Video Games Can Never Be Art

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

I'm sure many of you out there with your finger on the pulse have come across this already. This is famous cinema critic Roger Ebert's blog, I suppose, and in this particular entry he claims that video games are not an art form, have never been an art form and will not be an art form in any generation we'll live to see. It's laughable elitism and I thought I'd share it because if anyone does have an opinion worth listening to on this issue, it's the gaming community.

As for Mr Ebert, he might be respect as a film critic but he's completely out of his field here. Ebert's argument falls flat on its face the moment he admits that he's never seen a video game that interested him enough to play. With that we know he's making his judgement on second hand information at best. More importantly, though, Mr Ebert isn't trying to discuss this with anyone. He's arguing against someone else's claims but he's really having a conversation with himself. He's made up his mind and nothing will ever change that. You might call this an Epic Fail in the school of debate.

So we turn the question over to you. Are video games art? All of them? Some of them? Are they becoming art but are not yet art?

As a whole, I do not consider Video Games to be "art." Some might be good to look at and thus be considered art by some which does make some sense. Its good to look at, it might make you "wow" at what the game has for its scenery, but Video Gm,es and painting, picture taking and other art forms are seperate classes.

i say video games are interactive story-telling. in that way they are art. however that is my opinion of what art is. there is NO truth to what art is or isnt. some view porn as art. others see feces tossed against a wall as art. i draw my line and others draw theirs. in the end thats all we can do. however i do think it is important to limit what you, yourself, believe art is. if you say art is anything and everything then what you really are saying is art is nothing. everything cannot be art because then the word wouldlose all meaning. whatever lines you draw, preserve them.

I don't know the exact definition of art, but I take it as a form of expression and has something to do with inspiring and conveying intense emotions. I would say many video games fulfill this requirement.

The problem with answering the question seems to be finding an agreeable way to define art. But I think a game like Heavenly Sword is just as visually pleasing and has as much asthetic value as a classical painting.

I think if one is to count cinema as art or theatre or novels as a form of art then there's no way you can exclude video games. Maybe calling pac man an art form would be a stretch but we've come a long way sinse then and arcade style games are increasinly rarer in favour of a greater focus on narrative.

I disagree with him, but everybody has their own idea of what "art" is and he is entitled to his own. I don't feel like all video games can be classified as art, but some certainly deserve to be. Games are evolving along with technology, and as a storytelling medium they're really coming into their own now.

I disagree with him, but everybody has their own idea of what "art" is and he is entitled to his own. I don't feel like all video games can be classified as art, but some certainly deserve to be. Games are evolving along with technology, and as a storytelling medium they're really coming into their own now.

VigilanteArtist

depends on how you define art

Defining what qualifies as art is comletely subjective. I can see games like Okami and Ico may be considered art, but not video games as a whole.

Defining what qualifies as art is comletely subjective. I can see games like Okami and Ico may be considered art, but not video games as a whole.

slipkill89

Mr Ebert should keep his nose out of video games because he clearly doesn't understand them. Clearly Mr Ebert doesn't know the PS3 game Flower because that game is a piece of art.

The dictionary defines art as: "theexpressionor application of human creative skill andimagination..."

If we use this definition, then heck yeah, video games are an art form. True, some video games aren't all that creative or imaginative, but the truly original ones which you can tell the game developers have poured their heart and soul into- those are art. Mr. Ebert is apparently very ignorant on the subject, and I think he should play a few video games himself before making such a judgement.

I don't know the exact definition of art, but I take it as a form of expression and has something to do with inspiring and conveying intense emotions. I would say many video games fulfill this requirement.

one_plum

No one knows the exact definition of art, because the definition has been dumbed down to the point where it doesn't mean anything anymore.

The day people started standing around in museums, pondering over an exhibit of a jar of pee - is the day art lost it's meaning.

People need to stop showing Ebert the artsy video games because by that token they'll never stack up to the "higher" forms of art. Something like Braid might have a nice art style, but that has nothing to do with this discussion. We don't view a video game in the same way we view a painting. IMO the art in a game comes from the whole creative process. Part of how I view games as art is from, usually, its complexity. How much is packed into the thing.

Ebert has a point, regardless, and it's true that games are still coming to their own feet thus aren't taken as seriously as films are. But films have had well over eighty years to mature. Games have been evolving since the 80s, but only in this century have they started to be taken remotely in seriousness by the public and started to become big-budget affairs. I think part of the reason why Ebert calls films art is because much of the narrative is done how the director wants it done. This includes even stuff like lighting and camera angles to set mood. In a game, nearly all of that is given to the player to control. Lighting and camera angles might feel too mechanical and robotic. And yes, while we have nice cutscenes, those are still movies. Somebody looking in might view them as pale imitations.

I think I read this from the article (this was a while back, though) and he'd said art is done by an individual or something alone those lines. I just want to point out, a film is created by a crew of hundreds of people. Sure the director might be calling the shots, but it still uses many peoples' talents and it lies on how well the director can bring those out. If Ebert is using that argument, he is wrong on that account.