progglerock said:
I'll never get why the gaming community gives a shit what this guy thinks.

I care because I'm not just a part of one community. I'm a part of a greater community that happens to include the gaming community.

I'm also a part of the film community, the literature community and the sports community.

Being insular is what causes people to say stuff like, "Games can never be art," while listening to and entering into a discussion with and about those who have opposing views is how we avoid creating sects of partisanship.

TheMadSpin said:

progglerock said:
I'll never get why the gaming community gives a shit what this guy thinks.

I care because I'm not just a part of one community. I'm a part of a greater community that happens to include the gaming community.
I'm also a part of the film community, the literature community and the sports community.
Being insular is what causes people to say stuff like, "Games can never be art," while listening to and entering into a discussion with and about those who have opposing views is how we avoid creating sects of partisanship.

My point is that whenever this stiff opens his mouth about games, it's news. Like if God himself just took gaming down a peg. It bothers me that the industry, at the today's generation, is still apparently battling with self-consciousness. As if we still need to prove ourselves to the rest of society. Fuck that. We know what games are. And that's all that matters.

I reckon there's a lot of confusion among gamers as to how something that consists of so much art can't itself be art. That's a bit like wondering why a TV channel, which shows so much art, isn't art. Not perfect metaphor, but you get the idea.

I'm writing an engine for a game now. I realize there is certainly a difference from game to game, but looking at the process right now, where the way the game is viewed by the player is almost entirely separate from how the actual game logic is processed, and considering how getting to this point has been a pure exercise in problem solving, I'm not entirely comfortable saying the game engine itself is a work of art. I suppose it's the difference between being artfully put together and being skilfully put together? Hm. There are certainly art assets being used. There's music, that's art. A little paper-thin story; art, arguably. But do all these art components necessarily make for a single work of art?

I'm personally much more comfortable with the notion of video games being a contextualized platform on which art can be displayed and thematically focused.

I'm as ready to knee-jerk at Ebert's bullshit as anyone else (he's clearly trolling), but a ton of the counter-points I've seen, including from very, very smart industry professionals, are little more than knee-jerking as well, and that doesn't serve anyone.

My least favorite type of commentary on this debate is "Play game X" or otherwise giving him a list of titles. Commonly games like Shadow of the Colossus or Bioshock or, yes, Ôkami. I can't think of a more fruitless endeavor. Some gamers forget they are trying to convince an outsider who has no frame of reference. Instead we all look like reactionary pricks scrabbling to namedrop all the big leather bound-books we own (and how our apartments smell of rich mahogany) to validate our interests. It makes us look very unconvinced that our hobby as a WHOLE is art, when we all grab for the same few guns time and time again. If we're not discussing how video games are art, not just a subset, we are utterly doomed to fail.

There isn't much worse than arguing with a prick who has decided he is right. But arguing with a smart, pulitzer prize winning prick who has decided he is right definitely is.

Some battles are just not worth it, and especially not one as complex as this. I'll go back to my second playthrough of Bionic Commando, because that game is fucking awesome. Don't care if it's art or not.

It would be interesting to see if a game company uses this media blitz to their advantage. First video game company to chip Ebert an XBOX and a copy of their game will make the news.

Why tel Ebert he is wrong? Show him that he is wrong.

Go in with humility and Ebert will have to play along, especially if the press gets wind of what is going on.

So yes, Irrational, send Ebert BioShock

katherine said:

Why tel[l] Ebert he is wrong? Show him that he is wrong.

I think that would be a great idea. Even if it didn't work, as you say, it would certainly get some press.

Don't kid yourself. Ebert will never play Bioshock, and even if he did it wouldn't be the game to turn him. Let it go. Why do we care anyway.

Oooh MadSpin caught my typo. Sorry about that folks, I have a medical condition which makes me prone to typos (Usually i check through it even on forums but I missed that one, you should see me scrutinize 'actual' papers)

Anywho someone should give Ebert a Gameboy or something, perhaps if he was less stressed out he would like games.

I wonder though; as a critic he would have had to sit through movies like Dumb and Dumberer and such. Can anyone really say with dignity that Dumb and Dumberer is closer to "art" than BioShock?

katherine said:
Oooh MadSpin caught my typo.

Sorry, it's what I do for a living--you should see the embarrassed rage I go into when I realize that I've committed a typo or a usage error on a forum that doesn't allow editing.

I'm like Dan in Sports Night wondering if he said "secular" or "non-secular" and thinking of all the famous and important people who will be judging me. That's called neurosis folks.

Such a tired discussion. In my mind, what folks ought to consider is that "art" is not a label attached to tangible things as much as it is a lens through which an individual chooses to view the world. Literally anything and everything can be and is art if the audience, consumer, or individual chooses to absorb or view whatever it is from an artistic or design perspective. Kazimir Malevich and the supremist movement is perhaps the quintessential example supporting this perspective: his "White on White" is as much art as it is an argument motivating this notion.

I'm willing to say two things:

I think you should drop your first sentence. If you're going to enter into the discussion, diminishing the previous points of a mountain of other people is more tired than the discussion itself. Clearly you have an opinion. If your opinion isn't tired then probably anyone else who is passionate about this won't think theirs is tired either.

