Simple question: Do you think Video games can ever be considered as an Art form?

[Wolfy]

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


Apparently Mr. Ebert doesn't think so.


So what about you?

[Brandon]

Im confident that video games already are Art. A video game can tell a story better then a movie and a book. A game can inspire emotion, explain philosophy,  wow the eyes and the ears. All of those things are often what people say art does so I dont understand how people cant accept video games as art now.

I think the problem is that while most can inspire they just dont. "Artists" tend to think that all games should inspire but while we expect Leonardo Da Vinci's Mona Lisa to be visual art we dont accept the painting I did a painting I did in my sophmore art class as art. Its pretty much just a double standard, they want all games to be art but they dont accept all poem's, paintings, or statues as art.

[Juicy]

Simple answer: yes.

[NCIJade]

Oh yes, I definitely do. I have played some really amazing games in every genre and games that just blow my mind and make me want to play them again and again, drooling all the while waiting for the next installment to come out... Video games can be, and I think should be considered art, definitely.

[Mnemaxa]

Look up 'Zun' and 'Touhou'. 

The Touhou games are 'bullet hell' games where you fly a female sorceress of various sorts against other enemies and try and avoid the massive baragges of bullets they fire at you long enough to get a few shots at a time in. 

While this doesn't seem very artistic, you would have to see some of the shots of the final bosses in play to realize the artistic deign, the cleverness of how there is always a way to escape certain death no matter how deadly the enemy. 

More importantly, the games, silly and basic seeming as they are, has inspired hundreds, possibly thousands of artists to create artwork based on the Touhou characters - Zun the programmer is a terribly artist, but his many, many, many fan have generated enough artwork to fill pages upon pages of books with their designs and histories and worlds.  And is that not the definition of art?  "That which inspires us?"

[Jude]

Kind of a silly question if you really think about it.  Video games are a composition of many types of artistic works; music, illustration, literature, etc.  If the parts are art, then I think it's fairly obvious that the sum must be.

Art itself is such an ambiguous term that it's nearly impossible to argue that anything isn't art.

I also don't understand what the point of saying video games aren't art is (even if it were true).

I take it as either an attempt to label them as an inferior medium by people who are worried about losing marketshare to them or an attempt to avoid being associated with something that is widely seen as pretentious.

[Juicy]

Kind of a silly question if you really think about it.  Video games are a composition of many types of artistic works; music, illustration, literature, etc.  If the parts are art, then I think it's fairly obvious that the sum must be.

Art itself is such an ambiguous term that it's nearly impossible to argue that anything isn't art.

I also don't understand what the point of saying video games aren't art is (even if it were true).

I take it as either an attempt to label them as an inferior medium by people who are worried about losing marketshare to them or an attempt to avoid being associated with something that is widely seen as pretentious.

This would have been my "complex" answer. Thank you, Jude.

[Brandon]

I think part of his problem is that he doesnt play games and has to be told what things are about but that never interests him enough to give them a fair chance. The other issue that comes to my mind is he tears down all those definitions of art. If he isnt happy with those definitions then I would like to know what is his definition of art? If I knew that Im sure that I could convince him that video games were art

[Jude]

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.

Heavy Rain, Mass Effect, etc.  If you use the biased criteria that traditionalists put forth this might actually be true, but then you have to wonder if that criteria exists because it's true or if it exists as self-justifying logic.

On pure enjoyment, video games win out any day.  When it comes to emotional impact, how do you even measure that?  Happiness is an emotion, or are we defining this such as only the more complicated, mixed feelings matter?

Competitive multiplayer in a shooter certainly gives me a burst of adrenaline then a sense of euphoria when my team wins (especially if I played an essential role in that victory), whereas the Iliad and the Odyssey put me to sleep.

[Brandon]

I think the issue with that point of view is they want us to cite games to compare with artists. Those are two different things. You can respect a director, a poet, or a novelist but games are never thought to be the product of 1 person (and films should be thought of as multi person creations as well). I could say Bioware makes some awesome games where most could be considered art through visuals, story, and culture effecting situations but I wouldnt pin any one name to any bioware game.

Now there are some games we could pin a single name to such as Peter molyneux for the fable games or Tim Schafer for Psychonaughts but those are at best exceptions. As gamers we recognize companies for their artwork not single people.

[Vekseid]

Sid Meier (the Civilization franchise), John Carmack (Doom, Quake), Richard Garriott (Ultima), Hironobu Sakaguchi (Final Fantasy)...

Do I seriously need to go on? Nearly every video game ever produced is - at its core - the product of a single person's unifying vision. Someone takes the lead on a project and makes that vision into reality, coordinating developers and artists alike. Or (more often) programming it themselves. Just because massive game studious are trying to sweep their devs under the rug (again) doesn't mean that same vision is not present.

[Oniya]

Any new art form is rarely seen as 'art' when it first appears.  Picasso, Jackson Pollack, Giger, John Cage, Mapplethorpe, even Stravinsky and Liszt have tread on the boundaries of 'art' with varying degrees of success.  I see no reason why the fantastic graphics and orchestral themes in a video game couldn't be described as art, but it might take a while before the mainstream sees that.

[Brandon]

Sid Meier (the Civilization franchise), John Carmack (Doom, Quake), Richard Garriott (Ultima), Hironobu Sakaguchi (Final Fantasy)...

Do I seriously need to go on? Nearly every video game ever produced is - at its core - the product of a single person's unifying vision. Someone takes the lead on a project and makes that vision into reality, coordinating developers and artists alike. Or (more often) programming it themselves. Just because massive game studious are trying to sweep their devs under the rug (again) doesn't mean that same vision is not present.

