I doubt it. As much as I love video games, I seriously doubt it. Only 0.00001 percent of the population would even consider having this debate, why the hell would our leaders be debating it when there are far more important matters?

“It’s certainly going to be a deciding factor in my vote of who will be president.” Are you serious?

Do you guys not know Benny at all? Oh, you don’t? Well then…. Yeah, he’s TOTALLY TOTALLY serious. TOTALLY. Discuss.

Video games not art? To each his own. Me, that’s one of the major factors in buying a games. Ebert’s probably ticked because some one beat him at Pong.

Anyone care to name a game that they would consider “art” and why it should be considered that?

I think if anyone, including Croal and Kent, want to actually proclaim this to be true, they should actually start naming games that can be classified as such.

Okay, first of all, Bush could never pronounce, “Electroplankton,” let alone spell it.

As for Ebert’s latest column, it sounds like the discussion is continuing apace. I still haven’t heard any real rebuttal to his critiques, aside from the “you have to play x” defense. Even so, what’s the point? Why the need to legitimize videogames as “art?” That need to be accepted says more to me than anything, and while games are far more socially acceptable now than ever before (when I was a teen, games were something you were expected to outgrow by high school, unless you were a nerd), and yet there’s still this residual sense of exclusion. A sense of proving to the popular kids that you’re not a loser.

So what? Most of what people fill their hours with are trivial in the large scheme of things. Think sports is really any better? Or television? Even Pauline Kael famously noted that movies are very rarely great art; you must learn to enjoy great trash, or the whole enterprise is wasted.

And finally….Presidential politics? Are you joking? How would you like the thought of your ass being shipped to Baghdad? How’s that for an issue?

….why does Ebert keep talking about bowel movements?

@Dave Park
FFVII, FFVI, & FFIX: Great sense of emotions were conveyed.
Shadow of The Colossus: This game said a lot about love.
Resident Evil: This game actually made the player scared.
Metal Gear Solid (despite Hideo’s own stance on video games as art): This series makes statements on the escalation of war.

“It’s certainly going to be a deciding factor in my vote of who will be president.”

hum… you sir are an idiot

@Kiddkaden
Whew.. ok just wanted to make sure he’s serious if he’s making such claims.. I mean I know it would affect my choice so its no joking matter for me.. glad to see an important issue heating up

guh, Mr Ebert is a pretentious moron.

such a childish rebuttal and he dances around making an actual point.
As gamers, we all know games can be art, many of them are not, Mr Ebert doesn’t want to accept this.
fact is, there is no way he can play something like okami, and argue that it is not art.

@Loki
FFVII, FFVI, and FFIX - Nowhere near the emotions conveyed in other works of literature or movies. Entertaining? Yes. But anyone who has even ventured into watching something as powerful as the Shawshank Redemption (which in itself is on the lower end of the “emotional” spectrum) or have read anything as heartbreaking as in the Grapes of Wrath will tell you that these forms of media have done a far better job at showing emotion.

While FFVI does have a good story and great characters, it does little to convey emotion. Our attachment to the characters is less of their own personalities and more of their circumstances. While that’s tragic, it doesn’t nearly go far enough to be constituted as “art,” a realm that includes even the tragedies written by Edgar Allen Poe. As for the others, particularly FFVII, they again lack the depth to be considered art. These games tell simple stories with convoluted plots. While entertaining, they lack much depth that other works are able to convey.

SPOILERS!!!

Aeris dying doesn’t make a game deep, and Kuja destroying the world because he’s going to die is hardly original. They’re emotional dribble of over-emotional kids overreacting to black-and-white moments. The games themselves lack the depth of art, the relevence of situations to reality. Instead, you get this one-dimensional answer to everything without any real dilemma minus the black-and-white “is this right or wrong?” questions.

END SPOILERS

Shadow of the Colossus - The game has a fairly simple, though admittedly clever premise. Unfortunately, that’s not enough to make it artistic. Other tales of love, such as A.J. Cronin’s “Keys to the Kingdom,” do a far better job of conveying love beyond a simple superficial fairy tale. Along with this are tales such as Lord of the Rings or the Dune series, which are seeped in so many layers of themes that Shadow of the Colossus can never even attempt to touch.

Resident Evil - This is just plain dumb. To scare someone doesn’t mean it’s art. It means you made a scary game. Again, the “depth” in regards to meaning is only skin deep. The title, as the ones you have mentioned before, does not advance human understanding or philosophy in any way.

