That time of the month…

Posted by oddbob on July 28, 2007 · Lovingly Filed Under Rants 
Help Us Out: Add your game to the showcase | Help us keep RR online


No, I’m not on the rag…although sometimes I wonder. In fact, it’s that time of the month again whereby the internets are once again aflame with the seemingly endless debate of “Are Games Art?”.

This time it’s the turn of Ebert to stir the pot once more with his allegedly controversial view that “no, they’re bloody well not - now fuck off and leave me alone”. I paraphrase, of course. Ignoring the fact that the article in question (that’ll be here, then) appears to be little more than childish belittling of Clive Barker (a noble hobby in itself I might add, as anyone who’s had the displeasure of sitting through Nightbreed will testify) - has there ever been a more tedious debate around games? It makes the never ending playground style wars of C64 versus Spectrum seem positively rapturous in comparison.


The problem with the argument is, it never ceases to consist of 30 rounds of “Oh yes it is” and “Oh no it isn’t” - it’s like a Punch And Judy show in the Louvre. Ultimately, all it seems to boil down to isn’t a want of acceptance (after all, there’s been games claiming to be art since I was young, so why the debate still persists I haven’t a fucking clue) but merely to shout the loudest and get your opinion known.

And it drags because month in, month out it’s the same fucking thing. How long are we going to chase around our tails in pursuit of something that isn’t really that fucking important and instead concentrate on y’know, making games and stuff.

Deus Ex Machina

Deus Ex Machina, Mel Croucher stakes his claim in the “games as art debate”

Ok, my stance is plain. I believe that videogames are and have always been a medium for creative expression, and from any creative expression something wonderful will eventually be born and those wonderful things could be art. It happens. Its the way things are. Whenever you get human beings drawn to a medium there’s going to be a cesspit filled with shit at one end of the spectrum and a glorious rainbow of beauty at the other. In short, from the moment Space War was born - games have been a valid art form. I believe that I, Robot is a work of art. I believe that Deus Ex Machina is a work of art, heck, I know that Jeff Minter’s Neon engine can shit out works of art without trying too hard and from what I’ve seen of Space Giraffe it’s a thing of immense wonder.

What I don’t believe is that we’re doing something wrong and we need to elevate games to a higher level of art in order for them to be accepted. We don’t need to add deeper meaning to things. We don’t need social commentary. We don’t need a simulation of a real life event or an abstraction of a relationship. Games do just fine as they are. Sure, try something different - take a new approach to something, but please - don’t pass it off as a higher form of art than everything that has gone before or something special. There’s room for such a wild range of styles and approaches in the medium of video games that none of that is important.

It also makes you look a twat, obviously.

Jeff Minters Neon

Purdy glowing lights - Neon in action.

So what are we striving for by arguing against Eberts stance? To change his mind, to prove a point that games are art? It’s like trying to convince someone who believes that music played with “real instruments” is the only true sign of quality that you can find beauty in dirty synth rhythms. It’s futile. But here’s the real clincher - Ebert believes the medium of film to be capable of art, yet I’d bet my last tuppence that there’s a horde of artists and critics out there who don’t believe movies to be art, and in turn schools of artists and critics who believe that if it isn’t a pre 19th Century oil on canvas then it’s not art and so it goes on.

I’m sure Ebert himself would take umbrage at my opinion that 2001:A Space Odyssey is one of the biggest pile of bollocks to be commited to celluloid - will me holding that opinion detract from his views? Now I’ve posted it on the internet, am I to expect a wordy essay from Ebert on why I’m wrong? Will convincing Ebert set a precedent in anyway?

“Oh well, we told Ebert right and proper so games must be art,k”

Pull the other one.

So why are we doing this? Why is it that we’re continuing to indulge in this senseless debate? Why are people posting responses to Ebert in the same idiotic manner he broached Clive Barkers response? What is all this achieving?

Aside from boring the tits off everyone that is…?

As it stands, the whole debate isn’t convincing anyone who doesn’t believe games are art that they’re wrong or that people who believe games aren’t art are wrong. Why? Because art and beauty are subjective, so really - there is no right nor wrong. There’s no battle to be won - it’s already been won, it’s already been lost. From the inception of videogames to now the point has either been proved or disproved depending on your stance. And like movies, books and music - it’ll always be the same.

Enjoy videogames for what you want them to be, for what you see them as. Because your opinion is the only one that’s truly important.

Tags:

Speak your brains

Feel free to comment. We support Gravatars.