That could be true of Franchises but I dont agree with it for most games. Out of your list I would only consider Final fantasy artwork and even then I would probably only include 4, 6, and 10 in the list

[Vekseid]

That could be true of Franchises but I dont agree with it for most games. Out of your list I would only consider Final fantasy artwork and even then I would probably only include 4, 6, and 10 in the list

Your point was that you don't normally think of games as being the purview of one person - when in fact that is generally the case. I've had discussions with some of the lead devs on Baldur's Gate, for example, throughout all four incarnations of their forums. Just because they work behind a corporate name, does not magically make them not exist. There is generally a single lead who sees the project from start to finish, much like any director.

[LIAR]

Simple answer: yes.

QFE.

[Oniya]

Your point was that you don't normally think of games as being the purview of one person - when in fact that is generally the case.

Is it necessary that art is the purview of one person? 

[Vekseid]

Is it necessary that art is the purview of one person?

I generally don't think so.

Honestly I think Ebert is just trying to get attention and using whatever flimsy defense he can for a point he knows damned well is wrong.

[Nico]

While I do not play Video games myself, I think that they can considered a form of art. Because, seriously, what is art? Who says what is art and what isn't? I would say that is is a contemporary form of art. :-)

[Jade]

As an illustrator and 3D animator, yes I believe video games are art.

When they compare video games to chess, they're looking at it wrong. (I just skimmed the article-- too late in the night for me to be reading bullshit)
The actual game of chess is not art, if that is their argument. But look at the chess pieces they're using. Why are some chess sets worth more than others? What the pieces are carved out of, how they were carved, who carved it matters. Do they tell a story? Yes, you can essentially replace the traditional knight, king, queen titles with a different set of titles and viola, a new story to play out. Can they be called art? They're miniature sculptures. Last time I checked, sculpting = art. Mass produced or hand carved, someone still designed it.

Which brings me back to video games. The gamer playing the game is the audience. They are immersed in visuals, characters, sound, etc. They react emotionally to the visuals, whether it be the character designs, the camera angle, the colors used, etc. Even games as simple as Braid, there is a character and that character can do specific things. Overall, there is a story. For me, the story is a big part of what I call art. How does the artist weave a story out of their chosen medium?

If one were to call, say, Kandinsky's pieces art, I fail to see why a video game isn't.


Wow. I really went on a rant. Forgive me, I get rather worked up about these things...

[Noelle]

We can all thank the modern art movement for the reason we can even have this debate now. Pre-Duchamp, this wouldn't have been a question at all -- it would've been a solidifying 'no'. (Assuming, of course, nobody else thought to write their name on a urinal and display it :) )

Some video games are art, but not all -- yes, thanks to the modern art movement, it's art if that's the artist's intent. It's the same reason you could piss on snow and take a picture and call it art. It's the same reason you can buy a vacuum, put it under glass, and sell it to some curator chump for thousands of dollars. It is if you say it is. It's the reason why art is no longer an object, but can be a cultivated experience -- performance art, if you will. There was a huge shift to not just the end product, but the process of making art in the 60's or so, which fundamentally challenges art's role as being an end product only. Some might even argue that the act of playing certain video games is a performance art in of itself.

How highly regarded it is in the art world is another story entirely. There are better and worse, higher and lower forms of art, usually depending on who you ask; pop art and kitsch weren't well-regarded in their day, but Andy Warhol's works are now highly coveted and Jeff Koons is putting balloon animals in the middle of Versailles. I'd say video games fall on a rung just above pornography, and while its reputation is gradually improving, I doubt it'll reach a truly respectable level for quite some time.

So, art wank aside, short answer: yes.

[Jude]

Some video games are art, but not all -- yes, thanks to the modern art movement, it's art if that's the artist's intent. It's the same reason you could piss on snow and take a picture and call it art. It's the same reason you can buy a vacuum, put it under glass, and sell it to some curator chump for thousands of dollars. It is if you say it is. It's the reason why art is no longer an object, but can be a cultivated experience -- performance art, if you will. There was a huge shift to not just the end product, but the process of making art in the 60's or so, which fundamentally challenges art's role as being an end product only. Some might even argue that the act of playing certain video games is a performance art in of itself.

"If the artist intends it to be art then it is art" may be what art theory claims, but I don't know if that's rooted in sound logic at all.  By that definition, Ancient Greek sculptures may or may not be art--we don't know, because the artists are dead, therefore their intent will never be known to us.

What if someone creates something by accident, then after the fact decides that it is art?  When is the intention that is imbued in the final product relevant?  The way you describe what does or does not make something art, basically removes it from any intrinsic quality.  There's no way of detecting with what intent it a particular object was created, and even as the artist, how can you know your own intent?  I mean you can say, yes, I intended this to be art, so therefore it is, but if you made your thoughts more precise, the question becomes, what is your definition of art that you applied to that intention?

If two people with ideas about what art is create art, who really created art?  They're doing fundamentally different tasks when it comes down to it because the term "art" is just a symbol that refers to that definition in their mind.  It has no actual meaning, it's a placeholder

Is there any practical dimension added to an object by the artist's labeling of it as art?  Nope.  Does the object undergo any detectable change?  Nope.  Being told something is supposed to be art may influence the way we perceive that object, but that has nothing to do with the artist's intent, as much as the perspective by which we glance at that object.

I think the question "is x art" is very similar to the question "is x a joke."  You can't universally define a joke, because doing so would require you make it formulaic, which by its very definition defies what humor is.  Humor is quirkiness; deviation from normality in a way that causes the human mind to pick up on that difference, and thus be appreciative of that change.  Because definitions of normal change from person to person, what's funny to one person isn't to another, but that doesn't mean comedy doesn't exist or that humor is defined by the intent of the person creating it (or else that fat kid playing with a lightsaber wouldn't have been a youtube sensation).

