Dear Art Critics...
Recently, I've seen a number of different reactions to Roger Ebert's latest claim that video games can never be art, and a variety of postings supporting his claim as well as disputing it.
Unfortunately it seems like the majority of people arguing with Ebert are going about their arguments in completely the wrong way. They keep citing video game after video game that he should play and then reconsider his judgment, but they too are missing Ebert's point.
Roger Ebert is making his assertion based on false assumptions. He conflating the experience of playing games with the creating of games. The flaw in his thought process is most obviously exposed when he asks this question:
"Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009." -R. Ebert
Chess is not Bobby Fischer's game, Basketball is not Michael Jordan's game, Football is not Dick Butkus's game, and Mah Jong is not Shi Hua Chen's game. Each of those games were created by game designers, and their artwork should be attributed properly (where possible). What Ebert fails to fully grasp is what is involved in the process of game development. It's much easier for him to imagine how movies, and paintings, and dance performances can be art, because he is more familiar with their creation processes. However the art of creating a fun experience is not so clear cut.
In PZ Myers's article he writes the following:
"A great painting or poem is something that represents an idea or emotion, communicated through the skill of an artist, to make you see through his or her eyes for a moment. Computer games just don't do that. No team sits down to script out a video game with the intent of creating a tone poem in interactive visual displays that will make the player appreciate the play of sunlight on a lake, for instance."- PZ Myers
Having sat in rooms where very similar things are absolutely discussed in the development cycle of a game, I beg to differ. Granted, some games are less concerned about such things, but among the most critically acclaimed games, I believe you will find that the development team is spending time to consider exactly how the gameplay, environment, and pacing of a game will emotionally and viscerally affect the player. I don't think that a person can really understand the artistry involved in creating a game until they have witnessed it first hand. Even the fan boys standing up for game as Art probably don't fully grasp it. There isn't a "make it fun" button that developer's can push to create their game, just like there isn't a "make it sad" brush that painters use to create their painting. While there may be some science that goes into making games just as there is some science involved in the creation of movies, the entire process is not a scientific one. The creation process is an artistic one that is best served by someone with a vision, and the best designers sculpt the experience of the player just as a director sculpts the story told in a movie.
So Ebert, Myers, and anyone else who claims that games are not and cannot be art, I challenge you to participate in the process of making a game and then ask yourself once again, can a game be art?
Unfortunately it seems like the majority of people arguing with Ebert are going about their arguments in completely the wrong way. They keep citing video game after video game that he should play and then reconsider his judgment, but they too are missing Ebert's point.
Roger Ebert is making his assertion based on false assumptions. He conflating the experience of playing games with the creating of games. The flaw in his thought process is most obviously exposed when he asks this question:
"Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009." -R. Ebert
Chess is not Bobby Fischer's game, Basketball is not Michael Jordan's game, Football is not Dick Butkus's game, and Mah Jong is not Shi Hua Chen's game. Each of those games were created by game designers, and their artwork should be attributed properly (where possible). What Ebert fails to fully grasp is what is involved in the process of game development. It's much easier for him to imagine how movies, and paintings, and dance performances can be art, because he is more familiar with their creation processes. However the art of creating a fun experience is not so clear cut.
In PZ Myers's article he writes the following:
"A great painting or poem is something that represents an idea or emotion, communicated through the skill of an artist, to make you see through his or her eyes for a moment. Computer games just don't do that. No team sits down to script out a video game with the intent of creating a tone poem in interactive visual displays that will make the player appreciate the play of sunlight on a lake, for instance."- PZ Myers
Having sat in rooms where very similar things are absolutely discussed in the development cycle of a game, I beg to differ. Granted, some games are less concerned about such things, but among the most critically acclaimed games, I believe you will find that the development team is spending time to consider exactly how the gameplay, environment, and pacing of a game will emotionally and viscerally affect the player. I don't think that a person can really understand the artistry involved in creating a game until they have witnessed it first hand. Even the fan boys standing up for game as Art probably don't fully grasp it. There isn't a "make it fun" button that developer's can push to create their game, just like there isn't a "make it sad" brush that painters use to create their painting. While there may be some science that goes into making games just as there is some science involved in the creation of movies, the entire process is not a scientific one. The creation process is an artistic one that is best served by someone with a vision, and the best designers sculpt the experience of the player just as a director sculpts the story told in a movie.
So Ebert, Myers, and anyone else who claims that games are not and cannot be art, I challenge you to participate in the process of making a game and then ask yourself once again, can a game be art?