Ben-DutkaThe gaming community has once again responded to another of Roger Ebert's seemingly disparaging comments about video games. First, he restates a previous sentiment – that video games simply cannot be labeled as "art" – and secondly, he said he might not appreciate this entertainment medium because he's too "well-read." Now, I have two responses to this, but I'm not about to embark on the art debate because in my eyes, there's simply far too much subjectivity involved on either side of the fence. All I'll say is this- if games indeed implement elements from other entertainment venues that are considered "art" – i.e., artistry/design, choreography, writing, cinematography, acting, etc. – I'm a little confused as to how the entire package fails to register as "art." So the individual components are "art," but you when put them all together, the final product…isn't?
Okay, whatever. I'm not going to pursue that. But I would like to point out that if we are to compare video games against the other major forms of entertainment, it seems to me as if gaming is the only form that is headed in the right direction. Mr. Ebert, I respect you and all, but most of the films made in the past decade or so have only insulted the hell out my intelligence. I am aware that various independent and less-than-popular movies are excellent, but there was a time when the popular movies were also the biggest hits in the box office. These days, the stupidest pieces of tripe are the most popular and while I do – sadly – see gaming headed in that same direction, the industry is currently in the position film was in perhaps 25 or 35 years ago: they were getting better in terms of the intelligent aspects, and the population responded to that quality. In this industry, most of the best titles are also bestsellers…that is not the case in movies, music, or books. Not when Danielle Steele can manage to sell a gajillion copies of the same book for a hundred years.
Now, as for that "well-read" bit. I will not claim to be as well-read as Ebert but I'm willing to bet I could converse with him for quite some time; my list of completed literary classics runs for about six pages, and I have long since vowed to read as many of the best pieces of literature as humanly possible before I die. My favorite authors are George Eliot (who was actually Marianne Evans), Gabriel Garcia Marquez, Thomas Mann, Edith Wharton, Leo Tolstoy, and Henry David Thoreau. I suppose my favorite playwright would have to be Henrik Ibsen for now, but I haven't yet read Shaw or Chekov (the latter is next on my list, in fact). And here's a fact about me that few people realize: I'd give up my games before I gave up my books. It'd be hard, but I would. Nothing gives me such a feeling of complete satisfaction as these unbelievably ingenious novels. Unfortunately, I see nothing in the way of such genius in this generation of writers, which I believe is a result of the rapid-fire, ultimately inferior communication that continues to plague artistry and creativity.
Yes, literature has declined terribly. And so has music – or whatever the hell passes for music these days – and the same goes for movies. Gaming, on the other hand, while it is admittedly behind in terms of writing and character development, continues to make strides forward . There are fans of every entertainment medium and I'm sure some will disagree, but I wonder if those same people have watched the transformation and growth of this industry we love since its infancy period. Therefore, as a message to Mr. Ebert, regardless of the claims against or for the "art" description, I believe I am quite well-read, and I believe that making a statement insinuating that those who can't boast of my reading resume are simply too smart for video games…well, obviously, I find it disagreeable and inaccurate. If you can find someone who names "Middlemarch" and "Anna Karenina" as their two favorite novels, I will have to meet that person, as I will be convinced said individual is nothing more than a ghostly fabrication until I shake his or her hand.
You see, we all have our passions. But what's important is that we take a step back and do some comparisons, and apply the proper respect where respect is warranted. I suppose I'm asking this-
Rather than focusing on what gaming isn't , why can't we focus on what gaming is , and could eventually become ?
Everything can be classed as art in my opinion.
The cavemen drawing on the cave walls depicted their hunting scenes, their gods and their shamanistic representations. They also tell the story of their seasons, their lands and their hunting activities.
Is this art? Yes it is.
Is it 2 dimensional and static? No, it is meant to be interacted with. The cave drawings are part of the person and part of their society. They were painted to invoke emotion by those that painted them and those that viewed them.
Zoom on 50,000 years…
We've had sculpture, paintings, architecture, furniture, clothing, writing, many periods of art through to abstract and modern art, poetry, comic books, music, dance, theatre, movies, erotica and now video games.
You can't tell me any of those are not art?
Art is anything designed or created by someone to emotionally move and involve another person.
Art is emotion. Emotion is art.
I like Ebert, as a person, he seems like an Okay guy. As a movie critic and general commentator? I doubt where his mind is sometimes.
I also respect most of his opinions, they're his opinion's and he's allowed to have them.
but not with this, saying video games aren't art isn't an opinion. That is someone who thinks they are stating a fact.
I am an artist, I make a living by making art. I have been to the Museum of Modern Art in New York. A place where a canvas with a cut sliced through the middle of it is hung on the wall with a mind boggling price tag. as Gordo said: Art is Emotion, Emotion is art. What Ebert is doing here is just slapping an entire industry in the face.