It isn't the artist that determines what is or isn't art, it's the observer.  The first person who wrote their name on the toilet and claimed it was art wouldn't have had any success if other people didn't accept their claim, though I suppose that it would still be art to them.

There is no objective definition of art.  Claiming a particular medium or object isn't art is about as senseless as arguing that red is a superior color to blue.  People who put forth such arguments are typically attempting to glorify one medium or work over another for the sake of ego.  "Well I like the color blue more than red, therefore blue is definitely better than red."

Does this mean that all art is equal?  Yes and no, again it depends on your perspective.  If you want something that's accessible for the sake of success and profit, you're going to want art that has qualities that make it easy to relate to.  Some people use art simply to entertain others and others are looking to utilize it as a way to make a statement.  It depends entirely on your goal.

Skill still exists even when you move to a relativistic mindset.  A good artist is someone who is effective at creating art which does whatever they intended it to, much like how a good communicator conveys a message well, and a good comedian makes people laugh.

p.s. So the question isn't "are video games art?"  It's, "are video games entertaining?"  If this guy's definition of art is emotional, moving, powerful narrative and imagery, then maybe video games don't succeed at doing that in his estimation.  But I assure you that there are people who disagree (myself included).  The question is kind of pretentious and silly ultimately, this is the sort of debate that you'd see on a gamefaqs forum arguing whether Final Fantasy XIII or Mass Effect 2 is better (not that we've sunk to that level, I'm just criticizing that guy's blog).

[Noelle]

"If the artist intends it to be art then it is art" may be what art theory claims, but I don't know if that's rooted in sound logic at all.  By that definition, Ancient Greek sculptures may or may not be art--we don't know, because the artists are dead, therefore their intent will never be known to us.

Not entirely accurate. Art history is pretty well recorded. Even without it, you can deduce an artistic piece's purpose through where it is placed and how it was being used. Sculptures being used as relics inside of temples, tombs being decorated with carvings, etc. Besides, contextually speaking, Greek Classicism existed long before the philosophies of modern art came around -- before then, the theory and principles of art remained relatively unchallenged. Modern art completely revolutionized the way we view art today and is exactly why we're even having this discussion. Art was largely considered ONLY the byproduct of an artist's skilled hand for a large number of years -- as a consequence rather than a process or experience.
Truthfully, there's no easy answer as to whether or not if just anyone considers something art, that it's art. Actually, if you asked me, I might cleverly disagree -- Once a singular audience member decides something is art, they have interfered and...they have created art, which makes them indirectly an artist. It may not work under all circumstances, but I think it's interesting to think about in theory.

What if someone creates something by accident, then after the fact decides that it is art?  When is the intention that is imbued in the final product relevant?  The way you describe what does or does not make something art, basically removes it from any intrinsic quality.  There's no way of detecting with what intent it a particular object was created, and even as the artist, how can you know your own intent?  I mean you can say, yes, I intended this to be art, so therefore it is, but if you made your thoughts more precise, the question becomes, what is your definition of art that you applied to that intention?

That's the issue with modern art. There are whole subsets of modern art devoted to empowering the common man with the knowledge that he, too, is an artist; whole philosophies that attempt to inject more art into life instead of the other way around. Modern art has both valued and devalued itself -- Greenberg tried to define 'high art' and instead got a bunch of reactionary movements made in his wake that ironically became the very definition of what we consider high art.

If two people with ideas about what art is create art, who really created art?  They're doing fundamentally different tasks when it comes down to it because the term "art" is just a symbol that refers to that definition in their mind.  It has no actual meaning, it's a placeholder

They both did, and you're right. That's the whole scope of the modern art movement -- how do we constrain art? You can write off various works as being, in your opinion, "not real art", and that's fine, but it's a view that's tailored to your tastes and your belief of what art is, which therefore makes it only a limited scope that does nothing to universally define it. Actually, many artists theorized this view, as well -- Rene Magritte's "Ceci n'est pas un pipe" is a good example; a picture of a pipe with a simple caption: "This is not a pipe". It's fundamentally taking objects and stripping them of the definition we think of them as. If it's not a pipe, then what is it? Within an individual piece, the artist invites you to, for a moment, take his word for it. It's not a pipe.

Is there any practical dimension added to an object by the artist's labeling of it as art?  Nope.  Does the object undergo any detectable change?  Nope.  Being told something is supposed to be art may influence the way we perceive that object, but that has nothing to do with the artist's intent, as much as the perspective by which we glance at that object.

Art is not intrinsically practical, and sure calling something art doesn't change its physical properties by itself, but it has EVERYTHING to do with the artist's intent. People see things all the time and say "I could've done that" (I'm guilty, as you well know), but the fact is, they didn't, and even if they did, their intent, their purpose for doing it may have been different and the end results would have thus changed. Intent changes the way something is displayed, changes the context of the object. That's half the fun/infuriation of modern art. A vacuum is a common household object, nothing special, its value mundane -- but when Jeff Koons placed some under fluorescent lights and a glass case, it became a piece of art that was put on display in various museums and pondered. The very value of the vacuum was changed because one man decided it was art; its function is no longer to clean and serve as a forgettable prop in your closet, but to be admired and valued, on the same level as the Mona Lisa or an old fresco -- its practicality was stripped away completely and now it sits uselessly under glass and security as a coveted piece of art. Isn't it ironic?

I think the question "is x art" is very similar to the question "is x a joke."  You can't universally define a joke, because doing so would require you make it formulaic, which by its very definition defies what humor is.  Humor is quirkiness; deviation from normality in a way that causes the human mind to pick up on that difference, and thus be appreciative of that change.  Because definitions of normal change from person to person, what's funny to one person isn't to another, but that doesn't mean comedy doesn't exist or that humor is defined by the intent of the person creating it (or else that fat kid playing with a lightsaber wouldn't have been a youtube sensation).

