The Video Game Art Debate: Is Ebert Right?

I think he's completely wrong personally. Art isn't good or bad, it's just art. Modern art is all shit, but it's still art. Bad music and bad movies are shit, but they're still art. He made the comment that he thought most movies weren't art, which is something I would completely disagree with.

His point, as I understand it, was that no game was a work of art of the caliber of some of the great works of art of history. This is some personal definition of art he uses which is not at all what I or most people would consider the word to mean.

So even if I give him his own personal interpretation of a word, which is contrary to common usage, the dictionary …, I still think he's wrong, but then it becaomse a subjective argument about good and bad. As much as I respect Ebert, he has made statements about such things as movies being objectively good or bad, which is the kind of standard I don't think you can apply to movies, or any other kind of art.

Is a game any less of a game if it's bad? I don't think so. And a game isn't in any way less art because it's not liked. But there are good games, and he just doesn't know about them, but at the risk of repeating what every fan boy on the Internet did by stating their personal favourites, I'll leave it at that.

I support what you're saying, but then again in a way I don't. I support the notion that video games are a separate entity than traditional art, but i would also argue that all of the programming it takes to make a game work takes the same level of skill that it takes to carve a statue. (which you aren't refuting, but follow me for a second here) They are functioning art, art that does something. Is a nicely made cabinet not art just because you can manipulate the cabinet and make it do things (like open doors, lock, hold things)? No way. Its furniture, but its also art. Video games are games, and they're still art.

Like aDam said, some are shitty and some are good, but they're still art. Revenge of the Fallen was a rough ride, but it was still art. Just lame art. I understand Ebert's opinion, and I don't even play video games, but I'd call them art because, well, if an abstract painting or a collage of feces and toiletries can be considering art, then video games more than qualify.

Not to pull on one loose thread and dismiss the rest of the tapestry, but your response to Penny Arcade's “boneheaded foray” felt perhaps more boneheaded than that which elicited it. You're correct, that, one hundred monkeys at typewriters for five years may not generate literature but, whether intentional or not, you're comparing generally directionless primates with purpose-driven human beings. To imply, as an example, that coding a game is any where near the level of Michelangelo using a paint brush is certainly pushing it, but, in a way, that's what it is- if a programmer has / team of programmers have done their job masterfully, our suspension of disbelief is all the more palpable; the virtual world we dwell in having been crafted with acute concern for perfection.

But, again – this is to isolate but one threat and to ignore the rest of the fabric upon the loom.

Allow me to pull one other thread: you are correct that, in the comic posted that day, Tycho did indeed suggest, as a thought experiment, that video games are art, at the very least, by the means in which they are created. They are works of art – much like the works of the great Renaissance artists, they are meticulously constructed by perfectionists and abstract strokes alike. However, you somewhat conspicuously leave out what Jerry Holkins (Tycho, if you prefer) wrote in that day's accompanying newspost. In summation:

-That Roger Ebert may be alot of things, but a designator of what is or what is not valid culture will never be one of them
-That Roger Ebert isn't holding a conversation with anyone in particular, but is merely casting his thoughts out into the internet void, without much concern or interest towards any responses that may come his way, and
-That, as this never was and likely never will be a genuine discourse between Roger Ebert and anyone else, there's nothing truly to discuss here. There's no value in arguing on either side – as Jerry puts it, “[T]here's nothing here to discuss. You can if you want to, and people certainly do, but there's no profit in it. Nobody's going to hold their blade aloft at the end of this thing and found a kingdom. It's just something to fill the hours.”

I realise I'm focusing on the Penny Arcade aspect of this editorial but, truly, Jerry summed things up rather concisely. It's not much different than when Jack Thompson was busy explaining how violent video games were causing gamers to gestate into emotionless killing machines or when Cooper Lawrence was on FoxNews, talking about the SexBox. It's yet another diplomat from outside the Video Gaming Community, here to visit us from foreign lands, their native flag in hand, and to proclaim as loudly as they can, “I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR VIDJA-MA-GAMES AND SO THEY MUST BE EVIL.” And, like all the diplomats before them, they too will eventually lose interest and find something else to complain about.

Not to pull on one loose thread and dismiss the rest of the tapestry, but your response to Penny Arcade's “boneheaded foray” felt perhaps more boneheaded than that which elicited it. You're correct, that, one hundred monkeys at typewriters for five years may not generate literature but, whether intentional or not, you're comparing generally directionless primates with purpose-driven human beings. To imply, as an example, that coding a game is any where near the level of Michelangelo using a paint brush is certainly pushing it, but, in a way, that's what it is- if a programmer has / team of programmers have done their job masterfully, our suspension of disbelief is all the more palpable; the virtual world we dwell in having been crafted with acute concern for perfection.

