Roger - as you are sure to be inundated with comments for this post, I will simply say: You just don't get it.

I agree with you that video games aren't art, but I would point out that it's only in the past century or so that popular wisdom has decided that art must be anti-establishment, anti-marketing, or revolutionary. I've even heard people say that art has to be controversial to be artistic. This is rot. (Worse, it's rot imported from the UK, where they think nothing is of any value if it isn't delivered with a revoltingly arrogant smirk.) Our view of history has even been affected by this: popular history has turned hundreds of perfectly conventional artists into rebels simply because they were good.

In other words, there's such a thing as going too far. Art by authority is no worse or better than art in defiance of authority: both are, or are not, art based on the end product. Video games are not art because the end product is not art: that is all.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I see amazing things in video games and I don't require third-party validation. I know what moves me and there are many video games that do. If you don't see it, it's your loss and I'm sorry you're missing so much beauty.

WACO? Waco the Video game? That's not art - that's...gross actually. I've seen a crucifix in a jar of urine that was closer to art that that game.

Personally, I agree with you. At the age of 45 I've just started to play my first MMORPG and it is anything but art. It's a game. I don't play it to achieve some sort of greater understanding of humanity - I play it so I can get my mind off the drudgery of my day. That's not art - it's entertainment. (And you of all people know there's a difference.)

If game and graphic designers are looking for approval from the arts communities - then going around saying they're art won't prove it. It smacks of self-esteem issues...

I disagree, but that is the nature of opinions.

One of my favorite Ebert pieces of recent memory. Not because I agree, but because even the master sometimes proves that, his best words and intellect at this disposal, he is ultimately fallible.

And thus, comfort abounds for those of hoping that imperfection won't limit our run towards relevance :)

It's refreshing to so completely disagree with someone whom you so completely admire. Feels like catching the tail end (no pun intended) of Haley's Comet. And yet it might happen twice in one week depending on what I think of KICK ASS. Thrilling!

Never?

I'm a big admirer of yours; and agree with you most of the time, and although I do not know anything about this subject, one thing i know is to never tell anybody in this world: never. they will do it.

good night.

I am always interested to hear your opinions on this subject, Ebert. Simply put though, you did nothing in this article except deconstruct and dismiss Santiago's definition of art.

While I admit her definition was flimsy (and the Wikipedia version even moreso) you need to give credit to her and the fact that she tried to define art. I read through this article (and, it is 1:30am, so I may have missed it) and you managed to get through the entire piece without providing your definition of art.

I also took particular note of your one sentence (and I'm paraphrasing) that videogames cannot be art because they have an objective, a point- someone wins and someone loses. I fear you may be simplifying matters, as most games these days have a narrative and you only win when you complete the narrative that the makers intend you to complete.

I would like to know how that is any different from a film's objective being the ending that the filmmaker intends the audience to sit quietly until? Simply because in a videogame it is possible to see a game over screen before then? Some games have done away with even this, providing no possible way to lose until the very end.

Anyways, keep up the blogging.

Ebert: I think I had a sorta definition lurking in there somewhere.

Interesting article, however games do contain art especially those with original cinematic that are akin to movies at the quality of the best out there.

Some more questions, then (because I find that easier than providing answers :-)

The basic premise is that NO game (video or not) can be considered art, true? What about life, in general? Can you ever consider someone's life to be art? Seems like not, either. But in many ways a videogame is more like 'living' than anything else. We move through places, we interact, we have goals and achieve some of them and fail at others. So maybe the real question is whether or not art can be created WITHIN a videogame, just as we can create art within the real world.

Narrow definition of art.

I'd say art is anything that is beautiful or makes me think.

Oh, come now. You "tend to think of art as usually the creation of one artist." Fair enough. But cinema, no matter how ardent a defender of the auteur theory one may be is explicitly not the creation of one artist. Cinema - which is clearly art - is inherently a collaborative art, requiring the efforts of directors, writers, actors, set and costume designers, cinematographers and any number of other artists each making their own contribution to the final artwork. The director may be the leader of this team of artists, but...well, "The Hurt Locker" represents fine work from Kathryn Bigelow, but she couldn't have made as great a film as she did without the efforts of Mark Boal, Jeremy Renner and many, many other artists with whom she worked.

If the cinema, or the other kinds of collaborative artwork you name, can't be discounted as art, why is it a point against video games?

I would had not chose neither of that the three games as examples, maybe Braid, and is just a maybe (I was not impressed with the actual game but it has moments).

I agree that the Overall Videogame Writing Quality is still low (and many gamers agree with that) but is growing, in a really low low speed, but is growing. Still, I hope that both gamers and game producers realize that we need to raise the bar or else we will get many many questionable content.

Also, maybe you would like this article:

http://www.destructoid.com/why-heavy-rain-proves-ebert-right-165034.phtml

Sorry for my bad English... a Mexican Fan.

Hmmm. If you made it, it's art. If you're just playing with something somebody else made, it ain't. How's that sound?

As tacky as I find the term, I am a "gamer" myself, and yet I agree with you on most of the points. Those games are not art. They're just pretty visuals and sweeping orchestral scores. I remember purchasing Flower for myself and all the accolades it received from gaming circles as being "art," but was sorely disappointed. I later tried a demo of "Braid" only to realize that it too had been the subject of pure hyperbole.

However, I still believe games have the potential to be art. They have an unrivaled potential for immersion and emotional involvement, but no developer has yet seen fit to truly take advantage of this, despite all pretenses. How am I supposed to feel different or enlightened by a game that is essentially the digital equivalent of tossing flower petals at a desk fan?

I am also totally content with games not ever being recognized as an art form. I think the problem is that games have always been seen as a lesser medium, which makes gamers defensive, and with the modern presence of the internet, they have made themselves a security blanket behind which to hide when faced with the possibility that video games may be nothing more than amusing trifles. Were video games unleashed upon the world, say, ten years earlier, with ample time to develop without the hindrances of the internet, I think we'd be looking at a very different medium.

I could go on, but if I were to, I might as well type up an essay rather than post this as a comment.

Would you concede that a chess set itself can be a work of art, whether or not it is actually played?

Ebert: Yes. But why is that a concession?

I disagree with your claim that "[Melies] has limited technical resources, but superior artistry and imagination." Until you've played these games, it's unfair of you to assume that the imagination of their creators is inferior based simply on their medium. Braid's player-controlled distortion of time, for instance, is one of the most imaginative mechanics gaming has seen.

And what of the music and artwork that make up these games? Can there be great visual and aural art contained in a larger, unclassifiable package?

Santiago is offering an argument that misses the point, and I think that the same can be said on both sides. Through all of the points made above, I see nothing that considers art as experience. There's a touch on the subject - the comments on both sides regarding "Waco Resurrection" are misguided at best and hopelessly biased at worst. Yes, it's naive and simplistic to say such a game is "how we feel happened in our culture and society." But it's just as simplistic to offer no argument against the game's relevance as an artistic statement except that it didn't move an individual viewer. To make such a statement, under guise of actually engaging the subject, is a mockery of good-faith argument.

What is art removed from context? Artists love to "draw a line" between themselves and the cave-painters of prehistory, precisely because looking back from our contemporary vantage point and envisioning the context of their creation is what gives them their power as art. To acknowledge that, and to then turn around and eschew any achievement that can be made simply because it's controlled by a keypad? That smacks of as willful ignorance.

Video games allow their participants to enter a world of the designer's creation, with the rules set forth by the designer as their guide, to explore aspects of the human condition. Sure, a game like Waco Resurrection is all shock and no substance, but can't the same be said of a potrait made in menstrual blood of feces? There are rules - but aren't there rules for interacting with a painting, or a movie, or a piece of music? Interactivity is hardly a characteristic solely held by video games, and without it I fail to see what the argument in favor of their disinclusion of art could really be.

still no mention of "Ico"

I have not watched Santiago's lecture, and I do not intend to defend her point. I do wonder if perhaps this discussion has something to do with the idea of the performer. Maybe Fischer, Jordan, and Butkus never claimed to be artists. But I don't think it's so much of a stretch to propose that they, along with some of the other most entertaining "game-players" of our time, have had a unique understanding that their actions are ultimately - after history has judged them - works of art by even your own definition. If art is meant to imitate nature, by way of your definition from Plato/Aristotle, these "game-players" were surely aware of the ways in which their game-playing would imitate - and at the same time represent - an expression of human triumph/failure. Jordan's victory is like Roland's; Bonds's downfall is Lear's. And is there an essential difference between watching Hoosiers and watching a replay of the 1985 NCAA men's basketball final?

Perhaps ultimately, video game players are a similar kind kind of game-players and performers, aware of the imitative element of their game-playing, and creating constantly the narrative of their efforts.

You should change your statement to "Video games can never be art TO ME."
I'm sure you've fought for films you considered art, but other people didn't. This is no different. Just because you can't see something's artistic merit doesn't mean other people can't, and it seems very self serving to assume your view of said art is the correct one.
I respect your opinion, but I feel the way you put it out there is wrong.

I believe when someone says "That's not art" what the speaker really means is "I don't like it."

These are not very good examples.

Where's Bioshock? Where's Shadow Of The Colossus? Where's Mother 3? If you're arguing for video games as an art form, these are pretty essential examples.

Pshh.

Roger, I agree with you that video games don't NEED to be art and people are trying too hard to define them as art. It's silly. But at the same time, just because a video game doesn't achieve the same artistic level as a Keats poem doesn't make it worthless.

You know what else isn't on the same level as a great classic poem? Terminator 2. And I freaking love Terminator 2. At the same time, I could argue that a game like Bioshock is just as thoughtful, well-constructed and memorable as Terminator 2. It's close, at least.

But hey, that's just me.

While a video game as a whole could not be art, it should be argued that there are artistic elements.

The visuals in many video games are becoming photorealistic, and often enough the scenery and characters (such as in Uncharted 2) can be absolutely beautiful. While the gameplay itself isn't artistic, a snapshot from a given level could be considered art. That doesn't make the game itself art, only that one particular element of it.

Also many video games have very compelling stories, but like the scenery they are only one individual element. Often enough these stories get developed in cinematic cutscenes between gameplay, and these would just be considered animated movies. However the individual scenes could be art on their own merit.

This is what I think gamers base their argument on. They argue these individual parts amongst others, but fail to recognize that as a whole the games are not art.

TerrilynnS - why the non-topical dig at graphic designers?

Graphic design can't be art? Huh. Nobody tell Saul Bass!

People think that video games are art because they have a considerable amount of design to them and because they include film-like scenes in between levels to tell the story. It takes artists to make a game. This does not make games art, however.

In the same way, a chess set can be elegantly hand-crafted and even considered a great work of art, but playing chess with that work of art doesn't make the game any more artful. It's still just a game of chess, only played with art rather than pieces of plastic.

No matter how much art goes into the making of a game, it doesn't make the playing of it any more artful. It can make playing it better, or more entertaining, but the art remains in the design, not in the game itself.

The place where art and games come closest might be in figure skating or freestyle gymnastics. It's only the judging and competitive nature that separates it from dance. When I see the same competitiveness applied to the arts - the Oscars for instance - it seems to diminish the art.

Games are not art any more than art is a game. Games are measured in quantity, and art is measured in quality.

Any anthropologist would define games as art.

Here's what Ebert really means: games are not "great" art.

I wish he'd define his terms better.

This is, frankly, a failure to understand the word "art" in any kind of meaningful context. Art is an appeal to the aesthetic sensibilities, and it is literally impossible to argue with any kind of coherence that the makers of these games are making no attempt to do that. Yes, they are games, but the design of the character that the player moves is not simply a function of the rules. The design of every element, while necessarily conforming to a set of rules, also has an artistic component to it. What else could guide the decision to color a character's hair brown instead of black, give them a particular facial expression as they run through the game, and decide their voice as they comment on the situation they find themselves in?

What you are perhaps intending to say is that they are not High Art (the same argument once leveled against van Gogh and the Impressionists) or that they are not art that you could ever see appealing to you (as can sometimes happen with any artistic statement; even Citizen Kane has its detractors.) But to argue that video games are not art at all, merely a set of rules to a particularly complex game, is like arguing the sky is fish.

To put it into terms you might understand, since you repeatedly used the chess analogy: The rules of chess, the way the pieces move and the way that victories are scored, is not art. (Although it might have a certain elegance all its own...) But the pieces? The way they're carved into intricate, elegant shapes that suggest their function in clean, understated lines (or sometimes, gorgeously elaborate ones?) That is art, and only a fool would argue otherwise. And if there is art to game design, then designing games is an artistic pursuit. And appreciating video games involves appreciating art.

There is no empirical, universal definition for what art is. If you want to dismiss an entire form of media, fine, but at least appreciate that to many people, myself included (and I have great regard for your work, follow you on Twitter, etc.), it makes you look like an ego-centric ass. I don't say that to be glib or dismissive. I'm trying to make a point.

The point is that trying to make objective statements about the quality of any form of media is necessarily fraught with peril. Trying to make objective statements about subjective things is impossible. It doesn't matter what definition of "art" you personally ascribe to, you should at least understand and hopefully appreciate that the word "art" is, by itself, completely meaningless. It only gains resonance and meaning in an individual's mind, as it is related to any other number of words and ideas to form a complex, inter-connected web of significance.

No one thinks about empirical definitions from Plato when they decide whether something is art to them or not, and most people don't give two shits either way. Something is "Good" or "bad", and they don't bother to articulate why. You, being a critic, are more accustomed to examining why you think something is "good" or "bad", as am I. Most people, however, myself included, realize at some point that trying to tell a fourteen year-old girl that "Twilight" is complete crap is a fruitless endeavor, as it merely steals her resolve to be on Team Edward.

So why are video games any different? You consider them to be beyond the realm of what you can even consider to be art, but you can't offer up a real reason as to why they are categorized thus in your mind, other than that they have a "win condition". You can't spell out why this fact precludes them from your empirical definition of art though. Why can a video game never be art? Why do you presume to say that a different form of media (a relatively young one, yes) has yet to and probably never will reach the heights of "the greats". Who are the greats anyway? Do you have a list?

If you don't consider games art, that's fine, that works for you in how you view the world. Swell. What I just don't get though is why you find it necessary to broadcast this indefensible position about the subject when you know it just pisses people off. And it pisses people off because your position is incredibly arrogant and wholly dismissive of a form of media that a lot of people find joy and meaning in. To paraphrase your colleague A.O. Scott in his review of "Once", there is a "deeper longing for communication that underlies any worthwhile artistic effort". And games communicate extremely effectively to their audience. They just don't communicate to you. And that's too bad.

Hmmm. I'm kinda stuck in the middle on this one. The first video game that comes to mind when I think of "art" is one titled, appropriately enough for this blog, "The Movies". At a most basic level, the game lets you simulate how a movie studio runs, controlling actors, directors, writers, janitors, R&D specialists, etc. An interesting part is the game simulates different technologies available from 1920s to beyone 2010.

Odd thing is, you can choose whether or not you have an objective. On the main menu, you can choose a "New Game", where you have to compete with other studios to gross the highest from your movies, get the best technology, and hire the biggest stars. Alternatively, you can choose "Sandbox mode", which, as the name suggests, consists entirely of diddling around with the moviemaking software with no objective other than to create whatever movie you want.

"The Movies" has a considerable cult following, and there are many websites online devoted to showcasing the short animated movies created using the software and also to developing new costumes, sets, visual styles, etc. to be used in the game. There was at one point an official site sponsored by the game's publishers, but it shut down due to lack of sales.

I have placed a link to what I believe is the most popular "The Movies" fansite below. I would encourage you to look at some of the shorts that have been uploaded. I would argue at least some of them could be considered "art". Does that mean the game "The Movies" is "art" in itself? Maybe, maybe not. I honestly can't say.
http://www.tmunderground.com/

Perhaps the problem is (merely?) semantic. People have latched on to the word 'art' because it grants the meaning "of some lasting value" to something they love. Art can sometimes fluctuate like literature and apply only to what we value now - all else is weeds! Lasting value is left to the bigger picture - it won't be for us to say what future minds will find valuable about our times. But we can always aim to be true to what we value right now, today. Is that art? No, I don't think so. At least, not necessarily so. The word has to be reserved for great things that endure as great in the world at large. The subjective and temporary are not in themselves without value; we'll just reserve judgement. Time is on the side of art.

First the Kick-Ass review now this? Oh you're asking for some nerd freak-out now. :)
I agree with you on most counts, but it's going to be fun to see the what happens in the comments.

Mr. Ebert... I must say as others have that perhaps you are misguided.

I won't berate you for your opinion but I would like to note something that particularly bothered me. The reason that some gamers deign to call a particular game 'art', is likely for the same reason you might personally recommend a movie to a friend. In the drudgery of the gaming market when a new game comes out, it can cost between $40-$60 depending on the system, and consume somewhere between 4-60+ hours of your time depending on the genre. Many games are not worthy of this time or this money expenditure, but most are.

Occasionally, a game is produced that simply MUST be played so that it can be experienced. Some people might place older games in this category simply so that you might understand where games have come from, similar to recommending that you look at the paintings Herzog is filming to understand where art may have begun. But then there are the games in this category which others claim to be "must-plays" simply for the experience, and nothing more.

In short, I think most of the time when a game critic, or the gaming public at large tries to call a game "Art", it's a sort of recommendation to the rest of the gaming public. "You should play this. Seriously. It's worth your time and money. VERY worth it." Similar to say, "Hey, the museum has a Van Gogh exhibit in this month, you really ought to go check it out."

I believe video games contain art. I think the initial story development prior to code writing is an artistic endeavour. The game play itself I do not typically think is art. There are a few exceptions: Peter Gabriel's video games and some of the more complicated boss fights in World of Warcraft -heigen's dance for instance has tremendous art to it.

The idea that works of art have always been the work of one person, uninfluenced by money or marketing, is preposterous. Did the masters not work for money, hired by rich patrons and the church to create their beautiful masterpieces? Painting and sculpting were expensive to learn and master, not even counting the incredible costs for materials. They couldn't exactly pop down to Blick's and pick up a few tubes of clearance oil. It was rare to find people creating high "art" for pleasure, for their own amusement, for a very, very long time in the western world. All those beautiful church works of the Renaissance were dictated by people selling Christianity to the people, paid by the Catholic church.

The idea of doing art for the sake of art is a very new thing indeed, and plenty of the old masters had assistants to create their works--models, people to mix the pigments, people to simply run the studio while they worked. But even if we are talking about someone so wealthy they were doing art for sheer pleasure, the implication that no works were motivated by money or marketing, done by a single mastermind in a stroke of brilliance without anyone's help, is ridiculous.

I think you've jumped the gun if these are the best that anyone can do. They don't look particularly interesting to me. I'd say to look at the works of Team Ico and Clover. Heck, even the Final Fantasies are a better example than that dreck.

@rado: yes, both Ico and Shadow of the Colossus. I find it odd that Santiago failed to bring up two of the most emotionally cathartic games I know of when trying to make her point.

Mr. Ebert,

What, then, is your view on interactive art (such as the kind described here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art)? I would say that a game like Flower, which, for the record, does not really have any "points", could be an example of interactive art.

Your opinions of these games are based on videos and descriptions. In a medium like videogames, where the entire experience is defined by the interaction between player and game, an active participation in the work, basing an opinion on those is like passing judgment on a film based on other peoples' descriptions; sure, you might have an idea of what it's about, but you haven't really experienced it.

I think that games can be art, and that the "art" lies in how well that interaction between player and game is defined, much like how the "art" of interactive art is defined. Artists creating interactive pieces concern themselves with how the piece will be perceived by the audience, how it will encourage them to interact with it, how they actually interact with it, and how it affects them once that interaction takes place. With games like Flower, the core idea is the same: there is a specific feeling or mood or thought that the designers want the players to react to, or react with. This exchange between artist/designer and audience/player is where the art lies in games, and while it has typically been a hollow and meaningless exchange, designers like Kelly Santiago are working to fill that exchange with something more.

Mister Ebert, you picked the wrong public defender. She heads a games company that, itself, poorly represents art games. The "Comics aren't for kids!" people tend to be similarly self-interested, though there are certainly stellar examples they seem to miss. I laughed at your accurate portrayal of her examples, so don't listen to those who say, "Pearls before swine." If you'll indulge me, I have a better example. It's inside baseball and far too dense (I wrote it quickly while keeping up my studies at a brutally difficult school), but you won't find a game with more thematic depth. I bet the message is 1 you can support, too.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=376513

Wow, those are horrible examples.

Roger, there is a genre of games that is basically an immersive version of interactive fiction. Take your greatest novelist. What if he had a story so compelling that he had three possible outcomes for the ending, each so great he decided to write them all. Each would stand on its own as a "great novel." But he instead chose to synthesize all three into an interactive work, where the readers' subjective experience leads them through the great novel of their choice. There are games like this; they are art.

I agree that 99.9% of games are not art, just as 99.9% of rap that gets played on the radio isn't either. I'm not concerned that games be "defined" as art, because I am an intelligent, independent thinker who knows at the core of my being that I have experienced interactive art. I'm concerned that someone I greatly admire, whose voice is heard by so many, publicly pronounces that something doesn't exist, or even is *able* to exist, just because he hasn't experienced it.

I agree video games are not art. Because of their deeper first person interaction from the player and the combination of visuals, sound, and story telling (sometimes with multiple stories). They are in fact deeper then art and deserve their own separate category.

While I sadly agree that games generally aren't, I find it not a fault of the medium, but the fault of the creators involved.

It's particularly in your accusation of "lack of authorial control" that I find fault. Yes, to give choice is to not dictate what the player does, but the authorial direction lies in how the system (the game) responds to the player's input. It's a conversation between the player and author that, in the end, the author has all control over. I'd like to cite an unusual example: "Sim City."

You've likely heard of "The Sims," the virtual doll house created by Will Wright. Long before that, he made his name on Sim City, a game in which players are tasked with building a utopia for virtual denizens of their city by issuing zoning permits (Residential, Industrial, Commercial,) building roads, libraries, public transit, and the likes. How is this example valid? Because if you build a city with no public transit, people will eventually rage. If you build a city with no roads, people are only discontent. Ideally, public transit permeates your city, and roads simply "exist," inverse to how many major cities are today. The judgment of if the placement of zoning is "correct" or not is not one made arbitrarily, it's one of artistic intent, and to ignore than is to ignore how games function.

