

Video Games Can Never Be Art - tptacek
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

======
wvenable
In trying to prove that video games are art, Kellee Santiago uses as examples
games which are trying to be art in a way that compares with film. It's not
surprising that when comparing these games to film, using that framing, that
Ebert would find it lacking.

But what about a classic game like Super Mario Bros? It doesn't have a complex
story told on wordy fortune cookies, it's not trying to force a particularly
complex emotional experience, and it's not beautiful in the way of modern
games. However, I'd still say that it's art. A different kind of art. One
that's not comparable to film as so many examples here are.

Look at Mario himself: There are so few pixels to work with but not only is he
clearly a human, he actually has character. From his overalls to his 3 pixel
mustache. The world itself is a unique fantasy of plumbing, princesses, and
mushrooms. The music, due to technical limitations, is a bunch of repetitive
beeps and boops but is infectious and never gets annoying even after days,
months, even years of playing. The shrubs and the clouds are the same --
something that went unnoticed by players for decades. The first 5 seconds of
the game shows you, not tells you, everything you need to know to play it.
It's beautifully designed. But it's not the same kind of art Ebert is
critiquing here and it's not the kind of art that Santiago portrays either.

------
bmalicoat
Seems to me that as an outsider to gaming Ebert, whom I respect, misses out on
many gaming opportunities. I'm not sure what lofty definition of art he is
using but I've played games that run the entire emotional spectrum. Cinematic
games like Uncharted 2, reflective games like Ico and Shadow of the Colossus,
funny games like Monkey Island, 'art house' games like Braid, suspenseful
games like Resident Evil. These games cover many systems over a long stretch
of time, to expect a movie critic to keep up would be asking too much. But he
should understand that this would be like me, a casual movie watcher, saying
Citizen Kane is boring.

~~~
jimmyjim
Shadow of the Colossus was indeed very artsy, but I think its prequel Ico was
better by miles and miles. Also the perfect argument against Ebert's take on
video games. A trailer of some sort:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FQ-0vqHAro>

Really just a gesamtkunstwerk. The soundtrack, the choreography and the
storyline really work well together. The game falls under a puzzle genre I
believe.

~~~
bmalicoat
I gotta be honest with you, I only upvoted you because you somehow managed to
say gesamtkunstwerk in a casual way.

------
lacker
Ebert is criticizing games without actually _playing_ them, just watching
other people talk about them. This is like saying movies aren't art, because
if all you do is read movie reviews, you will _never_ read a movie review that
can compare with _Infinite Jest_ or _The Grapes of Wrath_.

Braid is better art than any movie that came out last year.

~~~
michael_dorfman
But that's not the argument that he is making.

He's saying that video games are games, and that games are not artforms. You
don't have to play hockey, or watch hockey games, to say that a hockey match
is not a work of art.

Ebert seems to be saying that the artistic elements in a video game (the text,
the graphics, etc.) are subsidiary to the over-riding purpose, which is game-
play. So, while Braid may contain beautiful images, the primary purpose of
those images is to further the game scenario; similarly, where the graceful
moves of a Michael Jordan dunk may resemble choreography, and contain a
certain beauty, his primary purpose was to put the ball through the hoop, not
artistic expression.

~~~
godDLL
I hear the argument and it is sound.

I'd like to mention though, that when I finished through Braid I ended up with
the feeling that it's primary goal was not to make me look at pretty images or
listen to some music or even to make me read the puny bits of story. I don't
think it's purpose was for me to finish it either.

The gameplay was original and highly enjoyable, but that might not have been
the point still. It sure pulls you through the game, but the graphics and the
music and the story contribute to that aspect in their own right.

I ended up thinking that the game's purpose was to communicate a feeling, a
certain moment frozen in time when you realize for the first time that you've
made a mistake, that what you have come to believe about the world is false or
backward, and you're, in essence, a devastating force. This is the moment when
you want to take it all back, to have made different choices.

And I think I'm not alone in feeling that. I also happen to think that these
moments of direct communication are what art is about, and that they might be
achieved with simpler means – a song, perhaps, or a poem.

