Enchantermon on 3/5/2010 at 04:56

---

**Thief spoilers present**

Roger Ebert's stance on video games as art was mentioned en passant in a thread a while back, but now he's actually (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html) written a blog about it in response to a video by Kellee Santiago (linked in the blog) which takes the opposite position.
If we're going to go with the Wikipedia definition, that "[a]rt is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions", then I don't see why video games can't be art. The Myst series immediately come to mind; though the primary purpose of all of the games is to eventually reach the resolution, on the way you are treated to a visually, aurally and emotionally rewarding experience.
Further, why limit the effects to purely pleasant ones? Thief brings out lots of emotions in me; I couldn't have been the only one who cringed when Viktoria took out Garrett's eye, felt vindicated upon the death of Constantine, and sat shocked and angry when Viktoria sacrificed herself to stop Karras. We're not even going to talk about the Cradle. And returning to the positive, I doubt I'm the only one who smiled and felt warm inside when Garrett caught the girl at the end of Thief 3.

Video game design is certainly an art. I don't think even Ebert would argue with that, given the time to discover all of the design and planning that went into creating games like Myst or Thief. But is art the final result? I think it largely depends on the person and how they react to a certain game, to be honest. Also, I would also say that comparing games to the Great Masters is doing a disservice to both. If video games are to be considered art, then they're a different type of art than, for example, a Charles Dickens novel or a Shakespearean play. The end result is the same, but just because it's arrived at in two somewhat different ways doesn't validate one way and invalidate another.

addink on 3/5/2010 at 08:47

---

After reading the first couple of paragraphs of the linked page I couldn't be bothered to read on..

It's clearly a matter of definition. And the problem with that is that there's no definitive one, there is no one authority that can (or should) be able to distinguish between successful and failed attempts at art. So we can discuss it until the end of time, but in the end it will mainly be a waste of our energy.

One thing that I would like to add to the topic is that video games are a culmination of a lot of media. Media that on their own won't trigger any sorry discussions on whether they can be art or not.
If a video game features a moving story, music and/or visuals all with layered depth and symbolism, there's really no way it can't be considered art.

The only aspect of video games that's really new to the arena is interaction. There is room to discuss whether audience participation / intrusion can form a experience in such a way that the audience is moved in unexpected ways, that their lives are enriched just by doing what they feel like. Well, I don't know.
But what I do know is that the video games don't (have to) surrender all to its audience. The audience can be forced to experience parts of the game without really having a choice, force feeding a situation down the audience' throat that is unexpected, clever, even moving:
* The way a lot of Looking Glass games feature a story that has already happened, the player is just engaged in figuring out what, how and why, only actively playing a part in cleaning up afterward.
* Would you kindly in Bioshock springs to mind as an apt example on player freedom.* Also the last level of Braid fits the bill rather well. You're actively engaged in playing the last scene, reuniting yourself with the princess only forgetting that time is running backwards.

So that's me. Not discussing the topic :rolleyes:


EDIT:
Left the blog page open and stumbled upon it now and read some more paragraphs.. He even mentions Braid and dismisses it immediately because the game allows you to go back in time to correct your mistakes, according to Ebert that nullifies the game because
.. He's just full of shit, isn't he? There's no way he even saw the game in action before dismissing it.

Sulphur on 3/5/2010 at 18:46

---

Oh, they're an art, all right. They're an arrangement of multiple art assets designed to move you in a specific way. Some people might not like one particular arrangement, or may find a certain other arrangement more to their tastes. It's all a matter of perspective.

----

Now, if you replace the word 'art assets' up there with 'narrative techniques', or 'sounds made by musical instruments' you have films/books, and music. Alternatively, if you replace 'art assets' with 'sexual organs' or 'multicoloured dildos' you have the last bukkake festival I attended, approximately half of my porno collection, the majority of the internet, and, cumulatively, Kubrick's never-heard never-seen and uncut version of Eyes Wide Shut.

One of these things might just happen to be art.

***

So there you have it. A definition war that plays fast and loose like this is a stupid idea. Drop it.

Ebert is working from a very narrow definition of what art is, and furthermore, when he hasn't even sampled the medium he's criticising properly, he can't apply that narrow definition because he's not experiencing it as it was intended. He wants to watch these games like they're movies. He despises the fact that they need user input. He believes that physical interaction with the media dilutes the experience because, if it were to be appraised like a movie, then audience interaction means that the creator's vision is being messed with.

Interaction, according to Ebert, and if you'll pardon the irony of my saying this, dumbs down the experience.

And that's where he's wrong. They were made exactly with that in mind. It reminds me of the story of this shock artist, who once put goldfish in blenders filled with water, and presented them at an exhibition. People who came in were invited to push the button to turn them into chopped sushi.

The idea behind this, of course, was to explore the bounds of humanity. Would you push the button if you were there? And if you did, what would you feel afterwards? If you hadn't pushed the button, would you regret missing the opportunity later?

Now, take away that element of choice. You are presented with either goldfish swimming placidly in a blender, or floating bits of sushi. Is it still art? Maybe. As provocative? No.

That's the power of interaction, and the point that Ebert is missing. The point that he won't know about video games and desperately assumes that he has an inkling of because he's watched videos of them.

It baffles me why people want to give so much attention to this man, who's arguing about something he knows little about, and refuses to so much as let it enter his field of experience even if only to provide more logical arguments about it.

Sulphur on 3/5/2010 at 20:50

---

I'm paying more attention to Ebert's flawed reasoning faculties than to what kind of person he is. I don't think of myself as your usual ad hominem type of person, unless you really deserve it.

Pardoner on 3/5/2010 at 21:32

---

So, you are paying attention to him.