Film critic Roger Ebert once said that "video games can never be art." Just recently, he has elaborated on that point, choosing to argue why he feels that some games amount to nothing more than "chicken scratches."
Here are a few choice excerpts;
"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."
"[Braid] is a game "that explores our own relationship with our past...you encounter enemies and collect puzzle pieces, but there's one key difference...you can't die." You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game. She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie."
Read the rest of the (rather wordy) article for more. Art, eh? Do we even want games to be art? Voice your thoughts in the comments box below.
To give Ebert his due though, he was arguing with Clive Barker - he of the execrable 'Jericho' game fame in his earlier diatribe.
Here are a few choice excerpts;
"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."
"[Braid] is a game "that explores our own relationship with our past...you encounter enemies and collect puzzle pieces, but there's one key difference...you can't die." You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game. She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie."
Read the rest of the (rather wordy) article for more. Art, eh? Do we even want games to be art? Voice your thoughts in the comments box below.
To give Ebert his due though, he was arguing with Clive Barker - he of the execrable 'Jericho' game fame in his earlier diatribe.
Comments
PaulRayment 19 Apr 2010 10:18
1/1
Ooo this old chestnut. Are games creative? Yes. Are games artistic? Yes. So I would say they are art.
The problem is that art is such a general term and very much subjective. You can have good art and bad, high and low etc. Once again, as with many video game debates you are taking such a diverse medium and trying to put one sticker on the whole batch.
Some games are artistic some aren't just as some of the s**t I've seen Tate modern is art and some..well...if some of that is called art I'm glad Ebert doesn't consider games art.
The problem is that art is such a general term and very much subjective. You can have good art and bad, high and low etc. Once again, as with many video game debates you are taking such a diverse medium and trying to put one sticker on the whole batch.
Some games are artistic some aren't just as some of the s**t I've seen Tate modern is art and some..well...if some of that is called art I'm glad Ebert doesn't consider games art.