For the record, I never once said that games couldn't be enjoyed if they weren't high art--all I mean to say by that is that I *want* games to shoot for that rarefied air and I *want* them to reach that plateau. i already invest lots of time in pastimes like reading and film watching where I think that the art objects involved do in fact reach the heights of what i would subjectively call "high art", and I feel like the time that I put into those pastimes is all the more rewarding for that. I often find games to come up way short in this category--I do enjoy them, and I spend lots of time on them and yet.....they have never once reached the heights that I've sometime gotten to when reading a great novel or seeing a film or viewing a great painting or sculpture exhibit. If games can't get to that level for me, then I'm afraid that for me personally--and I'm speaking only for myself here, I'm not applying this standard to anyone beyond me--I will probably drift away from the medium beyond a casual engagement because ultimately I will find reading or watching movies or going to museums more rewarding. To me, for an art form that demands as much of one's time as this one does to *not* get to that point will be a great disappointment if that is in fact how it all pans out.
If all games want to be is an entertaining diversion, that's totally fine. I'm sure that there's plenty of money to be made that way and there's no shame at all in creating things that allow people to have fun. I've no objection to that on any basic level but for me personally I just have higher hopes, I guess. I do like to play ghames simply to have fun a lot of the time, but what I really want most is for the art form to excel that at least at som point. But if videogames can't be high art and can't ultimately do for me what books and film and architecture and the like do, that's ultimately OK. I'm sure the industry'll get along fine if I end up spending most of my time with art forms touch me a little deeper. I'll be a little sad that they couldn't get there, but I'm sure the world'll keep spinning. ;)
Roger Travis
· 11 months ago
This seems like a fine way to put Ebert's silliness to bed. Certainly it's a defensible definition for "high art," although you seem by it to have captured the subset of great works that I tend to consider, well, onanistic. :D
Nice post!
Spencer Greenwood
· 11 months ago
@ Chris: My apologies - I had no intention of misconstruing your view.
I think I understand what you meant, now. Your appreciation for them in that regard is coming from a very subjective, emotional place, which wasn't really what *I* meant when I used the term "high art."
And yes, I'm on board your train too. I love games, and I've loved previous games, but if I'm sticking my head out of the car window, it's to look at where we're going, and not at where we've been.
@ Roger: Onanistic indeed. Though isn't Onan's name usually raised as a curse? I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with artistic masturbation.
Spencer Greenwood
· 11 months ago
@ Roger: And yes - it's important to note how I've used the term "high art." As I implied earlier, on Twitter, I'm not sure that I can accept other definitions of the term. The idea that some art is more "pure" than some other deeply upsets me.
Justin Keverne
· 11 months ago
I might be reading you wrong, and I do feel I'm forming a habit of taking a contrary position, but by your definition, neither literature not film could validly be called "high art". Both have an internal utility, that of being read or being watched.
In fact I'd go so far as to say using your definition I can think of nothing that exists only for the immediate; the aesthetic. Even a painting posses the core utility of communicating a concept, an idea. In order for it not to, it would have to merely shapes and colours on canvas. Only then it could it truly be said to have no utility and therefore qualify as "high art", but that's a concept I can't see many people supporting.
If you’ll indulge me:
“Jahhfuahdadfa”
That is “high art” it serves no purpose beyond itself, it is.
Somehow I don’t really think that works? I question Christopher's stance on "high art" because I don't believe that the ability to evoke emotional, in some cases spiritual reactions, that a great novel or film has is what qualifies it as "high art". That ability is merely part of those mediums inherent ability to entertain an ability games have already shown themselves capable of. Therefore I had no doubt that games will be able to evoke the same responses and sensations as other great works. We just haven't even come close to mastering the medium yet.
I'm comfortable calling games an entertainment medium, because to successfully and consistently provide engaging emotive entertainment to another person is one of the most powerful of human creative endeavours.
