Roger Ebert (right) hanging out with Russ Meyer. A while ago.
Noted American film critic Roger Ebert has struck back against author and game-maker, Clive Barker, defending his position that games can never be art.
In a posting on his website, Ebert against Barker's defence of games as art, which was in turn a response to Ebert stating games could never be art. “Anything can be art. Even a can of Campbell's soup. What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it” he stated.
He went on to justify his statement, writing,
And why, you may wonder, does that mean games have little in common with art? Ebert gets down to the bones of his argument with the statement, “...the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless”.
Frankly, SPOnG's pleased to see someone outside gaming engaging in intelligent discussion on the subject of games as art. Sure, we could have done without “Spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old”, thrown in there about one of Barker's comments. But what can you do?
We're also a little unsure of the validity of any argument that includes, "...philosophical (and so on)" - what's the 'and so on' all about?
While SPOnG was at Develop last week we had a quick chat with Peter Molyneux, who told us "Of course games can be art, you have to be an idiot to think they can't". We wonder what Ebert has to say to that....
You can read Ebert's posting in full here.
In a posting on his website, Ebert against Barker's defence of games as art, which was in turn a response to Ebert stating games could never be art. “Anything can be art. Even a can of Campbell's soup. What I should have said is that games could not be high art, as I understand it” he stated.
He went on to justify his statement, writing,
“How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports.”
And why, you may wonder, does that mean games have little in common with art? Ebert gets down to the bones of his argument with the statement, “...the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless”.
Frankly, SPOnG's pleased to see someone outside gaming engaging in intelligent discussion on the subject of games as art. Sure, we could have done without “Spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old”, thrown in there about one of Barker's comments. But what can you do?
We're also a little unsure of the validity of any argument that includes, "...philosophical (and so on)" - what's the 'and so on' all about?
While SPOnG was at Develop last week we had a quick chat with Peter Molyneux, who told us "Of course games can be art, you have to be an idiot to think they can't". We wonder what Ebert has to say to that....
You can read Ebert's posting in full here.
Games:
Clive Barker's Jericho
Read More Like This
Comments
Bentley 30 Jul 2007 13:55
1/6
How very dare that Ebert character sneer at something he obviously has no clue about, as if there is any higher worth in watching a film. Has Roger Ebert played through all of Half Life or any Metal Gear Solid? I doubt it very, very much. Metal Gear Solid 3 alone is a far higher art than most films pumped out of the US these days. And the idiot mentions Myst, as if that's a fair example of what gaming is like these days. Myst is so, so old hat, Ebert. Gaming has moved on. He is showing his ignorance by name-dropping that piece of crap.
The real truth is that Ebert is biased towards movies because he needs both hands free when he's watching them sat on his fat arse eating pies.
The real truth is that Ebert is biased towards movies because he needs both hands free when he's watching them sat on his fat arse eating pies.
LUPOS 30 Jul 2007 15:30
2/6
pompous windbag wrote:
“...the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless”.
Complex = more, due to the diverse amount of experiences one can have form this single medium.
Thoughtful = I put more thought into killing an innocent in a game than I ever have reading about an imaginary character doing it. Cause I had to actually decide myself.
Insightful = Um, I don't recall any paintings ever making me more "insightful" but it certainly sounds like the sort of horse s**t art fans think they get from "experiencing art". I myself, having spent 4 years in a highly regarded art school, am no more "insightful" for it. Just a better artist.
Witty = I think those years spent playing Lucas art's games have helped shape my sense of humor. Also being able to come up with worthwhile trash talk during a 5 second break between rounds on xboxlive has certainly helped me learn to "burn" faster. :)
Empathetic = I think most people felt bad about killing the Colossi in "shadow of the colossus". That painting of the guy poking Jesus in the ribs with the spear just makes me giggle.
Intelligent = Nothing makes you more or less intelligent except your genes. Dip s**t.
Philosophical = Um, we sit around talking about making games the evoke emotions and designing things to help benefit society. Then theres that guy who takes photos of hundreds of naked people. That really inspires some deep thought.
Not to mention I don't know of any other piece of art that has ever improved my hand eye coordination, spatial reasoning, field of view and reflexes. The true renaissance men of today are learning multiple (programing) languages and utilizing physics and sculpture and drawing and painting and animation and crafting them all together to tell stories that can potentially engage a viewer on a level that no other single medium can ever hope to.
Leonardo would have loved game design.
_____________
more comments below our sponsor's message
Joji 30 Jul 2007 17:58
3/6
Mr Ebert is totally out of his depth, if he's gonna just chuck a few names around and dismiss games like that. Its also my belief that the film, music and tv industries have always look down on games, because games have stolen a lot of their thunder these days, and Ebert's lame attitude proves it. To these types, games are the new kid on the block, that learns and evolves faster than film, music and tv ever did. This they really hate and I guess in some regards see this whole thing as a media war.
