Ebert's thumb still down on games as art

  • By TomM_GScom, GameSpot
  • Posted Jul 23, 2007 1:54 pm PT

In 2005, esteemed film critic Roger Ebert found himself on the receiving end of a bout of gamer rage after claiming video games could never aspire to the realm of art in the way that film or literature can. Ebert's reasoning for this was that since games are inherently an interactive medium, they...

In 2005, esteemed film critic Roger Ebert found himself on the receiving end of a bout of gamer rage after claiming video games could never aspire to the realm of art in the way that film or literature can. Ebert's reasoning for this was that since games are inherently an interactive medium, they lack the requisite amount of authorial control to move beyond craftsmanship and into the realm of art. Not leaving well enough alone, the critic then asserted the rather inflammatory remark that not only are games valueless from an artistic standpoint, but also that they impede most gamers' personal growth by wasting "precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

Posting to his Web site on Saturday, Ebert revised his critique of games in light of British-born horror writer and director Clive Barker's opening keynote address at this year's Hollywood and Games Summit on June 26. With Internet culture aplomb, Ebert picked apart Barker's defense of games as an artistic medium, beginning first by stating that "games could not be high art, as I understand it."

Ebert then launched into a lengthy debate of semantics with Barker's statements. Ebert counters Barker's claim that art is a world where players can run the gamut of emotions by pointing out how absurd it would be if actors in Romeo and Juliet went "through the story naked and standing on their hands," just because they could. Instead, as Ebert sees it, "art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices."

Ebert then takes extended issue with Barker's assertion that games are a great way to escape from the "oppressive facts" that people must deal with in their everyday lives. Ebert says that instead of fleeing somewhere to gain an illusion of control, people should seize the moment and take control of their own lives. Lending action to his words, Ebert went on to say, "Right now, for example, I cannot speak, but I am writing this." In 2006, Ebert suffered complications stemming from his battle with thyroid cancer, which cost him part of his lower jaw, and with it the ability to speak.

Summing up his argument, Ebert states: "Barker is right that we can debate art forever. I mentioned that a Campbell's soup could be art. I was imprecise. Actually, it is Andy Warhol's painting of the label that is art. Would Warhol have considered Clive Barker's video game Undying as art? Certainly. He would have kept it in its shrink-wrapped box, placed it inside a Plexiglas display case, mounted it on a pedestal, and labeled it 'Video Game.'"

294 Comments

  • NandoSupes

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 6:38 am PT

    I think the Burker King and McDonalds he eats got into his brains while he watches the movies he reviews.video games require talented people with great imagination and passion,guess he doesn't understand that.games are art indeed.

  • vaejas

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 6:33 am PT

    We're all holding up these half-dozen or so games like they are the crowning achievements of our civilization. There are literally thousands of great movies (and hundreds that are *truly* great, whether you like them or not) from over a century of film making. Our industry is young, and so too our population. Nobody's talking about text adventures from Infocom, or adventure games from Sierra. I haven't seen Dark Castle come up, and not everyone knows Ultima very well.

    Even in the recent-gen, how do you declare Halo more artistic than Rez? Why is Colossus a better example than Ico? Ninja Gaiden is polished to perfection, is it objectively more art than Wind Waker? What kind of slap fight is comparing Deus Ex to System Shock 2?

    Do ya'll think "art" means it has to look *pretty*? See, there's the first problem we need to overcome. But the fact we can have this debate is a good sign, welcome to the world of criticism, leave your fanboy shoes at the door.

  • Lestat_1_basic

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 6:18 am PT

    I see what he is trying to say but he is missing the point completely. This is just another person expressing his opinion on a subject that a lot of people care about. I don't give two **** about what this guy thinks. Games are art, IMO. The ensemble of people who come together to create, share ideas, to produce something thousands of people will enjoy. The game art, game music, game writing, are all forms of art that must come together in order for a game to be made. Ebert is ignorant on the subject. He believes that because of the interactivity video games escape the realm of art. He misunderstands that a game will only go as far as a maker will let it. A game will produce endings that are pre-determined and written by someone. He is old and holds to his beliefs. Only because he is "important" does his voice matter but it shouldn't. Not to us, not to anyone.

