Skip to content

Are Video Games Art Essay On Pedernal 1942

In August 1878, when the editors of the popular American magazine Appleton's Journal first encountered Impressionism, their response was one of bafflement and affront. "What new dogma is this," demanded one editorial, "that so long as colour is heaped on in a vigorous manner, a picture must be accepted as complete, however crude and raw it may seem, however absolute is the evidence that the artist stopped before he had done?"

To them, and to the French critics who attended the first showing of paintings by Monet, Degas and Pissaro on the Boulevard des Capucines in 1874, these works were a travesty; an insult to the formal skill of the great masters. They were not art, they were incomplete.

We can then fast forward, if we must, to Duchamp's great practical joke, Fountain, to Warhol, to the Young British Artists, all pilloried, all questioned, all placed against battered and subjective dogma. Now we can add video games.

Somehow, this issue is still being analysed and debated – mostly by those outside of the industry, who have little clue about games. In 2010 the film critic Roger Ebert made himself a few thousand internet enemies by declaring that games can never be art. And last week, the Guardian art critic Jonathan Jones reacted with disdain to Moma's exhibition of 14 classic video games. In a piece entitled "Sorry Moma but games are not art" he claimed that games could never qualify as artistic expression because their very interactivity meant that the creator was unable to claim an authorial vision. "No one 'owns' the game," he suggested, "so there is no artist, and therefore no work of art".

It is a comment that returns us to that first Impressionist exhibition, where the critic Louis Leroy cruelly lampooned the works on display as uncultured blobs of paint on dirty canvases. "The visual arts world is always ready to defend its turf against interlopers," says Matt Adams, co -founder of interactive art collective Blast Theory. "As a games designer and as an artist making interactive work this stuff is a constant.

"Ironically, the arguments that Jones musters are uncannily similar in style to those used against Duchamp's Urinal or Carl Andre's Equivalent VIII. Those critics also asserted that a ready made was not a valid act of personal imagination, that it was 'just' an object that the artist didn't even own".

For Adams, the flaw in Jones' argument is that the insistence on a lone creative voice immediately strikes out all collective practice and every collaboration. "It is facile to assert that it is the solo nature of its production that allows an artwork to speak to others," he says. "So much contemporary visual art is made by teams of technicians and assistants, even before we start on a heritage of amazing collaborators ranging from Gilbert and George to Heather and Ivan Morison. Most games are, in any case, strongly driven by the vision of a single designer. Games connoisseurs would know a Miyamoto from a Wright in a heartbeat".

Jones' piece also overlooks the artists already using video games, both as a primary source of inspiration, and an artistic medium. "Among them is game artist Jason Rohrer, a number of whose works have already been shown in NYC MOMA," says Richard Lemarchand a veteran game designer who now lectures at USC. "Rod Humble made a game called The Marriage in 2007 that took an important step to stake out territory for games as art whose meaning arises solely through the ludic systems of its interactivity, rather than through the nature of its content, and an international community of artists like Anna Anthropy, Daniel Benmergui, Jenova Chen, Dan Pinchbeck and Tale of Tales are all doing interesting work".

Jones is a little behind on all of this. The central question of whether interactivity cedes too much responsibility to the spectator has been tackled by artists and musicians for over 100 years. Lemarchand, for example, refers to Umberto Eco's essay, Opera aperta ("The Open Work"): "it was inspired by composers like Stockhausen, Berio, Pousseur and their use of aleatoric and ludic methods to introduce dynamic elements of possibility into their music. Eco extrapolated from those works to develop a literary theory whereby texts are not static, in part because of their 'intertextuality', but most importantly, because of the interpretive role of the reader". You could also point to the telematic art of Roy Ascott, who set up the radical and influential Groundcourse in art teaching in the sixties and who has explored the concepts of telepresence and cyberspace in art. When I interviewed him for Frieze magazine three years ago, he was fascinated by the artistic possibilities of games.

It is possible to argue, of course, that all art is interactive; it is there in the very act of interpretation. The artist is never the soul arbiter of meaning, and artists, like game designers, build structures through which they communicate rather than dictate. "As someone who has been professionally designing video games for all of their adult life, it's always surprising to me to hear people claim that there isn't, 'the presence of an organising mind' behind them," says Lemarchand. "Games are made up of sets of rules and goals that produce dynamical systems as players begin to use them. Those rules are created by someone - a game designer - and circumscribe a space of possibility and meaning for the player to explore. Sometimes the rules are strict and rigidly constraining, sometimes they're loose and require interpretation - no more or less than a score by Mozart, or a set of conceptual instructions from John Cage, Yoko Ono or Sol Le Witt".

