Roger Ebert: The Definition Of Art

Prior to the turn of the millennium, video games were practically spat upon by those in “high-art” circles. Seen as mindless time killers, barely worth a mention, they were isolated from discussion for the better part of a quarter century. However, as years passed and technology evolved, the medium as a whole evolved with it. Development tools became more accessible to the masses, providing any person with an idea to tell a story that pushes the boundaries of the medium and of art itself. Despite these clear evolutions, there are still vocal societies that condemn calling a video game ‘art’. Recognized film critic Roger Ebert has personally come out to support this, producing several rather uninformed articles on the subject. The Guardian writer …show more content…
Firstly, Roger Ebert follows the definition put forth by Plato, which Seneca and Cicero agreed with, that “art is the imitation of life.” Jones, similarly, says that “A work of art is one person’s reaction to life.” Both writers argue that by following this definition, video games can never fall into the category of art. This sentiment is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, technology and culture is further ahead than language – people and creativity is evolving while dictionaries and definitions are lagging years behind. This is especially true of Plato’s definition – a statement put forward thousands of years prior to Ebert’s article. When the philosopher penned this proclamation neither video games, nor films (the art form Ebert loves the most), had been created. Secondly, if one did believe that definition, then there are several games that can be thought of as a “reaction to” or “imitation of” life. For example, That Dragon, Cancer – a video game developed by Ryan and Amy Green, along with Josh Larson and a small team of developers. The game was an autobiographical story, based on the Greens’ experience when raising their child, Joel, diagnosed with terminal cancer at twelve months. The game details his life, which surpassed the life expectancy by surviving for another 4 years, and how Ryan and Amy dealt with the disease. The emotion-ridden game can definitely be categorized as the …show more content…
Here, he states that “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome.” And when discussing games that are not ‘won’, he says “I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.” With this, Roger is arguing that providing the player with an objective or even just an eventual outcome, it ceases itself from becoming art. However, I would very much disagree with this sentiment. By giving the player a set list of objectives (or just one), then the creators of the game are simply allowing the player to experience the game in the intended format. In the same way one should watch a film forwards, or read a book from the first page to the final one, games are to be played how the developer wishes. Of course, many games deviate from this norm – for instance FromSoftware’s title Dark Souls. A game that excels in many art forms – music, storytelling, cinematography and visual design, also gives the player huge amounts of freedom. For most of the game, you will always have a large variety of areas to explore, creatures to fight and story to uncover, in whichever order you want. While there are always “objectives” looming above the player, they will always be free to turn back from their current path to tackle