  • fluffebunnie

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 5:54 am PT

    One thing worth pointing out is that Hideo Kojima even said in an interview that games were not art. I do not quite agree with this because with games like Shadow of the Colossus or Okami, you could make a good case for it.

  • Thornscar

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 5:45 am PT

    How can you judge a video game when you've never even finished a good one? He's never seen the art....

  • Maquis_UK

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 5:28 am PT

    the guy is unknown outside the US. we don't care how he feels about games (or films either). Mr Ebert should lay off the fatty foods though. [south park ftw]

  • Arkasai7

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 5:25 am PT

    He's forming a shallow opinion on an entire category of entertainment, an opinion that would definitely change if he were exposed to some quality games.

  • subrosian

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 5:13 am PT

    Man, you'll automatically badmouth anyone who says something bad about gaming, without ever considering their point of view. I've had, and I am sure you have too, more creative, wonderful ideas in a week than any game publisher has released in a lifetime. Games ARE art, and they can be art - but you cannot blame him for reaching this conclusion with his experiences - when companies like EA put out endless amounts of crap, and when a giant of the industry like Nintendo says "games are just fun, they're not art".

    The truth is - games that are works of art - games like Okami, Ikaruga, Final Fantasy VI, and Bioshock that are simply definitive titles of the medium - are not the type of gaming Ebert has been exposed to. Like a person glancing at Hollywood without looking at the indie film industry, they don't see the greatness and artistry, because they're blinded by the endless flow of shallow crap.

    Can games be art? Absolutely. Will mainstream film critics like Ebert see that anytime soon? No. Does that make him a bad critic, or a moron? I don't believe it does - he's a film critic with high expectations. Maybe, one day, if the cash-cow third parties and art-hating Nintendo execs don't stifle all artistic endeavors in the industry, we'll see gaming prove him wrong.

  • nikefreak

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 5:10 am PT

    I cant tell you the last time I paid any attention to Roger Ebert for anything, whether it be music/movies/games. So really, I could care less about his arguments on the semantics of "high art and games".

  • rpgisforme

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 4:40 am PT

    IMO, art is what you want it to be. Whether a masterpiece by Davinci or from Ella the elephant, beauty is in the eye of the beholder is it not? Some of the stories written for video games like FFX for instance, were beautiful, and incredible and as good if not better than some of the stuff put out by say Dean Koontz, as for the people who makes these games look like they do, they deserve some recognition because the sweeping cinematics they have built by hand are much more incredible than some director snapping a shot of a mountainside and saying "that'll do" Games have so many different types of art brought together than say a sculpture, or a painting it is so wrong that anyone could possibly dissmiss them as anything but pieces of art.

  • Light_Destroyer

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 4:37 am PT

    I know this is the news portion of the website, but I don't think this man's comments about his opinion should be published as news.

    Why is it that all the game sites/magazines think we care of what some man thinks about us and our hobbies. If they want to publish his thoughts of a man who criticizes another form of entertainment but sits still watching a medium that never answers the questions it presents then maybe they should post the thoughts of all the people who say we waste our time with games even though they spend the same amount of money, if not more money, on silly obsessions like purchasing movies/music/clothes that they only watch/listen/wear one time.

  • StayCalm200

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 4:19 am PT

    "art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices." I thought art could be seen from many points. Ebert's just an old man afraid of computers and email. He needs to be more open minded.

  • Vorknykx

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 3:20 am PT

    ARt is what ever you want it to be. If what Martin Creed (the empty room with the light switch) or what Tracey Emin (her bedroom because she was too lazy to clean it and the rest of her stuff that caught fire in a large warehouse *Laughs*) and most of all what is entered into the Turner Prize produce can be considered art so can games. Mu suggestion when the next Turner Prize competition comes along enter a gamer to sit and play games all the way through.

  • derangedphoenix

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 2:41 am PT

    To me, it seems like Ebert has never played a game or looked at a piece of art.

  • Fanible

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 2:34 am PT

    Someone who feels that they can claim that art actually has limits and boundaries, is someone who is completely arrogant and really doesn't understand what art is and what it means.

    Ebert is really shooting himself in his own foot with bold statements like these. It would be just as absurd as a critic saying when movies first were coming out, that film is not art, because it takes away from your need to imaginate. You CAN'T put limits on art and imagination.

