Games definitely not art - Ebert

By Robert Purchese Published 23 July, 2007

Critic snaps back.

Respected US movie critic and grumpy old man Roger Ebert has stuck by his guns, insisting that videogames are definitely not art and have "more in common with sports".

He was speaking following comments from author and writer-director Cliver Barker at the Hollywood & Games Summit. He'd described Ebert's view as a "prejudiced vision of what the medium is".

"The word 'prejudiced' often translates as 'disagrees with me'," retorted Ebert, columnist for the Chicago Sun-Times. "I might suggest that gamers have a prejudiced view of their medium, and particularly what it can be."

"Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be, and some gamers are prejudiced that they will." Yes, he's saying that it's all opinions so ner-ner.

For him, the emotional destination is picked by the artist, and being able to change that devalues it. We should all just be quiet and accept games for what they are, he reckons; as entertainment.

But that's not to say he doesn't enjoy things that aren't high-art, as he calls it. He loves a good crime book, for instance, and has probably read The Da Vinci Code.

"That said, let me confess I enjoy entertainments, but I think it important to know what they are," Ebert continued.

"Barker is right that we can debate art forever. I mentioned that a Campbell's soup could be art. I was imprecise. Actually, it is Andy Warhol's painting of the label that is art.

"Would Warhol have considered Clive Barker's videogame 'Undying' as art? Certainly. He would have kept it in its shrink-wrapped box, placed it inside a Plexiglas display case, mounted it on a pedestal, and labelled it 'Video Game'.

And Undying was pretty good, too, back on the PC in 2001.

It seems the pair will never see eye to eye.

Picture of Robert.

About Robert Purchese

Bertie is Eurogamer's Senior Staff Writer. When he's not hunting down news stories he's often found playing with his kids or gabbling about fantasy games and strange online worlds.

Read more articles from Robert by visiting the Robert Purchese archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (84) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • souljacker2000 #1 5 years ago

    Art is to who ever views it

  • AcidSnake #2 5 years ago

    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...

  • mrsquare #3 5 years ago

    "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?

  • Stupid_Fat_Hobbit #4 5 years ago

    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.



  • PlugMonkey #5 5 years ago

    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.

  • ralphwolfenstein #6 5 years ago

    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

  • afghan_jones #7 5 years ago

    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.

  • menage #8 5 years ago

    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?
    Edited by 4 at 23/07/07 @ 10:52

  • mrsquare #9 5 years ago

    "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

  • mattjohnston #10 5 years ago

    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.

  • Wayne #11 5 years ago

    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.

  • Eldritch #12 5 years ago

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

  • ralphwolfenstein #13 5 years ago

    @ menage

    'moist games'

    hmm, moist...

  • Overlush #14 5 years ago

    WHO FUCKING CARES

  • Wayne #15 5 years ago

    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.

  • menage #16 5 years ago

    @ralph

    I changed it for you. Didn't want you to get all excited now:p
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 10:53

  • RexRunti #17 5 years ago

    From 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. 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.

    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.

  • RexRunti #18 5 years ago

    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.

  • woodnotes #19 5 years ago

    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.

  • Darkedge #20 5 years ago

    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.

  • dirigiblebill #21 5 years ago

    '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

  • JediMasterMalik #22 5 years ago

    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.

  • AcidSnake #23 5 years ago

    @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...

  • Zob #24 5 years ago

    Art is bullshit. Die.

  • dcangel #25 5 years ago

    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.

  • space_ace #26 5 years ago

    as always, three words for him: just play ico

  • 2099net #27 5 years ago

    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.

  • aldo_14 #28 5 years ago

    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.

  • paulf #29 5 years ago

    someone buy him a Wii ffs

    to cheer the miserable so and so up
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 11:33

  • JediMasterMalik #30 5 years ago

    What for?

  • dirigiblebill #31 5 years ago

    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
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 11:08

  • KnickKnack #32 5 years ago

    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.

  • The_Inquisitor #33 5 years ago

    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.

  • lambtron #34 5 years ago

    "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).

  • DanWhitehead #35 5 years ago

    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.

  • Balboa #36 5 years ago

    @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.

  • Notorious_LRO #37 5 years ago

    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.
    Edited by 2 at 23/07/07 @ 11:27

  • mustardkid #38 5 years ago

    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.

  • DanWhitehead #39 5 years ago

    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.

  • WalterMatthau #40 5 years ago

    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.

  • 01SniperWolf #41 5 years ago

    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

  • Decap #42 5 years ago

    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.

  • AcidSnake #43 5 years ago

    @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...

  • knocker #44 5 years ago

    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.

  • sharpfish #45 5 years ago

    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') ;)
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 11:54

  • wizbob #46 5 years ago

    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.

  • Freek #47 5 years ago

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

  • afghan_jones #48 5 years ago

    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'

  • gallow #49 5 years ago

    Art = pretentious bullshit.

