i'll be playing them, bollock deep in the immersion and generally having a good time.

btw: "Cliver Barker" ? (first mention of him remove the 'r') ;)

Even film, Evbert's actual area of competence, easily takes in both art and entertainment. The worst kind of films are those which lead you by the hand to a conclusion. They're usually referred to as patronising, didactic, propaganda, potboiler or just filler.

I can understand that it is hard for him to understand that the creator can keep artistic control without absolute control over the outcome of the game but this approach has been common in modern art for a while. Maybe he should also watch Rashomon again to help him out.

Why is Ebert even involved in this whole debate? He's a movie critic.

A lot of people seem to blurring the lines between 'Art' as Ebert is thinking of it, (what you might call 'high Art') and art in the sense of artistry and creativity. I dont think saying that games are not art should be seen as insulting to the creativity or skill of the people involved in making them.

An artist painting a portrait or sculpting something can try to convey a message and/or emotion to the viewer. whether he suceeds or not is down to the viewers perceptions. However, the piece will present the same image/sound/whatever to each viewer to interpret.

With a game, the creators again can try to put a message across but this message is inherently distorted by the actions of the player. Even very linear story driven games will change as an epic battle against a boss character might prove easy and short for one player and be robbed of it's impact, whilst another player might spend ages battling the boss and find the moment when he defeats it immensely satisfying.

I see it as akin to the idea that no scientific study is truly free from bias as the very fact of studying something changes it's nature in some way.

I dont see that there is any need for games to strive to be considered 'art' in order to be validated though. Games are what they are, and made with just as much creativity and flair as any other media and shouldnt be ashamed for not being classed as 'art'