I do find it quite funny reading peoples comments about Ebert who have only ever read those two posts. I'm willing to bet that pointing to, oh,
many of his
other recent
writings would give a rather different
view. Even if you don't share his views on a few things (and something tells me he doesn't expect people to agree with him on all that much - critics don't last long if they can't take disagreement) he is well worth reading. The only blogger I know with a similar depth of life experience to share is
Frederik Pohl, the SF author who collaborated with, edited or otherwise worked with/knew every major SF author since the 30's.
And, to be fair, I think he has a point. Although, as always, it really depends on how you define art.
There are two main definitions you can use which suggest video games are rarely art, and even more rarely
good art.
The first is that art is a reflection of the artist, an expression of their will, vision or whatever for the primary purpose of (basically) emotional communication. You can phrase it different ways, but that's the one I like best so I'm going with it. Communication that doesn't engage the emotions is rarely - if ever - considered art.
Video games are, in this sense, as much a medium as art itself. The primary purpose is for the
player to express themselves (at least in most games that are fun to play). The game may have a tight plot that it follows, but a plot alone isn't art until it's story is told. That is the players job. The player takes the role of an author, actor or director (depending on the game), albeit one with tight constraints on how they explore the telling.
In a sense this makes each playing of a game a collaborative artwork between player and game designers, but it suggests the game itself isn't art in the traditional sense.
The second, which Ebert suggests and then dismisses in his more recent post, is that art (or good art) is that which engages your empathy. Again, this can't usually be the primary goal of a game so long as the player is supposed to be the guiding force. A player exercising their will within a game world is putting their own emotions and views into the drivers seat, not engaging with those expressed by the artist. Again the player is in effect the artist, until they get railroaded out of actually playing and become a passive viewer, at which point it may as well be a film or book.
Of course, in both these cases it should be obvious that games can
contain art. A cutscene has as much claim to being art as any short film. The graphics and other contents likewise. But the game as a whole... it's hard to say that it forms a coherent work of art once you factor in the player interactions. Even if those player interactions are with art and result in a new (transient) work of art in themselves.
The fact that most games contain
bad art and most playthroughs result in even worse should be obvious.
Then again it is easy to shift your definition of art to one that can include video games. It's just I can't think of a consistent one that doesn't leave it horribly subjective and down to immediate experience, which suggests that whether or not a game is art depends on the player. I find that hugely unsatisfying and think it falls back to the situation of the art not lying in the game itself, but in the interaction between its content and the players actions.
Author
Topic: Roger Ebert Changes His Stance (Read 7938 times)