Ebert revisits the games as art argument

Retr0gamer

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

Again I think he is utterly wrong. He is only viewing video games like he does with a film. I fail to see how he can think he has an authorative voice on the subject when it is quite clear he hasn't played any videogames in a long time if ever. Him saying that games aren't art because you can 'win' them is also wrong. Plenty of games are made without objectives and 'winning' a narrative based game is essentially getting to the end of a narrative, like reaching the end of a book or film especially with the lack of obstacles most modern games place before you these days.

ProjectColossus

There is a good post on Kotaku replying to this, an open letter by one of the journalists there. I'd be very interested to read a response from Ebert but it's probably unlikely.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

I'm writing regarding your recent post "Video games can never be art". This of course is ground you have touched upon before. Your site is currently being inundated with comments from those eager to defend video games as art.

I am not interested in defending video games as an art form. Ironic, as I make my living by writing about video games. But the reason I don't feel inclined to join in that discussion as it's like a 26-year-old trying to convince his parents that he's a grown-up.

Rather, I wanted to discuss something else entirely. Before I start, I just wanted to tell you I am a great admirer of your film criticism and you'd probably be somewhere behind Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris in critics I admire most. We might agree on some films (say, Godfather 2), but disagree on other films (like Blue Velvet), but that's not actually why I admire you.

Unlike many critics who simply review, you have actually written a movie. A great movie. Beyond the Valley of the Dolls (embedded link NSFW) is hands down one of the best films of the 1970s. But is it art? Can art be a film that features rocker girls with enormous breasts? What if someone simply saw the above still from the film, they'd probably be inclined to judge the film on that and not on it's top flight script, score (clip NSFW), performances and sharp social commentary.

An Open Letter To Roger Ebert And Russ Meyer was surely one of the best American filmmakers of the last century. And perhaps more than any other American director of the last century did he understand how to edit a motion picture. This is not simple flattery. This is what I honestly believe.

From the time I was 17 to when I was 21, I spent every summer in Los Angeles, working at Rolling Thunder Pictures at the Miramax offices on Beverly Blvd. in Los Angeles. The late 1990s were an exciting time in the movie business, and it was exciting to be doing stuff at a company headed up by Quentin Tarantino. I helped on a New York Times bestseller on blaxploitation films, hung out on the set of Jackie Brown, met a buncha movie stars and directors and watched a lot of films.

I also played a lot of Oddworld. This isn't the part of the article in which I try to convince you that Oddworld is art. I'm simply saying that I played a great deal of that game.

I'm sure you remember Rolling Thunder Pictures. I believe you reviewed Wong Kar-Wai's Chungking Express, which RTP distributed, as well as Beat Takeshi's Sonatine and Lucio Fulci's The Beyond. RTP no longer exists (then again, where is Miramax?), but one of the things that really stuck with me from my tenure there was the idea that one should not simply label something as art and dismiss something entirely. The other thing that was impressed onto me was the need to watch a ton of films in order to have an educated opinion on them. This thinking has permeated onto how I view music, books and, yes, video games.

Tarantino once held a screening of Detroit 9000, which RTP released. Peter Bogdanovich was there and after the screening, Bogdanovich was going on about how great he thought the film was. And my then boss and Tarantino were asking Bogdanovich if he had ever seen a blaxploitation film. He hadn't — not even Shaft. He'd missed an entire period of American film. This is surprising considering his mastery of American film. Does that mean that Detroit 9000 is a great film? Is it art? Is it as good as, I dunno, the French Connection? Who's to say.

Obviously, you are a film critic, so you are paid to have an opinion on the matter. And since you have an opinion on the matter and are able to convey it in an engaging way, people read what you say.

During the release of The Beyond, I remember Bob Murawski, who recently won an Oscar for editing The Hurt Locker, told me that he thought Lucio Fulci was one of the greatest filmmakers Italy has ever produced. He didn't mean horror filmmaker, but filmmaker. End point. But are Fulci's films art? I'm not sure Bob would even be interested in debating something like this and would instead write off such talk as "moronic". He loves those films dearly and they have impacted him and his work. And he has an Oscar to show for it. Surely his opinion matters. And it does.

