CAA: Christian Anime Alliance

Reading Ebert's review of a certain movie, he (an in the spotlight opponent of video games, the hypocrite) brought up an experiment where children (ages 4 and 5) were monitored while they played a new video game (unspecified) without instructions. It said their brains lit up while they figured it out, but once they had it down, their brains got quiet except for one area which stayed lit.

The inferrence from this based on context is that Video games are mind numbing and don't really provoke thought past the initial "figuring out" stage.

What this first fails to take into account is, of course, the game which they played. It plays off the common assumption that games are somehow all the same on an intelectual level. This is simply not true, nor is it true that everyone taking part in the games will do so the same, simply because 4 and 5 year olds did.

The second thing it doesn't take into account is the children. Why only test children on this? Why not test those with the mental capacity to defend their hobby? Now, the same experiment was given for television (which would also apply to movies, including the very movies Ebert thinks so highly of) with the same results because many people use entertainment of all kinds to veg out.

So, what this didn't consider are the gamers such as me who play games and watch movies (usually) actively, at least those with plots. Get some of the older gamers into the mix with games of their choice and see if the results are the same... Get me in those cursed monitors (I'm guessing EEGs?)

Now, I take his review very personally because he not only attacks a movie I've been waiting a long time to see, but also makes a blanket assault on all gamers. Seriously, that he can even make the arguments he does about games not being art, and react so profoundly to some of the movies he does reeks of hypocrisy.

I loved Ebert for being one of the few critics out there who liked anime. His review of Grave of the Fireflies was incredible. There are so many people who place animation in some special category that makes it only applicable for children's movies and comedy. That it isn't an art on par with live action, somehow. He brilliantly defends animation against its close minded critics. I wish he'd look at the irony of his behavior in light of that...

EDIT: Oops, almost forgot to link to the article in question, the silent hill review: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060420/REVIEWS/60421001/1023

This guy gave "The Good Son" half a star, so I'm gonna say he and I will sometimes disagree on movies, but his attitude about video games as a whole is rediculous...

Yeah, I'd like to see Mr. Ebert play a nice complex puzzle game or something.

This is part of a much larger issue... "Can games be art" I don't have time to go further on this, though, because my leg pain is getting worse and worse as I sit here...

Can games be art? I don't really think so. Perhaps in a very, very few cases, but I agree with Hideo Kojima on this, that overall games are most definitely not art.

I think this is being taken out of content

I don't think this was intended to be criticizing video games. He was using the analogy to demonstrate the fact that he did not understand what was going on in the Silent Hill movie. Hence the reference to his brain being lit up... just like the children who didn't understand the game.

Actually, you're missing the larger context. He has been talking about video games for a LOT longer than the Silent Hill movie...

He says that the very fact of interactivity and player control negate the ability for games to be art. He says they offer nothing worthwhile, can never tackle issues that movies do, and are a waste of time that would better be spent reading books or doing volunteer work.

but I agree with Hideo Kojima

???

Bobtheduck wrote:Actually, you're missing the larger context. He has been talking about video games for a LOT longer than the Silent Hill movie...

He says that the very fact of interactivity and player control negate the ability for games to be art. He says they offer nothing worthwhile, can never tackle issues that movies do, and are a waste of time that would better be spent reading books or doing volunteer work.

I was unaware of that. I suppose in that context it had a different meaning than I had thought from reading this article alone.

I'll admit I was wrong then

Bobtheduck wrote:???

Hideo Kojima does not think games are art.

Hmm... Well, I suppose the term art is rather subjective. I think MGS3 is art. I also think Silent Hill 2 is art. If you want my explanation why, I'll give it tomorrow.

So would be stuff like RE4, Killer 7, Baten Kaitos, ToS, Shadow of the Collossus, KH, even Halo, etc. etc.


Is not Kojima the one that did MGS? O.-

yeah. If he doesn't think his own work is art, whatever, but I do.

Yeah, just because it isn't art to the person that makes it, doesn't mean it's not art. Likewise, just because it IS art to the person that makes it, doesn't make it art.

Look at Uwe Boll's movies for proof of that.

That's just the Japanese dichotomy... A Japanese student at APU didn't consider the crazier things in their culture to be part of their culture... Seriously... the only things she considered to be Japanese culture is things like tea cerimonies, kimonos, and shrines... So, it may be the same with Kojima...

I say give him the Thief series to play. Then see if he doesn't have to use his brain!

Warrior 4 Jesus wrote:I say give him the Thief series to play. Then see if he doesn't have to use his brain!