Spencer Greenwood
· 11 months ago
@ Justin: I disagree - I can think of examples of works of literature and film which exist for their own sake, which is more or less what I define as high art here.
And perhaps your little slip into tongues there was an example of high art. The point I was trying to make is that we shouldn't really care, because being high art as I define it is not an accolade. It's an attribute. And maybe few could support my definition of high art, but most other definitions seem to quickly devolve into elitism of the highest order.
The problem here, of course, is definition. Which is a little concerning, because I thought that I'd dealt with that in my post.
I don't like Chris' definition, either, but when you cut through the semantics I suppose I occupy a position quite similar to his.
Justin Keverne
· 11 months ago
My problem is that your definition of exisiting for it's own sake makes no mention of being capable of communicating meaning (Which seems like a utility) and without that a book cannot be read and a film cannot be watched.
So eitther such things do exists, as you say, in which case high art cannot be what you define it as, or they don't exist and therefore the concept of high art is meaningless.
Nels Anderson
· 11 months ago
@Justin "... concept of high art is meaningless."
You beat me to it! I believe that the notion of "high art" should be taken behind the shed, shot and buried.
No created thing is crafted without a purpose. When a painting is made, its author creates it with an intent, even if that intent was simply to create something beautiful. But the notion of beauty is so fantastically subjective that by the artist intending to creating something beautiful, they're saying something about their notion of beautiful things. Creating something without purpose, without intent, would just be random noise. I don't think even Jackson Pollock would say his art was simply randomness.
Without having to worry about what is and isn't "high art," we just have to worry about what is and isn't "art." Of course, I think "art" is also hugely subjective and at the end of the day, something being "art" just means it's interesting. That's a whole other can of worms though ;)
TheGameCritique
· 11 months ago
I agree that the term "high art" is useless unto itself. It does have a use in my view and it is doing it very well at this very moment. The term has a use in debating whether something or not can be considered "high art" even though the term doesn't mean anything. "High art" is a concept to each person, but has an overall connotation of calling something, in essence, special. The usefulness comes about when people like us debate a specific work and provide evidence of its triumphs and shortcommings. The term is useful in spurring evalutation in a work, not to create some comprehensive list with that heading.
Looking at it from that perspective, video game are "high art" because there are people who can reasonably and rationally debate the merits of individual works as works of art.
Sparky Clarkson
· 11 months ago
I can't get behind this view at all. You're attempting to use this definition to assess a medium, an end for which it is ill-suited. It's not difficult to come up with a whole list of famous paintings that would not be high art by your standard, even if we left out those which were created for their external utility (e.g. the artist who paints to eat). Because your definition is bound in the intent of the author towards particular works you are obligated to examine them individually, not as a medium.
You're attempting to get around that by claiming that games necessarily have utility, but I don't feel that this is at all obvious. What exactly is the utility of Katamari Damacy, or Final Fantasy VII? They are designed and have things they *do* internally, but sculptures, paintings, novels, plays, poems, and symphonies are also designed, often with great subtlety and care. Some symphonies actually rely on the interaction between the listener and a specific disposition of the orchestra. The more general problem that almost everything has *some* kind of "internal utility" has been pointed out by many. Perhaps there are a few scattered pieces that fit your definition (paintings not meant to be looked at?), but could we identify them without an extensive psychoanalysis of the creator at the moment of creation?
Film, drama, novels, and epic poetry were all tawdry entertainments at one time or another, and in those eras it was unthinkable that they should be considered art. It was not the clever categorizations of dedicated aestheticians that decided the issue. So I do roll my eyes when Roger Ebert says games are not art, and indeed when Clint Hocking says they are. Not because I believe these men (or you) to be fools, but because I believe the debate to be irrelevant. They might as well argue over whether games are glumsnorgle -- at least the effort to keep a straight face during the point/counterpoint might provide some entertainment. The most compelling case that can be made for games as art is to assume that they are and turn that assumption into interesting, appealing ideas that illuminate the games themselves. Show people that the viewpoint works and they'll come around to it.