These things aren't the result of some study of urbania meant to make a realistic simulation, this is purely the definitive example of a perfect city as described by the creator, Will Wright. This is his artistic vision put forth, largely (and obviously, given the game's visuals,) influenced by his Californian upbringing. It's by the player choosing different avenues of development, and seeing them marked as "incorrect," that Wright makes his case to the player.

It's with this view on games that you should consider a "win state" of a game as merely "an end." Films end, novels end, poems end, and games end. Games just have multiple endings due to their interactive nature, but this doesn't preclude them from all narratively driving to a singular thesis (not that such a thing should be required to meet any definition of "art," but it does make the understand simpler in modern games. An alternate ending can simply be another viewing of the same point the game strains to make.)

Now, my definition of art ("a product of human creativity") is likely vastly different from yours, but I would certainly love to hear a better justification for not considering games art than "lack of authorial control," which games absolutely have. The issue of why you don't see this more often is a much better question, and has partially to do with the old Hollywood studio system that permeates the Game Industry today, chopping potential artists off at the knees. More than that, it's the fault of fans.

I agree that the vast majority of games are worth nothing artistically speaking, and I say this not with derision, but sadness. I see such potential and I see it wasted on Michael Bay levels of emotional exploration solely because it's easier for developers to make with interactive explosions than it is with interactive emotion. This is the fault of gamers for preferring cheap and instant gratification to good and heartfelt. These are the same people who make death threats at you for having a different opinion and sharing it. But I certainly do believe games can drag themselves out of the era of cave paintings, but it will be dragging its fanbase, kicking and screaming.

I think it certain that games will reach levels of artistry as complex as any other medium. I just really hope that I'm alive to see it. Though, like you said, I expect I won't be, simple due to the complete lack of regard for subtext in interactivity.

Gaming is an artistic medium, despite its would-be artists.

Anyway, keep up the good review work, sir.

Roger, I may not be able to change your mind, but I think I know a game that could. It is short, requires little interaction other than pressing an arrow key, and it will install and run on your Mac. It is called "Passage". It may look like just a bunch of pixels but if you give it 5 minutes (it will end then), I'd be surprised if it didn't give you a similar experience to reading a short, poignant poem, or watching a heart wrenching death scene. To me, it's art, in a form we are only just beginning to understand how to express ourselves in.

Unfortunately, it cannot be downloaded right now as their servers are apparently being upgraded, but please, give it a try in a few days. I'd love to know if it can make an impact on your argument.

Here's a link: http://db.tigsource.com/games/passage

And here's a review that helps explain:
http://www.necessarygames.com/reviews/passage-game-free-download-independent-linux-mac-os-x-windows-art-game-abstract-singleplayer

Can aspects of the game, "the graphic design, the writing, the music" be considered "art" but the game itself cannot, because by it's nature - the fact that it is a game - goes against the very principals of art?

I'm confused, but I'm trying very hard to understand your point of view.

I think Santiago chose bad examples and is looking for art in the wrong part of the video-gaming realm, which you correctly called her on. I'd say the question could be approached more effectively by thinking of a hypothetical rather than a real video game. Imagine Avatar. Now imagine Avatar, only you're playing a game inside of it. That's what a really good video game is like.

Video gamers (of whom I actually am not one) see their games as different from chess or mah-jong or basketball because a video game has something different from those other games: ethos, atmosphere, actual physical artwork. It also has a story, and though one can experience a story through a baseball game, the story isn't inherent in the game itself -- it's being told around and through the game by announcers and fans. A video game, a good one, inherently isn't a game. The object of such a game is not to win, but to get to the end so you can find out how it ends, and experience the culmination of the story. The interactive aspect of the game is simply to get the viewer more into the narrative.

You have to see a video game, I think, not as a game punctuated by cut scenes, but as a film punctuated by opportunities for the player to interact with the characters. You may find this gimmicky, but then I'd say a video game is like a 3D film: gimmicky, but no less art for that.

Roger, we get it. You don't dig video games. My recommendation is that you do not play them.

I've played video games that have made me feel real emotion. And I'm not just talking about excitement, etc. I'm talking about sadness, even horror, when a beloved character unexpectedly dies along the way (etc).

Of course, much of this depends on the game itself. Yes, shoot-em-ups and games where you jump around (etc) aren't close to art. But the industry is so amazingly diverse today that you almost can't just lump them all as "video games". That would be like saying all "movies" are like mindless action films (is Transformers 2 "art"?)



Many video games today are much more than shoot-em-ups or simulations - some games tell stories that are comparable to films. Some games almost *are* films, where you play out certain parts. They'll tell a story, and you play out the gun battle (etc). When you win the battle, the story continues.

I've played video games since the beginning (I'm 43), and I have to tell you, Roger, (certain types of) games and movies are moving closer together by the day. If movies are art (and I think we can all agree they are), games aren't far behind. Do you have a PS3 to watch Blu Rays on? There are some games for that system that I suspect would surprise you with their depth.

Thank you for this article, Roger. Your writing has proven, once again, that was is art is truly in the eye of the beholder. I disagree with your underlining statement but appreciate watching Kellee Santiago's presentation, which does prove that at this point, those of us who play video games and see the art in the ones that contain it, cannot quite describe what makes these games what they are in our eyes. Art is not marketing, but, dammit, there's something very powerful that can be said in a game.
The industry will get there, it simply needs some time.

Yeah, it's a Cracked article but it contains paragraphs like this: The cigar-chomping beverage moguls who head the corrupt slavers echo and embody the corruption of our own plutocrats, bringing into sharp relief the subjugation of the working class on the grim, and often dangerous, factory floor (whiff of an Industrial Revolution critique?). Even the slaves themselves, with mouths and occasionally eyes sewn shut, confront us with the haunting visage of a lower class that cannot see, that cannot scream, that has had its very voice stripped from it through the dehumanizing processes of big business.

http://www.cracked.com/blog/defending-the-habit-10-video-games-as-modern-art

The video games seem to be at the level of children's art: not artful masterpieces but primarily symbolic, made and appreciated with joy. Has there never been a game that's been considered art? What about garden mazes. Are any of them considered art, as seen from the air? I suppose that would be the equivalent of saying that some images from a game are beautiful, which is not the same as calling a game art.

We can think about artful (talented) play on the part of the gamer, but that's a different meaning to art than what you've discussed, and is closer to what is meant when people use metaphors such as The Art of War and the Art of the Game. But why can't one have an experience of art that doesn't involve reading, listening to, or watching a creation? Chuilly the glass maker emphasizes the collaborative quality in making art, the experience of working with other artisans as being an important aspect of art or a kind of art, perhaps like musicians jamming. Can play ever be art? This might be an off-topic question--"depends on the definition of art"--but the article is thought-provoking and I am now interested to read what philosophers have written about art.

I'm also thinking about that Belgian movie BenX in which the video game world is integrated with the film story about the autistic boy. Those video game sequences were very effective in the storytelling.

I enjoy your writing sir but you didn't really make any kind of a case to support your claims here. I just got a sense of pretentiousness that "your art is better than my art because my art has already been accepted as art so I obviously have the prevailing opinion". It's as silly as an old money vs new money feud that rich people have.

I'm sure classical musicians dismissed rock music in it's early beginnings.

Oh, I nearly forgot. http://store.steampowered.com/

If you get Steam, I will personally gift you Portal so you can play it and enjoy the madness.

Also, I think Socrates would have liked video games.

"Long ago, Socrates described some second thoughts he had about the new and questionable technology called a "book". He thought it had several weaknesses. A book could not adjust what it was saying, as a living person would, to what would be appropriate for certain listeners or specific times or places.

In addition, a book could not be interactive, as in a conversation or dialogue between persons. And finally, according to Socrates, in a book the written words "seem to talk to you as if they were intelligent, but if you ask them anything about what they say, from a desire to be instructed, they go on telling you just the same thing forever."

... from Thomas West's Thinking Like Einstein

So, to bring it to a "meta" level: can the art within a game be art? I mean, if you play a game that is set in a structure that is beautifully designed and beautifully rendered, that perhaps contains artwork that is original and beautiful in and of itself, then is the game itself not full of art? And since that is the only venue through which to experience that art, is it not itself art? (More so than, say, a documentary about a museum.)

I can appreciate a film on many levels, and while I hardly think the film Clue is great art, I find the art design to be fantastic (that house was amazing) and the dialogue to be artful in it's comedy. Do you mean that for the whole to be considered art, then everything has to gel to a point of the whole transcending it's parts? If so, then I might be able to agree that gaming hasn't reached that point just yet.

Game designers call games which you can't win (which are quite common), toys. Classic city simulators (Sim City) are toys, not games.

Can games be art? I don't know, but what I do know is that Knights of the The Old Republic was a better Star Wars story than Episodes I, II, or III. By far. Bioware (the publisher) got what made the first trilogy great, better than Lucas does any more.

Games are about experience. The sort of games I personally prefer tend to be about story. I wouldn't say any of them are great art (to borrow a distinction from another commenter), but some of them are at least as good a stories as many movies. Are they art? Depends how you define art? A lot of paintings I've seen aren't great art, but are they art?

Once we get into that argument, we're into the question of illustration v. art, and that way lies sterility.

Braid is one of my favorite games, and it evoked emotions in me as strong as many films and novels I've read. The art is framed within a typical styled game, and the only way you could ever experience the game as art is to be willing to play it from beginning to end to notice the nuance.

Someone could tell me that their favorite music album was art, but if I was not impressed with the initial sound of it, I would not be able to hear what they heard in the music. I think this applies to how you could perceive Braid, and games like it.

To simplify how Braid was designed would go something like this. The core game is similar to something like Nintendo's Mario games. It may be different because you can rewind time to fix your mistakes, but this is just a gimmick in the game at this point. There are many games that have this feature.

Outside of this, there are the prose sections. Your comparison to fortune cookies is not far off because the prose is kept purposely vague, and it is also discovered out of order. This is where the game plays deeper with the idea of time and continuity.

Along with the prose, the puzzle pieces you collect in the game are assembled into original paintings that correlate with the prose's story. Instead of capturing one moment in time, each painting seems like a photo that was taken a moment to late. You get a sense of what may have just happened in the scene, but you are never sure. These static images contrast with the gameplay's ability to go forwards and backwards in time.

As you play the game, trying to rescue the princess from the monster, the game is telling the story of someone who has failed to maintain a relationship with the woman he loves. In the game's climax, these ideas come together. The hero chases after the princess in a tense sequence, only to lead to a dead end. The only option is to reverse time, and it is revealed that the game was played in the wrong flow. The princess wasn't running from the monster, she was running from you. An alternate interpretation of the game's ending is that there are many perspectives to a situation, and maybe the protagonist is allowed to be both hero and villain depending on point of view.

You don't "win" Braid, you finish it just as would a movie, book, or album. I don't think there is anything to fault you for, Mr. Ebert, just because you wouldn't want to play a video game, just as I wouldn't be expected to appreciate the art in song I didn't care to listen to.

You've just made my day, Roger. I've been wanting to air my views on this discussion in your direction for some time now.

I find the story and experience more important than the mechanisms and rules of playing a video game. Chess may never be art on its own, but if an artist creates a poignant message about war using chess pieces, and someone viewing the chess pieces evaluates his or her own views on war, wouldn't that be art? It's not the game itself; it's the context.

I'll use the game Bioshock as an example. [SPOILERS AHEAD.] The game's action-adventure, which, like an action-adventure movie, involves fighting enemies and solving quests. But that's only the barest surface of the game. It takes place in a city underwater, created by a man who wanted to create his own government away from the existing systems. Of course, the government's corrupt (particularly as the government's based almost entirely on commerce), which brings the city to its downfall. The overall message is one relating to the absence of morals.

As a movie, that much would be pretty conventional, and entertaining. The game was well-made, so I enjoyed the experience. But it had one element that elevated it above: a twist that made me evaluate the whole structure of video games in general.

The perspective character was genetically created by the man who ran the city, and if someone around him uses a particular phrase ("Would you kindly?"), the perspective character has to obey the command. The opponent of the man who rules the city, who orchestrated a riot to bring down the city, uses the phrase throughout the game to send the player on his or her missions, and therefore is controlling the perspective character.

When the control element was revealed to me, I spent a very long time thinking. How many times had I played video games and gone on quests and trusted the characters? Heck, how many times had I trusted the characters in films who had served the same purpose? I was complicit in these actions, blindly following a mechanism without considering the consequences. Bioshock opened my eyes to it.

Games are like any medium that uses story: they can be used, and misused. Like with movies, there are major studios who churn out a lot of commercial fare, and occasionally produce a gem, and there are minor studios who experiment with form and function.

Do I need validation for my games? Hardly. I also don't need validation for the bad movies I watch and enjoy. But just like with movies and literature, I get more enjoyment when I discuss the merits and failings of video games, again, because I view them in a similar light.

I think what really keeps games from being art is the lack of potential enjoyment from viewers who aren't personally playing. As much as I enjoy Braid, if I saw it being played in a gallery or on TV, I wouldn't keep watching for more than a minute. Oddly enough, I feel like games are getting further and further away from being art with every passing year. With a game like Asteroids or Ice Climbers, I think there's something to be said for the imagination required to make it entertaining, since the graphics were so minimal and there was no distinct story within the game. With modern games, where the (generally) stupid stories tell you (repetitively) what's going on at all times and the graphics are detailed, there's no thinking of that sort involved, and it's really quite a bummer.

Games should not be compared to novels or cinema, if you wish to talk about art. They should be compared to architecture. The game designer creates an environment for the player to view and inhabit; the rules of the game give the player a way to interact with that environment.

Architecture works in a similar fashion, the difference being that the architect always works within the same rules--gravity, the movement of the sun, and so forth. An architect may create a building interior which gives a sense of weight and history, or clinical detachment, grandiosity or loneliness, pride or humility--creating or engaging emotional responses in the person who travels through that space.

Now think of most narrative games as a museum with moving and still exhibits--films or sights that you engage by traveling a particular length of time or distance, or by completing a task (say, climbing upstairs).

A game designer is the architect who designs the building; the painters who make the art; the curator, who places the art; and God, who constructed us in such a way that we see the building and the art on the walls.

The object that the game gives the player is merely an excuse to lead the player actively through the experience. This part has the game designer taking the role of the museum guide, who says, "For every painting on the wall you go and look at, you get a point, and you must have ten points by the time we exit the museum."

The result is an experience which might be variable, but is always directed and influenced in every conceivable way by the hand of the director. Compare this to Playtime, a film you have admired often in print. Each viewing is different, based on where you decide to look within large, complicated deep-focus frames, but Tati still knows how to guide your eye via movement and color and sound.

This argument is one which is often played in the form of examples, when it can only be won in the realm of definitions; but I know I have played games which have made me feel lonely or care about a companion (Ico) or which have revealed to me truths of human nature (Bioshock) or which have shown me things I have never seen before (Metroid Prime) or which present me with a total mastery of the form (Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time), which are all things I value in my favorite works of literature or cinema.

For me, art is about an author conveying with all elements of craft emotions, ideas, and sensations of value and of individualistic viewpoint. By that definition, there are certainly games that I would call art, although there are many that I would not. There are many films I could not call art, either.

As a side note, Santiago's talk is riddled with errors, omissions, logical flaws, and problems of every sort. I'm reminded of one of Jim Emerson's favorite sayings:

"There's nothing I like less than bad arguments for a view that I hold dear." -- Daniel Dennett

"The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. I rest my case."

How lucky for film that there are no elements of finance, publishing, marketing, or executive management, or else that medium might also inherently never "rise" to the level of art! *cough* ("Development" in this discussion refers to the primary creative team behind the game, who would analogously be the cast and crew of a film.) As well, Dan upthread is absolutely right that TV and cinema are generally considered art (or at least, "they can be art"), and they are absolutely collaborative works. (I personally despise the auteur theory, but I suppose that's for another discussion.)

More importantly, my problem with this line of argument is that it typically conflates "art" with "*good* art" in confusing ways, substituting one for the other as necessary. Art isn't always great, but it doesn't stop being art nevertheless.

Finally, I want to ask: was "The Five Obstructions" art? (In either the 'good/ transcendental/ awe-inspiring art' or 'it was the product of a creative effort' sense.) Was it a documentary of a game that von Trier and Leth played? (Or, arguably, a game designed by von Trier and played by Leth?)

Just because your old pretentious brain doesn't understand games, doesn't mean they aren't art.

You mention that games are the work of many, and as thus they cannot be works of art. However, I assume you consider films to be works of art. Are you still operating under the notion that all directors are auteurs and we should not pay any attention to the efforts of dozens to hundreds of other people who are involved in creating a film?

On another note, I assume you would consider a breathtaking painting of a landscape to be a form of art. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course. Do you realize that, although digital, many games contain interactive environments that can produce images that rival many great painted ones. Not only are these breathtaking images built into the games, you can explore them from different angles and interact directly with the environment you're seeing.

Read Chad Concelmo's article which examines Final Fantasy XIII, especially regarding its visual merits: http://www.destructoid.com/counterpoint-final-fantasy-xiii-is-beautiful-classic-170803.phtml

From the article: "For people who have played the game, think back to the first time you start walking through the frozen Lake Bresha. Remember stepping out into the enormous, gorgeous open fields and cliffs of the Archylte Steppe on Pulse. Remember the epic, giant battle between the PSICOM soldiers, the monsters, and the Eidolons on Eden near the end of the game. All of these moments are staggeringly beautiful. ... There were times I was so blown away by the graphics in the game that I had to stop, spin the in-game camera around slowly, and just take it all in. Every animation, every texture, every environmental design -- it is all absolutely breathtaking and completely compliments the epic, although sometimes confusing, story."

Ebert: I do not believe collaborative art cannot be art. I cite cathedrals and tribal dances as collaborative works of art. But they begin with an auteur with an original vision -- whether that be a king, an architect, or a choreographer. The film director usually has the original vision.

Oh, Sorry, I forgot to add something in responce to your final statement:

People (specifically those who are above the age of 16) who play games tend to want others to take their form of entertainment a bit more seriously because games have been labeled as "Kids toys" for decades. Though, in some cases, it could be said that these WHERE kids toys and those adults that play them simply have nostalgia for it (like adults that collect G.I. Joe's), games themselves have grown to match their majority audience. Many games that come out are still for kids, but many others are far from that case and as such that recognition is sought out.

Santiago used poor examples. Plain and simple. Let me frame my following comments with this, In my opinion. Video Games can be art. Are most art? No. Should most be art? Not exactly. The thing about games is, at the end of the day they should still be, just that, games. Something you can play.

More recently, although the trend has been occurring for quite some time, Video Games have been becoming more cinematic through heavy use of cutscenes. In game terms, a cutscene is any break in the action, whereupon a game becomes unplayable while cinematic exposition unfolds. Previously, games may have had a few of these to WOW the player, and to force the story to continue. Recently though, many games consist of more cutscene than actual gameplay. I once heard someone say, "If they wanted to make a movie, why didn't they?" they then answered their own question, "Because, no one wants to watch a 40 hour movie."

This is good and bad. Depends on what you are looking for in a Video Game. If you're looking for a story to unfold before your eyes, on your fancy 1080p television, than this is good. However, if you just got in from work, need to be in bed in an hour, and just want to sit down and play a game, you might be a bit upset when you get slapped with 2 hours of exposition to your 10 minutes of gameplay.

I'm rambling here, but I'll link it to my main point. As games become more cinematic, one thing happens that allows me to personally define them as art. I can put them into a literary genre. I'm not speaking as to the genre of the game, as to what you do in the game, I'm speaking of a genre that the game's story can be placed in from a literary perspective. Popular genres include War, Horror, Steampunk, Cyberpunk. I've played games with fragmented storylines. The first time I had someone explain the concept of Twentieth Century British Modernism to me, I was linking video game narratives to Virginia Woolf.

It's funny how these things can change as well. I'll make a specific example. I played a game called Metal Gear Solid (A series of English words coined by a team of japanese speakers, no less), a game that is now remembered as being one of the first and most cinematic games of all time. When this game came out in 1998, I lied to my mom about the age requirements (You had to be 17, I was 10), and I rented it. It astounded me, but while I liked the story, I was more impressed by the fact that I was playing as a secret agent, sneaking around and strangling nameless soldiers.

When I played it again when I was older, it affected me differently. I was looking at a well-written story, one that sucked me in. One that contained complex characters with real flaws. One with themes of isolation, the futility of war, and with a surprisingly intelligent commentary on the asininity of Mutually Assured Destruction.

It's art to me, and I respect your right to disagree.

I don't know why I'm so intent that you consider the media I hold dear as art, but I do. I'd imagine -- having read your passionate prose regarding film -- that you would feel the same way if film were under the same scrutiny.

I'll try to make these few points as quickly as I can.

It is clear that the word "videogame" skews what people expect from this medium, but it is just a name. Just because "game" is in the word doesn't mean that the word itself hasn't expanded and taken on a completely different connotation.

To say that interactive fiction is not a "videogame" anymore is to be willfully ignorant.

We call them games for lack of a better term, but that doesn't mean that they all are chess.

Sure, when you can't win an old-time game then it does cease to be a game and becomes an experience, but don't let the word hold you back from realizing that "becoming a representation of a novel" does not make it a novel, it is interactive fiction which we still claim under the "videogame" umbrella.

You have the same stumbling block with Braid. You are starting from the viewpoint of "this is a game." When you take a move back in a game it is cheating. OK? What does that have to do with Braid? Braid is not a game it is a "videogame."

You're going to get this a lot and I do believe you will ignore it, so I don't know why I am typing it, but:

You probably would have had a better time understanding the implications of taking back time in Braid had you played it.

As sure as you are that games are not art then I am just as sure they are.

I know that games are art. It has little to do with narrative or character. Just as the artistry of music has very little to do with the lyrics. A great jazz set can move me emotionally, but so can the feeling of the code in any arcade game from the 80s. The way it feels to guide a character in a fictionalized imitation of nature that has been shot through the prism of a directing artist can be just as affecting as any piece of music.

Winning is a byproduct of that experience. It gives the experience a reason to exist in a marketplace and it does cheapen the experience, but it does not diminish it completely.

I am conflicted, because I do care that you validate videogames. I don't know why, but I do. However, I also know that you are wrong.