As far as i see it Art nowadays stands for a product one has consumed time into to give people something to contemplate or to make a statment. I believe games have a right to be claimed as art as much as any of form of media entertainment. When i studied art i saw plenty of garbage in gallerys, even blank canvas, if people and bullsh!t there way they can get away with anything, the main reason i lost interest in Art today is because i feel it has lost it true meaning.
Games have certainly evolved over the past few generations, its more than just the challenge and puzzle element. The production value is huge, you now get pretty much all the same jobs in the film industry available in the game industry. If i was not studying film i would certainly be working towards getting in the game industry.
Games > Movies.
Game makers > Movie makers.
Requires MORE BRAINS and creative people to make games thus its expensive than movies, go figure Ebert. Bet you couldn't make a train scene from Uncharted 2 and actually making button commands instruct characters on screen, its damn EASY telling Bruce Willis to act that train scene but INTERACTION is a whole different story.
Decisions a player makes in games like Heavy Rain, FF, Fallout etc affects the story considering each players unique decisions OPPOSED to everybody just sitting and watching Brad Pitt make his own decisions without the viewer's influence. Gosh, I can't go on explaining this.
Does it mean a cheaper painting is better than an expensive one? Since movies are cheaper than games. The sole fact that a product is more expensive means it has greater value. Ebert you FAIL!
I beg to differ on that, when you get films with such depth like Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey or Ingmar Bergman's The Seventh Seal. Try watching David Lynch's Blue Velvet or Eraserhead to require more brains. The truth is there are a rare few games that excel to the narrative quality of film, Hideo Kojima is certainly one who has achieved that.
Last edited by Vivi_Gamer on 4/23/2010 7:47:39 AM
Don't mind me, its evident I don't know a lot about movies, not really a big fan, I just lost it hearing this guy bashing my games is all 😉
Heh, fair enough, i don't really aprove of game 'bashing' either.
Oh good lord, now we're listening to what a television personality has to say on the subject of art, as if his opinion is of more importance than that of, say, Ed McMahon. He's never struck me as the type of person who has much of anything going on upstairs – the type who reads a literary classic and then reads the New York Times review of it to find out what his opinion of it should be. Gene Siskel used to absolutely crucify him with witty put-downs while Ebert sat there like a lame dope, unable to offer anything but a consternated expression in return. For him to brag of being "well read" is comical. That's something that's flattering when other people say it about you. When you say it about yourself, it's just pitiful.
I find many things in video games to be artistically pleasing. If the guy who wrote the screenplay for "Beneath the Valley of the Ultra Vixens" has a different opinion, well, gosh…that means absolutely nothing to me.
Last edited by JackC8 on 4/23/2010 7:29:29 AM
okami is a great example of art
cochise313,
Man, you picked the perfect example of art!!!!
"1 thumb-up for you"
Ya, good example!
Ebert's full of poop. Plain and simple. He's too old to understand, not too smart. And making a statement like the one he made only makes him look pretentious in my eyes. Go sit in a corner somewhere and smell your farts, Ebert.
Ebert is great, but i really think he is just shooting his mouth off without knowing what he is talking about. Claiming he doesnt like video games because he is too "well read" is bullshit, plain and simple. I'm fine with the fact that he doesnt like games, there's nothing wrong with that, but trying to say he is superior to gamers by some means is out of line. I'm certain he is quite a bit more intelligent than most gamers (or most other people in general), but he would go around saying he doesnt like tomato soup because he has eaten too many oranges in his life. Its just not related.
Last edited by NoSmokingBandit on 4/23/2010 8:02:17 AM
Apparently he really likes "Speed 2".
HOLY COW! Remember that movie about Arnold S. being a pregnant man? Well.. Roger gave it a 3.5/4 stars…..
Holy crap, Ben, you're my hero! You have to read George Bernard Shaw. He's pretty much the poster boy of 19th century theatre. (Although he thinks of Ibsen as GOD. Ever read Pygmalion (that's what My Fair Lady the musical is based off of) Major Barbara or Lady Windemere's Fan (A MUST read for the theatre buff!) Since you love Ibsen, I'm assuming you've read A Dolls House? As for Chekov, he and Gorky both deserve a good look. They both got into lots of trouble for writing controversial plays that contradicted what their communist governments wished to push in their agendas.