  • Fab4 #50 5 years ago

    Ebert doesnt think its art because he is a 'noob' who gets pwned all the time ;) :)

  • BeersOfWar #51 5 years ago

    What a fucking cunt.

    Seriously, fuck off you cunting fuckhead.

    Wanker

    /bollocks
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 12:05

  • grimly_reaped #52 5 years ago

    It's an interesting debate ... on the one hand you have an art critic saying '"Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be...", when there are games like Planescape: Torment out there with a plot and humour to rival the bard (and with the added bonus of better spelling), whilst on the other hand you have generic [insert sport][insert year] games being churned out with mind numbing regularity.

    I think he's short-sighted to say never, but it's easy to see where he may get that mis-conception. I think it's good that people care about this - I like to think that at the end of the day there's more to games than just pixels and sounds.

    Edit: Replaced bit that got stripped out
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 12:16

  • Batfink #53 5 years ago

    I once went to a play where the audience was involved in the storytelling and could influence the actions of the main characters. I'm pretty sure that was art.

  • skillian #54 5 years ago

    This "games as art" story is now becoming a weekly occurrence.

    Boring.

  • Daymare #55 5 years ago

    I disagree with him on the part that games will Never be Art (as in; put shoulder to shoulder next to Movies, Music, etc.), 'cause I see much potential for this medium to transcend its "fun" aspect and become something "more" (Movies did it, maybe Games can too). If games need that or if they Ever Will get to that point, is of course debatable, but if he had more insight into the subject matter, he would see the potential and how some games already came/come very, very close. Barker sure does, since he's dealing with both mediums, although he's maybe to quick to judge games as Art at this point..

    And, no, Art is not a matter of opinion, it's a matter of Truth.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 12:29

  • Aria #56 5 years ago

    I don’t think games are art either; however I do think that developers can make use of art and have artistic features incorporated in their games.

  • Azazel #57 5 years ago

    Planescape Torment > His arguement.

    Of course his arguement probably does not recognise that games like this exist. So, erm... he's just uninformed.

  • afghan_jones #58 5 years ago

    Some of you need to stop thinking that calling games art makes them more important whilst saying they are not art makes them less important.

    I believe thei nteractivity robs them of truly being 'art' but that doesnt make games an inferior or low-brow medium as many people here have pointed out great examples from the gaming world, ICO, okami etc etc. They arent truly art but they are still thought provoking, emotional pieces of media and not being 'art' doesnt make them worth any less.

  • GiarcYekrub #59 5 years ago

    I don't think all games are art(eg... those wierd puzzel games) but the epics the Metroid Primes, the GTA's, the Final Fantasy's,The Halo's, The Resident Evil's certainly are.

  • VMerken #60 5 years ago

    Is Ebert saying he knows what art is, considering that he can label things as high-art, art and not art? Aww, cute. Tell me then, Roger: how I should label a movie critic?

  • Azazel #61 5 years ago

    Ebert - "Games not Art: FACT!"

  • Kropotkin #62 5 years ago

    Interesting reading these responses to this article but I think the games industry doesn't do itself any favours by the way it presents itself and the language it uses. How can we consider video games as 'art' when the gaming industry does the following:

    * Refers to all games as 'products'. Every developer refers to their games as 'products' or 'units'. When was the last time you heard a director describe their film as a 'product'. Or come to think of it a novellist or a musician describing their works as 'products'?

    * Releasing a majority of their 'product' only during 'Q4' because that's when little Johnny wants a Christmas present.

    * Praises high sale through 'products' regardless of quality.

    There are many other examples but those are the worst. One of the things that really annoyed me during E3 this year was how developers kept on citing their prior sales record on their current 'franchise' and were looking forward to seeing massive 'unit' sales of their forthcoming 'product' in the forth quarter of this year....

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH!!! It's repulsive! What are they thinking? Are they making shoes or games? These are people that have slaved over their 'product' for God knows how long and they talk about it as if its a some kind of new plant pot they are making. Makes me want to cry it really does.

  • VMerken #63 5 years ago

    Don't worry about semantics, Kropotkin. David Warhol called his workplace "The Factory" where he was churning out the units, yet that doesn't influence his work by any means. In the end, a word is just a word.

    Some of the more impressive/popular realtime computer demos of the moment are delivered by Farbrausch as "produkkts" and are systematically titled fr-xxx with xxx some number. It doesn't make them any less impressive to watch.

    Have a look-see at http://www.f arbrausch.de/productions.php

    Fr-08, fr-019, fr-025 and fr-041 are highly recommended.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 13:44

  • optimusprym8 #64 5 years ago

    If I dumped all my game boxes in a pile and shoved it in the Tate Modern then it'd be "art" like the "art" Tracey Emin et al produce.