  • Djungelurban

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 2:25 am PT

    I think Roger Ebert should sit down and play him some Fahrenheit or Shadow of the Colossus... Would keep him quiet.

  • maddog95376

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 1:16 am PT

    I think any visual or audible medium is art. If it inspires, excites, enrages, or in any way encourages one or more of many emotions, then I beleive it is art.

    If Ebert wants to compare the two mediums (film and videogames), then lets compare:

    Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon is to film as
    Okami is to videogames.

    Big Mamma's House 2 is to film as
    BMX XXX is to videogames.

    Crouching Tiger and Okami are both visual beauties. They both can transport people to a time or place that is not of this world. Both of them excite and inspire people because of their stories, characters, and action they each display.

    Big Mamma's House and BMX XXX are both widely hailed as some of the worst examples of each industry. Both were poorly reviewed by critics, and both are easily forgettable for a host of reasons.

    Yet, we must take the good with the bad. We can't call Crouching Tiger a work of art, and not do the same for Big Mamma's House.

    I don't think that should be any different for videogames.

  • DwightsConverse

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 1:10 am PT

    Just show Ebert some Metal Gear Solid games. That'll shut him up.

  • KidIcarus3

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 12:59 am PT

    It has been said that any concept given life can be called art. It is not my place to say what art is, however. If art is defined as beauty, video games can be called art, or perhaps it would often be better defined as having art in it. If art is a possibility, brought to life through the skills and efforts of a force, than many things, from an intricate design to a random occurrence (such as the creation of the universe, the shape of a mountain or a lake, or maybe even something of less significance) could be called art.

    Art could also just be anything drawn, or anything painted. I didn't make up the word, and I'm not a critic, either. All I know is, I like what I like and I like many different things. I leave humanity to interpret things as they will. It may even be an iniquity for humanity to attempt to define what art is, should the scope of art encompass all that has been and ever shall be.

  • KidIcarus3

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 12:56 am PT

    It has been said that any concept given life can be called art. It is not my place to say what art is, however. If art is defined as beauty, video games can be called art, or perhaps it would often be better defined as having art in it. If art is a possibility, brought to life through the skills and efforts of a force, than many things, from an intricate design to a random occurrence (such as the creation of the universe, the shape of a mountain or a lake, or maybe even something of less significance) could be called art.

    Art could also just be anything drawn, or anything painted. I didn't make up the word, and I'm not a critic, either. All I know is, I like what I like and I like many different things. I leave humanity to interpret things as they will. It may even be an iniquity for humanity to attempt to define what art is, should the scope of art encompass all that has been and ever shall be.

  • ronniepage588

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 12:51 am PT

    ebert is simple using logic to explain what art is. he makes sense. yet, he has never experienced a well made videogame like metal gear solid 3, or final fantasy, or shadow of the colossus. therefore he cannot understand the fact that videogames lye in a catagory of art on their own, completely seperate from film and painting/photography. i'm sure he will admit to the fact that music is an art form, so why can't a videogame be? i believe that basic videogame gameplay mechanics is an art. its something that can be obviously bad, and takes years of hardwork and experience to design gameplay mechanics that are near perfect or at least widely praised. and theres the entire visual aspect. does ebert belive that comics are not art? i know he believes literature is art, which videogames are full of, and some great ones too. but if a comic simply uses cheesy over exagerated drawings to depict the literature, is it still art. well i know ebert believes it is, so why not videgames. many videogames are combining literature with great gameplay mechanincs and using visualls to depict it all. its a an artform, thats it. ebert is a very intelligent man, his movie reviews are usually dead on. but in this case, he simply does not understand. he has never experienced real videogame from start to finish.

  • Severe_Gamer

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 12:30 am PT

    Ultimately, though I think Mr.Ebert is wrong, I respect his opinion. Here is my point of view:

    Art is all about interaction (reciprocal action, effect, or influence). A work of art is fundamentally something that becomes more when it interacts with others. A painting in an empty room is not art unless there is someone there to observe it.

    Mr. Ebert claims that art has to lead you (the observer) to some "inevitable conclusion". The thing is, in films, the conclusion the viewer draws is often after the film. One reaches conclusions based on their own life experiences. Therefor each persons conclusions might be different. Take for example "Scarface". Some people see a comedy. others see a drama. Or how about the original "Dawn of the Dead"? Some people see a straight horror film, others see heavy handed social commentary.

