Barker lays smackdown on Ebert about games not being art

Designing a game is as in-depth as designing a set for a movie or play. Lighting, scenes, actors; all must be taken into consideration.

Why not take BioShock as an example? The Splicer at the beginning, talking to the pistol in the baby carriage, was a scripted sequence using an NPC that all had to be determined ahead of time. It even required acting from the voice actor.

Video games as art is hardly even a debate. The real question is whether or not it's 'good' art.

Both games and art can suck, but it doesn't make them less of what they are.

And no, I'm not implying BioShock sucked. 'Twas awesome.

Abarat for the win.

Too bad its not only old people who don't feel videogames are art in any sense of the word.

Videogames are not Art. They're impressive and their another form of media that provide entertainment for us but thats it.

Interesting he brings up Disney...I read that Walt once said that he met a man on the train to California (the first time he went) who was also hoping to make it big in movies. When the man heard that he was going to make cartoons, Walt recalled that he "might as well have told him I was going there to clean that latrines."

It really hit home for me when I read that...it's the same look I get when I tell people I make video games for a living.

From Ebert's review of 'The Lion King' : "There has been a notion in recent years that animated films are only for kids. But why? The artistry of animation has a clarity and a force that can appeal to everyone, if only it isn't shackled to a dim-witted story."

If you ask me, we've got a lot of room to grow as a storytelling medium. But we're learning...and I have no doubt that we'll be reading similar things about games in the future.

Who Killed Bambi?
and thats all i have to say about that...

It's odd to me to think Clive Barker would have written a nasty letter if Roger Ebert *didn't* have cancer.

I prefer to think, I guess, that learning it reminded Barker of the frailty of human life, and how he should treat even his sarcastic "enemy" with understanding. That's a valuable lesson right there.

The question of "are video games 'art?'" is of course a semantic one. But I have a lot of difficulty imagining a definition for art by which video games *aren't* obviously included.

I was watching an old "Making of" thing on Myst 5, and I realized people starting seeing games as art way back for Myst 1. That's part of the reason it was so successful, even!

Game are art. Have been for some time.

If movies are "art", video games definitely should be.

So apparently a movie with an ambiguous storyline, say Donnie Darko, isn't art because people had to interact with their brains to interpret what happened rather than passively sitting back, munching on pop corn and thinking up clever witticisms to write in their review?

You know how I can tell video games are art?

Because I'm a video game critic.

Art is a term that can applied to anything. You can't say something isn't art, but it may be to someone, just not you. It's impossible to make such a claim.

"we're sure in time the critics will come around"
No they won't. But they can't live forever.

Everyone knows the true art is in the tireless rehashing of this issue, even though no one really has anything new to add and few of the people for whom the distinction would have any meaning are part of the discussion.

Obviously some games could be called art, given that it's a subjective interpretation to begin with. Since the area of the Venn diagram representing both "people who care deeply about what the intellectual elite would call 'art'" and "people who read Joystiq" is probably exceedingly small, why is this even an issue? Go play your Halo 3.

Ebert + Karma = Cancer

Sweet holy Christ I hate this debate with every fiber of my being. Everyone just shut up. Whoever decides games are art, its not going to be a bunch of message board geeks, so just settle down.

That said, Barker's got a lot of nerve criticizing Ebert, considering everything Clive Barker's ever done as been about as far removed from artistic as you could imagine.

they may be art.. and most are definately good art.. especially considering half of the total crap ppl consider art nowaday.. i'd rather look at the beauty of a video game than that of "modern art"

I don't care if games officially get dubbed as art (ahem, high art) someday. However I have a problem with Ebert, of all people, saying that games are not art; he may be implying that film in its entirety is art, when it simply isn't true. If you believe that certain films are art, you should also believe that some games can at least be considered art.

Some games are definitely not what we consider art, but so many more movies can be considered as time wasters or just plain entertainment. To render every discussion useless, however, is that art is not static and that it can't be defined; art can be recognized in the past, understood in the present, and only speculated for what's to come.

http://www.last-gen.com

If video games weren't art, why would they hire artists to make them?

