Home > slashdot > Revisiting Ebert — Games Can Be Art, But Are They?

Revisiting Ebert — Games Can Be Art, But Are They?

March 16th, 2011 03:03 admin Leave a comment Go to comments


At the recent Game Developers Conference, industry vet Brian Moriarty spoke at length about the old videogames-as-art debate. Moriarty found himself reluctantly defending one part of Roger Ebert’s infamous argument against the notion: “No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.” What followed was a thoughtful discussion of how games fit in with the definition of art and how the commercialization that almost universally surrounds them can inhibit true artistic expression. Quoting: “Unlike Mr. Ebert, I have played many of the games widely regarded as great and seminal. I have the privilege of knowing many of the authors personally. But as much as I admire games like M.U.L.E., Balance of Power, Sim City and Civilization, it would never even occur to me to compare them to the treasures of world literature, painting or music. … Video games are an industry. You are attending a giant industry conference. Industries make products. Video game products contain plenty of art, but it’s product art, which is to say, kitsch art. Kitsch art is not bad art. It’s commercial art. Art designed to be sold, easily and in quantity. And the bigger the audience, the kitschier it’s gonna get.”

Source: Revisiting Ebert — Games Can Be Art, But Are They?

Related Articles:

  1. Roger Ebert Backs Down On Video Games As Art
  2. Roger Ebert On Why Video Games Can Never Be Art
  3. Film Critic Roger Ebert Dead at 70 Of Cancer
  4. Ebert: I’ll Tell You Why Movie Revenue Is Dropping
  5. Murch And Ebert’s Misguided Malignment Of 3D
blog comments powered by Disqus