My stance on this subject could not be more obvious, as this is a blog about video games of course I will be pro video game. Roger Ebert has made a living discussing movies and therefore will be pro movie. However, he has also started to light a fire under the bellies of us gamers by making the wild assertion that video games are not "art."
Many game websites have delivered their take on this subject and we all agree that video games are indeed art with examples abound, so I need not retread any of their points. I will instead speak simply on this matter categorically why video games are art.
Art Defined:
Before fully pursuing this subject I decided to brush up on exactly how humans define the very word art, and here's a few examples:
1. the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"
2. the creation of beautiful or significant things.
3. artwork: photographs or other visual representations in a printed publication
And so on. Amusingly searching for the definition of art I came across this:
"Myst is a franchise centered around a series of adventure video games. The first game in the series, Myst, was released in 1993 by brothers Rand ..."
While clearly a failure on Google's part, I was still amused that searching "art" would bring up a very specific video game.
Simply reading the three definitions of art that I stumbled across and in no way cherry-picked, anyone can clearly see that Video Games do fall into those definitions. While the third one is clearly pointing out printed material, video games do have instruction manuals which often showcase creative artwork...=) Okay, that's a stretch.
But let us get to the nitty gritty of Ebert's complaints.
1. Games are not art because they require physical interaction on the level of sports.
2. Games have objectives to them, thus they cannot be art as art is not goal oriented but a passive medium.
Reading his article, those were the only two major points I took away from it. He spends most of his article breaking down Kellee Santiago's assertion that video games are art and she goes on to list some examples. All Roger Ebert seems to do is break down her examples with very, very invalid thoughts on them. For instance, he feels that the game Flower evokes no more emotion than that of a hallmark card. He does this from the perspective of someone who has not actually played the game. He even asks ridiculous questions like does the game keep score, or do you 'win.'
Complaint #1:
Ebert feels that because video games require interaction then they are no more art than playing chess, or playing football. While this seems like sound logic, to an avid gamer, it sounds like "To summon Bahamut you need to use the magic command." I mean honestly, does a chessboard tell a story? Do you hear well orchestrated music in tune with the actions you make on the chessboard? Do the pieces evoke any awe inspiring or jaw dropping emotions upon looking at their plastic carvings? The answer to all of these questions is clearly no you stupid fool.
The fact that he lumps video games in with sports amuses me to no end, as there is often heavy debate among athletes and professional gamers in which gamers claim what they do is on the same level as a competitive sport. And with some games, that can be true too. There are games built with a competitive idea in mind, as there are games built with an artistic idea in mind. The fault of Ebert is that he feels all of these games are exactly the same. And this is proven with his notion that he feels they all need to have a 'win' moment, or they are in turn no longer a video game...
Complaint #2:
...And this is how we come to complaint #2. Again, Ebert seems to think that all video games have to have a "win" moment, and end to the objectives, just like any ordinary board game or sport. He goes on to say that even if there are games without this "win" moment, then they are no longer video games, but merely representations of story, music, poetry etc. What? How can something be a representation of a story if it itself tells a story? How can something be a representation of music if it itself offers music? That makes no sense, and is merely stupid wordplay meant to confuse stupid people.
To comment on his logic of this "win" moment in general, do movies not have an ending in which the writer has written? Do movies not mostly all follow the simple formula of beginning, rising actions, climax, falling actions, ending? To say it simply, what is the difference between a movie having an ending, and a video game having an ending? Is it because the pace of the game is dictated by the player? Why does that matter, the content is still the same. The message of the story remains the same as well. Just like a movie, only the pace is dictated by the editors and directors.
I have to take a moment to step away and respond to his last quote in the article that bugs me the most of all.
"I allow Sangtiago the last word. Toward the end of her presentation, she shows a visual with six circles, which represent, I gather, the components now forming for her brave new world of video games as art. The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. I rest my case."
What he seems to be getting at here is that art can't involve the processes of Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. And he ends his high horse with "I rest my case" only maddening me further.
Let's take a final stab at what art actually is for a moment. He brings up Michelangelo's works like the Sistine Chapel, or Beethoven's music, or let's for the hell of it bring up that poor starving artist you have seen in your local mall. Michelangelo's work was commissioned, Beethoven didn't write music for the shits and giggles of it, and that poor starving artist has price tags on all his works too. Because business in this day and age has become efficient and more defined that we can have categorical ways of selling art, Ebert likes to point out that the video game trade is nothing more than that in the end, a trade, a business, a job. I wonder how many movies Ebert could have reviewed over the years if ticket prices were free. I wonder how successful movies would be without trailers, sweepstakes contests, TV commercials, actors plugging on Letterman, product placement, and so on. I wonder how successful any movie would be without his "thumbs up" for that matter.
To call Ebert a hypocrite would not be going far enough. He is narrow minded, riding on his own high horse, and demeaning a form of expression like video games that he has no knowledge of, and believes that only his definition of art is the correct one.
It is sad that Ebert speaks on a subject he clearly does not understand at all, it is sadder still that people take his opinion on the subject as fact. It would be similar if I agreed with the opinion of Creationists on Evolution. They have no knowledge of science, and they eagerly dismiss every notion of evolution they can. This is the same with Roger Ebert, commenting on a subject he literally knows nothing about.
He challenges in the article for people to offer him examples as Santiago had. While I still feel his rebuttal to her examples were extremely inefficient, I would be doing my own rebuttal a disservice by not offering my own example.
Xenogears:
This is my pick for a video game that can be called art, easily. This game has more story than most movie screenplays. It has more well developed characters struggling through a defined plot than even the best of movies. The music score it offers is nothing short of fantastic, evoking all the same emotions any piece from Beethoven can give. The game itself gives the player a long journey with many beautiful landscapes.
Ebert would point out that to experience all of these moments in the game the player has to continually compete in the games battle system defeating enemies, thus "winning," the game. Of course, I am giving Ebert too much credit in making a game reference such as "battle system," but I'm just stretching my imagination a bit. Still, why do the game elements of a video game lessen the artistic elements in it? That's a question he doesn't answer.
*Goes to play Mario Paint*
No comments:
Post a Comment