A Reaction to Roger Ebert: Respectfully, Sir, You Are Mistaken

[etherealclarity]

Recently, Roger Ebert has re-stated his claim that videogames cannot be art.

I must respectfully disagree. The following is a comment that I posted on his blog.

Comments

[xaiax]

Hello. We played some Rock Band the other week, I was playing the drums

[etherealclarity]

I definitely agree with you. Bioshock is a game that comes to mind for me when it comes to choices in games: you either save the little sisters but get less Adam, or you kill them and get more.

But the point of this is that the choice itself in this case (and many others) is serving a higher purpose: the designer's vision of what you as a player should experience. Why have that choice in there at all if the choice is meaningless? There are many gameplay choices that you can make that might be relatively meaningless (do I purchase more ammo or health?), but it is the meaningful ones that define the game as art.

The point that I am trying to make in response to Ebert is more so that even under his own constrained definitions, video games are most definitely an art form, and for some people great art.

But separate from Ebert's constraints and arguments, I agree that in some ways, games can transcend traditional media for exactly the reasons you describe.

[spectralbovine]

I still need to play Bioshock. I hear it's amazing.

[etherealclarity]

It really is. It helps a little I think if you're familiar at all with Ayn Rand & Objectivism, but it's by no means a requirement to enjoy the game. (Are you familiar with her?)

[spectralbovine]

I'm glad you singled out Braid because when he brought it up, I was like, "Shit, if there's any game we could all agree on is art, THAT IS IT." I mean, if only for the music. And the sadness. And stuff.

I would also toss the Metal Gear Solid games in there, which are as intricate and complex as any great Hollywood action movie.

I agree with a lot of Ebert's opinions on movies (not all, though), but I don't even see what's gained in making this proclamation against video games. When it's clear he doesn't even play them. I don't think he gets to make that judgment.

[etherealclarity]

Well, among the three games that were singled out in the original presentation, that was actually the only one I've witnessed first hand.

It's kind of a difficult subject, because a friend of mine posted this comment about it: "My grandmother takes an even stricter view. If the item has a purpose, other than looking at it or listening to it (eg. classical music or poetry only), it is not really "art". She sees the creativity and beauty involved in other things, but she just have a limited view of what "art" means. As a true artist herself, I can understand her protecting her work as something pure. Ebert, who reviews movies, should realize that video games today are interactive movies. Does the interaction take away the "art"? Maybe it does in this older and more strict definition. However, it certainly does not take away the imaginative, creativity and emotionality of any project. "I see her point, but saying something isn't art without some kind of qualifier denies the artistry that goes in to the creation of something. Ebert isn't

[etherealclarity]

I like your definition! I think it's the closest to what I consider art that I've heard yet.

[nymphadora1014]

I've never really considered the issue, since I'm not much of a video game girl, so I have very little basis on which to form an opinion.

I've listened to some bits of video game soundtracks and those are most certainly works of art in themselves. Because of that, I would be hesitant to say that the games themselves would not be art, if only because the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.