SR
· 11 months ago
Add me to the list of voices looking to bury "high art," although I give you credit for trying to rehabilitate it by offering a new definition.
Strip away loaded terms like "art." Ebert is claiming that something happens to him, inside his head, when in the presence of a well-produced, well-performed work of Shakespeare. I don't believe he ever satisfactorily articulates what this thing is, but whatever it might be he's certain he's never going to get it from a game. Why? Because games are active, and all his other forms of art are enjoyed passively - that is to say, the art is passed in front of his sensory apparatus and all other "work" is done inside his head.
In contrast, games present little on their own. Their content emerges through the active participation of the recipient - pushing buttons, making choices, shaping (to some degree) the experience within the parameters laid out by the game's developers.
But even here, I think we can drop the loaded term "game." Ebert seems to be arguing that active participation and the experience of art cannot coexist. The dancer IN Swan Lake cannot appreciate the performance as art, only the audience can. Likewise for the drummer keeping time during the sax solo, or the actor on the set of the movie - until she eventually sits in an audience and passively watches herself.
Is this true? Can an active agent, a performer, be moved in the same way as a passive audience? Until the age of video games, it's not a problem too many people have had to concern themselves with; rich, multimedia interactive experiences were difficult or impossible to create and distribute until the computer age.
I feel that we are moving towards an ability for games to not only create the kind of experience Ebert gets from his films but to create new kinds of artistic expression that passive media cannot offer. I don't think we're there yet, but I've enjoyed all the various efforts that get us incrementally closer.
Spencer Greenwood
· 11 months ago
@ Justin: I hadn't thought of communication in terms of being a utility, but I suppose there's no meaningful way of saying that it isn't. I'm having real trouble thinking of a created thing which has no message. Even South Park has a discernible message.
@ Nels: But surely everything a human makes is art? If you make a watch, even if you make a really ugly watch which doesn't keep time, there's still art in what you're doing. Am I wrong?
@ TGC: I'm becoming more convinced that we should simply scrap the term, actually. We might want to argue about whether something communicates its message well, or how useful it is to us, but arguing whether or not it's high art smacks of elitism in my mind. It hasn't tended to be used to mean something subjective. Who are we to judge, anyway?
@ Sparky: Hmm, okay. I would still rather throw away the term "art" than assume that games are it, though.
@ SR: Yes - Ebert is unclear about his notion of "art." He fluctuates between using the terms "art" and "high art," too. Ultimately, yes, he seems to claim that games can't be high art because they make the player the artist, and that player can't appreciate art. It might be a coherent position, but it seems like a fairly big assumption to make.
Nels Anderson
· 11 months ago
@Spencer If every crafted thing is art, then we've diluted the group of things that are "art" into meaninglessness. But this notion of what is and is not "art" is a huge red herring anyway, because simply too subjective. I don't think it's possible to construct a definition of "art" that will encompass all artistic things without being uselessly vague and broad. There are things that many people consider to be art that I feel are not, and vice versa.
The notion of "art" has to be constructed by an individual, and I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than something created that's interesting. I probably wouldn't find an ugly, broken watch to be interesting, but someone might. Those bodice-ripping supermarket romance novels probably aren't interesting to most (although in aggregate as a genre or archetype, they could be), but War & Peace is. This may not be entirely satisfying, in the context of games or anything else, but if it moves the discussion from "Is this art?" (which ultimately get mired in the question of art) to "Is this interesting?" then I am quite content.
Though we may differ in opinion, this is a fantastic discussion and I applaud you for facilitating it. It's inspired me to write a post
Nels Anderson
· 11 months ago
Dammit, submitted before I finished that last line. It should be "It's inspired me to write a post I'd been thinking about for a while, regarding landscape architecture and the struggles to get it accepted as an art form. I hope it have it up in the next day or two." Sorry about that ;)
Scott Juster
· 11 months ago
The problem with high art is that it implies a hierarchy of value or respectability. I would have to agree with Justin's logic, as I am at a loss to think of any piece of art that exists only to exist.