But, again – this is to isolate but one threat and to ignore the rest of the fabric upon the loom.

Allow me to pull one other thread: you are correct that, in the comic posted that day, Tycho did indeed suggest, as a thought experiment, that video games are art, at the very least, by the means in which they are created. They are works of art – much like the works of the great Renaissance artists, they are meticulously constructed by perfectionists and abstract strokes alike. However, you somewhat conspicuously leave out what Jerry Holkins (Tycho, if you prefer) wrote in that day's accompanying newspost. In summation:

-That Roger Ebert may be alot of things, but a designator of what is or what is not valid culture will never be one of them
-That Roger Ebert isn't holding a conversation with anyone in particular, but is merely casting his thoughts out into the internet void, without much concern or interest towards any responses that may come his way, and
-That, as this never was and likely never will be a genuine discourse between Roger Ebert and anyone else, there's nothing truly to discuss here. There's no value in arguing on either side – as Jerry puts it, “[T]here's nothing here to discuss. You can if you want to, and people certainly do, but there's no profit in it. Nobody's going to hold their blade aloft at the end of this thing and found a kingdom. It's just something to fill the hours.”

I realise I'm focusing on the Penny Arcade aspect of this editorial but, truly, Jerry summed things up rather concisely. It's not much different than when Jack Thompson was busy explaining how violent video games were causing gamers to gestate into emotionless killing machines or when Cooper Lawrence was on FoxNews, talking about the SexBox. It's yet another diplomat from outside the Video Gaming Community, here to visit us from foreign lands, their native flag in hand, and to proclaim as loudly as they can, “I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR VIDJA-MA-GAMES AND SO THEY MUST BE EVIL.” And, like all the diplomats before them, they too will eventually lose interest and find something else to complain about.

First things first: let it be said that I was paraphrasing Jerry Holkins when I mentioned that Roger isn't interested in a conversation. And I stand by that claim; not because I wish to be intentionally confrontational but because of the following:

Rogert Ebert is a man who has lived his life blissfully unaware of videogames. If he has played them at all, the experiences certainly haven't left any indelible impression on him. And that's fine – there's nothing inherently wrong with that. Where I believe Ebert has erred is when he feels the need to make bold claims on something that he has entirely no interest in. When a human being makes a declarative statement about an innocuous hobby that I enjoy that they, themselves, have little to no interest in, well, yes, I can't help but offer up the following rhetorical response:

Why does he care in the first place? And what, if anything, is he hoping to accomplish with his bold claim?

Tycho / Jerry asked why should we care what he says, and there's merit to that. At the end of the day, I don't lose sleep over what Roger Ebert thinks about one of my favorite pastimes. But, again, I ask: why does Roger Ebert care whether or not video games are art? He quite clearly doesn't have any real emotional connections to games. His responses to Kellee Santiago were pretty indicative of that. And the five billion commentors on his blog can offer up great games all the livelong day – I highly doubt he's going to go out of his way to invest in any of the equipment required to play all or even some of them, beyond what he's already written about.

Additionally: I enjoyed “At The Movies” during its heyday with Gene and Roger. And the thing I most enjoyed? The back and forth discourse between the two. That's what we're doing here. Beyond snarky remarks and paraphrasing himsef, I don't really see that going on in the comments section of Roger's blog. I don't really see that going on in Roger's Twitter account. And that's fine – to say that there's alot of comments to respond to is putting things very mildly. But I really don't think Roger is that interested in such discourse. He's made up his mind: games may be alot of things but they ain't art. We will never convince him that Ico is anywhere near the relevance of Beethoven's Ninth or Van Gogh's Starry Night or anything like that. I really feel like this is an attempt to stay relevant. I feel like this is something in the same vein as Jack Thompson or Anderson Cooper- someone who doesn't feel any real emotional connection to video games is making bold claims about them for no other reason than to remind the rest of the world that they exist in the first place. To hear the sound of their own voice.

Why else would someone who doesn't care for games in the first place write about how little they should matter compared to the rest of the culture?

I feel that my views on this subject fall more in line with aDam's, in that my definition of Art is far more inclusive. I'm not certain what definition of art you are using here. The discussion of what is art is a worthwhile discussion, as is the discussion of what is good art, a lot of it is subjective, but there is a good deal that can be judged objectively to some degree as well. Personally, I feel as though toys can be art, so long as someone in the process sees their work as something intended to do more than merely profit. Art is a creation intended to elicit an emotional response from an audience.