Now, why'd he have to go and say that (again)?

A few years ago, film critic Roger Ebert sent gamers the world over into a tizzy by saying that games aren't art.

Although the remark inspired countless articles and blog posts on the subject (heck, I wrote one of the former for gamasutra.com in 2007), Ebert refused further comment--until late last week, when a post titled, "Video Games Can Never Be Art," appeared on his Chicago Sun-Times blog.

Unfortunately, Ebert spends the bulk of his post trying to dismantle a developer's argument in favor of games being art rather than trying to back up statements like this: "No video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form."

The few times he tries to defend his position, he falls short. For example, early on he writes, "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game." Sadly, he doesn't expand upon that comment and explain how or why the existence of rules, points and/or objectives disqualifies games from being art; all he says is that "real" art forms "are things you cannot win; you can only experience them."

Near the end of his post, Ebert asks, "Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?" Given his inability to explain his position--and his admitted inexperience with the medium he's so keen to criticize--my question to infuriated gamers (myself included) is: Why are we so intensely concerned with what such a person has to say about our hobby of choice?

See also: 'Games are not and never will be art. Oh, really?'

'Games are not and never will be art.' Oh, really?

Full disclosure: I cringe whenever I hear someone--especially someone within the games industry--suggest that games aren't an art form. And when that someone takes things a step further and suggests they never will be an art form? Well, I smack my head against the nearest wall.

You can just imagine, then, the condition my head is in after reading Charles J. Pratt's coverage (over at gamasutra.com) of last week's Art History of Games conference.

For starters, Michael Samyn, founder of Tale of Tales, the Belgian-based developer of such "art games" as The Endless Forest and The Path, suggests that games are not and never will be art because "play was driven by a biological need, and that over time play had been turned into games. On the other hand, art was not created out of a physical need but in a search for higher purposes."

Later, Samym says that "computers offered the way forward for art, but at this point it is being held hostage by the video game industry."

I can't say I agree with those or any of the other comments attributed to Samym in Pratt's article--I'm a firm believer that games, like movies and music, are a form of art--but that's certainly not the first time that's happened since this conversation started way back when.

That said, if you're at all interested in this topic I suggest you read Pratt's article in full--especially since it includes a section titled "When Art and Games Collide," which contains comments from Celia Pearce, assistant professor of digital media at Georgia Institute of Technology.

See also: 'What do you think: Are video games art?'

'The Art of Video Games' coming to the Smithsonian American Art Museum in 2012

Chris Melissinos, founder of PastPixels.com, announced earlier today that he'll be creating, and curating, an exhibit called "The Art of Video Games" at the Smithsonian American Art Museum in Washington, D.C., in early 2012.

The Smithsonian's website already has posted a bit of information about the exhibit, which will run from March 16 to September 9:

"Video games have grown to become a significant part of our culture since the introduction of the first home video games in the early 1970s. More than seventy percent of American households play video games on a regular basis, and many families now have two generations of computer users, and gamers, at home.

"Video games use images, actions, and player participation to tell stories and engage their audiences. In the same way as film, animation, and performance, they can be considered a compelling and influential form of narrative art.

"Many museums have explored art inspired by video games, but this exhibition will be the first to examine comprehensively the evolution of video games themselves as an artistic medium. From the Atari VCS to the Playstation 3, 'The Art of Video Games' will show the development of visual effects and aesthetics during four decades, the emergence of games as a means for storytelling, the influence of world events and popular culture on game development, and the impact that the games can have on society.

"It will include multimedia presentations of game footage, video interviews with developers and artists, large prints of in-game screen shots, historic game consoles, and a selection of working game systems for visitors to play. In addition, the public will be asked to assist with the selection of materials for the show by choosing the games that they feel best represent particular moments in the overall timeline."

Keep an eye on PastPixels.com and this NeoGAF thread for more information on this intriguing exhibit.

I'm not sure if I'll play Okamiden or frame it...

I consider Clover Studio's Okami (the PS2 original, not the Wii port) to be one of the most beautiful video games ever created. As such, it shouldn't be too surprising to hear that I'm eagerly (and impatiently) awaiting the 2010 release of its DS sequel, Okamiden: Chisaki Taiyou (aka Okami Chronicles: Tiny Sun).

The folks at Capcom must know this (I'm sure someone there is reading this blog ... not!), as they recently released another teaser trailer for the game:



Although I've been a bit nervous that Hideki Kamiya (Okami's designer) and the Clover Studio crew aren't working on the sequel, the video above gives me hope that Kuniomi Matsushita and Motohide Eshiro (director and producer of Okamiden, respectively) are up to the challenge of creating the follow up to one of the most gorgeous games ever.