sponsorship

The world's biggest movie critic has some choice words regarding games as art. Check out what Roger Ebert has to say and how gamers are reacting!

Film critic Roger Ebert riled up plenty of gamers this weekend with his rebuttal to author/filmmaker/game producer Clive Barker's comments about Ebert's declaration that video games are not art. Ebert essentially went through Barker's comments, line by line, de-constructing his arguments, with pretty convincing results, impressing some of the most cynical bloggers. This one in particular seemed to sap much of the strength of Barker's words:

Barker: "We can debate what art is, we can debate it forever. If the experience moves you in some way or another ... even if it moves your bowels ... I think it is worthy of some serious study."

Ebert: Perhaps if the experience moves your bowels, it is worthy of some serious medical study. Many experiences that move me in some way or another are not art. A year ago I lost the ability (temporarily, I hope) to speak. I was deeply moved by the experience. It was not art.

In my opinion, Ebert's argument is empowered as much by his own words as it is strengthened by the weakness of Barker's. As an video game artist, Barker has an agenda to push--his own. The "moves your bowels" comment comes from his background in horror-based narratives. Like games, horror movies are usually produced for profit first, and art second. Is Barker an artist? I'm not familiar enough with his work to say so, but I would assume he is. Is his medium the best example of art? Judging by the fact that it's almost exclusively horror-based., I'd have to say no. If a more prolific voice in the gaming industry like Shigeru Miyamoto or Fumito Ueda (creator of Ico and Shadow of the Colossus) made an argument with their projects in mind, I'd say that Ebert would have a harder time disagreeing.

In the meantime, there's still a very convincing counter-argument to Ebert's from Kotaku's Mark Wilson. Using Ebert's method of breaking down the discussion line by line, Wilson ably argues against one of the world's most famous critics. Here's one particular point Wilson makes that challenges Ebert's notions:

Ebert: The word "prejudiced" often translates as "disagrees with me." I might suggest that gamers have a prejudiced view of their medium, and particularly what it can be. Games may not be Shakespeare quite yet, but I have the prejudice that they never will be, and some gamers are prejudiced that they will.

Wilson: Undoubtedly, we are all a little prejudiced, but I would argue gamers have less prejudice than their films-triumph-games counterparts. Just look at the example you've offered us: Shakespeare. Not only are we now operating under the tacit agreement that movies have matched one of the highest incarnations of the written word (a topic worthy of its own debates, surely), but that videogamesa medium but a few decades into widespread explorationare to keep up with over a century of progress (film), 9,000 years of advancement (writing) or a history as old as humanity itself (theater).

I look forward to seeing this argument evolve. Each participant has very valid opinions and the readers are all the more educated for hearing what each one has to say. Hopefully Ebert will see fit to respond.

Hey, thanks: rogerebert.com, Kotaku

games

Comments [ 13 ] Post your comment subscribe to this rss feed

^ back to top of comments ^

Post Your Comment

Games.net's Countdown to...