I majored in Theatre (ok for those of you who know I've said I majored in Psych, i'm not making stuff up. I took 4 years in a double major in Theatre and Phys Ed, then 2 years to major in Psych and minor in english. I have two BA's, and I'm currently part-time taking master's courses towards counseling Psych. I work full time as a youth advisor/employment counselor/job developer, so the masters will probably take another 5 years of part time studies.) so I feel I can accurately conclude Ebert has made many bad reviews, and I feel that he feels if he doesn't have an opinion on something, then he must not be informed enough. Unfortunately, he doesn't know diddley-squat. I mean… this is the same guy that gave "Cop and a Half" 3 out of 4 stars, and is the ONLY pro-reviewer that gave "Speed 2" a positive review. (It was named Speed 2… How do you feel about sequels that merely add a number to the end of the prequel?) Just some examples…
At any rate, I feel, like Ben, that I am also well-read and educated. I feel that games, movies, music, and most forms of artistic expression have loads of drivel throughout the mainstream mediums, however, all have some incredible contributions that have the ability to actually MOVE people. This is another example of the media making assumptions about gaming. 'M' rated games sure are bad influences for kids, but that's why they're rated M for NOT kids… Mass Effect was not a Sex simulator (FOX news, I'm looking at you), and not all games are hack n' slash, shoot 'em up, swing-the-whole-way, button mashing 6/10 entries. Some are actually WELL DONE, and as Ben said, BETTER than most movies.
Even the MUSIC is better than mainstream! Remember the music in Dragon Quest 8, for example? Or anything, for that matter, by Nobuo Uematsu? I'd rather my kids listen to video game music than most main stream and popular music…
ok, I'll stop now…..
I know most people like his reviews, but I just feel like he's a good writer. He gives obvious gems high marks, obvious blunders low marks, and then more or less falls within the mean along with every other writer. He merely rises above because he's a brilliant writer who has the ability to accurately portray what he thinks through his pen. Other reviewers don't have that skill. A true talent, but even with the Pulitzer, he was never my favorite reviewer.
I have to read Pygmalion, actually. My degree is in Psychology, too, but I don't have an advanced degree.
As for theater, I love plays although not quite as much as I love novels. And as beautiful as someone like O'Neill's plays are…I mean, I felt like someone had whacked me in the gut with a sack of oranges after reading "A Long Day's Journey Into Night." 😉
He also gave Paul Blart: Mall Cop a 3/4….
I think Roger Ebert is actually a pretty happening guy, but I agree with Ben and pretty much the gaming community at large in saying he's just off on this one.
It just seems to me like he doesn't "get it". I guess for us "getting it" seems pretty normal as we grew up watching games advance, not only in terms of how they played but how they looked and how they defined themselves. Ebert seems to be stuck on considering games as either high score shootouts or multiplayer competitions. If he played a game like Heavy Rain, even if he didn't have a kind thing to say about the directing or the writing or whatever, he'd at least HAVE to admit that games can not only tell a story but have the capacity to tell stories in their own unique way.
Nevermind that I believe games can be art without telling a story at all. Maybe they're not all good art, but there's something to be said about games that try to be expressive in ways that only games can.
Something tells me that Ebert is more than a little worried about the popularity of video games. If video games sales weren't beating the crap out of movie sales and threatening the whole movie industry, Ebert could find himself out of a job. Think about it. When is the last time that you read/watched a movie review? I can't even remember. Yet I'm on here every day looking for game info and game reviews.
If Ebert hasn't been into playing video games, then it's kind of to late for him to get into them now and start doing reviews on them, He's not going to understand the culture. Not to mention he's made a career out of watching movies which only last 2 hours at a time. If you are going to review a game, 2 hours worth of gameplay is not enough to do a game justice.
I wouldn't be surprised if this comment stems from the fact that his career/pastime is being threatened. Some young producer/editor somewhere probably looked him in the eye and said, "Sorry old chap, no one is listening to what you have to say anymore, now it's all about video games. We're not going to pay for what you have to say anymore, we need to focus on a different art form."
He doesn't even play the games he "reviews". He watches videos of them online and then makes his remarks. I would value a review from Edge before listening to him about video games. Me and a friend were having the "video games are not art" discussion a few days ago and I told him that is like a lawyer defending a client based on what he has seen on the news. I could understand his reasoning a tad more if he actually sat down and played any of these games.
Video Games are progressing with no thanks to Nintendo.
Seriously, Super Mario Brothers, isn't all that different from New Super Mario Brothers. Wii Sports looks worse than a PS One game.
If Nintendo had it their way, we'd all still be playing Pong.
Last edited by Mr Bitey on 4/23/2010 10:24:29 AM
Nintendo caters almost completely to little kids. Sony and Microsoft cater more towards adults.
Adults appreciate awesome graphics, little kids want cratoony looking stuff.
If Nintendo didnt progress games why is everyone trying to copy them now?
The lure of $$$.
Last edited by Fane1024 on 4/24/2010 5:16:21 PM
Video games not art?