I'd also like to say that I'm against the "white on white" idea of art because it's more like aesop's fables in another form--one sided moralizing about art is not art. It's criticism that's too lazy to be written down. It is, in fact, an attempt at discussion without the confidence or work that goes into making a solid and circular argument that can be examined. Instead, surrealist work is more like a parent who says, "because I said so," and then walks away.

There's a whole discussion we could have about whether "wit" is enough to make something art--but that's what people are banking on when they put a toilet in front of you and sneer at you. There's nothing vulnerable about that kind of "art" but it's a debate that isn't quite what we're talking about here.

We could get into a world where we really discuss what art is and does, but if art flows, as Butler would say, "from our white hot center," or is as Lorca claims, a battle with a demon around a deep dark well--then both of them suggest vulnerability, danger, risk.

There's no risk on white on white--nor a toilet in the street. It's just one kid's way of looking at the real artists who are taking risks and finding their way to sneer at them and go, "oh yeah, well you shouldn't have worked so hard and been so vulnerable--look at how artistic I am by doing nothing!" Whitman (and many others) would argue that art is our interpretation of the divine.

I suppose, for a nihilist, anything can be art, because they reject the divine and find themselves rooted in a meaningless morass. I choose to entertain the notion of some spiritual center--even if that spiritual center is individually rendered and anchored in my own honesty with myself. Because of that, and because I can sense my existence, I must instinctively reach towards the divine. If the divine is simply my most passionate core, then that's where I'll go to produce my art.

I would argue, that no matter how grumpy it might make a dadaist, art should involve risk and vulnerability and danger. If it doesn't--well that's tired.

You make a fine argument. I suppose I shouldn't dismiss this vein of discussion as tired, but it ought be made known that I do not refer to this forum specifically, but the overarching debate as a whole. I am perhaps a bit too quick to point out it is tired; there is just no other way of seeing things in my mind. I am fiercely defensive of this industry, avidly a proponent of legitimizing designers and development teams into household names much as are popular authors, artists, and musicians. When someone questions whether games are art, to me it comes across just as silly as questioning whether Picasso was an artist.

By using the word tired I am referring to the debate which rages on when it should never have started. How can teams of artists collaborate to produce something that is then not considered art? How are games like Flower, Braid, or a host of others not art? How does the opinion of a household name like Roger Ebert, who is an expert in one field but a doofus in another, held in even the minutest regard in a debate wherein he fundamentally has no place. He does not play games, and he does not know games.

We, as experts in this field, ought to have the instinct and wherewithal to restrain ourselves from engaging in flame wars with individuals who use their clout in one area to infect and irritate another. We should know opponents to games-as-art arguments often do not play games, where a great many gamers also consume film, literature, and other traditional art forms. Attacks on this topic ought to simply be given the cold shoulder, and the fact that we even entertain these debates as legitimate avenues of discourse makes me sick to my stomach. And tired.

Great discussion! I'll get my opinion about Ebert's argument out of the way...

He makes some resounding points with regard to Santiago's TED lecture, but, ultimately, misses the mark for the point that he's really trying to make, which is that video games are not and can never truly become an artform.

The simple fact is that he just doesn't have the experience with video games enough to realize that there are aspects of gaming itself - the simple dynamic of developers creating a game to have someone play it - that is inherently artistic and, perhaps, choreographed.

Of course, that isn't to say that there aren't games that are made in poor taste. There are those kinds of games and there are games that are rushed and bent on making money. There are those. They, for all intents and purposes, are bad art -- uninspired, generally; lazy; cliche; excessive; etc.

Video games are an artform.

I also appreciate the discussion as it pertains to the terms of modern art.

Ideally, the discussion of art and form and product bounces between - but does not completely reside at ideas of craft and intention, motivation and message, performance and resonating qualities; those kinds of things. I think it's supremely important to consider with an open mind all of the aspects that make an individual piece distinct and special, whether it be the finely tuned and crafted finish of a painting or the lasting and resounding message of an autographed piss receptacle.

Donald Judd, a fantastic minimalist, had this to say. I feel like it's appropriate for the topic.

"After all, the work isn't the point; the piece is."

Of course, that isn't to say that some artists aren't brats about conveying their message. That may or may not be beside the point, though.

Andrew Marathas
Illustrator

So Ken Levine wrote an opinion piece in the new issue of Game Informer about this very topic, and he totally stole my argument! You'll be hearing from my lawyer, Ken.

It's very well-written, funny, and he rips multiple people multiple new ones. I recommend going to your local magazine stand and reading the article. Or just buy a copy; I think GI's pretty decent if you ignore the reviews...and previews. I guess that doesn't leave much, but the news and editorials are generally pretty good.

I read that Op Ed by Ken Levine, and thought it was great...I totally agree that game devs don't need validation from Hollywood.

Is there an online version of the article?
I'm sure I'll forget about it by the next time I run into a bookstore or magazine stand.

It's worth noting that Ebert has found himself humbled by tech recently:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/06/tweet_tweet_tweet.html

Maybe there's hope for his aging brain.

He's got as much right to determine the factors of art in the gaming world as I would judging sand castles I've never seen. Point being, Ebert has very little to add to the debate, and his opinion on games is stunningly lacking. Frankly, he should stick to judging movies.

Roger Ebert should play Limbo.