I know that Donkey Kong is a finer piece of art than White Chicks, Airplane, and most of Tony and Ridley Scott's movies. Shadow of the Colossus is a more powerful piece of art than any piece of music that the Disney Corporation has ever published. Zelda is as important to the development of young minds as Harry Potter.

I know that if DaVinci were 20 years old today, then there would be a decent chance that videogames are where he would want to express himself.

First off, let me say I have a great amount of respect for you, and consider you a champion of the film medium. However, I think it's very short sighted and narrow of you to overlook the medium of video games, and the talented people who make them.

Video games are constantly changing and being reinvented. It is a much more flexible medium.

Video games are created by entire teams of artists

texture painters
character designers (3d sculptures)
writers
musicians
actors, etc

and a director, just like film-- they have their own crews; the result is collaborative, but it is still art.

that's not to say every game is *good* art. just as there are thousands of horrible movies, there are thousands of games that exploit a single elements, as an exploitation film would.

I would still argue that even the worst games have art in them.

Then again, when viewed by someone who truly appreciates a specific genre (such as the shooting galleries you mention) - they will see the genius in the details-- the eloquence in the craftsmanship (just as a car enthusiast would pine over their car's performance, balance, artistry)

You must recall that films were considered cheap entertainment in their early days, just as comic books were. And now we have you, a very respected figure, undermining the importance of the newest, most influential art form.

Consider this: different people could view the same monet painting-- it will not affect everyone the same way. the brilliance of great art is found in the interpretations.

You can watch a movie twice at different points in your life, and have a completely different experience based on the baggage you bring to the movie, and put things into new contexts based on what you are feeling that particular viewing.

The same can be said with a game, except that the experience could be much more varied. The profoundness of this experience, would depend on the emotional depth of the game.

You argue that chess or soccer are not art, but I believe the invention of those particular games were, and, the most talented athletes that play them, truly are artists in their own right.

However, if you state that they are not art because they are governed by rules, I could equally argue that a film has rules-- it needs to play on screen of some kind, has a beginning middle and end (just like soccer)

Do you agree: That art is created when there is an expression of emotion committed to a tangible format for others to interpret?

In a game's case-- This expression may or may not necessarily be delivered in a linear format.

I love film, I considered it to be the ultimate art because there was the combination of music, picture, story etc--

But games inject one more ingredient: Human input, directly into the experience.

A good game will have a profoundly personal experience.

Do you agree: that movies are interactive (as I stated your subconscious baggage you bring watching a given movie at a given time alters your perception of it) -- which I think is a common philosophy between both games and movies. Only in games, your input has a direct result on the presentation of the art.

Both mediums need highly creative people (artists) to thrive.

The games stated in your essay, are not the best examples in my opinion.

I would say "Shadow of the Colossus" is a modern masterpiece. I won't explain it to you here, but recommend you give it a try, if you have any open mindedness at all. You may not like it, but there is definitely a conclusive moral message that is communicated to the player through the action of playing the game (not the story scenes).

You are in a difficult position, as obviously, you cannot play every single game in existence. So whether my arguments hold any water or not, there are still hundreds if not thousands of games in development-- and you know what they say about the 99 monkeys with typewriters?

I don't know why I'm so intent that you consider the media I hold dear as art, but I do. I'd imagine -- having read your passionate prose regarding film -- that you would feel the same way if film were under the same scrutiny.

I'll try to make these few points as quickly as I can.

It is clear that the word "videogame" skews what people expect from this medium, but it is just a name. Just because "game" is in the word doesn't mean that the word itself hasn't expanded and taken on a completely different connotation.

To say that interactive fiction is not a "videogame" anymore is to be willfully ignorant.

We call them games for lack of a better term, but that doesn't mean that they all are chess.

Sure, when you can't win an old-time game then it does cease to be a game and becomes an experience, but don't let the word hold you back from realizing that "becoming a representation of a novel" does not make it a novel, it is interactive fiction which we still claim under the "videogame" umbrella.

You have the same stumbling block with Braid. You are starting from the viewpoint of "this is a game." When you take a move back in a game it is cheating. OK? What does that have to do with Braid? Braid is not a game it is a "videogame."

You're going to get this a lot and I do believe you will ignore it, so I don't know why I am typing it, but:

You probably would have had a better time understanding the implications of taking back time in Braid had you played it.

As sure as you are that games are not art then I am just as sure they are.

I know that games are art. It has little to do with narrative or character. Just as the artistry of music has very little to do with the lyrics. A great jazz set can move me emotionally, but so can the feeling of the code in any arcade game from the 80s. The way it feels to guide a character in a fictionalized imitation of nature that has been shot through the prism of a directing artist can be just as affecting as any piece of music.

Winning is a byproduct of that experience. It gives the experience a reason to exist in a marketplace and it does cheapen the experience, but it does not diminish it completely.

I am conflicted, because I do care that you validate videogames. I don't know why, but I do. However, I also know that you are wrong.

I know that Donkey Kong is a finer piece of art than White Chicks, Airplane, and most of Tony and Ridley Scott's movies. Shadow of the Colossus is a more powerful piece of art than any piece of music that the Disney Corporation has ever published. Zelda is as important to the development of young minds as Harry Potter.

I know that if DaVinci were 20 years old today, then there would be a decent chance that videogames are where he would want to express himself.

What I see here is blind ignorance. I see statements from a man who is hopelessly attached to his own values and interests. Anything can be art. Anything. The value of art is interpreted by the viewer, and it is obvious that Roger Ebert has a close minded view of the medium.

Play a game beyond the mechanics and look at the picture it paints and the story it tells. There you will find art.

Someone else mentioned Ico already. It is ostensibly a game in that there is a goal or objective to be completed, but the progress of the game is more akin to a film or novel narrative than any kind of real goal seeking. Ultimately, Ico and a handful of other games succeed as art because they could not exist in the same way in any other form. A film of the same story would not produce the same sense of connection in the viewer as the game does in the player. It isn't the graphics, or the goal, or even the story that makes it important and moving, but the act of experiencing the story in the way the designers created it. In other words, the game is not about what it is about, but how it is about it. That being said, I have argued that we should all stop pestering you about your completely incorrect assertion that games cannot be art, which would be much easier if you would stop constantly reasserting it.

Games in general may be artistic, or have artistic elements, and in some cases true artistic works. Thinking back to the innovative trend that arrived with the game Myst, we first saw a game that was both.

As others have and certainly will write here, films can be interpreted in the same way. Games can be yet another medium, one that like other interactive pieces requires the player to complete the artistic piece.

Mr. Ebert

I respect you as a movie critic. I have your books nad love your passion for movies.

But regarding video games. I believe you should first play games like:

Bioshock (you're gonna looovee this one)

Heavy Rain (I 100% sure you'll like this one)

Lost Oddysey

Metal Gear Solid 4

Final Fantasy 13

These are mostly new games that can be played on an xbox 360 and ps3.

Games are A DIFFERENT ART FORM THAN MOVIES.

Games can be like movies with interaction and making you feel like you're part of it. Movies are only images that entertaint you sitting down for two hours.

With a game you can be entertained for minimum 10 hours like a movie and feel like you were part of it (play heavy rain please)

After you've played the games in that list. You can correct the mistakes you've made with this blog with another blog apologyzing for this insult

Thank you.

Roger,
I am a fan of yours and generally fall on the same side of issues as you, but I have to say I vehemently disagree with you here.

I ask you this:
If a videogame -not because I lost- but as a result of not only its story buts it cumulative experience (gameplay ((which acts as a sort of conduit of emotion between the player and the plot)), music, dialogue, etc.) has made me, your standard apathetic college student, as well as millions s, I'm sure, of other people straight out cry(as well as invoked many emotions not based solely on 'winning' or 'losing)', than what are videogames if not art?

While I think I agree with you, I do have to take issue with your criticism of Santiago's "six keys" to the development of the video game as an art form. Art has always been linked very closely to economics and the marketing of artists and their products; the Sistine Chapel didn't materialize, it came out of protracted and difficult negotiations between Michaelangelo, his studio, and the patrons financing it--and that's true of pretty much every piece of art made since it was decided artists should be paid for their skills.

There's a very unartistic side (and possibly a mercenary side) to a lot of "great art", and it's that side that has also allowed such art to proliferate. If anything, you could argue that it's just as much the money and ability to create demand/interest as the technique itself, that drives art production at a professional level. Santiago's "six circles" are that unappealing side--a side that might (who knows?) produce games or narratives that aren't dictated by the typical "game" paradigm.

At what point do artistic elements coming together cease to be art? There's art in narrative, which most video games certainly have. There's art in music, which, more and more, video games are relying on to set the same sort of tone as film. There's art in design, which games feature as characters, settings and objects. Does the confluence of these elements mean that the playable portion is not, in itself, art?

Are movies of videogames art?

The two examples of the top of my head (and as still young Console Gamer and my still limited knowledge) that are examples of Videogames trying to be some more or at least giving some sort of subtle comment to the Industry and the Medium are Shadow of Colossus and No More Heroes.

One is a simple and not free of choice game that tells a story with both scenery and cut scenes.

The other one is what Kick Ass wanted to be (and, at least, the Comicbook version failed, dunno the movie, still not here in my country); is never moody even after some disturbing revelations in the last part of the game, but still gives some sort of message about the medium, the cliches and the fandom in general.

Sorry for my English, but Is a thread I like and I found really interesting to discuss.

I disagree.

If art is "the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions", then there is at least one game that fits the bill. It's called Planescape: Torment. It would be too much to expect you to play it, but if you have time, look up the Wikipedia page for it. It's brilliant fantasy, with some of the most evocative imagery since Calvino's "Invisible Cities." The plight of the unique main character, as well as the events surrounding some of his incarnations, brought me almost to tears a number of times. Against the backdrop of an immense demonic war, the game deals with the ideas of memory, redemption, choice and human nature. I don't know how one would meaningfully compare this with the great poets, filmmakers and novelists. But goddamit, if it's not art, then I don't know what is.

P.S. The issue of art is a contentious one, but one thing I believe to be uncontroversial: as genre exercises, games routinely beat Hollywood movies. Dead Space is the best sci-fi horror in any medium since Alien. Mass Effect basically lets you star in an exceptionally well-written science fiction TV series. Assassin's Creed puts you in the Holy Land during the crusades, where Muslims are allowed to be interesting characters with their own complex opinions. This is some good stuff here, Roger... It's glorious trash at the very least, and with recently improved writing and acting, games are starting to beat movies in many areas.

I've been playing games for about thirty years. As I've grown, so has the medium. (I'm 33 now.)

Video games are not analogous to sports at all, to address your mention of Dick Butkus and Michael Jordan. Video games can have complex characters, intricate narratives, soundtracks, and acting.

There is, to me, a great deal of very skillful craft involved in the making of a great game. Creativity and innovation are qualities of most great games. Creativity and innovation are also qualities associated with some works of art, which I think is where some of the confusion on this issue comes from.

I do think that there are games that communicate meaning through their stories or that make meaning through their mechanics of play. This is something unique to games, and in it, I find tremendous potential for creativity and expression on behalf of the creator and for emotionally engaging and thought-provoking experiences on the part of the player. Certainly a great novel or a great film might also be emotionally engaging and thought-provoking. It's not unusual for film critics to use terms like "powerful" and "compelling" when describing a film, and since there's an impulse to similarly describe a great game, things bleed together for many avid game players, myself included, making it difficult to see why cinema should clearly be recognized as an art form but games should not. For me, as one example, I have to admit that there were moral considerations and dialogue exchanges in Grand Theft Auto IV, moments of truth-telling and forgiveness, that, while not Shakespeare (or, perhaps more analogous, not The Wire), were legitimately meaningful to me. Whatever that means. That I came away feeling enriched by the experience, I suppose. And that while I actually agree with you that Bad Lieutenant--Port of Call: New Orleans is a work of art and that Grand Theft Auto IV is not, (though in my view it's a game that exhibits tremendous craft and creativity), my internal experience of both is on some level profound and personal and affecting, and in that internal world that fumbles with these questions and tries to make sense of them, one experience cannot be said to be more valid than another.

And I think you are right that this is what it comes down to, a search for validation, a desire to have others look on this strange pastime of ours and see in it the same value or at least the same potential that we do. When you love something deeply, you want to share that love with others. Or perhaps you just want to convert other people to your way of seeing it. Personally, I won't be satisfied until everyone in the world loves the film L.A. Confidential, the novels of David Mitchell, the music of Joseph Arthur, and video games.

Thank you for this post. I think the ongoing dialogue about this is a good thing.

You didn't give her the last word! Reminds me of old S&E shows, I think you had a higher "last word batting average" than Gene...

Super Mario 3 is a work of art. You prove that it isn't. Prove that Shigeru Miyamoto isn't an artist.

Marcel Duchamp's "The Fountain": Widely accepted as art now, years and years after it was first entered into public discussion as a scandalous commentary on what could be art.

Art, for me, is any creative interpretation of the world or some aspect of it; Wikipedia's (obviously partial) definition is "the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." Art is relative. Art is subjective.

Art is not a field that can be fenced in, and does not lend itself well to proclamations. Video gaming, Roger, is not a field you have been immersed in as much of my generation (I'm 20) has been. I do not begrudge you your opinions and am always happy to read you articulating them so clearly, but I have to disagree with your contention on those two counts.

Mr Ebert - I'm not an avid game player, but lucked into a humble Czech offering called Machinarium. The animation, storytelling, characters, pacing, music, all beautiful and inspired. When I completed the game I felt like I'd seen a really good Pixar film.

Wall-E starts with a similar setting and is told in a similar spirit. If you took that film and made progressing through it an interactive experience for the viewer, would it cease to be art? Not because it would be derivative, for fairness imagine the interactive Wall-E was created first, and watching someone playing through it would be just like the film.

Admittedly a game of this type is a cinematic story that unfolds in segments. It's not immersive or free-ranging. But almost any video game creates a narrative and invents a spectacle. What inherently prevents it from being art?

If I have kids I hope they'll be able to enjoy my copy of Machinarium along with my old books, music, and videos. It would fit right between Lewis Carroll and Monty Python on the shelf.

Oh come on. Citing the aforementioned games as why the video game genre can't be art is like holding up "Showgirls" as the pinnacle of film making. (People have already mentioned "Ico" and "Shadow of the Colossus." I'll cautiously add another: "Bioshock.")

And weren't similar things said about film roughly 20 years after the genre appeared?

Ebert: No, they weren't.

So movies are art but games are not? I see...

Did you ever play any of the Final Fantasy Games?

Dear Roger
I adore your writing, I've adored you since I was a child. But please, for the love of God, sit down and play Shadow of the Colossus or something before you continue to express your views on video games.

Solved at last: which came first, chicken or egg? Depends on which you ordered first.

With all due respect to how often I've agreed with you over the course of my life, you are wrong.
Watching a few videos of OTHER people playing games, and deciding whether or not an entire industry can be "art" would be akin to judging ALL of cinema based on someone describing the plot of a movie.
Is "The Godfather" art? I would say yes, but what if you only got a 2 minute description of someone else's experience. That re-telling would certainly NOT be art.
I completely agree actually that the only true way to judge the artistic merit of a cave painting is by torch light, as much as I believe that the only way to judge the potential artistic merit of gaming is with a controller in your hand. As you refuse to do this, you forfeit having any meaningful commentary. That's really too bad, as I would love to debate the potential for an interactive medium, the personalization of protagonist, the ability to serialize content.
Your classification of "games aren't art" so "videogames can't be art" is a false association, and completely shows your ignorance of what the medium is already capable. Your comparison to chess is a battle of wits between two people, and while I think chess is an artful game, any individual game would not be classified as art. That is a fair point, so videogames involving direct competition between two humans (like Street Fighter for example) I would say is also not art. You in essence "beat" your opponent.
However take a game like Half Life. The game has a story. It is your job, as protagonist to see that the protagonist makes it to the end of that story. Is this game "beaten", well I would argue no, not any more so than any film is "beaten" when you arrive at the conclusion of the story. Half Life's premise rivals most of what cinema provides in terms of story and entertainment, and features scope impossible to achieve through film. It's useless to try and describe any further though. The intensity experienced at the end of Half Life Episode 2's final confrontation, the genuine sadness over which supporting characters are lost, the elation over saving the rest of your team, can not be relayed to someone who wont pick up a controller.
Basically you've told us that NO photography can be art, because there are no photographers that have painted the Sistine chapel ("No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets.").
You imply that art needs to have singular vision (choreographers instead of just a bunch of dancers spontaneously grouping), so movies can not be art as they are created through a massive collaboration of writers, directors, set, sound, lighting, makeup, costumes, effects, etc, just like games.
Why are we concerned? That's a silly question. We fight you on this because of your dismissal of something that has spoken to us. If you were some random curmudgeon on a blogspot blog it wouldn't matter, but you're you. You're "important". I'm sure MANY theatre critics panned film at it's inception, but how many continued to pan film without ever watching one?

Excellent flame bait Mr. Ebert. I'm sure you'll get lots of traffic, and plenty of tweets, but I wont be sharing this article.

Narrative plus Visuals plus Audio equals art. Narrative plus Visuals plus Audio plus Interactivity equals not art.

Let's deny the countless graphic designers, editors, writers, musicians, and directors their recognition as artists due to an arbitrary reading of the accumulative work of others.

Does an infomercial represent motion pictures as a whole? Or how about that greeting card mentioned earlier to its medium?

At this point, the problem isn't the authenticity of something as "art", it's the nauseating overuse of labeling things "not art". It puts the argument at a superficial level where one person assumes a little too much about what they are talking about (that or they are simply ignorant). It devolves into everyone's intellectual noses in the air so high they can sniff cloud vapor.

That, or someone simply wants to start a ruckus.

Mr. Ebert,

Long time reader, first time poster. I have used your works as an absolute reference for years - to me, the words you spoke were absolute truth and I refused to listen to dissent against your opinion. I hope you can grasp the immense amount of respect I hold for your understanding of film, as well as your views on most subjects posted under your blog.

That said, I think you are underestimating the power of videogames as art. I could list examples, but of what use would that be? I could point you towards the Metal Gear Solid franchise (what was my introduction to the fine philosophy of Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari, philosophers who are unequivocally considered artists), or the Kingdom Hearts franchise, which is widely considered to be a storyline with little equal. But alas! Neither of those would be of either use!

Mr. Ebert, while I still consider you to be the utmost expert on film who still writes, I am nearly certain there is nothing I could do to convince you that video games count as art. This makes me unreasonably sad. I think that if you simply did a wikipedia search on the storyline of "Metal Gear Solid" you would quickly agree on the merit of video games in terms of social criticism. And yet, i find the possibility of a neutral reaction to "Metal Gear Solid" to be impossible.

I agree with you that a majority of video games are worthless trash - at best mild tests of intellect and perseverance. However, I question your neutrality on the subject. Yes, you are correct to condemn a lot (and I mean a LOT) of movies as "just video games", but some games have within themselves the multitudes necessary to constitute art. I can only hope you reconsider the possibility of great story line within the context of a game; a story line which is only benefited by the context of a choice-driven game.

You question the desire for video games to be considered art. I respond with this: any form of media which receives extreme attention to detail deserves the possibility of art. Video games take years to develop, perhaps even more given a good enough story. They deserve your consideration as something of substance, even if only in the abstract. Metal Gear Solid is perhaps the best criticism of Western Politique I have ever experienced - and yet it becomes so only because of the time investment via the player. It is only when an individual has spent hours upon hours to reach the conclusion of the story that they feel rewarded, that they feel as if every bit of sweat and tears poured into the game were relevant. Perhaps this alone is enough to deserve your respect...though I am again unconvinced of a conclusion.

Mr. Ebert, I hope you can understand the immense respect I have for you as both a critic and an individual. In the end, however, we have irreconcilable differences of opinion on video games. I contribute this to your lack of experience with the medium. Surely, you will contribute my understanding with a lack of experience with other mediums. Either way, I hope we can mutually understand each others opinions and grow from this dialogue. I wish you the best of luck in life and all of your endeavors:

Regards,
Murray

I doubt you'll ever read this, but I need to leave my input here.

One of my all-time favorite games is called Mass Effect. It's a sci-fi-themed game set a couple hundred years from now, in which humanity has branched out throughout the galaxy and is currently interacting with various types of friendly aliens. One of the things that makes the story so unique is that the player has complete control over everything the main character says and does, meaning that aspects of the plot can be shaped as the player sees fit. It's an interactive story, in other words, which only a video game could pull off.

Now, Roger, if this video game were to be successfully and skillfully adapted into a film (and there's talk of one in the works), I have a feeling you'd like it. Never mind that most or all video game-themed movies to date have been terrible; Mass Effect has an intelligent script, an imaginative setting and some fantastic twists in its final act. If one were to take the key scenes directly out of the game and cut out anything involving player interaction, it would be a very, very good film. I can't speak for you and I don't want to go over every detail of the plot, but I have a strong feeling you'd enjoy it.

Now take the game out of the equation. Say this very good sci-fi movie was based on an original script, and that the Mass Effect game never existed. Let's say you loved the movie. You're calling it one of the best of the year. (I'm not saying you would think so; this is hypotheticl.) The movie, in your mind, is art, as you consider filmmaking an artistic expression and Mass Effect is exemplary of the medium.

How does being a game change ANY of that?

Mass Effect still has a great story, but what makes it so effective is the way the player is involved in it. It's interactive storytelling, which no other medium can pull off. Games like Mass Effect are the example, not the rule, but why dismiss video games when they have the potential to be everything movies are and more?

opening a piece with a visual stereotype of a gamer does not bode well for you, mr. ebert. it puts you alongside the likes of fox news, and i personally would have expected a somewhat more differentiated view, especially with respect to your very competent motion picture reviews. as far as your video game criticism goes, you are clearly less than qualified to make such value statements, and the fact that so many people will listen to this and take it as informed criticism saddens me deeply. the current state of the art in game design strives for so much more than you describe, and the mere fact that you do not shed light on this piece of culture makes your ignorance all the more visible. given that you have dedicated your life to an art-form that, at one point in time, struggled for its deserved cultural relevance, makes this all the less understandable for me. instead of supporting a new expressive art-form, you have decided to suffocate it. congratulations.

andy nealen
professor of computer science
rutgers university

Roger, would you review a movie you haven't seen? No? Then why do you insist on passing judgement on something you haven't experienced?

