Roger Ebert's New Blog Post- Video games can never be art

This is a lengthy read. It was a somewhat interesting article, regardless of whether or not you agree with his opinion. He briefly discusses games like Braid and Flower, and argues how those games are not art. There were also some comparisons to how scratches in caves by ancestors eventually led to the Sistine Chapel work, and how gaming is currently at the former side of the spectrum. I'm hardly a scholar, but I figured some of you may enjoy reading the piece. 
 
 
  http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html  
 
 
 
 

I wonder how many people will actually read that and not just react to the thread title. I'm gonna say maybe 1 in 5 actually read it.

That dude is old.  Just saying.

I actually read that, he does not get games.

" That dude is old.  Just saying. "

He brings up a good point about how art is unwinnable; you can only experience it, whereas games have set objectives and if they do not then they are no longer a "game" but a representation of a story.
 
That being said, I still disagree with him. I can't really put it into words so I guess it doesn't matter for much, but I basically see any form of entertainment as a kind of art, and videogames fit into that somewhere. Or something.

TL;DR

On a second note, who cares.
 
I don't care if games are art, I play games to have fun, and I do have fun.  Whether they or art or not matters nothing to me.  It's the stupidest most pointless argument.  People need to shutup and stop worrying.  Just play your damn games.

Last time someone said video games aren't art, they made that awful game Jericho, by a fellow named Clive Barker who made damned sure you knew HE made it.

" On a second note, who cares.  I don't care if games are art, I play games to have fun, and I do have fun.  Whether they or art or not matters nothing to me.  It's the stupidest most pointless argument.  People need to shutup and stop worrying.  Just play your damn games. "

who the fuck is Ebert?

He does have some points, we really don't know how the hell to classify art or to describe what makes artsy games...artsy. But, that said, his underlining statement way too subjective.

I understand his viewpoint quite well but feel disinclined to agree. 

From reading the article, he's trolling a bit.  Video games (and other games, board, etc) are interactive, and thus a completely different beast.

Read the article.... Don't know why I did, Roger Ebert is just an elitist prick, and that article just screamed how much of a total prick he was. Personally I think the man needs to take a step back and look at art itself; Bullshit. Now I like art pieces however at the end of the day, art has no true importance in the basics of human beings, and this elitist prick acts like he knows all just by his own definition of art. 
Seriously has anyone looked at the Andy Warhol paintings? Seriously what the fuck? A goddamn soup can and changing a couple colors in a photo and he's known worldwide as the voice of a generation.... wtf? 
And then books.... he discusses how video games like this  "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game" Yeah you know what happens when you read a book? It ends. Just like in video games: They end. At least with video games you immerse yourself where as books you just read words. Seriously has anyone read the book "Things Fall Apart"? Wtf people? That book is apparently critically acclaimed and yet when I finished reading it all I could think about was how I wasn't gonna get back the past 5 hours of my life. And has anyone read "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock"? I love how he used that as an example since: THE AUTHOR WAS PUT IN A MENTAL HOSPITAL AND NOBODY HAS THE SLIGHTEST CLUE WHAT THE POEM TRULLY MEANS. 
As you can tell... I really hate people who claim to be critics of art.... Especially elitist pricks like Roger Ebert...

Read the article - " Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? ", " Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care. "
 
The "Art of Video Games" is good enough for me, just like the "Art of Basketball" or "Science(art) of Boxing".

Interesting read, up until he makes no attempt to justify his response to the Braid/Flower remarks and just passes them off without any support. As a theatre maker, I'm turning Braid into a stage-show this summer through contact improvisation, so I certainly don't agree with his claim.

" Read the article - " Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? ", " Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care. "  The "Art of Video Games" is good enough for me, just like the "Art of Basketball" or "Science(art) of Boxing". "

To be fair, Ebert has been saying this kind of thing for two decades. He is a man rooted in his ways.

He also states why he returned to this commentary
" What stirs me to return to the subject? I was urged by a reader, Mark Johns, to consider a video of a TED talk given at USC by Kellee Santiago, a designer and producer of video games. I did so. I warmed to Santiago immediately. She is bright, confident, persuasive. But she is mistaken. "
 
AFAIK he isn't on a holy crusade or anything to destroy video games and the industry. I believe he just isn't a fan, so be it.  He is a movie reviewer.

Flower is not "art" or at least a failed attempt at some impressionistic visual "game." Ebert is fucking spot on with my views.
 
I am just saying words because I hate Flower.

