Roger Ebert claims "video games cannot be art"; molests children.

[Solid Snake]

Guys, guys.
There is a very simple solution to this problem.

Give Roger Ebert a copy of ICO.
Seriously, that's all that needs to be done here. And how old is ICO, now? Close to a decade? Maybe more?

(A copy of Shadow of the Colossus would also suffice, though I think ICO is the more effective title for Ebert because he seems uninterested in traditional videogaming violence and would prefer a few fun puzzles and pretty pictures to stare at.)

P.S. I still think Ebert has something of a point, he's just failing to articulate his point in a way that doesn't seem utterly hypocritical (insofar as he's apparently never played video games) and unnecessarily denigrating to the industry and its fans. I think if Ebert thought harder about the issue he'd frame it this way: Art may appear in videogames (see FFVII's pre-rendered backgrounds, just about any image in ICO, Mass Effect 2's gorgeous character designs and fluid animations, brilliantly crafted storylines, etc.), but videogames themselves are not art.

And there's something of a point there. We associate video games as art in large part because we've grown attached to a medium that's included artistic elements traditionally associated with stories we'd write or pictures we'd draw. We view videogames as art because of a role-playing game's emotionally cathartic story or the beautiful level of detail in rendering an exquisitely interactive scene.

But the elements that separate video games from other artistic mediums like, say, television shows or movies are programming ones concocted through the sheer power of modern computing. The excessive programming that creates the worlds we "inhabit" in videogames is an impressive feat, but I consider it less an art and more a science. Contemporary videogames have a superficial appearance of interactivity, but they're not truly interactive experiences insofar as there's a very limited cache of moves you can make and a very limited number of ways to "solve" the puzzles you encounter. And in fact, every enemy you fight and every boss you defeat is essentially a "puzzle" -- you're still essentially pressing buttons in different fashions and with predetermined combinations.

The art stems from the fact that artists have attached these button presses to fluid movements of a vivid avatar on the screen. And that component of videogaming is art, it's comparable to Disney's animation or a series of evocative paintings. But if the heart and soul of videogames really involves the interactivity, then it's not really an artform as a whole, in the composite, just yet -- it's a series of enormously complex alegbraic equations with an outer casing of art, yet the art itself exists in large part to make the equation-solving button-mashing more accessible to an audience used to conventional storytelling. This thesis is literally proven by all the 8BT sprite and/or text-based fan-created versions of videogames out there. You can strip the art from the game and you'd still be left with the game itself, and the game itself isn't art.

In short: I think it's possible to argue that there's plenty of beautiful art in videogames, both in terms of artwork (beautfiully designed images of characters and settings) and narrative (storylines with intricate plots and evocative character development that outshine the best movies out there.) But that's actually different than saying that videogames themselves are art.

[krogothwolf]

I really don't care what an old fossil has to say. Soon the old generation will die out and their views will slowly die with them, then we can write our on views on what is and isn't ar.

Then as we get older, we argue that the next big thing isn't art because the new generation thinks it is but cause we're older then them we obviously know better then those foolish whipper snappers! and they just shrug us off and go "Those crazy old people don't even know what they are talking about". Then they wait for us to slowly die out and take our views with us.

So yeah, Don't care what crazy old man thinks. He probably still thinks the world is flat anyways.

[Professor Smarmiarty]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

P.S. I still think Ebert has something of a point, he's just failing to articulate his point in a way that doesn't seem utterly hypocritical (insofar as he's apparently never played video games) and unnecessarily denigrating to the industry and its fans. I think if Ebert thought harder about the issue he'd frame it this way: Art may appear in videogames (see FFVII's pre-rendered backgrounds, just about any image in ICO, Mass Effect 2's gorgeous character designs and fluid animations, brilliantly crafted storylines, etc.), but videogames themselves are not art.

I don't think he would argue that at all because of how the representation of images comes about in videogames. He would say it's the same as everybody looking at a tree, then everybody reproducing a part of that tree designed as accurately as possible. It's not conveying anything so it's more like printing than art. You can argue about whether that is accurate or not but just recreating pretty images does not equal art as such.

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Smarty McBarrelpants

I don't think he would argue that at all because of how the representation of images comes about in videogames. He would say it's the same as everybody looking at a tree, then everybody reproducing a part of that tree designed as accurately as possible.

It's still art.
You can draw a picture that looks exactly like a photograph, and only represents exactly that which is seen, and it's still a piece of art. It's not particularly revolutionary or inventive, but it's art.

But of course, there are plenty of fantastical representations of creatures, characters, and settings that are unique and are not mere replicas of natural phenomena. It'd be harder for Ebert to dismiss a claim that, say, a Colossus (in SotC) or a turian (in Mass Effect) were not works of art.

Nearly forgot about music soundtracks in my original post, but it's safe to say that incredible VG soundtracks qualify as art, and the mixing of matching of the music to specific scenes to engineer an emotional catharsis among players (which happens to some extent in most RPGs, as well as anything Metal Gear) is pretty damn artistic.

EDIT: But I agree with you insofar as Ebert would clearly disagree with my interpretation. I just think my interpretation is also different from the opposite extreme that's taken by many over-defensive gamers. Just because Ebert is wrong in completely dismissing videogames doesn't mean he's wrong when says games aren't, in and of themselves, works of art.

