Okay, kids, play on my lawn (Roger Ebert responds re: video games and art) | Hacker News Reader

Okay, kids, play on my lawn (Roger Ebert responds re: video games and art)

blogs.suntimes.com

41 pointssteveklabnik51 comments

This is what I posted as a comment there. I have no idea whether or not it will be approved, so I'm putting it here as well.

-----

A key part of your opinion seems to be that "Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices."

However the most famous piece of artwork in the world is the Mona Lisa. The most distinctive feature of that painting is that it can be experienced in two very different ways. In one she is is happy, but not in the other. This is exactly the opposite of an "inevitable conclusion."

So this characterization of what art must do fails even when it comes to the most static of all possible media. The Mona Lisa has been sitting absolutely still for centuries. Yet only sometimes does she smile.

His view seems aligned to the mainstream way of storytelling form of art, which has long history of development (Alistotle said the plot structure was the essential.) But even in storytelling, there are other forms; e.g. Brechtian epic theatre deliberately avoids involving audience into the 'emotional journey', and also avoids presenting one conclusion.

I'm also reminded of the mid-80s movie Agnes of God. The entire point of the movie was that you could figure out all of the events from either a scientific or religious point of view, both were consistent, yet they disagree on the interpretation of every single fact.

His view of "art" is very movie-centric.

Gracefully back-pedaled.

As he admits, he put himself in a lose-lose situation, and when that happens, there's not much one can do besides back-pedal. As gracefully as possible.

He still arrogantly refuses to admit any kind of possibility of being wrong on the overall topic, though.

> I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself.

I'll admit that it's better than nothing, but the tone didn't seem very apologetic to me. He does concede a few points, and I admire him for that, but things like the screenshots really rubbed me the wrong way.

Aye. It's like he's trying to make the point that videogames are only useful for telling horror stories. It's like people who think that Comic Books are only capable of telling stories about Underoo-clad flying head-bashers. It's a medium. Like many mediums, there may be one genre that is heavily represented, but this has nothing to do with the ultimate potential of the medium itself.

It's the same sort of short sightedness that would declare "talkies" (slang for movies with sound) as only being useful for musicals.

Based on actual usage and consumption, comic books and movies are for porn.

Video games aren't so much.

Maybe that's the definition of "art" - how well can it be used for porn. (Music seems to be an exception to this definition but we all know why Eric Clapton learned the guitar.)

You're also confusing medium and message here.

Porn is the message. Games are a medium.

I would posit that any medium which can be used successfully for porn can also be used for art. If a medium can convey the subtle and unconscious cues effectively to our senses so as to manage to turn us on, then it can also be used for the myriad subtle cues used for high art.

There are also mediums which lack the fidelity to effectively convey porn, but which can still convey art. (Scratching in a 1x1 foot patch of sandy dirt with a stick, for example. It's easy to convey nudity or profanity on such a crude drawing surface, but none of that would turn me on.)

> You're also confusing medium and message here.

We're discussing Ebert's claim that video games, the medium, can't be used to produce art, the message. I apologize for leaving out "medium" in the sentence that would have made that clear.

> There are also mediums which lack the fidelity to effectively convey porn, but which can still convey art. (Scratching in a 1x1 foot patch of sandy dirt with a stick, for example. It's easy to convey nudity or profanity on such a crude drawing surface, but none of that would turn me on.)

That might be because you're used to getting your porn in higher-fidelity. However, the first porn that most kids draw is basically scratches. Also, we're pretty sure that some "scratch fidelity" cave drawings are porn. (An alternative is that kids are/ancient folk were more abstraction-tolerant. This shouldn't be too surprising - a lot of porn works between the ears.)

Maybe that's the definition of "art" - how well can it be used for porn

This was the basis of my observation of medium/message confusion. The "it" which is being used is the medium and "porn" is the message. So it would seem that you are trying to define a medium as "art", which is wrong. A message transmitted via a given medium is art, not the medium in isolation. Maybe you are looking for a term like "art-capable medium."

An alternative is that kids are/ancient folk were more abstraction-tolerant.

I've been spoiled by years of pornographic magazines, then by high resolution images from the Internet.

> So it would seem that you are trying to define a medium as "art", which is wrong.

No, I'm not. I'm discussing Ebert's claim about the sutability of different mediums for producing art.

Then what does "it" in that sentence refer to?

Maybe that's the definition of "art medium" - how well can it be used for porn.

Like I said, we're discussing Ebert's claims wrt art mediums.

Video games aren't so much.

Actually, they are in some cultures, and the results can be rather horrific: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapelay

He doesn't have to apologize for his opinions. He doesn't have to refuse to be wrong. That's not arrogant; thats a human right.

