I'll bite first.

Watch someone play a game and you watch.

It's passive, like the games, and you should be able to get through it no problem. Mark Wahlberg did it for Max Payne. Other actors have done it for movie-games of lesser quality.

I leave this quote as my only rebuttal to the argument that games can't be art:

"Art isn't about making you feel good. Art is about making you feel."

I absolutely applaud your willingness to perform this act of self reflection. Your conclusion is fantastic and, though I feel video games are already art, your entire blog gains my (admittedly irrelevant) nod of approval.

Bravo sir, and thank you. As a gamer, I value very much your willingness to continue and conclude the conversation.

Well said. I appreciate you took the time to read the responses and offer a (perhaps) final point to explain your point of view.

I definitely enjoy your movie reviews and this particular debate has been interesting (as you probably can see now, it's quite refreshing, but sometimes infuriating, to read an opinion from someone who's got a different point of view. We all stand by our points in the end, gamers will believe games can be considered art, but, as you wisely note, if you're not a gamer, you won't, er, excuse the expression, "get it".

It would be like trying to force someone to appreciate a book if he can't read it for some reason. Perhaps not as harsh, but it's a fitting comparison.

Kipling said it best;

'The tale is as old as the Eden Tree - and new as the new-cut tooth -
For each man knows ere his lip-thatch grows he is master of Art and Truth;
And each man hears as the twilight nears, to the beat of his dying heart,
The Devil drum on the darkened pane: "You did it, but was it Art ?"'

http://www.kipling.org.uk/poems_conundrum.htm

The ongoing debate via twitter was starting to get a bit long in the tooth, but after reading this blog post, my response is "fair enough." Just as I have made conscious decisions not to watch "Napoleon Dynamite" or any tween films involving vampires and small western Washington towns simply on the basis that I don't want to, your final response is without argument. Of course, I'm sure others will still try...

Hey Rog, remember the end of Watchmen?

You played a great Ozymandias. Without your self-assured plan, you wouldn't have set a couple thousand Rorschaches about actually _thinking_ about what they spend so much time doing.

In the end, like Ozy, you were wrong anyway. But it's the thinking that counts. (And your post didn't kill millions.)

Games are art like graphic or industrial design is art. It's more about how it is constructed and the rules it must obey than about sending us through some sort of emotional experience.

The more games try and mimic film (which they are now more than ever) the more they show that they are incapable of providing that kind of experience....

(The game Eliss for iPhone is the perfect example of what I would call a work of digital/ video game art....)

Have you ever played World of Goo? It is a simple game, with a cheerful aesthetic, but at the heart of it's story lies a surprisingly revealing look into what humans define as "fun" and how easy it is to manipulate it. I wrote a blog about it on Destructoid, a website you will be familiar with probably for former editor Anthony Burch. Due to some poor choices on my part, it is gone from the site, but I have something of a backup here.

The Wrong Thing: The Player Is Played

I'm a gamer. Take comfort in the fact that despite the fucking idiots among us, so many of us consider you worthy of our time to even want to convince you, or earn your respect, or just be filled by rage from you. I most of this comes less from games wanting to be taken seriously as art than it does we gamers wish we had more harsh critical eyes on games. After all, if we really wanted games to be taken seriously as art we'd demand better games. We aren't.

If you truly want to see a depressing debacle, read up on game reviews, where people debate if the "average" is 3/5, or 70/100, and then they sandwich those scores together. Many of us today say "leave off the numerical score. Just critique the game." But really, as much as I love games, their potential, and a few examples of how great they are, the average game is about as engaging to me any more as the average film, which is to say "not very." The sad part is that in gaming, we seem to have a very low ratio of high-quality:mediocre.

Many (including myself) take the position that as expressions of creativity, games fit the wide definition of art by default. But more need to realize that this doesn't inherently make them GOOD. And that's the real problem with games, and why this is even a "debate" at all. So few are good. And that's our fault as gamers.

I'm not sure how Shadow of the Colossus will work for you, I hope it goes well. It's easily my favorite.

I feel silly making this point, because it avoids the genuinely interesting discussion that sprouted up, but by and large video games don't have open-ended trajectories. There are games that are more open than other, certainly, but for the most part you're just required to re-play the section you failed on until you can do it properly. It's no different than being an actor and rehearsing to go through pre-determined motions in order to fulfill the script. There are no options to become naked or walk on your hands or to refuse and sit there and cause some different story to happen, you just try to get your blocking right next time.

If you play one video game in your entire life it should be Jake Power: Fireman for Nintendo DS. It is the Citizen Kane of handheld gaming.

I find this a well-reasoned and fair conclusion to the Great Art Debate of '10.

Super Mario Vs. Tom Sawyer for PS3 to come.

Of course you should have expressed your (I believe, correct) opinion! Life is too short to keep silent. Whoever out there thinks "gaming" is a worthwhile pass-time has you-know-what for brains.

I kind of know you, Roger. You would not have stated your position on this if you weren't prepared for some backlash. Stand your ground!

"I concluded without a definition that satisfied me. I had to be prepared to agree that gamers can have an experience that, for them, is Art."

That would have been my argument to your initial post if I didn't think it would have been made by someone else.

I have a young son. The two things that seem to be innate in his interaction with other kids are telling stories and playing games. We have been woking on the telling stories part for as long as we've had the ability to record our undertakings. Now we have the ability to start exploring the playing games part. The future is boundless.

I've been a fan of video games ever since I was a young kid playing a Texas Instruments system bought on clearance from a Circuit City bin, and a fan of yours ever since our local paper picked up your reviews when I was in Middle School. Games (along with books and comics and movies and the other usual cultural culprits) helped stoked my creativity and yearning to make my own works while your writing helped me appreciate my own inspirations, no matter how foolish others might find them. While many balked at your review of Garfield, I liked how you expressed exactly WHY you appreciated it for exactly what it was and what it was doing.

I think a lot of gamers (and that word does make me cringe, as the majority of comments written on blogs about said games come from the same cesspool as youtube comments and anonymous forum frownery) are knee-jerk in their reaction towards their beloved medium (and I will not lie, video games are a bit beloved to me as well) because they seem to be the low man on the totem pole when it comes to pop-culture entertainment.

Oh goodness I am just a fountain of words that can be shortened to: Thank you for this post. Thank you very, very much. I'm not articulate enough to say WHY it makes me so very happy, but it does. Our medium may never fully appeal to you (which is absolutely ok), but I'm glad you can see why it can appeal to us.

(And thank you for inspiring me, as well. Even if it was to make dopey things related to my adoration of electronic games)

As a non gamer I think the obvious point is that

Art is in the eye of the beholder

That was a reasonable, patient, and thoughtful piece. Thank you. It happens that I still disagree, however. I don't believe that your definition of art is generous enough, even despite its obvious warmth and compassion. Art is surely about a multi-level engagement with the mechanics of our own minds, and those of others; the element of play that games exploit and run with is a crucial tool of socialisation, helping us to develop empathy and a sense of aesthetics through the exercise of critical thinking and emotional engagement.

Would you consider curatorial works--musical pieces, for instance, that use a degree (great or small) of indetermincay as a structural determinant, setting up social situations constructed according to certain aesthetic parameters within which people act, interact, and form the grammar of the work by those actions--to be art?

What most gamers don't appreciate is that every video game narrative is based on *something* that once was art. Themes in these storylines have been around for ages, perfected by the greats, adapted by geniuses and fools time and time again. East of Eden didn't just happen -- someone had to write Cain and Abel first. When that theme or storyline makes its way into a video game, we gamers need to stop and appreciate the evolution that story needed to go through. Anyone who voted "video game" over "Huck Finn" as far as *value* is concerned loses credibility. The video game is just another medium to experience the storyline. Sure it's art, but its the final stages of the story's evolution. The beginning stages are where the true value lies.

Have you ever played pac man?

Full disclosure: I am an avid gamer, and was glad to hear that most of the comments were not the usual 'net idiocy. I also hope that this blog entry doesn't lead to a bunch of chest-thumping, "he backed down" gloating. No matter your position or whether or not I agree with it, any measured, rational discussion about what constitutes art can only lead to good things.

Mr Ebert, thanks for being you.

"If you can go through 'every emotional journey available,' doesn't that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. If next time I have Romeo and Juliet go through the story naked and standing on their hands, would that be way cool, or what?"

Ahh, but what if the creator/designer of the game selects the available choices so as to unavoidably lead to the same core theme? Not in such a way as to make the choice meaningless, but in such a way that no matter what path the player takes, the game nonetheless bears the impact the author desired?

For example, Bioware's Mass Effect, one of the very few games I can without reservation state to be genuinely well written, has as it's core theme the impossible choice, and the question of whether a being should possess the kind of power to make those kinds of decisions. It is a theme it bears in common, I think not coincidentally, with the recent, rather brilliant revamp of Doctor Who.

Throughout the game the player is placed in circumstances where he must make a choice that is impossible, that no person should ever have to make. Do I release this ancient hive alien queen, knowing it may someday return and threaten all of humanity with extinction, or do I let it die, knowing that it is the last of it's kind, making such a decision basically genocide?

Impossible, horrible, painful decisions, which will wreak and wrack the player. And yet, while the player is given the decision, in the end, the message it bears is still the same one that Doctor Who presents in it's more traditional narrative form. And yet by putting the player in the Doctor's shoes, potentially sparks more genuine thought and inspiration by making them think about what they are doing instead of passively receiving a canned presentation of events.

Sid Meier once said that a good game is a series of interesting choices, and I think he's right. And I think that a truly great designer, one who approaches art, is one who can make those decisions as interesting and as impacting as any passive story by forcing the audience to engage it in a way no other medium ever can.

I think it is very true that many games are not even close to art. But I see a potential in a game like Mass Effect to carve out a meaningful niche for games as a way of exploring theme and meaning in a way no un-interactive medium can, and all without sacrificing such, indeed, enhancing it in the process.

I'm not going to ask you to go and play Mass Effect now, as you said, how could you? Even if you did some other fanatic would swear at you for choosing the "wrong" game, while completely failing to see how unproductive such responses are. Games are like any other medium, we find our own favorites and our own meaning in them, and holding any given example up as a paragon is always a foolish endeavor.

But I do hope I've given you something to at least imagine on, an alternate notion to the idea that choice necessarily destroys meaning or theme or artistic vision. And perhaps in taking that perspective to light you might imagine the potential you don't see now. Lord knows, sometimes I have a hard time maintaining my own vision of that potential, especially in the face of drek like Clive Barker's Jericho or the recently announced Bulletstorm. Much in the same way that the film critic side of me finds it hard to maintain faith in that medium at times, in the face of something like Twilight or Sex and the City 2.

Roger, I admire your integrity posting this, especially after years of entrenchment. I'm just sorry we won't get to see your critical powers devoted to this new medium. As a compromise, have you considered looking at machinima, movies and videos created by capturing 3D animation from within games or virtual worlds? Lots of exciting stuff going on there, in my opinion. Here's a few I've written about, made in Second Life:

http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2009/05/stolen-child.html
http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2010/04/weekend-machinima.html
http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2010/05/second-life-machinima.html

Thank you Roger, for acknowledging that a game can move a person in a similar way to other works of Art. There are diamonds in the vast piles of movie license tie-ins and glorious carnage. There are games in which the stories have moved me, thanks to the synchronization of beautiful music, brilliant images, stunning dialogue, and moments ranging from intimate to epic. Games can touch hearts Roger, the kinds of hearts that can't be reached by Twain and Shakespeare anymore. It's the next step in the evolution of human storytelling and expression, but only if you know which games are worth your while. But you don't play games, so I'll spare you.

I too think this a fitting conclusion to this argument. The fact is none of us know what the future will bring when it comes to something like video games. Even the term "video games" has been stretched beyond belief to include all manner of things, and continues to change and evolve.

I think being unable to develop a definition for art that excluded games is also important. I understand the distinction you want to try to make, but I think following that logic ignores a lot of contemporary art that strives just as much as painting and sculpture to be high art. Interactive art is certainly out there in museums and requires more participation from the viewer than other types of art. Yet that experience the artist is trying to create is still art. It doesn't really matter what tools or materials the artist uses to move you, what matters is that you were moved.

If you'll indulge me for just a moment, I would like to reiterate a suggestion for a game, one that you probably didn't see mentioned much in your previous posts. In some cases it doesn't really feel like a game at all, yet you do control the protagonist, and there is a goal, so to speak.

The "game" is called Passage: http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/passage/

It requires less than 10 minutes of your time. There is only one button you really need to push (the right arrow key). You could just set something on the key and watch. There is an installer for your Mac, so no game systems or any other nonsense is required. Here's a direct link:
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/hcsoftware/Passage_v3_MacOSX.dmg

I think Passage is a good example of using the language and medium of video games to achieve something else entirely; a story. One that is surprisingly poignant. Maybe it's because I grew up with video games, but it speaks to me on a very deep level. I return to it on occasion just like I would a good story or book.

I know you are unlikely to budge, and you have earned every right not too. But if this makes you change your mind for even just 10 minutes, I think it would make a fitting postscript to this interesting argument.

I agree that you should not have criticized a medium that you usually have zero interest in. Especially one as young and quickly growing as the video games industry.

I thought this because I couldn't imagine you, for various reasons, actually playing a full-length game and enjoying it on the same level as someone who as grown up with it, much like how most average people probably don't appreciate great movies like a movie critic would.

I believe video games can be art, but for different reasons than most people. While others say that you should try more recent games because the story-telling is getting (relatively) better in the past years, I believe truly artistic experiences in video games don't need any story-telling at all. Even simple games such as the original Super Mario Bros. can be art. And it is.

And if you consider the more modern games with the cinematics and good visuals--that's not the art. Actually playing the game--that's the art. When you're jumping on the heads of goombas and collecting coins you're experiencing art. For every game you play, dozens, if not hundreds, of people have contributed their vision and their hard-work to that game, eventually resulting in a piece of work their boss is only hoping to make a buck off of. But who's to say that their work isn't art?

Well said. I especially appreciate your attempt to nail down a definition of "art" for the purposes of your argument—far too many discussions are derailed by all the social and personal baggage attached to the term.

I enjoy games, and have had some moving experiences through them, though I cannot say if they could be categorized as art per an established definition. It seems that much of the furor is not so much over a desire for games to be seen as art—though that is part of it—but the assumed meanings behind the phrase "____ is not art." It's the associated dismissiveness; you can almost see the eye roll.

"_____ isn't art, my kid could make that!"
"Why don't you get a real job and stop wasting your time _____!"
And so on.

I know that wasn't the intended tone. The point is, I'm betting that the majority of gamers couldn't care less if videogames were a common fixture in museums (or whatever their criteria is). I can guarantee that none of them like being told they're wasting their time.

I agree with Dan. This whole twilight movie scene is actually a great example. I have said, ever since the first stephenie meyer book came out, that the series of books are not entertaining, brilliant, or have anything redeeming about them. However, I have never given them a chance just because the "tweens" who are so fixed on a fantasy of dating a vampire or werewolf annoy the living piss out of me. It is a possibility that there is something good about that book...I just will never give it a chance. Indeed fair enough that you don't want to give video games a chance Ebert, I view it as a form of art and you don't, fair enough.

Odd, Roger, but there are several video games that meet your definition of Art (admittedly probably less than 1%, but still many).

One game that most reminds me of your definition is Baldur's Gate 2, and its sequel, Throne of Bhaal. In the game you are the son of an evil god, and you rise to power. And the very end of the series when you defeat your nemesis you are presented a choice -- ascend to godhood as is your right, or deny your bloodline and remain a mortal.

These choices and the direct outcome are not what I would consider art, though.

Instead, what I found profoundly moving were the responses of your loved one who has accompanied you throughout your quest. For me it was Jaheira, the druid. It was very moving both as she shed tears of regret as I ascended to godhood, and - even more so - as she shed tears of joy as I forsook my heritage to remain a mortal at her side, for as long as our lives should last. It was moving, touching. My words here do not do justice as to how well her and my lines were written. They were beautiful.

I've replayed the game several times now to experience this moment of the game. I think it fits your definition of art.

(But sadly, I would never recommend you play the game, as it requires a massive investment of time and effort. I understand you have better things to do with your time.)

Big fan, love your writing, and typically agree with you. But not here.

It's kind of true - you don't get it. Just going by the images and videos you posted with this, you (seem to) think all video games are about shooting monsters. That would be like someone saying all movies are like Transformers 2.

Indeed, many games are about monster shooting - and many others aren't. Just to name a recent one, "Heavy Rain" essentially plays out like an interactive movie. It's a PS3 game - maybe you should hit up Capone's valut :)

Games have made me laugh, cry, and feel scared. If a movie can be art, then so can a video game.

Take care, Roger.

I just wish that some of the worst and/or generic/popular games would stop being used as examples of "quality" gaming. It's the equivalent of showing Transformers 2 as an example of quality films.

Without going into debate, it's not a question of whether the medium itself is to be avoided, but the games you choose to acknowledge. Not all games are the equivalent of Transformers or Twilight. Hidden amongst the trash you'll find A Third Man; rare, but you can bet it's there.

I appreciate that you were willing to step back and give games a chance. If you find the time, I heartily recommend that you take up your friend on his offer, and try a few games like Flower, Shadow of the Colossus, or Okami. They are relatively simple games, but there is no doubt in my mind that they are works of art. I think you would appreciate them for their visual beauty, if nothing else.

You know your article brought back the thought of a video in response to your beliefs on video games. It spends a lot of time looking at semantics and the definition of art. I'd highly recommend checking it out.

http://screwattack.com/videos/TGO-Episode-35-A-Response-to-Roger-Ebert

What is this thing called, Art?

Oh, Roger - I'm so sad that you seemed to have cried Uncle in this utterly unwinnable war. You have been like The 300 defending the indefensible with panache and daring and so many of us have battled alongside you (I guess we are the other 299) because we are also old and tired and can't be bothered learning to tune our TVs let alone how to use a PS3.

:(

And, ahem, well, you know, dammit ... I'm gettin' all emotional here - but it's been a priviledge serving alongside you, sir...

PS My daughter, one of the enemy, says to tell you that if a guy firing a paint gun at a wall is art, then Hideo Kojima who spends up to 4 years on each game designing every graphic and possible outcome is damnwell High Art.

(disclaimer: I am CEO of an indy game company -- but the again, I'm also over 50 and have a classical education as such things are judged these days)

We were very fortunate to have artists early in cinema history who took a new medium and proved that it could be Art. However, a review of the early history of the moving picture has more magic lantern shows.

I will happily take both sides of this argument. Video games are not art, until they are, just as the critics of stagecraft claimed that cinema could never be art - until it was.

If video games are not quite in the magic lantern stage, they are not far out of it. But to me this means something stunning -- it means we have not yet begun to explore the potential of the medium. At this point, our imaginations outstrip our technique and capabilities every game, making production a patchwork of compromises, much as early cinema experienced. Out of this a few luminaries and production houses have emerged as homes of true "stagecraft," like summer theaters that create other worlds on sheer passion and no budget.

At 50, I don't expect to live to see the ripening of my adopted medium, but I expect it to make participation in great art possible personally, immediately, immersively -- even if for the first few decades it's going to be like singing opera karaoke.

When television overcame radio drama, it was the end of the imagination. As the games business becomes bigger than movies, economically, it's often held up as the end of the imagination.

It's only change.

With an eye to the future, we will create art in this medium we haven't yet anticipated, because we can reach places in people that other media don't reach.

Respectfully,
Shava Nerad

Ebert: Your sentence that popped out at me: "When television overcame radio drama, it was the end of the imagination." I was lucky to grow up listening to radio drama. I have rarely felt so totally engrossed.

Polls can mislead. I picked "a great video game" because I've already read Huck Finn.