Perhaps I am deluded because I grow up more with video games than with movies, but I do believe some games have true, artistic merit to it. Maybe I am one of the people that seeks validation, but I do so in the face of a society that condemns video games for being too childish, too tenage-male-oriented, too mind-numbing, and too violent. Video games can be much more than Mario, Halo, and Grant-Theft Auto. They can be real works of art.

Uncharted is a cinematic experience unto itself, Portal is a physics mindgame that would give M.C. Escher chills, the music alone from Silent Hill evokes an inescapable nightmare, and Heavy Rain is a whole level of storytelling that is unrivaled by any other form of media. The list goes on and on. Video games can often create experiences that involve players in ways that movies and television shows cannot. As I said, it could just be the way I grew up, or the fact that my generation isn't considered as cultured as those older than us (I've only been on this planet for two decades), but as a deliberate creation of immersive experiences, video games have proven to be just as valid an artform as anything else.

Mr. Ebert,

I respect your opinions in general, but when you tell me that you've formed an opinion about something which you have not experienced, I am forced to think of parents who wrongly attempt to ban literature they haven't yet read, or movies they haven't yet seen.

I am sorry that you personally are not interested in playing games but it is your right to make that choice. However, it is not your right, having made that choice, to further extrapolate and pass judgement on things with which you have chosen to not even attempt an understanding.

You said:

"Art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions." This is an intriguing definition, although as a chess player I might argue that my game fits the definition.

You went on to say:

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.

So, how does chess transcend being a game, and become art? Chess has "rules, points, objectives, and an outcome", but, as you said, chess is arguably an art. Why?

You pose the defense that as soon as a game stops being "gamey" and approaches something on a higher level, it ceases to be a "game".

That's very convenient. This argument always did boil down to semantics.

We get it Roger. How about you stay away from things you know nothing about(video games) and I'll stay away from things I know nothing about, like having cancer and looking like an abomination.

Baldurs Gate 1&2, Fallout 1&2, Star wars knights of the old republic, Final Fantasy 6,7,8, mass effect. These games are all art that are comparable with any of the great works of any poet, composer, artist etc. Beautifully made, with great stories, powerful and emotional

I have played video games for a significant portion of my life. They have mesmerised me, entertained me, but they have never stirred my "deeper" emotions. The first time I watched "One flew over the cuckoo's nest", I couldn't sleep well for three nights, my heart being so overwhelmed with what the movie represented. There are umpteen examples of movies that change you as a person within the 120 odd minutes of their run time - The Godfather, Cries and Whispers, Anand (Hindi), Ikiru, and even Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1956). As of now, there is no video game capable of achieving this feat. I don't know why. Maybe, like you said, it is their focus on winning, and not experiencing. You can't stop at a beautiful mountain spring in a video game and choose a different path. The rules of the game bind you, your actions and thoughts are "pre-decided" by the programmers. And finally, you can't relate to it. Video games never evoke thoughts like "this is my mother's story", or "I have felt like the protagonist before".
Of course, there are movies that are devoid of art, and we have seen a lot of them, sometimes those that are based on video games. Yet, some movies are undoubtedly great art. No video game is, till now.

I was terribly saddened to read this article, it is amateurish at best. We have a higher standard for people who are supposed to be as "esteemed" as you, Ebert. You are clearly out of your element here. This article is disjointed, terribly misinformed about the process and aspects of games and game design, and blatantly lies because of your lack of knowledge on the subject. Every single one of your examples are quite easily refuted by anyone who understands the aforementioned processes, and i suspect we will see many responses to this in the coming days.

I hate to yell at an old man, but this sort of irresponsible dribble is exactly why games and gamers have to defend themselves so rabidly in the media. Next time do your research or silence your keystrokes.

Roger, you've brought me from the woodwork after having read this blog from the beginning. I'm not a dedicated gamer at all, but actually a devoted follower of art games.

By judging games by watching videos of games presented in the context of a 15-minute lecture, you may as well be judging a book by its cover blurbs. They may evoke the tone of the work, and they will show the experience that one person had with it, but they will not be the text of the work itself.

Waco is not art. I'll concede that has nothing to it except shock value.

Flower I've not played.

But Braid is not something to be dismissed. You may think it derivative of the worst stereotypes of games, and this is likely because it does pay homage to some of the most iconic moments in all of videogaming by constantly evoking and subverting imagery from the original Mario series. The game is illustrated by David Hellman, who was ironically best known for his prior work on the beautiful webcomic "A Lesson Is Learned But The Damage Is Irreversible" before his work on the game that operated on the precise opposite premise. His work within the game deserves accolades in and of itself, but it does build to something greater. Each world within Braid has a different emotional theme. Each is summed up by that "fortune cookie" prose, which, mind you, is intentionally vague and littered with contradictory elements that build up to a distinct whole that, again, cannot be summarized without creating your own art object from the materials at hand. Each world's theme is conveyed through the music, the art- a slow shift in Hellman's illustrations from a lush world of nature to a burning city- and, most importantly, the nature of time.

Within Braid, the single consistent element is that you can rewind time for your own character. This does not serve to just take back your mistakes, though it does do that. In most videogames, if you die, you come back with the mistakes undone anyway. However, each world of Braid has a different emotional theme that corresponds to the flow of time within it. In a world of inevitability, you can rewind time for Tim, the main character, but certain elements of the rest of the world will proceed without you, and mistakes you've made will stay as they were. In the world of time and place, rewinding serves no purpose because the flow of time is determined only by where you are, forcing you into linear time that rewinding has no effect upon. In the world of hesitance, the sight of the engagement ring from your failed relationship causes time to slow. Like the way an awkward moment or humiliation seems to stretch for an eternity.

This all comes to a head in the final world where all time is flowing backward and Tim, through reversing his own mistakes (as he perceives them), forces it back into linearity. Throughout all this, Tim has been chasing "The Princess". We get increasingly contradictory accounts of Tim's relation to The Princess throughout the game in the prologues to each world. First it seems that she is just a lost lover, but as it goes on- well, I wouldn't want to spoil the surprise for anyone.

So, spoilers ahead.

In the finale of the game, with time still running backwards, Tim sees The Princess just barely escaping from the grips of a hulking knight while screaming for help. She runs from him, and Tim, in the subterranean passage below her, runs to rendezvous with her as she, from the surface, activates devices in the passage below that allow him to continue his run.

Once they reach the Princess' home, time begins to flow forward again, and we see the scene as it truly was, before Tim's memory allowed him to rewrite himself as the hero. When time is flowing forward, the Princess is running from Tim, screaming for help, throwing traps to prevent him from catching her, and diving into the arms of a knight in shining armor who comes to rescue her.

After all the struggle to manipulate time, to undo mistakes and learn from every trial, the ultimate lesson of the game is that a lesson is learned but the damage is irreversible.

For some context, here's David Hellman's former webcomic:

http://alessonislearned.com/index.php?comic=31

And on an unrelated note, here's an art game that will not tell you its objective or how to achieve anything in it that is one of my favorites. It's playable in-browser and very simple, so you don't have an excuse.

http://www.molleindustria.org/everydaythesamedream/everydaythesamedream.html

ps. Thank you for the recommendation, Suttree is one of my favorite books now.

Either everything is art, or nothing is art.

Is any painting or poetry as beautiful as Pac-Man? Or Chess? Or sitting in the park underneath cherry blossoms?

You have to be well-versed with a particular subject (i.e. actually play video games) in order to submit an educated or informed argument about it.

Until then, these pieces will always read as frivolous navel-gazing.

While I do appreciate that the overall tone of the article is "my opinion is that games are not at the state where they can be considered art", as established in the opening paragraph, I am simply shocked at the unwillingness to be open to experiencing something in order to satisfy your point. The entire article was spent analyzing Santiago's lecture, and two points that stuck in my mind were:

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.

I would like to restate a point made in several commenters' posts above, that the "win condition" as you call it, is essentially the end of a novel or film. While you may be able to play "after the end" so to speak, it really doesn't change the narrative arc of the game, nor would watching a deleted scene track from a film change its narrative arc.

Also, the fact that you detract from these games with nothing more than a "from what I can see..." standpoint. This is basically like being told about a novel or film and making a judgement based solely on that. Without actually experiencing what these games have to offer, especially in the case of Flower, you cannot have the emotional investment inherent to all works of art - Da Vinci's Mona Lisa, Moby Dick, Citizen Kane, all work because of what you feel as you experience them, whether it be from actually looking at the painting, reading the novel, or watching the film, the attachment is there, in some small way they move you and draw you in. Being told "OK, so there's this painting, right? And it's a woman, OK? And she's got this SMILE, man, this AMAZING smile!" will never have the same effect as viewing it for yourself, experiencing the wonder and mystery of the painting for yourself, and that's exactly what you're missing by dismissing Flower, Ico, and Shadow of the Colossus simply from video footage or word of mouth.

In SotC you BECOME Wander (the main character), experiencing his struggle to climb the Colossi, in Flower you are a gust of wind, rising and falling and swooping around fields, awakening flowers and creating a storm of petals in your wake. The first time I played the final stage of Flower, arcing and swooping around the playground, I could feel the exhilaration, the rush of the downward spiral, and a smile spread across my face. THAT is pure emotion, and something that can evoke feelings that strong is truly art.

Ebert, I love you and I understand that you are inundated to the point of boredom with this debate, but (skipping over the arguments already made) you can't judge the games you mentioned just by watching clips of them - you have to play them.

Would you pay any attention to a film critic who reviewed the whole movie based on a trailer?

The 'game' part of a videogame lies between you and the screen, not on a video. You mentioned Braid - which gives you the ability to play without mistakes - and then explicitly discusses the problems this would cause human relationships. Without playing the game you're not going to pick that up.

You're welcome to your views, but wouldn't it be smarter to give the other side a fair hearing before airing them?

Roger,

I am a huge fan of yours. I thoroughly enjoy your blog and your reviews and I am incredibly grateful that you take the time to share your opinions with us.

All this said, I must sorely disagree with you on this kerfuffle about video games.

Art, in my layman's opinion, is about an artist suggesting or conveying a certain set of emotions in the viewer or viewing audience. The Eggleston exhibit at the Art Institute right now is an excellent case to look at, as it took his color photography work quite a long time to be considered "worthwhile art" and not just a mere snapshot aesthetic. John Szarkowski's introduction to Eggleston's "Guide" (here: http://www.americansuburbx.com/2008/01/theory-introduction-to-william.html) points out a lot of the problems with accepting Eggleston's work, and the work of many photographers, as art.

In it he says this of photography:

"Photography is a system of visual editing. At bottom, it is a matter of surrounding with a frame a portion of one's cone of vision, while standing in the right place at the right time. Like chess, or writing, it is a matter of choosing from among given possibilities, but in the case of photography the number of possibilities is not finite but infinite."

Eggleston was accused of a "snapshot aesthetic". How are his pictures different than a family touring the south? Arguably, by choosing out of this infinite set of possible pictures, Eggleston edited down all of reality to several dozen images that he felt conveyed an unspoken -- but visually recognizable and recordable -- opinion of the world. His opinion. His perspective.

Video games kind of present a similar problem, as, frankly, does cinema, especially in this post Matrix era of manufactured realities. I can create and show you anything, so my mere ability to do so cannot be art. I must use the medium to show you something; tell you something. I must make you feel something.

In the video game Portal, which I am sure you have heard referenced, the player is inserted into a universe which -- just like the best of science fiction, both written and filmed -- supposes a new reality: we made this tool, this gun, and with it you can create doors anywhere. Doors in the floor connected to the ceiling so you can plummet infinitely, a door in the wall here connected to the far part of a room that is otherwise unreachable, etc.

Now, yes, this sounds banal. This sounds like rudimentary plumbing -- I'll just connect these two things and solve a puzzle, and I am done. But Portal, through a very deliberately controlled plot line, structure, visual style, etc. slowly helps the player to understand the new rules, the new possibilities, that a device like this opens up. And over the course of a five hour game you will, having beaten the game "be thinking with Portal", as they put it. The game opens up an immense sense of wonder and a fascination with possibility.

2001: A Space Odyssey asks us what happens when humans learn their transcendence was facilitated by another being. Umberto D. asks us how do we live when we have lost all will. Inglourious Basterds asks us how much do we permanently view World War II through the lens of World War II movies.

So why when a game like Portal asks us to think in entirely original ways, and to imagine the consequences of this new and unreal reality, is that not art?

I argue, of course, that it is. Not all video games are art. Not all films are art. Not all books are art. Stop by a used hotel furniture store in Pilsen and you'll see that not all painting are art, either. But mediums can be transcended and senses of wonder can be conveyed. It is rare in video games, but it is there. Some video games have been art. More will be.

But you have a pleasant evening, sir. I hope one day to run into you at the Caldwell Lily Pond or somewhere about in Lincoln Park.

In the 2000s we've sacrificed the narrative elements which made interactive fiction games of the 90s useful and provocative morality plays with the player as the central character, living with the repercussions of their decisions. Now everything has to be the latest and greatest technical wizardry, but we've lost the themes and plot elements. "Mission Critical" (1995) was a great example of a sprawling morality play video game, unmatched by technically sophisticated first-person shooters of today.

While I have to agree that the three specific examples provided by Ms. Santiago would in no way fit my personal definition of art, Video Games can indeed be art, and to millions of gamers worldwide are already considered such. I find that I often disagree with your movie picks, but I would not be so arrogant as to say that in your eyes they are not artistically engaging. To me there are certain games that are every bit as engaging and artistic as your most highly beloved movies, If perhaps for different reasons. I would direct you to the brilliant story lines and excellent animations of Heavy Rain, or the gripping (if all too short) storyline of the last two Call of Duty games. I just think you are on a different side of the conversation, and without the knowledge to speak more than your personal feelings on the matter, which without experiencing some of the better, or really, any offerings out there, is like downgrading the entire history of cinema as fluff without ever stepping foot inside a theater.

I think I agree with you that video games are not art, but I found Ms Santiago a poor apologist for the medium. Here are a couple of instances I find promising:

• The popular game Myst created a virtual world one could wander around. Unfortunately the virtual world is littered with puzzles, and solving the puzzles progresses the player through the story of two brothers. There is very little in the way of "win" or "lose".
  

  
  Unfortunately the story is jejune and the virtual world does not yet stand up to the imagination of the great landscape painters or the great surrealists, but this seems to me a difference of degree, not kind. Perhaps Myst is bad art?
  

• 
  I have played several games of the sort that used to be called "text adventure games" and are now called "interactive fiction". Most of them are of a quality you might expect from college freshmen doing creative writing, but there are occasional gems. For example, I found Andrew Plotkin's Spider and Web every bit as artistically satisfying as the better short stories by O. Henry, and more difficult to put down.
  

  
  Of course, a text adventure game is not a video game, and indeed, the people working in the medium no longer call it a game. But good stories are being written.
  Are they art? I don't know. Does it matter?
  

  
  (Interestingly, there appears to be no commercial market for interactive fiction. I don't know if that makes it more arty or less arty—certainly it means there's no nonsense about marketing and so on—but it does mean that the impetus behind the outpouring of works is a creative impetus, not a commercial one.)
  

2 Things;
Never is indeed a very long time.

And in topics like this, one's own definition of the terms can be so wildly different as to make discussion almost impossible. I don't wanna get all post-modern up in here, but we can have a more interesting discussion on what aspects of video games or chess or mahjong are interesting instead of trying to define them as art.

My definition of art is anything you can have a good discussion about, and the better/longer the discussion, the better the art. (kind of)

To put it simply... the writing and dialogue in Mass Effect 1 and 2 piss all over James Cameron's entire oeuvre. hehe Video Games (like film) are a stunning new audio visual medium for story telling...

Blah blah blah I'm old and I like to criticize things that I don't really understand and that appeared years after I was already set in my ways.

This is an argument that repeats itself decade after decade.

I found the argument about flower particularly kind of dumb. "Nothing she shows from this game seemed of more than decorative interest on the level of a greeting card. Is the game scored? She doesn't say. Do you win if you're the first to find the balance between the urban and the natural? Can you control the flower? Does the game know what the ideal balance is?" - If you can't answer even basic questions like this, how are you qualified to pass judgement on the game? It's like me watching a trailer of a movie and assuming I know its artistic merits. That's not how things work.

Ebert will probably never change his mind, no, but public attitudes are already shifting and will continue to shift as we get a new, younger generation of critics entering the public consciousness. That's always how these things work.

I thought you'd like to know that you're on reddit's gaming front page: http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/bs5pt/video_games_can_never_be_art_roger_eberts_journal/

Other than that, you sound ridiculously snobbish. I mean seriously, a film critic going around saying that games are not art? Games that of course you haven't bothered to play because you're just too good for that it seems.

Other than that, I think those reddit comments sum up what I feel for your article. But I'm sure you don't care what mere gamers have to say about it, do you?

"It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome"

Pretty much the same applies to books and movies. Books and movies depict worlds with rules, they keep score (although not explicitly), the characters have objectives, and there's an eventual outcome. Games tell stories. The fact that we call it "winning" instead of "ending" when it is a game instead of a book doesn't mean that there is any actual difference.

"Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game"

From your description of the game (and the other games you mention, like Flower), it is obvious that you have never played any of them. I'm not sure how to respond to that; would you accept my opinion of a movie that I have never seen? Of a book that I have never read? Of a painting that I have never seen?

Just to pick one example: Braid tells a story, and the time element (which is much deeper than just allowing the player to turn back time) is used as a storytelling device. Comparing it to taking back a move in chess is like comparing an accidental spilling of a bottle of red paint to a Van Gogh painting because both involve paint.

I would also like to address another idea, namely the concept that games are not art because the player controls what happens. This idea is wrong. The player in a game does not control what happens; he has some limited influence on specific scenes, but the story that unfolds is predefined; at most, it contains a few branches, which, again, are predefined. The story is not told by the player, he acts out a script written for him like an actor in a movie. The things the player can do and see and experience, those are from the mind of the people who made the game. The argument that games are not art because the player controls what happens is akin to saying that books are not art, because the reader's imagination defines how the characters look and sound. The beholder always has an influence on the art.

Reading your essay, I get the impression that you're looking for excuses for why games can't be art, without really knowing much about any of the examples you mention. Waco is a documentary. Braid is chess, and poorly written. "Is it scored?" you ask about Flower. As far as I remember, it is not, but why does it matter? How is a score the border between games and art?

You ask why gamers are so concerned about this question, but it seems to me - judging by the length of your essay - that we are not alone in this. Why do you care about games? And why, for that matter, do you care about movies? I don't know why other gamers care, but I know why I care: I've played games whose stories moved and influenced me more than any book. I've played games whose characters I cared more about than those in any movie. I've played games that showed me worlds grander than any painting. And yet, games are still perceived as children's toys.

I care about this because I think people like you are missing out on an incredible source of powerful contemporary art.

As someone who admires you, but does not worship at your feet, I must say that this blog entry is surprisingly devoid of a good argument. You merely deconstruct your opponent's own beliefs, without clarifying your own, in a manner that comes off as limited in your understanding. Games have objectives, as do films; they both have predetermined endings; and in recent games, the narrative does not allow for gratifying "choose your own adventure" gameplay. This is not Super Mario or DOOM. These days, games take it one step further by making the player the character, rather than just watching them on a screen. Oh yeah, games and films are viewed on screens. Some independent games I consider art, pure expression at the expense of entertainment; a fusion of narrative, music and visuals...like film. They just don't make for the very best games. The same can be argued for "depressing" cinema: self-expression at the expense of mass entertainment.

True, not all games are art, maybe very few. But most of the films I have seen are not art, either. They are entertainment. For art, I pop in Chinatown. As you know, there are far more Transformers in this world than there are Chinatowns.

I fail to grasp what point you are trying to make. As an analogy, this sounds like a Creationist dismissing evolution, presumably out of idealism, but with very few convincing points; and no doubt you are firm in your beliefs. Relating them is another matter.

You could respond to my comment with a smart phrase. You are first a critic, after all. But this blog is rather thin for such a controversial and potentially absorbing topic.

You suggest, strongly, that if there is an end-goal or an objective, that that something cannot be art. But what about art galleries, meticulously designed to guide the viewer through a story and conclude in a decidedly "end" or, dare I say, "last level".

At the end of the day, you've once again come across as a bigoted, close-minded old man who still (for some gods-awful reason) refuses to sit down for an hour or two and actually play a game. YET, you still sit through hours and hours of movies that you deem, for example, "morally reprehensible".

Shame on you.

I think there may need to be a distinction between the kind of games that are traditionally games/sports/puzzles and those that are narrative-based. While you make constant comparisons of video games to non-art things like chess and sports, this breaks down when you play games that have a narrative. Players and game makers are then making a different sort of decisions then Dick Butkis and Michael Jordan - instead of making points to win, one makes decisions that shape how the story is experienced, progresses or develops. The game makers are making decisions of how to tell a story through the exploration of the world by the player, how and what events take place, and what choices the player must make and the consequences that result from it. So, in fact, you do end up experiencing instead of "winning."
(Although maybe you can "win" a book, seeing how people often congratulate themselves after finishing a difficult book like Ulysses or Pynchon's work. :) And are not game strategy guides like Cliff Notes?)

The advantage games have over other forms of media is interactivity. Films (like this one, which is disqualified as art regardless of being a film?) and books (Choose Your Own Adventures) have tried this, but they don't seem to have taken off as games have. Games offer someone to further explore the world at their pace for additional information that can affect how the character can interpret a character or the story (as an example, Silent Hill 3 lets you gain insight into the protagonist through her observations on things in an environment you inspect - her personality, her history). Interactivity also allows for someone to examine the various outcomes of a story. Whereas linear narratives mostly drive towards a singular conclusion, games allow the player to experience how differently things can play out depending on the choices you make. In a recent case, Silent Hill:Shattered Memories changes based on how you act during the game, offering different experiences. If you act like a louse, you get a different experience with a specific kind of events and ending than the branch where you act like a gentleman. There is some authorial intent in games. The creators script dialogue, events, and endings no different than a writer or filmmaker. The creators choose whether the player can make a choice or not in a story (in fact, Bioshock plays with this very premise). It's just a different form of experience than with other media.