[Daimo Mac, The Blue Light of Hope]

To me, art is engaging and thought provoking and really good art set's the bar to what differentiates good art from crap.

Games can be engaging and thought provoking and a good game set's the bar to what games can achieve.

But that's just me and I am simply a gamer who has no other thought patterns

[Wigmund]

Originally Posted by Solid Snake

But the elements that separate video games from other artistic mediums like, say, television shows or movies are programming ones concocted through the sheer power of modern computing. The excessive programming that creates the worlds we "inhabit" in videogames is an impressive feat, but I consider it less an art and more a science.

Point to refute this part of your argument: Pixar movies. They're nothing but excessive programming made possible only through the power of modern computers. But will say that if movies are art - then by this assertion the amazing works of Pixar are not?

[Solid Snake]

Originally Posted by Wigmund

Point to refute this part of your argument: Pixar movies. They're nothing but excessive programming made possible only through the power of modern computers. But will say that if movies are art - then by this assertion the amazing works of Pixar are not?

No. There's a huge difference. Let me see if I can explain it.

Because Pixar movies are a non-interactive medium, the entirety of the computer programming invested into the product is made to improve the aesthetics. It's an entirely artistic endeavor. They're creating a series of images for an audience to react to.

(Then of course there's the really evocative art of a Pixar movie, which is more the incredible storylines and less the CGI.)

But all the CGI programming is on the "visual" side. There's no coding of an independent 'game engine' designed to register exactly how much HP is taken off when your character is hit with an attack or the way enemy AI "strategically" attempt to take down the player.

By contrast, there's actually two elements of programming going on with videogames. There's the artistic side of the project, where the programming corresponds with Finding Nemo or The Incredibles; they're creating evocative images designed to register a response in the player, to convince the player that he's actually engrossed in the world presented on the screen. Then there's the algebraic side of the equation, which is really just programming artificial rules (battlefield mechanics, turn-based DnD style combat, real-world emulating physics, etc.) into the game.

The former, in my opinion, is art. The latter, in my opinion, are just a series of mathematical rules, akin to how a series of math equations ultimately comprises much of the complicated real-world phenomena we witness as science.

It's like...here's a legal analogy because I'm in a law school class right now: it's the difference between the "artistry" of a Supreme Court opinion written by Justice Scalia and the content itself. Separating your disgust with Scalia's politics with his linguistic ability, the guy's a gifted writer. Many of his opinions are scathing socio-political critiques. I'd rank at least a few as 'artistic,' in the same way a well-reported nonfiction story might constitute 'art' as journalism. His command of language, the flow and structure of his written work, the word he chooses that fits just right to complete a metaphor; that's art.

But all the legalese? All the rules Scalia's actually operating under, the Constitutional constraints that actually influence and dictate his opinion? That's not art. Those are the rules of the legal game; they're almost more scientific (or at least politically scientific) constructs. There's nothing artistic about a series of equations that Scalia utilizes to make a decision as to whether an Executive Agency meets Constitutional Qualification X or fails to meet Congressional Qualification Y.
Similarly, all that HP/MP, enemy AI, press the X button three times to progress the scene stuff...that isn't art. It's a vital component of videogaming and it's amazing stuff, that we can manipulate a computer in such a way to simulate games on a screen and program conditions that result in "victory" or "defeat" and correspond to buttons that are pressed, but it's not art.

[krogothwolf]

In simplistic terms. It almost sounds like you believe the video game is the frame for the art itself.

[Amake]

Like Garfield huh, it's nothing in itself, it just has the potential to become art and humor with liberal editing.

The more open-ended a game is, the more the players can make themselves, the less artful it is in itself. The playing experience itself is created solely by the player by the act of playing the game, so it's not art in the sense of something made with the intent and vision of an artist. Or something.

I'm not sure I buy that. Isn't a sandbox art? Depends on your definition of art, I guess. Everything does. Until we can get everyone to agree on a definition, it's probably pointless to ague that "X isn't art".

[Bells]

Dear Mr Ebert,

You are not an Art critic. You are not a Videogame critic.

You are a movie critic. As such, you understand movies in a deeper, more detailed manner and may actually understand what constitutes as simple Fluff or actual artistic endeavor in film making.

However, you are not a Art Critic. I would not trust your opinion to tell me which one of two paintings is art and which one is not. I would not trust your opinion to tell me why you believe the works of Bach to be Art but never the work of a Hardcore gangsta Rapper. You are not a music critic either, and i don't expect you to have in dept knowledge of this field and it's creative process and evolution.

To be blunt and quite honest, i would take pause before considering you views about a Play in Broadway. Although you understand movies and i can relate that Theater is nothing but it's Brother... you are a movie critic and a filmmaker. I would expect you to excel in that.

So, are games Art? I don't know, i'm not a Game Critic. But neither are you. I'll tell you that i do enjoy games though, and some do capture my attention and appreciation via their stories, presentation, characterization and sometimes simply due to it's quirkiness and bold attempts at poking the "usual" and making fun of itself while being fun.

So, shut up.