I've stayed out of this whole thing, and all of the fallout on various forums, but I'd like to make a comment now if that's alright. I'll try to stay out of the comments that've already been made as much as possible.

However, in the last four paragraphs of this entry you mentioned that you believe art as that which was able to deeply move you was most important to you, which I understand and completely agree with. It is interesting to note though, that the most immersive medium is that which a human interacts with.

While you may be shocked by the death of character you've grown fond of in a movie, and feel part of the character's loss, grief, rage, and torment, actually being in the shoes of the protagonist, you find those who had done the terrible deed yourself, and actually guide the character to revenge.

Aside from real life, I know of no other medium that allows for such interaction and immersion with a story or its characters. Though the stories might be repetitive in some cases (bald space marines saving humanity), there are enough truly original games out there with breathtaking stories, visuals, and characters that I doubt I'll ever run out of something to enjoy, just as with books (Twilight), or movies (Anything with Stephen Seagal), you have to wade through the bland knock-offs and rewrites to find the gems.

I thank you for taking the time to read this, and while I can agree with you critically on your stance with video games, I cannot agree emotionally.

What you've written here really helped me to understand you and your stance on videogames a lot more. Thanks for writing this, Mr. Ebert!

Maybe someday a videogame will come out that convinces you of what we gamers have believed for decades. In the meantime, I'm going to keep composing songs on my Nintendo DSi with Korg DS-10 Plus.

Sure, it was a mistake to spout off, and it was even more of a mistake to form a wagon circle around your uninformed opinion and celebrate it in a way that Fox News would understand...

But if you had been more sensible, we all would have been poorer for it.

You were forced to define art, we were forced to examine both the limitations and possibilities of a developing medium in creating art...

Who won the debate?

Art did.

Jericho isn't just bad art, it's a bad game. Stop posting images of it or you'll make the webberverse go blind! There's a reason Codemasters marked it down to two dollars during the Summer.

From the beginning I never believed any clamoring over whether the author had or had not played a video game furthered this subject at all. In the grand scheme of things, I don't believe the crux of the argument was the point of contention as much as the "tone" in which it was argued. In the words of one well regarded "critic" in video game industry, "It would have been one thing if Glenn Beck had said this [who no one takes seriously because of his consistent inflammatory rhetoric], but instead it came from a critical voice we all admire and respect." So Perhaps look at it like 4,547 backhanded complements?

Though some would make it about right and wrong, we only wanted you, and other fellow appreciators of art, to understand and enjoy our experiences. :/

I really enjoyed this blog.

My side would probably be they are art, but the fact that you brought up this whole debate is pretty interesting. Because whenever I am playing a video game, I am not focused on the beautifully graphics of it, but the story. MOST video games have a story nowadays. In some ways they work out like movies, I are given a task to get from point A to point B then once you get there you are given a cutscene which leads you to the next part of the story.

Here is how this applies, when you hear a truly good story, that grabs your attention and gets you emotionally involved that can be an art to you. With an emotional attachment the dictionary definition makes sense in the same way it does movies.

To develop a video game you have somone's original idea, the story, the creatures, the graphics. It is a completely different world from someone else's imagination. This is expression of someones creativity, it is in a visual form. The basic thing is, you don't have to complete a goal, you can go get yourself killed, die and start over. This is NOT following the idea of the creators original imagination. It can, but isn't.

It contradicts itself, we can all weigh the pros and cons as much as we want. My general statement will be this:

Video Games are on the dividing line between one man's creativity, and a players exercise in self-choice. Art isn't the best word to describe them, they make a category all of on their own.

I have had many videogame experiences that have led me to empathize and garner a greater understanding of things that otherwise I would never have been able to appreciate. Playing a game like Medieval Total War has given me insight and realization about what a leader goes through trying to balance the needs of the people along with their defense against aggression, and as such I have a better understanding and far more respect for people in positions of leadership. Call of Duty or other first person shooter games that attempt to illustrate war somewhat realistically through the soldiers eyes have given me insight into what it means to be a soldier putting your life on the line for your country and fellow soldiers. How at every turn your life is in extreme danger mitigated only by training and the men watching your back. These are just a few examples there are many more.
No movie, book, or work of art had illustrated these ideas in a way that I related to nearly as well as in videogame form. In a videogame you aren't just seeing the object, or reading an interpretation of it, you are the object and as such it's much easier to empathize and relate to said object. No other form of art imparts as much immersion leading to an increase of empathy as videogames do in my opinion. Other forms of art are always other peoples interpretations of objects, emotions, and events, but with videogames you get to interpret events and objects yourself in your own way. This leads to a much more personal viewpoint, and a far greater understanding of things that otherwise would be unattainable for most.

I have had many videogame experiences that have led me to empathize and garner a greater understanding of things that otherwise I would never have been able to appreciate. Playing a game like Medieval Total War has given me insight and realization about what a leader goes through trying to balance the needs of the people along with their defense against aggression, and as such I have a better understanding and far more respect for people in positions of leadership. Call of Duty or other first person shooter games that attempt to illustrate war somewhat realistically through the soldiers eyes have given me insight into what it means to be a soldier putting your life on the line for your country and fellow soldiers. How at every turn your life is in extreme danger mitigated only by training and the men watching your back. These are just a few examples there are many more.
No movie, book, or work of art had illustrated these ideas in a way that I related to nearly as well as in videogame form. In a videogame you aren't just seeing the object, or reading an interpretation of it, you are the object and as such it's much easier to empathize and relate to said object. No other form of art imparts as much immersion leading to an increase of empathy as videogames do in my opinion. Other forms of art are always other peoples interpretations of objects, emotions, and events, but with videogames you get to interpret events and objects yourself in your own way. This leads to a much more personal viewpoint, and a far greater understanding of things that otherwise would be unattainable for most.

glad to see you seen Flower. now watch and play Shadow of the Colossus,ICO, And Uncharted 2.

So, there is this running joke in my family, that my mother keeps telling me to lose weight, just before she makes a delicious meal.

The Raj is worn out from vetting 4500 comments, and now has written a whole new entry on the same topic.

Ok, I predict 1600 comments on this one before things taper off. Hopefully, by then, Ebert will have a third blog about video games, but mixed with a discussion about evolution and health care reform.

If I haven't buried myself enough into your doghouse, I should mention that I voted 3 times in your Huck Finn / Video Game poll. Vote early. Vote often.

In fact, while I'm at it, QUESTION FOR ALL YOU READERS: do you readers think that video games evolve in the same way that animals do? Is it Darwinian? Or, is it Creationist, in that some video games just appear on the scene? Likewise, is Grand Theft Auto the "Satan" of the video-game-universe?

Now, please pardon me, while I enter the dog house.

Wisdom is learning what to overlook.
William James

I commented on your last entry about videogames, I was also one of the people who mentioned Shadow of the Colossus as my only example of games as art. From the dictionary definition you included, I believe that game best fits it. But I'm not here to urge you to play it (but it doesn't hurt to try, does it?)

I enjoyed the pictures you included in this blog. While I consider myself a gamer, I haven't played the game from which these pictures were taken from. Since this blog is pretty much your acknowledgement that games can be art, I found it funny that you used those pictures in particular in juxtaposition to your entry. Irony is always fun when your its author.

I hope others will take note of your sense of humor and not find more reasons to battle this debate out.

Ebert: Those are stills from Jericho, which I think are pretty good. They remind me of Lucien Freud's work.

Not a fool for mentioning video games, or offering your genuine, truthful opinion about them. That was incredibly brave, since you had to know on some level what would happen. And yet you fought off the Entire Internet in an epic boss battle -- truly awe inspiring.

The reason you were a fool was to think you could define "ART" as a universal category -- a classic freshman art history seminar move. Not sure where it came from. If you can find a way to distinguish Duchamp from video games, well, you're smarter than Duchamp.

No one has enough time to experience everything wonderful in the world so you have to pick and choose. And I can understand why one would not pick video games - many of them can be very time consuming and many games assume a familiarity with videogames built up over years of play. Of course, there are also games that can be played in just a few minutes like Passage (a minimalistic game about life).

I do believe that each medium has its own strengths and weaknesses and just like some experiences are better suited to film and others to the written word, still others are better suited to the video game format. For example, I think horror is a genre that works far better in interactive form than it does in any other medium. There are already some phenomenal examples like Silent Hill 2 ("I got a letter. The name on the envelope said "Mary". My wife's name... It's ridiculous, couldn't possibly be true... That's what I keep telling myself... A dead person can't write a letter.") or the Siren series (a series of Japanese-style horror games where the meta-game of piecing together the fragmented storylines from alternate viewpoints is almost as much of a game as the actual game).

I also believe that just like some people are more musically inclined and others more visually inclined, still others are more "interactively" inclined.

Mr. Ebert, I wanted to say that while I disagree with your position on video games, your eloquent arguments have still been valuable. Even though I consider myself a fan of the medium, the list of games that I would personally consider to be art is fairly short. Often times, I find that games show only not-quite-realized potential for art. Yet the potential is there, and I plan to be watching when it is realized.

Your comments (and the massive backlash following them) have helped to focus my thinking on what art is, what it can be, and how video games can find their unique place in that realm. For that, I'd like to thank you.

" . . . because I hardly look at paintings for their messages. It's not what it's about, but how it's about it."

I follow you on twitter which, of course, gives you only 140 characters with which to communicate an idea. Just thought I'd mention that I thoroughly admire and enjoy what you do with a longer format. I'll admit though, I have not so much use for video games. Not so crazy over most movies either. Even so, my appreciation for art, including the great narrative, has been reinforced by your writing here.

Thanks for starting the argument.

There we go - this blog entry is very good. A fitting way to end the whole discussion....please...?

Though I would like to add that, on the whole, I wouldn't necessarily see art in the majority of video games. I've just played enough extraordinary games to know that there's a world of potential for it to evolve. That's all.

You realize this will continue to haunt you long after your death. And IF a game ever is included in the MOMA or MET, your quote will be thrown around as a 21st century critic who "didn't get it." Just like how the NEW YORK TIMES had print a retraction after they crucified Robert Hutchings Goddard for saying a rocket can be shot into space.

I would say get your affairs in order Mr. Ebert, and write such a retraction for your educational foundation.

Art is simply something created by someone that is beautiful in another one's eyes.

In this respect, everything can be considered art, it all depends on the viewer. Some paintings that contain nothing but a block may be considered silly to another, but a masterpiece to someone else.
Video games may not be art to Ebert just like someone may not find movies as art, but it is art to the people who find it beautiful.
Art is subjective.

This whole thing has been sickening.

I'm glad its over.

Roger, I've got to say, after all the gnashing of teeth over your original comments, and the bullheadedness of your subsequent tweets (see you own blog post about ole' Twitter for a very related argument), I'm glad you've been able to come around to the unenviable position of "possibly being wrong".

I know most video games hardly belong in a museum, but neither do most movies, music, sculpture, graffiti, etc. Is "The Last Airbender" art? God no. And the newest "Halo" game isn't either. Every medium had it's artists (who try to make art) and it's businessmen (who try to make money). I know you understand that.

It's your job to inform people about the artistic differences between "The Grown Ups" and "Winter's Bone", and I think you are one of the best at it. Keep writing and I'll keep reading, because you are a true blog artist, and don't let anyone tell you different.

P.S. There hasn't been a movie that is as good as "The Shadow of the Colossus" for quite a while.

So why is it that the article is full of images from Clive Barker's, as to present the view that videogames are some kind of hellish-dark-goth product?

Let me add my share of fuel.

I have never felt any inclination to play a video game beyond "Shoot Three Ducks" which appears on the net sometimes. I find it depressing to see my grown up family members at times glued to a video game. It's depressing because it seems totally escapist, something you lose your time in and come back empty handed from, except maybe a knocked out dissipated feeling or a computer induced backache. Age may have something to do with it, because one values time more as it gets scarcer. I played cards briefly at a young age and that at least has the advantage of not being solitary. Card playing furnishes a ready made, if desultry, topic of conversation.

The principle of diminishing returns applies to movies and books too. After a thousand or so films I am finding the experience less and less rewarding. Writing is more satisfying but the book of life seems the ultimate trip. Living itself could be the highest art-form.

"A strange game. The only winning move is not to play. How about a nice game of chess?"

There seem to be two definitions of the word "art" being applied here. One has a lower case "a" and is purely a technical definition. The other has an uppercase "A" and seems to be very subjective. But I'd be surprised if you cannot see the promise of Art in a medium that has such potential for it. Incidentally, while I can see some wry humor at work, punctuating (some might say violating) your article with Clive Barker's imagery seems tantamount to posting pictures of the torture scenes from Hostel throughout a discussion on whether art-house films are real.

I am a gamer, and I must say I somewhat agree. But there are a few games that could stand out as "art" in my opinion. A few would be Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, Outcast, and Deus Ex.

I must ask this question, if a movie can be art, then why not a game? A movie is a series of images that portray a story or idea.
A game is a interactive series of images that tell a story or idea.

I bet at one point a art critique once said "Movies can never be art."

Just a thought: You're not entirely correct about video games requisitely having no fixed ending. In a very large proportion of video games, I would actually say most, an entire storyline is set out in front of you and the game element is getting the characters through that plot; often the alternative is a "game over", usually brought upon the player by a failure to achieve an objective which would make that particular ending impossible.

And even in the games where there are multiple possibilities for the ending, the ending isn't necessarily anything the player works toward. More often, you have three or four possible and distinctive endings, all of which are something appropriate to characterization and elements of the plot that have been put into place. So while a video game for "Romeo & Juliet" with multiple endings could exist and still fit this element of your definition of art, there may be multiple endings, but every single one of them might be just as bittersweet as that of the original Shakespeare play. Or moreso. Perhaps the ending to the original would be the "good" ending.

I do appreciate this blog, however it might predominantly feature pictures of games that really don't necessarily qualify as art under even my own terms. Journalists too often cling maniacally to any assumptions they've made without bothering to reexamine any of it.

Bravo, Roger! Admission of the problem is the first step towards change. Now let's follow through by getting you behind the controller on 'Braid' or 'Flower' and see if we can't sway you to our side.

Roger,

This is an admirable, well-written retraction. I think it solidifies you as, well as someone who is somewhat above the herd. And by that I mean you admit when you are wrong.

One note: you make a poll, publicize it, and then declare the result "proves nothing" without actually expounding on the claim. If it indeed proved nothing, you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place. Bad form.

But aside from that, I thought I would comment on the emotional argument you use to define "art." I agree. But I also don't think that it excludes videogames on any sort of technicality. For, who are you to define what emotion is and isn't?

I think this is where the art of videogames gets interesting for me. Just as cinema has been able to communicate emotions in a very different way from theater and novels, videogames communicate a very specific emotion as well - one not seen in many other mediums.

The emotion I want to describe is one, unfortunately, I cannot. In simple terms, it would be frustration - but not the bad kind. The kind that forces you to go back and play a level over and over and over again. Maybe the kind that made you lose patience for Myst. For me, there is little difference in investing myself in the emotional resolution of Myst and the emotional resolution of even the most trying Godard films (I'm not saying I dislike Godard, I'm saying that there is an inherent intellectual investment that is assumed).

I think that because the purpose of videogames is to convey a very different kind of emotion, it's unfair to criticize the artform in light of other artforms. I would never say that a novel is unable to reach the height of emotional art of a film because the words aren't framed right on the page.

In the same way, rooting your criticism of videogames in light of modern ideas of PLOT not STORY doesn't benefit anyone. Story is meant to transcend plot. A medium is a medium and that medium conveys story however it conveys story.

In this way, a videogame conveys a story of frustration. Your levels of frustration with the technology and with your own ability to play the game change over the course of the play. There is a story there. There is a resolution there. The variety of possibilities IS the story, not a part of it. They are inexorable from one another.

"But Daniel," you might say, "art is meant to be created as an absolute, not left up to change at the whim of whoever is experiencing it." Sure. That's not an invalid thing to say. But at the same time, when I'm reading a book, I imagine the characters and the setting in my own way, it's my own experience.

I've done a lot of theater in my life and have noticed one thing: there is a symbiotic relationship between the actors and the audience. The more the audience gives, the more the actors give. Each show is its own beast. Sure the plot points of the play don't change, and Romeo and Juliet isn't given a happy ending, but the adventure along the way is the whole fun of it. Actors playing to a full house will push each other, seeing who can get the biggest laugh, who can get away with the craziest stunt. Actors playing to an empty audience will more often forget their lines, stutter, and wholly dislike the performing experience.

My point is that playing a videogame is no different from seeing a play. The end of Super Mario Bros. 2 doesn't change on each time through. You rescue the princess and get some nice music and watch the credits. Every time. Sure each time you play the game it will be completely different, but just like the theater, isn't that the fun of it?

Roger, very nicely reasoned. I hope you get into the nature of Art further. I got into an argument with a friend once over whether something could be Art if you need an art history background to appreciate it.

The reason I mention this is not to derail the thread, but because for me Art is evocative. I learn something *or feel something* from it. Looking at pictures of the Mona Lisa (haven't seen the original) moves me, but I can't say that I learn more about da Vinci or about the model for the painting. I guess I learn more about me, so maybe that qualifies as learning more about people.

Anyway, I do play a video game; it's one that you can do a lot of the designing in, and a professional artist created the world. I've been to areas where I just stopped and looked around and said, "Wow." So I think video games can be Art to some extent; if a landscape painting can be Art, why not some of the landscapes, at least, in a game?

Perhaps I should say that video games can contain elements that are Art.

I may be misquoting, but was it Charles Fort who wrote: "One measures a circle starting from anywhere?"

This was a very reasonble conclusion. Thanks for the conversation starter.

Well it looks like mr ebert finds games to be......*puts on sunglasses* too jawdropping YEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAH

Well at least you manned up and admitted you were wrong ;)

If you ever get past your irrational hatred of video games give portal a try, it's considered a great game and not very complicated for someone who doesn't game.

Here's a video for you because I know you can't wait to check it out ;)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUp9arduWTg&feature=related

Even the most simple inter woven designs in games are artwork representing the creator's thoughts.

I am an avid gamer, and while I agree that most games are pure crap, there are a few that stand out. ICO, which is one of the most beautiful, engaging, and satisfying games I've ever played is considered art by many. Shadow of the Colossus, a spiritual successor to ICO is nearly as good. Heavy Rain is laid out like a movie, and could be reviewed as such if it were played through in one sitting. If an action movie can be made to simply satisfy the primal urges to see stuff blown up and people killed, then a game of the same caliber should be held to the same regard.

I don't think you're a fool for mentioning video games, Mr. Ebert. It's just that the attempt to declare something as art or not never ends in a pleasant manner. Show me something that has been declared as art and I can show you something that was declared as a waste of time and effort by "practical" people of its time, and vice versa.

I doubt the gracious Mr. Ebert will read this. But just in case, I appreciate your reconsideration. More importantly and more entertainingly, I want to say that if a hack like Clive Barker who turns out drivel like Jericho can make you double take, I really do think you'd enjoy a true masterpiece like Shadow of the Colossus or ICO.

It's just so interesting to me that so many felt the need to tell you that your opinion was wrong. Your importance in the lives of so many became apparent. It was the impassioned attempt by the children trying to gain the approval of a parent. I can understand the need to do so, but I felt sad that so many just could not see past their need for approval and try to hear what you were saying. If I identified as a gamer I might have felt hurt too. But you are right, really.

Why not read a book on the subject instead?

Tom Bissell's "Extra Lives" would be your best choice. It's written for non-gamers (and gamers) in mind who just want to expand their insight and don't want to play through a series of games to do so.

I think you've got it, Roger. The form of a particular type of art can convey a specific type of emotional experience.

In painting, to make an obvious point, there's Rembrandt and Pollock. They're both art but achieve different ends.