Instead of the examples mentioned in the post, I can think of other examples that may met your criteria of art. I may be biased, but I do think they are "worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets." Take Silent Hill 2, which involves a man looking for his dead wife in a haunted town after receiving a letter from her. It's an amazing study of various tortured characters in a supernatural town that forces them to literally face their demons. How you play the game depends how the story will end up - and how you perceive the protagonist.

Flower is more concept-based then narrative-based, but is it really any different from video art installations? Why is Andy Warhol's long take of the Empire State Building considered art, and not Flower? When film was first starting out - with simple things like a guy shooting at the camera - didn't people deride it as not art and inferior to books and theater?

though i have been recently harassing you about it on twitter, you seem to be ignoring me, thus i have chosen to repeat my sentiments regarding video games as art here.

from my perspective, i think you're being far too dismissive of the medium. ultimately, that's all that games are: simply another medium. as a medium, it is already as valid as film, literature, paintings, music.

i think the issue, however, is that video games have been primarily focused on entertainment, but that is exactly the same with any other medium. i doubt that anyone would consider a movie like the fast and the furious art, or a book like the davinci code to be art, but one cannot say that the entertainment aspects of those mediums negates the artistic aspect which unquestionably exists within those mediums.

i can count several video games which i personally count as art. "ico", "shadow of the colossus", "killer 7", "silent hill 2", the list goes on. while it's true that video games still largely maintain an entertainment aspect, there is unquestionably a much stronger element of narrative in modern video games that has not existed in decades previous. there is nowhere this is more evident than with regards to independent gaming. terry cavanagh's "don't look back", for example, is a brilliant 8-bit retelling of orpheus in the underworld.

but i pose to you the question of whether or not art actually needs to make some sort of grandiose statement to be art. what statement does van gogh's painting of sunflowers make other than to capture some essence of beauty within the natural world?

"Video games can never be art."

I'm surprised you even have to explain yourself. When did games and art become confused? I shudder to think of Grand Theft Auto on display in the Louvre next to the Mona Lisa. Can't we simply enjoy these games without having to deify them? I love "Pac-Man," but I hope he doesn't campaign for an Oscar anytime soon.

M

Yeah, I still don't understand what sort of definition of the word "art" includes things like vases and paintings and cathedrals, but not games. You and Santiago seem to agree that Chess, as a game, is not art, but couldn't a chess set be a piece of art? Let's assume for vividness that it's a hand-crafted chess set, a masterful collection of tiny, intricate sculptures, which complement each other beautifully, and re-imagine the classic symbols in a fulfilling way. Are these little sculptures not art? Is the set, designed as a whole, not a work of art? And does the fact that two people can sit down and move the pieces around in a largely proscribed manner, but with an uncertain outcome, rob them of their status as art, any more than the ability to hold flowers robs a vase of its status?

Most of what I would have said has already been said in the previous comments, so I feel no need to reiterate those points.

One thing I will say though, is that modern video games don't really rely on points or trying to get a high score. Video games have been moving away from that concept for about ten years. Most games, as Mr. Adam Yim has pointed out, are now about interactive story telling. Because of this the need for points in video games has virtually disappeared.

What has happened now is that we're seeing people use the interactions of the player to cause events with in the narrative that motivate the player into seeing what happens next. Players of these games are now not motivated by getting points but instead seeing their impact on the in-game narrative.

I hope what I've said has made some sense. I personally don't think many video games are art, but I do think that three are ("Shadow of the Colossus", "Silent Hill 2", and "Ico")and that makes me consider video games as art.

"Ico" sure, but "Shadow of the Collosus", which by it's visual scope alone and the idea that even though you make it through you don't necessarily "win" comes closest to any cinematic experience I've ever felt. That aside, I agree with you Ebert, her examples are pretty terrible.

Though you've got me thinking about what maybe influenced you growing up with your question, why do gamers need this to be an art? You're a fan of science fiction mags, yeah? I've always loved Ray Bradbury; he signed some books and I was able to shake his hand...I felt my body go numb. I was so embarrassed because I wanted him to sign so many books that I stupidly told him he didn't have to. Bradbury is certainly an artist. Now who influenced Bradbury? A hundred writers, all mentioned quite specifically in his work. How about Edgar Rice Burroughs, perhaps? I'm just reading the John Carter of Mars series. Five books in and it's amazing how social, political and religious it all is; certainly art. A serial novel. As far as I know, Burroughs didn't create the serial novel. Others did. Nor did Bradbury create science fiction. But they loved it! They ate it up! These were stories they grew up on. Meant something to them. Inspired them to write. But as they grew older and life became about more than just the stories they read, they wanted the stories they wrote to mean more too. They had the passion for these genres, which weren't necessarily an art form, and with their wisdom and knowledge they were able to transform what they worshiped into an art form.

You've certainly made writing about movies an art form, which at one time, before Ms. Kael, it wasn't.

Now all of these gamers, who love these games so passionately, who were affected by stories within these games as they grew up (as I was with Final Fantasy) want to take them and for me my love of Tolstoy or Chaplin or Kirchner or Kurosawa and instill those qualities into games, or to instill what I've learned from my own life into games. For me it's movies and comic books, but I'd love to write a game at some point, really help push it towards what any outlet for storytelling can become, i.e. art. And whether you're winning or losing, video games have the potential to tell a great story.

I think the problem is, it's a really tough medium to get into to toy with it in that way. With stories you need a pad and pen. With movies some film and camera (now days even easier), however with video games (aside from the writing) you need schooling and training, a very technical brain made for coding. It's a whole other language. I don't know if this necessarily stops people, but it is a lot more than picking up a paint brush and practicing or a violin. This might be a reason why video games could take a bit longer to get to that point. Just a slapped together theory, but it might be something to think about and I will.

This is more about the definition of "art" than about video games.

But...what if art can't be defined?

Then, wouldn't the point of whether anything can be defined (an objective process) as art, be moot?

Or, do you believe that art can be defined enough to be a standard to be measured against?

This reminds me of one of your earlier entries on the concept of "Elevation" in cinema. That, IMO, is probably a better definition of art than the more complicated examples listed above.

D'oh, I forgot to add... Don't people try to "win" mysteries by guessing the killer before the detective hero does? The Phoenix Wright series is not that far removed from the structure of mysteries of Agatha Christie or Monk. The games just makes the player in control of advancing the story, experiencing things as the "detective" - putting the player in the role of the detective by collecting evidence, putting it all together, then, as the defense attorney, poking holes in a testimony by finding the contradictions and finding the real killer.

I cried when Aeris died and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I cheered when Aerie - after extended sequences of her whining, insecure self, said "Oooh this is going to hurt you A LOT more than me!"

Just choosing 'A' for characters off the top of my head.

It's absurd to even suggest that the musical scores of these works are not art. It's absurd to suggest that the artwork made for these games is not art. It's absurd to suggest that the writing behind these stories is not art.

Regardless, you argue that the synthesis of these forms of artwork are not, in fact, art. Were the Choose Your Own Adventure books not art?

You point out an obvious falsehood at the moment you begin your argument "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game." - how do you win open-ended simulations? Or even traditional roleplaying games in general? Don't even have to get into video games for that.

Many video games that are not art cannot even be won (except for the dubious merit of flipping the score). Whether or not something can be won is not a proper definition of a game at all.

It does point out an interesting distinction - for nearly every video game that we might push as an example of art, winning is secondary to the overall experience of completing the story. That is most certainly key.

Santiago picked three absolutely horrible examples. It's like you're choosing to engage in a battle of wits with someone who is distinctly your inferior. It does not make us respect you more, it just makes us wonder when you are willing to engage someone who is actively capable of debating you on the subject.

Games are just movies, films, music, and paintings with just one element more pronounced. The participation of the observer.

If you think about it, every art form requires a participatory element. An observer will feel the character in a book, the figure in a painting, or the hero on the screen. Sometimes we can even feel what the artist was feeling in the act of making a piece of art. We all run simulations involving us in some sort when it comes to art in order for it to impact us.

A GREAT game just takes this participatory element to a higher utility. It allows us a place to insert ourselves, instead of providing elements we can connect to.

Games have a long way to go. Its birth was not for self expression, but for industry. However there are many movies and much music that is the same.

One thing I take issue with is the comment about sportspersons not considering their respective games as "art". On the same note, I wouldn't consider any competetive video game to be a work of art either. There do exist games, however, that aren't intended to be played in the traditional sense. I'm not trying to take a "you just don't get it" tone, because I can't claim to know as much on these subjects as you, but I just want to highlight the distinction between games like Modern Warfare 2 or Counter-Strike and, say, Galapagos, Another World or Shadow of the Colossus. You also mention that Melies possessed "limited technical resources, but superior artistry and imagination" and that's a good point - perhaps it would have been better had Kellee touched on the rather rich independent game community that is more concerned with taking risks and playing (ahem) with the medium than turning a profit.

Also good call re: Braid, Jonathan Blow would have everyone believe his game is solely responsible for turning games into high art.

Authorial control is an interesting argument. I think the things you define traditionally as art--paintings, novels, poems, etc.--are less subject to authorial control than we tend to think. The creator, the artist, sets up an experience for the reader/viewer. They have control over the realm they create, whether that be visual, textual, aural, or something else. That is the only extent that authorial control exists--they create the context for the reader's experience. Whatever someone chooses to interpret from a piece of art may have nothing to do with what the author intended. The art takes on entirely new life in the eyes of the viewer. Most writers argue that books aren't one-sided, but instead a conversation between author and reader, with the author giving the frame but the reader injecting all the color and life to the situations presented. Interpretations and experiences with artwork vary wildly, and the author has no control over such things.

I'd argue that a video game works in the exact same way. Programmers, writers, musicians, designers, etc., work together to create the presentation that is the final game. They create the words and images, the way the controls work--the experience is crafted and then handed to the players. Once it gets into our hands, the creators cannot control our experience with it, just like a poet cannot predict what kind of experience people will have with his poem. The player directs his or her own experience, guided by the authors into certain situations (just like novelists create situations for readers), but how the game is ultimately experienced is dependent upon the player (just like the takeaway from a novel is determined by the reader).

I'd say video games have just as much authorial control as any other medium. No, the creators of a game can't force your hand and make you play a game a certain way--you can go against the traditional method the creators designed for you and play it however you want. Just like you can see a play and come away with an entirely different message than the author believed he or she was writing. That's the nature of art, to me--it's open to interpretation. Authorial control is, to a large extent, a myth.

Art is defined as such - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Essentially, art is objective.

Ergo everything and nothing is art. Something is and isn't art at the same time.

I imagine that if Picasso or Davinci, without the prejudice and conceptions of skeptics nowadays, were to lay their eyes on many of the more immersive games nowadays, they would declare them great works of art

Mr. Ebert, I very rarely disagree with you, but I think I have to do it for this post.

I think Ms. Santiago's argument falls flat and she chose poor examples to support her case, so even though I'm going to assume (and hope!) that someone has already recommended you check it out, I hope you have the time at least to read a bit about The Legend of Zelda, a favorite game series of mine that I think qualifies as art.

It, like some other video games, has objectives but concentrates more on a complex storyline than on a player's skill. It takes relatively little skill to play The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, for example, but it does take a lot of time. Players can't really control the final outcome -- just whether or not they reach the end of the story. Art is frequently interactive, and that's all I see the game as -- interactive art. You may disagree, but if you have time, I encourage you to look at one of many videos taken from the game. This one is of a couple minutes around the middle of the game: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szHD31_AA-8

Thanks for the post and all your fine contributions to art.

Roger, I could agree with you more. I feel as if there is a growing need for the game development field to feel as if they are doing "more important" work. Friends that work in games tend to see themselves below those in the film or TV field. I can only assume that the purpose of Santiago's presentation at USC was to help those that might move from the visual arts to games feel less like they have compromised their artistic goals.

There's a certain feeling I'm constantly looking for. I know of no way to describe it, but know that I've found it in Paul Thomas Anderson's "Punch-Drunk Love," Woody Allen's "Crimes and Misdemeanors," Gustav Holst's "First Suite in E Flat," The Beach Boys' "SMiLE," George Orwell's "Nineteen Eighty-Four," and the games of Hideo Kojima, among others.

As long as I continue to find things that provide this feeling for me, I'm not sure I care what they're called. That being said, "art" works.

Ebert, you should play the games Shadow of The Colossus and ICO. Those games are brilliant examples of how video games can be art.

I like your enthusiasm, but if you haven't played the games yourself, then it is like you are reviewing a film you've never actually watched.

"Plato, via Aristotle, believed art should be defined as the imitation of nature."

This is when I stopped, Plato would find zero value in art and so would Socrates so why use Plato and Aristotle as any type of reference?

As an artist, I find there are examples of radical art in the world that I don't approve as "Art" though art is in the eye of the beholder NOT the over-educated examiner like yourself.

Must be nice having your farts smell like roses, eh?

Books are not art. The oral tradition is art. The idea that what is contained in performance -- the grand gesture, the rising and falling of the voice, the vitality, the spontaneity, the ability to evolve and vary with each telling, the different spin created by each storyteller -- can be recreated in the written word -- with its inability to change, its inability to jump and speak aloud -- is preposterous. Can you imagine a future in which children read The Odyssey out of books? It's unconscionable! You don't read The Odyssey! You have an experienced storyteller sing it to you!

Video games unquestionably contain several components that are art by definition. Digital painters design the sprites and environments. Animators design the movements. Painting with pixels, building with vector-based polygons. Composers and sound engineers design all of the sounds. Authors write story lines, dialog, and in-game literature. Why shouldn't the sum total be a work of art? Or really, what would you require of a game, specifically, in order for it to be a work of art? Outline something here for us to show us what would be both a video game and a work of art in your opinion.

I wonder if you might clarify what you meant when you said:

"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."

Are films/plays/novels not all representations of stories?

The distinction between games "containing art" as opposed to "being art" is an interesting one. After all, games these days MAY contain great voice actors, writing, music, production design and cinematography. Is there a comparable human experience that draws on all of these artistic sources to create something that is not, in itself, art? Ornately carved chess sets aren't really the best comparison, since fancy game pieces are less integral to the experience of a chess game than writing, acting, music, art direction, etc. are to the experience of a great game.

You could argue that storytelling is at least as important as any other factor to the success of an immersive, story- and character-oriented "adventure game" like the recent "Tales of Monkey Island," for example. That game also happens to feature an innovative engine that exploits the 3D environment in an especially film-like way, and blends gameplay with cinematics in novel ways. And while the storytelling requires player interaction to progress, the player cannot rewrite the carefully plotted tale.

And it IS an authentic tale, not just a simple win/lose scenario. The bottom line is, the game's characters are REAL characters -- well-written, well-acted, with convincingly realized emotions, personalities, motivations, etc. Their story has a beginning, middle and end. They experience, love, hatred, betrayal, revenge, etc. We CARE about their lives and what happens to them. This is not the shallow investment of becoming emotionally attached to an avatar with a gun, but something more.

Roger has included several gameplay links in his post, but none of them are primarily character/story oriented. I'd like to throw out one more: this play-through of "The Curse of Monkey Island":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nExk_lHH6Y0

Watch the first twenty minutes (which covers the prologue, main title, and Part I) and you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about.

And that game (the third in its series) is more than a decade old. Here's a trailer for the most recent entry in the franchise, which gives an idea of how "cinematic" the game-play itself has become:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI8MMAurIZ8

This stuff may not be GREAT art, but is it art in ANY sense? Or does it merely "contain art" as distinct from "being art"?

Having played Braid, I must chime in that the game tells a remarkable story. There is a twist at the end that I would put up there with any I've seen in the theater recently and that twist turns the game on its head and makes some degree of sense of the "fortune cookie" writings in between levels.

I feel like the story could not be adequately experienced in a passive medium. It is because you are so engaged with this character's goal that the ending has the impact that it does. To some degree you identify with the character, only to have that called into question in a fascinating way.

Anything that tells a story like that feels like art to me. Most games are not, but there are some masterful story tellers that are using the gaming medium to tell great stories. It's not for everyone, of course. After all, there are some strange people out there who don't like movies.

Also, if Transformers 2 is art, then I think the definition is plenty broad to accommodate some select video games.

I disagree with many of the self-appointed defenders of games (who confuse high-quality visuals, or rather predictable melodrama, with artistic merit.) But in the long run, you are more deeply wrong.

I could write a very long response. I have spoken about this topic at length, in public, often.

But I will write a brief one, with two short observations.

Part 1: The videogame's native mimetic tactic is simulation, not representation. Simulation uses representation, but is not the same thing as it. It is also not the same thing as diegesis, the narrative mode of cinema. Roger, you do not know how to unpack game-based simulation - you do not understand the way that it refers - so you are, in some sense, unqualified to make the claims you do about game aesthetics and its capacities as an art form.

Part 2: Cinema created* new modes of attention. These modes were not recognized as sites of aesthetic experience at the time. A historical process of self-reflection eventually produced enough self-consciousness that the cinematic gaze (and not just the painterly appraisal) could be seen as the ground for aesthetic experience. Games also create new modes of attention. If you have little fluency with those modes, you will not have the basis for understanding their aestheticization, either. You have neither eyes to see nor ears to hear. You are not to be blamed for this, either - what kind of poetry or music could a man who has read nor heard nothing until late in his life truly understand? Could someone who has never seen more than one or two films in his life understand Tarkovsky's achievement?

* I would rather say that the co-produced those modes, or mobilized, but I'll stick with the simpler "create" in order to reduce the inevitable burden of sounding jargony.

i agree video games are not art, just as 99 percent of films/music/whatever are not art. The only video game ive ever seen come close to being artistic is one i believe was called ICO and definetly had an artistic quality to it.

Shadow of the Colossus. Art. Deal with it.

I wouldn't trust the opinion of a literary critic who hasn't read a few hundred novels. I wouldn't trust the opinion of a film critic who hasn't seen a few hundred movies.

Ebert knows film, but anyone who takes his opinion on the artistic potential of video games seriously is a fool.

No disrespect meant, of course. It's just that you cannot possibly know anything about the potential of games without having experienced the form's wide spectrum of possibilities first hand.

And expecting a gamer to convince you about it through discourse is asinine: the world's premier critic or novelist couldn't convince a dedicated non-reader of the artistic potential of literature in a hundred years. It has to be lived.

roger, personally i think you buried the lede, whether on purpose or not. i have to think it was on purpose. practically midway through the article you toss out "you can perform [...] a paraphrase but then you are creating your own art object from the materials at hand." it feels like a basis for your argument but you may not realize it. might be worth elaborating.

perhaps instead of interacting with high art, a game player is at best creating their own art object. this would arguably involve a certain awareness be intact. chess, you say, is not art; however duchamp played it and made it into a lifelong performance piece. of course, that took a lifetime. and he was duchamp.

I wouldn't listen all that closely to people suggesting other games, Ebert. I'm a gigantic video game nerd. I've played the big "games are art" games, and I've played the indie ones. You would consider every last one of them to be pathetic, I'm positive. And I would completely agree.

But the most spot-on thing about this article, what I thought was way more interesting than what is and isn't art, is what you brought up at the end; it's the desperation of gamers. So many gamers want their grandmothers to respect video games. It's baffling to me.

Street Fighter is a game about two people beating each other up. And because the series has never once, in twenty years, dared care about things like "messages" and "meanings," it winds up being a fast, complicated showcase of skill. It's something that my friends and I can all constantly try to one-up each other in. It's something I can struggle with, in the best way, and it's something that I can actually be satisfied with when I notice myself improving. This makes a great game, even if my parents would only ever look at it as cartoon characters beating each other up.

Heavy Rain is a game that is embarrassed to be a video game. Heavy Rain's idea of character development is forcing the player to shake their controller while they watch the main character brush his teeth. It's damn near mindless, and by focusing almost entirely on telling a story, it will never be as great of a game as basketball, Chess, or, yeah, Street Fighter. Games that focus on narrative first look like a dead end to me.

Im something of a gamer, but I agree.

I think it comes down to something McCarthy said as he watched film production of one of his books. It was something to the effect of disgust at all the people and equipment required to bring the vision of the director to life. It's too hard to bring someones art to life when it involves so many damn components, whereas with books, you just need to be a dammn good writer. With games, you need what, like, computer programming skills, be a damn good writer, effective communicator, artistic, talent, millions of dollars... Maybe thats why the book is always better then the movie, and the movie's always better than the game.

Roger, like everyone here, I'm a big fan of yours as well, but I this seems, at its heart like a semantic argument that's bound for nowhere. I can't remember who said it, but to paraphrase someone: ever since Duchamp (a skilled chess player, I might add) presented that urinal ("Fountain") no one has had any idea what good art is.

My personal definition is more about any thing that inspires you to think about something in a way you haven't considered. I know this is very broad, but it almost always applies to the artworks I love (including games). And even further, I consider the code behind video games an art, not to mention that actual drawings, cinematography, etc. Code is such a strange, intricate thing that involves working with and almost rewriting or redefining an entire new language every time you set out to make something. And it is, just like English, a language. And just like getting all of Joyce's references in Ulysses or all of TS Eliot's literary connections in The Wasteland, you have to know the language and its history of usage _very_ well in order to understand it and write it well. It might not move a person emotionally (although I imagine, in some cases, it has) but it certainly asks you to consider things from a different perspective every time you attempt to understand it.

I'd also suggest that art is often about interaction, especially contemporary art, which often plays on the subjective response of the viewer to make its point. It's not always about emotion, but rather, discovering something about the way you interact with the world and the things in it.

As you mention, you are handicapped as a lover of film. You seem to compare games to your experience watching film. Consider Clement Greenburg's idea of "medium specificity." I would argue that you haven't yet discovered where the "medium of video games lies" and that perhaps as a film critic, you're looking in the wrong place.

Roger,

I'm a huge fan and I was really hoping you'd elaborate more on this subject. Admittedly, Santiago's points are pretty weak, but taking apart her argument does nothing to really underline what we're talking about here. From the title, I'd thought you were gonna delve further into examples, but instead you just casually dismissed a few random examples she brought up. It seems very much from the title of this article that you're just trying to be inflammatory on the subject. I'm almost wondering if you're being defensive because you feel like videogames are an attack to cinema in some way.