Even if a piece of art was created with no message in mind, the folks who view it ascribe their own meanings to it, thus making it impossible for art to be meaningless.
I think this is where I am most frustrated with Ebert: he seems to discount the role of the audience in the process of art production. Art cannot exist in a vacuum, and the meaning of something is often defined as much by critics, viewers, and fans as it is by the original creator. By criticizing video games because they rely on player choice, Ebert is staking out a position of exclusive artistic ownership on the part of the original creator.
I find this ironic as he has made his living by helping define what films "mean," even though he has created very few himself. Also, admitting "prejudice" does not justify its retention. His conservative views are quite frustrating, especially since I think he has an otherwise sharp mind.
Charles
· 11 months ago
While I don't mean to join the dog pile, I would like to point out that your definition of art is something of an historical anomaly. The for the vast majority of history works of art filled very specific utilities. Sculpture and painting were meant to commemorate events of civic or religious significance, literature grew out of oral and written histories, and theater has always served a rhetorical role in public life.
'Art for art's sake' is a fairly new, historically speaking, idea. I don't think that you meant to make this argument, but the idea you're putting forward is basically that things like The Illiad, or the Sistine Chapel shouldn't be considered art either.
Jorge Albor
· 11 months ago
I agree with many of the above comments that "high art" is a loaded and utterly useless term. However, I want to come to the defense of art is both useful and worthy of pursuit by videogame enthusiasts.
I'll parrot Scott, and others, with the assertion that art is subjective and inherently produced by the viewer. Yet this subjectivity does not mean "art" is too broad to put it to good use. To say art, along with everything else, is created to fulfill a purpose, be it sales or opening a can, does not mean art shouldn't hold a special place apart from other creations.
I tend to consider art something that elicits a reaction or sensation that has value in and of itself. A pencil may elicit a reaction from its users (thankfulness you have some to write with, etc.), but the pencil can easily be replaced with another writing implement.
Oratory can be artistic. But no matter how skilled of an oration, hate speech is not regarded as artistic (by most) because the reaction it elicits is repulsive. On top a cars utility, many see their creation as aesthetically artistic. They have a value to viewers removed from their intended use. A person may draw something in the sand, soon to be washed away, for only their eyes to see. To them, it is art, because it elicits a desirable reaction and despite its ephemeral nature, it has a value in and of itself; perhaps it reveals some of the human condition.
So when I argue for games to be recognized as art, I am trying to get others to see a value in the expressive nature of the medium in and of itself. It is a way to share with those traditionally unwilling, a medium that I hope, one day, will be able to express unique takes on what it means to be human (including the incredibly human act of play).
Lastly, if videogames become widely excepted as art, there is something to say for monetary investments. If you want to see a videogame museum with a respectable collection, videogames in public libraries or as artistic expressions in class rooms, they might first have to be regarded as art (even by those who don't play them).
TheGameCritique
· 11 months ago
@Jorge Albor Aren't we already at that point? There are video game museums with vast collections. There are movements to get video games into public libraries, most notibly in NYC. As for the classroom, I beleive Brainy Gamer has that covered.
Alex Myers
· 11 months ago
As an artist I've had many, many similar discussions with other artists and non-artists alike in theory classes and in the pub. This whole high art vs. low art discussion started with the publication of Russell Lynes' essay "Tastemakers" in Harper's Magazine, June, 1947 (http://www.harpers.org/archive/1947/06/0032953). Given the nature of the magazine and the nature of Lynes' other writings, it's safe to assume that the editorial was satirical. Lynes has said that reactions to his essay were "...a nice demonstration of how self-conscious people are about their taste."(http://tinyurl.com/8gbcr6) Lynes has also said that after seeing the reactions of people to his essay the whole hierarchy is superfluous and could go either way.