Some commentators get it, others don't. The question is not whether video games can be art. The question is whether they can be high art. The kind of art that elitists enjoy and populists don't get. Once you find a game that you might not enjoy, but has hidden depths that require thoughtful analysis, you've got "high" art. Shadow of the Colossus comes close, in my opinion.

Video games don't intrinsically violate the statutes of high art. They haven't reached that plateau yet(there are no artists in the video game industry both capable enough and willing enough to make high art), but I believe video games will be made eventually that constitute high art.

Wait, Ebert has cancer? What kind? I hope that he gets better. Cancer's not a good way to die, and not even elitish douchebags deserve it. He'll be in my prayers.

I think Ebert's whole "games aren't art" argument stems from the fact that he believes that games are trying to be an interactive movie. That is, that he believes games are trying to merely be movies that ask you for input on the endings and/or events.

Check out this review:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19950217/REVIEWS/502170304/1023

I really think this type of thing soured Ebert on the idea of interactive storytelling as art. That, probably whatever other gaming experience he's had. I mean, has he ever played through an entire game? Has he ever played through an entire current-gen game like
Bioshock, or (potentially) Mass Effect? If he's judging the potential creative merits of games by playing a couple of hours of Myst ten years ago, he's really missing the point. That'd be like passing judgement on the entire body of cinema based checking out a few minutes from the middle of Little Man.

I have a great deal of respect for Ebert, but I think he's out of his depth here. If ultimately games are going to be an new art form informed by (but not limited to imitation of) films, then Ebert's opinion shouldn't have any more weight than if he started writing resturaunt reviews or a critique of 18th century polish literature. He may have excellent points to make in both areas, but it's not his specific area of expertise.

Concerning games though, I feel that games will not reach high art until they begin to utilize their interactivity. They must make you feel the consequences of your actions emotionally. Bioshock is on the right path. When I first killed a Big Daddy and saw the Little Sister cry over his dead body, I literally felt sick. "Wake up Mr. Bubbles, Wake up." Those sobbing wails will forever be etched into my mind. I mean, this thing is the only thing in Rapture that wasn't trying to kill me. Hell, it probably didn't want to kill anybody, just protect its only friend. I turned my 360 off and cried to myself, God knows how long, even though I was fully aware that it was only a game. I couldn't play Bioshock for over a week.

Overall, I feel that if games are to be considered meaningful art, they must first take advantage of thir unique interactive qualities. Pretty graphics, symphonic music, and unique gameplay just won't hit that mark on their own.

I believe that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Anything can be art if seen from the right perspective. Art snobs will jabber and rabble on about what is art, why it is art and how something becomes art but they understand as little about art as everyone else. If you find something that moves you than it is art.

Games are already being seen as art. The 8-bit Museum, which features 8-bit artwork, in the same style as an art gallery. It's already happened. Gaming is art, just like pop culture can be art.

This is probably the most important comment made here today at Joystiq. That's not me being vein. Its a fact, just read what i wrote. I rule!!!

http://www.2pstart.com/2007/08/01/no-hard-feelings/

Jesus I'm tired of this topic popping up on this site every other day. Anything can be art since there is no real answer to "what is art?". It's not like math were there is a definate right and wrong. Games will be considered art someday I'm sure but unless they change from watermelon mouthed RPGs or FPS killing sims I doubt they will ever be looked back on like an old Disney cartoon. By the way Disneys shit is crap. Same old tired story and same old tired jokes. Animation wise they were great though. There I said it, hate on me now.

Can someone please tell me why we care what Ebert says? Seriously. Art is relative. What one person considers art is trash for another. Let's move on already.

I'm happy that Barker is on my side. =)

I personally believe that art is anything man-made which can awaken an emotion within the viewer (unless you wanna argue that there is a God who used this world as his canvas). A friend of mine though believes that it's anything which is sublimated by the artist's perception and representation.