Metal Gear Solid - Another common choice by uneducated and naive gamers. Kojima’s commentary on the escalation of war are simplistic, naive, and pretty goddamn idiotic. The Metal Gear Solid series tells us war is Hell, violence is bad, and science is twisted. Never mind the fact that the series has repeatedly used VERY BAD science fiction (seriously, a fricken vampire, a cyborg ninja, and a possessed hand?!), and forget that nuclear proliferation is undoubtedly a bad thing period. Do you really need a game with some really horridly hackneyed quotes to tell you some simplistic messages? Saving Private Ryan does all of this in the first five minutes of the movie with the D-Day mission. All Quiet on the Western Front does a FAR better job showing the dogs of war. Catch-22 shows the futility of war in its fullest and funniest.

—

Games haven’t reached the realm of art… yet. Naming such popular games that look pretty or use large words does not constitute as art. Rather, such things must make one think about the human experience, as well as present something new to the table. Videogames haven’t been able to do that, are not smart enough yet, and need to set itself apart from other themes.

This IS possible, as long as the audience matures and the game makers are more creative. One only has to look at the comic book industry to see that such things are possible.

But at the same time, it requires the audience to become smarter. If you’re easily swayed to think that MGS is an artistic game because Kojima puts up crap about how war sucks, then you’re lacking in understanding of the world and need to do something besides play videogames to get your intellectual gears moving.

Sorry about double posting, but I want to add one more thing.

As poor as Ebert’s comments may sound, the guy actually has a point. Most gamers’ idea of “artistic” games are similar to what Loki had mentioned.

Even worse is when people say that something like Okami is “art.” However, visual beauty alone doesn’t equate to art. Okami looks fantastic, but it’s just that: superficially nice, but lacks depth.

You might be asking, “Why’s Dave Park constantly preaching about depth?” Mainly because, as subjective as art may be, all art at least presents some sort of new understanding to the table. It’s beyond simple understanding of black and white issues and instead delves into complicated issues. True art may reveal the complexities of the universe (i.e. mathematics), may show the world the workings of a society (i.e. hieroglyphics, street graffiti), may reveal something about ourselves (i.e. various works of literature), and so forth.

Have videogames done that? Aside from simplistic mathematical applications such as Tetris and Pac Man, I don’t think so. Great rules to a game, pretty pictures, and loud music don’t make something “artistic.”

It’s why Beethoven’s 5th, which itself as a work conveys one overcoming adversity, or Bach fugues, which uses simple rules and subjects to create intensely complicated music, are considered art, while Uematsu writing “One Winged Angel” and just having a loud orchestra with a choir in the back playing simple rhythms isn’t art.

I’ve said this before, but if gamers want to be recognized as intellectuals and go beyond the medium, then we must be challenged to do so. Simplistic themes with overly convoluted plots isn’t going to work. Rather than being dumb and saying the medium is artistic, let’s be smart and either start demanding or start making something that truly is worthy of being art.

I really don’t understand this art debate, and does it really matter? Honestly, wrong or not, I don’t even consider movies art. To me, it’s pretty much all entertainment. Your not going to buy a videogame and stick it on your wall. It’s either, in any particular day, your going to feel like watching a movie, playing a game, going on the internet and posting of forums, or whatever. I’m not going to debate this because I really just don’t know. But to me, I want videogames to be on the same level as other entertainment options, which include music, movies, etc…. Games being art or not is irrelevant. Getting more people involved with this medium we call videogames is more important… Your not going to see someone walk up to a videogame and ask, “Is this art?” And if the response is no, they simply walk away and that’s that… Anyway, it is a fun debate though, I’ll admit.

Wow Dave, pretty harsh don’t you think? You flat-out asked for examples of games people thought were art, Loki thought it was a good question and offered his opinion on a few of his favorites, and you made him out to be an idiot. While I agree completely with your points about his examples, you could probably be a little more tactful about it. Just my opinion.

But anyway, I wanted to say that if a great film or novel can be considered “art” because of an amazing story, brilliantly-realized characters, multi-layered, nuanced handling of complex themes and thought-provoking issues… If those things can make a book “art”, then Planescape: Torment is a work of art. Surely the inclusion of interaction does not automatically preclude a creative work from being considered “art”. Just because you get to guide Nameless One through Sigil and shape his personality according to the dialog lines and actions you choose, does not mean that the narrative or philosophy of the work is any less inspired or any less meaningful. Just because you are made to feel like a part of the story, by being given some control over its pace and mood, does not mean the events are any less tragic or powerful. Right?

And just because Final Fantasy games contain art, does not MAKE them art. For Christ sakes, Taco Bell CONTAINS art.

A funny excerpt from Takam’s comment:

“guh, Mr Ebert is a pretentious moron.

such a childish rebuttal[…]”

Ironic.

It’s like Ebert is simultaneously “a big dumb-head” and “immature”.