"It appeared to me then that there was no reason why the lowbrows should be at the bottom of the chart and the highbrows at the top; it would have worked just as well the other way around" (http://tinyurl.com/8gbcr6)
Spencer, I applaud this kind of discussion. It should happen more often. But, I think the categories of high and low art are, as I've said, more esoteric than universal and should be used carefully.
Alex Myers
· 11 months ago
I also want to add that categorizing an entire medium (i.e., painting, sculpture, video games) as High or Low Art is, at best, misleading. I think various instances of any given medium can be, if necessary, labeled as such, but not an entire medium. I make art (I would consider High if pressed to do so) using video games, but wouldn't call all video games High Art. (my work: http://tinyurl.com/77gosu)
Jorge Albor
· 11 months ago
@ TheGameCritique
There are, of course, decent videogame collections. UK has included them in their national archive. But these are few and far between. Even Michael Abbot is an outlier in the academic community. I've yet to see a videogame collection in my local MOMA. I'm not asking for complete respect from everywhere, I'm just saying the medium, no matter how well the Wii has sold, hasn't garnered the attention it deserves.
Nick Dinicola
· 11 months ago
@Sparky Clarkson I really agree with the last point you make about assuming games are art and using that to discuss the games themselves. I think any discussion of games as “high art” is self-defeating because it usually gets bogged down with trying to define art that’s “high” and ignores the works themselves.
@Spencer Greenwood I don’t think the term “art” should be thrown away, it’s an important classification. There is a difference between entertainment and art, and even if that difference is purely subjective it’s important that we should be able to make the distinction. There are some games that I see as pure diversionary entertainment, and others that I feel have a “deeper” meaning behind them. Both are fun to play but for different reasons, and I think it’s great that both categories are represented.
Pala
· 11 months ago
Hi guys.
I know its a bit pretentious and not immediately useful, but I'd to *assert* that given what I've read about the question of "the-definition-of-art" - defining Art is a game that won't leave anyone satisfied, (let along Fine Art).
A nice, easy to read, academic book is "Definitions of Art" by Stephen Davies.
However I'd like to add to this discussion is something I came across in "Philosophy of Art" by Noël Carroll, another nice/easy/academic read I'd recommend.
After going through the various approaches to defining art, Carroll suggests that while providing a Definition is a bit hard, perhaps one can offer a theory of Identification (i.e. how a particular artwork is identified as being art).
Historical narration (as proposed by Carroll) is a theory of art identification that recognizes the fact that the art-status of a work is often defended by referring to an acknowledged artwork and demonstrating the narrative by which the new work is a continuation of that tradition. The link from acknowledged to disputed [or non-decided] art occurs via contemporary art-regard .
[nb. Problems include explaining how art is accepted from a foreign culture (unless explaining that in those cases one resorts to functional analysis of those works, or at least their ancestral counterparts from which they derive).]
@Noblecarrots: Another approach: if we consider Art (or Fine Art) to be some sort of precipitate of the narrative that is our lifeworld (culture, etc), maybe we should be less interested in defining Art (and then showing how games fit into that set), and more interested in showing how games form part of the story of our lifeworld's art narrative. Less defining, more identifying/characterising.
All Comments
If all games want to be is an entertaining diversion, that's totally fine. I'm sure that there's plenty of money to be made that way and there's no shame at all in creating things that allow people to have fun. I've no objection to that on any basic level but for me personally I just have higher hopes, I guess. I do like to play ghames simply to have fun a lot of the time, but what I really want most is for the art form to excel that at least at som point. But if videogames can't be high art and can't ultimately do for me what books and film and architecture and the like do, that's ultimately OK. I'm sure the industry'll get along fine if I end up spending most of my time with art forms touch me a little deeper. I'll be a little sad that they couldn't get there, but I'm sure the world'll keep spinning. ;)
Nice post!
I think I understand what you meant, now. Your appreciation for them in that regard is coming from a very subjective, emotional place, which wasn't really what *I* meant when I used the term "high art."
