Is GTA IV the first work of video game art?

My apologizes for the extended absence. What started off as a holiday break got a little out of control. It’s time to get things going again with this opinion piece on gaming.

Roger Ebert, my favorite critic and yours, somewhat infamously remarked a couple years ago that video games could not be art. He later backpedaled a bit, refining his viewpoint to state that video games could not be “high” art.

There are about a million different directions in which I could go with this topic – the definition of art, the definition of “high” art, or plunging down the rabbit hole of blogs and internet postings that dissect both sides of the argument. Let me sidestep some of this with a link in which the topic is handled very adroitly by Tim Maly of Toronto. He writes to Ebert:

Thank you for jump-starting a discussion about the relative artistic and critical merit of video games as compared to film and books. I do take issue when you argue that video games can never have the merit of a great film or novel. You say: “There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.”

Where you see a flaw, I see promise. Arguing that games are inherently inferior because books and movies are better at telling stories and leading us through an author-driven experience is begging the question. It’s like saying that photography is better than painting because photos make more accurate visual records.

(snip)

Many people would agree with you that there aren’t yet any games that rival the best films or books that you care to list. Game makers are only just beginning to understand that games are not films/books with action sequences. I think that you’ll see that the more we work that out, the more we will find ways of creating meaningful artistic works that are unlike anything anyone’s seen before.

Bonus points to Tim for the correct use of the term “begging the question.”

I agree with Tim (and to an extent, Ebert) in that while elements of video games are art, the genre has by and large not gotten to the level of, say, film. I think video games are best classified as a skill or leisure activity. Yet as Tim argues, gaming is not inherently disbarred from attaining the level of art, which I would define as something that makes a statement, or is designed to be interpreted or provoke thought. The gaming industry may be on the cusp of that hallowed level, and I submit that Grand Theft Auto IV may be one of the first examples.

To the few people reading this that are not familiar with the Grand Theft Auto (GTA) series, you take control of a thug that pulls off various heists. As the game progresses the character becomes more and more involved in the criminal underworld of the game’s setting, a fictitious version of New York City. The easily-offended might emphasize the game’s crudeness or apparent insensitivity, but keener minds will emphasize the impressive scope and vision of the game. More than any other game I’ve played, GTA IV achieves two things: a terrific sense of comedy (ironic, considering the central storyline is a tragedy), and a merciless parody of U.S. culture. It is the latter that I think bears close attention, and may herald the beginning of a new art form in the coming years.

Simply put, no other game I have played has made such an articulate and effective statement about something relevant. Grand Theft Auto satirizes almost everything you could think of in American culture, including, but not limited to: the country’s obsession with wealth, the disgusting ubiquity of fast food (in the game you can buy a 6 lb. burger called The Heartstopper), the broken aspects of our political system, the rampant use of drugs to medicate away problems, and the American superiority complex. Perhaps these are all easy jabs in the abstract, but they are handled with a relentless satirical bite that Voltaire would have been proud of. The satire comes in the form of TV shows, radio stations, internet sites, billboards and advertisements, and the city’s inhabitants. You are literally immersed in an environment of pure satire.

To me, the most affecting aspect of GTA IV comes in the form of the people you encounter around the city. Everyone is in a rush to get somewhere. If you get in their way, they’ll call you an asshole and maybe look to pick a fight. This too is satire, poking fun at New York’s ultra-urban environment, but one that somehow struck a little closer to home. It shows how sad and mean-spirited this culture can be; it showcases our cultural lack of empathy.niko

And there it is, right there – GTA IV is perhaps the first video game that actually made me reflect. It reminded me how pathetic it is to be rushing around everywhere, proverbially pushing people out of your way as so many of us do. And the way in which game developer Rockstar delivers this message is so subtle and well-conceived that the game attains qualities of a work of art.

Other fans of the game might also cite the game’s relatively engaging storyline, which also contains a message. Though I would not want to detract from GTA’s story – which for a video game is quite good – it falls short in the broader storytelling medium. For one, the moral of this story has been delivered more effectively in film and other outlets, partially because GTA IV does not find a consistent tone (as alluded to above, the elements of tragedy are undercut by many lighthearted moments). GTA IV’s story is fine, but it is not genre-transcending. I believe its environment and satire is.

Grand Theft Auto IV has been an all-around phenomenon, setting various video game sales records and getting universally rave reviews by the media. But for all that, I think gamers might not realize exactly what this game represents. Placed in the context of history, it may be seen as something more: one of the first video games to show the world how subtly powerful – and yes, artistic – the medium can be.