JK, Takam

I think we’re in the interactive era anyway. I mean, I love movies, but I can’t tell you how many times I watched a war movie and felt like controlling the character. Or whatever. Just that urge to “move.” Does anyone agree? Or going on the Internet, watching a bit of T.V., and then almost instantly wanting to go on the internet again. I’m just trying to see how relevant or important this debat is in the first place. It brings awareness to our industry so that’s good, but I think it ultimately doesn’t matter. Times are changing. It seems everyone is interacting with something nowadays anyway, whether that be texting on a cell phone or whatever. The funny thing is, in order to create a game, artistic skills are needed anyway. Isn’t art suppose to be a form of expression? I don’t know. Anyway, I’m going off topic. Peace.

I’m confused… why does this have anything to do with the Presidential election?

Loki, I think you’re going about it all wrong, gamers constantly state the gameplay is the most important part of any game, so shouldn’t it be the most important factor discerning whether it’s art or not?

Super Metroid’s gameplay alone is more inspiring and beautiful than any poem, book, or movie that I’ve experienced.

Dave, I think you’re going about it all wrong, gamers constantly state the gameplay is the most important part of any game, so shouldn’t it be the most important factor discerning whether it’s art or not?

Super Metroid’s gameplay alone is more inspiring and beautiful than any poem, book, or movie that I’ve experienced.

argh, ignore that first one, I noticed I had the wrong name as it was accepting my comment

I started writing a response to this, but it turned into a prose of sorts - not about video games specifically, but art in general. Here goes:

Practically anything can be appraised as art; it is the audience’s reaction to a particular thing that makes it so. No one can legitimately say that something is or isn’t art without turning the conversation into an argument; realistically, there’s no sense in arguing about art because there is not one true answer with which it can be defined. However, as human nature begs us to explain the inexplicable such as moths driven to fly to the flame, in an attempt to vaguely create a feeble finite formalization for art in the loosest of limitations: art is, simply, subjectivity at its finest.

Art is not a prestigious term. Games my not be great art yet, but they are art. You have to remember that these are still the cave paintings, silent films, and tribal beats of this medium. Video games will eventually be great art. But hey, if

As for the gameplay itself being art… It’s hard for me to imagine that. Of course, if I could, then I’d be the great artist making it happen.

Please just vote democratic. Do it for the rest of the planet earth. I really like the exchange rate here from Canada now, but you shouldn’t let it get any worse. Or heck, I don’t know, maybe you should be worrying about getting out of Iraq and finishing the job in Afghanistan? Preparing for disasters like Katrina… cleaning up corruption, etc.

Video games are dandy and all, but there’s more important issues when it comes to politics. Generally with new forms of media you simply wait for the old people to pass away, and your problem is solved. No need to worry.

I also forgot to say, art and politics, this has the potential for a massive debate

@Kiddkalen:
Your comment made my day pretty much. Thanks for that.

@Dave:
I would argue that Okami is art, and not for its artistic style… in fact least of all because of its artistic style. I would say its art mainly because of the cohesion of tone in story and characters voice. Much like early Japanese folk tales AND art, its messy, perverted, and decidedly “un-European.” If you play through the game, you see that its complex not only in its artistic style… but in the way it handles enemy interactions and character relationships.

Its art (to me at least) because it so successfully captures, informs, and harkens to a specific feeling… a complex one at that.

@ Dave Park:
depth is not necessarily a criterion for art, nor is “the need to advance human understanding or philosophy in any way”, nor does art need to follow rules and regulations of any kind to be able to be considered as art. Art is evolving.

I think Dean sums it up really nice

PEACE

Stop being such artfags, there will always be people that think of something different than the way you do. Be it art, be it whatever. I don’t consider all that music we hear nowadays art, go figure.

@Dave Park

You trying to tell me what is or isn’t art is pointless. It’s like telling someone what is or isn’t God.

As for whether or not games are “Art” with a capital ‘A,’ get over yourself. Today, no one can agree on what is “Art.” It will be decided later. Today’s trash becomes tomorrows “Art.”

This American Life podcast seems appropriate right now:
http://www.thislife.org/Radio_Episode.aspx?episode=73

it’s pretty simple. let’s define “art”:
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

now let’s define “craft”:
trade or occupation requiring special skill, esp. manual skill

in my mind, the difference is that art is something you do to express yourself, and craft is something you do to make money (i.e., to solve a problem).

clearly, video games are art…the have elements of both arts and crafts. making games, and even just simply writing code, is something developers do because they love it and it aids self-expression; simultaneously, it is something they do because they are solving a problem. and if they didn’t, they’d starve. or find another job.

so the argument is really over the definition of art. who the heck is ebert to decide that?