And yes, I'm on board your train too. I love games, and I've loved previous games, but if I'm sticking my head out of the car window, it's to look at where we're going, and not at where we've been.
@ Roger: Onanistic indeed. Though isn't Onan's name usually raised as a curse? I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with artistic masturbation.
In fact I'd go so far as to say using your definition I can think of nothing that exists only for the immediate; the aesthetic. Even a painting posses the core utility of communicating a concept, an idea. In order for it not to, it would have to merely shapes and colours on canvas. Only then it could it truly be said to have no utility and therefore qualify as "high art", but that's a concept I can't see many people supporting.
If you’ll indulge me:
“Jahhfuahdadfa”
That is “high art” it serves no purpose beyond itself, it is.
Somehow I don’t really think that works?
I question Christopher's stance on "high art" because I don't believe that the ability to evoke emotional, in some cases spiritual reactions, that a great novel or film has is what qualifies it as "high art". That ability is merely part of those mediums inherent ability to entertain an ability games have already shown themselves capable of. Therefore I had no doubt that games will be able to evoke the same responses and sensations as other great works. We just haven't even come close to mastering the medium yet.
I'm comfortable calling games an entertainment medium, because to successfully and consistently provide engaging emotive entertainment to another person is one of the most powerful of human creative endeavours.
And perhaps your little slip into tongues there was an example of high art. The point I was trying to make is that we shouldn't really care, because being high art as I define it is not an accolade. It's an attribute. And maybe few could support my definition of high art, but most other definitions seem to quickly devolve into elitism of the highest order.
The problem here, of course, is definition. Which is a little concerning, because I thought that I'd dealt with that in my post.
I don't like Chris' definition, either, but when you cut through the semantics I suppose I occupy a position quite similar to his.
So eitther such things do exists, as you say, in which case high art cannot be what you define it as, or they don't exist and therefore the concept of high art is meaningless.
You beat me to it! I believe that the notion of "high art" should be taken behind the shed, shot and buried.
No created thing is crafted without a purpose. When a painting is made, its author creates it with an intent, even if that intent was simply to create something beautiful. But the notion of beauty is so fantastically subjective that by the artist intending to creating something beautiful, they're saying something about their notion of beautiful things. Creating something without purpose, without intent, would just be random noise. I don't think even Jackson Pollock would say his art was simply randomness.
Without having to worry about what is and isn't "high art," we just have to worry about what is and isn't "art." Of course, I think "art" is also hugely subjective and at the end of the day, something being "art" just means it's interesting. That's a whole other can of worms though ;)
Looking at it from that perspective, video game are "high art" because there are people who can reasonably and rationally debate the merits of individual works as works of art.
You're attempting to get around that by claiming that games necessarily have utility, but I don't feel that this is at all obvious. What exactly is the utility of Katamari Damacy, or Final Fantasy VII? They are designed and have things they *do* internally, but sculptures, paintings, novels, plays, poems, and symphonies are also designed, often with great subtlety and care. Some symphonies actually rely on the interaction between the listener and a specific disposition of the orchestra. The more general problem that almost everything has *some* kind of "internal utility" has been pointed out by many. Perhaps there are a few scattered pieces that fit your definition (paintings not meant to be looked at?), but could we identify them without an extensive psychoanalysis of the creator at the moment of creation?
Film, drama, novels, and epic poetry were all tawdry entertainments at one time or another, and in those eras it was unthinkable that they should be considered art. It was not the clever categorizations of dedicated aestheticians that decided the issue. So I do roll my eyes when Roger Ebert says games are not art, and indeed when Clint Hocking says they are. Not because I believe these men (or you) to be fools, but because I believe the debate to be irrelevant. They might as well argue over whether games are glumsnorgle -- at least the effort to keep a straight face during the point/counterpoint might provide some entertainment. The most compelling case that can be made for games as art is to assume that they are and turn that assumption into interesting, appealing ideas that illuminate the games themselves. Show people that the viewpoint works and they'll come around to it.