It really appears to me that you don't understand what videogames are, or how they work. Maybe the word itself - "video game" is throwing you off. Videogames and board games, where there is a clear goal to be reached and that goal is the same every time, have little in common anymore. They may have been very similar in the earliest days of games, but they're clearly not now. Even if games have still retained some of their "gameyness" and haven't really reached a point where they're able to appeal to people's emotions and communicate complex ideas in the same ways great works of film or literature, I don't know how you could possibly think of videogames to be the same thing as a board game. How many games have you played? Maybe I'd believe you more if you actually gave more examples, but right now you're just making more obvious your ignorance on the subject.

Anyone who's designed for a game knows that there are many ways for a videogame to communicate ideas to its player through the game design, much like a film communicates ideas purely through the image, sound, editing. There's a language for game design, much like there's a language for cinema, although it remains pretty undeveloped and unwritten about at this time.

At least try to have a greater understanding of the subject before being completely dismissive, Roger. Videogames will never replace your blessed cinema. They are two completely different things. And yes, there are a great many garbage videogames, but there is plenty of potential in games as a valid art form too. People who have spent their lives with videogames know this. 20-30 years from now it will be much more widely accepted that games are an art form. And as wonderful a writer of cinema as you are, history will prove you wrong on this subject.

As an artist myself, a painter of fine repute, my annoyance at this article happens to be severe. The selection of videogames apart from Braid, are terrible examples of the artistic medium. As a painter fond of the Renaissance, I get to discover Renaissance Italy in games like Assassins Creed, Marvel at the wonder of interacting in amazing way with the environment, how is that not like interacting with Installation art we see today?. As a gamers also, I've discovered games like the Shadow of the Colossus, which astounded be with it's sense of loneliness and beauty, of which I see in many of the great paintings I love. But what better is that they are TANGIBLE!, all my senses feel heightened. Games like Ico suck you into an amazing abstract worlds. What is wrong with you, hasn't history taught you anything?, old men don't know anything, you cannot tap into the hearts of the young, where the the next layer of human art lies.

Games have music, writing, and graphical art and design in them, and all these elements are combined to create a work. Films also bring together writers, photographers, and designers to create a work. The product of filmmakers is art. The product of game designers for many reasons Ebert gives may never result in art. At worst games are an installation, or a gallery -which isn't unimportant.

I really love the definition for art that Scott McCloud gave in his seminal work, Understanding Comics. I wish I could directly quote it. To boil it down somewhat, those things we do (or perhaps the works that we create) that do not specifically contribute to our safety or our property might be considered art. I'm sure that I've mangled that in paraphrasing.

As a board gamer, I think of the crafting of a set of human interactions. Perhaps the way that a good party host might be able to artfully entertain their guests with an amazing meal and elegant conversation. Role playing gamer friends of mine might be seen to use their game as a creative outlet. The results of playing a game may or may not be art, but players are moved in one way or another, and perhaps through asking the right questions we can explore the art or craft of games.

As a dancer, I wonder: does a staged ballet have a distinct artistic value that doesn't exist in a dance in competition? Are contestants in a talent show (or American Idol or what have you) not, for sake of being in a winnable-like-a-game situation, somehow artistically invalidated?

As an improvisational actor, does the fact that my rules of my interaction with my partners were developed by Johnstone or Close mean that my own creative output cannot be artistic?

I would argue that Donkey Kong is as much Art as E.C. Segar's Popeye. From me, that's high praise.

Maybe a more interesting question would be - what shifts might be made to create works (and I do think of games as works rather than products) might become more deeply meaningful than a pastime?

I'm not sure I'd consider a game itself to be a work of art, BUT, some games certainly do incorporate art and music and acting and drama much in the same way that a movie does. I also know that whether something is or is not art is independent of whether or not I actually like or dislike it. There's good and bad art, but it's still art, nonetheless.

Art, imho, is in the purpose of its creator, to inspire emotion, to communicate more than what is explicitly said or shown. One difference between good and bad art is in how successful it is in accomplishing this. Art can be propaganda, art can be used to sell, and art can entertain. And whatever the subject of the art is, exists separate from whether or not it is art.

You can actually start with a work of art and build a game around it. That's, essentially what a lot of games end up being -- a beautifully rendered, detailed world to explore, with game elements added, to make it interactive. Sometimes it's used to tell a story, sometimes it's used to allow players to come up with their own stories. Whether or not the game itself is art is irrelevant, imho. The virtual world itself, in which the game is set, can be art.

I'd like to submit for consideration a British-made theater project, entitled 'Sleep No More'.

Essentially, a renovated schoolhouse plays host to scenes from MacBeth, taking place throughout different rooms. Like a play in-medias-res, the participant is granted the ability to wander freely about, and explore the atmosphere, directing his or her own particular immersion--though still firmly entrenched in the atmosphere of the Sleep No More Project, and the overarching story of MacBeth, and all of the ideals and themes which those are intended to express.

http://www.americanrepertorytheater.org/events/show/sleep-no-more

Would you consider this installation to be 'art'?

Or let us consider the city built in Synecdoche, New York.

Let's propose a hypothetical scenario, which would allow Cayden to actually stage his production--inviting viewers to move through and live amongst the world he built, FOR them to move through and live amongst, in order to portray specific themes of life, love, gradual decay, death, etc.

Would you consider that project to be an expression of 'art'?

Why, or why not?

I can't say I agree that video games will not be art for many years, but after seeing Santiago's examples I don't blame you for not being convinced. The truth is that most video game developers probably aren't concerned with whether their game is "art" or not - and really, how can they be, when the primary thought for almost all games is whether it's going to be fun to play or not?

However, there are some developers who have managed to make great games that I personally would consider art. While I'm not going to recommend them to you, as you've said you're very unlikely to go off and play any of them, I will say how surprised I was that Santiago didn't mention (as many others in this comment section have) Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, two games that succeed in providing the player with a high level of immersion while telling beautiful stories.

Overall, I see where you are coming from.

However, I am nearly convinced that some games enter the realm of art. 1. Many games are centered around a complex story that reaches the equivalence of a novel and usually add the ability to choose how the story will go. Are these games not art? And if so why? List of possible games in this category Final Fantasy 7, Chrono Trigger.
Most people consider a good story "art" so what separates a game that is story centered from a story?
2. Some games incorporate visuals/sound/touch with the players gaming experience so well I believe it may be considered art. A key example of this is Rez (it can be downloaded on the Xbox 360. To know if this can be considered art it is necessary to experience the game for atleast 15 minutes. Whenever I have brought out this game, and showed it to my friends they were all willing to watch me play this game for quite a long time. And it was not in the similar vain of watching Baseball (they did not care if I won or lost). They just wanted to watch the game unfold.

I suppose I just want to see your reaction to some of this. I do not think that lady gave the best example of games to prove her point. She could have chosen much stronger contenders.

Hello Roger,

I have a quick two part question:

1. Did you play Braid?

2. This question is assuming you didn't, since your retort to the game's validity made that evident. How can you justify criticizing something you didn't experience personally?

Please answer, but if you wish to know why read below:
________________________________
You criticism for Braid ended up comparing the game to Chess. You learned something about Braid, and then thought about if that aspect of Braid was translated to Chess (reversing time/your move). You decided that if that were possible in Chess, it would ruin the game, therefore Braid must be as good as "ruined chess."

I find this a very poor criticism because Braid was not built to be an elaborate competitive match-of-wits. It was entirely designed as single-player narrative experience (I'm guessing you moaned at that last sentence).

Braid reveals its plot to be about a relationship gone wrong, or at least that's one of the issues it refers to. The "reversal of time" mechanic is used as a theme throughout the game. You frequently incorrectly do something in the game and have to rewind a few seconds.

However in a relationship that is not possible. Saying something wrong, or doing something wrong can not be reversed. This is just a small bullet point of issues the game touches upon, so if you were underwhelmed with the explanation I assure you there is "more to it."

The most important part of Braid was its entire plot reveal and "point" was shown through gameplay. There is a pivotal moment at the end of the game where the "rewind time" functionality is used to its fullest extent and completely explains everything the game is about. This not only describes the point the original creator wanted to make, but does it in a way that can only be done in games (by interacting with it).

I think for this reason Braid was a tremendous step for games since it used what was unique about the medium as a way to convey the point. This is in comparison to countless other games that basically mimic movies by having long cut scenes that have no relation to what you play.

Anyway. I don't expect a response to this long section, or for you to read any of this. But I would like the two questions to be answered. And if you couldn't tell already, I disagree with your opinion, and I find it difficult to "respectfully disagree" considering it seems clear that you haven't spent a lot of time doing first-person research on the medium you so heavily criticize.

Thank you.

-Artie

"My notion is that [art] grows better the more it improves or alters nature through a passage [that] we might call the artist's soul, or vision."

Roger, you gave 4 stars to the thriller film "Green Zone". I haven't seen the film yet, but from reading your review, the film seems to have a very similar tone to that of the Metal Gear Solid games. A popular theme of the MGS games is that a lone supersoldier goes into a conflict, loyally following the orders of his American superiors, typically searching out WMDs known as "Metal Gears", giant nuclear weapon-equipped robots. But as he learns more and more during his mission, his superiors are revealed as corrupt. They're manipulating him into serving their political power plays.

What am I fighting for? What does it mean to be a soldier? A patriot? The supersoldier of Metal Gear asks these questions as he goes through the game world.

There are other themes of the games. One common theme seems to be that soldiers are pawns of political elites, and that their lives and deaths are more sad than glorious or exciting.

The first game had a strong anti-nuclear weapon proliferation message. The fourth game had an anti-Private military corporation message in it, and seemed to say that turning war into a profitable business was immoral. The upcoming Metal Gear game (Peace Walker) apparently has the US military illegally invading a nation in 1970s South America for some reason. Why this setting? Kojima says: “The idea of PW sprung from news I saw about 5 years ago. At the time, the President of Costa Rica was supporting the U.S. in the war with Iraq, and a college student took legal action and won stating that the support of war 'breaches the constitution' of the country.” Reading this, I have a feeling Peace Walker will have some jabs at recent US foreign policy, subtle or not.

So all of the games seem to express, overtly or subtly, the generally left-wing and semi-pacifist views of its central creator, Hideo Kojima. And just as Green Zone's director Paul Greengrass has pissed off elements of the right while getting praise from the left, Metal Gear has sometimes divided players along political lines too, from what I've seen on game forums.

Just thought I'd point out an example of a "Green Zone"-like video game :)

http://www.immersence.com/publications/char/2004-CD-Space.html

Games might never be Art. But Art can take the form of a game.

"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome."

I think this is where the disagreement comes from. Games in the 70s and 80s had rules, points, objectives and an outcome. Video games now don't necessarily have any of these. Artists like Jenova Chen (designer of Flower) create "games" that have none of these. Perhaps video game an inappropriate term for those interactive arts that aren't actually games.

Roger did not address the big issue here--whether or not games are ert?

I'm not prepared to fully argue that video games are or aren't "art", but I will just say that while such examples aren't the norm, I have played video games which have been, in my eyes, every bit as imaginative, clever, engrossing and thought-provoking as any movie or book I've been exposed to in the past twenty years or so.

I'm an artist. I am a full-time graphic designer. I am a musician. I am also a programmer who started writing games in BASIC when I was 10 years old. I have apps in the app store. My art has been in galleries. My illustrations have been in national publications. My website design skills are used daily for a company worth billions. I have redesigned user interfaces for billion dollar insurance companies. I carry a sketchbook in my bag everywhere I go. I'm sitting 4 feet from my oil paints and a 6 foot easel. My 2 guitars and rig are 4 feet in the other direction. I have a 30 gig music collection I listen to all the time. I love Hendrix. I love Renaissance choral music, like Palestrina just as much. I like Bach harpsichord even better. I have recorded vocals and guitar in professional studios. I have played live in bands and solo for the last 20 years or so. My art professors have work in the Guggenheim. I teach my kids art all the time. I have won awards for art. I write a graphic design blog. I write about graphic design several times a week. I draw most days of my life. I have a large art book collection. I surround myself with art. I have XCode open on my Mac at this minute, as I prepare another app for the Apple App Store. My son and I design casual games in Unity3D, a game design platform. We talk C++, Objective C, Javascript, Perl, HTML, CSS, jQuery and whatnot for fun. I own very fine Russian watercolors and expensive sable brushes. My drafting table with 2 packs of bristol board and a block of cold press Arches watercolor paper is 4 feet behind me in the third corner of my office / studio. My brother and I grew up programming games on C64, TS1000, Amiga, etc.. He's a Flash / Flex developer now. I'm a jack of many trades. Leaning against the wall, next to my mousepad, are Mars Steadtler Pigment Liners, a bottle of water-based oil medium, 3 prints in their frames ready to be hung. To my left is "Designing with Type" and "Elements of Typographic Style". My son and I just worked out the physics of a lawn dart game in Unity3D this week. Did you know increased drag on a separate object nested inside a parent object causes the lawn dart to realistically tip downwards as it descends from it's arc? I use Blender to create still life compositions in 3D and paint them in the oil style of the Northern Europe masters (sketch, underpainting, gris / dead layer, color layer, highlights).

This article caught my eye as I was about to provision a certificate to submit my compiled Obj-C based application for iPhone.

Artist. Graphic Designer. Programmer (applications and games). Musician. Writer.

All this to say:

Video Games Are Not Art And Never Will Be.

I make video games. I make art. Never shall the twain meet.

When someone says to Roger Ebert "you don't get it", it's quite clear that the person saying that does not know art. Sorry, but you don't get it yet. Start reading some good art curriculum. Maybe draw a little every day.

The 20th century tyranny of mediocrity that has obliterated objective standards of beauty is slowly grinding to a halt under the weight of its own internal contradiction. There is a nascent renaissance for the recapturing of beauty in art as conceptual art runs out of steam.

Video Games Are Not Art And Never Will Be.

I see several definitions of art. What I don't see addressed is utility. Why does anyone care if a video game is classifiable as art? "Being art" must be a desirable trait. So, why is that?

Communication takes pieces of our lives or feelings or imaginations, and bundles them up for someone else to consume. Words, films and music all try to give us a glimpse of the world of thought someone else carries with them.

To me, "art" is made of the glimpses that carry the most interesting experiences with the highest fidelity. Why is this desirable? Because what's already in my own mind isn't enough.

Roger,

While I almost always agree with what you have to say - I think you're being a little shortsighted in the scheme of your argument here.

If, indeed art is "the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions," then video games are art. I have seen many a gamer throw down their controller in hysterics at losing a level they've been trying to beat for hours, or even laugh at humorous videogames like "Portal." In this way, videogames ARE art because the programmer is decidedly rearranging elements in a way that gets a significant rise out of those who play the games - the good games that is.

I think where you go wrong is in saying that video games can never (or at least will not any time soon) be art. Something more exact might be to say that it is not a realm of art worth following, or it is dangerous, or it is a bad influence on other art forms.

Now, you may say that you do not fully agree with the Wikipedia definition, or find other flaws in my train of thought. All I'm saying is that you fail to consider the following: the best movies are the ones that have you laughing your ass off, crying your eyes out, or thinking your brain apart by the end of them. I would argue that a good video game would, and has, been able to get a comparable emotional rise out of devotees. And if that's not enough to justify them as "art," then it becomes difficult to judge a good movie from a bad one as well.

I hate to use your own quote against you, but you always say, "A man goes to the movies. A critic must be honest enough to admit he is that man." I think for you to have a full and true opinion on games, you need to sit down and seriously play one - a good, intelligent one. And there are many. Devote yourself to the game as you devote yourself to a movie. I'm not saying that you will come out the other end with a different opinion - but merely with a better formed argument.

I'm not a gamer myself, but I can see the reasoning behind certain games being called art... Obviously not the games like Mario, but certain games can have narratives that explore complex subjects.

The game Bioshock (which I've admittedly never played, myself) apparently features themes relating to politics, and I've heard good things about it in that area. Perhaps think of the gameplay and the cutscenes as separate- the cutscenes are the part that actually tell a coherent story, after all. While I hesitate to say that a game on the whole can be called art, I can see a game containing art.

If they could make a game where the gameplay is motivated by an emotional connection to the story/characters rather than by the usual sense of fun, that'd really be something. Only in that case could I see a video game in its entirety as art.

I'm a fan, Roger. I really am. On this topic, you are a narrow minded fool. I want to make clear that it is not anger your opinion elicits from me, but rather pity. You make many assumptions without any first hand experience. Your dismissal of Flower tells me you didn't bother to research the game outside of the material you've embedded in the article. Allow me to try to explain Flower, or at least the part I don't think was made clear to you.

In Flower, you are a force of nature. Moving through the stages of the game (levels, acts, chapters, verses...)

Stage 1:
It starts off peaceful enough. Blue skies and green fields. You move through the grass and over the hills kissing the earth one petal at a time and doing so revitalizes the world.

Stage 2:
Dusk. You maneuver through rocky terrain and race through canyons until you reach a field full of wind turbines.

Stage 3:
Night. Power Lines and fences make moving through the environment a bit trickier. Encircling stacks of hay creates illuminated beacons in otherwise black night.

Stage 4:
Fallen towers of power lines litter this midnight stage. Movement is restricted and challenging. This stage is threatening and dangerous.

Stage 5:
The final stage is an urban city scape. You build strength from the petals accumulated and emerge a force of change and growth. Empowered as nature itself you reclaim the landscape. Obstacles that previously demanded caution now shatter at your very touch.

I might be missing a stage. I cant remember if there were six but its not important. The narrative is there. Its a journey. This is a story told without any dialogue or exposition. Its a story told through interactive visuals alone. And the part that you simply cannot understand without playing it yourself is the significance of your interaction with it.

YOU ARE THE WIND! Observing this footage and Experiencing this game are two very different things.

The video material above shows petals racing through environments. To you, the visions on screen are simply that; moving pictures. Seeing video of the game being played and saying you have experienced it is akin to hearing about the Mona Lisa from a friend w/o ever seeing it yourself. You dismiss your friend's experience as simply a drawing of a woman. How sad. How very tragically sad.

I implore you, buy an xbox360 or a ps3 and solicit a play-list from gamers. You'll find that you can be moved in new ways with a controller in your hands.

Hi Mr. Ebert,

Never commented on your blogs before (though I've read several). As you might guess, I'm a pretty big fan. Anyway, as someone who's been VERY moved by movies, books, music, AND a few videogames (very few though, certainly), I was wondering if you could clarify your argument a bit. I've always just thought that art was something that was defined by the people who "appreciated/consumed/critiqued" it. For example, I feel like an expertly prepared meal could be a work of art with the chef being the artist in question. As an actor, I feel like I'm an artist when I'm performing. They're both experiences that can (and often do, if you don't mind the boasting) move people. There are also some things that lots of people agree on as being art (a lot of paintings come to mind), that I just don't get. I mean, I guess I'm asking: Who gets to decide what is and isn't art? I just feel like it's subjective. I didn't realize there were so many rules. Do I not like Jackson Pollock's paintings because I have bad taste? Who decides that I do? Videogames aren't art for you. That's cool and they shouldn't have to be. I just don't see why they can't be for me and the people who feel similarly (although I agree that even if they aren't, people shouldn't let that stop their enjoyment of them). I'm not trying to challenge you, but I'm just sincerely curious about your opinion on this point.

Hope you're doing well,
Justin

P.S. - I listened to your commentary on Casablanca (my favorite film) a few months ago and loved it. Thanks for that.

I'm amazed at this article. It's almost a perfect example of blind refusal of an idea.

As others have said, you criticized her definition of art whilst giving no contradictory alternative.

Consider this: games include visuals, music, and many times writing. Regardless of the quality, do you not consider them, individually, as art? How does the addition of interactivity disqualify it?

In fact, interactivity should emphasize the artistic aspect. My "definition" of art is simply any creative work that I can take pleasure in, and game design easily fits into it. Furthermore, any definition that declines game design would decline writing, would it not? Both simply craft an experience.

As for "requiring validation," why do you look down upon us for it? Many people have no respect for the gaming industry, yet similar treatment of artists, musicians, or filmmakers would be taken as a complete lack of understanding of their respective art form because that's what it would be.

You may argue that disqualifying games as art doesn't imply disrespect, but then what are you trying to say? If games aren't to be treated as art, how should they be treated? And why should they be treated differently than actual art forms?

Roger,

Imagine a person (or book guy) saying that movies couldn't be art or writing off all of cinema when the only thing they've seen is a few trailers on TV.

- "Please just watch *insert great movie here* on DVD or go see *insert blockbuster here* at the theater."
- "No, thanks. I've seen the trailers. All movies are rehashed stories, full of poor acting and CGI explosions."

People are so adament about this topic, not because you don't like videogames but, because you have written off an entire industry. An entire industry they have been moved by. An entire industry that gave them a lasting experience beyond getting a high score or beating the game.

Something that gave them the same feelings you had the first time you seen Aguirre, the Wrath of God. They defend it for the same reason you would defend George Melies' "A Voyage to the Moon"; A movie that 99% of Americans would call boring and shut off within the first five minutes.

It went beyond what others would think is a silly game or movie or painting or piece of writing. It became art.

- Also, "Do they require validation?". No, it's that your stance invalidates the emotions they've felt and sadly, most people think that way.

I hope that you are disproven someday. Meanwhile, a few random thoughts:

1. A nitpick. You write, "She spoke extemporaneously." I have long liked the word "extemporaneous," and an extemporaneous PowerPoint presentation is an oxymoron. Also, while PowerPoint criticism is not an oxymoron, it should be.

2. I have yet to see a chess set that qualifies as art: pretty pieces distract from the game & make beautiful play nearly impossible. However, many chess games strike me as art, & great chess players often strike me as artists. Early in the twentieth century, a few leading chess players argued that players should be able to copyright the moves to a game: artists, after all, should be rewarded for their performances.

3. So can the player of a video game player be an artist, and a particular performance of a game be a work of art? Some people play games with a grace & rhythm that I could never achieve.

4. I do not play video games. When I think of artistic video games, I think of Tetris: simple yet creative. In general, old video games, developed when computer processing power was constrained, strike me as more artistic than elaborate immersive experiences. This creativity—a creativity brought forth by limitations—reminds me of the "chicken scratches" by primitive artists.

Holy crap. Feeling in the mood to wack a hornet's nest, Mr. Ebert? This comment section is going to explode, mark my words.

I was struck by two things in this post:

1) You are resolutely determined that video games cannot be art. By all appearances, however, you are not and have never been a gamer. You make vague references to scoring points and the like, more appropriate to arcade games of the 1980s than to many games today, and all of your examples are taken from Kellee Santiago's lecture. You mention people telling you to play this or that game and the connotation is pretty strong that you didn't listen to them and try it out for yourself.