Moma has clearly chosen its initial batch of subjects on principles of design rather than meaning; I hope it will expand its parameters. I hope Jonathan Jones gets to play Journey or The Graveyard or Dear Esther, games that express and explore life, fear and beauty. These are important things. "For a game to qualify as an art work we should ask: can they carry intellectual and emotional sophisitication? Can they move you? Can they express complex ideas?" says Adams. "The answer is yes, yes and yes. It may not be PacMan that does it for me. It isn't Katamari Damacy or Bioshock or any of the other regular candidates. But, as one small example, 911 Survivor is a short mod that puts you into the World Trade Center after the first plane has hit and it's an experience I will never forget. It prompted death threats and was withdrawn. It is as valid a work of art as any piece of ceramics, any ready made, any abstract expressionist painting".

What is art? What isn't? It is a fool's errand, really, and when applied to video games, there can only be one true and valid response: does it really matter? The perfect arc of a Mario jump, the iridescent beauty of Rez, the pastoral longing of Flower, even the architectural brilliance of a Counter-Strike map; none of this is belittled if it fails to 'qualify' as art. "Jonathan's piece is the normal half-baked reactionary response that's been wheeled out several times over the last few years," says Dan Pinchbeck, a lecturer in computer games and creative technologies at Portsmouth University and designer of Dear Esther. "To be honest, I don't think its actually a very interesting question. I don't think games need to aspire to being art, like art is an inherently more worthwhile form of cultural expression - people were playing games long before they were making art, so it's certainly not an older one. A more interesting question is, why is it so important to some people that games are NOT art? Why do they feel so threatened by games being art?" 

And this is the soul of it really; this is what it comes down to. Certain critics will always attempt to barricade themselves against the flood of the new, to fence in what they understand and can safely ascribe meaning to – but new art always seeps through. The next time someone tells you that something isn't art, that it can't possibly even qualify, know that what they're really telling you is that they are bewildered by change. That's okay, it's human, but it shouldn't be mistaken for criticism. Are games art or aren't they? Nobody need answer. Games are beautiful and important, we can leave it there and know that we are right.

For other uses, see Art game (disambiguation).

Not to be confused with art game or video game art.

"Empathy game" redirects here. For Doctor Who audiobook, see Empathy Games.

The concept of video games as a form of art is a controversial topic within the entertainment industry. Though video games have been afforded legal protection as creative works by the Supreme Court of the United States, the philosophical proposition that video games are works of art remains in question, even when considering the contribution of expressive elements such as graphics, storytelling and music. Even art games, games purposely designed to be a work of creative expression, have been challenged as works of art by some critics.[1]


The earliest institutional consideration of the video game as an art form came in the late 1980s when art museums began retrospective displays of then outdated first and second generation games. In exhibitions such as the Museum of the Moving Image's 1989 "Hot Circuits: A Video Arcade", video games were showcased as preformed works whose quality as art came from the intent of the curator to display them as art.[2] Further explorations of this theme were set up in the late 1990s and early 2000s with exhibitions like the Walker Art Center's "Beyond Interface" (1998),[3] the online "Cracking the Maze - Game Plug-Ins as Hacker Art" (1999),[4] the UCI Beall Centre's "Shift-Ctrl" (2000),[2] and a number of shows in 2001.[3]

The concept of the video game as a Duchamp-style readymade or as found object resonated with early developers of the art game. In her 2003 Digital Arts and Culture paper, "Arcade Classics Span Art? Current Trends in the Art Game Genre", professor Tiffany Holmes noted that a significant emerging trend within the digital art community was the development of playable video game pieces referencing or paying homage to earlier classic works like Breakout, Asteroids, Pac-Man, and Burgertime.[5] In modifying the code of simplistic early games or by creating art mods for more complex games like Quake, the art game genre emerged from the intersection of commercial games and contemporary digital art.[2]