2 Responses to “Is GTA IV the first work of video game art?”

  1. Having only limited experience with GTA4, I can’t really weigh in on the satirical elements you discussed. Certainly your examples are aptly applied, and in context seem to be as effective as you claim. However, as you describe, they are subtly worked into the game and not something one would necessarily notice in a couple of 20 or 30 minutes sessions “behind the wheel.” [drumfill]

    I find Roger Ebert’s claim to be wholly outrageous. A typical snide remark made by an uninformed mind for the purpose of maligning something from which he and his generation are too far removed to truly appreciate. Issuing a blanket statement that “video games are not art” is as ignorant today as dismissing films would have been in the 1920s, or even the 1930s, a decade that gave us “Gone With the Wind” and “The Wizard of Oz”. Would it have been fair to wave a liver-spotted hand and say that those films are not art because film was a relatively new medium? Of course not. I’m sure that didn’t stop people from making such assertions, though. After all, movies were originally a recreational endeavor from which the impoverished, not the wealthy, primarily partook.

    Ebert’s generation does not identify with video games because they were not a part of the fabric of popular culture when he was young the same way that movies were not a part of culture for people one or two generations before him. At the risk of sounding shallow, it seems to me that what you’re witnessing is a very typical example of someone being old and crotchety. Ebert’s point of view on the matter seems to echo old peoples’ distaste for and mistrust of computers, cellphones, iPods and other “modern-era” inventions. “It’s new and I don’t understand it. Therefore, it is worthless.”

    It’s much easier to deal with life when you can simply write off anything that you don’t understand as worthless (like sabermetrics, for example).

    Consider the elements that come together to make a modern video game: original art work, original music. I’ll assume we all agree that conceptual designs (such as those used in creating the characters and environments in Metroid Prime 3 — the game I just completed) constitute “art”. I will also assume that we can all agree original music inherently qualifies as “art”, regardless of the purpose for which it is being created.

    How then can you say that these two artistic elements combine to create something that is not art? We’re dealing with visual and audio compositions which, astonishingly, are the same two elements that go into making films.

    Ebert’s attempted amendment to qualify video games as “not HIGH art” shifts his opinion from the realm of mere ignorance over to full blown pretentiousness and pomposity. He is all but saying, “The field in which I am considered an expert is inherently superior to that field over there that I don’t know anything about.” What qualifies Roger Ebert to hand down these judgments from his Ivory Tower? Is he basing his opinion on his personal experiences with the thousands of video games he’s played?

    Roto gona mama tota.

    I am going to blindly (and quite correctly) assert that Roger Ebert has never spent any significant time playing a video game in his life. This renders his opinion moot.

    Further, Ebert’s explanation regarding authorial control is flimsy, at best. It is entirely possible for two people watching the same movie or reading the same book to come away with two completely different impressions. Consider J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye”. Are we to assume that everyone who reads that book experiences the same emotional journey?

    And we know from very personal experience that people came away with dramatically different feelings regarding “Revenge of the Sith” (easily one of the worst films of the decade).

    Given that, I contend that authorial control in any medium is always limited be it book, song, movie, and yes, video game. Regardless of the author’s intent, individual experiences will always vary.

  2. It’s harsh to label Ebert’s claims as simply outrageous. While there is no doubt a bit of a generation gap, and no doubt that he lacks hands-on gaming experience, I think his fundamental point – that video games currently do not deserve consideration among the world’s great books, films, and compositions as works of art – is absolutely correct, if not undeniable. As much as I love Super Metroid, there’s no way I’m going to argue it’s a work of art on the level of the works of Shakespeare or Raphael’s School of Athens. I would argue it’s great entertainment, but not great art.

    In one of his responses in what has become a long, drawn-out internet debate, Ebert does acknowledge that video games contain elements of art, like original compositions and visual artistry. If that is sufficient to label the overall product as art, as you seem to suggest, then you could make the case that video games qualify as art. But I would argue that it is the central purpose of the work, not its supporting attributes, that makes something art. Board games, for example, rely on illustrators to embellish their works. Does that make a board game a work of art? Perhaps not.

    I think the biggest difficulty in this discussion is understanding that all forms of art started as forms of entertainment, and getting the world to accept a genre as art inevitably requires some growing pains. Popular music was not considered art until the Beatles redefined its capabilities. Movies started off purely as entertainment, and even today few make a statement or make you think. So it is with video games, but as developers continue to push their limits I believe they’ll have their day in the artistic sun.

Leave a comment