All of that is fine. You are under no obligation whatsoever to "get" video games or enjoy them. But if a man who was born in the pre-film era and had exposure to the medium no greater than a few random clips were to proclaim with confidence that "films can never be art", how seriously would you take him?

I've been a gamer all my life, so I have my biases as well. However, having played games for such a long time, I have long ago seen the medium evolve beyond the simple point-scoring and mindless clicking you seem to suggest it consists of. I have seen "Knights of the Old Republic" produce characters and a story richer and more true to the feel of the original "Star Wars" than any of the three Star Wars prequels ever got. I have been moved almost to tears by the sacrifices of characters I had come to know and love at the end of "Planescape: Torment". I've been forced to make philosophically confounding decisions ("Deus Ex") and watch as a game turned my every hard-fought success against a designated 'enemy' and showed it in its full tragic reality ("Shadow of the Colossus"). And this is only skimming the surface.

In short, I can speak from decades of experience of gaming. I do not suggest you need such a long time to reach your own conclusions, but I do suggest that to reach such conclusions without ever having really understood or tried out what you're talking about is absurd. When was the last time you really played a game for any amount of time?

2) Kellee Santiago had some...odd choices for 'artistic' games. There are games with stories and characters as rich and developed as most novels and she chooses a shoot-em-up about Waco? Weird.

Also, in answer to your question of why so many of us wish to defend the idea of games as art, there is a good reason. And that reason is that there are many people involved with the game industry today who share your belief; they cannot see the potential of the medium for anything but churning out lots of utterly mindless games about running around shooting people. The more this idea spreads, the less likely we are to see new games that transcend it.

The amount of rage this article incites in me is immense. I think that the writer of this article does not actually know what art is. Art is when a human uses a medium to express an idea or emotion to a viewer using representational means. Many video games are great examples of art, if not examples of great art.

The only reason a Picasso, or a Monet or a Beethoven are considered great art is that they have classical history on their side. In school we are taught that they are the masters, and so they are.

The genius of Braid is that it creates a mood of nostalgia, through the music, through children's book like illustrations, and especially in the way it mimics the gaming style of the simple plat-former. It calls upon the history of gaming that any gamer would know, and changes it slightly, making the idea of many lives into a joke.

Has the author of this Article LOOKED at Assassins Creed? Has he played the Circle Tower mind freak of Dragon Age: Origins?

I don't agree. The author of this is absolutely wrong.

"Plato, via Aristotle, believed art should be defined as the imitation of nature."

Although I'm not sure what exactly this is supposed to mean, I'm pretty sure it's not right. Socrates, via Plato, believed that the arts were a degraded reflection of the world - which itself was a degraded reflection of the realm of the forms. Artists were moral deviants who had no place in the ideal Republic that Socrates was developing.

Aristotle's thoughts come closer to what you're saying; or at least, Aristotle starts closer. But he develops the idea of mimesis (usually translated as imitation) while talking about katharsis. Which is the first of many attempts to shift the view of art from the art-object to the art-consumer. Which now takes the form of these degraded forms of radical subjectivism ("well that's just what you think!") that are much more harmful to art than video game publishers clamoring to open up another market.

I'm not really comfortable saying whether you're right or wrong on the judgment though, since either position seems to me to suggest a degree of knowledge/a political position that I have not developed. I do think, though, that what hangs over a debate like this, is the question of the politics of art (which is not to say whether this thing we call a piece of art is sufficiently revolutionary/Leftist/politically motivated/etc. I mean, how does choosing to call something art embed you in a political judgment).

Sort of unrelatedly, I was about fifteen when I heard your first claim that video games could never be art, and my reaction was to think very hard about Magritte's "Treachery of Images" painting. Thanks very much for that. Magritte is really very phenomenal.

Oh and one final note: "They are, I regret to say, pathetic." From the OED: [

I think one of the main problems with this perennial debate is that there are very, very few people with a fair, unbiased opinion on this subject. Most gamers are passionate about their pastime, and will defend it appropriately. Meanwhile, people who don't play video games don't really know what they're talking about. I have played video games, and still do, but I don't do so on a regular basis and would not be considered a "gamer" by those who do. So I think I'm in a good position to weigh in on the subject.

Regarding the notion of what is or is not art - it will never be answered, because art is subjective. Everyone has their own opinion. Some people think graffiti art is art, others don't. Some people think Jackson Pollock is art, others don't. You could argue that a fork is art, or just silverware. The most you can use as a yardstick is "general social opinion," and even that can be hard to gauge sometimes, depending on who you hang out with.

I think video gamers actually kid themselves/don't want to admit some unpleasant truths about their hobbies. The Elephant in the Room is probably the continuing dependence of most video games on violence, which severely limits the type of story they can communicate and keeps them at the general level of action films, which are the kind of movies cinema lovers tend to not gush over. A bigger issue than violence, though, might be the reason it is used so often - to keep players from getting bored. Games also use devices like puzzles or treasure hunts, but the point is, video games feel the need to offer their players something more interesting than everyday life, something interactive, and thus they tend to fall back on the same kinds of stories over and over again.

But I also think that without actually playing video games, you can't really get a feel for what the experience is like. A lot of the affection gamers feel for their hobby comes from the long hours they put into it - unlike movies, which tend to be over in three hours at most, games stretch on for weeks, and gamers feel a pride and nostalgia looking back over the story that movie viewers (or book readers) can't approximate. They actually conquered that difficult puzzle or challenging enemy (via their virtual proxies). Some games offer players the ability to direct the story somewhat - the "Mass Effect" series, for instance. The ability to customize and experiment distinguishes games from film or literature. Finally, some games do offer stimulating stories, artful visuals, and profound (or catchy) music.

I will grant that a lot of video game stories, voice acting, and visuals cannot seriously compete with those in good films, but I don't see this as a problem that can't be overcome. The notion that they "can never be art" is very pessimistic and short-sighted.

Finally, I feel like most video gamers don't really think of their hobby as art - just entertainment. It's mostly something thinking gamers worry about. And yes, it's probably mostly a result of deep insecurity that they're wasting their time or rotting their brains or whatever. (This is where those exercise video games like "Wii Fit" also come from.)

To sum up, I don't think you're right, but most gamers probably exaggerate their cases as well.

While I am an advent player of video games, I agree they're not art, not even in the same sense that films, cartoons, and paintings are art.

This has nothing to do with the subject, but I think you should watch this video. It explains a lot about a certain director.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFzLRP8e4vE

Much of a video game is a view of reality after it's passed through the game designer's senses and back out into the computer sketchbook. The designer composes a reality in the same way a painter designs and executes a painting.

The largest part of the game generally is the artwork. Most game companies have large staffs of really good to great painters and graphic designers who provide the visual and auditory environment in which the player does whatever it is they do (it matters not).

The basic difference between movies and video games is that you are a passive captive to the movie. Your involvement is simply to view, hear, and be entertained.

In a video game, the focus is very similar in that the player watches and hears what the designer has put on the screen, but is also generally required to be one of the actors in the drama. The drama can be frivolous or deadly serious or any shade in between.

I know that some video games are art. How? I just know. Some are crap as are many movies. And many are just a way to kill some time.

I'm 59 years old and I can state with certainty that many video games have ascended well into the realm of art. A computer game is a canvas into which you insert yourself and deal with someone else's world, and be manipulated by the artists imagination both limitless and confining.

If comic books have reached legitimate art status, then video games would have been elevated to that level by default.

Piss Christ lowered the bar such that anything and everything is art. It could have been Piss Buddah or Piss Krishna. Perhaps even Piss Nixon.
Gosh...I just fell into the toilet trying to make a point.

Oxford English Dictionary defines art as "the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture." If that's the only criterion, then yes, video games are art - the question is whether said art is any good. I agree that cinema has fulfilled infinitely more of its potential as an artform, but no medium should be dismissed in and of itself.

As spot-on as I think you may be here (and I've been gaming since Carter was in office), you're kinda turning into Roger Trollbert on this subject.

"Critically acclaimed" games involve cutscenes between levels with dialogue, characters, etc...

Shooting someone in the head for points is not art, but the world that a video game can immerse you in certainly is.

Funny thing. I was reading a lot about games in the last few days and remembered constantly the discussions you've had occasionaly about videogames as art. I've played videogames now and then, but rarely since my childhood spent in the late 80's and early 90's, a great time for "classic" games. You may have been too kind to Kellee Santiago - It seems to me she doesn't have a clue about what are either videogames, or games for that matter, or art. That said, I fully agree: videogames are not, in any way, art. But they sure are something in itself; it seems though that the question about what games are seems to be restricted to people asserting that videogames are art, and others speaking from common sense that a game cannot be art, whatever art is, but the latter are not usually interested in investigating further what videogames may be after all. But the thing is, there are a lot of people from the side of games that understand very well what games are about, and none of them ever says that they are an art form – they, and by that I mean the game designers that actually invented or pioneered the whole thing, understand that games are about gameplay, about the mechanics of the game. They’re about going from point A to point B and presenting this as a problem, as a puzzle to be solved in the most imaginative way. Of course, this is already so crystallized that the solution of a problem may be implemented as simply as “shoot someone in the face” – but the very possibility of offering a true problem to the player, a challenge to the imagination, is there, and such a task is taken upon more often than you can imagine.

Art is something different all together, and it sure is not about the mechanics of it – art is not a problem to be solved. But I must say, I’ve been a reader for a long a time, and I’m genuinely disappointed with your approach to the question of what art is – I hope that you go deeper and further still. You mention the Greeks, but you don’t seem very curious about it. Aristotle did say that art is imitation of nature, but are we sure we understand what that means? “Nature” is for the Greeks, after all, “physis”, and its meaning is something we cannot understand through our knowledge of nature as either an object of science or what occurs “naturally”, as opposed to “culture”, that which we produce. To say Aristotle’s sentence is a definition among others is to say too little. Physis means growing, expansion, the emergence and the very movement of being of everything that is, even what we ourselves make and create, things and thoughts. When it is “imitated”, we are not talking about a picture that is taken, about a sound that is echoed – we are not talking about a “physical” reproduction, but we are not talking about a symbolic representation of the meaning of something, either. When art “imitates” nature, it means for a Greek: it imitates the growth and emergence, the movement and genesis of being, that which is not readily accessible through senses or even common sense.

We look around, and everything that we see and perceive already is what it is – we don’t see such an emergency. We see transformation, sure, birth, growing, death, and the passage of night and day, but we already know what night and day are, we know what awaits us when we wake up, though we make sure to prepare ourselves for the darkness that comes before dawn. We have keys for that sort of thing, and a savings account. We are never completely out of our familiar path, and in this path, everything already happened before we noticed; the world doesn’t begin with us, and even if we try to imagine an absolute chronological beginning of something, it’s only because we’re projecting our own understanding in direction to the past. Like the tribal dance you mention – don’t you think the choreographers you imagined would know beforehand what dance itself is, as they prepare this particular dance you propose? If art imitates this emergence and growth and expansion of everything that is that we do not experience through the course of day and night, it could be said, art brings forward the world we are in, as if for the first time.
Sorry if I’ve taken too long, or if I sound a little preachy. Everything here is meant as nothing but a question. But he thing is, Roger, you do sound preachy yourself about what Kellee Santiago understands as art, but if instead of actually posing a question, investigating, reflecting, you just come up with a list of better definitions than hers, you don’t fare much better – and I say this as a profound admirer, knowing I exaggerate somewhat. The path you take is also all too familiar, and maybe a little curiosity about the meaning, sense and history of the words we take for granted is in order before we correct Plato and Aristotle.
Last thing: if you are still in any way willing to read what someone who knows that videogames are not art writes about videogames, I urge you to seek Tim Rogers’ article
here
.

Roger, to pick the Transformers 2 equivalent of video games and say video games can't be art is like to say movies can't be art never having seen a non-hollywood formula movie.

I'm as big a fan of movies as anyone. My library probably has at least 2 or 3 thousand movies, more than half of them foreign and with the full spectrum of bad enough to be good and good enough to be moving.

As critical and ecclectic as I am of movies, I'm likewise a fan of video games that are art.

I can off the top of my head pick three video games that are definitely art--unless someone wants to say movies can't be art either.

1. The Path (by Tale of Tales). http://tale-of-tales.com/ThePath/

There's no fighting in this game. There's no plot. There are several sisters of varying age, and you navigate them through the woods to grandmother's house. Each has several encounters and their own variation of a wolf.

People who think the 2001 remake of the planet of the apes is art would not like The Path video game, but people who like good poetry or werner herzog and slow paced movies almost certainly would.

2. Fallout 3. I won't bother linking it because this one was role playing game of the year not long ago, but this is the first movie I played that forced me to admit it was an interactive movie of high quality writing and acting.

For instance, there's a "scene" (though truly interactive) where I fought myself through Washington D.C. to a Ghoul City and came upon a bartender and asked her story of her. Ghouls were people who were human before the war but didn't die from the radiation and now, two hundred years later, are still alive.

Audrey Wasilewski played a ghoul who was a young kid when the war started, and she told a story that kept me revitted by her tale and how passionately she told it. Rarely in any movie have I heard a story told so well. Maybe the old man in apocalypto, or maybe the guy who played Bhisma in Peter Brook's Mahabharata, but here was Audrey in the role of a ghoul telling a story that could have been a survivor of Hiroshima two hundred years later talking about what happened. And that's just one example from that game. There were many other great actors in it.

3. Grand Theft Auto IV. This is the holy cow of interactive movies. The story, the acting and the open endedness amazes me even two years after having played it. Heck I just logged off playing an add-on module to it a few minutes ago. This "game" is probably better than more than 90% of the movies I consider watchable.

I don't really think whether someone thinks games are art has to do with being the eye of the beholder. I think it has to do with exposure and education. It's easy to grow up watching TV that's all Dukes of Hazard and Three's Company and think there's no TV that's art. But after someone sees Deadwood there's no going back to thinking TV cannot be art.

And games are the same. Are they getting better all the time? Sure, the same way special effects in movies get better all the time. But the best games are made amazing not by computer power. They're made amazing by the story telling and the human acting.

Video games are the movies of the future. Sometimes they're the movies of today.

When you look at art history, you always encounter the same thing. Mainstream art critics who fail to understand the new directions within art and vocally oppose change. Somehow they are stuck within a certain paradigm and can't see further then the boundaries they've set themselves. By doing so they actually make way for newer generations of artists to invent their own language of art.

Well... you are one of those critics who can't seem to keep up and observe with an open mind. On top of that you fail to understand the fact that there is a) no single definition of art and b) no single definiton of a game. Therefore you can NOT make the claims you do! Even your basic assumption that every game needs an ending is wrong and proofs your lack of knowledge.

You obviously have not explored the medium of video games apart from the examples that have been giving to you. From an outsider's perspective, it might be hard to see why these games could be "game-changers". But until you are willing to invest the time to actually explore them, your oppinion in invalid. I really hope you take this as an adult and do the right thing. Become involved with video games, learn more about their history, the genres, the difference between westerns and eastern games, talk to real game designers and find out how they tick but most importantly: play the games! After all that, you can come back to the topic and actually have something worthwhile to say.

Can video games be art? I think it all depends on what your definition of "art" is. And Roger, I think your definition is stricter than most people's.

There are many bad, boring games out there where all you do is mash buttons and things explode. There are some better games, which challenge the player to react quickly and solve problems under pressure. Then there are a few which are done in a very creative way, with challenging-yet-fun game design, an emotional connection to the characters involved, and an engaging storyline.

When something takes a lot of creativity and effort, and the end product is a highly enjoyable for the person experiencing it, I call that "art". Maybe you don't.

Other things I might consider art: an extremely proficiently designed piece of software, the design of the iPhone, and the design and execution of the "Homerun Throwback" play where the Tennessee Titans defeated the Buffalo Bills with no time on the clock in the 2000 NFL playoffs.

I suspect nearly everyone in this thread will disagree with you, but the reason isn't that video games fail to make strong impressions in people. It's simply that our definitions of words differ.

Roger if you don't really consider games as art then would be it be fair to say that you really shouldn't consider you human?

I mean think about it with your cancer and all you can speak or do much of what we normal humans can do can you? Like normal humans can speak for instance, don't look like rotting pile of flesh and bone and make rational arguments based on evidence and observation rather than opinions.

But if we are going to play the opinion game here is my opinion: You are not human. You are a bag of shit. A literal leaking wet bag of human excrement. I mean that's why you need a nurse right? To clean your boo-boos when you make dirty in your bed? Or to aid you in any of the other tasks humans can accomplish. Like speaking or actually looking like a human.

Your really more akin monster at this point y'know. But not one of the scary monsters but instead one of those abominations of science one can only hope to put out their misery ASAP. Like from the Fly movies. You know the type of monster that only really capable of eating and shitting and not much else. If tries something else it might break a bone like its hip. Its the kind of monster that has accepted it should be put out of its misery.

But I digress scum-taint. I am here to touch on the notion what you imagine is making point. It isn't or rather its futile much like the rest of your life. For you see you are going to die. You really are, and you will be forgotten quite quickly by this generation that gobble down any and new information however inane. So I will give it... 3 years after you have died for you to be completely forgotten. There a numerous reasons for this but mostly because nobody gives a shit about old movie reviews. Especially from a critic who has contributed nothing to society.

And people generally don't like you and don't really consider you human anymore. Like on Oprah dragging you out like freak sideshow for her entire audience to leer at. Those were eyes of not care but condescension, that of fat middle aged women looking down at mangled dying puppy in the street. But instead the the puppy is made from brown sheer fecal matter, pubes are oddly sticking out of it, flies are buzzing about its head slowly devouring at its turd flesh and The dogs lower lip is slacked jawed, quivering unable to close, only able to let loose a rancid stench of decay. Thats what you are and that's what all those obese women saw. And how quickly they will forget you as well when Oprah shows them some new book made from chocolate.

I severely doubt this comment will be approved, as the critic of course cannot take a real criticism or argue his case, or if the wrinkled urinal cumlicker will even read this. Ill just say for all others reading that there is no reasoning with this filthy bucket of bubbling stool. You know how old racist hicks never change their stripes? This brown and yellow stain will never change either. He won't play the actual games hes decrying much like how a racist will never talk to a black person to realize they are human. Oh no, far too old, retarded, ignorant and stubborn to do that. He unable to actually complete a game of course being a bag of shit and all but beyond that the thing deludes itself into thinking its higher than us. But a bag of shit is still just a bag of shit and no matter what it does at this point all it can do is reek.

But you know what the bag of shit wants the most in the world as it rots? Attention. You can talk to it all you want but it will not change its mind. Hes a bag of shit. He only wants other bathe in its smell as he slowly rots to death. So you guys could do that and try to reason with liquid diarrhea or you could instead debase and humiliate. Call it out for the vile oozing pus he really is and laugh while you do. Laugh at his slacked jawed face much like did and this the piece of shits inanity. Don't think because he has cancer and is dying hes beyond reproach, you are all far too soft.

Ebert: Lujo, this comment approaches art, but doesn't...quite...make it.

I stand out from many of my game industry peers when I defend Roger Ebert's position. I insist on defining a "game" very narrowly as concerning just rules (the gameplay mechanics). Compare it with an ornate pocket watch. Inside the whirling cogs are a beautiful wonder of engineering, but I can not consider it art.

Though perhaps you could find art hung upon the central clock mechanism? A jeweler could use precious metals and arrange stones with some meaning in mind. A verse of poetry could be etched on the back. A small music box could even play a song. After all this, has this thing that we call a "pocket watch" come any closer to being art?

It might be true that great art will be hung upon games in the future, but the games* themselves will never, at their core, be any more like art than the Mona Lisa's easel.

(*not including interactive art without gameplay mechanics)

Hi, Roger. Please forgive my post script, but there's another very important example I forgot. Previously I picked games that are interactive movies, but I forgot that there's a very important book that was written as a video game.

In the 1980's Raymond E. Feist wrote a wonderful trilogy called "Magician" that starts with two ten year old boys and follows them through very different paths in a world consumed by wars. When he decided to write the fourth book in the series, he didn't make it a book. He made it a video game--literally half book and half game. It was released in 1993, so the computing power was much weaker than it is now. But it's an example of computing power not being as important as story.

To my humble knowledge Raymond E. Feist may be the first to actually make a video game as art rather than as pure game. But others have taken the torch and run far with it.

Mr. Ebert, I can't begin to tell you how much respect and adoration I have for you as a critic, a pundit, and even more so, a person. It wasn't long after my father finally gave in and hooked our family up to the internet that I found I could read your reviews online. This was about ten years ago, and since this discovery I've read more of your reviews than I care to count. Every single time I watch a film, I immediately look up your review to see if I agree with you, which is about 95% of the time. I attribute this to the fact that, through reading your critiques you've taught me the majority of what I know about film. You're the greatest teacher I've ever had, and for that I cannot thank you enough.

With all of that said, it's not that I necessarily disagree with your views of videogames as an art-form. I have played hundreds of videogames, and have yet to find one that I felt was truly "art". I have found a few that have moved me emotionally, and one that nearly brought me to tears. This was quite an accomplishment as I have watched thousands of films, read hundreds of novels and experienced some of the most beautiful music known to man, and can count on two hands how many times I've been moved to tears. I list my artistic credentials not to be pretentious, but so you know that I'm not some guy with blistered thumbs that sits in front of his Xbox all day.

No, my problem is not with your assertion of videogames as an artform, it's that you've made an assertion at all. Since you've admitted that you haven't played more than a few videogames, it doesn't seem that you are in much of a position to be judging them at all. Your view of the medium as nothing more than people running around shooting things is, quite simply, archaic. The videogame medium has evolved leaps and bounds in the past 15 years, due largely in part to improving technology, but more so the aging and maturing of it's core audience. As we grew up, so did the themes and concepts portrayed in games. The game Metal Gear Solid is as much about killing people as is Apocolypse now. Sure, it happens, but that's not at all the point.

Since you admittedly aren't well versed on the medium, you've taken to using definitions to prove your point. This is flawed, as it was you who taught me early on that a film isn't just the sum of it's parts. The same can be said for music, as it would be impossible to define how the Overture of 1812 is exciting, haunting, inspiring and beautiful all at the same time.

