How many times have we had this argument? When Roger Ebert, famed film critic, said that games were an inferior form of Art, compared to film and literature, the Internet exploded. On every forum there was a flame war defending or damning Ebert. The subject has very nearly been beaten to death. Recently, Clive Barker (writer-director of Hellraiser, designer of Jericho) gave a speech at the Hollywood and Games Summit about how games need to be accepted as Art, mentioning Ebert throughout. His speech was posted on GameIndustry.biz, and when Ebert read it, he chose to write a response of his own.
Ebert starts his response by saying that he was mistaken; "Anything can be art," but quickly adds "What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it." Irony is wrapped around his response like shrink-wrap. If Ebert traveled back in time 100 years, he would find himself on the flipside of his argument. He would find himself in a time where film was considered to be a cheap substitute for those who couldn't afford real theatre. The upper-****theatre critics would be looking down their nose at films, saying that they could never be high art. Of course, in the present movies are much more popular than theatre, and no believes that they're inferior. No one denies film's potential to be considered high art. Defined in the most concise terms, High Art is great art, something intellectually, emotionally and culturally meaningful. This is not a textbook definition, but a fair definition.
Ebert doesn't pretend to be a gamer, but says that he understands game by definition. Based on "the vast majority of games", Ebert defines games as "involving (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in 'Myst', and (3) player control of the outcome". Fair enough; to varying degrees he is right. However, he said these attributes make games more comparable to sports than Art, though personally I've yet to see a sport with a plotline. He believes that these attributes "don't have much to do with art", but that's not really fair. Not all art forms share the same attributes; music is vastly different than writing, which is vastly different from filming, and acting is vastly different from all of them. Acting is not so different from gaming, however. Gaming is more than a visual experience; it is also a performance. Actors may choose how to perform a play however they want, but they must progress the plot to reach the end. Players may have some choices when they play a game, but in most games they must adhere to the author's intent to progress. Then again, not all Art intends to tell a story, or represent something. Think how many paintings and sculptures that we appreciate for their realism? Many games seek no further than to simulate reality, though they retain the elements of performance.
Ebert does a tremendous job of sounding witty in response to Barkers' comments, even suggests that Clive has "Spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old" at one point, but does manage to poke holes in some of the horror novelist's logic, though just as often doesn't flesh out his own logic or make a strong point. In his post on the Chicago-Sun Times website, Ebert broke up Barker's comments into chunks and replied to them individually. I've extended the dialogue with my own responses to his responses.
Barker: "It's evident that Ebert had a prejudiced vision of what the medium is, or more importantly what it can be."
Ebert: The word "prejudiced" often translates as "disagrees with me." I might suggest that gamers have a prejudiced view of their medium, and particularly what it can be. Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be, and some gamers are prejudiced that they will.
Me: Speaking of articulate four year olds, this "Well you're prejudiced too!" reply doesn't address the real point at hand: We shouldn't be prejudice at all. All critics and reviewers have an opinion, that is their role, but we have the obligation to be fair and without prejudice. That's what gives our opinions value.
Barker: "It used to worry me that the New York Times never reviewed my books. But the point is that people like the books. Books aren't about reviewers. Games aren't about reviewers. They are about players."
Ebert: "A reviewer is a reader, a viewer or a player with an opinion about what he or she has viewed, read or played. Whether that opinion is valid is up to his audience, books, games and all forms of created experience are about themselves; the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless. A bowel movement, for example."
Me: I get the impression that Ebert thinks that we cannot "become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, [or] philosophical" from video games, which is of course untrue. These attributes have nothing to do with the artistic form; they're all related to the artistic content. Some video games lack these attributes, while others serve as shining examples. How many games has Ebert played, and which ones? Can we even accept Ebert as "gaming literate"? After all, someone who has only seen Uwe Boll movies in his life might say that all movies are terrible; but we don't value their opinion because they don't have the breadth to speak objectively about all movies.
Barker: "We should be stretching the imaginations of our players and ourselves. Let's invent a world where the player gets to go through every emotional journey available. That is art. Offering that to people is art." Ebert: "If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?"
Me: I can see why he might think that going through the whole gamut of emotional journeys might devalue them all, but I don't agree. Perhaps in a two or three hours movie it would be hard to fully develop each emotional journey, but most games go well beyond 2 to 3 hours. Some go well beyond thirty hours, and very little offer a "smorgasbord" of choices. Some games are open-ended, allowing the player a dynamic experience, but more games are linear, with the only power you have on the plot is whether or not you progress through the game. Half-life 2, for example, gives you very little choice besides which gun to use. There is one direction to go (forward). The conclusion is just as inevitable as (spoiler alert) Romeo and Juliet's death.
