PART 3 -- Are Video Games A Form Of Art?

Ok, Finally. Mr. Ebert. 

from cave paintings



to the Sistine Chapel

I want to begin by offering my thanks to Mr. Ebert. From what I have seen online, it is because of Mr. Ebert that the video games as art debate has received as much coverage as it has. The majority of articles you will initially find are either in response to his comments, or reference them in some fashion.

It all began back in 2005 when Roger Ebert said on his website:

"Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.

I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

Moving on, here's the link to his follow up blog post. It's not a long post and it's a fun read if you have the time. It takes forever for my work computer to pull it up though because of the 4819 comments and counting. This is the first of two of his posts I want to cover. (btw, it wasn't until April 2010 that he decided to revisit the issue)

So let's dissect what he said (summarized & very-much-so simplified):

-- Ebert basically summarizes a TED talk given by Kellee Santiago at USC <-- good stuff !! i'll provide a link to the TED talk later on.. my work blocks most video sites =/

-- here are a few quotes I picked out from Ebert's blog:

"Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form...

Santiago concedes that chess, football, baseball and even mah jong cannot be art, however elegant their rules. I agree. But of course that depends on the definition of art. She says the most articulate definition of art she's found is the one in Wikipedia: 'Art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions.'...

Death of Socrates

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them...

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."

---

Alright, so RE (Roger Ebert) begins his post by rescinding his previous claim that video games will NEVER be art. He changes his opinion to: Maybe, just maybe, games might be art someday. But none of us alive now will be around to see it if it ever happens.

His main points of argument (again, simplified) seem to be that:

1) There aren't any games in existence that are worthy of comparison with great poets, filmmakers, novelists, dramatists, composers, painters, sculptors, etc.

2) games require player control/decisions.

---

Here's the second blog post. He put this up in July of 2010. RE felt compelled to add to his initial post because he received such a large response. This second post has received 1594 comments.

IMO, this is the better read of the two. Simply because he gives a lot more of his two cents, and it seems he put a lot more thought into this one.

-- RE begins by admitting that he never should have commented on gaming without having experienced it himself (having never played a game before and refusing to do so). Apparently, by the time of his writing the July post, he decided to play a couple of games that were consistently referenced by people commenting on his April post.

-- Shadow of the Colossus was the most often mentioned as being considered a "masterpiece" of gaming. Myst, and Cosmology of Kyoto rounded out the top three nominees, which are the two he decided to test drive. RE claims he actually really enjoyed Cosmology, while he didn't have the patience for Myst.

Myst



Shadow of the Colossus



Cosmology of Kyoto



-- Then, RE references a debate he had with filmmaker and game auteur, Clive Barker, on games and art. You can read it here. Barker attacks RE on his argument that art cannot have a certain amount of "malleability in the narrative". Or, in other words, that player choices take away from artistic value. Barker instead takes the stance that art can be an unique experience different for each individual.

-- RE goes on to find a suitable definition for Art that would exclude video games. He concludes with this:

"I thought about those works of Art that had moved me most deeply. I found most of them had one thing in common: Through them I was able to learn more about the experiences, thoughts and feelings of other people. My empathy was engaged. I could use such lessons to apply to myself and my relationships with others. They could instruct me about life, love, disease and death, principles and morality, humor and tragedy. They might make my life more deep, full and rewarding.

Not a bad definition, I thought. But I was unable to say how music or abstract art could perform those functions, and yet they were Art. Even narrative art didn't qualify, because I hardly look at paintings for their messages. It's not what it's about, but how it's about it. As Archibald MacLeish wrote: A poem should not mean, but be.

I concluded without a definition that satisfied me. I had to be prepared to agree that gamers can have an experience that, for them, is Art. I don't know what they can learn about another human being that way, no matter how much they learn about Human Nature. I don't know if they can be inspired to transcend themselves. Perhaps they can. How can I say? I may be wrong. but if I'm not willing to play a video game to find that out, I should say so. I have books to read and movies to see. I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place."