I've seen a few of this chaps reviews and I know he's like this hot piece of film review turd stateside. By what Ebert is saying, it sounds like he hasn't touch or properly looked at game in many years. In that time, games have crossed rivers, oceans and mountains, and now are travelling the stars. Games and tech wait for no man.
In contrast to that, Clive Barker has and understands the medium of games and its potential. For Ebert to challenge him on this level is stupid. In the long run games, just like films, books, plays etc, are created by talented people who want to share something potentially fun with others (obviously some will be more valid in this way than others).
Myst? Where'd he pull that example from? Clearly out of non video gaming arse. Hey, Ebert? Come back when you played the best gems of the games industry and judge them on their merits, then as art or not. Until you do this, you know little about what you are sounding off about. I'm with Barker, at least he knows what games are about, and what they can really do if pushed right.
I've seen a few of this chaps reviews and I know he's like this hot piece of film review turd stateside. By what Ebert is saying, it sounds like he hasn't touch or properly looked at game in many years. In that time, games have crossed rivers, oceans and mountains, and now are travelling the stars. Games and tech wait for no man.
In contrast to that, Clive Barker has and understands the medium of games and its potential. For Ebert to challenge him on this level is stupid. In the long run games, just like films, books, plays etc, are created by talented people who want to share something potentially fun with others (obviously some will be more valid in this way than others).
Myst? Where'd he pull that example from? Clearly out of non video gaming arse. Hey, Ebert? Come back when you played the best gems of the games industry and judge them on their merits, then as art or not. Until you do this, you know little about what you are sounding off about. I'm with Barker, at least he knows what games are about, and what they can really do if pushed right.
deleted 30 Jul 2007 20:45
4/6
I suspect he has only played Myst!, otherwise he would of used tomb raider for that example encompassing all the problems he stated with games not being an higher art,
i would say art is an emotional reaction to a visual stimulation, pictures and paintings, Movies and Films, even the skyline during a Sunset/Sunrise all create an emotional response to what we see and feel from the image therefore gaming is an art, even the begining of the gaming world was more artful than now, take Space Invaders, Manic Miner, Donkey Kong thse games took imagination and that is what art is in its essence
i would say art is an emotional reaction to a visual stimulation, pictures and paintings, Movies and Films, even the skyline during a Sunset/Sunrise all create an emotional response to what we see and feel from the image therefore gaming is an art, even the begining of the gaming world was more artful than now, take Space Invaders, Manic Miner, Donkey Kong thse games took imagination and that is what art is in its essence
PreciousRoi 31 Jul 2007 00:20
5/6
WOW...
OK, for those of you across the pond, the aforementioned Mr. Ebert is indeed a movie critic...one if not the most recognized of his ilk in the States. (his old partner, Roper, skinny and boring, hence less memorable) Hes about as relevant today as Phil Donahue...except-Phil Donahue has successors...Ebert's relevance has diminished and been usurped almost exclusively by bloggers and the IMDB. Indeed, the closest things I can think of to 'Ebert and Roper: At The Movies' are various video game review shows. So why anyone is paying attention to a movie critic on the definition of art?
Clive Barker is an author, an artist...I should think his opinion carries a bit more weight than some overweight has-been dinosaur critic.
OK, for those of you across the pond, the aforementioned Mr. Ebert is indeed a movie critic...one if not the most recognized of his ilk in the States. (his old partner, Roper, skinny and boring, hence less memorable) Hes about as relevant today as Phil Donahue...except-Phil Donahue has successors...Ebert's relevance has diminished and been usurped almost exclusively by bloggers and the IMDB. Indeed, the closest things I can think of to 'Ebert and Roper: At The Movies' are various video game review shows. So why anyone is paying attention to a movie critic on the definition of art?
Clive Barker is an author, an artist...I should think his opinion carries a bit more weight than some overweight has-been dinosaur critic.
actionmonkey 31 Jul 2007 09:35
6/6
He's a bit contradictory isn't he?
He says that art has to come from one perspective but then cites Andy Warhol who was all about mass producing the same thing from different perspectives using a team of people. I actually think this last comment has to be some sort of joke since Warhol is about the lowest common denominator in terms of actually creating anything himself.
Myst wasn't a scavenger hunt last time I played it either, it was about puzzle solving.
He's a good critic Ebert, but he's clearly writing this just to piss people off - comparing something to a bowel movement is just lazy writing.
Hs he clearly doesn't have much of a grasp on gaming. He's going out on a limb and he knows it.
He says that art has to come from one perspective but then cites Andy Warhol who was all about mass producing the same thing from different perspectives using a team of people. I actually think this last comment has to be some sort of joke since Warhol is about the lowest common denominator in terms of actually creating anything himself.
Myst wasn't a scavenger hunt last time I played it either, it was about puzzle solving.
He's a good critic Ebert, but he's clearly writing this just to piss people off - comparing something to a bowel movement is just lazy writing.
Hs he clearly doesn't have much of a grasp on gaming. He's going out on a limb and he knows it.
