N'Gai takes Ebert to task on the whole games as Art argument

[Matt Perkins]

N'Gai is on fire (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/07/30/will-you-fall-in-love-with-what-THEY-are-selling.aspx) these days. Here he is taking Ebert to task (http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/levelup/archive/2007/07/30/croal-vs-ebert-vs-barker-on-whether-videogames-can-be-high-art-round-1.aspx):
Wow. Only two paragraphs into his column, Ebert proceeds to dismiss an entire medium in just five sentences--two rhetorical questions; a list; and an assertion--none of which display much familiarity with the subject. Ebert knows roughly how many games he's played; were the number high enough for him to speak authoritatively, he'd have said so. It's no accident that the one game he cites by name is Myst, because that 13-year-old title--whose reputation is somewhat tattered as befits its stature as one of this emerging medium's evolutionary dead ends--is probably the last game that he played for any meaningful length of time. The whole article is a very good read, no matter where you stand on the games are art argument.

And that other link is a fun one about retarded press releases. I think Mr. Croal is fast turning into one of my favorite game journalists.

[Midnight Son]

Smart man he is. Ebert is just an old fuddy duddy whose movie background in no way makes him any kind of game expert.

[caesarbear]

http://www.quartertothree.com/game-talk/showpost.php?p=1046995&postcount=86

[Ergo]

That's a really well done rebuttal.

[ElGuapo]

Very well written. Kudos to the author.

[Ben Sones]

Yeah, that was really well written, and well reasoned.

[Matt Perkins]

caesar

It didn't come up with I searched or when I googled qt3. Ah well, I think it's worth it's own topic. Very good read imo.

[unbongwah]

There are at least three fundamental flaws to Ebert's arguments:
The first, of course, is that he doesn't know much about games. He shouldn't try to pass himself off as an expert on gaming just because he's seen a few games any more than I should try to pass myself off as a master neurosurgeon just because I've seen an episode of ER: to people who actually know what we're talking about, we'd both end up looking pretty stupid.
The second is that he structures his definition of art in such a way that it's deliberately meant to exclude games. "Art isn't interactive; games are interactive; therefore, games aren't art." I'd say that's a form of begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).
The third is that Ebert paints all games with the same broad brush, likening them to sports. But as N'Gai points out, there are different genres of games, each with their own conventions, goals, and "authorial intent," for lack of a better term. Even a cursory play-thru of, say, Battlefield 2 and Resident Evil 4 would reveal just how different both games are from each other. It's called hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization), Roger.
Ultimately, any argument about the artistic merit (or lack thereof) of games has to be made based on the games' content independent of the artistic conventions of other media. You don't criticize games for not being like movies (or books, or whatever other medium Ebert feels like invoking) any more than you criticize sculpture for not being like music.

[Ben Sones]

I particularly liked this bit:

Next, he tries out the art-as-broccoli theory: if it's not good for you--if we don't become "more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them,"--then it can't be art. Setting aside the "How the heck would you know if you don't play games?" argument for a moment, Ebert's utilitarian approach to art, while shared by many, is far from universal. There are many others who believe in art for art's sake; in art that provokes, in art that disturbs, art that enrages, and so on.

...

What I'm trying to say is that there are many different kinds of art that don't always fit neatly into the high-low dichotomy that Ebert wields like a cudgel.

Because the "art as broccoli" attitude is something that I see a lot, even from people who I would expect to be more insightful (like Ebert), and it always bothers me. Even on this forum, in past discussions on art, I can remember people trotting out that rhetoric. "It's only high art" (and sometimes even "it's only art") "if it changes my understanding of what it means to be human" (that's a paraphrase of a real statement that someone here made in one of our past "are games art" threads), or some other meaningless platitude that amounts to the same thing. Statements like that always strike me as simple intellectual laziness, especially when used as a classify broad sweeps of subject matter, media, genres, etc. as "not art." I always suspect that people who say things like that would probably be hard pressed to articulate how specific works of art--works that they would define as art, or even as "high" art--comply with their vague, aggrandizing definition. How, exactly, does Michaelangelo's David make you more or less insightful, thoughtful, philosophical, etc.? How did Citizen Kane change your understanding of what it means to be human? Specifically?

The definition of art that I lean towards is pretty broad, and encompasses--at least potentially--the product of just about any purposeful human endeavor. While I'm perfectly willing to agree that some works of art are better than others, and even that some are more artful than others, I think that's the sort of thing that you have to work out on a case-by-case basis.

