Roger Ebert Backs Down, Admits He Was A Fool For Mentioning Games In The First Place
“One thing I brought from this experience was that I lacked a definition of Art.”
Damn straight you did. You also lacked the foresight to see how willing the gaming community would be to prove you wrong. However Roger, while you still have not changed your position on whether or not video games are art; The fact that we have been able to make you change your mindset and reflect upon your own words, shows us that you are indeed human, and a journalist who deserves respect. You were not a fool for mentioning games in the first place, you were a fool for underestimating the passion of the gaming community.
By now you should be familiar with Roger Ebert’s famous “blogotorial” in which he stated that, “Videogames can never be art.” Well, less than three months after the gaming community united to oppose that blatantly ignorant statement, Roger had this to say:
I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn’t seen. Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself. At this moment, 4,547 comments have rained down upon me for that blog entry. I’m informed by Wayne Hepner, who turned them into a text file: “It’s more than Anna Karenina, David Copperfield and The Brothers Karamazov.” I would rather have reread all three than vet that thread. Still, they were a good set of comments for the most part. Perhaps 300 supported my position. The rest were united in opposition.
And he is absolutely right. If a person of Mr. Ebert’s public status decides to make a statement on a subject he knows next to nothing about, he had either be prepared to face the consequences, or better yet, say nothing at all. However, had he not made his original argument, we as gamers may have never had the opportunity to change his mind . . . even just a little bit. In the end, I believe this entire process has been cathartic for Mr. Ebert and the gaming community as a whole, and I applaud him for taking the time to re-examine his stance on the issue.
My error in the first place was to think I could make a convincing argument on purely theoretical grounds. What I was saying is that video games could not in principle be Art. That was a foolish position to take, particularly as it seemed to apply to the entire unseen future of games. This was pointed out to me maybe hundreds of times. How could I disagree? It is quite possible a game could someday be great Art.
I must also applaud the gaming community. For we did not inundate Roger’s inbox with flame or simply call him an idiot who knows nothing of our passion. We presented a clear rebuttal to his argument, and in the end prevailed in convincing one of the most hard headed critics ever to walk the earth, to change the way he thinks about art and gaming. Even Mr. Ebert himself stated that our responses were:
intelligent, well-written, and right about one thing in particular:I should not have written that entry without being more familiar with the actual experience of video games.
I couldn’t have said it better myself. But I will leave you with this:
Roger Ebert doesn’t play video games, Roger Ebert doesn’t ever want to play video games, and therefore Roger Ebert has no business talking about video games.
The funniest thing is, the first guy to comment on the original post, probably said it the best . . .
Roger - I will simply say: You just don’t get it.
So thank you to Nick, and to all the gamers who made Roger Ebert realize that he just doesn’t get it.
Source: Roger Ebert’s Blog at The Chicago Sun-Times