Penny Arcade, the clown princes of the game commentary, brought my attention to a recent article by Roger Ebert, which is a response to his earlier conversation with Clive Barker and a TED video by Kellee Santiago.  Although I agree whole heartedly with Gabe and Tycho, Roger Ebert does have some good points.

Roger Ebert vs. Games

Roger Ebert is steadfast in his insistence that Games are not Art, but his reasons for this are less then rigorous. He seems to have many things that qualify a work as art. He even qualifies “trash” film as “not great art”:

I treasure escapism in the movies. I tirelessly quote Pauline Kael: The movies are so rarely great art, that if we cannot appreciate great trash, we have no reason to go. I admired “Spiderman II,” “Superman,” and many of the “Star Wars,” Indiana Jones, James Bond and Harry Potter films. The idea, I think, is to value what is good at whatever level you find it. “Spiderman II” is one of the great comic superhero movies but it is not great art. – Ebert “Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker”

If Ebert can appreciate the Art in this so called “Trash” then why are games not so qualified? In the same article he makes what might be one of the most over quoted things he ever said. (besides the thumbs up thing):

If you can go through “every emotional journey available,” doesn’t that devalue each and every one of them? Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a smorgasbord of choices. – Ebert “Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker”

Does choice ruin art? It seems to me that Roger Ebert is missing the point, a game can and most games do have an “inevitable conclusion” independent of their “smorgasbord of choices”. As an example, in the GTA series, players are in a sandbox and have a great number of possible choices. Yet no matter what choices the player makes, as long as they participate, they will come to the “inevitable conclusion” that life is a absurd state in which mundane existence is a mere break in our nature as petty, violent, and greedy insects climbing for the top. How many pieces of Art have tried to convey this message? GTA conveys this message to new audience in a new way through the very nature of it game mechanics. That is Art.

I’d have to say that there are only two good points that Roger Ebert manages to make. The first is that Famous Game producers are not rigorous in their approach to Games as Art. Clive Barker and Kellee Santiago are obviously no match for Roger Ebert, but their inability to defend Games as Art shouldn’t be taken as condemnation of Games as Art. The second point is one that it is hard to find a quote for. It is a point he seems to skirt around, but it is there as the subtext to all he writes. Games are not Art because those with power to create games are not artists they are business guys.

Penny Arcade is Right

Of course Penny Arcade is right, but not for the reason they think. It is essential that Games are considered Art and are critiqued as Art. This feedback will convince Game Companies to place Artists (Game Designers) in charge of their games and allow them to express themselves. A world where this is true is a world with great games, which do all that all other great Arts do and more.

Answer

Art is not easily defined by any philosophy and Philosophers much greater then Roger Ebert have argued over and written great treatises on the subject. My answer to Roger Ebert’s good points and Tycho’s question are the same; you just have to look to the top. Is the person who conceives of the game, makes the decisions, and has the final say an Artist Game Designer? Is this Artist Game Designer actually deeply involved with the creation of the game? If both answers are yes; the game is Art. If either answer is no, then the game isn’t Art. It is that simple.