He'd probably say the same thing my mother used to: "Why don't you use your brain to do something constructive!" ]That's just the Japanese dichotomy... A Japanese student at APU didn't consider the crazier things in their culture to be part of their culture... Seriously... the only things she considered to be Japanese culture is things like tea cerimonies, kimonos, and shrines... So, it may be the same with Kojima...[/quote]
I think it may be more like the difference between fine art and commercial art. Some people don't consider the latter to be "real" art. If someone from Japan told me they were interested in American Culture and mentioned "Scooby Doo" I'd look at them funny, though I suppose technically it would be commerical art and IS a part of our culture.

I guess the question would be does any commercial art reach the level of fine art.

The one question I have with considering videogames as art in the sense we ususally hold: the constant evolution of graphics makes older products obsolete. Remember Space Invaders? Asteroids? Pole Position? The "Combat" Cartridge for the old Atari 2600? Do we consider them art? If not when do we draw the line for when art could start? What happens when we upgrade to better graphics?

Not looking to start an argument with these questions, but I do admit I never thought of games as art before this thread started and I could use some answers before I make an error like the one earlier in the thread.

AnimeHeretic wrote:I guess the question would be does any commercial art reach the level of fine art.

Hmm... Well, many people think movies do. People such as Ebert. That is a double standard. His statement was that art requires authorial control, which games, being interactive, don't have.

1. I'd be interested to see what he thinks of interactive display art.
2. Despite being interactive, many games, such as the Silent Hill series and Metal Gear series, have linear storylines that aren't that open ended (at least not eventually, even if they are interpretively) with minor exceptions. There is a desired plot that the player is guided to.
3. Even many games with more player control have multiple conclusions and pathways directed by the author. There can still be authorial control on a different scale.

He said video games haven't tackled big issues. This is, however, the choice of the game creators, not something inherent in the medium. Besides that, I can't give many examples, but Silent Hill 2 dealt with issues like rape, abuse retaliation, and even a hot button issue like Euthenasia in a roundabout way. And Metal gear is a good story of war and betrayal... For giving the star wars movies such high ratings, he'd be hardpressed to not see that Big Boss made a much more convincing "hero to villain" than Anakin... Kojima was obviously a Star Wars fan, but he beat Lucas at his own game...

I'd think that posting it here would be preaching it to the choir, but game fans are often almost as opposed to calling it art as Ebert is.

You can read Hideo Kojima's stance on the matter Here. I would tend to agree with him as well.

He said video games haven't tackled big issues. This is, however, the choice of the game creators, not something inherent in the medium. Besides that, I can't give many examples, but Silent Hill 2 dealt with issues like rape, abuse retaliation, and even a hot button issue like Euthenasia in a roundabout way. And Metal gear is a good story of war and betrayal... For giving the star wars movies such high ratings, he'd be hardpressed to not see that Big Boss made a much more convincing "hero to villain" than Anakin... Kojima was obviously a Star Wars fan, but he beat Lucas at his own game...

The end of Twin Snakes surprised me when it started talking about a bunch of real Nuclear problems (please don't discuss), so to say it hasn't "tackled big issues..."


And about him not calling it art... many of the best artists tend to be like that, I think. -.O


EDIT (just read that article):
So, Kojima is basically saying the games themselves aren't art, but what's in them can be?

After reading Kojima's interview, I think I tend to agree with him, in that the games themselves are not art, but the elements that comprise them are.

Dude... that's awesome... Games aren't art, they're art museums... Hahahaha... I think that actually spits in the face of what Ebert said about the subject, as that would apply to movies as well.

You Know Why So Many People Are Bashing Games and Not TV and Movies...

Because Games Are Still A Young Type of Entertainment and Are Still Evolving...

So of Course You're Going To Have People Who Know Nothing About What They're Talking About Making These Rediculous Statements...

All We Should Be Doing Is Not Worrying About What Critics Say and Worry About What Game Is Coming Out Next Tuesday...

I agree with this. Just think of it this way. In the next generation when all of us are in our thirties and fourties. (Some older) we will never have to deal with this problem because almost every younger person plays videogames now. Pretty soon we will be the future and we all understand videogames. So there won't be near as much people out there ragging on them.
The only reason we have this problem now is because most of the older people didn't have videogames when they were young and don't understand them. So we shouldnt be getting upset because nothing will be changing their minds. Trying to get them to like video games will be like them trying to get us to dislike videogames.

I, for one, partially question Kojima's reasoning as to why videogames aren't art. He's basically saying that video games aren't art because they're created for a wide audience. But I don't get why they can't be art.

