Today’s video games, be they mind-numbing wastes of time like Mario Party or story-driven, “interactive experiences” (I just made that pseudo phrase up) like the Metal Gear Solid series, are not art. Excuse me—they’re not “high art,” as defined by Roger Ebert, film critic and professional curmudgeon. Ebert, who upset fanboys last year with his “games aren’t art” comments, likens video games more to sport than a Picasso. He cites video games’ interactive nature when describing why they’re not “high 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.
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.
In all reality this is a pretty silly debate. Who cares what some washed up old man thinks about the Wii, 360 or PS3? Let him wallow in movies—wait, wait, FILM, sorry—all he wants; I’ll continue to creep through castles and blast aliens with my ice gun.
Ebert: Videogames Still Not Art [Next Gen]
Who says video games can’t be both a ’sport’ and art?
He still avoids the question on whether or not he plays games. Which means he’s probably only knows the bigger and slightly older games.
Getting into a great video game is like getting into a great book. You get immersed in the story, and there are people who have slaved away on the look and feel of the game. There are scripts, acting, storyboards. Someone has put effort into every little detail.
Just like there are shallow pieces of literature, film, and art there are also shallow video games. There’s nothing wrong with those, they provide entertainment. But to think that they cannot reach the same level nor haven’t already I think is a bit naive.
When the news came out that Siskel of Siskel and Ebert died, everyone thought it was this joker.
Playing the Atari 2600 once does give one the right to critique the industry as it is today.
There was a time not so long ago when haute culture felt similarly about film as a form artwork. People were even terrified of the earliest works fearing objects, like trains, would even come out of the screen and kill the audiences. Art evolves over time (i.e. cave drawings, music, sculpture, oil paintings, theatre, etc.). It seems Ebert needs to revisit some art history before making such uneducated statements on media that he has little exposure.
I liked Siskel better anyways.