Of course you can't define it. I don't disagree with this in the least, and that's why art is such a strange, pretentious, confusing, ridiculous subject to discuss. Most people look at a vacuum under a pile of glass and say "...but it's just a vacuum," but others (and I hate to say it, but usually it's people who HAVE studied modern art and are starting to "get it") understand that intent is precisely WHY that vacuum is art.

It isn't the artist that determines what is or isn't art, it's the observer.  The first person who wrote their name on the toilet and claimed it was art wouldn't have had any success if other people didn't accept their claim, though I suppose that it would still be art to them.

You're right, and if nobody would've given a shit about a urinal with a pseudonym on it mounted on the wall (and believe me, a lot of people didn't), it would've likely fallen into relative obscurity. But consider the context of the times: until then, art's purpose was as pretty objects to look at with occasional symbolism, but was largely used as decoration and only considered art if it required the artist to make it himself (this is also later challenged in modern art by Sol LeWitt). But nonetheless, it's all heavily subjective -- you don't consider it art, but the fact that even one person does makes it so and that's why it's art, even if you don't believe it is. It's like the world's biggest loophole. Do you hate art yet? Hahahahaha...

There is no objective definition of art.  Claiming a particular medium or object isn't art is about as senseless as arguing that red is a superior color to blue.  People who put forth such arguments are typically attempting to glorify one medium or work over another for the sake of ego.  "Well I like the color blue more than red, therefore blue is definitely better than red."

Does this mean that all art is equal?  Yes and no, again it depends on your perspective.  If you want something that's accessible for the sake of success and profit, you're going to want art that has qualities that make it easy to relate to.  Some people use art simply to entertain others and others are looking to utilize it as a way to make a statement.  It depends entirely on your goal.

Skill still exists even when you move to a relativistic mindset.  A good artist is someone who is effective at creating art which does whatever they intended it to, much like how a good communicator conveys a message well, and a good comedian makes people laugh.

You hit it exactly here.

p.s. So the question isn't "are video games art?"  It's, "are video games entertaining?"  If this guy's definition of art is emotional, moving, powerful narrative and imagery, then maybe video games don't succeed at doing that in his estimation.  But I assure you that there are people who disagree (myself included).  The question is kind of pretentious and silly ultimately, this is the sort of debate that you'd see on a gamefaqs forum arguing whether Final Fantasy XIII or Mass Effect 2 is better (not that we've sunk to that level, I'm just criticizing that guy's blog).

His definition of art only acknowledges the likes of the art which sets out to do just that. There is art which sets out explicitly NOT to do that. I guess this is really just an argument that goes in circles.

[Paladin]

Video games are art. Some people like MR Ebert are just too thickheaded and set in the way they think to aknowledge this fact.

[DarklingAlice]

This makes me sad. I generally really like Mr. Ebert as a critic, but lately not so much. This may just be the last straw for me. Video games can be art. Not all video games are art. But to exclude an entire genre of expression from the category of art is just small-minded and ridiculous. It is disappointing to see him fall victim to his own prejudices and lack of adaptability.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I generally don't think so.

Honestly I think Ebert is just trying to get attention and using whatever flimsy defense he can for a point he knows damned well is wrong.

That.

[Doomsday]

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


Apparently Mr. Ebert doesn't think so.


So what about you?

Ebert is what, 70? Has he ever played a video game ever? I get the feeling that he's as qualified to diss video games as I am to rate hotels in Monaco.

[Will]

Heh, the majority of the article is just a discussion on the definition of art.  What a waste of time.  Ebert is just trying to hold onto a sensationalist statement.

I really have to wonder, too, at the examples that were given in the TED talk he mentions.  They really could have found something better.

[Doomsday]

I'm guessing he talked about Duke Nukem, Grand Theft Auto, and Pussy City Pimps? *eyeroll*

[Will]

No, actually.  They were "Waco Resurrection, "Braid," and "Flower."

[ff]

This article is terribly illogical and disconnected from its own title. Agree with other repliers that:

1. He uses the classic debate trick of selecting the weakest examples of 'the other side' - he admits to having gotten lots of messages to play this or that game, and yet he selects a particular 3 games that I've never heard of. "Waco?" Huh? Really? Not Zelda or Final Fantasy? Just proves he's unfamiliar with the video game world. Yet then he references famous pieces of traditional art.

2. He also spends most of the article just triyng to define art (which is pointless b/c people will never agree) - how can the French cave paintings possibly prove videogames aren't art, especially when their subject tends to be hunting/killing (a common video game motif)?

3. Since (the better) video games contain art - the music, graphics, and plot - it's difficult to argue they are not. See for example Yoshiataka Aman, the career artist who did lots of stuff for Final Fantasy.

4. The end of the article is a straw man ad hominem attack that somehow others are insecure by needing games, sports ,or video games to be validated as art. I've never heard anyone bring that up, and even if they had, it doesn't mean they're not. Why do movies need to be considered art, Ebert?

[Oniya]

In the vein of 'That can't possibly be what he's talking about, can it?', I looked up 'Waco, the Resurrection'.  The official site seems to have vanished into the aether, but I found this description, dated 2004:

Players assume their role as David Koresh, Ted Kaczynski, or John Africa within an expansive multiplayer online environment. Between 6 and 18 players inhabit the online world to play out the game scenario - a timed game with a predetermined series of encounters based on the actual events.