Comparing the experience of looking at a master painting to reading a classic novel makes for great conversation with friends, however.

The big problem with video games is that most of them are safe, splashy entertainment - they're Transformers 2. They are so expensive to produce, and have such a short shelf-life to make money, that the companies making them make the same kinds of conservative decisions movie studios make.

There is very little auteurship in the field, although as computers have gotten more powerful and less expensive, it is much easier for individuals or small groups to create an entire project which can express a specific point of view, or lead the player through a specific experience.

Roger,

A really easy entry into gaming that qualifies as Art (to me at least) is called Hanged for the iPhone. It's a simple hangman game with beautiful stop motion animation and a poignant story about human relationships that is slowly uncovered by you with each word you guess. It doesn't necessarily reach a definitive conclusion but rather invites you to find your own.

Anyway it's a beautiful game that doesn't require any complicated game systems or a huge time commitment, just an iPhone. And heck, you have to like word games like hangman, right?!? ;)

Take care, please let us know if you do try the game.

Admirable post Roger.

You should check out thatgamecompany's new game, Journey. Maybe that would stir your opinion in the subject a bit.

I find it interesting that the only images you have included here to represent games are gore-filled, horror-themed First Person Shooter images. Where is something like the watercolor beauty of Okami, the wild imagination of Bayonetta, or the sleek, sophisticated sci-fi look of Mass Effect? It would be like writing an article about movies being (or not) art and including only images of Saw IV to illustrate your point.

That said, I'm happy to see that you're humble enough to admit that you were wrong. Though I frequently disagree with you, I'd always respected your opinion -up until that video game article. My faith in you has been restored (as if you needed or cared to have it) - even if you continue to hold that opinion.

--Giolon
Avid gamer for 19 years and counting

Interestingly enough, I understand your point for what it is:

"Sports are games, and meaningless violence are games. These games may never enter the realm of art, or at least compare to the artistic achievements of other mediums."

I feel like the whole argument rested upon a very limited view of "game" instead of a narrow view of "art." It's fair to say that not all expressions in a medium which produces art must be art (not all writing is art, not all films are art), just as it's fair to say that video games, which are yet to produce world-changing expressions of human emotion such as Shakespeare or Mozart, have the opportunity to do so.

Would we call "Pong" an art? That stretches definitions of arts. Would we call the story of a video game art? Given a sufficiently compelling story, there's no reason not to. And your original post admits to this. It's interesting, because what you said was, "and when a game starts becoming art, it stops just being a 'game.'"

And if it's any consolation, if by game, you meant simplistic pleasure-receptor activators, then I think you're absolutely right.

I'm not an native speaker, but I think I noticed a typo:
Written: "I was too aged it "get it.""
Perhaps it should be: "I was too aged to "get it.""

Please, do forgive me for this, but I just can't help it. I am a child at heart.

"Perhaps 300 supported my position. The rest were united in opposition."

Give thanks, men, to Roger and the brave 300! TO VICTORY!

I find the average gamer is like the average movie-goer: they largely miss the point. So I don't rightly trust them to defend gaming. I don't trust Clive Barker, either.

I think your apology, Mr. Ebert, is a bit of a backhanded one -- as if to say, not that you actually made a mistake, but you assumed too much of your audience. That gamers would be able to appreciate what you knew already to be the case: that you are speculating and using pure theory, and that you should be read with that assumption in mind. That, in your authority on cinema, you have abstracted, to some degree, the nature of art, and find that video games simply don't fit. And frankly, I think this is correct. You weren't mistaken, the 4,500 commenters largely were.

That said, I feel a fundamental error has been made by the defenders (aside from the one that I just summarized above). Clive Barker epitomizes it: the emphasis on non-linearity. It is true, of course, that games are, at a very fundamental level, non-linear. But that does not mean (and this is indeed the case in many if not most games) that the narrative is itself non-linear. In the same way a movie is designed to have the viewer lose himself, so that he is not merely a spectator, but involved in a story that is, in fact, theatrics, a video game too is attempting to impose the same illusion; that you have choice, whereinfact, you don't really. Sure, the means by which you interact the game (firing a gun, leaping a chasm, intitiating dialogue) can have an impact in the immediate circumstances, the best games are nonetheless meticulously designed to give you the impression that you *choose* a path out of many, whereas in reality, there was really only one path all along. The skill by which the game is designed is measured by the degree of the illusion. If you fail to notice at all that you were being led by the nose, then the designer has succeed. It is no less the same in cinema: if the movie is terrible, you're all too aware that you're sitting in the dark, staring at a bright screen like a buffoon. A good movie would have you forget that, just as a good video game would have you forget that there's a man behind the curtains, pulling levers.

Some games do practice true non-linearity. But the best ones merely use the mechanism of non-linearity to present a nonetheless linear script. It allows degrees of immersion and involvement not possible in cinema. You do lose certain advantages, but you gain more that balance it out. Video games are still in their infancy (as evident by their persisting dependence on the very term, video *games*,) but this notion that they can't have an intended narrative imbued by the author or auteur is misguided. They have many times, and still do. I suppose the best example I can reference is Valve's Half-Life, which is, for all intents and purposes, on-rails, but nonetheless delivers a cinematic (albeit B-movie) experience, despite being an interactive one to boot. You forget while you play, though, that the path you 'choose' was the one you were going to take regardless. The illusion intact, a true masterpiece.

But it is still only a masterpiece in what amounts to the silent era of video gaming. We haven't quite found our talkies yet, so our Citizen Kane is still a ways off. But you'd be a fool to tell Chaplin that what he's doing, ain't art.

I have to say, I admire the lengths that you have taken this whole boondoggle. Going head to head with the belligerent and unyielding force known as gamers can only be seen as exhausting, and I'm sure feels rather pointless. I have to say though that Clive Barker did a consummately dishonorable job of defending the medium. Looking at his games, this comes as no real surprise. Given your position on gaming its really somewhat pointless to force it upon yourself, this will only exacerbate the bias. You can lead a horse to water, but you cant make him drink, and if you try to he'll probably just choke.
I like to believe there is artistic potential in games. That potential is virtually untapped outside the realm of technical skill. The instant gratification of first person gore blasting copse fests has really sucked attention away from games of substance. Shadow of the Colossus, for instance, was critically acclaimed and touted, yet most gamers haven't touched it. On a side note it's been optioned for a film so you can always wait see how they botch it, and its also a big part of Reign Over Me with Adam Sandler.
Anyways all this poo is really quite silly. Art or not changes nothing about the experience of gaming, people searching for validity in there distractions need to relax.

Video games are bad for you? That's what they said about Rock n' Roll.
-Shigeru Miyamoto(Mario, Donkey Kong)

This, at least, I can wholly agree to disagree with.

Only issue I have with this posting is that you've lined it with images and videos from the video game Clive Barker's Jericho which is famously terrible. It's a bit like writing an article admitting that perhaps film is art and then placing next to it a series of stills of Plan 9 From Outer Space.

Ebert: Having not played the game, I didn't know that. I chose the stills on the sole basis that I liked the artwork.

Was it really necessary to use Jericho as your source for screenshots and videos? It's a lot easier to justify video games as being artless trash when you juxtapose your opinion with bleeding skulls and massive guns. You mention Shadow of the Colossus as a game consistently classified as art by those who have experienced it. If your article had been accompanied by that game's beautiful and haunting imagery, I'd imagine readers would be a lot less quick to fall back into the old habit of grouping all games under the same banner of ultraviolence, unintelligence, and thoughtlessness, and perhaps a bit more open to seeing games as something that can be enjoyed and appreciated by everyone -- whether they're art or not.

I will admit that from the outside looking in, the majority of games all look the same - like big, summer blockbuster action movies with a thin plot and Michael Bay-esque explosions. Such an assumption is both true and false: there are plenty of exceptions to this, but the most successful and thus most noticeable games do tend to fall into the "Michael Bay" category. Some of my gaming peers may disagree with me, but that's just how I feel about some of the more commercially successful games.

For the exceptions though, there is great depth to experience. I won't waste your time with examples since you state that you have no desire to play any of these games - why would you? A respected man such as yourself is likely very busy with other things, and you are a film critic, not a game critic.

However, I will offer up this statement: You concede that gamers can have an experience that they consider to meet some definition of "art," and I believe this is because of the subjective nature of any artistic medium. I was shocked to learn that some friends of mine don't like The Beatles. I didn't even know that was possible!

P.S. If you’re going to agree to disagree, at least use some screenshots from better looking games! The aforementioned “Shadow of the Colossus” would be a fine choice, or any of the Prince of Persia games – which I can assure you, are far more entertaining than the film adaptation you had the misfortune of seeing.

Well, it also comes down to defining what "art" is...which I don't think any one person can. You can look it up in a dictionary, but does that really grasp what it is?

Art is and always has been subjective. People used to call the way Bobby Fisher play chess as "art". If a piece of music and a painting can both be considered art, then why not videogames? Music and panting are two totally different things. You can't hang a piece of music on a wall to admire nor can you listen to a panting. Yet, they're still "art", yes? Same for books, movies etc etc.

I suppose "art" can be thought of this way: I can't define it precisely, but I know personally it when I see it. To me, personally, a Jackson Pollock painting isn't art. Now, I'll have a ton of art critics and scholars rain their indignation down on me and call me an uneducated fool...but are they right? Am I wrong? To me personally, it's just a mess on a canvas. To you personally a videogame isn't art.

But, why is this such an issue for anyone? This person thinks it's art....this other person doesn't. Okay, now what?

I respect you for following up on the issue and addressing some of the concerns that everyone brought up.

But it still astounds me that as someone with even a passing interest in entertainment and technology - before we even get to art - that you would be so disinterested in experiencing another culturally relevant medium.

I don't ultimately want you to play Flower or Shadow of the Colossus because I care whether you think they're art - I want you to play them because they are experiences that changed my life, and I'll always want to share the experience with others.

I don't believe I ever commented on your original article because, while I disagreed with you, I felt you were entitled to your opinion. I sometimes disagree with your film reviews, and that doesn't anger me either. All criticism is opinion, good criticism happens to be informed and well-reasoned opinions. If nothing else, you forced those of us who value games to justify that position. No one should be allowed to like something, declare it art and leave it at that. I think the interesting side of that debate may have gotten overshadowed by gamers who simply wanted to be "right". I suppose you could consider it flattering that so many persons in the gaming industry and game-playing public value your opinion enough to be desperate to prove you wrong.

Roger,

I'm really happy with this post. It was so perplexing to me that you could defend your stance so vigorously without ever entertaining the thought of actually playing games. This made your position fundamentally bankrupt. During this debate I lost a little respect for you. You seemed to be thinking in such a constrained and exalted way, not unlike some of the people with whom you have political disagreements with.

The Great Ebert had made a proclamation and no matter the nuanced argument could not be swayed. The Great Ebert didn't need to play games to pass judgement, games weren't worthy of his time, he just knew. The Great Ebert had spoken. This was very disappointing.

I felt that your take on games was less worthwhile than even the "critical" work of a hack like Ben Lyons. He at least managed to see and "review" films amidst his star fucking and quote whoring. For you to make such a profound condemnation without engaging with the form on any level whatsoever was truly ridiculous.

That said, you never ceased being The Great Ebert. I'd argue that what really makes you great isn't your skill as a writer or your knowledge of film. It's your connectedness to "humanity", i.e. the essential human qualities that make up life, and your ability to access and illuminate them in whatever context they appear, that makes you great. The humility you've shown here is a testament to that. You didn't need to make this post, you could have been stubborn and let this go on in perpetuity. I appreciate your honesty and I admire you more than ever before.

So enjoy your books and films and the freedom from pressure to play games. Thanks for this.

PS can I get your PS3?

I think a large part of the problem is that in many respects "art" is entirely subjective. We can see proof of this in the response to books, film, photography and other visual arts, as well as music. People like what they like, and "feel" for what moves them--even if it may not move others. I imagine there's a possibility this may be true of games, though I can say I've never been emotionally moved by a game. I've been impressed by visual scenarios, awed by a particular stroke of storytelling genius, but never emotionally struck the way I have been by a book or movie. But that doesn't preclude it being art. Just that I have not experienced any particular game as art.

One thing I'll say for you, Roger, is that you're supremely eloquent and a fair man. I love all of your musings on twitter and blog postings here, but I just have to continue to disagree with you on this. I love movies. I love music (I play piano, guitar, trumpet and violin and sing my heart out every day), and I love - some - video games. The game that can elicit an emotional response on par with the goosebumps/shiver down the spine that an excellent piece of music can is very rare, but it does exist, undoubtedly.

I could give you a list of games to investiture, but what would be the point? You've admitted that you have no desire to do such a thing. On the one hand, that's admirably honest but on the other it's annoying because it makes me wonder: if you have no real experience with video games and do not wish to have any, how can you continue to try to rationalize the blanket statement that you made?

There are indeed games (such as the aforementioned Shadow of the Colossus) that I have played solely for their aesthetic and emotional purposes. While many video game plots tend to be heavy-handed, they deal with real-world, real-people issues more and more frequently, just in a different way.

As an aside, I have to say that I'm highly disappointed at the choice of photos you've put on this blog posting. They were obviously deliberately chosen to be from the most mindless games out there. (I'm not sure what game they're from.) It's comparable to filling a posting about how movies are worthless with pictures from White Chicks. You're better than that, Roger. Regardless, I'll still continue to read everything you publish. You're a brilliant man.

Well, Mr. Ebert, you're making things difficult for me.

First off, on behalf of people who are very passionate about games-as-art, I'd like to say "apology accepted". I can't claim to represent them, but it is clear for all that you've realized that you were a bit to brash in your initial statement and that you weren't aware of the hornet's nest that you would stir up with it.

It takes a big man to admit that he's wrong; it takes an even bigger man to learn from his mistakes.

Games-as-art are problematic because of the nature of games. Games are systems and interactive; the "perceiver" doesn't "just" perceive and interpret the artwork, - they actively co-create the experience. The creator's control is not in shaping the actual experience, but in setting the framework (rules & interaction-possibilities) for the experience.

Romeo & Juliet can't have a happy ending, - Shakespeare intended it to. A game can have many endings; each intended by the creator and brought into existence by the player.

Games can simulate reality in all its aspects; the choice of simulation (what it to be simulated) determines what the player can experience in the game; what part of reality to experience, what part of the human condition to learn about. Games has the potential to teach you just as much about the human condition as any other medium; - you'll just have to examine it yourself through the medium (the creator will set the buffet, - you decide on what to eat).

So it's a very different ballpark from books, theater and movies; many of the experiences from these media isn't applicable.

BTW: if you don't take interactivity (aka your own interactions with the medium) into account when you review games, you'll miss the point.

My explicit ambition is to create games-as-art; I hope to advance the art-form beyond the current mass media entertainment that is pervading the public. "Flower" & "Shadow of the Colossus" are good examples of games that could be perceived as art, - the rest is just entertainment.

Anders Højsted

Ultimately then, you have admitted a certain subjectivity in the experience of art, (i.e. "I had to be prepared to agree that gamers can have an experience that, for them, is Art"). Subjectivity must be the fly in the ointment of art criticism, though. How do you reconcile this schism? It could be argued that the community that can be generated by a particular art piece negates pure subjectivity in Art; however, the gamer community is legion - but it simply does not include you, by your own choice.

Thank you for your humility on this issue. Even though you're standing your ground, it's nice to see you being more accepting of the viewpoint of those of us who do experience video games as art.

I've found the narratives of many video games far superior to that of what most of Hollywood seems to offer. I've laughed, teared up, and gotten emotionally attached to video game characters countless times over. Of course, some games are meant just to be played and not really thought about — the majority of first-person shooter games, for instance — but there are tons of games with brilliant writing, gorgeous environments, beautifully affecting music, and fabulous voice acting that all easy rivals any computer-animated film. And because of the medium, the creators are able to stretch the imagination and increase the player's emotional engagement in new ways that simply wouldn't work in a purely linear, non-interactive format.

It may be something that needs to be experienced to be understood (and I get that you aren't compelled to do so). But by your definition of art, video games absolutely qualify for me, and legions of others for whom gaming is often an emotional and intellectual experience.

This is exactly what has bugged me about the whole Ebert v/s GameWorld case: no one, and I mean no one talked about how a game could communicate an artistic vision, and how the methods specific to games could help in that, which (I thought) was your basic point.
Of course, I didn't even try to comment then, but I went and asked a few less overstretched bloggers opposed to you this very question, and, in characteristic fashion, was ignored.

Anyway, the best of luck this time round, and it's nice you made yourself clearer.
Though, what with this being the internet, a majority of commenters will try to tackle your central thesis without actually engaging with your points.

I believe that Art, much like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. While I might not 'feel' or 'gain' anything from staring at a drawing/painting, I won't dismiss the possibility that it might have positive effects on others. We stick to what we know and I was raised with my digital art and it's something that I honestly feel has made me a better person. Unlike religion, however, I don't feel the need to push my artform/hobby/beliefs on others. I enjoy videogame art and the culture behind it, and I wish those who enjoy different kinds of art, the best.

Can't we all just get along!? :D

While I disagreed with your initial argument I was able to sympathize with your view, albeit I suspect not for a reason you might have considered.

Unlike most of the art we are familiar with, our experience with video games is always channeled through and dependent on the technology we use to play them. This affects how the games are made and how they are played. The way the technology itself keeps advancing it can feel strange to look back only 5 years ago and say "Well that game was fantastic, but would have been even more fantastic if they had only had a few extra gigahertz available at the time." I sometimes wonder if a child growing up today would even be able to engage with some of the games I played in my youth. As far as I know, no other form of art can go "obsolete" in that way. Video games can be very ephemeral over the long term that way.
Though while I do agree that no game has yet achieved the level of artistic expression of Keats, I don't see why that is a sensible standard. Some of the most artful games are at least as artful, if not moreso, than many of the mass market movies or books we are exposed to. In fact, there are some films, such as Lliam Neeson's "Taken" for instance, that I think would probably have been better suited as video games than they were as movies.

The Romeo and Juliet comment is interesting. There is a game called "Bioshock" that actually takes the mission oriented structure of shooter games and elegantly exploits it for narrative effect. The player doesn't even realize that's what it is doing until a plot twist 3/4 of the way through. Of course, it does end on a happy ending but that's the same pressure Hollywood sometimes exerts. The Call of Duty: Modern Warfare, game was one of the first to actually give us an unhappy ending that is unavoidable. The raw material for artistry is all there. It's only rarely employed but we shouldn't sell it short.

You're being a bit too harsh on yourself Roger. I've been a gamer my whole life, and right now I'm in the process of became a game designer myself. Yet, I don't consider, nor today or ever, videogames as an art form.

Videogames have their own valuable stuff that makes em worthy for those of us who want to get involved in the industry, but going to the extremes of calling them "art" is just absurd, and pointless.

You once asked for the Citizen Kane of videogames, well... I can tell you the name of that game: TETRIS. No Shadow of the Colossus or any other pretentious crap.

Tetris is no art, but it represents what videogames truly are: Great design and a helluva lot of entertaiment.

P.S. Sorry for my bad english, but it's not my native languaje.

P.S.2: If you don't want the Playstation 3 send it to me. :P

And so the debate rages on....
I personally believe that video games as a form of media are not inherently separated from other sources of art. A few video games provide a truly memorable emotional reaction from its audience, while the rest are either garbage or merely satisfactory entertainment. This however can also be be said for film, music, literature, etc. It is easier to defend these forms of media art forms simply because of the sizable resume each has been able to build over their many years of existence, as well as their general acceptance from all levels of society. In several years video games will have a much more impressive resume to show as more and more talented individuals continue to perfect them. That being said, many gaming enthusiasts are far too quick to declare certain games as examples of art in an effort to convince the rest of the population. What these people need to realize is that not all good games are art, just as not all good movies are art. I am glad to say that I have had the opportunity to play games that I would consider to be works of art, but they are truly few and far between. In order for the public to accept video games as an art form, the games must be held to a higher standard by fans of the genre.