The second is that he structures his definition of art in such a way that it's deliberately meant to exclude games. "Art isn't interactive; games are interactive; therefore, games aren't art." I'd say that's a form of begging the question.

Not only that, he implies that art must be exclusively the product of one person's creative vision--a definition that, ironically, excludes movies from being art.

[Draikin]

What can change the nature of a man ?

[unbongwah]

Not only that, he implies that art must be exclusively the product of one person's creative vision--a definition that, ironically, excludes movies from being art.
Yeah, N'Gai did a pretty good job of tearing into Ebert's statement, "I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist," by pointing out that lots of art forms are the result of collaborative efforts, not a single artist's vision.

[caesarbear]

The definition of art that I lean towards is pretty broad, and encompasses--at least potentially--the product of just about any purposeful human endeavor. While I'm perfectly willing to agree that some works of art are better than others, and even that some are more artful than others, I think that's the sort of thing that you have to work out on a case-by-case basis.
Does this then surrender the idea of high art? I'm not saying high art has to exist but is there a way to determine it? Is the design of a fork art, and when could a fork be high art?

[Ben Sones]

It's hard to answer that without knowing what you mean by "high art." I would prefer to surrender the term, on balance, because I think that people typically use it merely as an intentionally vague way of referring to art for which they have a particular personal appreciation, but in a manner that seems more authoritative than just saying "I really admire that," and without the bother of having to rationalize their opinion.

I do think that the design of a fork is art--and can even be good art--for what it's worth.

(edited for clarity)

[mutt]

There are at least three fundamental flaws to Ebert's arguments:


The first, of course, is that he doesn't know much about games. He shouldn't try to pass himself off as an expert on gaming just because he's seen a few games any more than I should try to pass myself off as a master neurosurgeon just because I've seen an episode of ER: to people who actually know what we're talking about, we'd both end up looking pretty stupid.
I don't get this. What's there to know about videogames? Once you've seen a couple of paintings, is seeing 10,000 more going to tell you anything more about the nature of a painting?

The second is that he structures his definition of art in such a way that it's deliberately meant to exclude games. "Art isn't interactive; games are interactive; therefore, games aren't art." I'd say that's a form of begging the question (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question).
He doesn't have a definition of art. Neither does N'Gai or anyone else here, as far as I've seen (except maybe me, who sides with Aristotle). "It's sorta like this, kinda" doesn't suffice for a definition. Nor does "This thing here is art, and this, and this, and that." That's what makes this argument so amusing: neither side has any very clear idea what they're talking about. They're just sure the other side is wrong.

The third is that Ebert paints all games with the same broad brush, likening them to sports. But as N'Gai points out, there are different genres of games, each with their own conventions, goals, and "authorial intent," for lack of a better term. Even a cursory play-thru of, say, Battlefield 2 and Resident Evil 4 would reveal just how different both games are from each other. It's called hasty generalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization), Roger.
A cursory examination of swimming and baseball will reveal just how different sports can be from each other as well. What does that have to do with anything?

Ultimately, any argument about the artistic merit (or lack thereof) of games has to be made based on the games' content independent of the artistic conventions of other media. You don't criticize games for not being like movies (or books, or whatever other medium Ebert feels like invoking) any more than you criticize sculpture for not being like music.
He's not criticizing games for not being like movies. He's criticizing games for not being art, however confusedly. Why do you guys get so defensive about this? It's a philosophical question whether games are art, and the answer is not at all obvious. Most people don't consider games art at all. They consider them games, a completely different species of thing. The same with sport. Sport isn't art. It's sport. Some athletes may feel inferior for spending so much time on "mere sports" and therefore wish to claim that they're really doing art, but their wish doesn't make the fact.

[BobJustBob]

I don't get this. What's there to know about videogames? Once you've seen a couple of paintings, is seeing 10,000 more going to tell you anything more about the nature of a painting?

I stopped reading here. Are you serious? I painted a couple of things back in highschool, but looking at those isn't going to match looking at a couple of Picassos.

[jafd]

Why can't we just lock Ebert in a room with an Apple ][ and a copy of Trinity?

[Morkilus]

I don't get this. What's there to know about videogames? Once you've seen a couple of paintings, is seeing 10,000 more going to tell you anything more about the nature of a painting?


Assuming you are capable of critical thinking, can see detail, can understand context... absolutely. Do you really think that once you've identified an artistic medium you know what all the purposes and possibilities are for it? It would be a sad and simple world if this was true.