Chalk this one up to the WTF files.  O_o

[Will]

Yeah, but what made me go "wut" was that Ebert didn't select those examples.  Kellee Santiago used them as examples in her TED talk where she supported the idea of video games as art.  Ebert was pointed to that TED talk by one of his readers, and used those very same examples to make his case in the linked article.  I can't understand why this Santiago person couldn't find better examples, and can only assume that she actually has no idea what she's talking about.  TED has disappointed me. :(

[Oniya]

The other two, I'd actually class as very artistic.  Both were visually appealing (although Braid reminded me a little of some of the old Lemmings levels), and Flower had a certain surreal quality to it that reminded me of some experimental films (the whole game is played from the point of view of a flower petal being blown on the wind).

Still, it was a little like picking the most obscure selection from a film festival rather than The Godfather (which a random person has probably heard of, even if they don't particularly like it).

[Sanai]

Is a story art? Is roleplay art? Yes.
I am an avid gamer, and my favourite games are those that are works of art. I challenge you to say that starcraft's amazing storyline, cinematics and gameplay was not art. I challenge you to say that the sweeping romances, storylines and cinematic work of final fantasy games is not artistry. I submit to you games like Metal Gear Solid, Red Faction and System Shock. All games that told amazing stories.
I defy you if you say that Myst was not a digital work of pure artistry.

[Raveled]

The problem with Ebert is that he's basically said the anything with controls, objectives, and an end scenario isn't art. Which disqualifies every game ever made by definition. So unless he changes that opinion, it will be impossible to convince him that games are art.

Now, as to why Roger Ebert's opinion is so important to gamers is another thing. I wouldn't ask Bob Villa to recommend a good book, why do I care what a movie critic says about video games?

[Samael]

Something is art if it can elicit an emotional response from the viewer/player/listener, I feel.
It is no different to cry over a sad scene in a movie than doing the same over such a scene taking place in a game. In both cases it was obviously done well enough to affect you.

Is it high art though...? Hm, I feel not yet.
Technology isn't there yet.

[Oniya]

Art very much depends on the audience.  Some might see the collaboration of Jason Becker and Marty Friedman as speed metal raised to a high art form.  Others might see it as cacophony.

Ask any parent if the handmade, fingerpainted picture by their kindergartener is 'art', and chances are, you'll get an affirmative response.  This is despite the fact that the dog is blue (and the real dog is now streaked with orange), Mommy and/or Daddy is larger than the house, and the purple trees might just as easily be grape lollipops.

[DarklingAlice]

Reviving this because of a very interesting news article that came out today.

One of Ebert's more nonsensical complaints was that art can't have rules and a win condition. I think that Brenda Brathwaite may just prove him completely wrong on that point. Do note that her artistic works are generally board games rather than video games, but they serve as powerful examples of how 'game' and 'art' are not mutually exclusive.

The article: http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/123880-brenda-brathwaite-message-in-the-machine

Brenda's Blog: http://bbrathwaite.wordpress.com/

[Oniya]

Ebert probably doesn't believe that fractals can be art either (and I refer skeptics to the works of Julien Sprott and Clifford Pickover).

Art has always had rules. Each school of art has its rules, and new schools are created by artists that break those rules.  Art also has a subtle 'win' condition:  A piece of art 'wins' if the audience chooses to experience the art in its totality.  Do you breeze by a painting saying 'that's nice', or do you stop and look at it?  Do you walk around a sculpture to see it from all angles?  Do you hear the music, or really listen to it?  Do you walk out of a movie and talk about it?  Do you put down a book and continue to think about it?  That interaction is what separates 'media' from 'art'.

[Trouble]

The standards for 'art' are pretty vague. Hell, there aren't standards. Art is art. There's always an argument about whether or not nudity is art or just some old dead guy's porn.

But, honestly? Video games are fun. I don't particularly care if someone says they aren't art. I enjoy them. Besides, when something like Duchamp's Fountain is considered art, why couldn't video games be art?

Spoiler alert: the fountain is a urinal.

[Lord of Shadows]

If a woman scrubbing a floor with blood can be called art then yes a video game can also be called art but surely not all video games are art. Not more than a normal game of Monopoly is.

[DrFier]

It's blatantly clear that games are comprised of art.  Images, Digital sculptures, and animation.

To decide if they are art, we should start with something that is.  A CG movie is typically considered art, and placing a pause in the middle and waiting for a user input in order to continue doesn't truly change the formula.  But what about if that input changes the outcome?  What if it were constant?  Would that change the nature of the image from being art?

[Oniya]

Just as a side point, there are 'interactive exhibits' in many museums.  Musical staircases, moving sculptures, pendulum tracings, that sort of thing.  The input from the viewer changes the outcome.  Just sayin'.

[Jefepato]

My instinct would be to say that yes, video games are or at least can be art.  I would have a great deal of difficulty justifying that in an argument, though, since no one seems to agree on an objective definition of "art."

So my actual response is:
1) I don't really care whether video games are an "art form."  I enjoy them, and that's what matters.  Who cares what's art and what isn't?  The distinction holds no value for me.
2) To the extent it matters whether video games are art, Roger Ebert is hardly qualified to make the assessment.

[Oniya]

"They say that art is the panacea for all the ills of modern life; yet everyone still buys the painting that matches the couch!" -Bette Midler

[LaCroix]

All you have do is play through the Legacy of Kain series and then come back and tell me games are not art. And if you're curious as to what I'm talking about go and youtube it, Legacy of Kain, Soul Reaver, Soul Reaver 2 and so on and watch the narrative of the game unfold. Its really amazing stuff.

[Jude]

http://gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2010/07/13/ken-levine-to-the-video-game-industry-grow-a-pair.aspx

[Inkidu]

Art by my definition has to be something made by man that doesn't naturally occur. The art has to stimulate a physical, emotional, and mental reception. Video games meet my criteria. Now good or bad art is subject to a more opinionated look.

[kimbersee]

Yes. Just look at all the movies that are made based on video games. Video games technology and storytelling match movies and books.