I invite you to play the little game, Angela's World:

http://www.hivemediagames.com/angelas-world/play-demo/

(Unity player needed.)

Not all games are blood baths as the games which are pictured above.

I find the elements of music composition, sound effect design, user control, graphics and the programming involved to be the pallet. Watching another person become enveloped in a world, no matter how simple, which is built upon these elements, creates the final illustration. This is art to me.

I suppose in the end this argument is moot as art is in the eye of the beholder,

I am still trying to understand how someone like you, who is so loved by hollywood, would make a blog entry without being more familiar with the actual experience of video games.

You ignorantly dismissed an entire medium without even experiencing it for one second. Not only that, you arrogantly ignored offers made by Kellee Santiago and Simeon Peebler to give you an inkling of what this medium could offer, in terms of experiences.

I am still amused that my fellow colleagues (yes, i work in the Games Industry) even wasted their time with an individual that is as bull headed as you.

Just as your generation waited for those in charge of what the so called industry norm is to die off so as to give credibility to works like "White Zombie", "Ouanga" and "Revolt of the Zombies".

I am pleased to say that, my generation will simply wait for yours to die off so as to breath life into a plateauing medium -- why is it so rare for books like "Push" or movies like "Precious", "The Blind side", "Crash" to made. But there are thousands of "Zoolander" and "You Don't Mess with the Zohan" made every month.

Ebert: Don't feel the need for us to die off. Go right ahead and start breathing.

I'm curious as to why the article had the images it had. Why not images of the games mentioned in the article like Myst or Flower?

Good on you sir. I have grown up with your reviews of movies and still enjoy your writing. I grew up with movies, witnessed the VHS craze, the invention of the laserdisc, the dominance of DVD and not the HD of today via BluRay and downloadable content. Personally, I've always enjoyed video games as another escape from the often tedious and depressing reality we live in. At first it was the love of the novelty if bright lights and synthesized soundscapes. Of course, the thrill of winning something. Personally chieving something. Being The Winner is always a good feeling. In film, or literature, or television and music, we are so often the passive audience. The one thing that is different today in video games from those not even 5 years ago, is the fact that there is subtle beauty if you find the right game. Mass Effect is my new Star Wars. George disappointed me so very much with his prequel garbage. Red Dead Redemption has spurred (pun intended) a great interest in the old west, American History and even the writings of Mark Twain. So much so that my whole family is benefiting from the newfound historical interest. There is art in there sir. Like most mediums however it is far and few between. The vast majority is junkfood, but don't discount the fact that there are diamonds in this new rough.

Most games don't even have that 'malleable narrative' that you talk about, they play more like an interactive movie where you can influence the 'action scenes' but not the story. And even when they do let you influence the story, how the hell does all the massively collaborative audiovisual artistry suddenly become 'not art' because it is 'interactive'?

Isn't Art ultimately one's perception? The accepted theory is that Art is an expression but in reality it is a perceptive observation by the person it is subjected to. I my opinion, Art can be summarised as " One man's meat, another man's poison". What one culture/artist/musician/individual (etc) deems is art, other may object...think about it.

I would not eat them with a fox.
I would not eat them in a box.
I would not eat them here or there.
I would not eat them anywhere.
I would not eat green eggs and ham.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.

-Dr. Seuss' "Green Eggs and Ham"

It's a brave thing you did, admitting your folly. Even if the comments on your previous post were overwhelmingly erudite and rational, there will still be thousands of half-literate "SUCK IT ROGER EBERT" posts on boards all over the internet. No doubt you have more important things to worry about, but in truth it is the writers of these posts that inform both the content of the majority of video games and the argument that that these games are something they're not.
Despite the increasing maturity of the gaming demographic, it is still, like blockbuster Hollywood, a medium enslaved to teenagers and those of that mindset. Though it was indeed silly of you to generalise by saying no games are art (this is debatable) and even sillier to see that no games could ever be art (this is impossible to debate; it is akin to eschatology). I would (still) insist that shit cannot be art, but apparently the Hirst/Duchamp types have proven me wrong.
Theoretical claims are impossible when the theory has no definition. Art is not an intellectual exercise; it does not follow the scientific method. To define it would be to systematize it; if this were possible, there would be no artists, only technicians. Even broad features aren't necessarily helpful: we could say art is beautiful, but this is equally mysterious (unless you claim that beauty is strict adherence to the golden ratio, a scientific feature that denies the beauty of most art, nature, movie stars in the world). We could say it is original, but how original does it have to be? Is it enough to combine old things into new, or to transform them via alchemy? Do we measure a book's originality by counting the number of original words it contains?
It seems your readers wrote an Anna-Karenina-length piece when they would be better off simply reading the original. We can safely argue Tolstoy's novel is art, but only because this has already been agreed upon. There are no metrics we can use to prove this, it is purely about feeling. I would suggest this is a purely personal feeling, but then an art critic such as yourself might beg to differ...

This is a fair way to put it. I do think that stepping into unfamiliar territory is dangerous for anybody, and you did so just as bravely as you have tried to step out of its way. I would love to see you play Ico, Shadow of the Colussus, or the upcoming installment in that series. If there were a Roger Ebert for video games, I believe that it would benefit the art of creating video games. As such, I don't see many guides written about video game history that are as well written as yours for film.

Since this appears to be your final word on the matter, I thought I'd get my word in before the next tidal wave of comments.

For what it's worth, I feel like a lot of people are starting the argument in the wrong place. Pointing to great stories in games and saying "Look, it can have a great story, just like a movie or book!" Or pointing to great design and comparing it to paintings. Using existing media as the benchmark for what constitutes art. People would be better served to point to the one thing games can do that no other medium can--interactivity--and find examples of games that provide profound experiences that simply would not be possible in any other medium.

In playing games, I have felt genuine sadness over my actions in Shadow of the Colossus. I have felt used and manipulated by powers beyond my control in Bioshock (a game with themes of choice and free will completely represented *by* the interactivity). I have felt connected to and protective over a fictional character in Half-Life 2. I felt guilty throwing an inanimate box into an incinerator to get to the next level in Portal. In Silent Hill 2, I missed a wife I never had. In ICO, I felt nostalgic for a home I've never been to.

These are all experiences that I would say have taught me things about myself, about others, about how I relate to them and the world. At the very least, they've made me think and reflect. They've affected me as much as any great film, just in very different ways. Different media has always provided distinct experiences, none more or less valid than any other.

But more to the point, these are experiences I would say meet all of your proposed definitions.

Jericho isn't a very good game, incidentally. It's also terrible art. :P Undying is decent but I never found it to be anything more than just... fun. I wish Barker's games were half as good as his books.

Thanks for listening. You keep writing, I'll keep reading.

It is great to see some one who can admit when they have made an error; This rarely happens online. While I am a gamer and an art lover (both one and the same) I found your first article to be thought provoking, if not slightly enraging.

This being said I think this piece does clearly define art, if not in the way you think. Art, as is beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

I would love to have seen your reactions when movies started screening, or after the first printing press rolled out a book; or even when the first painting was done on canvas.

Great article.

It must have taken a lot of humility to write this post. Kudos!

Although I'm glad to see that you are coming over to the dark side, stick to what you are saying, because as far as I'm concerned you are right with games not being art yet, and with the Romeo & Juliet analogy. What was the quote from a man for all seasons? "its not so much that I believe it, but that I believe it".

I can't help but think that Roger could have saved a lot of time and had a lot more fun if, instead of doing the long list of things described in this post, he had just played some damn games.

Roger,

Every week, you implicitly ask us, your audience, to trust your opinion and spend time watching the movies you recommend. But then when we, your collective audience, ask you to trust our opinion for a little bit, you have drawn a line in the sand.

You take joy from sharing the movies you love with us--and by God, every week your writing shines with that joy. We just want to share the things we love with you.

PS. I don't consider myself a Gamer. I am a father, an artist, a musician, a designer, a humanist who prefers to spend his spare time Fully Engaged with others both in and out of entertainment experiences. Whether that be social discourse, the playing of games, or simply sitting back and sharing a favorite experience with friends. Experiences after all are what makes life worth living. Wouldn't you say?

-Damon

I don't think anyone really cares what you think about a subject you know next to nothing about. We do, however, continue to enjoy reading your appraisals of film. We love ya, Roger!

while babysitting i once offered my five year old neighbor to try a piece of chocolate cake. he told me he did not like it without even trying it then he did try it and immediately changed his opinion on chocolate cake....something about this ignorance in experiencing video games yet being able to argue that they are not art rings true to this five year olds reasonings for not liking chocolate cake

ignorant comments are unnecessary...why troll on video games if you have nothing to base your statements on besides an outdated definition as well as no experience of the said medium. They have had to change laws recently on things people have invented and technological advances even within the internet...those same changes should be made for determining if things are art. but hey, if you won't even bother playing one why bother opening your mouth about them? i love that you can't say you where wrong but that someday they may be art when you still HAVE NOT played a game hahaha it is as hilarious as it is ridiculous

Forgive me if this has already been brought up, but Studio Ghibli has a game in the works:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ysGqsLf2oA&feature=player_embedded

Your position is willfully ignorant and closed-minded. I'm not sure which is worse. You should have kept your opinion to yourself because you've now marred your legacy.

I sincerely hope you'll refrain from sharing your "opinion" on videogames in the future. Stick to what you know.

Sir, you do know Mr. Barkers game Jericho is roundly accepted by the game industry as being a god awful collaboration of data on a disk that should not have reached the light of day? So, I'm not sure if you're trying to make a point here.

What we have seen, what we have yet to see, what we refuse to see. There are many movies I will never see because I say I have no interest in them, there are many books I will never read because I say I do not have the time. There are things I allowed myself to see, and there are things I will never let myself see due to arrogance, fear, or pride. If I could live forever I would indulge in all the world has to offer. Mortality is pretty shitty.

Perception dictates our tastes, taste creates the mainstream, and the mainstream is what drives the evolution of a medium. Many of the problems that games have with being regarded as art are the same problems that movies have with turning a profit in the mainstream audience. The medium exists too far in it's infancy that trends end up dictating the majority of games you will see. Yes most games are as mindless and dumb as the recent film "Clash of the Titans" that strive for nothing and accomplish nothing, but then again a lot of that depends on how you describe a "work" at it's core.

Most games can be simply described as "kill some guys and then keep going" in the way that you could describe any number of movies as "a guy kills guys and then keeps going". 'Action' as a genre can be a bad place to look for meaning and artistic merit, and unfortunately what makes the big bucks are action movies and action games.

Many of my favorite experiences playing games come from titles that were made by less than a handful of people on a shoestring budget, made by independents, many that most gamers may never have heard of or ever experience. Games that are made by people who have something worth saying. Games are just approaching the space to create realistic visuals and convincing characters and storylines, but they've always had the potential for art.

Passage is one of my favorite examples of how a game can convey meaning to a viewer in a way unique to this form. It's a game about the nature and pointlessness of a life and how we choose to lead it, you can do nothing but "walk". You can walk down a path and see what you can see, or you can remove yourself from the path and see what you can find, with uncertainty clouding your vision, allowing you to get lost in pursuit of goals and unable to find your way back to the main path. There's a girl who will accompany you on your journey, but unfortunately relationships can slow our progress through life and prevent us from reaching some goals. Regardless of what you do, all of these actions arrive at the same conclusion and feed into the same directed purpose. You will grow old, as will your companion, she will die, and you will die. It's more than an illusion of choice, as soon as you hit enter the choice is already made.

You have no real control over your experience, the end of the story is waiting for you always. In five minutes you will grow from a boy into a man, into an old man. You will grow slow, tired, and haggard. You will watch your loved one die, and then you will die. There's nothing you can do about it and nothing you've done really matters in the end. There is no score, no tally, no measurement of success. There is only a fade to black. Life matters as much as we want it to, but eventually it won't matter to anyone.

Many games present more than just choice to players, many of them mean something to people, not all of them are what the media tries to sell, the problem is a point that I read from this article, that appreciation of a new media is too daunting a task for anyone who didn't evolve with that media. The mainstream can prevent outsiders from seeing anything more than the outer shell.

There's no way for someone who hasn't played through every bad game in the world to be able to find that one that will change their outlook on life. People can be told but as soon as they are they judge and evaluate the statement before considering the experience.

There are games about the nature of evolution of a society, there are games about legacy, there are tragedies, comedies, games that terrify you on a human level, games that can change how you view the world around you, how you view people, how you understand the human condition, what makes us tick, why we cry, why we are the way we are. There are games that make a statement can stay with someone the rest of their life, there are games that can be digested in a single sitting, there are games that can take a lifetime to explore, and there are games about shooting a gun at guys for points.

In short: Most games are shit and without a lifetime of experience no one can be expected to find worth and value in them to declare them art.

I still don't see what's wrong with the dictionary definition you provided. You value a certain sort of art. But that value isn't inherent to the definition of art. I think a perfectly valid argument would be to say ideally art should add some sort of moral value to someones life and that art that didn't do that was worse art. I mean go ahead, argue that video games are worthless art. I would disagree. Their value as art maybe not have been fully realized yet but as a avid video game player I see a huge potential for the artistic value of the interactive medium. But you obviously think differently.

I would like to argue with you or anyone about it but first I think you should frame your opinion in a way that just makes more sense. You have so far provided one definition of art and then tried to make your own definition of art to fit your preconceived notions even though they don't mesh with the only actual definition you provided. How does that make more sense than to just frame your argument in a way that uses the only definition of art put forth?

And to address another thing you said about the definition, all video games are "appreciated for their emotional power". It's just different emotions being appealed too. Do you think it's only the higher more virtuous emotions such as love must be appealed to to qualify as art and that lower more vulgar emotions such as lust for violence don't qualify?

I still think you should frame your opinion as the higher more virtuous emotions but be appealed to to be valuable art and that if the art in question appeals to the lower emotions it is worthless or even degenerate. I guess you could call that sort of art pornography unless you want don't want to call pornography art at all. And I would agree that alot of video games are no more than violence pornography but not all video games are. Alot of video games try to be more than that and even though they might not be as "valuable" as some of the greatest works of art ever made I think it's kind of an unfair comparison. I think there's alot of room between something that is artistically worthless and huckleberry finn and I think alot of video games fit in there. I guess you will have to take my word for it though.

It's nice to see that you able to take a step back, and re-evaluate your position. Speaks volumes about your character, re-affirming what everyone already knew - You're a stand up guy.

Well Mr. Ebert, I believe that the real reason your blog post caused such an uproar is bi-parted, though. One, for sure, was you apparently immovable position against video games as art, but I'm sure that the other was simply the fact that you are missing on something that gamers are not. While making our arguments, we point out examples and situations that we classified as art and touched us, and you have not experienced them nor were planning to at all. How would you feel if we commented on the linearity or lack of originality of movies without ever watching classics like American Beauty, Cidade de Deus or Primer? Sad for us, I suppose. And that's how I (for one) felt about you, how you would never experience the moments in video games that made me cry, laugh and even at times to scared to go on. I hope you get to, some day.

Video games incorporate everything a film can and then some. Typically, a great game consists of stunning visuals, an engaging narrative, appropriate music, etc. How can this not be art? It seems that at the end of the article, Ebert put the final nail in the coffin of his argument by admitting that he just won't play video games, yet maintains his position. Just as in a film, a sequence or shot in a video game can be made or broken by the lighting, angle, colors, etc. It would seem Ebert only maintains his position so that he won't have to admit his shortsightedness in his evaluation of gaming. And will only change this belief once mainstream society does. He can find no reasoning behind not regarding video games as art by his own admission. Just as any other art form, video games can evoke emotion, inspire thought and represent an idea. Interactivity only adds an entire new dimension to the art.

and that is hopefully that...

I would say that this article is almost a positive advertisement for Clive Barker's Jericho. I also not surprised that Clive would gladly sacrifice Jericho for Shakespeare, I would too, given that the game itself is utter unplayable drivel.

I don't think there's any denying that art is a truly subjective thing. I cannot think of any definition that would exclude a genre, whether videogames or otherwise.

If you have not yet found a video game that you like, and have no desire to do so, then fine. I won't force you to play Portal at gunpoint. But, as you said, to discount a genre of which you cannot have absolute knowledge is foolish.

Y'know, I suspect I would lose every Shakespeare play to save all video games, though I might flinch if you demanded the sonnets too.

You should have just said "Video games are not art because I didn't grow up with or on them and will never have the paitence or respect to treat them as such."

End of case. Definition of art my ass.

I'm glad that you made this post, Mr. Ebert.

It has been rather difficult to recognize that someone as smart as you could hold such a position. I never stopped being a fan, though. I just sort of tuned out any time you said anything about video games.

Anyway, I'm sure this will calm down a lot of people. And I hope that some day in the future, perhaps on a bet, you will play one of the video games people have told you about and see something artistically worthwhile.

I certainly have!

There was a very long period in which films did not exist, but prior to this, one could find sculptures and paintings. When first appeared stories wrought in rapidly moving images, did those who place great value in sculpture and painting say, "this is not art"? Yet many of these early films are considered to be some of the finest expressions of artistic effort.

Many items of sculpture and painting that we deem as art today were not made merely for the sake of themselves. There were patrons and commissions. To disavow a work based upon its creator's motives would be to discard Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel and Rodin's The Thinker. Shall we make a case for declassifying these works as art? Their value is tied up in history, in provenance, in their perceived beauty. And we all know where beauty lies.

In the common definition of art, several mediums are tied together by a couple of things: beauty and emotional power. To fail to find these in a game is a failing in the beholder.

I happen to agree with you Roger that video games are not currently art. I also have trouble with art "experiences" interactive exhibits etc. Now, I do think that it's a mistake to try and talk on a topic where you don't have much experience with the medium. Such as me holding forth on movies. I am at best an amateur and at worst clumsy at talking about movies and would leave it to you. Why you felt compelled to keep poking at the topic is beyond me, since you don't seem interested in the games themselves at all. I think that some of the negative comments were from people who felt a bit condescended to. It would have been a different conversation gamer to gamer.

I long ago stopped watching television in favour of movies and game playing. I think that the reason I like my particular type of games is that they are online role playing games, so I am talking to a large group of people while playing. A group of local friends and I play the same game, but we also do things face to face quite often so it's not socially isolating. I don't play as often as some people watch tv, I'm much too fond of reading for that.

Thank you for your honesty and your endless curiousity that brings us fascinating debates.

Well I suppose this would be a satisfactory way of trying to put the debate to rest. There's certainly more than enough art in the world, and no one would claim you haven't experienced or enjoyed enough of it without ever touching games

That said, if this thing continues to drag itself out (as things tend to do online), trying to distill the clamor of the internet into a coherent position on something as tricky as the definition of art will only lead to madness. The wider the audience gets, the less constructive things tend to be. However, if it has to continue, what I've actually wanted to see from the beginning of all this was a frank discussion with someone who knows game design, I'm sure there is no shortage of prominent and articulate creators who would love to have a civil debate.

Honestly though, most big budget games you'd see referenced casually exist for the same purpose as the modern day comic book blockbuster--your Jonah Hexes and Iron Mans--to entertain and excite and make money. I'd argue that it's only in the past couple years that we've started to see glimmers of something you might recognize as "art" from some passionate indie developers; people more interested in what feelings an interactive narrative can evoke, or what events emerge when you put a player in a rule-governed system. Maybe even what the player may learn about him or herself from these emergent events.

Certainly you ran yourself aground a great deal of ire, probably because of the way video games are demonized by some of the press. It probably had the ring of some of the same, and I think some gamers are put on the defensive in this way. No doubt you opened an already sore wound for some.