I don't at all need for videogames to be considered art. I don't have any stock in the videogame industry, nor do I play them enough to require some sort of validation for my time spent. I just can't understand how you are so quick to pass judgement on a medium you so clearly don't understand. It's not as though you would write a review of a film you haven't seen. I'm sure you've recieved alot of mail (hate or otherwise) regarding the issue, and I certainly respect you for sticking to your guns. I will always have untold amounts of adoration and respect for you sir, but since you clearly aren't interested in the videogame medium as whole, don't you think this may be one debate you should just stay out of?

Roger,

I love your work as a film critic. There are nearly no times that I don't at the very least respect your opinion and see where you are coming from. Most of the time I agree with you nearly 100% with your movie assessments.

That being said, you just don't get it(someone should trademark that now). Just as a piece of canvas is transformed into a piece of art with a brush and some paint, video games take your monitor/TV into a whole new realm of interactive art.

If you want to split hairs, I'd give you that video games are not art if you will say that movies, television, photography, and anything other than the classic forms of painting, sculptures, and literature are also not art.

Quite simply, it is just an extension of art into this era. It is a good commentary on our culture that we need more stimulation to be amused.

All things considered there are a lot of video games that are not trying to be forms of art. But even those carry multiple people that have "artist" in their job titles. Graphic artist, storyboard artist, sound effect artist, etc.

Thanks either way for your insight, it is always a treat reading your words. You truly have a way with them :)

If I may be forgiven for going off-topic...

I think your reviews are great and usually very accurate, I love reading your blog and especially your responses, I'm a big fan.

But your review of Kick-Ass was so far off base that I just can't understand it.

"This isn't comic violence. These men, and many others in the film, are really stone-cold dead."

YES IT IS TOO COMIC VIOLENCE. Ok, so it's not Batman swinging at someone with a "BIFF!" on the screen, but it's (mostly) completely exaggerated impossible-in-the-real-world craziness. I consider it in the same area as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, except they happen to show all the blood and guts here.

I'd also compare it somewhat to the scene in Pulp Fiction where Vincent shoots Marvin in the back seat of the car. It's unexpected, it's violent and messy and disgusting (there's brain matter in Jules's hair)... but how do people react? They laugh.

I can't explain it, but when violence is filmed a certain way, it's so crazy and shocking and unreal that somehow the effect in the audience is laughter and entertainment.

I mean, I can understand that you're morally opposed to violence committed by young people and don't think it should be glorified. But what about the zillion other movies filled with violence and theft and drug use and murder?

To give a movie one star because you object to what it depicts (instead of how it depicts it) is something I expect from the reviews on Christian websites, but not from you.

" 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. "

Wait, are you saying video games, by definition, cannot be immersive?

It seems to me that a lot of commenters are missing the point.

"Art" as a description is a category, not a value-judgement. Saying that a video game is "not art" is not tantamount to saying that it is "not good". There are good games and bad games, good art and bad art.

Since I am a musician, I will work with a musical analogy. A musical work is the creation of one (or sometimes more) composers, has internal coherence, contains carefully-timed buildups and releases of tension, and contains many forms of Wikipedia's "deliberately arranged elements".

Imagine a musical work in which the composer relinquished control and allowed the listener to decide where the music went. On the most basic level, you could have a piece with several alternate endings, which the player chooses between. Is this art? Possibly, in principle, it would be a type of aleatoric music. In practice, however, I doubt if any such piece would ever be good art. The ending of a piece should be the inevitable outcome from what went before it; the first part would need to be quite bland, dissolute and inconsequential in order to be able to support several possible conclusions.

Now imagine a symphony in which the listener can add or subtract any instrument at will, extend or compress the duration of sections, and explore the sound-world of the symphony with complete freedom. Is this art? My gut reaction says no. I'm not sure exactly what line has been crossed, but I think it is related to the vision of the artist being subjugated to the whims of the audience. The goal of that symphony would be for the listener to have a good time interacting with an orchestra. It would be a fascinating experience, but not a work of art in itself.

Take it a step further still, in which the player is given various musical elements, and plays by combining them to create their own work. Is this art? In principle, whatever the player creates would be art (could be good art, could be bad), but the game itself would not. It would just be the player's instrument.

This, I think, is the fundamental difference between video games and art. Yes, video games can contain artistic elements. But once the game creators surrender their control to the player, a line gets crossed. Art is fundamentally passive. It may involve and excite us, may make us jump out of our seats, but it's still about absorbing through our senses the work of an artist. The video game, on the other hand, is about us. We explore and rearrange the elements of the game, we control the experience to some extent. That's what makes the difference, for me.

Roger,

As much as I respect you as a man and as a movie critic (oh how I am defending your kick-ass review on imdb!), I am sad to say that video games are not your territory and you should just not say anything about that. I have complete faith that video games are art, and I agree its subjective to quite an extent, but almost nobody comes out and say-'Hey! painting is not art!' Cause its established. Video games will be established as art. I could recommend at least 5 games right here, but since you said that you get many recommendations anyway, I wont. But I have arrived on conclusion that you dont get it, and never will. But then at least stop writing about it. I dont get many painting and I accept that they art, I am just not getting it. Do the same please.

Dear Mr. Ebert,

You are wrong about this:

"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 an 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."

I have a counterexample. A game that has neither points, objectives nor an outcome would be comparable to the hunting of pathetic little animals exemplified in La règle du jeu. Before you itch to raise the objection that the killing has an objective, the one being precisely the killing itself, ask yourself do the characters in La règle du jeu kill for any purpose? If there is an objective, it is a tacit one of obliging with the rules of a house party (and the tacit part belongs to other rules). Yet none of this excludes the fact that they are participating in a human activity the objects of which are game (game-birds, rabbits etc.). Hunting is a game and it has rules without necessarily having objectives or any meaningful outcome. I, for instance, suspect most people go hunting or fishing to be with buddies.

Looking deeper, we will also have to distinguish what is meant by ‘an objective in a game’ and ‘the objective of a game’. The objective in a game would be, in most cases, to win (though not necessarily so, as I have stressed). The objective of a game, for instance one taught to kindergartners, would not be to win, but to teach them about civil competition (or other societal rules). We in fact teach quite a good deal of useful things by means of games (if you enjoy analytic philosophy you may also like to consult the famous term of ‘language game’). In a similar manner, we see the populace of La règle du jeu caught in an funnel of infinite games and rules from which they cannot escape.

When someone creates a game, it often has a function (objective of) as shown by the distinction above. "Immersive games", that you would argue wrongly "ceases to be a game" when they don't involve points or winning (objectives), could still qualify as games if they have objectives beyond the game itself. Furthermore, something can be a game devoid of your observed characteristics of points, objectives, and outcome. Thus, what you have said about games having rules and "points, objectives, and an outcome" (as necessary) is false, and does not alone go to show that games cannot be art.

At the core of any human form of activity, may it be language or games and not excluding art, are rules. Santiago's examples of "immersive games" have rules. I ask you to think to yourself that this form of "immersive game" as a restricted construction that exhibits the intention of its creator very much like a film despite being a game. In the case of films there are rules as well, which of all people you should know the best (especially the technical bits). But even if we look beyond the creator, our acceptance of any film is governed by rules (psychological rules if you wish), without which we wouldn't be able to appreciate art at all.

Even when we come to art, I find myself doubtful that what most people call strain themselves to label as art (see example: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2009/10/the_agony_of_the_body_artist.html) can be properly taken as art. In my opinion, the battleground of what is or is not art begins far before games (video) entered the fray. When you say "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets," the natural question is whether even a lot of alleged ‘art’ can count as art. By your comparison to masterpieces, there are an abundance of poets, filmmakers, novelists, etc. who would not satisfy the requirements of being artists simply because they suck. In addition, many great video games, I guess, would by far exceed the lowliest and most base of artists in terms of aesthetic output. This goes to what you write about the difficulty of defining it. And I don’t think we have any microwavable definitions in hand.

The closest I think we can get to a usable definition, though one that is not very useful, is very much similar to the one Santiago cites from Wikipedia. The artist who creates a work of art must will it as part of his intention that the work should fundamentally be a work of art, that is as having aesthetic value as its prime achievement. And by this flimsy definition, I agree with you that there are few games that are worthy of comparison to poets, filmmakers etc. simply because their intention was never chiefly an aesthetic one (it’s about making money and that says a lot about ‘artists’ who dwell at a similar level). This, however, does not exclude the possibility of games from being works of art (see my comment above about ‘objectives of a game’ contrasted with ‘objectives in a game’).

Now, I agree with you that winning is something alien to art, but at the same time I deny that the ability to win is an essential feature of a game. If there is any essential feature of a game (however loosely defined) it is one of human participation, which by itself does not set apart games from art. Furthermore, I would argue that most video games are not art. Since, I have qualified the statement with ‘most’ and you probably won’t ever be motivated to try any video games out, you will probably never come to see any video game as art.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your argument. What you've actually shown is that games aren't Great Art. I think I might be willing to agree with you on that point. That argument is summarized here by a Great Artist:

http://modernkicks.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/calvin_2.jpg

Others have made good points I won't repeat here. I take issue with the assertion that you've experienced a game sufficiently to review it by having observed its advertising trailers. By the definition of the medium, until you've actually played it, you haven't truly experienced it the way the "authors" intended. You don't review films by reading screenplays, theater by reading scripts, and you can't really judge sculpture by looking at a photo taken from one side of it. If you didn't play it, you're not in the audience.

"Why are gamers concerned about video games being defined as art?"

Same reason comic book fans invented the term graphic novel, same reason Truffaut write the auteur theory, same reason you argued for a Pulitzer prize for cinema: to validate your taste and distance your favorite art form from claims of being simple mass culture trash.

And, one could likewise ask why defining video games as not art is so important to you? I personally have no interest in defining anything as art: seems one of the least interesting things we can say about a cultural object.

I hope Roger understands the inherent paradox in his analysis: if art depends on taste, is it not self-evident that some may see games today as art? Are their opinions somehow less valid?

But relativism is just my pet peeve. My real "beef" with Roger's analysis lies here:

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.

Is it so impossible to imagine a video "game" in which one does not win or lose but simply experiences a story? Perhaps our problem isn't with the term "art", but is instead with the term "video game". Santiago makes explicit her operationalization of the "video game" medium not as "game" made art (she goes to great lengths to distinguish other modes of play) but as a synthesis of the auditory, the visual and the interactive. Print brought us the visual. Radio brought us the auditory. Television and film synthesized the two. I agree with Santiago that the movement is away from the video game as a raw mode of play akin to baseball and towards the video "game" as an interactive experience made to evoke responses far more akin to those experienced between the pages of a book or sitting in a darkened theater.

Santiago's talk suffers greatly from her mediocre examples. Though perhaps peculiar, the Waco game just looked silly, and the time-travel Mario knock-off can only be called laughable. The flower game example though, I think, was the most apt of the three. Her handle on the literary significance of the game may have been tenuous, but consider: is the object of a game like Flower to "win" really, or is it to experience the visuals - to use the controller to immerse yourself (to the extent possible) in the sensation of being a clutch of flower petals flowing on a gust of wind? The experience of "winning" is pervasive in video games, but what sets games like Flower apart - what creates for them an audience - are sensations apart from the slight buzz of completing a demarcated task successfully.

I'd offer another recent game as perhaps the best example of the "video game" made art. Heavy Rain (to which I see another commenter has already alluded) is billed as "interactive fiction". Essentially, the game tracks four main characters through the hunt for a serial killer. The player controls each of the characters at various times. Part of the rub is that there is no way to "lose" - if a character dies, then it is simply the case in this iteration of the story that that character does not survive to the climactic scene, which scene appropriately shifts as the player makes the choices he or she will make as the game progresses. In a way, this makes the player simultaneously the patron and the critic - he absorbs the story, tries to unwind the whodunit, becomes attached to the characters, but also does what he thinks the characters should or would do to make the story the most interesting, the most true. Those truly engaged in Heavy Rain qua Heavy Rain and not as a cheap thrill (something akin to somebody who watches Un Chien Andalou just to see the eye cutting scene for the gross-out thrill) will create the ending that best reflects their understanding of human nature, their skill with the controls and their ability to sort through the clues that the game presents. Barthes would be proud - the author doesn't even get to solidify his own ending, much less fix the meaning of his work to its consumers.

If this sounds like sophomoric, juvenile reverence of simplistic nonsense ... well, yeah, I guess it does sound like that. I am, after all, trying to hold what is basically an evolved version of Super Mario out as art (and admittedly mediocre art at that; try playing the game and you'll understand why the French should never attempt a New England accent). But the point is that the object of this "game" isn't to win or lose, it's to experience. I absolutely take Roger's point about that dichotomy being the necessary dividing line between play and art, but I submit that video "games" are, indeed, evolving. Like the man says, "never say never."

Why the urge to define video games as art? Simple. Because gamers feel a desperate urge to convince themselves that the hours, days, weeks, months, years they have lost to gaming were for the sake of a nobler purpose, or anything but a waste of time.

And this coming from a chronic gamer. No matter how engrossing, beautiful or just plain fun a game experience is or can be, all I'm left with in the end is the realization of the sheer magnitude of time lost, and what I could have done with that time that would leave a more lasting imprint on my life.

Games aren't Art in the same way Movies can never be art.. In many ways video games are just movies / stories with one additional feature.. interaction. Games can engage their audience on a level that most movies never can.

What if you play a video game and, upon completion and subsequent reflection, you discover that it has resonated with you in a manner similar to or even indistinguishable from the way a film, novel, musical composition, or image can? Is it then art?

Is interactivity the fatal factor? One should think it is just as possible for an individual (rather than a committee) to direct the creation of a game or multiple games in such a way that a distinct personality or style is conveyed, a case in point—for me—being Shigesato Itoi and his series of 'EarthBound' ('Mother' in Japan) games. A video game, like a film, can establish a unique aesthetic and attitude, and can be a vessel for satire, criticism, pathos, character study, or moral commentary. 'EarthBound,' for instance again, is all of the above, and moreover offers a very specific experience that is not merely goal-imprisoned: it is a comically exaggerated imagining of Western (specifically American) culture, and pop culture, from the perspective of an increasingly Westernized Japan, infused with the singular idiosyncrasies, impressions and traumas of its creator, Itoi.¹ Other media are perfectly capable of imparting the same perspective, but not with the same completeness as 'EarthBound.' That said, of the probably hundreds of video games with which I've interacted, 'EarthBound' is the only one that's felt like a creative achievement; after which, I felt enriched. I generally try to avoid playing video games, because they feel like ambition-zapping time thieves. There's more overlap among cinephiles and avid gamers than you may think in the under-30 set, but that overlap doesn't usually extend to the corresponding sensibilities, and someone with both an earnest appreciation for Bergman films and for the 'Grand Theft Auto' games probably isn't calling out for higher artistic merit in the latter.

Like film, however, video games provide a canvas of sorts—a canvas like any other, with its own medium-specific shape. You're a writer of nonfiction and fiction as well as feature films, so you have a firsthand understanding of the creative impulse. Imagine, in your capacity as an artist, a hypothetical scenario in which your access to those canvasses is permanently taken from you, and your only permitted medium is the video game. Answering only to your own whims and not to the obligations of commerce, you must funnel your creative impulse into the video game format, applying all of your personal sensibilities and tastes to the interactive parameters of the medium to create a video game that only Roger Ebert could have created. What would the result be? Is the result not art?

¹ The dialogue and visual elements of a key sequence in 'EarthBound' were inspired by, according to Shigesato Itoi, an incident in Itoi's early childhood in which he entered and watched the wrong movie at a cinema, witnessing the onscreen rape and humiliation of a female character in the film; as a result, he was in shock for days afterward. This insight, and the emotion that colored this sequence in the game, recalls David Lynch's discussion of the origin of Isabella Rossellini's front-lawn nude scene in 'Blue Velvet.' The compulsion to exorcise these respective experiences in properties that are inessential to their narrative contexts appears to be the same in both Lynch and Itoi.

Dear Roger,

I'm a big admirer of your writing, but in this case you're wildly wrong. "Braid" and "Flower" aren't just works of art; each one is a masterpiece. I'll explain why in a moment, but first I need to offer a working definition of art.

First: Art is stored humanity. When my mom was a kid, you could walk into a bank and exchange a dollar bill for a dollar's worth of silver. But now paper money has become detached from silver or any other specific commodity and exists as a pure store of value. Art does the same thing. It detaches from the artist and stands alone and self-sufficient in the world. The artist calves off a piece of himself or herself; and when I encounter that piece -- the artwork -- I'm able to glimpse or sense the unique human spirit or human intelligence that created it.

Second: Art overflows the ice-cube tray. In other words, it doesn't fit neatly into compartments. It spills over, sloshes around, and commingles. It contains ambiguities and ironies. This goes hand-in-hand with the human-ness of art. Because the human spirit is rife with contradictions, our greatest artworks tend to be those that explore our conflicts with ourselves, each other, the world, or history.

Third: Not all art, but a lot of art, is layered. It contains a variety of elements configured in such a way that they sometimes contradict each other and sometimes align with each other. The overall design of alignments and contradictions can begin to resemble, or suggest, the complexity of the human spirit.

On to "Braid." The game begins with you, the player, maneuvering your on-screen avatar, a man, across a bridge backlit by a burning sky. He enters an abandoned house, goes through a door, and encounters a series of books, which tell a story about a girl he once loved and lost. He wishes he could go back in time and undo what he did to drive her away.

When you move on to gameplay, you quickly discover the unique feature of "Braid": you're able to rewind time. What makes this compelling isn't just that it's a novel gameplay mechanic; it's that it mirrors the heart's desire of the game's main character. This is brilliant. As an artistic milestone in the development of the medium, creating this kind of alignment between thematic content and formal mechanics is at least on par with painters realizing that the color of a sky can be used to create mood, or filmmakers realizing that shot composition and editing can be used not just to chronicle the action of the story but to express a character's emotional state.

But as "Braid" unfolds, it becomes clearer that as a work of art it does much more than just achieve thematic unity between gameplay mechanics and story. Films have to be filmy, novels have to be novely, and games (even if they're works of art) have to be gamey. In other words, to succeed they have to play to the strengths of, and succeed in the context of, the constraints of gaming is a medium. And "Braid" does, wonderfully.

Reversing time turns out to be not just a gimmick. It yields a way of playing that's totally new. As in: never existed before in human history. Certain objects and elements are immune to changes in the time stream, and to solve the game's puzzles, you have to figure out how to juggle your own actions relative to the movement of time and the actions or positions of the other elements.

These time puzzles are fiendishly complex. Manipulating narrative like this in service of a story with a profound theme was art when Christopher Nolan did it in "Memento" or Quentin Tarantino did it in "Pulp Fiction." Why isn't it art when Jonathan Blow does it in "Braid"?

As you progress through the story, little by little, you piece together what happened between the protagonist and his lost love. It's somewhat open-ended but that doesn't make it less emotionally affecting. And each nugget of exposition feels truly earned, because it isn't just being dished up to you -- you can only gain insight by solving the puzzles.

The concluding sequence is nothing short of astonishing. It was so beautiful it made me cry. And difficult and fun to play. Without ruining it, I'll just say that it ingeniously and movingly pays off what the game has promised from the beginning, which is to achieve a synthesis of the story you're experiencing and the way you're experiencing it -- through play.

And I haven't even mentioned the sly references to Super Mario Bros. (a funny, un-precious choice that creates a dialogue between "Braid" and the history of the medium), or the gorgeous artwork or hauntingly beautiful music. These aren't just window dressing or surface aesthetics; they're part of the fabric of the game.

I love "Braid" because I think it truly is a distillation of something rich and universal about the human spirit, through the eyes of a particular artist, filtered through the unique tools and mechanics of a new and exciting medium.

As for "Flower": It's an achievement of equal magnitude but a very different game. In the early levels, you make a flower petal float around and interact with its environment. The game gives you no instructions, so you have to figure out for yourself what to do. And what you eventually discover is that you can heal blighted landscapes by interacting with patterns of individual flowers.

This simple premise permutates quickly into much more complex scenarios, which are, if not puzzles per se, puzzle-like. Then, unexpectedly, the atmosphere of the game darkens, and the action takes on a different tenor, sending the player into a very unexpected resolution -- but a resolution which emerges organically from the elements that have appeared previously in the game.

As with "Braid," I don't want to describe what happens in the end, because it's something people should really experience for themselves. It's amazing. So I'll just say that what really wows me about "Flower" as a game and as a work of art is that when you finish it, you feel like you've taken an emotional journey. And yet the game has no words. No instructions. And no human characters.

Jenova Chen, the creator, has sublimated or transmuted human emotion into actions that you trigger by moving a video game controller. Yet it's no less real and no less moving as a result of that. It reminded me of some of Haruki Murakami's novels, particularly "Wind-Up Bird Chronicle," in which characters are working out emotional dramas that have little or nothing to do with the specifics of what they experience... yet the stuff they're experiencing becomes just the arena they need to work their way through it all.

And, as with "Braid," "Flower" is just plain beautiful. The first level is pastoral and lovely, and then some of the later levels are exploding with color like a J.M.W. Turner painting.

It's also a joy to play. I can't think of another game that's captured soaring, swooping, gliding and all the other colors and textures of flight like "Flower" does. And when you do what you do at the end of the game (sorry to be vague -- don't want to spoil it!) it's both satisfying as an action and a true emotional catharsis.

Gaming isn't years away from being art. It's already there.

Mr. Ebert, you seem at least a bit conflicted when it comes motive in this article. There are parts where it seems you want to dismiss videos games altogether as an art form and there are parts where you seem to want to simply say that it is such a primitive art form that it hardly bares mentioning as such.

You're first major point is to say that video games allow a person to win. In making this point I assume that you are not just simply stating the obvious but are also implying that this somehow makes video games less of an art form or even disqualifies it altogether. Yet why should it? I imagine that there may have been fine arts critics, that upon seeing motion pictures for the first time, dismissed them in a similar fashion; "The pictures move! That is unlike any painting I've never witnessed so this certainly isn't art." Yet our response to such arguments nowadays would be to dismiss it as foolish. The point is different art forms have different qualities that make them distinct and you ought to have either expanded on this point or simply not make it at all.

You then go on to analyze the three games that were shown in the presentation. You're quoted as saying that seeing these games "do not raise my hopes for a v