I get it; many disagree. He comes off arrogant because he's famous.

> That's not arrogant; thats a human right.

He's certainly allowed to have his opinion, and you're right; he doesn't _have_ to apologize.

I'm also not required to not think he's a bit arrogant when he disparages something that millions of people enjoy, and uses his cultural position to damage their reputation. Without ever having partaken himself.

The 'damage' is imputed; did he say this was a problem with video games?

His cultural position IS to discuss what is art and what is not. Regardless of how many millions enjoy it.

I think maybe his cultural position is to opine how well a specific piece of art from a particular class of artists is, rather than being a critic of every artistic medium.

At least that's all of the respect I give to him and his position.

You have a right to be arrogant… it's your prerogative. But if people view it as arrogant, that's what it is.

Calling him arrogant isn't denying him a human right; it's passing judgment based on an article he wrote.

Then every writer with a large audience is arrogant - pushing their opinions off on people without any dialog.

I think arrogant has to mean more in this context.

"I may be wrong. but if 'm not willing to play a video game to find that out, I should say so."

"It is quite possible a game could someday be great Art."

I can't fathom how one could come away from that article thinking that Ebert believes it is impossible that he is wrong. He still believes that games aren't Art according to some definition he admittedly can't articulate, but he also repeatedly admits that he isn't capable of proving that belief.

I agree the grisly screenshots are pretty underhanded (it would be equally easy to show repulsive frames from movies), and constantly mentioning that he refuses to play games sort of makes it sound like he would be able to prove games aren't art if only he were willing to lower himself to actually playing them.

Overall I thought this post demonstrated more respect for the other side of a debate than I see in the vast majority of posts that make the front page of hn.

Gracefully back-pedaled but who's decision was it to place a bunch of gory screenshots in the post? Not only distracting but really added a sinister feel to his words.

The screenshots are from Clive Barker's Jericho. He probably used them because he spends a couple of paragraphs talking about discussions he had with Clive Barker. Unfortunately Jericho is a horrible game and not a good example of games as art.

At least there's some connection. Poor taste though.

Arguing about what art is has got to be one of the biggest wastes of time there is. I think enough "artists" have created "art" in the medium of human waste to settle the lower limit once and for all.

At the risk of the getting into that "biggest waste of time" confusing medium with the artwork seem to be core cause of this particular debate.

No more a waste of time than anything else we do.

"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game."

Yes, and you can live in a cathedral. People get so dogmatic about separating form from function. I prefer Scott McCloud's far more inclusive definition (http://www.amazon.com/Understanding-Comics-Invisible-Scott-M...)

It's a strange bit of snark that he's interspersed his paragraphs with screenshots from some of the most derivative and stereotypical games of recent vintage. And yet it's perhaps softened a bit by the addition of a shot from perhaps a comparable title from his home medium.

I don't quite get it.

Fine, video games aren't art, but then neither are movies. After all, what's a video game other than an interactive movie?

I think the problem is that Ebert just sees the Skinner box nature of video games only, without noticing that movies are also a Skinner box of sorts.

Not an interactive movie, not by a long shot. A movie is much closer to a painting, in that its essentially static - exactly what the artist put into it an no more. Carefully crafted for a particular experience.

There is plenty of art where the audience participation and reaction is integral to the piece.

Games are more or less essentially static. Sure there is a little more freedom of motion than in a movie but I would say it is a similar progression still to motion picture, motion picture to motion picture with slight control. You can't get something out of a video game that wasn't put in in the first place. Trust me people who make video games consider and craft the experience the player is having.

Rather than compare them to movies I would compare them to theater, where the player is an actor in the play. The lines and locations are the same every time, but every performance is slightly different.

That has been the part that has annoyed me most about the whole debate. He is quite willing to argue at length that computer games aren't art, but he then goes on to matter of factually state that a Kurosawa film is art is if that was an axiomatic Truth universally accepted by everybody. Before you try to convince me that games aren't art, at least try to convince me that movies are.

I wonder if he would agree that a single instance of a video game having been played could be art. A specific playthrough. Therefore not open-ended.

EDIT: I'm thinking about famous games of Go that are now considered (by some) to be works of art. And I'm making the tenuous jump to video games, where the final 'work' of art is a collaboration between the player(s) and the designers of the game.

That's the point: I agree a Particular game can be art. The artist has to be present in art.

Undeniably many video games Contain lots of really cool art. But so does my bedroom.

I don't know that it makes such a big difference, but I'm trying to figure out what's going on in Ebert's brain. (Personally, I disagree with his thesis.)

That's the thing though. You're bedroom could be art.

No reason it couldn't be.