Art can be found in anything. Its the way of the world/universe , whatever. If you're even going to say that something isn't art video games are far from being on that list.
I play games because I cannot stand watching TV or movies is general. Most of the content on TV gives me a brain disease.
Define art? In Holland the government gives money to artist. And then they come with something like trowing 1000 breads into the ocean. Or a giant statue that resembles a leprechaun holding a dildo… That in my opinion is not art but a waste of public money. But hey…. I play games so I am not literate.
Kratos needs to kill this so call god of movie review.
I don't need anyone to tell me what is and is not art. Anybody that thinks they are in a position to do so and pass judgement is a pretentious git that should pull their head out of their own ass.
Art, like beauty, really is in the eye of the beholder.
Oh that's a classic line. Take it from me guys, I'm "well read." HAhahahaha! Well read… I gotta use that one day.
Gimme a minute while I compose myself.
"Well read." What the hell is that? Oh! You're "well read!" Oh ok. Then what you say MUST be true! What kind of air of superiority is THAT?
Guess what Ebert? I'm well read too. Unfortunately for me though, that reading habit will be coming to an end because they're getting rid of gaming manuals.
video game is one of Best forms of art in modern days of human society. everything progresses, so does the form of art, which evolves over the time and video game, especially some CG in some epic RPGs, are pure form of art.
just look at these, Demon's Soul isnt art? Last Guardian isnt art? MGS4 isnt art? GOW3 isnt art? all the FF games isnt art? all the chrono games isnt art? how about the drawings in the collector's art books? are they not art?
nothing further to be asked.
I'm absolutely convinced that video games are a form of art. I'm not sure where he is getting the notion that they are not.
I personally think video games are the ultimate hybrid of the film and literature worlds. As developing becomes more and more competitive and "odd ball" games like Heavy Rain continue to prosper I can only hope that we see more and more games that really push for artistic capabilities that they are capable of.
Not that there aren't already games that do this of coarse. Such examples are obvious to the PSX community.
Roger is to old to even know what he is talking about. He needs to go lay down somewhere.
I can't agree with the author of this entry unless he believes the right direction means straight to Hollywood. That is where gaming is and has headed, straight to Hollywood. In the Entertainment business that term means you've made it, but at what cost? Lack of respect from dedicated fans? Less appeal to your product and more so to your brand or name?
The budget for big blockbuster movies is through the effen roof e.g. Transformers 2 @ $200 million. Back to the Future only cost $19 million to make back in the '80s.
GTA IV cost $100 million to make, GT5 is slated to pass the $60 million mark. Just like movies, video games are becoming bigger and bigger simply to cover production cost alone.
Movies offer big name actors for the potential to bring in more money. They make deals with products, automobiles, etc. for the potential to bring in more money. I've been seeing that trend now in video games for quite a few years. Big name actors doing voice overs (check). Licensing access to copy right music (check). Product placement and automobiles (check).
Gaming is great, and so are many many big budget games (for the most part). Yet we've seen producing companies go "bye-bye" because the games they made didn't cover production and marketing cost.
Hollywood is Hollywood people.
He he, well Ben I'm almost your ghost… I really loved Anna Karenina, but I've never heard of Middlemarch, sorry… Also I'm from Colombia so I've read most of Garcia Marquez books… Still waiting for a good movie from his books though…
Ebert's comments showcase more complicated problems than what you're dealing with here, Ben (not as an insult mind you). I'm currently a graduate student (MA-English) who's read a series of philosophies on aesthetics. You're totally right to leave it up to subjective understandings of what is art. None of the theories is any good at delineating or defining art. Ebert simply illustrates his narrowed perspective on what counts as art. And that's quite sad. What's more sad is a urinal or a soup or a long red stripe being called art ahead of gaming, among anything else. Without clear criteria, Ebert can't say that.
I don't agree about one thing that your entry here shows, though. How can you talk about "great lit classics" without falling into the same stupid argument that Ebert does? Why does a book by George Eliot (whom I personally hate due to her tedious and boring writing "skills") or a play by Shakespeare deserve any more praise than anything else, especially if art is subjective? I don't plan to go on reading the "classics" because the entire concept of the "classics" relies on the same dominant discourse in 'Art' for what's available to be considered art as what Roger Ebert alludes to/relies on in his assertion that video games can't count.
I agree with you, moreover, that putatively well-read people are quite equipped to like video games. I read at least 2-3 dozen books every semester, along with 3 articles per book. Then I read more and more for research on my various essays and my thesis. Yet, I own more video games than many of my gamer friends (mostly because being a Teaching Assistant, I get paid fairly well lol). And all, save one, of my fellow male Grad Students own a gaming console (or use PC) and play on a regular basis. Believe me, we're -forced- to be well-read, and we still love gaming.