If I can think back to crappy ol’ humanities class in school, there are 4 criteria for art:

-It’s therapeutic to experience
-It contains social or political commentary
-It allows us to further understand the culture that produced the piece.
-It’s entertaining

If you have 3 of those 4 things, you’re art. Maybe not “fine” art, but art.

RE4’s therapeutic because killing zombies is a good way to vent some aggression. It’s political commentary is ham-fisted, but it’s there. And it’s definitely entertaining. Thus, art.

Okami is therapeutic just to LOOK at. It’s also entertaining, and there is some subtle commentary about society’s slide toward atheism. Art.

Shadow of the Colossus gets the entertainment and therapy marks, like any good game should. The idea of sacrificing yourself for love and the game slowly making you realize that you were, in fact, the real monster the entire time makes it art.

Yeah, I do understand the desire to set quality standards for art, but it’s hard to objectify art and not come across as an elitist.

Along the lines of what Sean said, I think a more forgiving way to determine art is by its refusal to compromise, and that also includes its willingness to experiment, innovate or deviate from established conventions.
(actually that’s why I’ve always sorta stuck with nintendo)
(and also why the current gaming community’s obsession with graphics is so infuriating to me)

OKAMI ISN’T ART JUST BECAUSE OF IT’S GRAPHICAL STYLE! GODDAMN!

its goes without saying, that video games are the culmination of all forms of art. music, art, literature, its all there in some way or another. i dont see how people can not see the beauty in a video game.

a comic strip is a work of art, why not a bunch of pixels on a screen that make something incredible.

oh no someone doesnt feel the same about something as i do, this means i will have to argue on the internet forever!

We’ve had countless video games that have proven that video games are art. Tetris, Lumines, Puyo Puyo, Mario Bros, Pokemon, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Sonic, Ikaruga, Famicom Wars, Electroplankton, Street Fighter 2 Turbo… all games that don’t make constant attempts to wow you with their realistic or unique graphical styles, cinematics, music, or their stories (which are for books, by the way)… but instead, the game itself. The interactive software that proves that interactive software is art has been under our noses the entire time. But for stubborn elitists that must come up with terms like “applied art” and “fine art” and “high art,” or even “art with a capital A” will not be convinced by these. they will not be convinced so easily by us “childish” gamers and our “childish” medium. We cannot use words to express that interactive software is an art, words are for literature. Music is for… music. We cannot write a book attempting to show it, we cannot make a movie attempting to show it. What we need is not a game that proves that games are art. What we need is a game that convinces others once and for all that games are art.

We are not in an argument nor a debate. We do not fight a battle. We, as video game enthusiasts, game designers, et cetera… fight a war. And it needs to be won.

Also, note that I didn’t use the cheap and ugly buzzword “gameplay.” Maybe it’s a start, because many do not judge literature on their bookread, or film on their moviewatch.

Or maybe it’s not.

Dave Park:

GODDAMNIT, you’ve got to put more lines/spaces in between a spoiler alert and the actual spoil. Thanks a lot, ponce.

Dave Park:

GODDAMNIT, you’ve got to put more lines/spaces between a spoiler alert and the actual spoil. Thanks a lot, you poncerrific gasbag.

There should be no concrete answer to this question. I mean, think about it: even some ART is not considered art by individuals who think lowly of it. In the same respect, anything can be considered art with one’s own justification. Further more, some games are probably actually trying to be art, while some clearly aren’t.

Remember, I said that games have the ability to be art. Are they art yet?

Many have pretty much said that art is pretty much anything that makes you feel. Which is fine, except I don’t exactly think spitting on the ground is art, nor do I look at kids scribbling on sidewalks as art. There’s a limit to things, and if we decide to say that videogames are art, then I’d pit them to the equivalent of probably… well, kids scribbling on a sidewalk or shallow action movies (because, hey, that means that Terminator 2, Rambo, and Die Hard are “art”).

There’s a difference between being logical and reasonable. By pure definition, anything CAN be art, but without a proper context, it’s not it.

As some people have alluded to, possibly the best outlet for games being art is through its main attribute: the gameplay. There’s no problem with this; gameplay (i.e. the rules to the game) define a game, and its rules may be designed so well and thoroughly that it can be seen as complete. It’s why people can view chess and Go as art. I wouldn’t put Super Metroid in there though the game’s attributes are great (it’s been copied so much and in itself doesn’t stand out from the pack), but games like Tetris, Ikaruga, and Elektroplankton possibly may be able to seen this way.

Yet, if the focus on games have been less in creating new and clever rules, which is has, and more on attempting to copy other forms of media to instead being lesser forms (basically like being the PSP), then unless they make something as prolific as The Old Man and the Sea, I can’t see it being “artistic.”

, nice picture!