An Open Letter To Roger Ebert Some might look at Meyer's films and write them off as simply sexploitation and be unwilling to look deeper and to think and be engaged — ditto for Fulci's work or 1970's exploitation films. Critics might do this. Movie fanatics do this as well. But what both have in common is a love for the cinema. They are arguing about something they feel passionately about. The debate has moved past "Is film art?" and has now settled on "Is this film art?" Both of which end up being exercises in frivolity because art, like food, is a matter of taste.

But when someone who has only seen a handful of films says something like, "What's so great about Werner Herzog movies?" or "Isn't Yasujiro Ozu a boring director?", those who know film write off such questions as mindless prattle. There is a reason why you are a film critic, Mr. Ebert. You know film. You know film and appreciate it deeply. You understand what makes a good film. You have written countless articles and books on film. You have even written a great film. But one thing must be kept in mind at all times: You are not a video game critic.

Thank you for your time! I eagerly await your next movie review.

Yours with a handshake in thought,
Brian Ashcraft.

Edit: Actually, probably best to read it on the website since it references images there.

Fnz

Meh, define 'art'.

When there are so many components to a game (story, music, interactivity, consequence) what can you do?

mewso

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Him saying that games aren't art because you can 'win' them is also wrong. Plenty of games are made without objectives and 'winning' a narrative based game is essentially getting to the end of a narrative, like reaching the end of a book or film especially with the lack of obstacles most modern games place before you these days.

He makes a valid point though on where winning isn't a part of it. If a game does not involve winning and is essentially a narrative you watch or experience isn't it then simply an animated movie and not a game?

Retr0gamer

It can't be an animated movie if you are free to interact with the enviroment. The argument is null and void because if you think about it isn't film a narrative you watch? How is that different from a narrative you watch and interact with or at the top end of the scale a narrative you interact with and influence? And sure maybe you can simplify it to being artistically on par with an animated film but when has Ebert ever said that an animated film wasn't art? Just because the narrative is told through a game doesn't mean that it can't be classified as art. So if shadow of the colossus was filmed/turned into a book and the telling of it's narrative was on par with the game the film/book would be considered art but if it's a game it automatically isn't. Utter snobbery to be honest.

'Winning' a game or getting a high score hasn't been relavent in a long time in videogaming. It is relevant in competitive multiplayer and niche games that hark back to arcade games but really you aren't 'winning' a game anymore, merely reaching the conclusion of it's narrative. The fact the says 'winning' shows how out of touch he is with games. When I played System Shock 2 I didn't play it to win, it was mostly to see the conclusion of the narrative and immerse myself in the world it created. On top of that surviving and interacting in the world it placed me in helped add immersion the same as the use of lighting in film, exposition in literature or new fangled 3D effects in cinema. That's not to mention the games that totally transcend the 'winning'. How does he classify them? He doesn't be cause he doesn't know enough about videogames to even know about them.

There'll come a time when dinosaurs like Ebert who are afraid of technology will be long gone and gaming will be excepted as entertainment and art. Film and literature both had to go through this and there's still art snobs that won't even accept film as a legitimate art form.

mewso

I've no problem with any of that. Although I'm glad to have provided you with the opportunity to get it out. Looks like you needed to What I'm really saying is that I think it's perfectly valid to argue that games can be art but it seems unnecessary to me to claim that some games don't require winning. Are we then conceding that only those kinds of games can be art?

Mr Bloat

Meh, who cares what Ebert thinks about games. My grandad (if he were still alive) wouldn't like games either and I wouldn't have it bother me that he didn't!
Also, why is there a burning need to have games (even just 'some' games) classified as art? It's entertainment, no more or less. I love games and I've been a gamer since my early teens (I'm 38 now) and I couldn't care less whether the games I played were art or not, I just care that I enjoyed most of them and adored some. I don't need Ebert and/or some pretentious arty person to validate my love for gaming and to make it feel like a grown up pasttime.

johnny_ultimate

Any argument on whether a particular medium is 'art' is ultimately futile. All new mediums go through this process. When Andy Warhol and Picasso came onto the 'art' scene (better be careful when we use the a word) there were debates about whether or not it met the obscure criteria previously accepted by society. It happened with film, I'm sure there are still people out there who claim a film can't be art.