I had actually been thrilled at your blog post about video games as not-being-art. Not because I particularly agreed with your comments, nor because I particularly disagreed, but because I thought it may actually catalyze a debate about video games as art. Are they art, can they be art, etc.

I enjoy video games, but am unconvinced they are art. I had wanted a debate to begin over this. Unfortunately my effort to get a debate started met with something akin to dismissal at the forum I chose to bring this up on. The essential point of view was that the debate was unimportant, that people enjoyed them and that given the amount successful studios make, and publishers, and the industry as a whole, that it was more or less immaterial. That games would continue to be made, whether or not they were art, and people could continue to enjoy them with or without the designation as an artistic medium.

While that answer is fine for some people, I didn't like that answer at all. We still don't really know what video games are in a way, how to contextualize them in our humanistic world view. And I want that, to understand them so I know how to contextualize them, and I suspect others do too, even if they don't know it. It's unfortunate that a good opportunity to undertake the debate was abandoned for probably something a bit like a mob's response.

------------------------

I think that video games, have a couple different potential apertures as art right now.

I think the most conventional aperture for video games as art was something along the lines of what you described in your previous post, and an area wherein games (I think) are lacking. Creating compelling humanistic content, communicating in subtle ways (metaphor, symbolism, etc.) communicating concepts or ideas, while remaining engaging and well wrought. And whatever else would make them "fine" art, or capital "a" art, or whatever.

The other primary I see is that games as art may be measured by their sort of addictiveness. That "a" creator of a video game (possibly an artist, [a is in quotes because they're largely developed in huge teams now, but for the purposes of the comment, there is a single creator]) would endeavor to create something as "addictive" as possible, or catalyzing the most thought. That the measure of a great game might be in how much it is played, or the reflection upon that game, like the creator of chess, or goh, or mah-jongg might be considered perhaps an artist.

I'm posting my thoughts on "video games as art" not because I'm even trying to start the debate here, (though I still want the debate to begin) but because I want to contextualize my above comments so that they make some sense. I'm torn over which of these apertures is most pertinent just as an outset to the discussion, or whether they are capable of doing the first of the two "types" of art at all.

I don't think the issue is settled whether or not you play a game. I think you should, but I still don't think the surface has even been scratched on the topic of whether or not games are art. But I do recommend playing something if you're interested in the debate.

Ebert, if you really do try to read as many of the comments of your blog as possible, then PLEASE read this:

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/for_artfags_only/

Don't be put off by the title. It clears up this whole "videogames and art" business.

I dont think games are art (in general, there are a few exceptions) either (and I make them for a living). They transcend art.

Games are the ultimate learning tool, the best way to experience other points of view and to understand systems. Role playing games let you live as another person in another time. Simulation games (like sim city) help you understand systems on deep and fundamental levels. Competitive games let you see just how great you can become. No movie, painting or book can do these things to the same degree.

No, Games are Games, and that is all they need to be.

When I first heard your announcement, I thought quietly about it and essentially reached the conclusion that Clive Barker did. As an avid video gamer, I have seen the evolution of games from their inception to their current form. I submit that there are few more qualified as "experienced" with a player's perspective of gaming. To this end I respect your opinion as a critic. Incidentally, as much as I love gaming, I too would instantly sacrifice my Steam library and all of the games ever produced to save Shakespeare's work as well. Why? because the narratives of the games that have effected me the most follow his frameworks. To this end without a story driven narrative complete with a compelling story arc there is no real experience...these games have about as much to offer as do the summer months in Hollywood. This is the crux of the experience - the narrative. At least for myself. The parts that do involve choice, the shooting, what-have-you are simply the fluff, the visual and experiential glaze that sweetens the cake. While I respect your opinion, I do think that you may be depriving yourself of an experience that you may enjoy. I'm sure you remember fondly the works that inspired your career choice, the works that really resonated with you emotionally. The thing is, I would hypothesize that this video game, the one that speaks to you, the one you would look back on, is out there, waiting. I suppose in the end while I respect your opinion on gaming in general (and do not fully agree with it) it saddens me that the rejection of the experience on principal may deprive you of such experiences. Who knows. Perhaps your stance will change. Here's hoping that you too may someday find an interactive work that will evoke the emotions that so many before have felt.

While I never weighed in on the argument before, I respected your opinion.

After all isn't it true that beauty is in the eye of the beholder? Some people like one thing but hate another. I love impressionist and cubist style art but early Christian to Baroque art bugs me and I find a lot of "modern" art hard to swallow. That doesn't mean it isn't art - it's just something I don't get much out of, but I respect it all the same.

I think a lot of things can move people if they are receptive to it. I know that, while playing games like Super Mario Galaxy, I was moved by the story in that game. I have also been quite engaged in a few RPGs (including those with branching story arcs) much like I'm engaged and moved by stories like "The Belgariad" by David and Leigh Eddings.

At the end of the day, though, your position is understandable. I wouldn't want to be forced to see a lot of art I didn't personally connect with or see a reason to, but I think anyone takes it personally when something they are fond of gets decried so. On this article I understand your position.

Rather curious sampling of images that accompany your article. Throw in some racing games at least...

I won't say whether I agreed or disagreed with your previous post. There's been too much of that already. But it's nice to see you do the right thing and say you were wrong to write the piece because your admitted lack of experience. Too few media figures would do it. Thanks.

I frequently defended your comments, using the "malleability" factor that you describe in this article. I pointed out that, despite your claim that they weren't art intrinsically, video games contained art, and only a fool would deny that. The stills in this article support that view.

What it came down to, in my mind, was who directed the experience. Loosely, the artist is the directive force for experiencing art. They control their medium and use it to elicit a response. As you note, we experience someone else's perspective. They're the ones in charge. But, with a video game, the gamer is the directive force. He or she controls how the avatar progresses through the game. After all, it's a game; it's about "play," about interaction and impact. The game experiences our perspective.

I suppose it's all water under the bridge now, but for what it's worth, I took the whole argument as a light philosophical exercise. It was fun.

I don't think a Clive Barker game was the best example of video games as art.

I play games for their emotional power. I get just as upset when someone ruins the ending of a game as when someone spoils a good movie.

The problem is that he'll never take the time to play a great game like Alan Wake or Knight of the Old Republic because of the violence element attached to it.

I think that turns a lot of people off to video games. It's hard to realize you're embarking on an ever-evolving 30-hour story when the first 5 minutes is a tutorial on how to use a gun.

His argument ultimately makes no sense to me. You can write a story and put it in book or movie form and it is art. But if you take that story and make a video game out of it, it can never be art. I must be missing something.

So essentially Mr. Ebert's position seems to be that video games aren't experienced as art for him. Here, he exercises his right of opinion and I don't presume to oppose that. Nonetheless, I find myself unimpressed by this article.

First, there is a technicality to redress. In summary, the article reads as follows: Mr Ebert regrets his choice of words. Fortunately, an escape clause presents itself: 'games aren't art...yet'. Mr Ebert is, by his own admission, too obstinate to educate himself further on the matter. Mr Ebert seeks a definition that can divide video games from that which he considers art. Unsuccessful, Mr Ebert prefers to rest upon his ignorance.

Forgive a man his opinion, but the tone of this piece conveys a truculent man self-censoring for fear of further inciting the wrath of others. At the very least it is not an enlightened man accepting that views of others might differ to his own. If this article is consolatory, it is a mockery of consolation. If this article is defensive, it is a mockery of the man.

Second, the arguments presented:

'Video games are not art yet.'

To who? To you? Certainly, but that does not preclude them as art. Many famous artists were unappreciated until they passed away. Were their works art when they were created, or only art when the masses recognised them to be? If the former is your criterion, then are not video games already art merely awaiting recognition? If the latter, then have the masses not clearly already recognised video games as art?

'Gamers shift their definition of art in video games to try and match what I might enjoy.'

True, but not a valid counterargument. Consider: I do not like cubism, but I appreciate it's artistry. I don't enjoy Beethoven, but I accept that he was an artist. I find many pieces of contemporary art to be soulless and mass-produced, I laugh at the caricature of the presumptuous artist randomly flinging paint at a canvas and calling it art, but still this is art.

Essentially, we're arguing that the medium can be art, not that all video games are art. Isn't the journey of discovering art about finding something in the medium you enjoy? If you would not engage in that journey, then perhaps you will not find art in this medium that you could enjoy, but it is still art.

In conclusion, I personally respect Mr Ebert's right to deny that he experiences video games as art. I do not, however, agree to his position that video games are therefore not art.

why such stupid screenshots?

You have to admire a man who can admit his mistake.

The definition of art is an interesting topic, though one I'm sure you must be growing tired of. It's such a subjective term that if somebody tells me that they consider a certain work to be art, I accept that it is. Who am I to argue, after all?

You were arguing that videogames can not be considered art because there are objectives in videogames ...

That was easily the most ridiculous thing you've ever said and backed, and I've read a lot of your articles ...

I am angry! Angry at video games!

"One thing I brought from this experience was that I lacked a definition of Art. I've been thinking about that for a couple of months now."

This is pretty much exactly what I was thinking from the get-go when I had heard about and read that poll. Maybe you take the definition too literal, or simply differently than others. It's just a different form of art. It all has to do with experience and immersion when it comes down to seeing the art in games, books, movies, etc.

The only problem with your opinion on games, is the fact that, don't get me wrong, I don't know you in person, so I couldn't tell you if this were true or not, but you don't seem to have experience with games enough to actually have an opinion that stands out. You assume, and you shouldn't ever assume this or that about anything. It's like judging a book by its cover.

As for the age thing, I think what people may be saying without them elaborating, is that, you weren't born in the times of when games came along, like my elders. So it's not always likely they'd want to play, nor see a game as much as my brothers, friends, or I would. Now, I know that doesn't apply to everyone, but I feel as if it does generalize a lot of society. You'll stick with what you grew to know.

I've personally been playing video games all of my 20 years living, and by now, I can surely say, many games do not show art in a very fashionable way, but then there are the games that do, and when they do, they shine.

Well at least you feel games are not not art now. I honestly think you still have a bit of a closed mind about this. Would an interactive display at a museum not be art? Is Every Uwe Bowell movie art since it is a movie? Take for example "Flower" on the PS3 there is really no goal, it is an relaxing interactive experience that is also considered a video game. Is the narrative found in Half Life II considered less then the 1997's "Batman & Robin?" Or even better "Clue the Movie?" It had multiple endings therefore it is in question to you.

Can you say there is an art to making video games and yet not call them art? Just like movies we have actors, writers, artists, set/lighting/costume designers. Doesn't this fit under your second definition of art? "Works produced by such skill and imagination"

Very insightful. You've probably been squabbled over some gamers wanting you to play through a game out of the Metal Gear Solid series. For me, that is art in video game form. So much so that other forms of art are inspired from the series leading to novels, paintings, animations, etc.

They wanted to have a movie in the works and screenwriter David Hayter took a personal interest in wanting to be involved. He co-wrote X-men and Watchmen and is involved in the Metal Gear series voicing the lead character in over four games now.

However with how precise and delicate the games are there are fans who do not wish for the series of games to expand to movie form. How could I blame them when I look at video game movies such as Super Mario Bros. or Resident Evil?

But regardless of trying to make this franchise into a film I propose that games like MGS do lead you to experience thoughts, feelings, and meanings from the perspective of other people. The latest installment titled "Peace Walker" opens up the ideas of nuclear deterrence mixed with great fiction. Pulling in artists like Yoji Shinkawa and Ashley Wood to portray artwork within a story within a game. And these are just layers I couldn't begin to go into.

I'm not saying you should play games like MGS. Not everyone is a gamer, and I respect that. But as I've grown I've seen the evolution of a series made before I was born in the 80s shape into a cult classic that challenges people on a level that goes beyond simply using a controller and obtaining a score. It's an incredible feat to go through such a series; game after game and feel a sense of inspiration rather than accomplishment for beating it.

Well done for speaking up on this - one of the first rules of argument and debate is to have researched the topic you are arguing. You might want to call it a 'school-boy error'.

In my view, video games can only ever be considered art if they use their UNIQUE properties as a medium to form their art. Here your definition of art on emotions, and learning more about yourself etc. means a video game could only ever achieve being art in and of itself if it uses its unique properties to achieve these goals. Ie. if a video game is simply emotional because of cutscenes, this is simply a copy of the filmic medium.

So what's unique about video games? Interaction, quite simply. If through interaction you can feel emotions, learn about human relationships etc. and those emotions could ONLY be stirred in that way through that interaction, then video games can have a claim to being art.

This is why you hear about games like Flower (this will only take you around 5 hours to complete, btw) and Shadow of the Colossus. Both create emotions through your interaction - simply showing them as a movie, would in no way touch the emotions you experience. Only being that character in Shadow of the Colossus, and killing those colossi yourself, will you feel the remorse near the end of the game.

Thanks for your time (I studied Philosophy and Film at University - not that it makes my view any more valid =)

Also: just a point. Using 'kids' in your title, and including images of Clive Barker's very violent 'Jericho' (not a game that would have a claim to be art IMO) really does play to video games being for children and only violent. Again, it makes it seem like you're trying to play to that view, and makes you seem 'old-fashioned'. Ie. if you were talking about films being art, you wouldn't include only pictures of Transformers. Thanks.

I find that I do agree with you in a sense Mr Ebert, but I do think there is another point to be made in the way gaming relates to movies.

If ten directors were given the loosely written scrip for Humpday, as well as access to the same sets and cameras, they would most likely make ten movies that had some similarities but alot of differences. This is the "malleability" in games as related to movies. You are given a loose structure, with some parts more strictly scripted and some parts more free.

Now this structure is in my opinion not art. The director given a script, a set and a camera is not given a work of art. Neither is his working in this environment art. Scorsese directing is not a work of art, it is making art. But the result of the ten directors could be ten movies that are art. So what about the games?

Now the way this relates to games means that the "gamer" is not simply one role. The gamer is an actor in the sense that he runs around with guns and shoots people (Bruce Willis is not a work of art as he is filming a Die Hard movie). The gamer is also a director in the sense that he is creating a fixed narrative from an open structure. But the result, as viewed by the player and whoever is watching him play, must be able to be art if a director and an actor can create art. The problem is that although they can, they usually don't. This is due to the nature of gaming and fun.

What I find is that, as you seem to, I prefer works of art designed to move me, designed to be works of art. The problem with a game such as the western Red Dead Redemption is that the resulting play, if observed by someone, could come very close to a good Clint Eastwood-western. But it is that way because I did what pleased me the most when playing. I killed or saved, went hunting or pursued my mission, watched sunsets or camped in canyons, simply based on what would entertain me.

As if the director given the Humpday script, the sets and the cameras directed that movie simply based on what made the directing most fun for him. Not a thought on what it would be for an audience, what he wanted to say.

Would that movie be a piece of art? Would it make sense? It would probably be a regular porno, and have alot more women in it.

I was not a part of the previous debate via your comments/twitter/whatever else and honestly am quite glad that I wasn't. I'm not a fan of getting in to arguments via the internet. I will say that this post from you really means a lot to someone who does consider video games to be a burgeoning art form. Your opinion is completely valid and I hope that at some point you get a chance to play some video games and maybe have your opinion changed. If you still do not consider them art that is fully your opinion and you are welcome to it. The fact that you can acknowledge your error in judgement in the previous post shows a lot about you as a person. Also, I will echo the sentiment of Dan with "fair enough".

Well, if you're looking at it in a sense of philosophy, you have to define what "isn't" art more so than what could be art, there's to many ways to define something as art.

Take these as examples:

Several men walk into a museum to see Michaelangelo's David.

The first of these men has studied Michaelangelo's work extensively before and after David, so when he views David his artistic experience of viewing it is altered slightly by knowing the before and after of the work and it's relevance to Michaelangelo's total works. This could be equated to playing Shadow Complex and knowing it's relevance inbetween Orson Scott Card's "Empire" books, or even knowing much about Japanese mythology before going into playing Okami.

The second man loves going to museums, and is exposed to lots of different forms of art in many different mediums. This man has a different view of David as well, because he might view it in contrast to the whole of what he's seen as a museum goer. This could be equated to any of the staff at Kotaku in fact, since they have long histories of experience with various forms of gaming and when they have a new game put in front of them they'll pull from their history of experiences at times and use it as a scale to measure their new experience. Sometimes a new experience comes up without comparison and could be lauded or bashed if it's good or bad respectively.

The third man has come because he was forced to come, his wife made him or what not, and see's David. Given that this man didn't want to come to the museum he might already be in a negative light when he views David, however he still does. When he looks at the statue he makes assumptions of it's worth as art colored by the emotional state that he's in, so if you didn't want to see it in the first place you'll have a tendency to dislike it altogether. Part and parcel why if you make declarative statements about games, such as reviewing or otherwise, you tend to need to have at the very least a mindset to want to play them.

There's also a fourth man, who is outside and never comes into the museum. He's out with a picket sign, having never seen David in person, protesting David being in the museum. He shouts and raises a clamor that because David is disrobed that it isn't art and it is tantamount to pornography.

This theme all goes off of the individuals experience, which is one of the key ways art is validated philosophically. Take for instance one piece of art made by an artist with the intention that someone else will see it in the time the art exists.

The artist could intend to make the art so that it stands as art itself, without conveying any experience from the artist or the experiencer altogether. This piece of art stands as an example of what the artist "thinks is art" without any conviction of feeling or such. It's important to note as well, that this perception of art when the piece is made might change overtime as acceptance of artistic aesthetic has changed over time as well (Jackson Pollack wasn't considered art when he started but is now, and we know mechanical aspects of art such as the Golden Ratio mentioned earlier in the week at Kotaku that makes us believe something to be beautiful by our perception).

The artist could also make a piece of art to convey an emotion or state that they're in or feeling without considering how it will effect those that experience it. You could argue that Picasso's blue period was similar to this, as he created paintings that are austere in appearance and could very well reflect his mood during that time due to the suicide of a dear friend, but perhaps not reflect how he wanted his art to be felt by the public. This is one example of this particular artistic validation but I'm sure we could find others.

The other validation is that the artist makes art to evoke an emotion out of you, the experiencer, but perhaps doesn't have a particular emotion in themselves that they want displayed. Many artists could be grouped into this category as well ranging from impressionists (though some could be considered the first example as making art for arts sake) to abstract or surreal art such as Dali or Warhol.

The list can go on and on of ways to validate something artistically by aesthetic, to the experience of the artist or the experiencer, even to mathematical formula of what we perceive as naturally beautiful. None of these ways are proprietary to any one type of media, they can be applicable to any form of media we experience. There just is too many ways to validate an artistic experience with media. Just because something doesn't match up to what you've considered art for your natural lifetime doesn't make it any less valid of an art form, in fact deeming it so could be considered vastly damaging to the artistic process or just the concept of art in general.

Art is us. You. Me. Anyone that has an experience or wants to convey feeling, entertain or be entertained. It is in the music we listen to as much as it is in the wind we hear through the trees.

So to bring us back a bit, if you wish to declare something as "not art", shouldn't you truly find a way to invalidate the human component from art and then define "what isn't art"?

More than anything, I admire you for putting your opinion out and admitting what you have through all of this, but if art is something that is experienced on the end user it becomes increasingly hard to invalidate it doesn't it? You not only have to make assumptions as to what isn't art, but also what the experiencer will learn/feel from the medium in question no?

Anyhow, as weird as this sound, I thank you for bringing this to the front of people's minds, as if dialogues such as this don't occur people don't establish or evaluate their opinions on the matter.

What is Art?

The beauty of "Art" is that can never truly be defined. It will always be allusive.

It is impossible for us to EVER find one definition EVERYONE will agree upon ... And we need to realize that's okay.

