next »

[Golds]

So I'm just throwing this out here.  Roger Ebert is from my hometown in Illinois, and every year he hosts his Overlooked Film Festival at an old movie palace downtown.

Back in 2006, I e-mailed back and forth with him on the then fresh "are games art?" debate he ignited in his columns, and we discussed the possibility of a panel at the festival on the subject...  Ironically,  Volition is located just a couple blocks from the festival, and has been one of its main sponsors for years.

Anyway, the panel eventually fell through because it was too close to the 2006 conference, but he and the festival director said "next year".  Then Ebert got sick. Though the festival did run this year, Ebert was still unable to talk.  But he's back to reviewing movies now, the festival has 2008 dates on its site, and his latest answer man column has a new (kind of juvenile) piece on the great game debate.

So I was thinking of maybe broaching the subject of a possible 2008 panel...  I'm already sure Volition would put someone on it, but it'd be great to have some people from the indie community on board before I'd contact him.

What are some of your thoughts?

[ChrisFranklin]

I'm afraid I don't know how awesome of a panel this could be, for a couple of reasons.  Mostly, though, because there seems to be a fundamental disagreement between game designers and Roger Ebert as to what constitutes art.  He firmly believes in authorial control over the work.  There are plenty of counter-arguments to this stance - the subjective nature of interpreting/experiencing any given work, interactive exhibits in art museums, performance art, the fact that designers sculpt possibility space and are still ultimately responsible for the player's experience, etc.  But even confronted with these concepts, Ebert can always backpedal further into his "by art I meant high art" stance and add additional arbitrary qualifiers to discount any arguments we can come up with to defend ourselves.  I just don't see anything positive coming out of it, I'm afraid.

[Chris Whitman]

... his latest answer man column has a new (kind of juvenile) piece on the great game debate.

Can we not have Clive Barker represent us? While I understand that his new game about vinyl-clad psychic lesbians is the very definition of high art, maybe there are some of us who don't want to be associated anyone who takes that kind of press photo.

[Al King]

Says the man looking pensive in sepia.

I'm a little squeamish about that as well; this is one of the few cases where enthusiasm doesn't get you halfway there.
Regarding the forum thing, if it were treated genuinely as a discussion rather than a debate, and people didn't try to get Ebert on the back foot, I think it could work.

[Pacian]

The British were once known for their rapier wit, but I am afraid bandinage of this caliber will not get you into the Leatherhead and Dorking Debating Society, let alone the House of Lords.

I do not bite my thumb at you, sir, but I bite my thumb, sir.

[ChrisFranklin]

... his latest answer man column has a new (kind of juvenile) piece on the great game debate.

Can we not have Clive Barker represent us? While I understand that his new game about vinyl-clad psychic lesbians is the very definition of high art, maybe there are some of us who don't want to be associated anyone who takes that kind of press photo.

Well, part of the problem is we don't have nearly enough game developers sticking up for us.  Hideo Kojima insists games "contain" art but are not themselves art, David Jaffe publicly questions whether a game could ever seriously deal with an issue as fundamental to human existence as death, John Carmack compares the narrative in games to that of porn.  Where are all the game developers lining up to take on Ebert's charges?

[Zaphos]

... his latest answer man column has a new (kind of juvenile) piece on the great game debate.

Can we not have Clive Barker represent us? While I understand that his new game about vinyl-clad psychic lesbians is the very definition of high art, maybe there are some of us who don't want to be associated anyone who takes that kind of press photo.

Well, part of the problem is we don't have nearly enough game developers sticking up for us.  Hideo Kojima insists games "contain" art but are not themselves art, David Jaffe publicly questions whether a game could ever seriously deal with an issue as fundamental to human existence as death, John Carmack compares the narrative in games to that of porn.  Where are all the game developers lining up to take on Ebert's charges?

Perhaps the problem there is that Ebert's charges are too idiotic and too tied to a simple lack of clear definitions for more developers to really care?  To quote Schafer, "Are games art? Zzzzzz. Oh, sorry, could you repeat the question? I fell asleep."

