In the pantheon of Things To Nerdrage Over, nothing causes much more in the way of sweaty-palmed vitriol than the dismissal of Your Stupid Hobby(tm) as just that. No one is more aware of this than film critic Roger Ebert who recently found himself on the wrong end of a Cheeto-stained keyboard with his recent blog, "Video games can never be art". However, for those of you aware of Ebert's Pulitzer prize winning criticism, the blog in question will come as nothing of a shock. Ebert has been a long-standing critic of the medium, claiming as recently as 2005 that "games will never be as worthy as movies".

Unfailingly, nerds worldwide (including yours truly) reached Asperger's levels of frenetic posting within hours, huffing and puffing asthmatically in disbelief at the notion that someone could hold such an incorrect opinion! And not just some asshole! Roger Fucking Ebert! Holy shit! Better put the coffee on, mom. It's going to be a long night.

Despite my 'spergin', however, I can't help but agree with Ebert to some degree. Though while I unquestionably hold the opinion that VIDEO GAMES ARE ART, I have to admit that not all video games are art. As someone named Mark posted in the comments, "I shudder to think of Grand Theft Auto on display in the Louvre next to the Mona Lisa." In all honesty, I can't say I don't agree with the sentiment.

It is important for gamers to accept the point of a lot of games is not necessarily the artistic experience, but that of entertainment. World of Warcraft is as much about art as Bad Boys 2. People aren't playing Modern Warfare because they are looking for deep commentary on American foreign policy. They're playing it to blow shit up.

The intrinsic flaw of Ebert's argument is that he has identified the medium as failing to meet the standards of art which is simply ludicrous. Ebert has judged the entirety of the medium based upon a perception of video games. It would be tantamount to dismissing the entirety of cinema based upon watching Hollywood blockbusters. Or judging all literature based on the popularity of Twilight.

Furthermore, Ebert states that "no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form." To a degree, Ebert is right. There are some gamers who will choose the medium solely as a means of entertainment, though without question there is a growing demand for games with emphasis on strong stories such as Indigo Prophecy (despite it being a massive failure in that regard.)

This is nothing new. Almost as long as games have been in existence, developers have attempted to blend strong story, art, and gameplay elements to varying degrees of success. Most notably, in my humble opinion, during the Golden Age of Graphic Adventures(tm). For who among us who played through Grim Fandango didn't feel an affinity for Manny and Glottis?

Still, I would not be so hyperbolic to place Bioshock on the same platform as that of Shakespeare as some people have been so apt to.

Ultimately the problem with this debate is that video games blur the lines between entertainment and art. Arguably, more than any other medium. I think that most people would agree art plays an enormous part in even the worst video game. However, simply because something contains art and may happen to be artful doesn't necessarily mean that it IS art. Yet, with such an emphasis on both art and entertainment, how can one truly disassociate one from the other?

To me it should not so much be a question of "is it art or entertainment?", but "is it art as entertainment?" Or perhaps, "does the question even matter?" Or maybe even, "why am I talking to myself?"

Love,
Aaron