Video games aren't really "art." They can have aspects to them that are artistic, but they aren't art. Perhaps one day they will be, but they aren't right now.
 
For example, when most people look at a game like Final Fantasy VII, they don't see an amazing storyline, beautiful graphics, awesome gameplay, or any of that. They see a game that is lame and overdone with bad graphics, and the main character is a blonde emo kid wielding a giant sword who is fighting some mama's boy.

A game like Okami has a very artistic aspect to it, but it isn't art. I would say that a book is more a form of "art" than a video game.

Of course, this is merely my current opinion. Perhaps one day, I will consider video games art. However, that day is not today.

Fuck Ebert and his droopy lip.

" Video games aren't really "art." They can have aspects to them that are artistic, but they aren't art. Perhaps one day they will be, but they aren't right now. For example, when most people look at a game like Final Fantasy VII, they don't see an amazing storyline, beautiful graphics, awesome gameplay, or any of that. They see a game that is lame and overdone with bad graphics, and the main character is a blonde emo kid wielding a giant sword who is fighting some mama's boy.A game like Okami has a very artistic aspect to it, but it isn't art. I would say that a book is more a form of "art" than a video game. Of course, this is merely my current opinion. Perhaps one day, I will consider video games art. However, that day is not today. "

After skimming through and  reading most of it (too busy editing the Franz Lanzinger page to read the whole thing) i can safely say he gets too caught up in semantics. The whole "video games cant be art just like a board game cant be art" debate.  I would be immensely interested to see what he thinks about a game like Heavy Rain.  I on the other hand, know video games can be art,  some of the main principles of art are evoking emotion and having some "artistic vision"(although art is hard to define). I have played games that i would consider having a "Cear vision", and i have DEFINITELY played games that evoked emotion in me...hell there have been a few games that made me choke up a bit. 
 
I think it boils down to this, video games are our generations movies, at first they weren't considered art,  but now they are. I know there have been characters and situations in games that i relate to and strike a chord with me more than most of the "bang-bang shoot-em-ups" or "oh that man tripped over an ottermanlolololol comedies" that are being made today. Hell didnt our own Jeff Gerstmann say there was a point in GTA 4 where he had to stop for a while before he kept playing because it  hit close to home? (maybe i am getting the person or game confused)

If he's a movie reviewer he has no business commenting on something he clearly has little to no background knowledge on. His commentary on Braid and Flower just made him seem like a stuck up elitist asshole. I'll openly admit though i am not a fan of Ebert or his reviews so take that as you will.    

" He also states why he returned to this commentary " What stirs me to return to the subject? I was urged by a reader, Mark Johns, to consider a video of a TED talk given at USC by Kellee Santiago, a designer and producer of video games. I did so. I warmed to Santiago immediately. She is bright, confident, persuasive. But she is mistaken. "  AFAIK he isn't on a holy crusade or anything to destroy video games and the industry. I believe he just isn't a fan, so be it.  He is a movie reviewer. "

" If he's a movie reviewer he has no business commenting on something he clearly has little to no background knowledge on. His commentary on Braid and Flower just made him seem like a stuck up elitist asshole. I'll openly admit though i am not a fan of Ebert or his reviews so take that as you will.     "

I love this thread, some of you people are shallow. 
I also really liked this paragraph.

Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?" Then let them say it, if it makes them happy.

"I allow Sangtiago the last word. Toward the end of her presentation, she shows a visual with six circles, which represent, I gather, the components now forming for her brave new world of video games as art. The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. I rest my case."

Now, I like me some Ebert, but he seems a little off-base and stuck-up in this. He also keeps going back to a game having "scores" and objectives, which hey: they don't have. I also think that he should play these games--or at least know more about them--before he tears them down.
Anyways, as far as I'm concerned, art is the delivery of a message given by its creator, meant to be interpreted and resonated by its consumer. 
Therefore, as Ebert has said before, a game like Heavy Rain doesn't quite work as art, because its interactivity only dilutes its creator's original intent. 
However, a game like Shadow of the Colossus does. It uses gaming's tools of interactivity to strengthen its storytelling, further emphasizing the sense of guilt one receives after killing a colossi.   

Yeah, I don't get what most of what I said means, either.