    You go from A to B in games as well as movies. In the world of movies the director controls your point of view, in the world of games the designer does. Games are merely another medium of art, like movies, music, and painting... they are nothing without the people to play them, watch them, listen to them, or admire them.

  • never-named

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 12:07 am PT

    There are so many things hovering over my head, so I'll just cut out the gratuitous cursing and go straight to the point. Mr. Ebert, being a "movie critic" have you even noticed the fact that Hollywood is now looking for inspiration in the videogame industry? For example the movie 300, based on a graphic-novel, yet so strikingly similar in style to a video game. So unless you debunk the fact that inspiration is all that is required to escalate art, you sir are not quite the critic you think of yourself as.

  • Celor

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 12:07 am PT

    He's just mad because he got his ass handed to him by a Goomba.

  • fauljosh

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 12:03 am PT

    Definition of art: The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium. Sounds like almost any game to me.

  • dwarvenpony

    Posted Jul 24, 2007 12:02 am PT

    Shadow of the Colossus. Point Proven.

  • teknicz

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 11:59 pm PT

    Games aren't art?

    Great, I don't care. I'm here to have fun, not discuss semantics. Go take your critics and opinions elsewhere.

  • basketcase57

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 11:44 pm PT

    he obviously hasn't played MGS, FFVII or Castlevania. Altho I can kinda see where he's coming from if all he's played is movie licensed video games. (with a VERY few exceptions)

  • hhhh

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 11:31 pm PT

    whats the difference between the creation of a movie/painting and the creation of a game? art is an expression of opinions/feelings/ ideas. Just like bad movies there are bad games, and just like movies/paintings there are spectacular images of emotion/entertainment/beauty.

  • hhhh

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 11:30 pm PT

    whats the difference between the creation of a movie/painting and the creation of a game? art is an expression of opinions/feelings/ ideas. Just like bad movies there are bad games, and just like movies/paintings there are spectacular images of emotion/entertainment/beauty.

  • Vorlonwatcher

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 11:18 pm PT

    Ebert is married to the movie medium creatively, intellectually and financially. I don't condemn him for it, in fact I quite enjoy his movie reviews. However, he is too far down his own particular rabbit hole to ever be able to emerge and view another creative medium with fresh enough eyes to judge it impartially.

  • jyrexx

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 10:58 pm PT

    Roger, you just made yourself obsolete. Put those thumbs to better use on a controller, and play Oblivion.

    I just entered the Realm of Madness in Oblivion, how can you not call this an art form? Answer me Roger!

  • Mr_Fluff_

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 10:57 pm PT

    nobody has the right to definitively define what art really is, and certainly not some stuck up critic.

  • spotato

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 10:38 pm PT

    What a fat useless waste of space Ebert is. Enjoy the cancer, lunchbox.

  • stziggy

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 10:32 pm PT

    If Roger Ebert had grown up with games, he might think differently.

  • tantone56

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 10:26 pm PT

    Usually I would say screw that critic, but I have alot of respect for Ebert. I think that maybe Ebert needs to go and take a first hand look at a developers studio to gain a true appreciation for the artistic side of the games. I have a feeling that if he were to see how the games are made he would change his tune.

  • dethtrain

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 10:23 pm PT

    it sounds like hes relating gaming to alcoholism

  • ratempa

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 9:49 pm PT

    I can see Ebert's point of view. He definately has a point. But Art also evolves and branches. Interactive medium is where it's headed. Of course there are games that are just a waste of time like Ebert mentions, but I doubt that he's played anything. He hasn't really tried it. Or atleast hasn't played the games the way we've played them. I can say the same thing about paintings photos, etc... That's exactly why I didn't major in 'Fine Art'. Because if you don't do what they like, they way they like it, it doesn't sell, and if it doesn't sell, it's not art. I hate the whole 'fine art' culture. Most of those guys are posers. Sorry... I kind of ranted there. It's true, we can define Art in many ways. For me it's an experience. It can be a dance, movie, picture, rollercoaster, video game, etc... If you don't feel anything good from it, well, it's not art to you.