Ebert hasn't had any exposure to this kind of experiences, it seems to me.

~~~
Radix
_I hear the argument and it is sound._

I believe it isn't. I appreciate Michael's summary because it shows where
Ebert's blind spot is. (I think you get it though.) Games allow you to be
pulled into stories better, or at least differently, than movies. More like
novels than movies as you find yourself putting more into the story than
you're given, or as in Bioshock you adopt the character as yourself and wonder
what do _I_ really think about Ryan? He seems okay to me, but I'm not sure
about Atlas. The story is about as artistic as a sequel to Atlas Shrugged
could be.

Then there is the idea some games contain art. Donkey Kong 2 isn't a game I
would claim to be art, but Stickerbrush Symphony is one of the finest levels
in any game I've played. The experience of bouncing from barrel to barrel with
this beautiful music and environment... I'm not talented enough a writer to
explain. The music and scene are the lines in those cave paintings.

Ebert's hung up on the word game and can't see those moments frozen in time.
And without playing the games and giving himself over to them he won't be able
to. The over riding purpose isn't the game play, it's those moments in time
where you don't just understand the story, but you believe it.

~~~
wdewind
I think both Ebert and the TEDxUSC lady are wrong.

Video games are the medium, and they contain many many pieces of art (these
individual moments). The movie projector isn't art either, the canvas isn't
art either. To say the game will never be art is moot, the art is already
there, and it is it not the game itself.

I know exactly what you mean about DK. Awesome awesome games with a ton of art
in them for sure.

------
tptacek
If books can be art (as he concedes), then graphic novels like Maus clearly
are as well. If graphic novels can be art, it's hard to argue that an
interactive graphic novel wouldn't be. Therefore, his logic has be that
there's some threshold of interactivity across which you lose your artistic
merit. It doesn't make much sense.

In the end I think this is very much like the "comic books" vs. "graphic
novels" debate, and his problem is that he (a) doesn't like video games and
therefore (b) is very unlikely to be exposed to the vanishingly small number
that are conceived of or executed as art.

~~~
dustingetz
the author doesn't actually claim its impossible, his main point is that "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."

~~~
electromagnetic
There's no video game out there in which the story is of a comparable quality
with a novel?

A reply from a video game reviewer (me, for clarification):

Okay, let's get started: The Halo series, anything by BioWare, The Elder
Scrolls series (excluding Oblivion, story out and out sucked monkey nuts as it
didn't have a single plot twist or revelation in it anywhere), Fallout 1 and
especially 2, anything by Tim Schafer (hello Grim Fandango?), Broken Sword 1 &
2, Space Quest (especially #6), the legend of Kyrandia, Kings Quest, The
Longest Journey . . .

Here's the coupe de grace, The Dig. Spielberg gave the idea to Lucasarts
because he knew it would take decades before the technology would be available
to do the story justice. Written by Spielberg and Orson Scott Card.

I'm sorry, but Ebert has no fucking clue. There was a game out in 1995 written
by _the_ Steven Spielberg and _the_ Orson Scott Card, that game alone
quantified the video game medium as having great potential for artistic works.

There's a whole whack of games from the SCUMM era that have so much story it's
still unbelievable by today's standards, even with BioWare.

Sorry Mr. Ebert you're now entering your second decade of being out of touch
with the world, obviously we left you behind in 1995 when Spielberg, one of
the greatest film directors alive, saw greater potential in video games than
in film. If you were aware of this fact, I wouldn't doubt you would still hold
a grudge against video games like newspapers hold a grudge against the
internet and blogs. I know it must hurt that video games are know a bigger
global entertainment resource than film, but that is a fact you will just have
to live with. Don't worry, just like the inevitable death of newspapers,
you'll probably still be so outdated that you won't notice the death of film
before the world has forgotten your once relevance.

~~~
apu
Yes, games are great, and art, and Ebert's wrong about them.

But I think you're unfairly judging (and berating) Ebert about much of the
other stuff. He's actually remarkably on top of things considering both his
age (67) and his status (can't talk, eat, or drink due to cancer surgery and
_the loss of his fucking jaw_!). He has an active blog with some of the best
writing out there, he's hyper-active on twitter, he knows about newspapers
going down and is not living in the past there, he's starting a new online
presence for himself and his readers, and he doesn't "hold a grudge against
video games"; he just doesn't seem them as art.

Your angry rant only hurts your (mostly) valid points.

~~~
tptacek
Not only that, but as a film critic he's been a consistent champion of the
kinds of science fiction that feed into the titles that the parent poster
brought up.

------
cgranade
I promoted this article not because I think that he's correct, but because I
think this article is a brilliant example of a highly intelligent person
getting something dead 180° wrong. Ebert is obviously quite intelligent, and a
damn fine writer, but he misses much of what makes video games a compelling
and beautiful medium for art. Just because one _can_ embed poor prose or low-
budget animated cut scenes doesn't mean that the medium is limited to just
such things.