One of the biggest lessons "Art" teaches "Humanity" is there is the possibility of MORE than one way of seeing or experiencing things.

This can be especially tough for many.

+ + +

While I was in University, I took a Philosophy of Art course. We had 2 large text books filled with essays and arguments from various historians, critics, philosophers, artists and theorists — And they all essentially disagreed with each other.

Clive Bell's famous "The Aesthetic Hypothesis" argues a piece can only be classified as "Art" by judging the "significant form". Art must always be indifferent to "mimetic content." Moral, intellectual insight and political views are clearly outside of the domain of art.

His ideas were largely a reaction from World War II (and Nazi Germany's view of Art) and it fueled a lot of the Modern Art abstract movements.

Is Clive Bell saying anything beyond sensory experience isn't art? (Ex. Realistic portrayals, narratives, etc) This can be a very limiting concept ... and that was his point. Only the very few are truly Art ... And there is no such thing as "Bad Art."

+ + +

The Power Of Interpretations

That is the beauty and scary part of "Art" for many of us. Many people feel they don't get it ... but that's not the point.

There is no "map." It is not linear. There is no absolute "right" or "wrong" way of approaching something.

The depth and quality in "Art" involves our interpretations. (Ex. How we read, communicate, and express ourselves, etc).

For me, this is the truly "human" element within Art. It acknowledges, captures and integrates humanity's diversity — And even our own imperfections!

For many, allowing "more than one way of doing things" and accepting "imperfections" can never be an appropriate answer.

+ + +

Personally, I feel "Art" is an individual's allusive, ongoing learning process.

I am always writing and re-writing MY OWN definition. Enclosed is one of my latest drafts. As you can see, it isn't perfect, but that's okay.

+ + +

My Definition:

Art has the capacity to connect and transform the heart and the mind

Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar, and a model of how to handle the grungy mobs of the Internet.

As magnanimous and open-minded of you as this is (especially as it is likely to cause a similar torrent of comments), I do not know how satisfied those appreciative of games can be with your expressed views. I expect it may help reconfirm you as a nice guy, it's also going to reconfirm that you do not 'get it' in the eyes of many.

I can certainly accept that you're averse to trying out a bunch of games. They simply do not appeal to you, and your previous experience with games doesn't serve as a recommendation. Fine. But for a medium as vastly diverse as it is, with as much progress and exploration as it has, for you to say that the two games you played were made 15 years ago is, as you have already admitted, quite damning. Nonetheless, even in this more apologetical post, you still basically feel justified in passing judgment on games as a whole, it would seem.

This part, in particular, just makes me roll my eyes: "I don't know what they can learn about another human being that way, no matter how much they learn about Human Nature." What is this. Why would you say that the things in a video game do not represent other actual human beings? Not just represent, but truly reflect. A painting is a person's expression of their subject. And in movies, you have similar layers of abstraction. How can you say you learn about a person's suffering and their resolve when, in fact, the actors are not suffering at all and the only thing they are resolving to do is, perhaps, to go get some drinks after work? More to the point, if you are willing to accept this abstraction for other forms of art, why wouldn't you accept it in a video game? If you are unwilling to invest yourself even slightly, it will not be a surprise that you have learned or felt little in the time you have spent.

I disagree that you were a fool for mentioning video games. It inspired a world of discussion among an amazing film critic, many movie enthusiasts, and many video game lovers. I think for this stage in the video game industry it's an important dialogue to have.

Books and movies are great media for delivering meaning and entertainment. I'm glad that you have more books to read and movies to see.

Video games are also a great medium for delivering meaning and entertainment to many who are willing to plunge into them and are able to find the right ones. The barrier to entry is not always as much of a timesink as you might think. While you may have the notion that games typically take 20-40 hours to experience, there are amazing games I have experienced fully that took just an hour, from start to end.

I'm disappointed to hear that you're not interested or willing to give the medium a fair shake by playing a critically acclaimed game, but I can understand your decision as well. You're a terrific film critic, and I hope to read as many more reviews as you can write. That is your established niche, and we should not expect you to deviate into the world of video games. And on that note, I'm glad to hear that you recognize that you should not make blanket statements about that which you are not suitably familiar.

I still hope that one day you may either play (or watch someone else play) a meaningful video game with an open mind so that you can experience the medium and be able to express a more legitimate and knowledgeable opinion to everyone in the future.

There was an announcement just a couple of weeks ago of an upcoming game called 'Child of Eden' that may challenge your conception of what a game can be. It can be played without a game controller, and the game's design is meant to integrate vision, sound and touch into a seamless synesthesia experience.

A video demonstrating a person playing 'Child of Eden' can be seen here, if you're willing to take a quick look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IY1r9DXZCZU

Even if you do not believe that video games can ever be art, I do thank you for at least taking the medium, its aficionados, and the discussion seriously.

I find it interesting how much discussion this topic provokes. I brought it up with a friend of mine who is better versed in the artistic world than myself, and he said something that I thought would be worth sharing.

He simply asked: Why do video games need to be considered art? Will it change the way people make or play games?

It seems like we forget that games are not necessarily a new invention, just that through technological advances people have been able to find new ways to present forms of entertainment.

A game is a recreational activity with a set of rules. It can be educational, or purely for entertainment. Does it need to be art? Or is it just that games are a medium through which art can be created?

Would you consider sport to be art? It is a game after all, though there seems to be little discussion over the classification of it as art simply because there is no need to. People will still play, fans will still watch and support their teams, the world will continue regardless of whether we think it is art or not.

I think we should spend less time trying to shoehorn video games into categories such as art, and just enjoy them as the entity they are. A game.

P.S - The poll results are pretty interesting, though I would like to see what response it would have had if instead of "A great video game" it had been something like "Chess".

I hope that video games don't have the ambition of matching Shakespeare or Twain. A game writer for the new Epic Mickey game claims that a game can tell a story just as good as a movie, but I believe that is completely the wrong direction. As you've no doubt been told, games supply experiences; exploring other worlds with a Miyazaki-attention to detail can resonate even as strong as real places I have found. Fritz Lang's Metropolis can be examined and filed away into our brains. This is cabable of priceless inspiration after the game is put down. I don't look forward to playing a game that is a character study; little eerie. But if game developers can supply beauty to be experienced than you've got some parts to transcend, as you say. Thankyou for being so honest and putting up with this.

As long as it's back, I've been thinking about this a fair amount and agree with Roger. Here's why.

Me.

I am the reason a video game will never be art. I am the reason participatory painting will never be more than "by-the-numbers" or music more than karaoke. I Imagine picking up a horn after 30 years and sitting in with the symphony. The director would have to stop continuously as I made mistakes, just like games have to while I'm playing. (If I paint or create music then that's different if equally unlikely to produce art.)

Each of these gives me an experience of a type of creation, but never of art as I experience it created by others. No one else experiencing my output would ever consider it art either. Even someone who is really talented at gaming could do no more than raise it to an art "form", something like art, a metaphor for a metaphor.

(I got to watch Vizquel and Alomar, who raised a game to an art form as much as anyone could, but it was just the form.)

Games can be involving, enveloping, amazing and above all fun. But the very fact that I am actively involved in each instance of creation reduces it. Even if it started out as art it would end up as something much closer to therapy.

Enjoy all those who will disturbingly celebrate your 'coming around' now. -_-

For the record, I do not in my heart believe that playing violent video games causes people to be violent. All of that stuff has to do with the individual's personality, his/her values and parenting/upbringing. Yet, at the same time. Having a so called great childhood does not make you immune from violent behavior, nor does it eliminate the possibility that you will behave badly when you get older. In the long haul, we are all on a journey and that starts with ourselves and ends with ourselves, no one can do it for us.

Video games have changed a lot in the last 20 years. They have become as much a part of our popular culture as museums, music, art and literature. Interactive media accounts for much of this turn of the tide. The interaction factor of games evolves daily and video games (today) are more like interactive movies (for the most part) than they are simple button bashing marathons at the local pizza joint. There's a time and place for that kind of gaming a hard core fan might tell you. On the other end of the spectrum you have turn based and online gaming communities that immerse you (the player) into an online community. Whether or not this is conducive to health/enlightenment is debatable. And the debate goes on and on (sometimes to the Supreme Court itself!).

I've played video games for much of my childhood life (though thankfully I found the opportunity and time for sports and community work--unlike the hapless youth who perished from playing a video game 36 hours straight!). Besides being challenging and engaging, Video games can also be a lot of fun. Especially with large groups of people and friends (Nintendo's Wii is a more recent example). Also, games are a good stress reliever if reading a good book isn't your immediate reaction after pulling an all-nighter at a university or place of work. And, if you're good enough, (sometimes) a fantastic way to make $100,000 at a local gaming contest in Houston TX or some place like that (but honestly, how many of us are lucky enough to do that?

In the long haul I suppose one defining factor of the positivity of gaming is that it succeeds in bringing people together. There will always be those who will criticize gaming, for saying it is this or that; a waste of time or a waste of life. In theory, no activity is truly a waste; and any function in life can become unhealthy if approached in the wrong way or if overdone to the point of addiction or self-destruction. My advice for folks like that has always remained: Everything in moderation.

As far as the art argument goes, I am sorry but one cannot listen to the music of the game Final Fantasy VII and not call that art. One cannot look at the level design of something like Nintendo's Resident Evil 4 (which is worthy of anything in a Hollywood movie) and not call it beautiful on some design level. And one cannot look at the conception of Mario Bros. and not call that an original, artistic creation. So, in essence, video games are part of art, because artists, programmers, technicians and musicians (yes, real musicians) are working around the clock just as hard as movie makers are to make their game the very best it can be. Even if it is for a different kind of audience and a different purpose; one simply cannot deny the level of craft and love involved. The evidence nowadays is just too overwhelming.

Video games (in my humble opinion) are a crucial part of culture nonetheless. Like the comic strips on newspapers or the chess players in the park, the jump ropers on the street corner or the lads playing their Gameboys near the drug store. They are part of America, and what makes our country beautiful and unique; even if they did originate from a land in the far East. Also, don't forget that "Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time" was based on the videogame of the same name and surely folks can call that movie art on some level. So there it is.

This cut scene from "Final Fantasy 13" put to rest any notion in me that didn't believe video games were art:

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

Zelda Medley in Stockholm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qi99oDALtRU&feature=related

Angelina Jolie Interview

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LwovyKh3_Y&feature=related

Adam Sessler’s Soap Box (About Video Games and Art)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dfWK9Cv2Gl4

Jim Carrey DDR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxX0KG2DcYc

Guitar Hero:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XjaImfQK6U

If you never did you should. These things are fun and fun is good.

I don't see how you can exclude something so many consider art just because you don't care to experience it. That seems to be your final decision, that you don't want to discover it and therefore can decide to exclude it from your definition of art. Of course, your viewpoint is yours to take, but shrugging and saying 'oh well,' deciding purposefully to wallow in ignorance of a subject so closely related to your chosen profession - and you can't deny that games and Hollywood are anything but closely related, almost symbiotically so - leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth.

Sure, if you were anything other than an art critic, what would it matter? But you are, and despite your personal opinion, millions of people you influence DO consider gaming an art, and that leaves you with a choice: Take the time to experience the art form and only then judge it, or accept ignorance and turn your back on the personal growth you so espouse.

In this post you mention that you would happily sacrifice the entire medium of interactive entertainment for the work of William Shakespeare, a single four-hundred year old playwright, whose authorship is disputed and many of whose works were written in collaboration with other writers.

These are indeed great plays, however, would you sacrifice any other entire medium for the work of a single artist in another? Music for Manet maybe? Movies for Mahler?

Although I adore those plays, I would absolutely sacrifice the works of Shakespeare for the entire medium of interactive entertainment, especially, as you admit, since we have no idea what lies in its future. The Shakespeare of games, alongside the Bernard Shaw, the Strindberg and Ibsen of games would never appear if you had your way.

Just about the only statement in this post that is not stupefyingly ill-informed, to the point of appearing asinine, is that you should never have mentioned video games.

I get the distinct impression that there is something about the format that annoys or upsets you. Maybe you associate games almost exclusively with "Shoot 'em Ups" that are designed to appeal to teenage boys? Despite citing examples that are not from this set, I still get the distinct impression from the videos and screenshots posted in the article that this is the case. If so, this is the equivalent of somebody saying that all movies are troma splatterfests.

Your prejudice is irksome at best and vomit-inducing at worst.

Despite gamers providing you with hundreds of examples, you still appear to refuse to accept that gamers can have life-changing experiences through the medium of interactive entertainment that help them grow and understand the world around them. You grudgingly admit that they 'might'.

Anyway - after reading this I think shutting up on this subject is indeed the best option.

You shouldn't have posted a large article full of incorrect assumptions and unfounded beliefs though. You should have just said "I was wrong", and possibly "sorry".

Well, at least the video game screen shots aren't limited to a single genre.

At the risk of being yet another "you played the wrong game" - try Braid. Independent Indie game - which changed my mind on this issue. The backdrops are hand-painted watercolors, the music classical composers and the puzzles fantastic. I dropped my book, returned my dvds and was engrossed from start to finish.

I don't think you were a fool for mentioning video games. In fact I would say it was inevitable. Art in it's many forms moves with the times and video games are part of our world, a big part. Perhaps you were only a fool for delaying the inevitable.

I don't see what the controversy is. Since when have games ever been art? Ok, so you can interact with the narrative, become a shaper of events rather than a passive consumer. Maybe some of those outcomes qualifie as artsy enough for the gamers. In that case, I recommend a game called Notepad. If you play the game well enough (or long enough), you just might reach the "Hamlet" ending.

This is a far more appreciable stance to read than your previous one.

Obviously, it doesn't really change anything, but comes at the issue with more humility and less dogma than the previous blog. I'll be sure to pass this along in the pitch fork carrying game communities I frequent.

As one of the people who happens to think games can be (and have been) art, I have a clearly different point of view on the matter. Still, it's always more refreshing to have a differing point of view from a position of respect and possibility.

As 1 who has written extensively regarding "Art" and "Games" + who is also a creator [of both "a(rt)" + "A(rt)"], I'll simply quote from a 2005 article where I raise "...questions involving the present state of art in relation to and in comparison with the condition of game play...":

"Should artists learn from ARGs ability to push genre-dimensionalities beyond the emptiness of forced sterile institutionalised [sanctioned] interactivity? Do many examples of electronic/digital/networked art encourage or epitomize such accessible seeking/searching behaviour or curiosity/blending-beyond-genre-boundaries? Does this [in part] also explain why art as a homogenised concept seems less potent [in our contemporary "globalised" mercurial/mismashed/colonised/hegemonic society] as a potential cultural modifier/constructor? The source point of interactivity is the imagination – is this growing trend of micro-economic assessment of our most basic cultural construction elements [ie imagination] reducing our ability to create artistic output that has corresponding contemporary relevancy equal to those products [ie games] that push a consumerist agenda? Does this in part explain why art seems so marginalised/undervalued in our contemporary setting and anything considered a consumerist artifact [ie games] isn't? Could ARGs be illuminative here in terms of treading that line between art-reification + established information/data/genre enmeshment?"

- From: The Immersive State of Reality[Game]Play

While we are debating whether videogames are art or not, billions of miles away, stars are dying, galaxies merging, and planets are waiting to be discovered. Give it a rest people!

I rather like your definition of Art. Of course Art will always be impossible to define, as like religion, it lives beyond logic, though it can encompass it. If Picasso could have explained all he meant on one side of A4 paper, he would not have painted Guernica. Indeed I have always thought, (as an agnostic) that the transcendent experience of beauty whether of the natural world, or of great Art such as the music of Mozart, is the most convincing argument for the existence of God. It touches something in us that we cannot express even in part without resorting to the same language mystics use to describe the religious experience.

At the end of Fallout 3, I was asked (I'm writing "I" instead of "my character", because in the course of this game I became so strongly attached to my game persona that this is appropriate within the game world) either to sacrifice my life to finish a task my father died for or to let other person do it for me. I hesitated. There was still a lot of world to see and a lot to do. But abandoning what, perhaps unwillingly, became my responsibility would be against everything I did the whole life.
Yes, of course, I can always load a saved game and reverse that decision. I can create another character and begin anew, concentrating more on enjoying the world and less on following in my father footsteps.
But somehow, after I made the right decision, the game ended for me. And it made me learn something about myself.
Would I do the same in real life? I'm still not sure, and will never be, but I believe I'm closer to the answer.

Just want to thank you for such a considered, adult response that apologizes sincerely for your actual mistake (speaking authoritatively on something you aren't interested in) without compromising your reasons for holding the position in the first place. This is the model of how people should conduct themselves in public discourse. I am inspired to try a little harder next time I get into heated debate.

I still think you are Wrong™ (in the broad sense, but possibly not about what currently exists), but I no longer feel compelled to argue it. We can just disagree, and that's OK now. My problem wasn't so much that you didn't share my view, but that you categorically rejected it on ill-defined principle. It'd be like a highly respected critic of Broadway plays seeing one or two movies -- say, a Michael Bay blockbuster and American Pie -- and then railing on about how movies can never rise above the level of cheap special effects and teen sex comedy. The frustration here, I hope you understand, is how much you are respected. Otherwise so many words would not have been spilled in disagreement.

Dear Roger,

I find this whole discourse very interesting, initially I was in total agreement with you - even though I have spent countless hours playing video games.

The ability to replay even the greatest games is often limited, where a great novel can be re-read a hundred times. Although, I wouldn't mind playing Super Mario 3 again, if only for nostalgia's sake.

In truth, up until February I was a proud owner of a PS3 console and a plethora of games, some more Artful than others. I enjoyed countless hours solving puzzles, scoring goals and maiming and murdering. Only for some kind soul to burgle my apartment and remove a vast percentage of my worldly possessions.

Without the console, I realised that I had hours of my life reopened to me, I have found more time to write, more time to read and more time to watch - but there are moments when I miss it.

I still have not replaced the console now five months later because I am worried the little time I have clawed back will be absorbed with a swipe of my card.

I can see how delving into video games would be daunting especially from a time perspective, although I do wonder how you manage the time you have - considering the amount you read, post and obviously watch, as well as social interaction. I am envious.

In terms of Art, I have always felt the basis is about the creation of something by the "human hand". The appreciation of it on the other hand is very different of course, as that is hinged on perspective.

I worked on both sides of the industry during the 90s, first writing about videogames in books and magazines, then later serving as a product marketing manager for a game company. Don't game now, and was never rabid about it. Personally enjoyed a handful of games--just yawned at many others.

Seeing the industry come into prominence has been fascinating. Back when I interviewed a kid named Jordan Mechner back in the 90s, I would never dream that more than 15 years later, his game "Prince of Persia" would be translated into film. (Okay, maybe not much of a film, but an actual movie nonetheless.)

Your argument on the video game subject is an intriguing one. I didn't try to post anything the first time around, but now wish to take a whack at it. Okay, here goes:

Maybe videogames can't really be defined as "art" on participatory grounds. In other words, a painting doesn't require our participation to exist. It is intrinsically there on the wall. Same with a statue. Now, while it is true that a piece of music or drama doesn't really come to life until it is played or acted, neither the symphony nor the play require our active participation.

A videogame, on the other hand, can't really fulfill its inherent purpose unless it's plugged in, turned on, and interacting with a gamer. Maybe that's the difference: art doesn't require our active participation, but games do.

This is not to say that videogames do not often contain substantial artistry in their design and style, or that they don't sometimes expore interesting narrative themes. Some games certainly aspire to be art, although the industry is still largely driven by the unmet emotional needs of a young male demographic--which include escape, aggression, and sensory stimulation. (This means that many games never try to dip a toe into "deeper waters" and settle for stock characters and off-the-shelf plotlines.)

