[gizmo]

I agree with the premise (video games can be art), but I find his arguments unconvincing.

Some games I consider art because of the story, the immersion, and so on. From the top of my head: PlaneScape: Torment, and perhaps The Longest Journey. These games are great because they are great novels, and more.

Other games, such as Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis (the one by LucasArts) and Grim Fandango I consider art because they are great movies and more. It's really more of an interactive movie than a game. Watching somebody play games like this is almost as much fun as playing it yourself.

Some games I consider art because they make me stop and think. Sanatarium for instance.

On the other end of the spectrum you can have a game like Super Mario. Mario is reductionist. Everything that can be left out, is left out. You walk, you run, you jump. There is no story, you don't need one. I imagine people will still play and enjoy Super Mario 30 years from now, perhaps a 100 years from now. If a game stands the test of time like that, it almost must be art by definition.

A great game, when you pick it up, can immediately blow you away because it's just that good. In the same way a painting can take your breath away or keep you captivated for hours. Music can do this to you too. Paintings, Music and Games can be art because the artists can decide what to leave in and what to take away. They completely own the medium, and so the artist owns the experience.

With movies, this isn't the case. They're clumsy because there are too many details, too many uncontrollable factors, too many budgetary issues. Movies are never perfect. No matter how great a movie is, there are always jarring imperfections. But if there is a perfect movie, a movie that can't be improved upon, that can be really considered art... you'd probably end up with a movie from Pixar.

[Radix]

I think yours will be the best comment on this article.

The trouble with this discussion is people keep attempting to define objective attributes of art. But art doesn't have objective attributes; they are all subjective. Art is a feeling we get when we look at something others call art. We see three paintings, all "art", and two of them give you a certain feeling, so you call it "art" and suppose they feel the same about the third painting. And there it is. You now have an idea called "art" to develop.

It is in this way that our idea of art overlaps with each others, appearing to be the same from a distance, but irreconcilable at proximity. This is why this concept is so fuzzy and difficult to sketch out. We really do need to experience art before we can believe it as art. So, Mr. Ebert's right. Video games aren't art - to him.

[gizmo]

Thank you. I was thinking about deleting the comment because it's so disjointed and a bit of a braindump, but now I'll leave it up.

I don't agree that art is just in the eye of the beholder, but this probably isn't the place to get into that whole argument. In short, some things must be art because they're truly timeless, other things cannot be art because they're strictly worse than something else. If you have X, and X' an uninspired derivative of X, then X' cannot be art. So I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of necessary attributes for art. I don't think you (plural you) do art justice by saying it's all subjective.

[Radix]

When you put it that way I agree with you. But I don't believe art is just in the eye of the beholder. I believe there is a web of definitions for art that all overlap. Great Art is art that mostly agreed by everyone that it is great art. People the world over converge to believe a certain symmetry and proportion makes the most beautiful face. In the same way I believe there is a shared inclination for what is Great Art [1]. But I don't know what it is, and challenge you to define it, because it's a little different for everyone, particularly subject to their perspective.

Let's consider person A and person B. Both A and B see and consider derivative art X' separately. A thinks: there's nothing original here. She's already seen art X. B thinks: wow, how interesting. B has not seen art X and so the uninspired derivation is still interesting.

Similarly, I think the Mona Lisa is a reasonably accurate painting of an unattractive woman. There is nothing beautiful or intrinsically interesting about it. It's due to POV. In fact, each of your examples in the OP is a different perspective. A different reason to consider something art. If you had a stricter definition I don't see how you could change perspective so easily.

I actually reduced all words defined on emotions to being subjective. I don't think this causes a problem. I don't see this as doing art injustice. Saying it is just subjective just gives us a spot to start from.

(Oi, now I don't know if I made sense.) [1] There was a PBS like program on the BBC one night that discussed some research about this.

[nikgregory]

I wholly agree with your points, however I wanted to stay away arguing the point that games like The Longest Journey (one of my favourites for epic stories) are art qualified solely because they're a video-novel not a video-game.

A game is a game, so I wanted to stay away from screwing with definitions and (I hope) I managed that. I don't consider certain things art, which others do. Music is one of my peeves, because it has so rarely emotionally touched me that it barely qualifies as art to me, but (and please do if you disagree) someone else will likely follow this right up disagreeing wholly that music is fundamentally art.

What if fundamentally boils down to is that mine, yours and Eberts opinions on art don't matter and never have. Ebert sadly will be forgotten months after he stops reviewing (for whatever reason), I'll likely be forgotten 5-minutes after this drops from the HN front page. You're right though that Mario in 30 years will likely still be remembered and played and felt as a great game, after all every gamer in threads like this are quoting games that are from two-decades to a few years old. The original Mario has already stood the test of time, so has the original Final Fantasy, yet I'll still pick up a copy and play once in a while just to get that feeling back. Just like I'll rewatch a movie or relook at a piece of art.

[blinks]

> The original Mario has already stood the test of time,...

Just a note: 30 years is not a test of time; I think you need to hit around 200 years to get to that mark. Video games are truly a nascent art form, and I think Mario's got a shot at surviving for a while, but it's too soon to really tell.

[nikgregory]

Star Wars arguably has stood the test of time, at least in the film realm for being hugely popular 33 years after its initial release. Only 29 years after our first seeing Mario and he's still hugely popular and putting out sequels with new characters everyone hates.

Although I do see your point in that the medium as a whole has only been around, recognizably, for 40 years. Surviving 3/4 the life of your medium isn't a profound achievement, when compared to The Art of War being 2600 years old. It's a bit like comparing a glass of water to the ocean. But then film is still a nascent art form when compared with literature, architecture and theater.

So: Compared to film, I would disagree. Mario has stood his test of time. Compared to literature, then film is in the same boat.