Strip away loaded terms like "art." Ebert is claiming that something happens to him, inside his head, when in the presence of a well-produced, well-performed work of Shakespeare. I don't believe he ever satisfactorily articulates what this thing is, but whatever it might be he's certain he's never going to get it from a game. Why? Because games are active, and all his other forms of art are enjoyed passively - that is to say, the art is passed in front of his sensory apparatus and all other "work" is done inside his head.
In contrast, games present little on their own. Their content emerges through the active participation of the recipient - pushing buttons, making choices, shaping (to some degree) the experience within the parameters laid out by the game's developers.
But even here, I think we can drop the loaded term "game." Ebert seems to be arguing that active participation and the experience of art cannot coexist. The dancer IN Swan Lake cannot appreciate the performance as art, only the audience can. Likewise for the drummer keeping time during the sax solo, or the actor on the set of the movie - until she eventually sits in an audience and passively watches herself.
Is this true? Can an active agent, a performer, be moved in the same way as a passive audience? Until the age of video games, it's not a problem too many people have had to concern themselves with; rich, multimedia interactive experiences were difficult or impossible to create and distribute until the computer age.
I feel that we are moving towards an ability for games to not only create the kind of experience Ebert gets from his films but to create new kinds of artistic expression that passive media cannot offer. I don't think we're there yet, but I've enjoyed all the various efforts that get us incrementally closer.
@ Nels: But surely everything a human makes is art? If you make a watch, even if you make a really ugly watch which doesn't keep time, there's still art in what you're doing. Am I wrong?
@ TGC: I'm becoming more convinced that we should simply scrap the term, actually. We might want to argue about whether something communicates its message well, or how useful it is to us, but arguing whether or not it's high art smacks of elitism in my mind. It hasn't tended to be used to mean something subjective. Who are we to judge, anyway?
@ Sparky: Hmm, okay. I would still rather throw away the term "art" than assume that games are it, though.
@ SR: Yes - Ebert is unclear about his notion of "art." He fluctuates between using the terms "art" and "high art," too. Ultimately, yes, he seems to claim that games can't be high art because they make the player the artist, and that player can't appreciate art. It might be a coherent position, but it seems like a fairly big assumption to make.
The notion of "art" has to be constructed by an individual, and I don't think it needs to be any more complicated than something created that's interesting. I probably wouldn't find an ugly, broken watch to be interesting, but someone might. Those bodice-ripping supermarket romance novels probably aren't interesting to most (although in aggregate as a genre or archetype, they could be), but War & Peace is. This may not be entirely satisfying, in the context of games or anything else, but if it moves the discussion from "Is this art?" (which ultimately get mired in the question of art) to "Is this interesting?" then I am quite content.
Though we may differ in opinion, this is a fantastic discussion and I applaud you for facilitating it. It's inspired me to write a post
Even if a piece of art was created with no message in mind, the folks who view it ascribe their own meanings to it, thus making it impossible for art to be meaningless.
I think this is where I am most frustrated with Ebert: he seems to discount the role of the audience in the process of art production. Art cannot exist in a vacuum, and the meaning of something is often defined as much by critics, viewers, and fans as it is by the original creator. By criticizing video games because they rely on player choice, Ebert is staking out a position of exclusive artistic ownership on the part of the original creator.
I find this ironic as he has made his living by helping define what films "mean," even though he has created very few himself. Also, admitting "prejudice" does not justify its retention. His conservative views are quite frustrating, especially since I think he has an otherwise sharp mind.
'Art for art's sake' is a fairly new, historically speaking, idea. I don't think that you meant to make this argument, but the idea you're putting forward is basically that things like The Illiad, or the Sistine Chapel shouldn't be considered art either.
