A while ago, film critic Roger Ebert stated that videogames could never be art, and typically a sea of angry gamers swelled up, giant and menacing, to show him the error of his ways. Even less-likely sources of challenge, such as novelist Clive Barker, spoke out against the claim.
Recently, Ebert reiterated his point, much to the dismay of the countless individuals who partook in the assault against him the first time around; and in his latest blog, he reverts back (albeit briefly) to the very same matter.
This brings me to my issue, and I'm directing this towards a very specific demographic; namely, those who opposed Ebert's argument and took a rather vocal, insulting and/or patronising approach to telling him so. The issue I speak of, for want of a better word, is simply ignorance.
There is a measurable difference between disagreeing with someone and trying to discredit their opinion based on your own. Opinions are inherently subjective -- inevitably, one's standpoint on any topic will contrast with another's; this is the nature of free-thinking. Presenting arguments for and against a particular viewpoint is the natural way of going about these things. Conversely, telling a person they are wrong, without any factual backing, is ignorance.
Unfortunately, a sizeable portion of those who disagreed with Ebert's statement took the ignorant approach to letting him know, most trying to either undermine his credibility or personally insult him, alongside a selection of the more arrogant individuals who took to offering patronizing affectations along the lines of "he just doesn't understand".
Personally, I don't agree with his position, but I respect it and wouldn't dream of telling him he was wrong. There are others who share my view and similarly my way of expressing it; I see these people offering up thoughtful arguments, provoking intelligent debate and it reasserts my faith in the community. Then I see someone attempt another fruitless attack at Ebert's intelligence and once again I lose a little hope for the medium of videogames progressing as an art form.
Art doesn't have a singular, clear definition, and what does or does not qualify as artistic is constantly subject to interpretation. As such, there is never going to be a consensus on the whole "videogames as art" debate, so the whole thing seems slightly pointless.
What bugs me is that the people who will argue to the end of the Earth and back again do not understand the idea that their attitude speaks of their own insecurity more than anything else.
Should the opinion of one man really bother you that much? As I implied earlier, I strongly believe that videogames are a form of artistic expression, and that puts me in direct opposition to Ebert's opinion. Does that anger me or upset me? No, it doesn't, and likewise it shouldn't spoil anyone else's day either.
It's worth remembering that Roger Ebert's expertise lie in cinema, and as such his views on the gaming world really shouldn't get to you. His being a relatively well-known figure doesn't contribute to the validity of his claim, it merely succeeds in drawing a greater amount of attention to the debate.
In theory, that's a positive thing -- gaming should always be moving forwards and reaching a wider audience. The Nintendo Wii has proved that people who previously had no interest in videogames can actually be entertained by them, with so-called "casual" gaming being that much-needed starting point for people unfamiliar with the medium. What's to stop a fan of new and creative art being enticed in much the same way? People are a little too hasty to criticise Ebert for his apparent ignorance, without stopping to think of how he may have done the gaming world a favour.
The thing that endears me most to Roger Ebert is the very thing that seems to have everybody else so wound up, and that's how he can take his position based on very little actual gaming experience. He's perfectly open about that fact, which means that he is forming his opinion solely on what he sees as "art", rather than any predetermined idea he may have about videogames. Again, that's a positive thing, because it implies he could well change his manner of thinking should he spend sufficient time actually interacting with a videogame, rather than merely watching footage.
Speaking of the footage he was shown, even for me it was rather unconvincing. The games Kellee Santiago cited as "art" were at best questionable and at worst totally un-artistic, with the possible exception of Braid. Had I given the presentation myself, I would have opted to display games like Shadow of the Colossus and Okami, which are both decidedly more concurrent with pre-conceived artistic conventions. As it turned out, it appears Kellee grabbed the wrong end of entirely the wrong stick, and displayed indie games that leant much more towards thematic indulgence than artistic expression, leading to a relatively weak display.
I still think it's fairly likely that at some point in the near future someone is going to introduce Roger Ebert to a videogame console. I couldn't possibly say how he will react afterwards, but perhaps if handed the correct titles we may have yet another sceptic being made a believer.
We can only hope.
Personally, I don't agree with his position, but I respect it and wouldn't dream of telling him he was wrong. There are others who share my view and similarly my way of expressing it; I see these people offering up thoughtful arguments, provoking intelligent debate and it reasserts my faith in the community. Then I see someone attempt another fruitless attack at Ebert's intelligence and once again I lose a little hope for the medium of videogames progressing as an art form.
Art doesn't have a singular, clear definition, and what does or does not qualify as artistic is constantly subject to interpretation. As such, there is never going to be a consensus on the whole "videogames as art" debate, so the whole thing seems slightly pointless.
What bugs me is that the people who will argue to the end of the Earth and back again do not understand the idea that their attitude speaks of their own insecurity more than anything else.
Should the opinion of one man really bother you that much? As I implied earlier, I strongly believe that videogames are a form of artistic expression, and that puts me in direct opposition to Ebert's opinion. Does that anger me or upset me? No, it doesn't, and likewise it shouldn't spoil anyone else's day either.
It's worth remembering that Roger Ebert's expertise lie in cinema, and as such his views on the gaming world really shouldn't get to you. His being a relatively well-known figure doesn't contribute to the validity of his claim, it merely succeeds in drawing a greater amount of attention to the debate.
In theory, that's a positive thing -- gaming should always be moving forwards and reaching a wider audience. The Nintendo Wii has proved that people who previously had no interest in videogames can actually be entertained by them, with so-called "casual" gaming being that much-needed starting point for people unfamiliar with the medium. What's to stop a fan of new and creative art being enticed in much the same way? People are a little too hasty to criticise Ebert for his apparent ignorance, without stopping to think of how he may have done the gaming world a favour.
The thing that endears me most to Roger Ebert is the very thing that seems to have everybody else so wound up, and that's how he can take his position based on very little actual gaming experience. He's perfectly open about that fact, which means that he is forming his opinion solely on what he sees as "art", rather than any predetermined idea he may have about videogames. Again, that's a positive thing, because it implies he could well change his manner of thinking should he spend sufficient time actually interacting with a videogame, rather than merely watching footage.
Speaking of the footage he was shown, even for me it was rather unconvincing. The games Kellee Santiago cited as "art" were at best questionable and at worst totally un-artistic, with the possible exception of Braid. Had I given the presentation myself, I would have opted to display games like Shadow of the Colossus and Okami, which are both decidedly more concurrent with pre-conceived artistic conventions. As it turned out, it appears Kellee grabbed the wrong end of entirely the wrong stick, and displayed indie games that leant much more towards thematic indulgence than artistic expression, leading to a relatively weak display.
I still think it's fairly likely that at some point in the near future someone is going to introduce Roger Ebert to a videogame console. I couldn't possibly say how he will react afterwards, but perhaps if handed the correct titles we may have yet another sceptic being made a believer.
We can only hope.
Posts
