For some strange reason, the stars aligned on the weekend and several news sites produced responses to Ebert’s recent column “Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker” in which he replies to some of Clive Barker’s claims on video games as an art form. There was of course the obligatory response from the gaping advertisement-feeding maw of Kotaku, who (for once) provided an intelligible response; unfortunately the response came from a talented film critic who seems to have never played a video game in his life. Joystiq, Ragnar Tornquist (creator of The Longest Journey and Dreamfall), and a slough of other news sites provided their own commentaries on Ebert’s volley. Most notably, however, came much more informed responses from Arthouse Games and Mentisworks, who had already spent time discussing the subject over the past year. The question I’m left with here, however, is why does this all seem to matter so much?
While I’ve never found Ebert’s film reviews to be filled with much else than pop-opinionism, his feature-length commentary on the Dark City DVD gave me a sense of respect for a film buff who obviously pays great attention to detail and knows his history. So in the film world, I’ve always taken his views seriously.
But then, why does Ebert always seem to plant a burr in the ass of video game fanatics? Is it because, as a respected american film critic, his voice automatically carries some degree of authority in the game industry? Is this just another opportunity for gamers to stamp their feet defiantly and show mom and dad that they aren’t little kids anymore? Or perhaps, Ebert really does pick at a sore spot, and our defensive reactions come from a fear that our sacred cattle are headed to the great abattoir in the sky? Whatever the reasons, it is obvious to me that Ebert’s opinions should not be raised so prominently in the consciousness of the modern gaming press. While the man is a respected film critic, nowhere does he cite (or claim!) any experience with videogames, nor does he show any knowledge of game history. Do you ask your electrician for medical advice? Your family doctor for carpentry tips?
But, you might claim that at least Ebert has provoked the press to formulate some sort of unified response on the subject – and we might gain some respect as gamers in sheer numbers. While this is possible, it certainly has not been the case so far. In almost all cases, game writers made the classic mistake of defending their territory on their opponent’s turf! Instead of exposing/articulating the inherently novel nature of video games as a mode of expression with its own rules and relevances, writers try to defend games in terms of their counterparts in film, paintings and books! Imagine a poet that defends the quality of her poetry by claiming that it’s just as good as watching Rashomon? Senseless. The current ‘art vs. games’ debate will not give us a profound sense for why games are in their own league of artistic expression.
So, what might a more fruitful discussion of art and games look like? This is where real writers and artists must plead their cases, and forego their own opinions in pursuit of deeper truths.
“… When someone reviews Moby Dick or Kramer vs. Kramer, they don’t spend most of their time explaining the details of the plot (or at least they don’t if they’re interesting). The meaning of most art is usually found within abstractions. So the problem is not that video games don’t have interesting narratives; the problem is that it’s hard to decide what it is about video games that is interesting.” – Chuck Klosterman, “The Lester Bangs of Video Games”
This is where writers (artists! critics! historians!) must exhaust themselves analyzing games and demonstrating a game’s aesthetic values in terms of norms and relevances not directly determined by traditional art forms. This is where, as I previously mentioned, Mentisworks’ analysis of Okami and Arthouse Games’ analysis of Paradroid are painting the paths necessary for a movement in game criticism that goes beyond opinion or simple enjoyment. This is where we get the seats of our pants dirty, and delve into the deeper strata of A Boy and His Blob, Ico, or Shadow of the Colossus – and show why anyone (even non-gamers!) should be moved by these works of art.
If we really want to prove that Ebert doesn’t know his ass from a hole on the moon, it won’t be accomplished by debating Warhol and Kurosawa with him – it will be done by putting our own house in order.
History: For you collector, preservationist, historical types.
Indie Games: Reflections on indie games and their developers
Industry and Journalism: Commentary on the industry and its journalism.
Interviews: Conversations with interesting people, or interviews with Chris.
News: Current hubbub, moral panics and announcements for this site.
Philosophy and Psychology: Understanding how gaming intersects with human dwelling
Retro Gaming: Classic adventure, role-playing and action games of yore.
Storytelling, Narrative, and Writing: How and why stories and writing are important.
Visual Art: The roles that visual experiences and aesthetics play in games.
Worth Reading: Books, articles and blogs that are worth your time and money.
From Michal:
This is an excellent post Chris. I agree very much, as is obvious from my two latest posts on the subject, that Ebert’s opinion on the matter is not very important. Consequently I too have been giving much thought to how we can “put our own house in order.”
Mostly I have been working on a list of art games with ratings. I hope to have that completed soon. However, I am also wanting to formulate some type of criteria by which I judge a game to be an art game. I think this would help by giving us a starting point. Well, or at least giving ME that point.
In any case, your argument is that the question around which this debate is centered doesn’t really matter, and I agree. Though I’m still likely to reply when these things come up. But, as I wrote the other day…
“…I’m more inclined to put stock in the actions of three prominent art schools and major galleries, not to mention the artists themselves, over the words of one (or more) jaded media critics. The revolution began a long time ago. The fact that the rest of the world still hasn’t caught on to this reality is regrettable, but somewhat inconsequential at this point.”
From Nikki:
I believe the real issue here is that games are not film, and while someone such as Ebert has much experience in critiquing film, he may have little to no experience in videogames.
Some games are art, but not all games can fall into this category. I once had this art teacher, back in college, who could say something could about each student’s work, whether it was the most beautiful thing produced, or simply a P.O.S. (Hehe acronyms!) Games which are not entirely meant to be art can have very artistic elements, yet fall short on the whole. The same can be said of film, which is why we have certain classics which we always reminisce about when talking about an excellent movie. This is true of many videogames as well. There shall always be that certain cult classic, eh?
What would be interesting to see is the same sort of “Thumbs Up” system for videogames as for movies. It might be a load of bull, but then again, if we get fantastic videogame critics like we have for movies (wink wink), it might point the gaming industry to new highs and lows…
From chris:
Thank you for the comments.
-> Nikki: this is exactly the vision I have for some form of modern video game criticism! Somehow, we must develop a way of articulating just what is novel, beautiful, or moving about certain aspects of a game, and show how this is relevant for a wider audience. I have no specific vision of how that might be accomplished, but I suspect that Michal has a few ideas….
-> Michal: I’m very interested in your rating system, or list. I’d be more than willing to do something similar on my end, and compare notes afterwards. I’ve had the opportunity to play a lot of games (on varying systems, consoles) over the years, and many games have stuck out in very particular ways. I’ve always found the the flawed yet visionary masterpieces the most interesting. I’ll fire off an e-mail to follow up on this.
From D:
I have a similar attitude towards Ebert: I respect his reviews, but it’s his film historian persona that you really have to love. And plus, dude wrote Beyond the Valley of the Dolls. Perhaps this makes it doubly repulsive when he turns out to be so blind about videogames, or maybe the same comments coming from anyone with his reach into the mainstream would be an issue. And that’s it, it’s that when he trolls, everyone listens and you can’t help but feed the troll.. I know I couldn’t.
And yeah, in a perfect world, we’d all ignore him as soon as we see him admit to not playing games.
What you’re saying is spot on. If there’s something we can take from this, it’s that we should be building up examples of good gaming criticism. Maybe 1000 tiny Lester Bangs is better than one big one, anyways.
From chris:
I’d really love to see more examples of good game criticism. If anyone has examples to show, please, by all means add them in this comment thread. That would give us the ability to work through these examples and show how we might develop new critical writing styles.