I must admit that I felt betrayed when I read Roger Ebert's recent derogatory and dismissive comments about videogames. Here was a man I had always enjoyed listening to, a man I've always felt a certain kinship with because of his boundless love for film. Suddenly this same man is mouthing off about videogames being inferior to film and literature and predicting that they will never "move beyond craftsmanship" to attain "the stature of art." In the immortal words of Buffy Summers, "I think I speak for all of us when I say, 'Huh?'"

"Videogames aren't good enough to be considered art"


Before I go any further, let me just say that I've never thought of videogames as art either. They contain art, sure. All those painstakingly rendered backdrops, the character and creature designs, the soundtracks, the often brilliant use of color and contrast -- all art. But somehow, the finished product always remained a "game" to me. Mind you, this isn't necessarily a bad thing. I love videogames and spend enormous amounts of time on them. I never thought, "Videogames aren't good enough to be considered art" or "If videogames were just a little better, then they'd be art". No, it's more along the lines of "videogames are over here; art is over there." In other words, it's apples and oranges. One is interactive entertainment; one is static representation. It never even occurred to me to lump the two things together. Would you compare Donkey Kong to Rembrandt's Nightwatch? Probably not. And frankly, I don't understand the need to. I do understand the need to defend videogames against elitist dismissals and ignorant posturing. It's as if for some people (Mr. Ebert), "art" has become an adjective meaning "great" or "impressive" -- if something is "art" then it's automatically superior to everything else. That, my friends, is snobbery.

20735,20741

Babette, Roger Ebert, Games as ArtWhen you come right out and explicitly separate videogames from art (e.g. "Videogames are not art and never will be, dammit."), you appear to be putting them down and denying all their artistic elements. This is bad. One of the problems with language is that it is ultimately restrictive. We have a need to categorize and by doing that, we immediately set limitations on things. "Art" is a troublesome classification. Most of us are pretty happy with the idea that painting, sculpture, and literature are art. Most of us put film in the same category, even though it is a much younger medium and is wildly inconsistent in terms of quality. But videogames? We're just not used to thinking of them in this way. And they don't quite fit into the box, do they? They're games, after all. If they are games, how can they also be art? They can, believe me. Look at the world's great chefs. Their creations have been called art. Incidentally, the short story "Babette's Feast" by Isak Dinesen (later made into a stunning film) is all about a chef whose cooking transcends ordinary food and becomes art. Now, finally, with games like Shadow of the Colossus, Ico, the MegaTen series, and others, we are beginning to see the word "art" applied to electronic entertainment as well. Perhaps the fault is with language itself -- perhaps by its very nature, language is too limiting, too restrictive. Or perhaps the fault is with us and our never-ending need to label and categorize. Or perhaps the problem is with people like Roger Ebert who feel entitled to insult and condemn that which they admittedly know nothing about.

20733,20736,20739



What I particularly object to is the condescension here, the idea that videogames are somehow beneath art. Art is up here; games are down there. They are inferior to art. They say nothing meaningful about humanity and have nothing to teach us. The best they can hope for is to "aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience." Hmm. I don't know about the rest of you, but the experience I had while playing Shadow of the Colossus was more than just visual. I don't believe I've ever felt more ambivalence toward a "boss battle" before -- on one hand, taking down each colossi was a thoroughly exhilarating experience. On the other, I could never escape the feeling that what I was doing was tragically wrong. Literature and film are full of moral ambiguities but never have I felt so personally immersed in one myself. But what if Colossus and other games really weren't anything more than a "visual experience"?

"videogames are not art"
-Hideo Kojima, PSM, March 2006


Mr. Ebert mentions only literature and film, but I'm going to assume that he considers the great works by Van Gogh, Botticelli, Rembrandt, and Renoir to be art as well. Now let's take the "Allegory of War," a "visual experience" created by Flemish painter Peter Paul Rubens. There is a certain amount of storytelling here -- Rubens is consistently amazing in his ability to portray complex emotions via facial expression and body positioning. But what about an abstract painting, say, something by Jackson Pollock or Mark Rothko? No plot and character development there. No, in this type of painting, it's all about color, composition, and texture. Would Mr. Ebert then say that such a painting can only "aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience" and suggest that it's not really art, either? One would hope not.

20737,20734,20738



The Scream, Munch, Games as ArtI often wonder where Mr. Ebert's low opinion of this medium comes from in the first place, and whether it stems (at least in part) from concern over how little the average gamer -- and for that matter, a large percentage of the U.S. population in general -- seems to know about history, art, current events, you name it. I grudgingly admit to understanding this sentiment, at least a little. It bothers me that the Vice President of one company where I worked had never heard of The Scream by Edvard Munch. Similarly, two junior employees had no idea who Caligula or Nero were. And having clocked hundreds of hours on gaming websites and in gaming stores, I am appalled at how ignorant many gaming enthusiasts appear to be. Reading comprehension appears to be at an all-time low. I look at the message boards at prominent gaming sites and feel as if we are raising a nation of illiterates, people who could no doubt benefit from a museum trip and a few good books. Still, no one likes a snob. And so much of what Mr. Ebert says seems dependent on snobbery. Why should we even care what he says?


"...having clocked hundreds of hours on gaming websites and in gaming stores, I am appalled at how ignorant many gaming enthusiasts appear to be."


When I first started writing this piece, I intended to suggest that we stop taking ourselves so seriously, that we make a conscious decision to ignore the condescending comments of someone who clearly knows nothing about videogames. But you know what? I'm sick of ignorant people expressing their opinions about this industry. The politicians are the worst, but do we really need to get slammed by the film industry as well? (And by the way, Hollywood has turned out an awful lot of sausage lately.) Videogames get blamed for everything from low grades to excessive violence and juvenile delinquency. Give it time and I'm sure they'll be blamed for bizarre weather patterns and unwanted pregnancies as well. But perhaps I am overanalyzing. It's quite possible that Mr. Ebert feels the way he does simply because he has fallen into the common trap of "the way it's always been." His definition of art may well be set in stone, in which case it never gets re-evaluated or expanded. I am still a fan of Mr. Ebert and always will be. But here's hoping that one of these days, he will step outside the box and dare to be a little more visionary in his thinking.

- Jane Branden aka (Garbo01)