Recently Roger Ebert revisited the topic, and he hasn't changed his mind and I opened that long-lost blog post, and started writing it anew. But in the process, I came to a realization: there is nothing I can say that will change Roger Ebert's mind, even if he were to read my words. His mind is made up.
Because frankly, how can you have an open discussion with someone about the present and future merits of a something as an art form if they refuse to take the time to experience that medium.
As long as there is a great movie unseen or a great book unread, I will continue to be unable to find the time to play video games.
And it is his prerogative not to play games. However, commenting on their merit as artistic creations without playing any, well, that is where I think the problem with his entries on the subject lies.
For instance, if I stated that film could never be art, and I refused to watch any, and I took any suggestions you might make for films to watch to try to change my opinion and I just continue to stonewall you and make the same claim, well, clearly I don't want to change my mind. And you would probably discount anything I said about that particular topic.
Clive Barker had called Ebert prejudiced because of his opinion back in 2007, which the elder critic took to mean they were just disagreeing, but that is clearly not the case. It really is a prejudice.
a. An adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts.
b. A preconceived preference or idea.
And again, that is ok. He is allowed to have that opinion. But it is admittedly biased and it is right to call him out on it based on those grounds.
I haven't appreciated the tone that has continued to pop up whenever he discusses this topic either. True, I am sure Roger Ebert has received a lot of angry emails and many horrific insults based on his opinions, but I don't think in general, people who have the opposing opinion as a whole deserved the increasingly condescending attitude that he has consistently shown the issue.
However, something wonderful keeps happening every time Roger Ebert proclaims that games can never be art. People who are more familiar with the breadth of medium push back and we end up discussing the matter not only with him, but with each other, sometimes in insulting ways, but often times, there is respectful conversation.
The strange thing is, in the midst of all that discussion, somehow a group of people who have trouble agreeing on anything time and time again keep coming to the same conclusions about which titles should be considered the artistic triumphs of the medium. And the funny thing is, they aren't all blockbuster games that everyone has played, and yet they keep coming up. So, in repeatedly coming out against games as an art form, he is causing those that do believe they are to become more vocal about their beliefs and in some small way, helping the community and a canon to develop.
I have a strange feeling that every one of the games that is slowly becoming the canon was at one point suggested numerous times to Ebert by those who wanted to show him an experience that he might understand as "art".
So even though many of us are upset by Roger Ebert's stance, in a way, he has ended up helping us all by giving us something to rally against together as a community.
But I think Charlie Brooker has really gotten a good bead on this whole issue... and he wasn't even directly addressing Roger Ebert:
And games are the equivalent of Esperanto-language movies – except they're better than movies. They're engrossing and exciting, playful and challenging, constantly evolving, constantly surprising. They're interactive and, thanks to the rise of modern multiplayer, infinitely more social than mere television. But because they're in Esperanto, it's hard for non-speakers to appreciate them.
If you don't play games, you're not just missing out, you're wilfully ignoring the most rapidly evolving creative medium in human history.
I think that is better than any parting shot I could think of.
Tags:
No comments:
Post a Comment