[NotoriusBEN]

These are my opinions and extrapolations on the subject. Forgive my language, I've been reading too much Penny Arcade and Girl Genius lately.

are video games art? depends... I've seen paintings, sculptures, and junk heaps that people called art, and I would certainly disagree. I've read books and watched movies that I wouldn't consider art. but there are just as many of those items that I *would* consider art. Art is indefinable.

I think people are... sensitive... to Ebert because he is an established Voice in the aether that is a global community. Video game related people possibly fear his comments the same way they feared Jack Thompson. Thompson is an extremist in his views and instead of just keeping it to himself, he sought to push his views on others through through Congress and create laws against video games. My assumptions with the Video Game industry v. Ebert is that Ebert is not an extremist who rendered himself irrelavent with his own rantings. Ebert is a level headed individual who just doesnt like games. Because Ebert has an outlet, via whatever Published Entity that promotes him, his "critiques" are given more weight than Joe Average and his facebook blog.

The big thing everyone is looking for is validation that what they do or like matters and that it is considered something of value. As the artical Jude posted, why do we *care* what Ebert says?! Big deal, the guy doesnt like games. Ebert hasn't been relevent to me for 20years, and that's my own opinion of the guy.

The internet is more a boon to us video gamers than it is a bane with all the septic arguments against us. We are connected now. Even 20years ago, we may have been the only person in high school, or our family or community who liked video games, and we would be alone. Now with explosion of the internet, we are connected to people across the globe and can develop aquaintences or friendships based on our hobbies. Elliquy is a prime example of this phenomon.

By extrapolation of this subject to transcend the state of things in the world so far:

The world would be better if people would just *SOD OFF* and leave me to mine and I'll leave you to yours.
You like doing 'X'? good for you! not my cup of tea, dont push it on me.
I like 'Y', ask me about it if you like it, if not, dont knock it, I could care less what you think.    :-X

As long as your not impinging or infringing on another's person, place, space, or things, I dont care what you like, do, or kill time with.

[Sel Nar]

So what about you?

I would like to refer you to the recently-completed Let's Play of The Void.

http://lparchive.org/LetsPlay/Void/

If this is NOT considered art somewhere, then I'm fairly certain that nothing should be.

[Oniya]

Interesting concept.  What system is this for?

[Inkidu]

I can see where people might think that video games as art is being a bit iffy. Because you can't just point to the visuals, or the music, or the presentation. No, that wouldn't mean the video game itself was art. That would be like calling a painting art because it had a great frame.

However, video games are not the sum of their parts, they're greater still. Video games are supposed to combine these elements with an interactive experience (Which some people protest because you can't -- apparently -- have interactive art.) I think that when it's done right the interactivity though enhances the scope of my appreciation for the artist.

Take Super Mario Bros for example: It's a range of sounds and ideas that culminates in the experience. It challenges the player's perceptions with hidden pipes. It makes the player think in terms of the vocabulary set forth by the game. Jump run. Jump here its a secret. It's almost like an Escher painting in that regard is it not?

[Will]

I think that's actually a really good point.  The immersive(?) quality of games is hard to ignore.  I'm sure lots of directors/actors/artists/musicians/whatever would love to know that their work had that kind of effect on a person.  In fact, I would say that the impact of their work is more or less predicated on achieving that immersion to begin with.

The interactive component of video games make it so much easier.  As Inkidu said, "It makes the player think in terms of the vocabulary set forth by the game."  In most games, you pretty much HAVE to think in those terms, because you need to go on reflex.  In that way, you find yourself drawn deeper into the game, the visual and dramatic aspects of it, appreciating it in the way the designers intended.

In the ideal case, of course. -_-

[Noelle]

However, video games are not the sum of their parts, they're greater still. Video games are supposed to combine these elements with an interactive experience (Which some people protest because you can't -- apparently -- have interactive art.) I think that when it's done right the interactivity though enhances the scope of my appreciation for the artist.

Mm...not quite :> Time for a little art history!

The modern art movement of the 20th century brought the audience into the art for arguably the first time ever. Art in previous centuries left a space between the viewer and the picture; most art was merely decoration (though the inclusion of Art Deco and Art Nouveau changed that by trying to make it functional, as well), or served a purpose as portraiture in the absence of cameras. There was left a cold, distant space between the audience and the work where the audience could make a conjecture about the piece, but there was no true interactivity between the two, no crossing over. There was a strict, defined border between artist and viewer and art.

Let's fast-forward a bit.

In the mid-20th century, Postmodernism began to come about as a response to Modernism, which blew the doors open on what was even defined as art in the first place. Postmodernists began to challenge the acceptable genres of art by intentionally blurring mediums; multimedia creations, collage, and yes, performance art. The intent was to bring art to the masses -- to inject art into life instead of the other way around -- by eliminating the space between the audience and the work and blurring the line between artist and audience -- and then the audience and the work. Confused yet?

The whole goal of things like performance art were to get audiences to do more than stand and gawk -- it was to provoke reaction, and in some cases, force the audience to become a part of the piece -- and in other cases, become the artist themselves. Carolee Schneeman pulled scrolls out of her vagina in front of an audience and read them aloud, Joseph Beuys sought to educate his audience through what he called "social sculpture", thus ideally spurring them to carry on his message (his art) through action in their community and throughout their life, which would then also "become his art" in a way.