Still, it seems fair to state that videogames often incorporate artistic elements, although that alone doesn't ensure that they are art. Art is supposed to prompt us spectators into deeper reflections on the grand themes we experience in this life. Most games wrestle with nothing heavier than a battle-ax or an AK-47. And frankly, when your sole goal is to rapidly kill everything in sight, there's little time for esoteric discussions.

Ultimately, videogames are dominating diversions and sinkholes of time, sucking participants into a gaming experience that tends to insulate many gamers from contact with others. In this regard, video games are more like other participatory electronic phenomena, such as the Internet. (You start looking at one article, then it's suddenly four hours later!--same thing as with games.)

Back when I wrote about games, the average game was thought to contain about 120 hours of playing time for its user. That was the "value expectation" for the gaming consumer. I don't know if that figure has changed over the years--probably has shifted upward, if anything. So figure that's maybe 60 screenings of films that could be attended with the same investment of leisure time. That's certainly been an easy decision for me.

You wrote: "My error in the first place was to think I could make a convincing argument on purely theoretical grounds." Actually, your first error was probably in thinking you could possibly change the minds of these people. These gamers are simply not like you, Roger. They don't read books, they've never seen Citizen Kane (or never all the way through, which is the same thing), and most have lived with video games since they were very small children. They have actual memories tied up with particular games, just as you have a soft spot in your heart for the Saturday matinees you saw as a lad.

And I still have a soft spot in my heart for games although I was certainly sick of them before I stopped writing about them. In fact, before leaving, one game rep asked me what kind of game I played. "At this point," I told her, "I play only one game: write the review, get the check."

Your distinction between games and traditional art - learning about other people - is mostly right, I think. There are some exceptions: all the stand-out videogames mentioned in your original posts, but by and large games seem to focused on player-gratification instead.

But games are superb at this, and I think this will alter - indeed is altering - the definition of what art can be. In the same way that movies had an immediacy, an ability to immerse and an interest in motion that was once deemed threatening and subversive, and not art. Whether or not you think this is a good thing, or a positive sign for humanity as a whole, is a personal matter. Me, I have mixed feelings: I'm currently playing Assassin's Creed 2, in which you are a killer in Renaissance Italy. The plot is sub-Dan Brown garbage and the dramatic ethics of the game highly questionable (no great insights into human nature). But there's something extremely beautiful in the re-creation of these old cities - Florence and Venice down to the last brick - and the kind of sensual pleasure in how you can move about them.

That's art, I would argue, of an experiential kind. And I can see this already influencing a kind of gravitational pull on other mediums: the call of 3D in cinema, as if we want to be *inside* the film itself; the recent upswing of interactive theatre, which is currently very trendy in the UK (but weirdly reminiscent of Live Action Roleplaying).

I think ultimately art doesn't *have* to teach you anything in a moral sense. Perhaps high art does, as you say, and this is certainly a question mark over videogames and where they can go in the future. Art, to me, is just setting a particular aesthetic on reality, on the world: including some things within the frame, excluding others. It's a set of rules. You said traditional games couldn't be art in your last post, but I disagree: I think there is something beautiful about a chess set, its rules, and the relationship between its piece. They say something about the world, and no matter how minimal, that's all it takes.

Yes even if you play SotC and dislike it there will be people who come back with "You are too old" etc, but like a lot of people on the internet they are idiots. Even if psychologically this is a valid reason all that would matter is that you gave it a try. Honestly playing the games is really the only thing required from you if you are to claim that they can never be art.

i understand your position in that you don't want to engage in what you consider not to be "art" but really isnt art entirely in the eye of the beholder? i dont know how you could have disagreed that gaming was, is and will continue to be art form, just in a different format. I guess my view is biased being in my early twenties and growing up playing video games as well as reading and listening to music ect. but still my question is: why were you so stubborn about whether or not gaming is "art" or not? it seems fairly obvious to me anyways that gaming is an art, if not YOUR style of art.

As you admitted, and it is to your credit, you don't know what is in the video game playing experience that inspires people and you don't want to try playing them or have done so much.

I think the "you are old" comments had to do with the assumption that if you were younger you would have automatically been more affiliated with games. Suppose a man who was old when movies came out and didn't want to try seeing them or had trust in them being something inspiring or art. I mean you are not alone in people your age enjoying books and movies and not caring at all about videogames.

From my experience even something like learning to dance or a dance, for one may be described as art.

However, in the end you are right, this is your opinion and from where you stand one classic book is worth more than all videogames of the world. But people are going to disagree with that, especially since from where they stand they are willing to appreciate videogames more.

And in the end, you don't have to change. One is entitled to keep enjoying the things he does even if other experiences hide such moments too. One is also entitled to his right to underestimate those other experiences. Because it is a matter of personal preferences. It might even be for his own enjoyment. I am telling this because, I assume that people will put pressure on you to try some videogames. Or tell you that you have to appreciate other artforms too. I disagree with the "you have to". I wouldn't have a problem with my hypothetical man who didn't care much when movies came out and was still exclusively into his books because he wanted to. Especially since appreciating movies is what you do.

I don't find it appropriate to first declare N is not a subset of M and then to search for a definition of M so that N is excluded from N. This way you can prove disjunctness easily but it really doesn't help in an argument. Frist, define M and N, then proove which property of set N is in contradictory to your definition of M.

I would define art as: A product of creativity meant to invoke certain emotions in its consumer.
I would define videogames as: Interactive digital media meant to entertain its consumer.
Using these definitions I would obviously say that videogames are a subset of art. I accept different definitions, of course, but not defining what you are talking about beforehand makes nearly every statement sound. My definition is not saying anything about value or quality of a piece of art, there are many many videogames which are horrible, as there are loads of drawings, sculptures, books, movies, which are horrible, too.

By the way: I would prefer a game like Yoshis Island over everything Shakespeare has written I've read. This is not limited to the enjoyment of the works, but extends to a general feeling of expressiveness and uniqueness.

Mr. Ebert, I must admit that I was upset at your earlier posting about video games and art. As a gamer myself, I feel that there are games which do tug at the strings of your heart as strongly as any film. I could even recommend some to you, as could many others.

However, my purpose here is to express gratitude for this posting. While your earlier post was not enough to make me stop coming here and reading your reviews, this post is something special. To hear someone admit that they were, perhaps, mistaken or wrong is a rarity in this age. While I personally don't agree with your opinion, I can understand and respect it, and I certainly appreciate your candor is accepting that, if not now, then perhaps someday my hobby can be considered actual art.

Best regards,
Phil

Well, i got to say i personally have learned of another human experiences, and that for me video games can be art though not all are.

It does not matter really if games are art or not, but that we enjoy the entertainment

Mr. Ebert:

Though I've been a long time reader of your columns and reviews, this is the first time that I've actually taken the time to go so far as to comment.

Being a member of a generation raised with video games, I will first and foremost say that I do disagree with your opinion on the subject. I will, for whatever little it is worth, commend you on the obvious thought you have given this discussion. I've always valued your rational look at topics over the years and, when dealing with such an abstract term, I am afraid that I was one of the first to say that perhaps you didn't "get it." I believe, however, that I am somewhat different in that I believed you didn't "get" what there was to "get."

Art is and will always have subjective limits. As best as we can define any sort of medium, there will always be something coming around the corner to rub our noses in the definition of style. It has happened, countless times, in what we consider to be the core "Art" forms. From differences in style to branches of schools of thought, we are all bound to define art by not just what we find pleasing, but also what invokes a primal sense of wonder within us.

I do not think I will ever see a video game that is truly considered "Art" in a scholarly manner. Some have come close, as I've spent countless hours in sprawling narratives. Few, at least few that I have had interest in, have convinced me that the narrative model is in its prime. With each passing epic that is unfolded, the model comes closer and closer to perfection, however at the hands of people who would subvert the medium; much as the movie industry currently seems to be enamored by 3D effects and technology.

I applaud you, though, for realizing that one day, somewhere far down the line that threshold can be crossed and a story may be told by a game that brings about that primal spark. In doing so, I am relieved that you do, in fact, get it. It doesn't always matter what the opinion of a medium is currently, more important is the potential that medium can achieve. Art will intrinsically affect others differently and, having grown up with the game as a medium, will affect me in a much different way than it would you. I am glad to see that the rationality of the subject is once more inserted into the conversation.

I would offer only one piece of advice, in going forward. As a critic, and as a person, do not hesitate to offer your opinions. Though we may not always agree, there is more than enough common ground upon which to stand.

Best wishes,
Robert Mancini

Roger, if you ever decide to play another video game, do it because something called to you, not because people told you to.

Being made to play a video game is like being made to read a book, it puts you on the defensive and ensures that whatever value is there, you won't see it. I wasn't able to enjoy Steinbeck until I got out of school and able to read his work without being told to. It's not going to be a personal experience if someone is telling you what you're going to get out of it, you have to discover it for yourself.

I am glad Roger, you are by far the only critic whose reviews I read whenever they pop up and Your post about video games not being art was disappointing.

The definition of art is not the arguing point here at all. Art is anything that makes us think and feel emotions, but is 'created' for that sole purpose. Movie is two hours of directors attempt to take us on an emotional journey of experiences.

Sad parting with a friend you hold dear is not art, for that is life. But the quiet whisper at the end of Lost in Translation is art, for it evokes emotions and tries to - without getting lost in translation - make us feel what the director wants us to feel. How well that is done is not really the point, as long as it is about creating emotions.

And games - not all, but many - attempt to do the same. A lot of players play through role playing or story/atmosphere driven games, such as Fallout 3, Mass Effect or Half Life 2 by experiencing the same thing, quite often only once. The 'endless opportunities' thing does not really apply here at all, games today are still quite linear and slight variations make little impact on the story as a whole. And same is true with movies, you can replace a minor scene here or there, but it does not affect the whole experience that great deal as long as the key scenes are there.

I know this may sound as if I am saying Citizen Kane would be the same movie it is if some scenes were replaced, but in reality that is very close to truth.

And that is because art is so much about how we interpret it, it has no rules. This is why art is such a wonderful thing to always debate about, it is open to interpretation. Art would not be art if it did not have that.

What is different with games is that much of the players interpretation is pushed into games interactivity directly and this is what likely confuses those that see games from outside in, thinking that this degrades the effort or makes it less art in some way.

But experience is the art, rest is just details.

Well after reading your previous post on video games, I realized what I should have written:
"As I see it, the chief difference between you and those you are arguing with is that you realize what a pointless, childish, utter waste of time this debate is."

I think this blog post confirms my belief.

Okay, first: Clive Barker hasn't made a good game since 2001.

But, anyway, thank you for admitting that Art is so bloody complicated that Video Games can, and indeed do, qualify as Art. You just don't like video games, and that's fine.

Games are art in a way that movies aren't: A movie can tell an engaging story, full of mystery and intrigue without having to pop away from the story for an action scene every five minutes.

A game, however, can challenge the player to react to an ever-changing environment where they must use their wits and reflexes to succeed, causing the player to perform actions that can qualify as art in their own sake, such as in Portal performing incredibly complicated maneuvers in order to reach the next puzzle, leaving you in a mix between eureka-moment epiphany and adrenaline fueled euphoria. Anyone who's played the modern Ninja Gaiden knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Movies and Video Games are different, and its high time for people on all sides to figure that out.

I suggest playing Metroid Prime (Gamecube/Wii) and Chrono Cross (PS1/PS2) or Shadow of the Colossus (PS2) as your first set of games you try(if you decide to do so).

Gaming as a whole is a different medium of art. The storytelling has to be drastically different than that of novels, films, or most other types of entertainment. This is because games generally run on much longer than something like a movie. It's treated as more of a TV series type of story-telling intertwined with gameplay which can make the story feel astray and sometimes less serious than that of other forms of entertainment. The pacing is much different than that of other mediums, too.

Video games are still in their infancy when it comes to how stories should be told in them. Really, it's only been about 15 years since games started implementing stories that go beyond start from point A and get to point B.

But Ebert, as a fan of books, films, video-games, television series, and just about every other form of entertainment, I suggest you try the games I mentioned. Those are what I would consider classics and 'pieces' of art. Game design in itself can be an art, but only can you find that after you've played many types of games (quality ones, hopefully).

With Chrono Cross (and maybe moreso Chrono Trigger, its prequel on the SNES) in particular I felt was the video-game's version of a Hayao Miyazaki film. It inspires wonder and doesn't have to work to keep your attention and be in your face the entire time (like so many games do in cutscenes). Now of course, nobody can beat Hayao Miyazaki for me, but it's the closest thing I've found in twenty years of almost religious gaming. Which game is your favorite and which ones you think are good are entirely personal. A good start might be Metroid Prime, too(Metroid Prime in particular is one of the most critically acclaimed games of all-time, if you check Metacritic).

Just thought I'd throw that out there in a most disorganized fashion. I apologize, as I'm writing this jumble of a mess at five in the morning.

Clive Barker's Jericho is a terrible example to use images from. Just so you know :-)

The subtext of your article says it all. And by subtext, I mean the inclusion of grotesque stills from violent, graphic games. It reveals your bias against the medium, because you think it has too much vulgar content.

Well, not every game is that way. In fact, most aren't. Those games are mostly popular amongst teenagers. But would you dismiss the medium of film based on teen horror flicks?

And as for narratives, most games large enough to have a story are pretty linear. Even the nonlinear ones only really allow you to pursue things in the order you prefer, or to pass up on optional content. There is always one core storyline. Sometimes there are multiple endings, but even that is moralistic.

I appreciate you coming to a middle ground with this article; but you need to cross the threshold into appreciating games as art if you want to regain your respect amongst the younger generations.

"When old age shall this generation waste,
Thou shalt remain, in midst of other woe
Than ours, a friend to man, to whom thou say'st,
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty," - that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."

Thank you, Mr. Ebert, for so very much. Stay true.

Roger-

As someone who is alternately amused/perplexed by your crusade to have video games barred from the artistic pantheon, this article does little to convince me your opinion of the medium has changed even one iota from 'I don't understand them/want to play them, ergo, games are not art'. An an aside, the non-sequitur images littered through-out the post really don't add to the sincerity of your message, though I suspect such was not your intent. (I realize Mr. Barker had some hand in starting this whole controversy, but his work is in no way reflective of the overall tone or theme of the medium -- how about you paste screenshots from the newest Saw film through-out your next manifesto in defense of art and we'll call it even, alright?)

I think most of us understand that as an 'art critic' you are forced into the uncomfortable position of choosing between flippantly dismissing an emerging medium or be force yourself to be educated about something that seems entirely beyond your comprehension. As a cultural institution, the opinions of Roger Ebert are rapidly showing their age and irrelevancy.

What's most ironic here is that film, your alleged 'area of expertise', was subjected to the same sort of pointless elitism by the tastemakers of the time when cinema started to emerge into the mainstream cultural consciousness. 'A six second video of a man sneezing? This rubbish can never be considered art!', etc.

Your anecdote about the Playstation is particularly troubling. If have some sort of mental block against even trying to play a game (I would assume, because the emotional cost of you having to admit you were wrong on the internet is too high for your ego to bare) because you've decided out of the gate that you can't imagine there even being a game you could enjoy or hold in any meaningful amount of esteem, then that is YOUR problem, not a problem with the medium.

We (by this I mean people with any amount of critical thinking skills, not 'gamers') would take you a lot more seriously in this matter if you would just admit that you are too snobby/embarrassed to risk being seen playing a video game and this arbitrary distinction you are making between 'art' and 'games' is not about semantics, historical precedent, 'narrative linearity', or any hypothetical situation in which one would need to 'choose between Video games and the complete works of Shakespeare', it is actually about you choosing to be willfully ignorant about a topic because you have prejudged it to not be worth your time.

This is a position that rational people should be able to appreciate. I know that I do, both as game player and as game designer.

Each to their own.

Pinhead: "Ah, the suffering... the sweet suffering. ..."
-From Hellbound: Hellraiser 2 (1988)

I could not help but think about that line when I read your writing.

No, I'm not snarking. This lastest writing about video games from you is entertaitning as the previous posts about them. I still don't have much interest in video games, but maybe I will agree with others about the merit of video game as Art. Nevertheless, I think the books and the movies will remain more important even if that happens.

I tip my hat to you. It takes a lot to write a post like that. I want to note that you've slightly overestimated the time requirements for games. Some do indeed take 20-60 hours, but something like Flower or Braid can be experienced in a very short space of time, and are not so difficult that you are likely to struggle with them. A game like Shadow of The Colossus is absolutely incredible, however to someone with little gaming experience you would likely find it frustrating and difficult. Flower and Braid are a lot easier to grasp, and won't take up much of your time. Regardless of whether or not you consider them art, it would be interesting to get your opinions on them.

What if you had to sacrifice every film in existence to save the works of Shakespeare? No hesitation? Just checking ;)

I don't think you're wrong to necessarily be turned away from video games if your limited exposure is almost entirely popular games. Like with film (or even novels), the market is saturated with generic plots, unoriginal game mechanics, and lackluster experiences overall. As I'm sure many have already told you, and as you've already acknowledged, it's all about which games you play, just like it's about which films you watch or which books you read. That said, I won't bother listing any games that I personally feel are art because there's one thing that will almost definitely be true with all of them: you won't be able to "get" them in the same way someone who plays video games avidly does. It just wouldn't even be the same experience. As someone who has grown up with video games, I've been exposed to hundreds or maybe thousands of games already in my lifetime, experiencing the market to the level that the developers that make the games do. I'm used to control schemes, know what has been done and what hasn't, and am used to the technical limitations on a level that I know what's reasonable to expect for the medium at any given time and can filter my perception (in a way) accordingly.

I love Shadow of the Colossus, but if you tried playing it without having adjusted to the medium by plays tens of other games (at least), the experience probably wouldn't be worthwhile. Now-outdated graphics, initially awkward controls, chunks of the distance loading into view, and quite possibly lack of dexterity with the controller (for lack of a better word) would all pull you out of the experience where those who played the game at the time it came out with familiarity with games up to that point would not be. It'd be like a child's first piece of literature being Hamlet. Most games, even ones that many gamers would consider art, just will not appeal in the same way to someone who is not familiar with games. The best example I can think of for someone unfamiliar with games would be Flower, probably, seeing as how it's very modern from a technical standpoint and the only controls are very natural and intuitive.

Should you ever decide to try challenging your preconceptions about games as a medium for art, I hope you keep these things in mind, but I don't think anyone can foul you for not dedicating the time that would be required to do such. I'm glad you decided to address this, though. I don't think many critics would be this level-headed about it all. Cheers.

Sorry that you had proceed through such a malaise of commentary. There's something about the videogame "culture" that is vastly insecure about its status, and the reality is that even as an avid fan, the degree to which that affects the community is deep. Certainly, your earlier post exacerbated that unease, but really it should never have gotten to this point. You're far too eloquent a critic to have needed to go through this trial by fire. I respect you greatly, and while I don't agree with everything you say, the pitchfork and torches routine is far too common in the gaming community today. Your comments, in many cases, are well founded, and speak as much to developers as they do to the community itself. The game industry is fairly stagnant, and if this helps wake them from their "brown reality, shoot everything" stupor, it can only benefit the industry. So for that, I thank you.

Roger:

Thank you for restoring my faith in you. As both a video game player and an English teacher, I am relieved that you have made these concessions to the world of possibility. I won't go into detail on my experiences with video games, and I won't ask you to go out of your way to suffer through a media form in which you have no interest. I was becoming a bit alarmed, however, at the off-the-cuff, one-sided nature of your response to video games. I read your blog post regarding Glenn Beck, and it saddened me that here was an issue about which you were being equally bullheaded and absolutist to his politically motivated ranting. This post has restored my vision of you as a thinking--and more importantly, reasoning--individual.

