Once again, Roger Ebert has returned to his statement that “games could not be art.” Since he originally made that statement, he realized it was indefensible, adding that what he should have said was: “could not be high art, as I understand it.” Of course that statement is very easy to defend, given the flexibility of “as I understand it.” But Ebert also hints at another claim, when he says: “I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art.” Is he saying that tautologically, games cannot be art? If so, he abandons that position two sentences later when he says that games will not be art for a very long time.
I like Roger Ebert, and I think he does think things through. And many of the critics of his position on this have been a little too ad hominum, as if finding some deep psychological problem with Ebert’s feeling towards games would dissolve his argument. But I suspect that his thinking on this reflects the thinking of most video-game outsiders. He doesn’t think they’re art, and neither does your mom. But you don’t give her crap about it, do you?
Some of arguments are true. He doesn’t get video-games. He can’t readily distinguish between “braid” and a shooter based on David Koresh, at least not enough to see why people suggesting these games as art have entirely different perspectives. When he tries to describe what’s there, he lists the mechanics. But I don’t think that invalidates his opinion. I don’t understand Nascar, but I can make a cogent observation that it is not a sport. (Especially if I can use the “as I understand sport” escape valve.) Maybe I think sports require the exertion and testing of physical body vs. physical body.
But the one trick that Ebert really pulls off, is to hide his actual argument. Then, as people attack him, he moves from “as a matter of principle” over to “bad in fact”, then back. Also, as he never defines his conception of art, it’s easy for him to discount arguments based on various theories. When people claim they have been moved by video-games, or that they see beauty, or that a video-game is sublime or subtle, he can go to a point of view that doesn’t accept any of these things as a definition of art.
Here’s the thing. ”matter of principle” means tautological, which requires precise definitions of both high art and videogaming. It also means that the level and quality does not matter at all. And, it means that no amount of change over time would change it. Ebert does not give us the precise definitions, he does argue about the quality of the examples, and he allows that a time may come when this changes.
But once admitting that it is not “matter of principle,” then his other factors come into play. If it is the quality of the examples, then we can find better ones. The truth is that video-games are maturing at a far more rapid rate than other media. A video-game sequel is considered a good thing, because it WILL be a lot better. (not always, but moreso than with movies). New experimental directions, such as Heavy Rain, do not have an equivalent in film, because there are no new avenues being opened up in terms of the technology or the potential interfaces. The newest thing in film? 3-D.
Ultimately, I think Ebert’s claim is really more personal. It’s like that made by the film professors back when music videos were trying to be art. ”Nothing new here.” Yes, from their POV, nothing. But they had the whole history of film to draw on. The music video audience was seeing new stuff, sliced and diced and offered up in a format they could understand. To them, it was an emerging art form. Similarly, if you try and abstract the story, or the visuals from a current game and offer it up to someone who doesn’t engage, someone who has a library of great movies in his head, there won’t be anything new. Because the new part doesn’t translate. But to us, some of this is art. And someday, the art may be new in ways that nobody now can anticipate.