These quotations that I've responded to are simply the choice pickings; there are more on his original post. There are a lot of snarky lines that seem to contradict Barker, but completely absent from his article is a compelling reason that games cannot be high art. Games are art, and even Ebert will admit that now. I fail to see how the form of the art would limit the value of it. All forms of art have the potential of being great; as a rule some pieces of art in any given form will be bad, while other pieces will be great. Any good film critic would admit that not ALL movies deserve to be called high art. Likewise, there not might be many games that deserve their status as high art, but that doesn't rob them the potential of doing so. If Ebert truly does think this, well, let's just say that a prejudice critic is of no value at all.
started by mroca1 on 30 Jul 07
Ebert starts his response by saying that he was mistaken; "Anything can be art," but quickly adds "What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it." Irony is wrapped around his response like shrink-wrap. If Ebert traveled back in time 100 years, he would find himself on the flipside of his argument. He would find himself in a time where film was considered to be a cheap substitute for those who couldn't afford real theatre. The upper-****theatre critics would be looking down their nose at films, saying that they could never be high art. Of course, in the present movies are much more popular than theatre, and no believes that they're inferior. No one denies film's potential to be considered high art. Defined in the most concise terms, High Art is great art, something intellectually, emotionally and culturally meaningful. This is not a textbook definition, but a fair definition.
Ebert doesn't pretend to be a gamer, but says that he understands game by definition. Based on "the vast majority of games", Ebert defines games as "involving (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in 'Myst', and (3) player control of the outcome". Fair enough; to varying degrees he is right. However, he said these attributes make games more comparable to sports than Art, though personally I've yet to see a sport with a plotline. He believes that these attributes "don't have much to do with art", but that's not really fair. Not all art forms share the same attributes; music is vastly different than writing, which is vastly different from filming, and acting is vastly different from all of them. Acting is not so different from gaming, however. Gaming is more than a visual experience; it is also a performance. Actors may choose how to perform a play however they want, but they must progress the plot to reach the end. Players may have some choices when they play a game, but in most games they must adhere to the author's intent to progress. Then again, not all Art intends to tell a story, or represent something. Think how many paintings and sculptures that we appreciate for their realism? Many games seek no further than to simulate reality, though they retain the elements of performance.
Ebert does a tremendous job of sounding witty in response to Barkers' comments, even suggests that Clive has "Spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old" at one point, but does manage to poke holes in some of the horror novelist's logic, though just as often doesn't flesh out his own logic or make a strong point. In his post on the Chicago-Sun Times website, Ebert broke up Barker's comments into chunks and replied to them individually. I've extended the dialogue with my own responses to his responses.
Barker: "It's evident that Ebert had a prejudiced vision of what the medium is, or more importantly what it can be."
Ebert: The word "prejudiced" often translates as "disagrees with me." I might suggest that gamers have a prejudiced view of their medium, and particularly what it can be. Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be, and some gamers are prejudiced that they will.
Me: Speaking of articulate four year olds, this "Well you're prejudiced too!" reply doesn't address the real point at hand: We shouldn't be prejudice at all. All critics and reviewers have an opinion, that is their role, but we have the obligation to be fair and without prejudice. That's what gives our opinions value.
Barker: "It used to worry me that the New York Times never reviewed my books. But the point is that people like the books. Books aren't about reviewers. Games aren't about reviewers. They are about players."
Ebert: "A reviewer is a reader, a viewer or a player with an opinion about what he or she has viewed, read or played. Whether that opinion is valid is up to his audience, books, games and all forms of created experience are about themselves; the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless. A bowel movement, for example."
Me: I get the impression that Ebert thinks that we cannot "become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, [or] philosophical" from video games, which is of course untrue. These attributes have nothing to do with the artistic form; they're all related to the artistic content. Some video games lack these attributes, while others serve as shining examples. How many games has Ebert played, and which ones? Can we even accept Ebert as "gaming literate"? After all, someone who has only seen Uwe Boll movies in his life might say that all movies are terrible; but we don't value their opinion because they don't have the breadth to speak objectively about all movies.
Barker: "We should be stretching the imaginations of our players and ourselves. Let's invent a world where the player gets to go through every emotional journey available. That is art. Offering that to people is art."
Ebert: "If you can go through "every emotional journey available," doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. If next time, I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?"
Me: I can see why he might think that going through the whole gamut of emotional journeys might devalue them all, but I don't agree. Perhaps in a two or three hours movie it would be hard to fully develop each emotional journey, but most games go well beyond 2 to 3 hours. Some go well beyond thirty hours, and very little offer a "smorgasbord" of choices. Some games are open-ended, allowing the player a dynamic experience, but more games are linear, with the only power you have on the plot is whether or not you progress through the game. Half-life 2, for example, gives you very little choice besides which gun to use. There is one direction to go (forward). The conclusion is just as inevitable as (spoiler alert) Romeo and Juliet's death.
These quotations that I've responded to are simply the choice pickings; there are more on his original post. There are a lot of snarky lines that seem to contradict Barker, but completely absent from his article is a compelling reason that games cannot be high art.
Games are art, and even Ebert will admit that now. I fail to see how the form of the art would limit the value of it. All forms of art have the potential of being great; as a rule some pieces of art in any given form will be bad, while other pieces will be great. Any good film critic would admit that not ALL movies deserve to be called high art. Likewise, there not might be many games that deserve their status as high art, but that doesn't rob them the potential of doing so. If Ebert truly does think this, well, let's just say that a prejudice critic is of no value at all.
www.gamersblock.net