[charmtrap]

Yeah, N'Gai did a pretty good job of tearing into Ebert's statement, "I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist," by pointing out that lots of art forms are the result of collaborative efforts, not a single artist's vision.

When Ebert says "art is created by an artist" he isn't excluding collaboration (at least, I doubt he is, since that would be insane). He's referring to his opinion that art is created a single entity, group, what have you. His definition of art is that the work is chosen by the artist, and there is a sharp line between the art and the viewer of the art. Games don't qualify since the viewer can change the nature of the narrative, in effect becoming another collaborator.

I have to say that at least Ebert attempts (not very well) to give a definition of art...Croal just punts, opting instead to only refute point-by-point, which doesn't make for a very convincing argument.

[Charles]

I don't get this. What's there to know about videogames? Once you've seen a couple of paintings, is seeing 10,000 more going to tell you anything more about the nature of a painting?

Never been to an Art Museum, I take it.

[caesarbear]

When Ebert says "art is created by an artist" he isn't excluding collaboration (at least, I doubt he is, since that would be insane). He's referring to his opinion that art is created a single entity, group, what have you. His definition of art is that the work is chosen by the artist, and there is a sharp line between the art and the viewer of the art. Games don't qualify since the viewer can change the nature of the narrative, in effect becoming another collaborator.

As I said in the other thread, I think Ebert is taking the view of art as message or propaganda. Certainly multiple artists can collaborate as long as there is one message. The idea that a game can't have a message seems unproven to me. While the narrative can be altered by a player in some games, I wouldn't equate a narrative with an ultimate message.

[unbongwah]

Once you've seen a couple of paintings, is seeing 10,000 more going to tell you anything more about the nature of a painting?
Yes.

Select any two paintings you can think of. Now explain to me how those two paintings alone are sufficient to teach you the entire history of painting, from primitive cave drawings to post-modernism, as well as all about artistic technique - composition, light & shadow, perspective, etc. Don't forget to explain the different evolutionary tracks which painting has followed in different cultures - say, Asian vs European paintings - as well as the ways they've influenced each other. Try to work in as many different art movements as you can: Dadaism, abstract, you name it.

If your response still boils down to "I don't get it, they're just pictures," you might want to find a different thread.
He doesn't have a definition of art.
His definition is imprecise, true, but he at least describes qualities which he ascribes to (high) art: e.g., authorial control, the "art is broccoli" factor, etc. The fact we can't precisely categorize everything as "art / not art" doesn't mean we can't still have interesting discussions about it.
(except maybe me, who sides with Aristotle)
Aristotle's theory that art imitates nature is just that: a theory. It provides a framework for discussion, but it's not a set-in-stone rule, either.
A cursory examination of swimming and baseball will reveal just how different sports can be from each other as well. What does that have to do with anything?
Sports generally fall into two categories: races to see who finishes first (or jumps highest, throws furthest, whatever) and competitions to see which team or individual can score the most points. Games have a much broader range of intents than sports do: N'Gai gets this, Ebert doesn't. Put another way, Ebert confuses medium with genre: the sorts of competitive games he focuses on are merely a subset of all games.
When Ebert says "art is created by an artist" he isn't excluding collaboration (at least, I doubt he is, since that would be insane).
Probably not, though he might subscribe to one of those "the director is KING!" schools of film criticism. But considering how he originally jumped on Clive Barker's back for similar imprecisions and sweeping generalizations in his speech, I'd say Ebert's opened himself up to similar criticisms.
His definition of art is that the work is chosen by the artist, and there is a sharp line between the art and the viewer of the art. Games don't qualify since the viewer can change the nature of the narrative, in effect becoming another collaborator.
Except that argument (A) presumes that games can't also lead you to a predetermined conclusion, which we all know they can (indeed, a routine complaint in reviews is how linear and "on rails" many games are); and (B) that a predetermined conclusion is a necessary or even desirable requirement for all "high" art.

Ebert's view of high art basically boils down to the artist(s) as creators of a static work, which the audience then passively absorbs. But he provides no serious justification for why this is The Way High Art Must Be, beyond This Is The Way It Has Always Been. [Which is nuts, BTW: ask any theater performer if they've ever tailored their performance in response to the audience's reaction.]
I have to say that at least Ebert attempts (not very well) to give a definition of art...Croal just punts, opting instead to only refute point-by-point, which doesn't make for a very convincing argument.
N'Gai isn't arguing for a different definition of art so much as pointing out the flaws and contradictions in Ebert's own arguments. He's trying to hang Ebert with his own rope, not weave a new one of his own. It's a rebuttal, not a counter-argument.

