Civil Discourse: An Art in Need of Artists
Last week, renowned film critic Roger Ebert posted an article titled “Video games can never be art,” in which he posited that video games are not art and will not become art during the lifetime of any gamer drawing breath today. As one might imagine—especially if one is an avid video game player—the chorus of responses to Mr. Ebert’s article are not exactly singing in harmony with him. As of April 16th, there were more than 2,600 comments on the article, the bulk of them disagreeing with Mr. Ebert’s claim.
Let me go on record as being very much on the fence with respect to the question of whether video games are (or can ever be) art. I’m firmly in the “I don’t know art, but I know what I like” camp. Personally, I feel if I’m enjoying something created by someone else, then that something is probably art.1 I will cop to that being a very unsophisticated definition, but as a great nautical strongman once said, “I yam what I yam,” and what I yam ain’t very sophisticated.
I don’t take umbrage with Mr. Ebert or his opinion,2 nor do I take issue with the gamers who offer their rational, reasonable arguments in defense of video games; I’ve seen some responses that are thoughtful, considered and present compelling comparisons between video games and more “traditional” art forms such as jazz and classical music.
Unfortunately, I’ve also seen a commenter named Lujo insult Ebert at length, in terms most would consider obscene (not to mention coprophiliac), without offering anything even faintly resembling a cogent argument supporting video games as an art form. It’s childish, puerile name-calling for the sake of name-calling during which the commenter asserts that Mr. Ebert “cannot take a real criticism or argue his case”, while spectacularly failing to even attempt an argument of his own. To which Ebert responds, “this comment approaches art, but doesn’t…quite…make it.”
Lujo’s comment may represent an extreme, but the insults and disrespect aren’t limited to anonymous commenters on Mr. Ebert’s blog. Jerry “Tycho” Holkins, writer of the immensely popular webcomic, Penny Arcade, referred to the article as “reeking ejaculate,” and then proceeded to call Mr. Ebert to the mat on his approach to the fine art of arguing.3 Rather than following with an intelligent, coherent response that encourages discourse, Holkins dismisses Mr. Ebert’s opinion as “generational bullshit”, which is both ironic and telling, as it demonstrates perfectly that the generation Holkins calls his own lacks respect and class.
When did a simple difference of opinion about something so trivial become grounds for a personal attack? At what point did “I don’t agree with you, thus you are pond scum” become a standard tool of debate? Are polite disagreement and rational discourse fated to be extinguished by the meteor that will ultimately mean the extinction of “dinosaurs” like Roger Ebert?4
- Thus, I have no issue with Subway employing “Sandwich Artists”. [↩]
- I will say that I’m not certain he selected the best point to his counterpoint in Kellee Santiago, whose TED talk provided the framework upon which the argument against video games as art was built; Ms. Santiago admits as much in her response to Mr. Ebert’s article. [↩]
- Nowhere does Holkins mention that proper form demands the flinging of personal insults as an opening gambit. [↩]
- So-called by no less than seven people in the comments on “Video games will never be art”. [↩]
Related Articles:
Tags: art, debate, discourse, Jerry Holkins, Penny Arcade, Roger Ebert, video games
Episode 0048: The Great Old Pumpkin
Hi there Kris! Firstly, thanks for the shout-out. I’m glad you enjoyed the blog and thought it added something of substance to the discussion.
I totally agree with you: what, in the name of Bob, has this debate unleashed? The insults being thrown in Ebert’s direction are harsher than anything I’ve seen. And the thing is, not only are they unwarranted, but they do nothing to strengthen the argument that video games can, in fact, be art.
Meanwhile, Ebert rolls with the punches, affectionately pays (Twitter) hommage to those who insult him and links to the blogs of those who disagree. All I know is that he’s carrying himself the way one does when engaged in a veritable discussion. I urge the “other side” to do the same.
Look at who’s primary tossing insult though? It’s the same young, immature crowd that Ebert is firing up with his post. It’s the same difference of opinion between generational cultural touchstones as seen throughout history. I’m sure the first time someone played on a drum, there was an old caveman sitting on the otherside of the fire wondering what was wrong with the younger generation and this horrible “music”. The Internet though gives people the protection of anonimity to wrap their opinions in anger & venom, intending to wound the other side & score point with their peers and shock anyone else paying attention.
I’ve repeated this time & time again to my friends and posted on my blog, simply that Ebert’s opinion doesn’t matter. He doesn’t play games. If you don’t experience the medium, your opinion on the medium is pointless. Could a blind person properly review a movie like Avatar? Nope. Could a deaf person critique music? Nope. Now, yes, I realize those are extreme cases but in the case of video games, the uniqueness of the media is the interactivity. If you do not play, then how can you evaluate it or dismiss it.
