Roger Ebert's Video Games Can Never Be Art

Throughout history, Art has been a form of expression that has altered situations, revolutionized methods of thought, and shaken worlds, both building them up and crumbling them downward. These days however, Art has become a form which is underrated and under appreciated due to the technological and business worlds taking over. Despite these advancements though, Art has continued to build and expand into different forms, pushing the limits of what was originally defined as “Artistic”. One of these forms which has quickly risen along with the increase in technology includes video games, which are utilized primarily for entertainment to various audiences, both young and old. When created in a unique manner though, these games can prove to be
exceptionally deep and emotionally connecting. They have the ability to inspire change and create a movement of individuals who feel mutually connected by the game and of the subjects included within it. Despite this ability video games can have on their audience, there are individuals who would not go as far as to call video games “Art”. One of these skeptics includes Roger Ebert, who argues in his journal Video Games Can Never be Art exactly what his article title states.
Roughly, what his paper argues is that based on the definitions of Art which he has read and studied, there is no game that fits completely under the criteria, and he also believes there never will be such a game. Nonetheless, there are various definitions of Art, and so to say Ebert’s definition is the only one would be incorrect. Art is subject to interpretation from various people who experience it, each with their own idea of what the “meaning” behind the piece is. The definition of Art is no different when it comes to a situation like this. There is a specific game that comes to mind that challenges the definition of Art because it explores various subjects and intends on bringing about change by targeting a multitude of political and social issues. Dontnod Entertainment’s contemporary episodic interactive drama graphic adventure game Life is Strange shatters the preconception that video games cannot be Art by delving into deeper, hard-hitting issues surrounding the world today and invoking change in how its players view and act in the world surrounding
them. On the subject of Ebert, his argument, although based to contrast the arguments of others, contains a fair amount of issues that keep it from being a stronger refute on the subject of video games as a form of “Art”. Ebert’s article begins by stating that he listened to a lecture given by Kellee Santiago, a video game designer. It should be pointed out that while Santiago has experience and expertise in the field of video game development (including storyboard, graphics, so on so forth), nowhere in the argument does it state that Ebert himself even attempted to play any sort of video game whatsoever to test his argument, as he states, “That seemed to be a fool's errand, especially given the volume of messages I receive urging me to play this game or that and recant the error of my ways. “ The only game he mentions he has played, is chess. With a lack of actual experience in the given field he is choosing to argue about, he ends up short of knowledge about the subject which he is arguing against. This in turn greatly affects his credibility. He has relied upon others to answer his questions without giving them considerable time to think of an in-depth answer, primarily when he states that, “’No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets.’ To which I could have added painters, composers, and so on, but my point is clear.” Ebert goes on to state the purposes video games possess and why he believes they can never be Art. While he stated that “Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction”, his ideas of what Art is contrasts greatly from this idea, and therefore he submits his belief that video games that have this goal in mind cannot be Art. However, he holds an idea about games that go beyond this of goals and points, and he states the following in response:
“One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a(n) immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.”
The issue with this particular statement is the matter of how exactly one can interact with these other art forms.
The purpose of video games is for them to be played with and enjoyed. One simply cannot play with a book, or with a painting, or leap on stage and become a part of the performance. That is not the fundamental interactions of those forms of Art. To say that a video game with no goal ceases to become a video game and becomes more “a representation” of a form of Art causes the entire argument to be skewed. This is due to the nature of which art involves the audience in comparison to how video games involve their own audience. Because their reactions contrast so greatly, they cannot possibly be categorized in a similar manner. By stating the interactions are the same, would be effectively calling video games a form of Art, which contradicts Ebert's entire argument. Not to mention that Ebert stated that games never can, and never will be a form of Art or close to one, and now he’s stating some games have the capabilities of ”representing” Art. The purpose of a video game is both that of immersion and experience, where the gamer takes on the role of the main character(s). Other forms of art only allow the ability to be an observer rather than a participant. No matter how close to Art a game can become, in Ebert’s argument, it will never be exact despite fitting all of these “definitions” he has looked into. Another point on this matter brings up his ideas of
Aristotle and Plato, in which they believed “art should be defined as the imitation of nature.” If it is indeed the imitation of nature, does an imitation of Art also make it Art? Simply because Art has evolved and branched out from the original media which it has been portrayed does not make it any less of a form. The idea of nature has not changed just because over the course of centuries, nature itself has been altered. The same goes for the imitation of nature, which is the “ideal realm”. What the ideals are about the Heavens has not changed. Heaven still has harps and is basked in light and beauty, Hell is still covered in fire and very very hot. Despite this idea, the fact that people have chosen whether or not to believe in such does not change what they would say if they were asked them to describe what they think Heaven and Hell would appear like, regardless of personal beliefs. Overall, the point is that times change, and with it, definitions have to change a bit as well, but the true root of the matter is still present. Ebert's ideal definition of Art however, stems from his inspirations in Plato, Aristotle, and Wikipedia, in which he takes their ideals into consideration before adding in his own.
“For example, I tend to think of art as usually the creation of one artist. Yet a cathedral is the work of many, and is it not art? One could think of it as countless individual works of art unified by a common purpose. Is not a tribal dance an artwork, yet the collaboration of a community? Yes, but it reflects the work of individual choreographers. Everybody didn't start dancing all at once. “
If Art is the work of one individual, then almost nothing can be considered Art. Films (which Ebert is actually a major critic of) consists of the work of numerous individuals to bring a final result to life. Various actors, writers, directors and producers, film crews, sound crews, so on so forth all collaborate together to create a piece of Art. It was not the work of one individual. The same goes for dance. A group effort had to be made with choreography in order to synchronize everything, plays and shows involve the work of numerous actors, dancers, and every other individual behind the scenes. No one person is responsible for all of these, and yet they are Art. How can Ebert consider Art to be the results of one person when almost every form he brought up is the result of numerous people adding in their expertise in order to create the final product? Would he consider the lighting on a stage to be Art? After all, it was done by one person, but it results in just lights. Or perhaps he would consider Art to be the way the director sets the blocking in a scene on a stage.