[Ben Sones]

Once you've seen a couple of paintings, is seeing 10,000 more going to tell you anything more about the nature of a painting?

Pierre Auguste Renoir's last recorded words on painting, at age 78:

"I think I'm beginning to learn something about it."

[Hanacker]

Aren't most games sufficiently linear that the vast majority of control of the narrative is in the designer's hands? Yes there's a lot of filler of repetitive combat and wandering around that certainly couldn't pass for art. But wouldn't even Ebert would have to agree that it's possible for a monologue or dialogue from a game to pass for art? (say, a short story or poem told by one of the characters a la Planescape: Torment) Then does the rest of the game provide context for that, or you're just getting a moment of art in a largely artless experience.

[caesarbear]

I would argue that instead of finding pieces of art in the narrative of a game, the art as message in Ebert's definition, doesn't need to be attached to a narration. I would argue that a game like the Sims or Dwarf Fortress can allow for the message through the design itself.

[Ben Sones]

I would argue that instead of finding pieces of art in the narrative of a game, the art as message in Ebert's definition, doesn't need to be attached to a narration. I would argue that a game like the Sims or Dwarf Fortress can allow for the message through the design itself.

True. Additionally, there are entire genres of art (landscape painting, for instance) that have no narrative and that lead the viewer to no clear, predetermined conclusions. So Ebert's suggestion that all art does this is silly.

[charmtrap]

The more I think about it, the more I kind of lean towards Ebert's argument. Art is the expression of an idea or emotion by the artist even if the idea is as simple as "this is pretty".

If a game is truly "on rails", leading to a predetermined conclusion with a predetermined message, in what sense is it a game? And if the expression of the idea or emotion is (even potentially) lost due to the interactivity of a game, in what sense is it art?

It seems to me that instead of trying to mash "games" into "art", we need a third term.

[Andrew Mayer]

It seems to me that instead of trying to mash "games" into "art", we need a third term.

Ouch! My eyes rolled so hard I hurt myself!

[Rimbo]

What can change the nature of a man ?

Draikin wins the thread :D

[Ben Sones]

Art is the expression of an idea or emotion by the artist even if the idea is as simple as "this is pretty".

I would agree with that.

If a game is truly "on rails", leading to a predetermined conclusion with a predetermined message, in what sense is it a game? And if the expression of the idea or emotion is (even potentially) lost due to the interactivity of a game, in what sense is it art?

Every game ever made is "on rails" in a sense that its scope is, by necessity, predetermined by its creators. You can't say "screw the water chip quest" in Fallout and instead go on a quest to discover whether or not the Buddhist temples of Japan survived the war, because that's not an option that the developers have provided. I use Fallout as an example because it is a game that is most often lauded as not being on rails, and while it's true that it does allow the player to make meaningful choices that affect the narrative, it is not true (as Ebert implies) that the player "controls the outcome," other than in the sense that the player can choose from a predefined number of outcomes presented by the developers. This is true of all games.

As to your second point ("if the expression of the idea or emotion is (even potentially) lost due to the interactivity of a game, in what sense is it art?), I don't see any particular reason to conclude that interactivity and the expression of an emotion or idea are mutually exclusive. It's not like the player creates the game--much of the experience comes from the designer. That you can interact with the content of a game does not preclude the content from expressing ideas or emotions.

[Mordrak]

Never been to an Art Museum, I take it.
Agreed. There's a huge difference between seeing a work reproduced digitally or a print and seeing it in person. The common example is stuff like Van Gogh, where his paints were so thick they have a relief quality. Still, there's the same difference when seeing master works that don't use paint so liberally.

[Justin Fletcher]

Not only that, he implies that art must be exclusively the product of one person's creative vision--a definition that, ironically, excludes movies from being art.
And almost every other performing art, which, as Croal's theater example points out, are the most collaborative forms. He does realize that Orson Wells didn't make Citizen Kane by himself, right?

[Justin Fletcher]

Why do you guys get so defensive about this? It's a philosophical question whether games are art, and the answer is not at all obvious.
Right. The problem is that Ebert thinks that it is.

[caesarbear]

And almost every other performing art, which, as Croal's theater example points out, are the most collaborative forms. He does realize that Orson Wells didn't make Citizen Kane by himself, right?
I would even go further to say that live theatrical performance is influenced by the audience. In some cases they can even be participants (http://wafaabilal.com/faq.html).