Actually, I think a lot of people here would be interested in the work of Felix Gonzalez-Torres who would set out piles of candy -- HUGE piles of wrapped sweets -- that the audience could then interact with...by taking a piece. As the piles got smaller or larger (he would replenish them occasionally), the art was in the interaction of the audience and the candy. His purpose? To honor his life partner, a homosexual man who died from AIDS. Given that he was doing this during the AIDS scare in the US, his point was to force people to think about something as innocent as candy and pushing the issue literally into their hands...would they still take the candy if they knew it was coming from someone with AIDS? If they knew it was coming from a homosexual? It also seemed to mirror his experience with AIDS -- how sometimes his partner's health would worsen, the candy would diminish, and how eventually, they would be gone completely -- a metaphor for death. It forced his audience to confront the issue with something as nonthreatening as candy.

Anyway, to bring it back around (if you're still with me, I'm truly impressed), what makes Ebert's opinion so moot is that art has evolved and tried to expand itself so far that in the process, you almost can't say no to anything that's trying to be art at all. Interactivity isn't the issue; on the contrary, interactivity has been around in art for quite some time now. Actually, one could make the argument that video games are an expansion of precisely what postmodern art did -- or may still be doing (some argue that postmodernity is dead, dying, or never existed at all...snoooooze), but what does it really matter? A person could argue that my art is postmodern because digital art has evolved to where the lines and colors and forms you see are just representations since what is digital is not truly tangible or real. Conversely, that could also be an argument for why it's not actually art at all, but just a pastiche of art. Confusing, right? Art has basically pushed itself to a point where it doesn't actually matter what anyone thinks. Art snobs like Ebert still believe in a concept of high art, which I suppose to some degree really exists, but doesn't actually have any outstanding benefit or merit outside of the minds of...well, other art snobs. BFD, right?

[BlisteredBlood]

I'm inclined to agree with the fact that video games are considered an art form especially when you talk about graphics. A moving interactive art form, anyway.

But what makes games an art form, you ask? Sure, it looks pretty, but that's just saying it at face value. Sometimes you gotta look harder and deeper into the said title that makes it really stand out from the rest. Let's say for example, Hideo Kojima's smash hit, the first Metal Gear Solid game that was released for the old PlayStation about several years ago. Graphically speaking, it was considered to be one of the most moving titles that were ever released on a game such as that. But what made it so?

We see a grizzled war veteran sneak into a heavily armed fortress in Alaska, taking out a few guards along the way and even a few bosses, but once more. That's looking at it objectively, where if you see the bad guy, you need to take him out. But once we get to the torture scene where you need to rapidly tap the circle button in order to keep yourself from getting killed off. But after each segment, we hear Revolver Ocelot explain as to why he's in FOXHOUND, only to rebuild Russia to its former glory. But that's if you managed to stay alive long enough. On the harder difficulties, the damage you suffer from the electric shocks increases incrementally and it lasts a lot longer. Even on the easiest difficulty setting, it can still take a LOT out of your right forearm and trust me, I've nearly developed carpal tunnel from that segment alone. If you got the Dual Shock controller from back then, Naomi would - at one point - tell you to place it on your arm and let the vibrations give you a little bit of reprieve. Fortunately, the Codec scene with her went on for a bit, so you had a bit of breathing room before you were brought back into the torture room again.

Then later on when we get to the big showdown with Liquid Snake aboard Metal Gear REX, you find yourself all psyched up and ready to take him down with precision aimed Stinger missile shots to the radar dish on the left. Once that was done, we then get to the big reveal. I won't spoil too much of it, but I will say this. It has to take a certain kind of mechanic that draws the gamer into the world and keep coming back for more. Whether it's a Dual Shock gimmick, a plot twist in-game, or possibly even laugh out loud moments because a character said/did something that was totally out of context or possibly because of an awkward moment.

All in all, I agree with the concept of video games being considered an art form, but only with the condition that it has to take a certain gimmick that makes it as such.

[Inkidu]

Mm...not quite :> Time for a little art history!

The modern art movement of the 20th century brought the audience into the art for arguably the first time ever. Art in previous centuries left a space between the viewer and the picture; most art was merely decoration (though the inclusion of Art Deco and Art Nouveau changed that by trying to make it functional, as well), or served a purpose as portraiture in the absence of cameras. There was left a cold, distant space between the audience and the work where the audience could make a conjecture about the piece, but there was no true interactivity between the two, no crossing over. There was a strict, defined border between artist and viewer and art.

Let's fast-forward a bit.

In the mid-20th century, Postmodernism began to come about as a response to Modernism, which blew the doors open on what was even defined as art in the first place. Postmodernists began to challenge the acceptable genres of art by intentionally blurring mediums; multimedia creations, collage, and yes, performance art. The intent was to bring art to the masses -- to inject art into life instead of the other way around -- by eliminating the space between the audience and the work and blurring the line between artist and audience -- and then the audience and the work. Confused yet?

The whole goal of things like performance art were to get audiences to do more than stand and gawk -- it was to provoke reaction, and in some cases, force the audience to become a part of the piece -- and in other cases, become the artist themselves. Carolee Schneeman pulled scrolls out of her vagina in front of an audience and read them aloud, Joseph Beuys sought to educate his audience through what he called "social sculpture", thus ideally spurring them to carry on his message (his art) through action in their community and throughout their life, which would then also "become his art" in a way.

Actually, I think a lot of people here would be interested in the work of Felix Gonzalez-Torres who would set out piles of candy -- HUGE piles of wrapped sweets -- that the audience could then interact with...by taking a piece. As the piles got smaller or larger (he would replenish them occasionally), the art was in the interaction of the audience and the candy. His purpose? To honor his life partner, a homosexual man who died from AIDS. Given that he was doing this during the AIDS scare in the US, his point was to force people to think about something as innocent as candy and pushing the issue literally into their hands...would they still take the candy if they knew it was coming from someone with AIDS? If they knew it was coming from a homosexual? It also seemed to mirror his experience with AIDS -- how sometimes his partner's health would worsen, the candy would diminish, and how eventually, they would be gone completely -- a metaphor for death. It forced his audience to confront the issue with something as nonthreatening as candy.