  • spongebob #65 5 years ago

    Ebert is the best movie critic I know. However, it seems a bit daft to claim that videogames will never be art. If they aren't that now, it doesn't say they couldn't be in 20 years.

  • TwistidChimp #66 5 years ago

    Sigh. Since when has Ebert's definition of Art been the only one. Its bullshit. He's just as misguided as the stuckists, "Only paintings are art", Really why ? "because we say so".

    Art, as far as i'm, and most dictionaries are concerned, is not defined by Eberts narrow view. His main argument seems to be that because there is some element of the experience that is out of the 'artists' control, its not art. Somebody should probably tell him that you still cant alter the story, dialogue or events of the vast majority of games, so its really still in the hands of the artist what occurs.

    So Ebert, if Gondry or some other new film maker made a film and at a point in the movie you could decide something that meant the film went in 1 of 2 possible directions, would that stop it being art ? What if Gondry was attempting to make a prescient socio-political point by giving viewers the choice, then would it be art again ? The entire definition ebert is working from is completely flawed. Oh and there is a difference between saying "This will never happen just because I think so" and "I believe this could happen, and here's the evidence".

    So to summarise

    Cock.

  • ZuluHero #67 5 years ago

    Does he view films as "art or "media"?

    I can't seem to find any information indicating the former. But a lot of people here seem to be hung up on that and immediately using that as some form of counter-argument.

    Does anyone actually know?


  • SEVQA #68 5 years ago

    This blog is now art!!!

    This blog is now art!!!(.|.)
    This blog is now art!!! ).(
    This blog is now art!!!( v )
    This blog is now art!!! \|/
    Edited by 5 at 23/07/07 @ 16:47

  • gingerlink #69 5 years ago

    I worte about Games being Art in my last A-level General Studies exam, be interesting to see what mark i get...

    and as far as I see it, Plays are art, ergo Films can be art, ergo Video Games can be art.
    Edited by 1 at 23/07/07 @ 17:37

  • Calgon #70 5 years ago

    Who cares? the way he goes on, he's not really selling the notion of art very well... if it isnt art, well who cares about Art? we have something better obviously. The games that have really had an impact on someone, have in most cases had so much talent, craft and skill poored into each part making the experience that much more worth while(with that little bit of magic about them that doesnt get old) that they stand the test of time just as well as any of this Art shite and in some cases can mean much more(the stories and the gameplay... the choices you make, the consequences ect just means they can be just as thought prevoking and invoke all the same emotions as whatever he's on about).

    Why do we even care about this bollocks anyway? Its not like Sport at all though, unless he's saying its another thing that a heck of alot of people get passionate about but still isnt art(probably secretly thinking "common people who arent as smart as us and dont know how to appreciate the finer things muahahah";).
    Edited by 4 at 23/07/07 @ 18:58

  • FunkyRenegade #71 5 years ago

    What an idiot
    So using predominantly Photoshop and a 3D package to create worlds isn't art?
    Silly old git needs to research before spouting.

  • AOFanboi #72 5 years ago

    I would hate to have a definition of "art" that defined drek like Armageddon to be, and Ico not to be.

    Also, do performers at audience-participatory stuff like improvised theatre sport think of their work as art? Would Ebert go and criticise them? Why not?

  • MouzerMalti #73 5 years ago

    Well Games are a means of entertainment. although no one said that entertainment isnt art. Surely not all games are art, but from an artistic point of view, the details in graphics, the perfect sound, and a good gripping storyline is more than enough to state that a game is infact a piece of art. Example: Half Life 2, Okami, Metal Gear Solid, Gears of War.

  • ShiroBen #74 5 years ago

    Games can't be art, because most of them make money and are considered interesting by the people who play them ^^ A port-a-loo that makes the noises of explosions is considered art, and 'high art' at that. I'm not sure I'd want Okami, Ico, Rez et al in the same category. I mean, have you seen some of the rubbish that's labelled 'high art' by these people? Why are gamers fighting so hard to get into that club?

    But seriously, Ebert comes off as a petulant child in this article. It's painfully obvious he hasn't even played enough games to have a considered opinion about them. So why does he care so much? It's like he wants art to stay dry and dull and inaccessible. Art can be fun!

    And, yes, I have become more complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, and philosophical through playing games.

  • YourMessageHere #75 5 years ago

    Hypothetical situation: imagine that one day, say ten years from now, a film is produced that is undeniably excellent in every way. It makes people think, its script, performances, cinematography, visuals, pacing and use of sound are all of the highest quality.

    Now imagine it's a game adaptation.

    Yes, far fetched I realise, but where does that possibility leave Ebert then?

  • Bru-Man #76 5 years ago

    I enjoy entertainments too.

  • Ryze #77 5 years ago

    The old fool needs to see Fahrenheit, Rez, Every Extend Extra...

    He's basing his view on AmericaniZed trash.

