As I’m certain most of you know by now, Roger Ebert recently posted an entry in his journal refuting Kellee Santiago’s claims at TEDxUSC that games already are art. Now as game designers, I can imagine that some of you might take issue with that. If you haven’t seen the article, take a look – Video Games Can Never Be Art
Here’s the comment I left on his article:
“As always, Mr. Ebert, your argument is beautifully articulated. However, although you acknowledge the differences between games and traditional media, you fail to demonstrate your understanding of them. Video games are not a passive medium, and by simply watching a demonstration of a video game, you will never be able to discover its potential artistry. Now whether or not you choose to play any of the video games Kellee demonstrated is entirely your decision, but do understand that the response that stems from watching a game is entirely different than the response that stems from playing one.
I am a game design student at USC, and I honestly have little interest in the “games as art” debate. In my experience, I have come to realize that games can without a doubt produce worthwhile experiences. You can label these experiences in any way you like, but art or not, they continue to enrich my life, and the lives of millions of others, every single day. At USC, we strive to create experiences that will bring the medium the respect it deserves. We may never convince you and those that share your mentality that video games have potential as an art form, but we will do everything in our power to ensure that you respect them.”
I was entirely truthful. I do as matter of fact have interest in games as art, but as I said, not in the debate itself. We already know how powerful of a medium games have and continue to become. Never is a powerful word, and as Kellee said in her talk, it takes time for art forms to develop. I am sure that I am not alone in believing that the best is yet to come.
The entire article reminded me of the Joystick Nation event we had here at USC, where film critic Richard Schickel also failed to understand the very nature of the video game medium. I thought Tracy Fullerton’s explanation was clear and convincing, but still he refused to budge. Perhaps the previous generation’s late exposure to interactive media has rendered them immune to its beauty. However, it is clear that our generation, and the emerging generation, wouldn’t dare to live without video games. Our grandfathers may look down upon these games and regard them as useless, irritating, or as Roger Ebert said himself, “pathetic.” Yet we continue to define them with another word, and no matter how often we are dismissed as fools, we know our medium well enough to proudly denounce the critics’ inability to recognize what we understand as “art.”
As I recall someone saying, games contain art, but they are not art themselves. Which, in retrospect, I guess I can somewhat agree with, as much as it pains me to do so. Games don’t do much which differentiates them from other media besides interactivety, and I have yet to experience a game where it is that element itself (the interactiveity) which could be called art, as opposed to the in-game art style, graphical fidelity, story, music, or what have you. The interactiveity is a means thru the contained art of the game, but as a piece of art itself…not so much. I do, however, think we will get there, and I leave it to you/Erica/Donal(?)/whoever else out there was brave enough to continue making games.
-David
Sam: I’m glad you’re hopeful David, we’ll do our best!
I agree – the debate concerning whether games are art or not is utterly useless. Call it what you want, but the interactive entertainment medium communicates and creates some of the finest and most powerful experiences I have ever engaged in.
…Aaaaand then there’s Dante’s Inferno.
*Sadface*
I didn’t read the whole debate that stemmed from R. Ebert’s claim of “Games Can Never Be Art.” However, reading his recent post regarding the debate, I am under the impression that Ms. Santiago’s argument is more or less oriented to the general public, not the academics.
Despite what we think of Rober Ebert’s opinion on games, we have to accept that he uses the language of aesthetics, heavily borrowed from Plato. Unfortunately, it is the only accepted way academics argue, and in order to support one’s argument, it is expected to be well versed in the language of legitimacy.
Hence the popular response to “only because you didn’t play the game” is not compelling to Ebert. As a student of film, one is expected to draw various examples from the film to support his or her argument with an assumption that the reader may or may not have seen the film. While it is not so admirable of Ebert to comment on games that he never played, what he argues is the aesthetics, which is an easy argument on his part while a difficult task for game scholars as we are still trying to define games, per se. (as a side note, it took great efforts of 1930/40s formal film theorists to convince people that film is an art form).
I personally think Miss Kellee Santiago’s argument on aesthetics was not a strong one. To be specific, her quote of wikipedia was really a terrible move if aimed at the academics. She should have used cultural critics such as Huizinga to legitimate her points, at least. It is an unfortunate truth that not-so-well founded arguments are easily dismissed by the critics of the yesterday, and getting a serious recognition on games already has many barriers to overcome.
To be fair to Miss Santiago, however, any argument on aesthetics is a difficult one. More often than not, it tends to fall into the whole realm of rhetoric, which requires trained voices to succeed.
Sam: Your points are well taken. I would encourage you to read Kellee’s response to Ebert, as it may bring about some closure to this argument. Regardless of his personal opinion, Ebert chose to delve into a subject in which he has no expertise. A game scholar would deserve just as much criticism for making an equivalent claim about film. As in interactive medium, games convey far more than just their aesthetics, and it is impossible for Ebert to draw any coherent examples without grabbing a controller and doing a little research.
Kellee’s response can be found here: http://thatgamecompany.com/general/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/
I don’t necessarily agree with Ebert’s opinion on games, nor believe that he is an expertise in this field or aesthetics alone (I can picture him being shunned at any art conference for sure); my primary opinion addressed on this debate is more or less on how to articulate to/convince traditional scholars who do not take games seriously.
In the case of Rober Ebert, who is ironically not quite an academic either, what I see is more of the need of a mediated paradigm between a traditional scholarship and a newly emerging media/culture. In a sense, this type of conflict is not new. We have seen similar conflicts in any type of popular media (film, pop fiction, games, etc) until some recognised, theoretised studies came along and remediated the notion (i.e., no one in the film studies dept would dismiss horror films as mere entertainment ever since Carol Glover’ dissertation on slasher-horror films).
Personally what I think of as helpful is to establish what we have as an independent/art house film market in the game industry.
Sam: The independent game scene is very much present and definitely on the rise. A few games from USC were showcased at the Independent Game Festival at this year’s Game Developer’s Conference, and I had the pleasure of discover many indie gems at Indiecade in October. In my opinion the problem lies in how these games are accessed. For independent film, anyone can go to an arthouse theater to see many of the recent releases. Independent games are starting to reach this level of accessibility with digital distribution, but are not quite there yet. I am confident that they will reach this level of accessibility soon enough.
Sam, you may have already come across to Mike Thomson’s response to Roger Ebert, but I am posting the link here for people who may be interested in this debate. While his response is not spoken as a pure academic (if so, then it will lose the accessibility anyway, and Roger Ebert doesn’t speak as a professional academic either), he makes an interesting rhetorical case to speak for the behalf of games.
Mike Thomson: Dad is Dead