I think that videogames is art (although not all are as great, just like everywhere): it just needs recognition.

Why does anyone care whether or not video games should be considered art or not?

Does it really matter? Is it going to make any of us enjoy games that much more? Or are people just trying to justify dumping hours into a hobby that many still consider to be childs play?

Who cares if people consider them art, video games are about having fun, so as long as they stay fun, what difference does it make if they're not art?

Just enjoy the great games we have and get over yourselves.

big fat hairy deal!
games are ment to be played as video movies are ment to be watched AND ENJOYED...

it being "high art" or not is secondary and isn't that important to begin with.

Speaking as a gamer and a qualified fine artist, games are to art what movies are to art, some are just pure entertainment blockbusters, sure they might look good and be incredibly stylish, but they warrant little to no artistic merit as a whole (the art resources would have merit as art, but not the complete product).

Art is something that is meant to result in an emotional response, be it joy, anger or sadness, ergo, any game that has made you feel emotions, not just the elation of completing a level or the feeling of 'this rawks'. I'm talking about a strong, solid emotional connection, not just too the game, to the characters with in that game, with the games story, with the whole game itself. Ico, Wanda and the Colossus and dare I say it the often tauted NiGHTS into dreams (for me at least), are games, that could be very well in a number of years, be held in a gallery, as a form of interactive high art. I just doubt it will be within any time soon, with people like Wacko Jacko and Hillary Clinton out against games, the view of non-gamers is always going to be that akin to an art-house film fans thoughts on action blockbusters.

Until games are truly universal and played by all, they will never be art, reasons like that is you SDF and MDF peeps, should get off your high horses and support games regardless of format.

"Until games are truly universal and played by all, they will never be art"

Uh, no...that's the most absurd thing I've ever heard. you should really think before making such an asinine statement. what does that even mean, "truly universal"? and "played by all"?? are you serious? even those in third world countries who can't even afford clean water?

just because the majority of humans don't accept games as art doesn't validate their argument as fact. these people may not like games, these people may have never even played games, their obscure narrow-minded opinions do not matter.

Videogames are art. From paintings, to music, to theatre, to literature; when you break these entertainment mediums down to their basic elements they are all forms of human expression. As we have evolved, our ability to express ourselves have as well. Videogames are nothing more than a continuation of that process and like all new forms of expression (especially in these cynical times) there not always understood and accepted. The very fact that people continue to argue about whether or not Videogames are art only proves my point further. Art is and always will be subjective.

Like everything else, it takes time. Acceptance takes time. Videogaming isn't even a hundred years old whereas their older siblings (paintings, music, literature, architecture, etc.) are THOUSANDS. What, you thought these forms of expression were considered art overnight?

MANLY THINGS LIKE GAME IS ART AND NAME-CALLING

I am not even going to attempt to counter this argument this has gone on far enough. It should be a personal stance, if you feel videgames are art then that is your opinion. I personally don't and that is my opinion, why do any of us care what others think.

I will say this, if Video games are art then the makers don't care much about it. When they create something they aren't allowed the push the boundaries, example Manhunt. If we are saying games are art just like movies, some are bad and some are good, why doesn't the game industry stick up for its artist like the movie industry does bad and good alike? It seems game makers want to be art as long as they art is profitable, then complain when they don't get the respect from the other communities. But that is my opinion.

I believe that videogames are art but in rare cases like Bioshock. I think some games are and others clearly aren't. That being said Ebert revoked his comments awhile ago and said he believes they can't be high art. I also think Clive Barker really has no place to speak since he's never made anything remotely artistic and can't actually debate Ebert, he just resorts to childlike namecalling. If anyone should debate Ebert it should be someone who treats Ebert with the respect he gives others. Ebert has been a fantastic critic for almost 60 years and has won the Pulitzer Prize for his writings on film. Clive Barker just makes fucked up monsters. Ebert actually wrote about why he doesn't view games as art and made some fine points even if I don't agree. We need someone who actually makes artistic games like Bioshock's writers to debate Ebert, that'd be interesting to see.