I'll parrot Scott, and others, with the assertion that art is subjective and inherently produced by the viewer. Yet this subjectivity does not mean "art" is too broad to put it to good use. To say art, along with everything else, is created to fulfill a purpose, be it sales or opening a can, does not mean art shouldn't hold a special place apart from other creations.
I tend to consider art something that elicits a reaction or sensation that has value in and of itself. A pencil may elicit a reaction from its users (thankfulness you have some to write with, etc.), but the pencil can easily be replaced with another writing implement.
Oratory can be artistic. But no matter how skilled of an oration, hate speech is not regarded as artistic (by most) because the reaction it elicits is repulsive. On top a cars utility, many see their creation as aesthetically artistic. They have a value to viewers removed from their intended use. A person may draw something in the sand, soon to be washed away, for only their eyes to see. To them, it is art, because it elicits a desirable reaction and despite its ephemeral nature, it has a value in and of itself; perhaps it reveals some of the human condition.
So when I argue for games to be recognized as art, I am trying to get others to see a value in the expressive nature of the medium in and of itself. It is a way to share with those traditionally unwilling, a medium that I hope, one day, will be able to express unique takes on what it means to be human (including the incredibly human act of play).
Lastly, if videogames become widely excepted as art, there is something to say for monetary investments. If you want to see a videogame museum with a respectable collection, videogames in public libraries or as artistic expressions in class rooms, they might first have to be regarded as art (even by those who don't play them).
"It appeared to me then that there was no reason why the lowbrows should be at the bottom of the chart and the highbrows at the top; it would have worked just as well the other way around" (http://tinyurl.com/8gbcr6)
Spencer, I applaud this kind of discussion. It should happen more often. But, I think the categories of high and low art are, as I've said, more esoteric than universal and should be used carefully.
There are, of course, decent videogame collections. UK has included them in their national archive. But these are few and far between. Even Michael Abbot is an outlier in the academic community. I've yet to see a videogame collection in my local MOMA. I'm not asking for complete respect from everywhere, I'm just saying the medium, no matter how well the Wii has sold, hasn't garnered the attention it deserves.
I really agree with the last point you make about assuming games are art and using that to discuss the games themselves. I think any discussion of games as “high art” is self-defeating because it usually gets bogged down with trying to define art that’s “high” and ignores the works themselves.
@Spencer Greenwood
I don’t think the term “art” should be thrown away, it’s an important classification. There is a difference between entertainment and art, and even if that difference is purely subjective it’s important that we should be able to make the distinction. There are some games that I see as pure diversionary entertainment, and others that I feel have a “deeper” meaning behind them. Both are fun to play but for different reasons, and I think it’s great that both categories are represented.
I know its a bit pretentious and not immediately useful, but I'd to *assert* that given what I've read about the question of "the-definition-of-art" - defining Art is a game that won't leave anyone satisfied, (let along Fine Art).
A nice, easy to read, academic book is "Definitions of Art" by Stephen Davies.
However I'd like to add to this discussion is something I came across in "Philosophy of Art" by Noël Carroll, another nice/easy/academic read I'd recommend.
After going through the various approaches to defining art, Carroll suggests that while providing a Definition is a bit hard, perhaps one can offer a theory of Identification (i.e. how a particular artwork is identified as being art).
Historical narration (as proposed by Carroll) is a theory of art identification that recognizes the fact that the art-status of a work is often defended by referring to an acknowledged artwork and demonstrating the narrative by which the new work is a continuation of that tradition. The link from acknowledged to disputed [or non-decided] art occurs via contemporary art-regard .
[nb. Problems include explaining how art is accepted from a foreign culture (unless explaining that in those cases one resorts to functional analysis of those works, or at least their ancestral counterparts from which they derive).]
@Noblecarrots:
Another approach: if we consider Art (or Fine Art) to be some sort of precipitate of the narrative that is our lifeworld (culture, etc), maybe we should be less interested in defining Art (and then showing how games fit into that set), and more interested in showing how games form part of the story of our lifeworld's art narrative. Less defining, more identifying/characterising.