At the 2010 Art History of Games conference in Atlanta, Georgia, professor Celia Pearce further noted that alongside Duchamp's art productions, the Fluxus movement of the 1960s, and most immediately the New Games Movement had paved the way for more modern "art games". Works such as Lantz' Pac Manhattan, according to Pearce, have become something like performance art pieces.[4] Most recently, a strong overlap has developed between art games and indie games. This meeting of the art game movement and the indie game movement is important according to Professor Pearce, insofar as it brings art games to more eyes and allows for greater potential to explore in indie games.[4]

In March 2006, the French Minister of Culture first characterized video games as cultural goods and as "a form of artistic expression," granting the industry a tax subsidy[6] and inducting two French game designers (Michel Ancel, Frédérick Raynal) and one Japanese game designer (Shigeru Miyamoto) into the Ordre des Arts et des Lettres. In May 2011, the United States National Endowment for the Arts, in accepting grants for art projects for 2012, expanded the allowable projects to include "interactive games", furthering the recognition of video games as an art form.[7] Similarly, the United States Supreme Court ruled that video games were protected speech like other forms of art in the June 2011 decision for Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association.

The lines between video games and art become blurred when exhibitions fit the labels of both game and interactive art. The Smithsonian American Art Museum held an exhibit in 2012, entitled "The Art of Video Games", which was designed to demonstrate the artistic nature of video games, including the impact of older works and the subsequent influence of video games on creative culture.[8] The Smithsonian later added Flower and Halo 2600, games from this collection, as permanent exhibits within the museum.[9] Similarly, the Museum of Modern Art in New York City aims to collect forty historically important video games in their original format to exhibit, showcasing video game interaction design as part of a broader effort to "celebrate gaming as an artistic medium".[10] The annual "Into the Pixel" art exhibit held at the time of the Electronic Entertainment Expo highlights video game art selected by a panel of both video game and art industry professionals.[11]

Empathy games[edit]

While many video games are recognized as art for their visual imagery and storytelling, another class of games has gained attention for creating an emotional experience for the player, generally by having the user role-play as a character under a stress-inducing situation, covering topics associated with poverty, sexuality, and physical and mental illnesses.[12][13] Such games are considered to be examples of an empathy game, loosely described by Patrick Begley of the Sydney Morning Herald as a game that "asks players to inhabit their character's emotional worlds".[14]


The characterization of games as works of art has been controversial. While recognizing that games may contain artistic elements in their traditional forms such as graphic art, music, and story, several notable figures have advanced the position that games are not artworks, and may never be capable of being called art.

Legal status[edit]

American courts first began examining the question of whether video games were entitled to constitutional guarantees of free speech as under the First Amendment, in March 1982 in the case of America's Best Family Showplace Corp. v. City of New York, Dept. of Bldgs.[15] In a brace of similarly decided lawsuits in 1982 and 1983, precedent began to be established for finding that video games were no more expressive than pinball, chess, board- or card-games, or organized sports. This began to change in 2000 as some courts began to make rulings in distinction and carving out narrow exceptions for some elements of video games.[16]

By April 2002, controversy over the topic was still a legal reality as Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr., upon reviewing gameplay from "'The Resident of Evil Creek' [sic], 'Mortal Combat' [sic], 'DOOM,' and 'Fear Effect'" ruled in Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County that "just like bingo, the Court fails to see how video games express ideas, impressions, feelings, or information unrelated to the game itself".[17][18] In 2011's Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association the United States Supreme Court ruled that games are entitled to First Amendment protection, with the majority opinion reading, "Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection."[19]

Theory of legitimation[edit]

Emerging art forms depend upon existing communities for recognition and legitimation, even as they compete with those incumbents for ideological and material support.[1] Games have faced suspicion from critics of established media, just as film, television, and comics were once doubted.[1] Keith Stewart, games editor for The Guardian, sees mainstream media as preferring to approach games from the angle of the human stories surrounding them – making indie games with identifiable creators attractive to journalists.[20] Critical communities devoted to games have likewise embraced auteur theory of games' artistic potential as underpinned by the creative visions of sole creators.[1] John Lanchester of the London Review of Books noted that even as video games become a larger market by revenues compared to films and books, the amount of attention given to video games is generally delegated to a limited set of sources and do not readily enter the "cultural discourse".[21]

Auteur theory has led to some overlap between indie status and artistic cachet, with critics praising stylistic choices in indie games, when those same choices would be deplored in a commercial game.[22] Rather than defending the medium as a whole, proponents of art games attempt to create a separate milieu opposed to video games they accept to be low culture.[1][22] In practice, indie auteurs often receive commercial backing, while mainstream creators such as Shigeru Miyamoto and Peter Molyneux are increasingly viewed as auteurs as well.[1] The conflation of indieness and artistry has been criticized by some, including Anna Anthropy,[1]Lucy Kellaway,[22] and Jim Munroe,[23] who argue the characteristics that distinguish indie games from the mainstream are not inherently artistic.

