Games as Art Debate Research Part 1

Link #1
Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker
by Roger Ebert

This is Roger Ebert's response to Clive Barker after Clive commented on Ebert's "video games are not art" stance. Roger easily wins this argument as Clive is clearly not suited to be the one defending artistic video games. Clive's argument is weak and full of holes making it easy for Ebert to pick it apart. On the other hand Ebert also seems ignorant in how he talks about games(something he clearly has little knowledge of) and is obviously categorizing them all into more mindless fodder. In all honesty while Ebert's argument is stronger, both sides go about the issue the wrong way.

Link #2
The Arty Party
by Jim Preston

This piece by EA producer Jim Preston does not so much address the "games as art" debate as much as it addresses controversy over what art is in general. The article makes the question "what is art?" and ultimately comes to the conclusion that art in America is so many different things to different people due to our rich cultural landscape. We cannot define one thing as art and another thing as not, because everything is art to somebody. A urinal becomes art when it is placed in a museum, but as Jim Preston says, you can find Pac-Man in the Smithsonian.

Link #3
Once Upon A Time, Will Video Games Ever Have Their "Moby Dick" or "Citizen Kane"?
by William Vitka

This piece focuses more on the story aspect of video games and how it needs to be improved if it wants to be considered art. Story in most video games comes in as an afterthought to the game design, this is of course a large problem. Games have come very close to art but as long as the story sits behind concept and design, we will never get our "gaming classic". The article also addresses player control and actually argues that it provides a stronger narrative, not the other way around.