[Justin Fletcher]

His definition of art is that the work is chosen by the artist, and there is a sharp line between the art and the viewer of the art. Games don't qualify since the viewer can change the nature of the narrative, in effect becoming another collaborator. This is his least convincing argument. In most games, you can't rewrite the narrative. You just may not see all of it. If I read every other page of Siddhartha or throw it away because it's just too hard to get past the last ten pages, I'm not changing the story.

Half-Life culminates with killing the Baby Thing in Xen. All paths lead to this event. My choice whether or not to step off the Space Subway with the G-Man changes the narrative arc in only the most superficial way. Games that have multiple endings usually have one that is clearly positioned as the "right" ending, with various levels of "What if?" catastrophe just a load screen away. Yes, some games provide plot branches (see: Bioware), but this is usually a thin veneer of chaos over a mostly static world. Even the GTAs of the world really just let you choose the order of set experiences in a set narrative.

Ebert might have more of a point when it comes to games like Civilization and MMOs, where if you want a narrative, you have to create it yourself. But the same is arguably true of the last 20 minutes of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

And who needs a narrative anyway? What's the narrative of "Starry Night?" A message, a meaning, sure, but a narrative?

And then there's the counter argument from the other side of the spectrum. Many people believe audiences *are* active collaborators, and not in a "Second City/Tony and Tina's Wedding" kind of way. They would say that audiences collaborate with the artist(s) to give their work meaning, whether it's unconsciously joining together Seurat's colored dots or debating the ending of The Blair Witch Project with your friends for two hours after a screening. Furthermore, it's a misnomer to say that participation in movies, theater, dance, et cetera is "passive" while in games it's "active;" they're all active in different ways.

Personally, I'm not sure I buy that, or, at least, not to the degree that its staunchest proponents do. But it illustrates that this discussion is not as black and white - or art and high art - as Ebert thinks.


EDIT: I've always hated it when someone waxes on about points that were already made earlier in the thread as if they were brand new. It's a clear sign that the person didn't read the whole thing before sharing their pearls of wisdom. Guilty. Apologies.

[Justin Fletcher]

I would even go further to say that live theatrical performance is influenced by the audience. In some cases they can even be participants (http://wafaabilal.com/faq.html).
Ah, you beat me to it. Again, I believe this to a degree, but I think there is still a distinction to be made between the conditions an artist sets up to which an audience reacts and true collaboration. But I absolutely believe that art can't exist in a vacuum. I may not have a full definition of art, but I believe art has to be experienced. Which is, of course, a trait shared by both movies and games.

[Ben Sones]

And then there's the counter argument from the other side of the spectrum. Many people believe audiences *are* active collaborators, and not in a "Second City/Tony and Tina's Wedding" kind of way. They would say that audiences collaborate with the artist(s) to give their work meaning, whether it's unconsciously joining together Seurat's colored dots or debating the ending of The Blair Witch Project with your friends for two hours after a screening.

Yeah, I thought that was a pretty weak point, too. The idea that everything in art comes from the artist is one that many artists would not share, I think. Even in something as seemingly unidirectional as painting or literature, artists use a trick described in Gestalt psychology as "closure," which relies on the principle that the brain tends to fill in missing details, and that you can make a viewer or reader more actively engaged--a participant, rather than a mere spectator--by incorporating intentional ambiguity into your work. This is why any writer worth their salt will tell you that vivid imagery often comes from less description, not more. It's how painters like Inness and Turner can create powerful scenes with vague smears of paint.

Stuff like that is powerful precisely because it engages the viewer--invites them to fill in the details and contribute to the experience out of their own imagination. Ironically, one common criticism of film and television over the years has been that they are too literal; they lack the closure that you find in other art forms like the visual arts and literature and music, and render their viewers passive spectators. Basically, film and television have been criticized for being less interactive than other fields of art. I think that criticism is somewhat overstated, personally, but the point is this: the belief that interactivity is some sort of bane to artistic expression is not a belief that is shared by the vast majority of the art world.

I see a lot of parallels between the basic structure of games and the concept of closure. You have an experience that has been broadly defined by its creators, who then invite players to fill in the details to one extent or another by becoming an active participant in the experience. I think most games are pretty primitive in this respect. The details that the player authors are often trivial or irrelevant to the broad message of the game. Assuming that it even has one, which many games do not. But the structure is there, and I think that even today, a few games have taken baby steps towards using it in interesting--and even artful--ways.