Roger Ebert knows his films. I don't always agree with him - the man liked Knowing! - but I respect him, he knows what he's talking about. He calls Braid and Flower 'pathetic', and as someone who has watched and adored Persona (my favourite film, one which he chooses to use as an example of film art) I was deeply moved and impressed by these two wonderful games. They tell stories in a new way, are narratively ambitious in a way film can never be. Braid's ending is all that more crushing because we have been this character, and when the truth hits you it is as powerful as Bergman reaching his dark conclusions in Persona.

I'm kind of getting off the point here, arguing something that doesn't really need to be argued. In short, Ebert is in no position to argue this. He clearly doesn't understand games, in the same way I don't throw myself into debates about sports I don't have an idea about. It's pointless, and a shame to see such a respected critic starting such ill-judged debate. Well written and thoughtful, maybe, but still ultimately misguided.

Again, a new medium tends to instill a weird fear in people, especially those comfortable with things the way they are. Maybe we're just lucky to have grown up with games, and understand how far they've advanced. But we're truly lucky to understand what a game can do, something the otherwise intelligent Mr. Ebert clearly does not. There's no point starting a pissing contest about whether one artform is better than another. Let's just enjoy it all. Everyone will be less angry that way.

VinLieger

The point made by Brian Ashcraft from Kotaku is very valid, Ebert is simply not qulaified to judge whether games as a medium are art, for that matter nobody is except the people who play them, not just 1 or 2 games such as ebert, and make them. These people know how much these games mean to them and how much effort has been put into it.
So i say go **** yourself if anyone from another medium, who most likely has not the knwoledge or experience to judge it, disagrees with the simple fact that as a games enthusiast and (hopefully) future developer i say that games are art as much as painting, films and literature are.

The Sparrow

In fairness to Ebert, he is entitled to his opinion however much any of us disagree with him. And only wrote that in response to other people asking his opinion so you can't blame him for that.

Having said that, my opinion is that he is dead wrong. A game like Okami is most definitely art. But then I also disagree with his assertion that no game can be art. Some of Lionel Messi's play is definitely art in motion imo.

Art is subjective and it is up to each individual to decide what they believe has artistic merit.

Fnz

"X game is art, Y game is art"? If your so certain of it, could I ask you to provide a definition of art and explain how a particular video game fits within the definition?

I find art to be too nebulous a concept to be able to partake in these debates.

Burning Eclipse

I'm a big fan of the guys over at Kotaku and Bashcraft is one of my favourites.

Bashcraft wrote:

You know film. You know film and appreciate it deeply. You understand what makes a good film. You have written countless articles and books on film. You have even written a great film. But one thing must be kept in mind at all times: You are not a video game critic.

That sums it up. Why do we care that Ebert thinks videogames aren't art? He knows so very little about them. Would we care of Robert Christgau said he didn't think games would ever be art? Ebert is a great film critic, but in this realm, he is irrelevant.

Zombrex

Like so many who talk about games not being art you get the impression that Ebert doesn't play many games.

I would certainly consider a game like Bioshock to be art*, on a number of levels from the pouring of Rand philosophy into the creation of the dystopia nightmare of Rapture, to the post-modern twist near the end that, to me at least, invoked an emotional response that a movie or book couldn't hope to achieve.

You sort of wonder if something like Bioshock isn't art wtf is?




* btw I'm not saying Bioshock is the only game to achieve this, I'm just using it as an example, I really really don't need a million "System Shock 2 is better" responses

Retr0gamer

Wicknight wrote: »

I really really don't need a million "System Shock 2 is better" responses

Tis the truth though :P

po0k

n00 meeja

I never heard of this guy until I saw it today. Fluch him and his ilk. Braid was more emotionally and intellectually evocative than alot of the work I've seen in galleries around Europe.
Maybe that says more about me than it does about games though.

Fnz

Few days old at this stage but Kellee Santiago responded to Qbert's piece. There are some interesting comments after the article.

http://kotaku.com/5520437/my-response-to-roger-ebert-video-game-skeptic

VinLieger

Penny arcades reply about ebert is brilliant

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/4/21/

K.O.Kiki

Cracked weighs in and echoes what I've understood ever since playing it:


Rez is MINDBLOWING.