Don't tell me that the surreal landscapes of _NiGHTS into Dreams_ weren't
art-- I spent many hours as a kid exploring every nook and cranny of those
levels all while trying to run away from the dreaded alarm clock. The start of
the fourth level of _NiGHTS_ forces you, the player, to make a choice that
ultimately draws you into the game even more-- you must trust that you have
enough control of your environment to jump off of that cliff and fly. Don't
tell me that there isn't art in that beautiful moment when you realize that
the rules of the game have changed so beautifully.

Anyone who has played Metal Gear Solid knows how Psycho Mantis' blurring of
the fourth wall stretches how you think of playing the game. You, the player,
have to make a physical action to get through the battle. Throughout the rest
of the game, you are continually making choices about how you get through each
challenge-- choices that other characters are aware of and will react to. The
impact, ultimately, of such choices is that you empathize with Snake in ways
that would not be possible in any other medium.

Others have given many other good examples, and will undoubtedly continue to
do so. For my part, however, I will be content to share my 2¢ on the matter
and to point attention to this important conversation.

~~~
chipsy
The thing that has always troubled me about Ebert's argument is that its
strength seems to depend greatly on the kinds of games you present in
rebuttal.

Take board games or sports games, for example. They've been around since the
earliest years of civilization. We have played them all that time, but never
drew a comparison between them and art like what a painter or musician would
produce.

Yet, suddenly it became a debate when we got to video games because we could
start inserting all the other art mediums as desired, while still retaining
the interactive, unpredictable nature of previous games. And so we go out on
this mindless quest to find the most moving games we have ever played and show
them to the critics.

I think that what this suggests is that we have to either expand our
definition of art to include all the interactive forms(including toys, board
games, and sports) or define two kinds of art - the interactive, and the
authorial - and view them as complements to each other.

------
wooster
Novels once rated the same consideration by critics.

"Once upon a time there were good American novels and bad ones, but none was
thought of as a work of art."

<http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7197.html>

Moby Dick, written in 1851, wasn't widely regarded as a work of art until
after World War I.

To counter Ebert's summary: Why are the self-appointed guardians of the
ramparts of canonized art always so jealous in protecting it from being
invaded by newcomers? This story has been repeated over and over again with
portrait paintings, Impressionism, architecture, novels, cinema, and
everything in between. It's an old and tired plot, and one he should certainly
be familiar enough with to disdain.

------
kevinh
I think it's unfortunate that Ebert comments on games while he has clearly not
played them. This is quite evident with his discussions of Braid and Flower.

To answer a question he posed: why do gamers want games to be recognized as
art? Because most of us have played some game, be it Shadow of the Colossus,
Okami, Flower, or another game, and thought, "this game is beautiful." We
think the developers of these games deserve accolades and they deserve to have
the game recognized for what it is - a piece of art.

I don't wish to insult Ebert - he is a man I admire for many reasons, but I
don't really care about his opinion in this case. One man's opinion about
whether games are art or not is not of importance to me, especially since he
does not appear to have experienced very many games - apart from Chess.

~~~
cgranade
Bingo. So much of the beauty and art to games is shaping the experience of
playing them. How can you (to reuse an example) appreciate the artistry of
Heavy Rain without holding the controller and struggling with the characters?
Much of the gameplay derives from that the awkwardness and sensitivity of the
controls are tied to the emotional state of the character, which is difficult
to perceive from just watching.

------
jjs
His thesis reduces to: _adding any interactivity to art automatically makes it
Not Art._

