You can listen,watch and read different types of art. But are you able to play a work of art? Roger Ebert, an American film critic and journalist that has written the article “Video Games Can Never Be Art”. Ebert’s opinion comes in response to game developer and producer Kellee Santiago’s TED Talk. She discussed on why we should consider video games an art medium. While Ebert calls Santiago “bright and confident,” he says the game developer is wrong in the belief that a video game can be a work of art. I think that Ebert had a very weak argument on the TED Talk that Santiago had on saying video games were art. He has even admitted to not even picking up a game himself. How can one judge anything without first experiencing it themselves.
Ebert starts his argument on what an acceptable definition of art may be like. He uses the thoughts of the great philosopher Plato who “believed art should be defined as the imitation of nature”. Let us say that art is the imitation of nature. We risk varying definitions of nature so to put it simply, let us suppose nature is everything that is natural. Or in other words, the world itself and the natural order of the world. When put into this context we see that: paintings reflect the beauty surrounding our natural environment, poets describe the natural emotions, and writers showcase the nature of man.
Ebert says that art is nature. Lets examine the first human-to-human combat game, Gun Fight. Gun Fight is a simplistic version of some of the many shooters you can now play. Two players shoot at each other, and When shot, the characters in the game [fall] to the ground and the words "GOT ME!" [appear] above the body.This game is a perfect depiction of competition between people. Competition is something that we encounter everyday. We are instructed at a very young age to try and be the best at whatever we do. I would even say that competition is a part of our nature. In movies, literature and in paintings there are countless examples of competition. In an action movie, a character in a book or a depiction of a battle all convey some type of competition but in Ebert’s sense, video games should not be grouped with them. Do games like Gun Fight express what happens in nature? Fundamentally Gun Fight conveys competition. The feeling of winning and the agony of losing is all too real in our world. If nature is truly Plato's definition of art video games would fall under it.
Even if video games fall under Plato’s and Aristotle's nature definition if art, in Ebert’s sense it is a little harder to define art. “But we could play all day with definitions, and find exceptions to every one. For example, I tend to think of art as usually the creation of one artist” He states earlier that all games have rules, points, objectives, and outcomes and thus cannot be art. But does traditional art not adhere to these same rules? Art has rules. Depending on what you are doing you are restricted on what type of medium you can use. Art can have a point. Artists as well as game designers can have a piece of work as complicated and obscure as they want. Art has an objective. Artist want to express something through their artwork whatever that may be. Art has an outcome depending on your audience, just like video games. If these are Eberts characteristics of a video game there is not a difference between a game and art. Another distinction that Ebert has that makes art, art, is that overtime an artists’ work improves. Most gamers would agree that the visuals of a game improve over time. It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the graphics are better in a Mario game than in first generation Pong. But to be art it needs to change in more than one aspect. Visuals are just one part that makes a game art.
Other than visuals what else can be the answer? What could be the way for game makers to improve their craft? The answer to that is how we play the actual game. An artist improves their painting by using more advanced drawing techniques and depth, the game maker employs different methods of game play. For the past few years, Nintendo has been turning everyone into a gamer. Nintendo started out with the humble Gameboy. Being able to have a handheld was innovative and new. It then evolved into the DS, and a touch screen was added to simplify game play. With the Wii, motion controllers were added to simplify game play and added an extra layer of interaction. What could be more natural than swinging your arms? What could be more natural than moving your feet? These improvements work towards better immersion, but they also imitate nature far better than what the standard controller has done. Thus, video games can be improved through the artist's vision. Video games can work from nature. Video games can be considered as art.
One man’s opinion does not define an industry. He has a very weak definition of what art should be and this is probably the primary reason on why he comes off closed minded. He simply does not like video games and has no business critiquing them. Video games like movies that Ebert critiques are hard to compare in a meaningful fashion. Video games being a relatively new medium, developers have only just begun to tap the potential. Films after all had its humble beginnings, why not video games