[ChrisFranklin]

Perhaps the problem there is that Ebert's charges are too idiotic and too tied to a simple lack of clear definitions for more developers to really care?  To quote Schafer, "Are games art? Zzzzzz. Oh, sorry, could you repeat the question? I fell asleep."

But isn't Schafer's response just dismissive of the entire question?

Apathy gets us nowhere with regards to this.  The whole "are games art" debate is so old hat it makes the whole Ludology Vs. Narratology thing look like a lively and active debate, and having the lot of us discuss it here would indeed be largely a waste of time.  Especially since we'd all be largely in agreement.

But we have a public that is largely apathetic to us as well as a trusted voice from another medium unfairly belittling ours and our best response we can muster is "Pff, that's stupid."  It's no wonder we've gained little foothold in the world at large as an artform when no one wants to seriously deal with the issue.  And that, I think, does merit discussion.

[Zaphos]

Perhaps the problem there is that Ebert's charges are too idiotic and too tied to a simple lack of clear definitions for more developers to really care?  To quote Schafer, "Are games art? Zzzzzz. Oh, sorry, could you repeat the question? I fell asleep."

But isn't Schafer's response just dismissive of the entire question?

Apathy gets us nowhere with regards to this.  The whole "are games art" debate is so old hat it makes the whole Ludology Vs. Narratology thing look like a lively and active debate, and having the lot of us discuss it here would indeed be largely a waste of time.  Especially since we'd all be largely in agreement.

But we have a public that is largely apathetic to us as well as a trusted voice from another medium unfairly belittling ours and our best response we can muster is "Pff, that's stupid."  It's no wonder we've gained little foothold in the world at large as an artform when no one wants to seriously deal with the issue.  And that, I think, does merit discussion.

It's not clear to me what gaining foothold as an artform would mean, or that it would matter at all.  It's not even clear that "Art" is a desirable label; it's now so often associated with silly things that fail to communicate meaning and a community that attributes value to works by the author's name more than the actual contents.  It's also not clear to me that the public is apathetic to games -- they seem to be a growing medium, especially given Nintendo's latest efforts.

... but it is fairly clear to me that discussing any of this with Roger Ebert would not be a productive use of time.

Meanwhile, it seems that this is the sort of issue that solves itself, as the generations that grow up with games as an essential part of their culture -- a part that is both productive and insightful in a surprising range of different ways -- replace generations who are unfamiliar with the form and unwilling to properly consider and understand it.

[Shaheen]

I agree, I really don't think there's much to gain from games being accepted as 'art' considering it would be by those people, like Ebert, who already have a narrow definition of art in the first place. It's not as if there will be some sort of revolution in 'art games' as soon as those few higher ups in their respective fields accept games as some sort of art form. Why do some need the approval of others to do what they want to do? Why argue preference? It's silly.

As far as my thoughts on such a possible panel goes, I don't think it'd really be interesting at all. You'd just have the same two sides arguing that games do or do not belong under the 'art' category instead of focusing on actually creating or critiquing works instead.

[ChrisFranklin]

Well now we're splitting hairs, because while we want games to be perceived as a medium of meaningful expression we're hesitant to use the phrase "art" because of all the baggage associated with the term.  So we want to be taken seriously as art, but not as Art.

But I don't care about Art.  I just want people to recognize that our endeavors contribute more to humanity and culture than a mere diversion.  I don't care what you call it, but I don't want it to be seen as just entertainment.

[Alec]

Less talk, more games! 

[Shaheen]

Chris:
Not sure if that was in response to my post, but I'd like to say that I don't really care whether games are taken seriously or not either. Again, why do some need to have the acceptance of others? And who says that this genre of creation isn't considered meaningful expression? Perhaps those like Ebert, or maybe just those that don't look deep enough into games because they don't care about a meaningful expression. Games, all creations and presentations, are what you make of them, and I think that's the key point to remember.

Less talk, more games!

And I'll end my post with a hypocritical agreement. :B

[Chris Whitman]

Says the man looking pensive in sepia.

