I’m sure the world at large is well aware of who Roger Ebert is. Although, what the rest of the world may not know, or care about, is his position on whether or not video games are art.
In case you were wondering, his position is an emphatic: No. The near-lifelong movie critic had posted a rather highly publicized entry on his blog last year, stating that medium that we hold so dear – is not art.
The reason that this news has once again become relevant is because Mr. Ebert has recently taken the time to respond to some criticism he received about this opinion. Criticism that was expounded by novelist, painter, screenwriter, and all around artist: Clive Barker.
Way more after the jump.
Barker, it seems, had taken offense to what Ebert previously had said about video games, and made remarks about Ebert’s point of view at the last Hollywood and Games Summit.
Via his blog, Ebert has since replied to the comments that Barker had made. Through his responses to Barker, Ebert continues to proselytize the idea that games are not art, or at least that they, “could not be high art, as I understand it.”
Ebert then follows that statement by categorizing the entire breadth and history of gaming into just three genres. Apparently, all games are either: point and shoot games, games in which you hunt or scavenge for treasure “as in Myst,” or ones in which the player controls the outcome.
He then later goes on to defend his opinion by semantically attacking certain quotes of Barker’s. Even going as far as to teach him the definition of the word prejudice and, at one point, equate one of Barker’s statements to that, “of an honest and articulate 4-year old.”
Impressively mature, Mr. Ebert. Maybe later we can all play a game of I know you are, but what am I?
Ebert eventually throws Barker a backhanded bone by saying that Barker’s Undying could be art; that is, if it had been blessed by the hands of the late Andy Warhol.
Andy Warhol was, by the way, an artist. Clive Barker is currently an artist. Roger Ebert, though, is not an artist.
But for him to claim one artists work isn’t art unless another artist touches it, is a clear and direct insult to Barker. One in which I hope that Barker responds to with even more venom than this reporter can muster.
Personally, I have no idea where Ebert gets off telling the world what is, or isn’t, art. Especially when he passes these judgments on mediums he, quite obviously, doesn’t understand.
This is evidenced by his rather bold claim that all video games can only fall into one of three categories. This statement shows that he is either profoundly uninformed or, quite possibly, ignorant of the video game world at large.
I suppose that’s why he called Myst a treasure/scavenger hunt.
It would seem that Mr. Ebert and I must have received different copies of Myst, because I’m pretty sure that the version that I played was a story driven puzzle game. It’s quite possible that my memories have lied to me, but I think this miscatagorization has more to do with the fact that Ebert has a very narrow view of mediums that are completely unfamiliar to him.
For example, I did go see a movie the other day. I would have described the film as a period piece, with riveting performances and dramatic undertones. Although, were I to describe it in the same way Ebert sees video games -- I would have called it a “Western.”
In other words, Mr Ebert, stick to what you know, and leave the art of gaming to the artists.
[Via, Actiontrip]
Contest:
5:47 AM on 07.24.2007
| 
It's quite the unique smell too, it's like boiled cabbage.
In a nutshell, fuck him.
He just needs to play some damn games.
I don't really side with either of these guys on this issue, but David Cronenberg and Salman Rushdie had a terrific interview where they discussed the idea of video games as art. (It's a long one, so just text search for Mario if you get bored).
Rushdie proposed the idea that someone who was really great at performing while playing video games could be thought of as an artist.
I've always have had a love-hate relationship with him. Some movie I thought were awesome, were totally destroyed in his reviews. Some movies I didn't really care for, he loved (Garfield). But I always had respect for how he just said: I like this movie, it might suck but I had a great time anyway.
Then there are his remarks about gaming. He should've just phrased them more carefully. Then again, why should he have to, just because now there are the internets? It looks like he was having a bad day or something while he wrote this. Ebert can be overly immature and harsh at times, this was one of those times.
He should've sticked with his original comments: photos can be art because they can elicit an emotion and give us insight that no other medium can do. The same is true for movies, you have Transformers and you have The Godfather. All the aspects you juggle, pacing, writing, direction, camera techniques, lighting, composition etc etc. You have to master them all to become a Kurosawa. His core issue was that with a movies or photos, you have 1 piece of visual material that can move an audience in different ways. It can feel different to different people, it can make a 20 year old feel idealistic again or it could make a 40 year-old reflect on his life so far.