Would watching someone play Portal carry nearly as much emotional weight as it would to actually play it? To have that adrenaline rush when you navigate an obstacle, that elation when you figure out a puzzle, the sorrow (implied by Glados) when you have to destroy the Weighted Companion Cube and the later betrayal. You have to press the buttons and immerse yourself into the experience to achieve what the artists/designers/programmers wanted to evoke within you.
And that to me is the essence of art. Creating an emotional response wether positive or negative in the person engaging/participating with the medium in question. And it doesn’t matter who creates art or who modifies art, only that it has moved someone, anyone, to feel something.
Look, I didn’t swear once! Or call Ebert a dinosaur!
@RiverRatMatt — While I don’t disagree that the bulk of the comments lacking civility and doing little (if anything) to add to the discussion might be coming from what you call the “young, immature crowd”, I hardly think that Jerry Holkins—who is just three years younger than me—ought to be lumped into that crowd. While I found that his personal attack against Mr. Ebert was uncalled for, I generally consider Holkins to be a intelligent, reasonable and, yes, mature person. I respect him as a writer and I appreciate the love of language he so clearly displays in his Penny Arcade news posts. If anything, I thought he’d have something worthwhile to add to the discussion rather than just slinging an insult or two and dismissing Mr. Ebert out of hand.
My intent here was not to validate Mr. Ebert’s opinion of video games, nor judge whether he is qualified to render than opinion, but to express dismay at the uncivil, insulting response he’s received. But the Internet is full of trolls, you might say, or perhaps you might link to Penny Arcade’s Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience strip, and that certainly explains (but does not in any way excuse) Lujo, but what does it say about Holkins?
The question here is not whether video games are art, but whether it’s possible to have a simple disagreement about something so inherently trivial without it turning into semantic face-stabbing.
@Olivia — Thanks for peeking over here at yet another little corner of the Intertubes; thanks also for providing a great example of how to handle a difference of opinion properly.
Mr. Ebert has not been at all shy about calling attention to blogs and comments that present well-constructed (and civil) arguments counter to his own (it’s how I found your post, after all). Whatever the more…let’s say “frothy” of his detractors might say, Mr. Ebert has handled criticism of him and his opinions with nothing but class, and I admire him for that.
@kjtoo Unfortunately, nope. I’m sure Berners-Lee trolled at some point.
And something I’ve noticed more & more about Penny Arcade is that its shaping itself for the broader demographic rather than keeping itself above the flotsam. There was a time where Holkins’ writings were genuinely engaging on a very high level. Now, they are looking like the crap you see in an IGN propaganda fluff piece. He’s lost the art of the prose.
If you watch the PATV videos they release, it’s clear that PA is being pushed aggressively in a certain direction, bordering on the “EXTREME!” crazy of 5 years ago. They are edgy, they swear, they don’t like Jack Thompson or Jack Trenton!!! The shock! I almost wonder if Holkins & Krahulik are bored of what they’ve created but as the heads of this monsterous enterprise, they can’t jump ship without bringing it down. Even in the videos of them brainstorming comics they seem bored and just going through the motions to appease the gamer community at large.
@Matt: That might be the case. And if PA is going that way, then I can happily shuffle it away into bin where I throw all the content that doesn’t appeal to me.
It’s no surprise that I agree with Kris on this one. I’ve have no love for discourse that serves no purpose other than to cater to a few while denigrating the object of their disdain. Sadly, the trolls are multiplying, and worse, they’ve escaped the confines of the Internet to infect cable news, newspapers, and other media.
I’ve always enjoyed the following essay, and I think anyone putting out content would do well to take its lessons to heart:
http://www.vandruff.com/art_converse.html
One more thought:
“The question here is not whether video games are art, but whether it’s possible to have a simple disagreement about something so inherently trivial without it turning into semantic face-stabbing.”
“@kjtoo Unfortunately, nope.”
I’m going to call bullshit on that. It goes to the core of my problem with “internet culture:” freedom of speech and unfettered access does not give one the right to throw civility and respect out the window. My great disappointment with the “internet generation” is that no one ever grows up…all too often the culture is dominated by lost boys, indulging every childish urge.
There comes a point that people need to grow up and hold themselves to a higher standard. I’m starting to wonder if some of the geeks out there are even capable of such a thing.
@Chris I agree completely but if you look at where culture is headed en masse, it’s not towards an age of enlightenment where humanity is able to wrap themselves in a binary sea of information and greater understanding of everything around them.
