Well, I think fighting games could be considered sport and art, like figure skating is considered sport and art. The same applies with Shmups.
Of course, there's artwork in video games, too. He neglects to mention that.
Super Metroid is very interesting. It tells one story. A very loose story, and it lets the player experience that story in many different paths if they choose to. It's a story of isolation and exploration. He would classify the game as a scavenger hunt/point-shoot hybrid, and that's accurate to some degree, but it's really about exploration.
The controls in Ecco the Dolphin, the swimming and jumping, in particular, are beautiful.
He does say at the end that he does not believe all movies are art, but he refuses to accept that some, but not all games are art.
I haven't played Shadow of the Colossus, but I've heard the ideas in that game were pretty artsy, the game wasn't a point/shoot game, it was a collect-a-thon, and it didn't have much in common with Myst, either.
Essentially, Ebert is being very selective. He mentions a few genres of video games, then devalues them all, saying that nearly every game exists within that mix. Couldn't we do the same with movies? With paintings? With dances? With song? Just because games can be classified doesn't make them less of an art, though it does show that some games, along with movies, paintings, dances and songs are out only for the money to be gained, but like I stated, that's true with every art. Nearly every thing in the world that is created is created to be consumed, and for the creator to gain some benefit. Otherwise, why would he or she do it? To try to use that against a particular medium is a ridiculous notion, because even Ebert admits that some movies are cool with little artistic value, solely meant to cash in.
By classify something as a high art while classifying others as low art, he devalues the human condition. Someone needs to get this man some snowy Calvin & Hobbes, just so he can truly see how biased he is. Art is art, and it is up to the creator to decide whether their art will be "low" or "high" in production, and more importantly, it is up to each and every individual consumer to decide whether or not he or she thinks something produced is "low" or "high." Industry and critics shouldn't try to make these decisions for us. We should make them ourselves. I do agree that a higher percentage of games than movies are cashing in right now, but I have found several titles that have high artistic value to me personally. Just because he is yet to find games that are valuable to him does not mean the media form should be written off. In the end, what only really matters is what we, as individuals, choose to see as art. We should not form such opinions about a collective medium, but rather, as each individual piece.
And surely, Andy Warhol saw the can itself as art, perhaps through his memories, his family, his childhood, or out of his necessity. Otherwise, he would not have taken the time to paint one. After all, paintings of a sunset are considered art, as are paintings of the beach. These are economical creations, necessary to sustain types of life, whether you believe in the big bang or creation, you have to admit that every thing on this planet was pretty much created to be part of a cycle of life, and is therefore a part of some large economy. The difference between a coup can and the sunset? Someone determined a long time ago that the sunset should be considered worthy of art, and people listened, whereas, a relatively short time ago, someone else was determined to prove things like soup cans were worthy of art, and some people listened. Essentially, all it takes for something to be art is recognition. If absolutely no one recognizes something as art, it ceases to be art. However, if any one person sees something as art, then all must accept and respect that there is artistical merit to that thing. Ebert realizes this, and he tries to minimize it. To degrade it with an abstract label of "low" shows that in some respect, he must fear it, since he chooses to openly attempt to belittle it. He admits games are art, and in doing so, shows his fear of the medium. He uses simple, broad classification as an attempt to neglect the medium, and it is his choice to neglect this art. He can't make me or you, or anyone else neglect the medium, though. He's tried and failed, obviously, which is why he fears it and attempts to justify himself. It's a little sad, but if that's his decision, then let him believe it.
There's no point in arguing with someone who is ignorant of what I think, who doesn't know me, and who does not influence me. I won't be emailing him, and I didn't in the first place. I recommend that none of you drop him a line. He doesn't know you, your experiences, nor all of your thoughts, and he will deny any of the like that you try to tell him, so don't worry about Ebert or others like him. Let them bask in their 'high' art, because it's something they enjoy, and we should not try to take that away from them.
Topic: Are Video Games Art? (Read 13293 times)