  • -Anticrash-

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 9:28 pm PT

    So he believes theatre is an art, but video games are not?

    Take a movie like Star Wars. That is art is it not? It tells a story, has morals and emotion, and the movie leads to an inevitable conclusion.

    Now take a game. Metal Gear Solid. A epic, theatrical video game that tells a great story, it has morals and emotion, and the game will lead to an inevitable conclusion in 2008. Now this may be a on hit wonder, so let's pick another game. Okami, well it has everything he describes as "art", so i guess it MUST be art, even though he disagrees. Another game? Ok, Final Fantasy 7. Goodness, look! It has an emotional story that draws to a conclusion. It even has a motion picture based upon it. So i guess that the game is not art, but the movie based upon it is. Wait, no that is WRONG.

    As far as I am concerned, if a game tells us a story that can bring out our emotions, if a game has a message, whether hidden or up front, then that game is a piece of part. Just because it is not hung up in a frame doesn't make it anything less.

  • darknferno12

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 9:16 pm PT

    Art (in this case) is in the eye of the beholder i mean people who say game are art how about Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, people who "know" what art is how the --- is 90% of the things painted art i mean a black dot in the middle of a white canvas wwwooww. Hollywood at this time shouldn't talk about art when all their producing is garbage

  • DUnfrgiven

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 9:09 pm PT

    I got $20 on Ebert kicking the bucket in 2 yrs.

  • enoslives7

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 8:59 pm PT

    ebert is a fat , ignorant, old , queen

  • Pete5506

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 8:58 pm PT

    not right

  • digitalheadbutt

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 8:53 pm PT

    well seeing as how he can't speak, I guess he is "...shut the hell up". I don't think that should stop him from challenging people ideas about art. Conflict makes people think harder about what they are doing and also helps revise their ideas. In this case of what *ART* is. I think games are as much art as movies and books but I don't think that games have been used to their fullest, artistic potential. Just like movies most games just aspire to make explosions or show off some particularly attractive woman/man flesh. Then again the best book, movie and game yet to have been made, but there are some good ones. The thing that pisses me off most about Ebert's comments is that the dude has probably never taken the time to play game like ICO, Shadow of the Collosus, Okami or one of the current Zelda titles like Windwaker. He speaks on a subject without knowing about it. GTA3 was one of the best crime movies I have ever played. I think critics in general should be more responsible about the stuff that falls out of their head. I would figure someone who has been i teh critic game would have better sense that to make blanket statements about something outside of his realm of knowledge., I guess its good that he can't speak anymore if he is going to make crap comments like this.

  • monkey_man322

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 8:47 pm PT

    He just doesnt understand what art really is, The story , the Vision, and the passion of the game designers is still there. The fact that we can interact with it does not make a difference. In my opinion some of the best movies and other art, are the ones that let you decide what you think of it, things like the matrix, where parallels can be made between it and the bible in that way, or you can look at it as just a kick ass action movie, either way, the creators of it Want Us to make our own decisions as to what we think, and i dont think that video games are any different, Except that not only can we decide what we think of the big picture, but what we DO in the big picture as well.

  • Feeroper

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 8:37 pm PT

    Ebert lost his way some time ago. This pointless argument he tries to bring up only displays his narrow view. Art takes many forms.

  • videogamesjunki

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 8:19 pm PT

    Ebert = Snob. Nuff Said...

  • jknight5422

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 8:04 pm PT

    Quick! Somebody dig up Siskel so we can get a REAL
    critic's view of videogames as art.

  • AuthenticM

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 8:02 pm PT

    This guy doesn't know s*** about video games. One should ask him how many did he play thorough?

  • The_Carnage

    Posted Jul 23, 2007 7:54 pm PT

    I must say that video games are an art, the first ever interactive art. Instead of making a movie or a painting that you can only look at one way, in video games you can 'do it' your way. Most video games are simply interactive movies that you can take place in and, in some, decide meaningful plot details. A wise man once said that Art equals Complexity. The more complex something is the more artful and video games are complex. Video games are the next step in art. It is not easy to make them either, it takes years and various stages before they end up in the consumers' hands. What makes them more complex than movies or books or drawings or paintings is that you have to find where the player fits in and what they can do, what choices they have to make.

advertisement

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!