  • spongebob #78 5 years ago

    Elektroplankton, The Longest Journey or Shadow Of The Collossus

    I don't see how these count as art. They are visually excellent games. The latter two are more sophisticated in their storytelling mechanisms than most of the videogames out there, but compared to other arts, they're long way from being "high art" (which is what Ebert was referring to anyway, when he said games are not art).

    Fahrenheit, Rez, Every Extend Extra...

    Again, Rez and EEE are visually enticing, but especially the latter is still a simple variation of the old point racking videogame. Rez may have more going for it, since it's more about the journey itself, not just getting the highscore. Hard to call it high art, still.

    And Fahrenheit is just a more thoughtful videogame with better narrative devices. It's not art, it's just good entertainment.

    When you think of art, especially with games with a story, try to think how it would work if it was moved to an another medium. Would it stand against the pieces that are regarded as art or would it be more like your average entertainment experience? Compare the narrative methods, dialogue and other methods of the game to another medium. Are they as rich, mature and thought provoking?

  • Lim-Dul #79 5 years ago

    Why do you think that art always has to be rich, mature and provoking?

    The debate on what is art and what is not has been going on since ancient times. I have even written an essay about the function(s) of art for my course in English literature at university. Truth be told no one has ever reached a consensus on what we should call art and what art should do (to us).

    Most scholars agree, however, that art is something that ha "some" kind of emotional effect on the person that comes into contact with it... In this vague and broad definition video games are most definitely art... My point of view, though, is that everyone should decide for him/herself if something he sees, hears, feels etc. is art or not - I don't care what Ebert says, since he's not me and art, like beauty, lies in the eye of the beholder.

    P.S. So yes, for me some games are art - some aren't - just like some films are and some aren't etc. I would go so far as to say that I don't regard some "pieces of art" (sculptures, paintings) as art - it's all subjective.

    P.P.S. For those of you who have quoted some kind of "definiton" of art - like I said before there is no single definition of art that everybody would agree upon. And no, art does NOT always involve the artist conveying some kind of message - conveying a message is a form of expression and a piece of art could have been made to make an impression on the viewer - totally unrelated to the artist's line of thinking when he was actually making that particular piece of art. Or it could have been made "for art's sake", which is very Oscar-Wildish. =)
    Edited by 2 at 24/07/07 @ 03:47

  • Daikon #80 5 years ago

    Ebert seems to be forgetting that at certain points in time people were saying exactly the same about photography and film - or impressionist paintings for that matter.

  • spongebob #81 5 years ago

    @Lim-Dul

    We've been through this before in the comments section in some older news thread about games being art or not. I still think it's inevitable that humans want to draw lines, no matter if they're in the water.

    We can argue that everything is art or that it could not, we can argue that everything is entertainment or that it is not, and it all comes down to how one perceives things. If you believe that everything is art, well, who am I to say you're wrong. Go ahead, believe what you want. It's a free world.

    On a personal level, I draw a line between art and entertainment. I like to put things in compartments, I like genres. It's easier to discuss issues this way. It can get ridiculous at times, especially when you get to a point when you have a subgenre of a subgenre. Nevertheless, I think even more ridiculous is just throwing your hands in the air and saying that everything is everything.

    In a way it's already a paradox that we discuss these things on a videogames site, which reviews games. That is, they're given a subjective viewing and rating. If you agree with criticism and reviewing in general, you undoubtedly should agree with some kind of idea of what is good and bad, art and entertainment and so forth.

    PS. Why do you think that art always has to be rich, mature and provoking?

    No, but I certainly think that if it is the other way around, it's usually anything else but art. But then again it's all a question of context. As Ebert put it, Warhol made something art by presenting it as such. So I guess you could make Mario games art by projecting them in an art exhibition. In that case the installation there could be regarded as art from a subjective standpoint, but the game itself would remain what it is. In a similar way, Campbell's soup can remains what it is when you see it in a shop. Also you have to remember that Warhol did play with the whole concept of art, what with being one of the artists riding the post-modern wave et al.
    Edited by 1 at 24/07/07 @ 09:18

  • SEVQA #82 5 years ago

    Is Ebert, hanging dead with a PlayStation pad in one hand in my basement and slowly decomposing art? Discuss!

  • Calgon #83 5 years ago

    spongebob: So let me get this straight...
    *Gets a peice of card and writes "ART" in big letters, placing it above the TV and boots up a game*
    Solved?

    Seriously though someone should start sitting in art galleries with a console(except the PS3 because it has no games) and HDTV playing games as people walk by - saying "hmmmm".

  • spongebob #84 5 years ago

    Seriously though someone should start sitting in art galleries with a console(except the PS3 because it has no games) and HDTV playing games as people walk by - saying "hmmmm".

    I think that would make a statement about the sad world we live in. I don't see why that couldn't be art.