re: Ebert & “games as art” – forgive me if this is a bit disjointed – I’m trying out a weird argument, one I’ve only thought of in fits and starts in the past.
The critical failing in most of the discussion as to whether games are art or not is that they’re approaching games as though they’re a medium unto themselves. But if you look at games over the course of the last oh, what, four decades, you see a really wide variety of experiences.
You’ve got interactive fiction, MUDs, adventure games, video-based games, FPS’s, strategy games of all kinds, blah blah blah. It’s an incredibly diverse batch of things, and classifying them all as a single medium is a strange argument to make.
Zork is like a choose-your-own adventure book. In many ways, there’s *no* difference between the two, except the density and variety of choices that you’re given. Same goes with things like Night Trap – you could pretty easily make that into a DVD-style thing, where it’s an “interactive movie” and not a game. The only difference, again, is the density and breadth of choices that you’re given.
A while back, I came up with my own personal definition of what a game is:
“A game is when a user is presented with a compelling choice that allows him or her to make an informed decision that has consequence.”
I think there are things about that definition that can be refined – but it’s been a good functional definition for me. Now, let’s take a really, really reductionist look at the definition.
Let’s say a movie is playing on my TV. I watch five minutes of the movie, think it sucks, and then turn it off.
Fits the definition of a game. But is it? Something about it feels wrong. The choice should be rewarded, or incentivized in some way – but it is – I have the free time back that I would have otherwise spent watching the movie.
So if you take that as the absurdly reductionist view of what a game is, then the only difference between a movie and a game is… the density and breadth of possible choices.
You could say the same about a book vs. Zork.
So what is a “game,” then? I’d argue that games aren’t a medium, they’re a *method*. A method for making things more engaging. For creating & rewarding interactivity. Videogames are videogames because the technology makes that process easy, in a relative sense – but you could do the same in a wide variety of ways.
Perhaps there’s something to changing the definition to include computer-mediated interactivity, rather than just any interactivity (though the TV would fill the role of the computer in the above example, right?)…
But in any case, then, you don’t define *methods* as art or not art. You could say that Zork is art as much as any other book, or Gears of War is art as much as any other movie – they just accommodate more choice. And I don’t believe that broadening the level of choice indicates a lapse of authorial control, because clearly, the developers create the level of choice that the player experiences.
So are games art? I suggest it doesn’t even matter. If you think books are art, games are art. If you think movies are art, games are art… and so on, and so on.
Pingback: Self Aware » Ebert vs. Videogames Reviews Me
Isn’t art completely subjective and up to the viewer? I always thought the “games as art” line of thinking was a validation, like Ebert said. Or maybe some are looking for acceptance for their hobby?
I think games have the potential to provide much better narrative experiences than books or movies because of the inherent interaction in games. Although I think it’s because of this interaction that it’ll never reach the same level of mainstream acceptance as books or movies that I think more people are looking for. Everyone can read a book, and watching a movie is a passive experience, but to *play* a game is like to play a sport, or play an instrument. You have to actively practice at it to get the full experience until the controller is invisible to you, and you’re directly controlling what’s happening on the screen with your mind. Books and movies get automatic acceptance because everyone already knows how to enjoy those experiences. \
I’ve sorta lost where I was going and I’m getting a bit meta here, so I’ll just say that I can understand what Ebert is saying when he says Flower looks like a Hallmark card. Coming from a guy who’s probably held a controller for 20 minutes of his life (I may be wrong) and his only exposure to Flower is a promotional video… that’s like trying to judge a painting based on a polaroid.
Similar to Ebert, and I don’t mean that negatively, you’ve created your own personal definition of the thing you are discussing. For Ebert, he defines “art” and you define “video games.” However, to your credit, you highlight it’s a personal (functional) definition. Ebert seems to think his personal definition is *the* definition of art. It is not, and, ironically, reveals that he knows almost as little about what constitutes art as he does about video games.
In any case, I think your definition of a video game *requires* refinement if it is inclusive of watching a TV show and turning it off. Your definition allows creation of a video game through activities outside of the reasonable intentions of the director of the movie. Consequently, it becomes *your* video game, you are the author, but that doesn’t make the movie a video game.
Nevertheless, I agree with the general idea that the definition of “art” is far more inclusive, and that video games are similar to media that are already accepted as purveyors of “art.”
For more on this idea of the similarities of video games to media accepted as “art”, I recommend, generally, and “5. Video Games and Every Major Theory of Art” specifically. (Ironically, Ebert cited this article, but I get the feeling he didn’t read/understand it since it obliterates his point).
Nice!
I think Mike’s point that videogames are something you have to be good at to really be able to get into is a great one – particularly because until you *really* master the way you control games, it’s not even that you can be generally good at “games”, you have to be good at each game individually. It’s a crazy high requirement to entry.
re: NBB1 – I think the thing that’s most disappointing about Ebert’s arguments has been how utterly myopic they are. The guy’s an *expert* on film – no question, but I would have thought that as a result, he’d have more exposure to discussing art in general, and it really seems like he’s almost totally incapable of discussing art outside his personal investment in his particular medium.
The thing with refining my particular definition of games is that I think it actually makes *sense* that the completely reductionist version actually includes turning off the TV. I’m sure I’ve mentioned it a handful of times, but the thing that really moved me about Shadow of Colossus was that it actually made me stop playing it. Turning off the game was… part of the game.
To me.
I also think it makes sense that the distinction between book/movie & game is the density of choice – I mean, that really is just a wonky way of saying “interactive” – but that’s basically where discussions of “gameplay” always turn into squishy, ill-defined nonsense.
That really got me thinking. There are some interesting points here but I would have to disagree. My idea is this: Games are games and art is art. This becomes more apparent when you separate the word “video” and the word “game” from the word “videogame” and you are left with “video” and “game”. The word “video” can be thought of as a medium for art. Any game can have art in it (regardless of it’s medium) but art cannot have a game in it. All games have rules, and when someone interacts with a “thing” (whether this “thing” can be thought of as art or not) and follows rules governing this interaction, that “thing” becomes a “game”, no matter what it was before that.
The article that NBB1 referred to – definitely worth a read:
http://www.contempaesthetics.org/newvolume/pages/article.php?articleID=299
re: Dave’s point – but why does it then cease to be art? If video is a medium for art, and game is a method that’s applied to the medium, why does the medium stop being art if nothing else has changed?
I think one of the questions that has to be asked is what is art? This takes us all back to that class in college where the professor asked it. I believe the answer that we all settled on was, art is something created with the primary intent to be seen. The class debated this question for a long time too it wasn’t just something that came quickly. Many things are art under this definition. What is art is a question that is widely forgotten but the things that are or aren’t art are readily accepted without hesitation.
You could say that the Sydney Opera House is art under this definition but a house is not art because it was not created to be seen but to dwell it. You could argue that under this definition that games are not art because the primary intent in a game is to be fun. Fun is another three letter word that people have trouble defining. However, the people creating the game want it to be played and enjoyed by as many people as possible. Is this the intent to be seen that would make games art then? I would personally say yes.
To answer to your question about games people need to come up with a satisfactory definition of what art is.