Dictionary.com defines art as: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance"
I'll buy that. I can certainly think of many video games that meet this criteria. (Or, at the very least, components of games that would meet the criteria)
But I think there is a different definition that many have in mind. I think a truer definition of art would be "any creative work that invokes an artist-intended emotional response in those that experience it."
Could that mean that a horror movie that scares the bajeezus out of you is art? Absolutely. If an artist can use the medium to illicit an emotional response from it's audience (in this case, fear/shock/horror), I think it deserves to be called 'art'. I'd give the same respect and consideration to comedy performances, poetry, literature, mime performances (the emotional response is KILL), paintings, architecture, musicians, and even dancers.
But of course...Mr. Ebert is also absolutely correct when he says that video games are not art.
"What? Didn't you just say that 'any creative work that invokes an intended emotional response' is art?" Yup. Sure did.
"Are video games creative?" Absolutely.
"Are video games capable of illiciting an emotional response?" No question. They can and do.
"You are confusing me now, and I hate you. I'm never reading your blog again!"
Ah, but let me explain young grasshopper. While the fictitious horror movie above is certainly capable of illiciting fear, horror, disgust, or shock...it doesn't do so to everyone. Some people (like me in fact) can come out of the 'scariest' horror movie ever and not be afraid at all. Others though, will not be able to sleep for a week.
My point is that an individual film or even a medium, can be artistic to many people, and not at all artistic to others.
For example, I absolutely love "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain. I read it as a teenager and it is unquestionably a great literary work and absolutely a piece of art. It has themes that stay with me long after I've read it and it absolutely triggers emotional responses within.
Likewise, "Rudy" is one of the few movies I choke up on, and one of my favorites of all time. It tells the story of a kid who has one dream: To play football for Notre Dame. When he steps out on the football field at the end of the movie... yeah, I don't watch that movie with Shana around. (*sniff*)
But is Huck Finn a piece of art to someone who doesn't enjoy reading? Or to someone who hates the stylized prose of Mark Twain?
Is Rudy a piece of art to someone who doesn't like movies? Or to someone who hates Sean Astin?
Probably not. Art is one of the few things in life that is completely and totally subjective and personal. It is 100% based on opinion...not fact.
So Mr. Ebert is convinced video games are not art. That is fine. My opinion of Rudy doesn't change because some dude doesn't like Sean Astin. My opinion of Huck Finn doesn't change because some dude hates reading.
To me, these things are art and that is all that matters. I have seen some video games that have been able to generate some emotional response in me. Thus, they are art...to me. That opinion isn't altered by Roger Ebert. He may never get an emotional response out of a video game, thus the idea that someone else would perceive it as art is ludicrous to him.
A better question is: Is there a video game out there that has triggered as powerful of an emotional response as Rudy or Huck Finn? Nope... I haven't seen it yet, but I hope to eventually find one that does. That is going to be a sweet game. I can't wait to play it.
Post a Comment