" Video games aren't really "art." They can have aspects to them that are artistic, but they aren't art. Perhaps one day they will be, but they aren't right now. For example, when most people look at a game like Final Fantasy VII, they don't see an amazing storyline, beautiful graphics, awesome gameplay, or any of that. They see a game that is lame and overdone with bad graphics, and the main character is a blonde emo kid wielding a giant sword who is fighting some mama's boy.A game like Okami has a very artistic aspect to it, but it isn't art. I would say that a book is more a form of "art" than a video game. Of course, this is merely my current opinion. Perhaps one day, I will consider video games art. However, that day is not today. "

I believe this sums up his entire article:
 
" 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. "
 
He compares something from Briad to if it were possible in Chess and criticizes how it would ruin the competitive nature and "fairness" of Chess. Missing the point entirely that the game isn't about setting up rules to follow, its about people's desires to take back foolish actions.
 
More importantly this proves he hasn't played the game, and criticizing anything you have not experience yourself is foolish.

Why should I care what some old out of touch fart who can't write for crap anyway says?

I get what he's trying to say. But what he doesn't realize is the art from the emotion that is supposed to come from games. What I do agree with is that that emotional connect with the player and the game which is supposed to be the art part of the game hasn't exactly been achieved yet. The emotion is supposed to be from experiencing the game and getting to know the characters and the story and the world, and then the story twists it all around during its dramatic twist in the middle of the game or where ever it is and makes an emotional impact on you. I think that there are only a small handful, if any, games out there that achieve this well.

" @Ariketh said:

" Video games aren't really "art." They can have aspects to them that are artistic, but they aren't art. Perhaps one day they will be, but they aren't right now. For example, when most people look at a game like Final Fantasy VII, they don't see an amazing storyline, beautiful graphics, awesome gameplay, or any of that. They see a game that is lame and overdone with bad graphics, and the main character is a blonde emo kid wielding a giant sword who is fighting some mama's boy.A game like Okami has a very artistic aspect to it, but it isn't art. I would say that a book is more a form of "art" than a video game. Of course, this is merely my current opinion. Perhaps one day, I will consider video games art. However, that day is not today. "

Just Like how when some people see a Picasso all they see is a messed up face? Art is subjective to the viewer, if critics like Ebert need to define "art" in certain categories then they are far too closed minded. "

" Roger Ebert Should Lay Off the Fatty Foods     "

" @Fragstoff said:

" Roger Ebert Should Lay Off the Fatty Foods     "

This is probably the most inappropriate response in this thread, considering Ebert is missing his lower jaw... "

" @ARTB said:

" @Ariketh said:

" Video games aren't really "art." They can have aspects to them that are artistic, but they aren't art. Perhaps one day they will be, but they aren't right now. For example, when most people look at a game like Final Fantasy VII, they don't see an amazing storyline, beautiful graphics, awesome gameplay, or any of that. They see a game that is lame and overdone with bad graphics, and the main character is a blonde emo kid wielding a giant sword who is fighting some mama's boy.A game like Okami has a very artistic aspect to it, but it isn't art. I would say that a book is more a form of "art" than a video game. Of course, this is merely my current opinion. Perhaps one day, I will consider video games art. However, that day is not today. "

Just Like how when some people see a Picasso all they see is a messed up face? Art is subjective to the viewer, if critics like Ebert need to define "art" in certain categories then they are far too closed minded. "

True enough, though Ebert is sorta an ass.  I am not sure how I would define art, actually... "

" I actually read that, he does not get games. "

" That dude is old.  Just saying. "

The article had a few "oh SNAP!" moments.
 
About Braid: She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie. -- Take that, Jonathan Blow!
---
While the article, of course, is largely founded on his own perspective, one thought struck me as being universally true:
Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves?
 
Why, indeed Mr. Ebert.  Why, indeed.  I'm gonna go play some Rapelay.  Who's with me?

Its just weird. He overall is probably the most thoughtful critic of movies there is. He's a smart guy but when it comes to videogames he is willfully ignorant. Really he is a bigot because he holds a view that he will not allow facts to change and he is refusing to investigate the thing he condemns. His article is full of meritless "zingers" that would be mocked for their facile nature in any forum. I really pity him in t his regard.

Hm, he definitly doesn't write shit no one agrees with for Site Visits. Old weird guy

In my opinion; video games can be art. Music, writing, paintings, films, they're all art. Art can be a rather subjective matter or has a vague definition as well. You could call martial arts an art, or the study of chemistry formulas an art.
 
Though most gamers are not insulted in any way that video gaming is not an art, so it really doesn't matter what people think. The only people who might be a bit more offended are the people who make the game; specifically the graphic artists. They know that they're making more of a an enterainment medium than art, but certain individuals might think otherwise.