Last April the renowned film critic (and believer of films as high art) Roger Ebert wrote the following on his blog:

“I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art. Perhaps it is foolish of me to say ‘never,’ because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form … [games] are , I regret to say, pathetic. I repeat: ‘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’.”

As a great lover of film I have never really taken issue with Ebert. Yes, he can be a bit bullish and arrogant but I never thought him a man so prone to stupid, reactionary diatribe. He admits to never having played a game and so how does he see himself qualified to make such a statement? Let’s ask the man himself; “How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games.” Video games have, and for the foreseeable future will surely carry on to be, looked down on by the majority of society. Ebert’s uneducated prejudice is just the tip of the iceberg. But gaming is so much more than just sports and shooting. The bastardisation of video gaming I believe has lead it to be one of the most (if not the most) undervalued artistic medium of our generation, something which I sincerely hope will be rectified sooner rather than later.

Art is a fiercely personal concept, one man’s Mozart is the next mans Eminem, one man’s Hitchcock the next man’s Gabe Newell (conspicuous here by his anonymity). Yes, aspects can be rationally formalised and discussed on a scientific level but the primary purpose of art is surely to function as something that makes you feel, to provide something tangible in a purely idiosyncratic way. This, I realise, is an infinitely broad church under which everything can be seen (at least to someone) to have nuance and relevance that could by definition give it the status of being art, but that is the point. Many debates on the subject of video games as ‘art’ focus upon the semantics of the word ‘art’ itself, but defining something without external relevance is surely self-defeating.

The definition of art and its subsequent application is therefore not the issue I wish to tackle. My contention is that music and writing and films and ‘art’ (in its more commonly used guise) are of no ‘higher’ art than video games.

In response to Ebert and in line with my thoughts on the subject the organisation TED held a talk given by Kellee Santiago, a designer and producer of video games. The talk itself is highly flawed and as bad a riposte to Ebert as I have seen (she invokes a game called “Waco Resurrection” in defence of her medium and I quote Ebert here; “in which the player, as David Koresh, defends his Branch Davidian compound against FBI agents”). But putting such ridiculousness aside, she does succeed in comparing video games to cave paintings. They may not be spectacular, they may not be high art, but one day they will evolve into the equal of Michelangelo’s ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. The basic mechanics of games - visual art, writing and an all round sensibility for what entertains - have been fostered over centuries, if not millennia.

Art-forms do not exist in isolation. They mutually strengthen one another through shared influence and innovation. Without Ayn Rand’s ‘Atlas Shrugged’ we would not have ‘Bioshock’ in all of its narrative majesty. Without Orwell’s ‘1984’ we would not have ‘Half Life 2’ - the game that I believe to be the pinnacle of the gaming art form thus far. These games are not the stilted results of a short lonely evolutionary period but an extension of centuries of mutually enforcing artistic endeavour. Just because games like ‘Planescape Torment’ were relatively graphically unaccomplished and thus seemingly evolutionarily stilted back in 1997 it doesn’t mean that they cannot compete with more modern offerings. It’s 800,000 words of dialogue, monologue and plot exposition are beautifully written and just because they are situated within a game, their literary relevance is not diminished. The point here is that no medium - game, painting, or literary work - exists in isolation from its effects or from its influences. Art can definitely be found in the parts of a whole. Film, music, games and writing all share and all wallow in the same artistic and cultural melting pot.

It is here I feel it pertinent to give the example of rap and poetry. The former is generally considered a ‘lower’ form of art (if at all) than the latter. But I believe the best rap to be just as evocative and meretricious as the best poetry and although not a lover of poetry I’m sure for some the same can be said vice versa. Just as Gangsta Rap can be said to be a base de-intellectualised version of its art form so can Tetris or Fifa or maybe even Call of Duty, but it doesn’t mean that each isn’t without its (possibly less artistic) merits. Some more intelligent forms of rap however can be poetic, political, satirical, linguistically brilliant and ultimately artistic. The same can be said for games. Just because in one I’m clicking on pixellated heads until they explode in a shower of pixellated gore it doesn’t mean that in another I’m not enjoying a moment of deep emotion in Half Life 2, or excellent writing in Portal or marvelling at some stunningly crafted visuals in Limbo or prospectively Deus Ex: Human Revolution:

Ebert asks,

“Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren’t gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.”

That’s not the point. No serious gamer or games writer wants his blessing, they want respect. Video games, chess, basketball and Mah Jong are about as disparate as Hollywood blockbusters, tiny art-house films, snuff films and porn. I’m not a chess grandmaster, nor Michael Jordan. They didn’t complain because they were doing something completely different, at a different time, and in almost completely different circumstances. I’m sure that if a gaming journalist singled out films as being a tiny diversion devoid of artistic merit Ebert would be the first to return fire with utmost conviction, something I’m sure he would also do if people kept generalising the entire spectrum of films to three main points including the utterly reductive “they tend to involve point and shoot in many variations and plotlines”. I for one cannot envision Roger Ebert being ‘content to watch his films and simply enjoy himself’. Film writing, as does music and literary criticism, exists in a higher realm of cultural regard, readership and mainstream respect than that of the humble games writer. Ebert has published books, has worldwide prominence and is most likely a millionaire all based upon his love of an art form. A love he is too prejudiced to see may exist in another medium that he too readily dismisses.

I’m not trying to say what is and what isn’t art. But when dealing with such a subjective phenomena how can Ebert assert so readily, in absolute terms, with self-confessed minimal experience of the medium, that films are artistic and games not. His numerous attempts to hobble the cultural relevance of gaming seem highly hypocritical and just plain narrow-minded. Writing about Voltaire, Stephen Tallentyre once said “I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend to the death your right to say it”. But when what is said is so staggeringly misinformed you’ve got to wonder whether or not Ebert should just have kept his mouth shut anyway.

Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker by Roger Ebert

Video games can never be art. by Roger Ebert