I think his fundamental challenge is you don't experience a game as much as you play a game. You don't play art as much as you experience art.

My question is, why do we need to define games as art? Games are so much more than art. So much more engaging. They offer so much more than mere art.

Games, at their core, encompass so much more than experience, that to limit themselves to just being art is almost an insult.

Games have been around far longer than art. Games have taught us far more than art. Games continue to push human kind forward. Games are our past, present, and future.

Art might be experienced, but games are lived.

Most video games have a pretty strict narrative: Finish the story or die. The ending of that story is often firm: I've rarely come upon a video game that actually has different outcomes based on the user's behavior/history.

People should stop recommending games to him. Any example you give can be easily shot down as "not art". You can probably do the same thing with any art that is on the fringe of whatever definition you subscribe to.

It seems to me the only difference between a movie and a game is that there is some assumption that the "gamer" controls some aspect of the movie. I would ask Ebert this:

* what would you think of a movie where the viewer could control the volume? Can it be art? * what if the viewer could control the color tint? Can it be art? * what if the viewer can switch between two different camera views at will? Can it be art? * what if the viewer can control the camera completely but the action is on rails? Can it be art?

etc… you can see where this leads. He obviously has watched an artful movie and been in control of the volume so you can see that he would have to draw a line. You can then create an artful "game" that crosses his line and you're done. Of course, he will refuse to believe that it is art because it will challenge a deeply held prejudice of his.

It is at this point (or hopefully before) that you will realize it is useless to try.

Get off my lawn you damn kids!

some rules of art taken from an Art Appreciation class last semester:

1) Art is what the artist says it is. If the artist (developers/designers/game team/whatever) decides it's art, who could claim otherwise and qualify their statements.

2) Art is what the patron says it is. If a user says it's art, then, at least to some person it is now art.

Now for my opinion: When it comes to fringe cases of "art," it's still art if the creator says so. However, as is the case with modern art, art is an expression. And when artist reproduces somebody else's expression, I loose respect for that work. Like Jackson Pullock's spray paintings, when people do the same thing, I'm like, "Really? Wow, you are great at expressing yourself like Jackson Pullock!"

As for video games, as a whole, it depends. But aspects of video games like level design, UX, UI, they are definitely art forms. Especially when done well.

Why do video games have to be art? Why can't they simply be games? Too many games have a fatal flaw in even attempting to be art--they have graphics and music and writing and so forth, but the game qua game is an afterthought. "First-person shooter" is basically one game, and aside from updating the graphics and storyline there's no evolution. Because everyone wants video games to be "art", or to be like the movies. RPG's are even worse.

Forget the art and make a good game.

He should go play Passage: http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/passage/

There's a work of art that simply can't be experienced in any comparable way in any other medium. He could play it in 5 minutes.

I second this! Passage is what convinced me of the possibility of Art in games.

Art as defined by Ebert in this post, not beautiful visuals or anything like that - which is kind of the wrong way to seek art in games, IMO.

> that simply can't be experienced in any comparable way in any other medium.

This is the crucial bit.

Ebert likes to present himself as an enlightened liberal who keeps his mind open to facts as opposed to blind belief - but what he's doing here is proudly choosing willful ignorance because he's too lazy/stubborn to collect his own facts. Sad.

How much time did it take him to write those two essays? He wasted thousands of hours of humanity just for his big ego, and can't even be bothered to play a video game for 10 hours? I guess he is famous (?) but I sure hope I'll never read any of his thoughts again, ever.

For God's sake, someone please install Braid on this man's laptop.

Braid has some good puzzles, but aside from the "plot twist" of the final level, its "art" aspect is pretentious and overwrought. Shadow of the Colossus was a good recommendation, though I'd pick ICO. Really, though, if he doesn't want to play a game, I don't see why he should have to. Just bow out of the conversation and leave it at that -- which is what he's just done.

In addition to the narrative and the "twist", Braid is also viscerally beautiful, with the music and visuals creating an emotional experience that makes it hard to deny the label of "art". It's also highly approachable for someone who doesn't play many games, though a casual gamer is not likely to make it through to the end.

> Really, though, if he doesn't want to play a game, I don't see why he should have to.

Oh, I agree. He didn't fully backpedal, though; just state that "maybe someday" a video game would come along to prove him wrong. Even if he admits that his opinion has no relevance, he still clearly holds the same opinion about the current state of games.

(And admittedly, none of this actually matters. It's just good old-fashioned "Somebody is wrong on the internet!" :P)

My earlier refutation of Roger Ebert:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1389149

Maybe this is all just a subtle linkbait (unintentional?) for the Chicago Sun Times? (We'll see if game companies start advertising there.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com