Touché.

Seriously, though, I think the best way to argue that games can tackle serious topics, and that they can be effective in an aesthetic and conceptual sense, is to demonstrate it.

So what Alec said, basically.

[Golds]

Seriously, though, I think the best way to argue that games can tackle serious topics, and that they can be effective in an aesthetic and conceptual sense, is to demonstrate it.

See, for a panel like this, it'd be great to cut a very short little trailer showcasing some sublime gaming experiences, intercut with examples of totally shit art installations from around the world.

[Alec]

See, for a panel like this, it'd be great to cut a very short little trailer showcasing some sublime gaming experiences, intercut with examples of totally shit art installations from around the world.

Okay, that would be pretty awesome. 

[JP]

But even confronted with these concepts, Ebert can always backpedal further into his "by art I meant high art" stance and add additional arbitrary qualifiers to discount any arguments we can come up with to defend ourselves.  I just don't see anything positive coming out of it, I'm afraid.

So, to summarize:


Oh and um hi everyone.

[Pigbuster]

I think the "high art" argument (are games capable of reaching high emotion) is more interesting than the "are games art at all?" argument, since even Ebert admitted that the latter was true.

I am not really a "GAMES ARE ART YOU FAT SNOBS. I AM MAD" kind of person, though it really would be nice if other people would appreciate it more.

However, I don't think most people are going to think of games as a proper art medium until they see it do something that only games can do. They want a masterpiece.

Citizen Kane is considered a masterpiece in cinema not necessarily because of the story - great stories are the specialty of literature, and that's something movies borrow. It is so well regarded because of how it's told. It constantly uses cinematic techniques to amplify every moment and emotion - Something only a film can do.

Video games need to do the same. All of the emotion nowadays is conveyed through cut-scenes, and that's using the techniques of movies. If a game is able to convey emotion in a way only a game can, then it would really show that games are capable of high art in a unique way.
I don't think this is something that every game needs to do, it would just be neat to see a video game achieve this state.

Video games are still a young medium. It'll happen eventually, as will getting past the "GAMES ARE CORRUPTING OUR YOUNG-UNS AND TURNING THEM INTO PSYCHOPATHS" phase.
Until then, just follow Alec's "Less talk, more games" mantra, and show those FAT SNOBS what games can do. 

[Chris Whitman]

Citizen Kane is considered a masterpiece in cinema not necessarily because of the story - great stories are the specialty of literature, and that's something movies borrow. It is so well regarded because of how it's told. It constantly uses cinematic techniques to amplify every moment and emotion - Something only a film can do.

I'm sorry, but if art in film was totally disjoint from art in other fields, not only would the story be excluded, but also images, the domain of painting and other visual art, leaving the problem of communicating artistically solely to motion: the one thing that differentiates film from other visual arts. However, even still shots in film can be evocative. No one has come along and told directors they are unable to include still shots because they belong to photography.

In the same way, there's no reason to exclude cut scenes simply because they are non-interactive. The idea that games need to flee further into territory that separates them from conventional art forms is, in my opinion, actually harmful, as most of the major problems plaguing games these days, if you ask me, are flat characters, dull or shallow stories and a lack of interesting settings, all of which can be problematic in other media.

I think searching for the perfect gameplay mechanic to evoke emotional response, in the manner of The Marriage, is akin to a director searching for the perfect camera angle while leaving out such trivialities as actors, sets and dialog. This kind of approach simply doesn't make any sense. It's a silly narrative which is irritatingly self-perpetuating. Every medium brings with it its own unique potentials and challenges, but no one looks at a film and finds it impressive just because it isn't a photograph in the same way that no one looks at a building and finds it impressive just because it isn't a painting.

[Alec]

Yes. A cutscene-heavy game is still valid as a game.

The purist definition about games being "all/only" about interaction is shallow.

I'd rather see people pushing the boundaries of what a game is (ideally, by making weird/new/exciting games) than trying to say games are only [limiting concept X].

(that said, i think games that are similar in genre to others are just as valid, and can be just as creative)