With games, you have control over it. Every experience is changed because every experience is different because of the different actions. It's like instead of staring at the monolith from 2001, we turn it into clay and mold it to our style... and THEN look at it. Of course it will be good to our eye, but it never forced us to see past anything. We keep looking at the surface, with perhaps a MGS-, KOTOR or The Longest Journey story slapped onto it.
Ebert's point was that since there is interaction, the normal/oldfashioned way of seeing art is no longer valid. Then again, through interaction you could elicit emotions as well, in theory. I think he just looks at the gaming industry as just another thing those young kids do, while he has been giving lectures detailing shot-by-shot analyses of Citizen Kane. And if you look at the industry from the mainstream media perspective, there is not really that much too see. Okami for example never got that kind of attention. Mario definately is not art even if it is created by someone or can make you feel happy. XTC does the same, and XTC is not art.. or well...
I disagree that games will never be art, but they are not Godfathers by a long shot. He should have just resisted the urge to comment. He comes across as an arrogant old man now. But then again, disagreeing and at the same time agreeing with him is exactly why I love to read his shitty/great reviews.
If he ever recovers from his 1 year cancer recovery and feels better, I bet he will just say: "Oh well I was feeling terrible at the time, shouldn't have called Barker a 4-year old" and not care one bit about what the internets have to say about it.
"You would say, then, that a game designer could never be an artist?
Never say never. Somebody could turn up who would be a genius. But if one thinks about non-computer games, there are many which people say have the beauty of an art form. People say that about cricket, people say about every game."
"In the end, a work of art is something which comes out of somebody's imagination and takes a final form. It's offered and is then completed by the reader or the viewer or whoever it may be. Anything else is not what I would recognize as a work of art."
That pretty much is Ebert's whole issue about gaming as Art, as seen by those that 'define' what art 'is'. If only I read it 20 minutes ago... chocolate raaaain
Oh lawd, that is the best banner I have ever seen for the site.
What I tried to say was that Ebert comes across as a n00b, and will be flamed for his n00b-look. But in order to understand what he tried to say, not just this once but other times before, and imho there is something to say for SotC as a great videogame not being in the same league as great movies or great paintings.
But it's something that is very open to interpretation. He takes the "this can be art, that is not art" stand. You could also say everything is art and there is good and bad art. The point where you start from is just often left behind. I only meant to shed some light on that :)
I always appreciate it when someone takes the time to leave well-thought out and reasoned comments. (Although, I do still appreciate the occasional OMG, LAWLZ posts for variety's sake).
It could be that I took way too many critical theory courses in college and that my head is stuck up my own ass, but I'm inclined to call any sort of meaning-making activity art. Flashmobs, graffiti, cooking, elaborate practical jokes . . . it all fits under the grand rubric for me. I just don't understand what point it would serve to have a restrictive opinion of what constitutes art.
Great comment, well thought out and well written. I'm not going to go there as you've said enough about where his opinion comes from. What I will say is that it's the same stunted view of games never being able to be declared as art that really kicks his opinion back to the middle ages. People said the same thing about movies until they realised their mistake.
Simple rule of thumb: anything can be considered art, not everything is art but everything has the potential to be art.
His Warhol comments are the most ridiculous because of this. Only Warhol's Cambell's Soup Can picture can ever be considered to be art. No other. *sigh*What he's saying is, after the initial art, everything else is imitation, therefore not art? Or that if, say Monet had painted a soup can, it wouldn't be art, not matter how evocative or epic?
This man is a silly man with archaic ideas that he hasn't so much thought through himself as regurgitated. Maybe the bowel movement he mentions so often just didn't clear out enough shit.
This is sensationalized media, Destructoid. I'm disappointed :(
You didn't happen to notice the slightly negative opinion that games CAN NEVER AND WILL NEVER BE ART?
I considered that to be a negative. I suppose if you think that all art is shit it's a positive thing but I dunno, still striking me as a negative.
Then this (below) damn sure should be.