Anyway, to bring it back around (if you're still with me, I'm truly impressed), what makes Ebert's opinion so moot is that art has evolved and tried to expand itself so far that in the process, you almost can't say no to anything that's trying to be art at all. Interactivity isn't the issue; on the contrary, interactivity has been around in art for quite some time now. Actually, one could make the argument that video games are an expansion of precisely what postmodern art did -- or may still be doing (some argue that postmodernity is dead, dying, or never existed at all...snoooooze), but what does it really matter? A person could argue that my art is postmodern because digital art has evolved to where the lines and colors and forms you see are just representations since what is digital is not truly tangible or real. Conversely, that could also be an argument for why it's not actually art at all, but just a pastiche of art. Confusing, right? Art has basically pushed itself to a point where it doesn't actually matter what anyone thinks. Art snobs like Ebert still believe in a concept of high art, which I suppose to some degree really exists, but doesn't actually have any outstanding benefit or merit outside of the minds of...well, other art snobs. BFD, right?

Well, some people don't consider anything that requires deliberate viewer interaction to be art. Which a video game requires and some of what you're saying. They wouldn't consider that art.

[Noelle]

My point was essentially that those "some people" are pretty irrelevant because what does and does not constitute art isn't even a valid argument since the art world itself invalidated it.

[Inkidu]

My point was essentially that those "some people" are pretty irrelevant because what does and does not constitute art isn't even a valid argument since the art world itself invalidated it.

That depends on the definition used. My definition would go along with that but theirs' might not. It's that whole, "I don't know what art is but I know it when I see it." thing.

[lblargh]

I would like to refer you to the recently-completed Let's Play of The Void.

http://lparchive.org/LetsPlay/Void/

If this is NOT considered art somewhere, then I'm fairly certain that nothing should be.

Watching a playthrough of this. I completely agree with you. 8D

[Nico]

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


Apparently Mr. Ebert doesn't think so.


So what about you?

Art defines itself. What is Art? It's so difficult to say, because Art is different for everyone. What one person sees as Art, isn't for another. The borders are flowing and often mingling. Just because someone doesn't like it, doesn't make it any more or less a form of art. Controversy is, in my opinion, an art form in itself. ;)

But, if people who like video games consider them a form of Art, then, yes, why not!

[Will]

It really is so silly.  It's like asking "what is food?"  Well, if you eat it, then it's food for you.  If you dig it, then it's art for you.

[Noelle]

That depends on the definition used. My definition would go along with that but theirs' might not. It's that whole, "I don't know what art is but I know it when I see it." thing.

...That IS the point, hahaha. I'm not disagreeing with you. This kind of subjectivity from person to person is precisely why saying something is or isn't art is an utterly pointless practice.

[Inkidu]

...That IS the point, hahaha. I'm not disagreeing with you. This kind of subjectivity from person to person is precisely why saying something is or isn't art is an utterly pointless practice.

As for mister Ebert. Remember: Those who cannot do, critique. :3

[Will]

Also, the picture from his journal...


I have to say, this has got to be the visual definition of "pompous ass."

[Noelle]

Hahahaha, it's kind of funny how that works, right? I was taught modern art history by a woman who had no experience in actually making art, merely had a passion for art history. I don't think one is essential to the other, that you can't have a passion for film without making one yourself or that you can't understand art without making it, but you'd think they'd have...more profound insight, I guess you could say, if they knew the process first-hand before making their professional critique.

Also, Will: That picture cracks me up. He's like a geriatric indie kid. So moody, so brooding~

[Oniya]

Couldn't resist:

[Noelle]

I had to, Oniya. I had to. You forced me to do this.

[NotoriusBEN]

Now THAT is ART!

[lblargh]

xD. Oh god. Why?

And...ooo, is that Persona as your avatar? <o<

[NotoriusBEN]

yes, its the protagonist from persona 4. I just havent switched out of my St. Patrick's outfit...

[Inkidu]

Hahahaha, it's kind of funny how that works, right? I was taught modern art history by a woman who had no experience in actually making art, merely had a passion for art history. I don't think one is essential to the other, that you can't have a passion for film without making one yourself or that you can't understand art without making it, but you'd think they'd have...more profound insight, I guess you could say, if they knew the process first-hand before making their professional critique.

Also, Will: That picture cracks me up. He's like a geriatric indie kid. So moody, so brooding~

I don't think a person who's never tried to create art can understand it on the artistic level. Surely they can understand it on the technical level, or appreciate it, or be moved by it but saying anyone can understand art on an artistic level just because is like saying a person can teach the greater intricacies of Elliot or Pound without ever having read anything by them. (Which people have tried...)

I can't believe the old codger has outlived (I don't know about Roper (sp?)) both his partners.

[Oniya]

Roeper is still alive, he just got out of the show while Ebert was recovering from cancer surgery.  He spent almost 2 years hosting 'At The Movies' with a variety of guest hosts before announcing he was leaving the show.  He currently co-hosts the Roe Conn Show on Chicago's WLS-AM 890

[Inkidu]

Roeper is still alive, he just got out of the show while Ebert was recovering from cancer surgery.  He spent almost 2 years hosting 'At The Movies' with a variety of guest hosts before announcing he was leaving the show.  He currently co-hosts the Roe Conn Show on Chicago's WLS-AM 890

You're family uses you like a TV Guide don't they? -__-;

[Oniya]

Put it this way - when Mr. Oniya says 'he'll get his people on getting that information,' he's talking about me.  ;D

[Inkidu]

Put it this way - when Mr. Oniya says 'he'll get his people on getting that information,' he's talking about me.  ;D

It's like having Google all the time?