I wonder if he's willing to make the same statements about participatory
theatre.

~~~
r0s
Or, say, tactile sculpture. I'd argue all art requires audience participation.
Suspension of disbelief on film, hell any symbol or metaphor in any medium has
to be actively analyzed.

------
DoctorProfessor
I'm surprised that Ebert doesn't see the importance of whether games are
defined as art, given what happened to film. In 1915, the U.S. Supreme Court
ruled that films were not art, and thus not protected by the First Amendment,
and therefore may be freely censored. The decision was not overturned until
1952. I don't want this to repeat with videogames. (I wrote about this in one
of my own articles: [http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2009/12/im-not-evil-i-just-
play-...](http://www.pixelpoppers.com/2009/12/im-not-evil-i-just-play-that-
way-player.html) )

Ebert flirts with definitions of art, but never provides his own. This is the
biggest problem by far with his essay. Maybe his definition really is
something that flat-out can't include videogames. But when he simply says
"videogames can't be art" without explaining what he means by art, we can only
fill in the blanks with our own definitions. It's no wonder gamers get enraged
by this. And they say, "Of course games are art, look at
Bioshock/Braid/Flower/etc.!" And Ebert looks at these games not with the
gamer's definition of art, but his own, and says, "Of course these are not
art."

It's pointless and inflammatory and it can't possibly go anywhere constructive
until Ebert defines his terms and explains just what he means when he claims
videogames are not art.

------
Groxx
A remark on the "Flower" game:

 _Is the game scored? She doesn't say. Do you win if you're the first to find
the balance between the urban and the natural? Can you control the flower?
Does the game know what the ideal balance is?_

Which really does show just how close-minded he is on video games. He's not
even _approaching_ looking at them as art, he's just looking for the Win.

I wonder if he judges art by the same standards. Is it scored? Does poking the
painting make it change colors? No? I guess it's not art, then.

------
dustingetz
_"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."_

so opine the academics, but the video gamers probably beg to differ.

------
kindly
To give an opposite view point, read Charlie Brookers article

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/11/charlie-
bro...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/11/charlie-brooker-i-
love-videogames)

"If you don't play games, you're not just missing out, you're wilfully
ignoring the most rapidly evolving creative medium in human history."

------
endtime
>Her next example is a game named "Braid" (above). This is a game "that
explores our own relationship with our past...you encounter enemies and
collect puzzle pieces, but there's one key difference...you can't die." You
can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as
taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I
persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a
video game. She also admires a story told between the games levels, which
exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie.

Anyone else reminded of Michael Jordan trying to play baseball?

------
r0s
I started writing a big long winded argument but really, Ebert is trolling
here. Creating controversy for his own benefit. His rambling half formed
ideas, much use of spurious philosophical definitions of 'Art', make me think
he doesn't really believe any of it himself.

~~~
hugh3
I think he believes half of it: that no games rising to the level of _good_
art (let alone great art) currently exist. The rest, where he's forced to tie
knots in the definition of both "game" and "art" to prove one _can't_ be the
other is a lot iffier.

It's a pity he didn't limit himself to the argument about whether any games
which are "good" art currently exist, or else we could be having a much more
interesting discussion. Personally I think that Half Life 2, say, is far
better than many of the movies to which Ebert gives four stars, but not quite
good enough to kick it into the stratosphere of what's truly great.

I guess that video games are probably the hardest medium in which to create
great art. It used to be said that filmmaking was the hardest medium since it
combined most of the others; music, writing, photography etc. Gamemaking is
even harder since you have all those other elements _plus_ the need for
gameplay.

------
chaosmachine
"... a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level
of a wordy fortune cookie."

Roger Ebert on Braid.

~~~
tptacek
Even when he's wrong he's just such an excellent writer.

------
ErrantX
The writer has clearly never played one of the set pieces in HL2. Nuff said.

A more expansive answer: the writer dwells a lot on the visual. But remember
art is expansive; it is about evoking a reaction in people. I still recall a
particular set piece battle in HL2:Ep2(the one in the tunnel with the
Antlions) with the building music and tension - brilliant and evocative. Art.

------
paulgerhardt
[Games require points to be games, Art does not consist of points, therefore
Games are not Art.] This is a fallacy of necessity. I wouldn't take it too
seriously.

 _One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It
has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive
game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and
becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are
things you cannot win; you can only experience them._

Ebert's opinion is rather polemical. I sat in on a panel he did a few years
ago on this topic but this "points" thing seemed to be his ultimate sticking
point. It looks like his opinion has changed much since then.

~~~
hugh3
It's a pity Ebert isn't here, but I wonder if he could be convinced by some
crazy examples. Let's take a great film like, say, Psycho. Now let's add a
single point of interactivity; Janet Leigh starts taking a shower and you can,
playing as Norman Bates (uhh, sorry if I just spoiled the movie for anyone)
click one box to go and stab her, in which case you see the rest of the movie,
or click the other box to _not_ stab her, in which case you see a title card
that says "Marion finished her shower, had a good night's sleep, and escaped
to Mexico, married a fisherman and lived happily ever after".

Now, that wouldn't be an improvement on the original (though now I've typed it
I kinda want to play it) but is it enough to push it from "art" into "not
art"? Let's assume this was the actual original form in which Hitchcock, in a
fit of originality, decided to release Psycho in the first place.

------
psyklic
I'm not a fan of arguments over vague definitions. However, I've come to
believe that something is art if someone believes it is art. Hence, I would
say that this author is incorrect.

------
RevRal
As much as I love video games, I agree with him. I don't think games can
technically be art. Though, they are meaningful.

You have to draw the distinction somewhere. Art isn't a plastic definition,
and it is at least generally understood to describe things that translate into
our minds, and expand into something more.

The thing that makes a game a game are game mechanics. I don't call game
mechanics art in the same way I don't call reality art. Now, I do believe the
music in a game can be artful and the story too... but not the thing that
makes a game a game. A game is like an enclosure for a lot of wonderful
experiences, but I don't see why people are so personally caught up trying to
see the enclosure for more than it is. A simulation.

