As we discussed in class, Ian Bogost’s essay “Art” in How To Do Things With Videogames (2011) makes reference to an infamous article from 2010 in which the late celebrated film critic Roger Ebert argued that videogames cannot be art. This prompted all sorts of responses from gamers and non-gamers alike at the time. Some pointed to the “artgames” movement while others took umbrage with the framing, as many of you did in class. As I noted, part of the problem is that Ebert’s awareness and experience of games was very limited, and his theory of authorship stands in the way of his ability to appreciate the way in which specific games create aesthetic experiences, explore ideas, and, as Jonathan Blow (the creator of Braid) said, “speak to the human condition.”
Note his commentary on Braid – it’s clear that he has no sense of the object of the “art,” instead addressing the qualities of mechanics and writing in the story in isolation, abstracted from any inquiry as to what (and how) the game is trying to express. It is worth a read if this recent discussion captivated you, and it gives context for Bogost’s commentary in “Art.” Also, you might take interest in Henry Jenkins’ “Games, The New Lively Art”
