Ebert

You've probably seen the myriad articles, calling Roger Eberts claim that video games aren't art to task. Imploring gamers to ignore him as a relic and then railing against his claim.

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

I have to say, I think both sides are correct. Whether it is the assertion of, "If hundreds of artists labor to create the work, how can the outcome be anything but art?" or the "there isn't a game that will stand against a masterpiece" argument. Both have points.

If you go with the iconic status argument then Asteroids, Pac-Man, Centipede, Space Invaders and Donkey Kong would all be the old masters. All of these enjoy instant recognition yet they haven't been seen in public in almost 25 years.

Is the music from Super Mario Brothers or Shadow of the Beast (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_of_the_beast) not art?

Are the stories from Half-Life 1 and 2, Shadow of the Colossus, Ico or Mass Effect not art?

Or the artwork from any of the above?

How about the emotions created by Silent Hill, God of War, Dead Rising, or Heavy Rain? Art should invoke emotion, all of these do so quite well.

Being a vehicle that simply contains art doesn't make it art. A shipping container was designed and built by artists and artisans, putting a Remington sculpture inside of it doesn't make it more artistic. So a game that simply contains art isn't automatically art.

A famous quote is that if the painting makes you uncomfortable it is art, if it matches the couch it is furniture.

It is very easy to dismiss Ebert, after all his sum creation of original work is mainly soft-core porn. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065466/) The very same guy that complained about the death star attack in the original Star Wars as being too long.

But that really is the point. A real masterpiece isn't qualified. Walk into the Sistine Chapel or the Louvre and very few people are going to walk out saying they don't get it. A real masterpiece is an experience unto itself. Generally they cross a gulf of backgrounds and ages to unify people.

Much like a Renaissance master would probably not consider Picasso or Bergman or Ansel Adams art, maybe time will see a game created that meets so many peoples definition of art that the entire genre is redefined.

 

Ah, but see that would just be art. To be a masterpiece it must have broader appeal.

Plus you have things that while art, they were never created to be art.

King Tut's mask for instance. I've personally seen it, no picture you will ever see will do it justice. It's like seeing the shadow of the Eiffel Tower, it looks cool but the majesty of the real thing just can't be described. Tut's mask was never created as actual art. But upon viewing it and seeing the level of detail put into it and the realization that it was created with the utmost love and respect is quite humbling. It is art despite itself.

 

I completely understand what you're saying, but that is a subjective masterpiece.

If I were to say this picture is a masterpiece, what then?

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41NPkoxbIGL._AA260_.jpg

As an engineer I could postulate that the injection process was flawless, that the design was genius and the colors were perfection. But you would have to be an engineer to appreciate it. Otherwise it is just a lump of plastic for your crotch-fruit to climb on.

I've created amazing code, code that literally had people scratching their heads as to how I wrote it. It may have been a masterpiece in a programmers opinion, but you have to be a programmer of at least my level to enjoy it.

Michelangelo's works didn't need another master sculptor to realize they were a masterpiece. A 5 year old can be impressed with the statue of David, an 80 year old can appreciate it at an entirely different level that builds on what the 5 year old experienced.

There has to be a basic entry point of experience. In order to appreciate your own masterpiece, you have to build up a skill that you simply may not be physically or mentally able to achieve and therefore never experience.

I don't have to paint like a Dutch master in order to appreciate a Dutch masters work.

That may be the key here. In order for a game to be a true masterpiece that anyone can recognize as such, it would not need a gamer to experience. Someone would need to interact in a natural way and literally not be able to stop until they had completed the experience. The interface would have to be completely outside of the experience.

Maybe after the next generation of controller interfaces hit, we could see something that comes close.