That being said, I do believe that video games are a valid medium to spend
your time with. A game functions best when the environment plays a large role,
something like an archaeological dig. Exploration games like Myst or Shadow of
the Colossus use the medium to it's best potential. There is an awe that those
games animate through something like osmosis. You absorb the things in games
in a way you simply cannot in any other medium. This has value.

------
DaniFong
"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."

I'd nominate Alpha Centauri -- it profoundly affected me, and linked me to a
much greater exploration of human philosophy and scholarship than I might
otherwise have encountered.

------
wallflower
> Spielberg postulated, "I think the real indicator [that games have become a
> storytelling art form] will be when somebody confesses that they cried at
> level 17." (GDC 2004)

<http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/42613/>

~~~
cgranade
I cried on Disc 2 of Final Fantasy VII... and that was well before GDC 2004.

~~~
wallflower
Thanks for sharing that. My interpretation of what Spielberg is saying is that
he means when that kind of emotional response is mainstream - which will
happen when tools to create emotionally-involving games are more powerful and
it is almost expected to provoke a strong emotional response in the game
participant. Somewhere between Farmville and the Holodeck.

------
ugh
I would honestly give up on the word “art” It’s a pretty hopeless case with a
wealth horrendously ambiguous definitions.

Arguing about definitions is stupid. If a word isn’t useful because we cannot
agree on its meaning we should just drop the word.

~~~
devinj
And what if I don't agree with your definition of "stupid"? Or, "hopeless"? Or
"definition", for that matter!

All words are ambiguous. What we interpret them to mean is not some hard
concept, but the sum of a range of lifetime experiences with that word, giving
it subtle nuance between people that nominally agree, and often more
significant differences that lead people to disagree. One of the easier
examples are, for example, the words "geek", "nerd", and "dork". Another one
is "hacker", which is part of the title of the very site we're talking on.

~~~
ugh
Yes, there is some hyperbole in my first sentence. I won’t stop saying “art
exhibition” or “modern art”.

Yet calling something art is in my eyes only a nice shortcut, not much more.
In what way is it even useful to answer the question “Is it art?” when you
know so much about the object in question? In know how I feel when I look at
Guernica. I can describe shapes, color and texture. I can read all about the
history of the painting. Does calling it art or refusing to call it art change
any of that?

This discussion reminds me of this really great text by Eliezer Yudkowsky
called “How An Algorithm Feels From Inside”[1].

[1]
[http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_insid...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/no/how_an_algorithm_feels_from_inside/)

------
jheriko
Given that art is defined differently from person to person this is pretty
weak statement by its nature... I'd agree though - games contain art rather
than being it. Some of the artwork done for environments and characters is
incredible compared to the trash that gets passed off as modern art.

This argument seems a bit light too - why does being able to win at something
stop it from being art? Is he saying that nothing interactive can be art? The
argument that sports and board games can not be considered art is silly too...
its like saying the Sistine Chapel ceiling is not art because my plainly
painted ceiling isn't - a flawed analogy.

------
jbellis
My rebuttal: Grim Fandango.

~~~
cgranade
Ah, hell... nearly any Tim Schafer game would do there. Honestly, how is
Psychonauts not a work of art?

------
philk
I'm not sure why Ebert's opinion matters on this. He doesn't play games and is
hence manifestly unqualified to comment on them.

------
Batsu
It's odd to imply that the quality of something being a work of art is related
to its level of interactivity.

------
chbarts
Is architecture art? Look at it this way: It is fundamentally constrained by
not only the laws of physics, but building codes and the prosaic demands of
those who have to live there. (Well, Frank Lloyd Wright could probably claim
to have shaken off _those_ constraints, but he's off to one side.)

It is different from sculpture in that the artist does _not_ have a free hand,
much like the video game creators don't have a free hand compared to novelists
or even cinematographers (who _are_ limited compare to novelists and painters
but not as much). Limitations are the bane of choice, and choice is the
fundamental aspect of art.

~~~
devinj
No artist has a free hand. Just as the architect cannot create something
unsound, the sculptor cannot create something that moves or speaks. The
musician cannot include visuals, and cannot use sounds that are outside the
range of human hearing. The painter cannot use motion.

I would argue that limitations are part of what creates truly great art.
Specifically, transcending the limitations to create something altogether
other, evoking an unexpected reaction. For example, a painting that evokes the
_feeling_ of motion is far more impressive than a short clip of an object in
motion. We want things that are more than the sum of their parts.

