You're right to say that the gaming community shouldn't be getting upset about his comments and flaming and all that shit, but you're dismissal of Ebert's conclusions in his article takes it a step too far. I went to school for film production and have worked in professional film and video for several years; as such, I'm a HUGE film fanatic (and also admirer and longtime follower of Ebert's work). Being a gamer as well, I was naturally quite interested when this article emerged, and like most of Ebert's work, I thought it was a well written, intelligent, and informed opinion. Nowhere in his article does Ebert stoop to petty insults or immature puffery. He doesn't call gamers stupid, or marginal, or gay or old (the latter two, sadly, favorites thrown at him by our fellow gamers). He's simply making the point that he doesn't think games are ready to be placed on the mantle next to other forms of high art, and for the most part, he's right. Games are a burgeoning art form, still in their infancy compared to others, and there hasn't been one yet that rises to the level of poetry or human experience such as that of a Citizen Kane or a Taxi Driver or La Dolce Vita. Ebert's also right that the addition of user input is more a hindrance than a facilitator to the experience of fine art. You don't decide how a painting ends up looking or how a film ends, or how long a book or a song should be. You imbibe art in a passive state, and it acts on you, not vice versa, and that's the way it has been for as long as the arts have been around. That's what Ebert's referring to. For gamers to jump on him and tell him he doesn't know what he's talking about, and call him a fag on top of it, only shows how little attention those people are paying to his statements, and also what little deference they have for the long, rich artistic traditions Ebert is trying to address.
There really shouldn't be any controversy here. Ebert acknowledges that games are highly creative and that they contain many artistic elements, but that's not to say that they presently deserve comparison to works such as Eliot's Wasteland or Godard's Breathless, or that the TOTAL experience of a game amounts to high art. Where I would disagree with Ebert is in his assertion that games are "structurally" incapable of getting there, and I think this is where his lack of exposure to the medium (which he confesses) comes into play. Sure they can get there; interactive media is evolving so rapidly that there's no telling where it will wind up.
In any event, the main point is that Ebert wasn't trying to trash our hobby or insult us or anyone else, and the response he received from the gaming community was embarrassing, just playing right into the stereotypes of gamers as boorish, uncultured, profane juveniles.
I can guarantee you this. if he didn't think gamers were jerks before he wrote that article, he sure as shit does now. .
Log in to comment