Many gamers have heard of, and whole-heartedly disagreed with, film critic Roger Ebert’s latest argument against the “video games are art” statement (find the entire article from his blog at the end of this paragraph). Many a word has been penned in response, both from gamers who vehemently argue that games are the greatest art form ever, and from those intellectuals that claim that gaming is only for brain-dead morons. Having finally gotten around to actually reading Mr. Ebert’s long-coming substantiation of his argument, I admit that at first my response was something akin to rage - upon first reading I felt insulted, berated, and condescended upon. How could he have qualifications to judge if games are art or not, not having actually played any? However, I then took a step back. I caught my breath, counted to ten, and all that stuff that’s supposed to calm someone down (which for me naturally involves playing video games, of course). I then had the brilliant idea to actually read Mr. Ebert’s piece again, to see how I can pick apart his arguments. Then something strange happened…upon this second reading, I actually found myself agreeing with him. Not entirely, of course. There are still plenty of points he asserts that I’d fervently disagree with until my last breath. But there is one particular passage in his piece that I latched onto and nodded my head in agreement with:
“Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Why aren’t gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.” - (Video Games Can Never Be Art - Roger Ebert)
That particular passage hit me like a ton of bricks…but in a positive way this time. Indeed, why do we have to have validation as art to be able to enjoy our games? I know the first response from many a reader of this article will be to say “to defend our pastime from the critics who want to take it away.” Yes, our hobby does need defense, but there is a difference between needed defense and pointless validation. Validation as art does nothing to help defend a particular pastime. If it was all that was needed, then all Renaissance painters would’ve had free reign to paint whatever they wanted, the Comics Code never would have come into existence, and certain dictatorial regimes would’ve been overthrown on the mere burning of books alone. Just because something is art doesn’t mean it’s safe from persecution. So if we don’t need to define video games as art to protect them from persecution, what do we need to do? We need to think of video games in a completely different light - as something unique and special that has something of value worth preserving. A task that is, at least in my opinion, easier than one would think. To me, video games are the culmination of several different societal elements that come together to form a unique whole. For example, Mr. Ebert, at the end of his article, says that in the lecture he watched that inspired him to pen his article, that the lecturer pretty much justified Ebert’s case against games being art, by labeling the components of the supposedly artistic nature of games: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management.
Agreed, those components aren’t very artistic sounding. But you know what else has a similar (though not identical) set of components, and is pretty much unquestioned as being of value to society? Sports. Think about it: sports have to have their rules developed; they need to be financed to have any hope of being popular; the games have to be published (or in this case, broadcast) to be known at all; they are most certainly amongst the most heavily marketed pastimes in existence; education is certainly key if the popularity of college sports are any indication; and of course in today’s most popular sports, big-pocketed executives end up pulling the strings, just like any other pastime that gains mass appeal in our capitalist society. As Mr. Ebert himself says, Michael Jordan and other great athletes don’t consider their respective sports art, and what they do isn’t questioned as being irrelevant or detrimental to society. In a similar vein, why should gamers have to defend themselves when their hobby has similar aspects to sports? Granted, it’s not nearly as physical (unless you’re playing the Wii), but video games still have the other positive aspects of sports, such as something to build a great community around. Sports have their commentators, and they are considered to be as eloquent as any film critic; game journalists, then, can be considered akin to sports commentators.
Also, consider that even though games themselves may not be art, there is most certainly art involved in their production. From hand-drawn concept art, to the music, to the dialogue written for cut scenes, to the voice acting, even if the combination of those aspects to form a game isn’t itself art, those individual components can be. Video game concept art can be strikingly beautiful, and some video game music is amongst the most memorable in popular culture. (The classical Final Fantasy victory piece…need I say more?) So if video games themselves aren’t art, perhaps the fact that they have art involved in their production can help justify video games as being something else of value - a culmination of pieces of art that forms a unique experience that is something else entirely. A third piece of evidence that games need to be thought of as something else other than art lies in the film adaptations of video games…and the failure thereof. Film adaptations of video games most often suck, but for different reasons than film critics usually cite (bad scripts, bad acting, etc.). The reason they suck is because they fail to capture what makes video games unique - interactivity. Let’s face it, most video game stories are pretty mediocre…so why do we feel so compelled to play them?
The answer is because we are part of the video game. We are interacting with the story in the game to create an experience unique to each player. That is why so many video game adaptations fail to be considered well-done movies - divorce the story from the interactivity, and you’re left with, well, not much to work with. Interactivity allows the creation of unique stories, even in linear games - with interactive games, the question becomes not what, or even why, but how. That is something that doesn’t have to be classified as art to be compelling. The bottom line is this: if you ask and debate whether or not video games are art, you’re asking the wrong question. The right question to ask is how to identify and preserve what makes a video game a video game, that is what makes a video game a unique medium of expression. Video games are indeed something special, so do they have to be art to justify their existence? The answer is a resounding no. It is this message that should be taken away from Roger Ebert’s statement that video games can never be art, for it is this message that ultimately provides all the justification games need to exist.
Share
Follow our official PlanetXbox360.com Twitter account, by clicking here for updates hourly, 24/7 - 365 days a year. We also started an YouTube page where all the new trailers/gameplay videos will be posted within minutes of release, check it out and subscribe by clicking here.