---

i'm going to try to keep this short and sweet because this post is already filled with copy and paste. also, i plan on giving my final thoughts in part 5 anyway (which means there will be a part 4).

part 4 will review the many articles and responses to RE's blog, as well as a paper written on the issue.

anyway, scrolling through the comments of his july post, you'll find that several comments commend RE on revisiting the topic. i wish to do the same. he could have easily ran away from the mob of gamers that he awoke and disappeared back into the world of film. but instead he tried his best to take us gamers head on and even did something he never wanted to (and said he never would)... play a game. i thank you mr. Ebert for your courage.

after reading through RE's blog and some of the comments, RE's debate with Barker, watching the TED talk, and articles and articles... i've generally seen that people have grown tired of the debate (RE included). the reason being that it feels like we'll never reach a definitive answer. which is always the case when entering a philosophical debate.. but the general public will mostly have a knee jerk reaction, and forget about it.

i mean, of course the debate feels hopeless. how can we figure out if something is something else if we can barely agree on what the something else is? art, has many definitions. in just reading RE's blogs you're provided with several of them. One from wikipedia, one from the dictionary, one from RE, Barker, Plato and Socrates, etc. i've chosen to stay away from defining art because that's a whole other ball of wax.

what i'm choosing to focus on is the discussion. because by talking about it, it has the potential to be. at least one day. the way we think about paintings, literature, sculptures, poetry, plays, photos, music, etc, most of us don't question that these things are art. they just are art. at least in our minds. one day, we'll know whether or not we think about games as art. the only way to get there is to keep thinking about it (as a society), keep talking about it.

a friend of mine and i always used to have this argument: is art subjective or objective? i would say art is in the eye of the beholder. i could look at some scribbles on a piece of paper and consider it beautiful.. but to him, it might look like scribbles. what he says, is that the mona lisa is the mona lisa for a reason. good art is good for a reason. he believes that it's not up to each individual. meaning, if something is determined to be a masterpiece, like the mona lisa, it's decided by the experts. and the mass public merely follows along. but then, one might argue, an average joe can look at the mona lisa and say, it's ugly, it means nothing to me, it's not good art, or even, it's not art at all. my buddy would say to this person: "you're an idiot".

so is art subjective? up to each of us? or objective? it just is. or isn't? who knows, again, that's a whole other discussion i'd rather not get into. too much typing. and not enough time at work..

well while we're at it. let's say it is objective. who are these supposed experts? who gets to decide what's art and what's not? who gets to decide what's good art and what's bad art? well, for now, i'm saying, who cares?

cuz when it comes to games, it's clear that games aren't at the paintings, literature, sculptures, etc level. i would say for now (to us-i'm speaking in general here) it's somewhere inbetween. like i said before though, i still think games are in their infancy, and have a long way to go. kinda like how cave paintings evolved to works like the sistine chapel (as mentioned in RE's blog and originally by Santiago in the TED talk). games have a long way to go too. maybe some day we will think of games as art without giving it a second thought.

look at how much games have already evolved. last year brought us kinect, the ability to play games without holding anything at all (sorry sony but move is just a glorified wiimote- but i will say that sony was first to release this technology with the playstation eye, microsoft just perfected it..)



what i do?



you can go to modern art museums and see all kinds of weird stuff being passed off as art. a lot of those things you might question too. like i've once seen a looping cartoon video of OJ Simpson's trial on a tv set in a museum.

digital art is a whole new realm. in fact, video games are already making their way into museums too.

and i don't mean some random traveling road show. no, i'm not driving around with my ps3 in the trunk.

games are about to be in the smithsonian in 2012. i can't wait to go check it out. i'm curious what they might have. will they have games to play? will they show clips of games? or will they just have screenshots? maybe game inspired art? here's an article about the exhibit

game inspired art- they already have an exhibition like this every year at:  i am 8-bit



PacMan Art



also worth mentioning: into the pixel at the electronic entertainment expo (E3)

Turok Art

what i've been saying is the content and creation process of games could be compromised by censorship and regulations.

but hey, maybe games aren't art, maybe they're just games. for fun. or at least, maybe they shouldn't be treated as art. that could be dangerous o_0. maybe they're making our kids too violent. maybe we should censor them, and restrict their sale to minors. who knows... only time will tell.

part 4 next