.rai//

I think they are art. Take shadow of the colossus and Okami for instance. Both of those games are beautiful. But the art doesnt really only come from the visuals. It also comes from the story telling and other elements.

If Kojima thinks Metal Gear Solid is not art, I would love to see what the man could do should he actually attempt to make what in his mind he would deem an "artistic" game.

I'd still like to see how one defines video games as art. I mean, where does it become art compared to Space Invaders and Pong? And if we use art and story as criterion, what about a few computer generations from now when the graphics and capacity for story will be so much better than now?

Also what standards will we use to decide on what is art and what is not? People seem to be in agreement on what makes fine art compared to the art of others, discussing technique and skill and imagination. What standards will we use to decide what is high art in the computer game?

These are things I'd want to see adressed before I consider a video game to be art.

I would say what makes it art is how all the elements come together as a whole. Think of the graphic, sounds, music, plot, and all the other elements as seperate puzzle pieces, and the game designer is the artist that creates and molds them into a near perfect final portrait. I'm an aspiring game designer and I would honestly debate Kojima about games being 'art'.

Yeah, it's like each part is the different colors of a painting, but it's not till you actually put them together that they become "art." Otherwise, it's just a puddle of mixed colors (which some games are...).

OK, but what about when video games become art? If it's a combination of all these things, it seems to exclude the earlier games (Puzzle = shoot the invaders before they land) and it therefore makes me wonder if by later standards the current games would be excluded.

I think this is a big deal because in other genres, works considered art or classics remain such over time. The Mona Lisa is a classic and it's not likely to be replaced by Mona Lisa 2.0...

Games on the other hand tend to be forgotten. I can remember when games as advanced as "Pole Position" were considered advanced. Nowadays? Who remembers it. When we do think back on old games it tends to be to see them as incredibly primitive.

With standards judging videogames tending toward the always newer, always better; I think this is not the same as the evaluation of art as music or art as painting or art as sculpture or art as many other forms where the classic forms are still recognized.

AnimeHeretic wrote:Games on the other hand tend to be forgotten. I can remember when games as advanced as "Pole Position" were considered advanced. Nowadays? Who remembers it.

This applies only when games are played for being the "new thing"

Silent Hill 2 is mechanically and graphically inferior to 3 and 4, but people remember it more strongly because of the issues it dealt with. 3 didn't come close, and 4 turned people off before they could get into them. So,

What makes it art isn't the graphical capabilities, though they had to reach a point before you could do something considered art as a book would be considerd art. When the graphics are a vehicle for a story, when the story is art, that's when it becomes art.

Even in the old works, when an artist put something of him or her self into the work, what they made is art. I suppose, by kojima's definition, even individual pieces of something like "Grand Theft Auto" could be art, but the game doesn't come together as such.

People have had varying ideas about what "art" is.

Art used to be depictions of leaders and idols. When art broke free from that, it evolved into being the pouring out of someone's soul. You can't just lump it all together, saying that the fact it's for sale or the fact that many people worked on it or the fact it's interactive negate what people put into it.

EDIT: What this comes down to in the longrun, and the real motive behind these arguments for people like Ebert, isn't so much an arguing of the defenition of art, but the position games have in society. Jack Kroll (newsweek writer) said (a slight paraphrase since I don't have access to the article) Games offer a world of manipulative mechanics, but don't offer the revelation and catharsis of real art. That somehow in the moving around of pixels on the screen, it remains just that, and a story with the potential of spurring thought on a complex topic could never be demonstrated in games. He brought examples, primarily comparing CG actors in games(Final Fantasy 7, some samurai game on PS2, and Tomb Raider, I believe) to movies of similar purpose (I don't remember what for FF7, Tomb Raider (believe it or not, hehe) and Angelina Jolie for Tomb Raider, and 7 Samurai for Kessen) comparing the movements of the CG characters to the acting in those movies as "proof" that while movies could be considered art, games can't.

I hate going back to the same point, but I have said numerous times the kind of revelation that can come from a game. Silent Hill 2 forced you to deal with a dillema: Is killing an abuser actually murder? Is murder still murder when it's done for a somewhat "good" reason? What about the one who's insulted and abused by friends, and gets back at them? There have been some very good movies covering this topic, so Ebert's comment about "nothing new" would hold, but it would hold that for those movies it is also nothing new. What's new about the fact it takes place in a game is that it is a new way of addressing those issues, which in and of itself puts the games far ahead of the movies addressing these topics...