Thank you for the article Roger Ebert, humility to any positive degree is a good thing.

I haven't been on top of this exchange, but I do feel certain games are a great source of art. Recently I found myself empathetic to a certain John Marston from 'Red Dead Redemption.' It follows a track mostly, so it's hard to deviate and it has one true ending. Being able to experience the journey adds to the ending and draws out empathy I would not have experienced had I played only the last 2 hours of a 25 hour game. This is an important argument in your post, making this an important example.

To ask a question: Why were you compelled to only show violent video games, mostly with demons and the undead? I can understand you using Clive Barker as an example, but the pictures and YouTube videos you chose were not a representative sample of all video games. It doesn't even come close. Honestly, I feel it a small lie by omission. You mentioned games like Flower and Shadow of the Colossus but were not compelled to show the beauty represented in those games and their respective flavor, wholly different from anything imagined so far by Clive Barker.

I guess I wish you had not done that.

Mr. Ebert,
Thank you for your article, as a gamer and film lover it makes me smile whenever I see that this world is so diverse and expansive that even using a dictionary definition we cannot come to an agreement about almost anything. You see what really matters is what matters to each one of us, as human beings. I have one critique of your piece, isn't the world full of different emotional journeys? Isn't that the beauty of the whole pageant of human existence? Having a multitude of interpretations doesn't cheapen our experiences, rather it enriches them because from the discussion we learn, we change, we cry, we laugh. And if anything can do that, as a human construct like film, music, paintings, or even games, then it has value, and that is more important to me than art.

Once again, as my favorite critic and one of my most beloved writers I expected nothing less than this article in response. I look forward to your next film review, thanks Mr. Ebert.

Andrew Freeley

About the "Romeo and Juliet" argument, "what if they could live happily ever after", there are games that lead you to a single, powerful ending and there are (few) others in which you get to shape what happens in the end.

That doesn't make one game better than the other. There's also the debate about having "cutscenes" that make a game closer to a movie or getting rid of them completely. Every game is different. Video games are too complex to dismiss them with no knowledge of the richness of the medium, so it's nice to see that you are willing to admit this at last.

Roger,

Let me first say that I am on your side with this issue. I am a film nerd, will take a movie over a game any day, have never played a game that I would say is a masterpiece in the way so many films are, and can understand where you're coming from in what I interpreted as your initial definition of art as something that needs to simply be experienced and not interacted with.

But I do play video games, and I have read enough journalistic thoughts on games to take a stance. Part of what makes gaming a unique experience is the ability to actually be a part of them in a way no other medium allows, and the best games create a feeling of immersion that may as well make you forget you're holding a controller. Movements, combat and story become so natural that it sucks you in the same way a film can.

But if there is a reason I believe video games are not yet art or more accurately are not high art is because of the people that surround them, and I believe this is true of any medium of artwork. At the end of the day, a vast majority of gamers are content with playing identical sports games, Rock Band and Guitar Hero or repetitive online multiplayer games like WarCraft. Many of those who are more mature gamers and have sought out something like Shadow of Colossus will still return to mindless online gameplay in First Person Shooters like Halo and Call of Duty that no longer have story, characters or qualities beyond that of just being a game.

Many game critics are now realizing because of your post that games need to evolve. They can't all be about space marines, they shouldn't all try to tell stories in the same way a film does, and they should fine-tune gameplay that demands choices or always requires the player to succeed in order to move forward.

I can only wonder what people would say about film if everyone's choices were limited to the current Hollywood blockbusters, or if books were limited to franchises like Harry Potter and Twilight. Opponents of more respected forms of art would scoff at the others because of the people that surround them content with mediocrity.

I think the closest I would come to agreeing that video games *are* art would be this statement: video games *can contain* art. Without question, there are people involved with video games who want to put something of meaning into them. Though I no longer play video games, the only one that ever made me think that they were close to art was Metal Gear: Solid. And even that game draws on the cinematic experience to achieve artistic elements.

First off, the game, for its time, was an epic. TWO DISCS, oh my. On top of that, they went through a ridiculous amount of technical detail. The booklet alone contained real diagrams of weapons, and detailed pictures of the characters, complete with back stories tying "Solid Snake," the protagonist, to the other games of the series, dating all the way back to the Nintendo.

That would have been more than enough for an ordinary game, but no: each of the main operatives had an entire backstory, detailing how they became what they were (a terrorist organization that highjacked some nuclear weapon). Upon defeating them, the player was treated with a cinema-like story of the character. One nearly brought me to tears: Sniper Wolf, who, though lung-shot, manages to tell her entire life story, beginning with her upbringing as a Kurd during their purge in Iraq, to how she began "to view the world, through the scope of [her] rifle."

That wasn't even the whole story. At the end of the game, you are treated to some vignettes about how many nuclear weapons exist in the world, and what's being done to decrease them, and how the governments of Russia and the US aren't really doing all they swore to do to dispose of them.

So, the game had a clear, anti-nuclear message buried in its levels of counter-terrorism and missions (before 9-11, even). It had cinematic elements including credits and an opening vignette a la James Bond. The game made me think deeper about real issues of the time. Maybe having to outrun a gigantic robot being controlled by the supreme boss of the game while he launches missiles at you wasn't art, but certainly its overall message and story arc had artistic elements?

Although I'm not much for playing computer games myself, I completely disagree with your position in the original essay. But that's not the point.

The point is that your original essay is one of the best examples of being wrong in an interesting, informative and deep way. It shows not just the value but the absolute necessity of being wrong. Our understanding and appreciation of all ideas about truth, beauty and good is the result of the sort of dialectical process you began in your essay.

I'm convinced we are all richer for the discussion. You've displayed courage, self-confidence and the highest intellectual integrity by both putting forward a controversial position as well as changing your mind as a result.

Roger, I know you've accepted you might be wrong about games, but aren't interested in playing them anyway, so fair enough. But I just want to point out a couple of things anyway.

To clarify something - there are numerous types of games that have very fixed narratives, adventure games being the most obvious. These are essentially just standard stories, with some interactive problem-solving added that you have to get through to get you to the end. If simply adding a degree of interactivity to a story or experience rules it out from becoming 'art', there is a major problem with your definition of art.

As for your point about engaging empathy, there are literally hundreds, probably thousands, of games with complex, engaging characters and plotlines in them. Granted, few if any compare to a great piece of literature for emotional complexity, but some games can be suprisingly moving. You seem to think all games are just Doom-style shootouts against zombies or aliens. This is exactly like thinking that all film cannot be art because you've only ever seen a single bad action movie.

This was the only honorable option, as far as I can see, if you didn't want to play a video game. You've owned up to it; video games aren't your thing, you don't want to play them and, therefore, you shouldn't be talking about them or suggesting what they are, what they aren't or what they can or cannot be. I have similar things I have no interest in and therefore try not to discuss. You can't put down what you don't understand.

I do, however, suspect your viewpoint would mirror the overwhelming majority of us if you had grown up, as so many of us did, during the 1980s and 1990s. If, for you, Chrono Trigger and Final Fantasy had been names as inextricably linked with your childhood as the most memorable films of your youth in the '50s and '60s. Does that mean you're 'too old' to get it? No, and I've noted how absurd that argument is when you're posting on a blog maintained by a man born in the 1940s. If you really wanted to do so, and had any interest, you could learn why so many of us are rushing to defend video games as a medium.

Your environment growing up, however, was different from ours. That has a great effect on your perception, I think. I still say that, if you had been born in another era and had ended up a theater critic, you'd have had much the same dismissive attitude towards the cinema, sight unseen, in its early days.

Fair enough!

I have a comment on narrative in games though. I think that the argument that the player having some control over a narrative (in games which have a narrative) removes the author's ability to communicate a message of some sort is wide of the mark. There are really two points here. The first is that in probably the majority, or at least a significant minority, of games with a narrative structure, the player can't significantly alter the core narrative. They can fail somehow, at which point the game ends (until you load a saved point) but typically the final outcome is essentially fixed. If you complete the game then you get the author's vision. Often there are small variations in the outcome, but the main thrust of the story continues. An example of this is Mass Effect.

Now Mass Effect is largely a 'shooter', and the writing is pulp at best (but in a good way), but it has a narrative and it allows you to role play to a certain extent. You can play as a good guy or a bit of an anti-hero, and it will affect how characters respond to you and some of the options you're given in the game, but, however you choose to play your character, at th end of the game you're in the same position, the peril faced by the galaxy is the same. Some characters will like you more or less, some characters (friendly and not) may or may not have survived depending on your actions, but the core narrative remains unchanged.

So although I would not really classify Mass Effect as art, although it is a great game, I think the argument that the player having some control over the experience negates the ability of the author to exercise the narrative control available to the author of a novel is wide of the mark.

Also briefly-ish... An example of how games can have a very strong emotional impact is the "No Russian" level of Modern Warfare 2. Again, I make no claim to the game being art, but in this level you are an undercover agent with a group of terrorists. You must not blow your cover or the game ends. As a result you're forced to stand by and watch them gun down scores of innocent people as you and they progress through an airport. Despite the fact that this is just a game the experience of being in that position, theoretically able to help but bound by the rules not to, made me sick to my stomach. Not because I felt the game was insensitive, the level was clearly designed to invoke this feeling. The experience was as affecting as many a heart wrenching or horrifying scene I've come across in films or novels.

I disliked you intensely for your ignorant proclamation. You came across as a self-important member of the old guard.

The real irony was you were repeating history. In the first half of the 20th century the intellectual critics of artistic civilisation had much to say about film as an art form. Film wasn't art and it never could be. It was pablum and beneath them. This was said with snobbery and contempt born from ignorance. They didn't get it. When you wrote "games could not be art on principle" I could see the crimes against film being repeated against games, but by a lover of film.

I'm a game-maker and a game lover. I tell myself I can see the limitations of games today. I'll admit the field really requires the benefit of the doubt when it comes to claims of artistic importance.

What game can I suggest that will convert Ebert? None. And there lies a problem. Games cannot welcome Ebert.

But all this is irrelevant. Your quoted definition of art includes artistic intention and emotional result. Many people make games intending to produce emotion. Many people experience emotion when playing games. These tests are already met, but not for you.

I disliked you for what you wrote, but you have reflected, and written a world-class apology. You now have my respectful disagreement.

Ebert: The theory that film was not taken seriously in the first half of the 20th century is hardly correct. I point you to Rudolf Arnheim's Film as Art, most of which was written before 1933, or Eisenstein's early writings on film.

The UK film critic Mark Kermode has touched on the subject of gaming a couple of times. His view is generally that as a non-gamer:

"What I know about videogames wouldn't fill the back of a postage stamp. I don't play them and probably never will – there are just too many movies to keep up with"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/dec/11/mark-kermode-video-games

he is entirely unqualified to hold an opinion on games, and he therefore defers to games fans and writers who he trusts (such as UK columnist and sometime game reviewer Charlie Brooker).

I think it's perfectly fine to say that you don't know (nor have the desire to know) enough about a subject to hold an informed opinion.

To be honest Roger, you are not a fool of mentioning video games in the first place; you were foolish in not familiarising yourself with the art form before commenting on it.

Based on your (self-admittedly incomplete) definitions of what is art, video games are art. Of course some are not very good art, but some are comparable with the visual and emotional stimulus of certain films.

I have to say that it's nice to see you have a more optimistic view about a form that is continually evolving. I can say that I agree that games cannot be art, solely because I define art to be a passive experience. When a director is directing or an actor is acting, they are CREATING art. What they are doing is not art. The product is art. The same goes for painters, sculptors, musicians, etc. The PRODUCT is art. In turn, a defintion I provide to you:

Art - a product of creativity that passively allows for an experience that is seen for its beauty and/or emotional power.

Now, video games would actually fall under that...if they were passive. I don't feel that art can be an interactive ordeal, because all you get out of that is creating something. As a gamer for the last 20 years of my life, I can say with confidence that even games like Flower, Shadow of the Colossus, Braid, and others that have been listed time and time again...are not art. They attempt to emulate art, but they are still interactive. They are beautiful, but that beauty is something being created by you. In turn, you are the creator of some form of art...but that art is not something that is passive for you. You control it.

I also wanted to say this: don't use Clive Barker's Jericho as an example for the medium and your debates. That game...was pretty bad. Jericho is something I would liken to the Saw movies - filled with gore and a lot of generally bad development. That's not a knock against Mr. Barker. That's a knock against the company that made the game.

That does raise a question, however: would you consider the Saw movies as art? Hell, do you consider a movie like Trash Humpers as art? If you can say "yes" to both of those, then...well...I don't even know what to say.

I don't really think you should say you were a fool to speak about video games. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and truthfully, you make your living off yours.

I think the man facts are that:

1. Art has such a broad and encompassing definition, such that you cannot really define just what art is (or more importantly: isn't).


2. Different people are going to find different things important or stimulating, and thus their definition of art will be different to someone elses.


3. In the end, does it really matter? Someone saying that Romeo and Juliet holds no merit as a piece of art, does not invalidate the experiences of the people who read / watched it and felt genuinely moved.

The important thing to remember is that we are all different, so we're all going to have differing opinions. That's the beauty of being human - we all think and feel differently, and it's stimulating to discuss as such.

Glad you clarrified this as your opinion (ie: you're not that interested in trying out video games). That's fine; you shouldn't have to in order to validate your opinion as long as you admit your feelings.

It sure was a fun ride though wasn't it, seeing the internet erupt over this discussion. No harm in fuelling discussion on what art is, and the merits of different forms of media. It's healthier than your average conversation.

Your final response is without argument, and I agree with you, but I don't think you addressed why this created such a firestorm in the first place.

The moving picture is an artform that has already proven itself.

Imagine a world in which, whenever movies were portrayed in other media, or thought of in the minds of the uninitiated, they are always shown to be violent and childish.

I would imagine your disappointment at this.

I would imagine you would be incensed if governmental regulators claimed to censor movies "to protect the children" - because, after all, only children watch movies.

In such a world, say there was a respected literary critic - perhaps the leader in his field, who, without having seen a movie except perhaps described in books - proclaimed the entire form of movies as "not an artform."

That would be seen as a major blow to those trying to get movies to be taken seriously, wouldn't it?

Video games are so sorely misunderstood by the public that your article did damage to them. It is one thing if CSI Miami devotes an episode to a violent video game player, or NCIS claims that one must "beat a video game" to get behind the mind of a killer. These shows are written by morons. The very fact that you are NOT a moron means your opinion has far more weight.

I had hoped that at the end of your examination of video games (or your examination of your lack of examination of video games) we could have counted on your support. Your neutrality towards the artform now: "I didn't know what I was talking about and shouldn't have talked about it" is a bit like running the correction on page B6 when the article ran on A1 - too little, too late.

Will your now retracted opinion make a difference in the mainstream acceptance of games as art, or influence one way or another the argument over the censorship of video games? I don't know.

But I do think that this was a missed opportunity, and wished that you would have tried to understand rather than throwing up your arms and claiming you don't wish to.

Just a random thought, though, because I think it's an intriguing idea: how much of the history of cinema would you be willing to sacrifice to preserve Shakespeare? If they forced you to destroy 99% of all films ever made to preserve Shakespeare, preserving only the absolute best of cinematic history, would you go for it? 90%? 80% 75%? What if the options were to go all Library of Alexandria on the entirety of preserved film so that future generations would know King Lear and MacBeth and Hamlet, but at the cost of never knowing Apocalypse Now or The Passion of Joan of Arc or Taxi Driver?

Fun, if depressing, idea.

Ebert: I believe Shakespeare represents the crowning achievement of the human mind. We could start over and invent the cinema again.

Roger dear chap,

I would say your opinion is mostly right. Your error was in declaring that they will NEVER be art. Right now, not art. 10-30 years? Quite possibly, but pop art, never really high art.

Your error was the logical fallacy of the imperative.

But, greater poets, prophets and philosophers than you have made that error.

Cheerio.

The more I think about it, the more I believe (especially after reading your dictionary definition of art) that video games vis a vis more conventional works of art (literature, films, visual forms) simply stimulate different portions of the brain. People who play video games do so for the excitement they generate. Art invites a quiet sense of immersion.

I've played video games. I loved them when I was in my teens and twenties. Not so much twenty years further on. I wonder how most of these gamers will feel about them when they've lived a while longer.

Why are images of Jericho on there? That's pretty snarky for someone looking to not reignite the debate.

But here, this is a game, takes five minutes (literally) to play, and I consider it moving for several reasons:

http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/passage/

It's also available on the App Store for the iPhone, if you possess one.

Five minutes, that's all. It takes longer to boil an egg.

It takes a lot to admit that you are wrong, especially when you have little incentive to do so. I am glad that you realized that that it is hard to define Art and no two people will come up with the same definition. We should be glad that we live in a world that stimulates our imagination and creativity in so many different ways. Instead of shutting the experiences out, we should try to enjoy what other people enjoy as well.
Video games can definitely be Art someday, especially since they are composed of what you regard as Art: paintings, music, movies. To this they add an additional level of player involvement that gets us more involved in what the Art form is trying to convey.

Thank you for posting this, Mr. Ebert. It's a bigger man than most who can admit his mistakes.

For me it is quite obvious that a video game cannot be art. I believe that the discussion arises from the fact that sometimes a non artistic object has, besides its basic function, some kind of aesthetic value, and then the confusion begins! Some bridges are very beautiful but they are not art, and the same happens to some cars and other functional objects. But the problem is precisely that; an object of art is not functional, it is built for its own sake and not to perform some kind of practical function! Video games are designed to entertain, they have a function and therefore are not art. So are most of the Hollywood movies one could argue and i would say that i agree completely!

For me it is quite obvious that a video game cannot be art. I believe that the discussion arises from the fact that sometimes a non artistic object has, besides its basic function, some kind of aesthetic value, and then the confusion begins! Some bridges are very beautiful but they are not art, and the same happens to some cars and other functional objects. But the problem is precisely that; an object of art is not functional, it is built for its own sake and not to perform some kind of practical function! Video games are designed to entertain, they have a function and therefore are not art. So are most of the Hollywood movies one could argue and i would say that i agree completely!

Flower was an excellent suggestion; it takes only an hour or so to complete. The only problem is that it builds on the abilities and knowledge and conventions built up over years of playing games.

It's kind of like learning to read - you've got to understand the basics before you can understand more complex texts. Flower should be fairly easy to play, given someone sitting next to you willing to help out.

"are they works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power?"

Some of them, yes. Let's take the game Flower for example. This is one of the very few games that I do consider art.

You don't know much about the game, but let's just say that if the game-play mechanics remained the exact same, but the artwork of the flowers and fields, and the aesthetic progression of the story was striped away, to only leave the game to rely on blocks and empty looking backgrounds to move the game along; it would be terrible.

Like I said, nothing in the game-play mechanics would be changed. The game would remain the same as a "game". What I am saying is this:

Yes. A game like Flower is 'primarily' enjoyed for it's beauty and emotional power.

I adore a film like Citizen Kane for it's long takes, incredible writing, cinematography and good acting. If it was instead a horrible mess, with terrible editing, horrendous writing, and awful acting; it would be just another film.

Strip away the artwork, music, pacing, and story that makes Flower effective as a piece of art, and you simply have "just another game".

The state of games though is still sad, and it does have a long way to go before it matches film and literature's consistency with art. It is the youngest of the mediums that have the ability to directly affect it's partaker's emotions. It is an infant in it's youthfulness at that. That doesn't mean that a few exceptional and talented developers aren't making art. They are very few though.

If I only had three fingers, I'd still be counting them on just one hand.

You're a good guy Roger Ebert. Wrong about video games, but a good guy. Keep on kicking ass.

Wow, you're still alive? This was more shocking to me than any opinion you could have posted... I quit listening to this old loon a long time ago everyone.