Doesn’t that sound incredible? It’s not happening though. The greatest human achievement ever and it’s not bringing us together, it’s driving us apart, or disconnecting ourselves further as we all hunker down over our cell phones to send a text message or a silly photo of a cat and a cheeseburger or complain about Republicans vs. Democrats or Socialism vs. Capitalism or Ebert vs. Video Games or Ebert vs. KickAss or Tiger Woods vs. Jesse James. It’s become a sea of vacant thoughts and vitriol.
We’re cursed with a lazy culture now. Maybe if the Internet had been handed to earlier generations it would have been used differently. I can’t lay all the blame on The Millenials either but that’s the easiest target. Too much freedom, not enough hardship, not enough drive to use it constructively for a great good rather than their own personal goals or self-pandering.
And on a quick tangent… To show how pointless our culture has become… The Library of Congress recently announced that they would be archiving the entire Twitter database. Forever. With our tax dollars. I can understand archiving news, websites, blogs, multimedia. Snapshots of what’s going on in the world on a given day or something that has historical or cultural merit. But do we really need to archive 2 Terabytes per day of spam, drunk tweets, people retweeting funny videos or people posting about a celebrity scandal? Is that really the mark we want to leave behind for future generations? Guess so…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/15/AR2010041505752.html
*sigh*
@Matt: I don’t think it’s as hopeless as all that. We have a choice. Act with civility, kindness, reason, and compassion. Live it. Blog with it. We can insist on better instead of simply giving up.
I believe that most of these civility problems arise from the profoundly self-centered nature of society today. Believe it or not, the term for this, in times past, was “idiocy.”
“An idiot in Athenian democracy was someone who was characterized by self-centeredness and concerned almost exclusively with private–as opposed to public–affairs.[1] Idiocy was the natural state of ignorance into which all persons were born and its opposite, citizenship, was effected through formalized education.[1] In Athenian democracy, idiots were born and citizens were made through education (although citizenship was also largely hereditary).
Today, educators and political scientists increasingly resurrect this terminology’s etymological origins in order to discuss a growing major problem with modern American republican democracy: self-centeredness. They do so in order to understand the major modern problem in American participatory government in apathy in distinguishing between its underlying causes: idiocy (self-centeredness) and alienation.”
-Wikipedia
We are losing the ability to step outside ourselves and view the other person and someone worth respecting. But it is not lost entirely. And we can change the course of things, if we so choose.
Just remembered this movie. Sort of fits the Wikipedia post & conversation.
Idiocracy (2006)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/
@Chris – Wow. Great find on the origin of the word idiot – I love crap like that.
In regards to whether games are art, my take is – who cares? I enjoy playing video games, and I don’t care much whether other people want to categorize them as art.
It’s sad that people can’t be more civil about things though. I thought of the PA comic about online anonymity even before I saw Kris’s above link to it. I reference that comic often.
It’s probable that every person has his or her own definition of art, and the definition likely differs from person to person. I have no doubt that Ebert is a very intelligent and well-educated man, but I care as much about his definition of art as I do about who Jennifer Lopez is currently dating. That is to say not at all.
I’m starting to think a geek’s definition of art might be a good show topic.
This type of general nastiness has become a huge problem IMHO. I recently started a non-profit (still in the process of applying for official status) called “Be Civil, America!”. It is aimed at non-partisan, secular promotion of civility in the US. Sadly, the well has been somewhat poisoned since the President referred to political civility in a speech. As a result, talking about civility seems to instantly be seen as code for “we want to silence dissent” by conservative leaning citizens.
I feel very strongly that acting in a civil manner does not mean being a pushover or not fighting for your principles. Chris put it very well in his comment above about viewing the other person as someone worth respecting. It seems to me that too often people go into disagreements with the opposite default view: “You are a stupid jerk until you prove otherwise.”, and that’s just crazy.
It seems that most of us could stand to take a debate class and learn a bit about structured argument. Maybe then we could see how infantile this type of behavior really is. We don’t prove anything by attacking one another’s character, calling them stupid or making unfounded claims about their motivations. If anything, we show how unable we are to stand on the strength of the arguments supporting our views. What is worse is that this type of incivility is played up dramatically by a large number of media outlets in the name of ratings. While I’m sure that it does help their bottom line, it only exacerbates the problem by validating peoples beliefs that it is okay for them to be rude and disrespectful because the other side was behaving that way “first”. What we fail to realize is that there is no “first”. Incivility has been around as long as we have and putting an end to it should be on everyone’s agenda.
Okay, enough of my longwindedness. If you happen to be interested in our organization, feel free to click my name in the comment header. That will take you there.
[...] Response: Mr. Ebert’s blog post has spawned (It’s a video game term; get it?) more than 4,000 comments as well as blog entries, YouTube videos and web comics. As we recently noted here, some of the responses have been less than civil. [...]