I wasn't a fan of Okami, in all honesty, it was boring to me. But, it's art style was fantastic and that's something I did enjoy about the game. If shitty "splatter art", something any 4-year old child could do, can be considered a form of art then a masterful looking game like Okami should be considered art as well.
My point is, art is art no matter what. Anytime a person expresses themselves through something, or makes a point, through somehting. Mr. Ebert has alot of nerve thinking he can officially declare what is and what not is art.
In that case, how are games not art? I feel happy when i get something good in a game, or something good happens, i feel awe when something big or really cool looking shows up, i feel anger and even hatred when i come across something that kills me or beats me often. I feel fear when playing FEAR(who wouldve guessed) or at least i did the first time thru. I feel an incredible sense of accomplishment when i win a hard-fought, close battle or pull off something really difficult in pretty much every game ive ever played, single player and multiplayer.
This guy may be a famous critic, he may well be fairly intelligent for all i know, but in this case, he is just plain wrong, no argument.
You can't fault Destructoid for showing a little resentment towards Ebert's stance. This is a videogame focused site after all. After reading the article I feel very disappointed that Ebert has shut his mind to videogames. Games have been evolving rapidly ever since the NES launched in the 80s. After playing games like FF7, Zelda OoT, SoTC, Ico, ect I believe seeing games develop into "high art" is very likely. User interaction is something I believe will make games more appealing than film as time goes on. I can understand why he feels this limits the medium, but different experiences and interpretations is what makes art so interesting in the first place. If everyone felt the same about movies, games, paintings, ect would we even care?
@glipe: I never understood what was so great about Warhol. His comments about it felt like he just thought of the first artist he could think of and used that. He might as well have made a pic like this and then called it art:
That's cool that an actual Transformers fan liked the movie.
I have mixed feelings myself. I'm actually working on the bonus features for the Transformers DVD. I'm not allowed to talk about what we're doing, before anybody asks, but I have to say, I felt so bad for Peter Cullen. I recently watched all of his ADR sessions for the movie. He's such a dignified respectable man and here Michael Bay was forcing him to repeat "Don't lubricate on that man" over and over again. Bathroom humor in Transformers, FTL.
Not my taste, but is it art? In my book, absofuckinglutely. A great text on the topic is Bakhtin's Rabelais and His World. He's a Russian art theorist, who argued that even the basest humor like Gargantua and Pantagruel can be considered art, if you understand what that humor represents about cycles of life and death. Way too complicated to get into here (I'm too dumb to do it justice anyway), but worth a check if you ever want the definition of art torn wide apart.
Well done. He even gets the easiest info from his high art wrong.
I'll read that Bakhtin text later, tnx. I found Kung Pow art if you watch it in the right "mood", while I fell asleep 3x watching Andrei Rublev. Guess I just had no idea wtf he meant by a random horse falling down for 1 minute.
Now that I think of it, I'd love to see stuff like that in a game! Too bad they'd sell 10 copies of it and go bankrupt..
I love how there are so many ppl from different backgrounds here with gaming connecting us. Now I just need some mudkipz , lulz and chocolate raaaaaaaaain to balance me out before I cry!
Unpleasant image, I know, but this wanton overuse of the word "art" makes me furious. The term is utterly meaningless and it's nothing but an excuse for lazy craftsmanship. "Art" is supposed to mean "craft":
ART.
NOT ART.
ART.
NOT. FREAKING. ART.
Video games are art. Plain and simple.
If Film is art, then Animated Films are art. If Animated Films are art, Why aren't video games art? Basically games are Animated Movies in which the player controls the main character. Anyone who doesn't agree is just ignorant, and close minded.
You know what? forget it. "Art" is the vaguest, least meaningful word in the English language. If video games aren't art, then sweet. I kind of like it better that way, because then we won't get into stupid arguments over the meaning of life and we can continue discussing things that have real objective value.
Whoa, hold up. How do I not know anything of art in reference to painting? Are you going to sit there and actually tell me that "splatter art" is any where near as a legitimate art as video games? I'm sorry if I don't see flicking paint at a canvas as art compared to something that is made painstakingly, and purposely an actual image. If people want to call that art, then so be it, but if you can call that art then there is no question that something like video games can and should be considered art.
only a scrapbooker could say "art" is supposed to mean "craft."