You cant really compare Dali, Rembrant, Van Gogh and others to some metal gear solid screenshots. I totally understand whats hes saying. Game-art has a purpose, physical artworks are merely forms of expression.
That's a bit of a generalization. There are games out there that are absolutely a form of expression, with the purpose of expression first and foremost (if not the only concern of the artist). And there is 'art' that is created for an audience, to elicit a specific reaction of even produce a profit. Games are a medium, and mediums can't be defined by concepts as narrowing as audience or intent. You can make the assertion that 'most games' are this way, and 'most art' is this way, but it's not absolute regarding the medium. The same way cartoons aren't just for children, comics aren't just for adolescents, etc.
What would you call a person who perceives a piece of non-art to be art, then?
Why is it defined as non-art? You seem to imply that art is only art if the original artist considers it such, and I don't consider that to be the case. So I guess my own response to your question is that there is nothing that is, with absolute certainty, 'non-art'.
To be fair, Kojima is somewhat misconstruing Ebert's quote. Ebert was making the point that games shouldn't be considered art because there is choice and control on the part of the viewer/gamer - it is not a wholely, pre-decided medium. I don't personally believe that makes it non-art, in the same way that art installations are not invalidated by presenting the participant(s) with options. And bear in mind, Ebert was probably thinking Pac-Man when he said this, not Shadow of the Colossus, and might sing a different tune were he to actually invest some time into modern games. But he wasn't broadly putting the artform down in his original quote. He was just saying that since audience can influence the end product, he doesn't personally consider it art anymore.
Kojima too isn't discussing quality, but just motivation. He stresses the idea that people creating games are doing such to turn a profit, in order to please an audience and not create a personal labor of love. This is a pretty assumptive point of view (as I know plenty of game makers, specifically in the hobby community, who are making games for themselves with no public anticipation whatsoever). In fact, I just did preliminary design on a DS game that, if it happens, is a huge departure from what the licensor would expect, and fans of the license would expect, simply because I felt like taking this particular license in this particular direction, audience be damned. Does that make it art? I dunno. It's still licensed content and that really undercuts the artistry to me right there.
It's all pretty complex. I guess my stance is that broad generalizations on the subject usually stem from ignorance about games (Ebert) or cynicism/realism (Kojima). If someone working on a game considers what they're doing to be art, it is. If someone plays a game and they see art in it, there is. And the two are not mutually-dependant.
- Adam