Munroe suggested that video games often face a double standard in that if they conform to traditional notions of the game as a toy for children then they are flippantly dismissed as trivial and non-artistic, but if they push the envelope by introducing serious adult themes into games then they face negative criticism and controversy for failing to conform to the very standards of non-artistic triviality demanded by these traditional notions. He further explained games as a type of art more akin to architecture, in which the artist creates a space for the audience to experience on their own terms, than to a non-interactive presentation as in cinema.[23]

Video game designer Kim Swift believes games can be artistic but denies that they need to be art in order to have cultural value. She feels video games should aspire to be toys through which adults can exercise their imaginations.[24]

Roger Ebert on video games as art[edit]

The question rose to wide public attention in the mid-2000s when film critic Roger Ebert participated in a series of controversial debates and published colloquies. In 2005, following an online discussion concerning whether or not knowledge of the game Doom was essential to a proper appreciation of the film Doom (which Ebert had awarded one star) as a commentary on the game,[25] Ebert described video games as a non-artistic medium incomparable to the more established art forms:

To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

— Roger Ebert[26]

In 2006, Ebert took part in a panel discussion at the Conference on World Affairs entitled "An Epic Debate: Are Video Games an Art Form?" in which he stated that video games don't explore the meaning of being human as other art forms do.[27][28] A year later, in response to comments from Clive Barker on the panel discussion, Ebert further noted that video games present a malleability that would otherwise ruin other forms of art. As an example, Ebert posed the idea of a version of Romeo and Juliet that would allow for an optional happy ending. Such an option, according to Ebert, would weaken the artistic expression of the original work.[29] In April 2010, Ebert published an essay, dissecting a presentation made by Kellee Santiago of thatgamecompany at the 2009 Technology Entertainment Design Conference, where he again claimed that games can never be art, due to their rules and goal-based interactivity.[30]

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a [sic] immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

— Roger Ebert[30]

Ebert's essay was strongly criticized by the gaming community,[31][32][33] including Santiago herself, who believes that video games as artistic media are only at their infancy, similar to prehistoric cave paintings of the past.[34] Ebert later amended his comments in 2010, conceding that games may indeed be art in a non-traditional sense, that he had enjoyed playing Cosmology of Kyoto, and addressing some replies to his original arguments.[35]

Although Ebert did not engage with the issue again and his view remains mired in controversy, the notion that video games are ineligible to be considered fine art due to their commercial appeal and structure as choice-driven narratives has proved persuasive for many including video game luminary Brian Moriarty who in March 2011 gave a lecture on the topic entitled An Apology For Roger Ebert.[25] In this lecture Moriarty emphasized that video games are merely an extension of traditional rule-based games and that there has been no call to declare games like Chess and Go to be art. He went on to argue that art in the sense that Romantics like Ebert, Schopenhauer, and he were concerned with (i.e. fine art or sublime art) is exceptionally rare and that Ebert was being consistent by declaring video games to be without artistic merit inasmuch as Ebert had previously claimed that "Hardly any movies are art."[25] Moriarty decried the modern expansion of the definition of "art" to include low art, comparing video games to kitsch and describing aesthetic appreciation of video games as camp. After addressing the corrupting influence of commercial forces in indie games and the difficulty of setting out to create art given the "slippery" tools that game designers must work with, Moriarty concluded that ultimately it was the fact that player choices were presented in games that structurally invalidated the application of the term "art" to video games as the audience's interaction with the work wrests control from the author and thereby negates the expression of art.[25] This lecture was in turn criticized sharply by noted video game designer, Zach Gage.[25]

Other notable critics[edit]

In a 2006 interview with US Official PlayStation 2 Magazine, game designer Hideo Kojima agreed with Ebert's assessment that video games are not art. Kojima acknowledged that games may contain artwork, but he stressed the intrinsically popular nature of video games in contrast to the niche interests served by art. Since the highest ideal of all video games is to achieve 100% player satisfaction whereas art is targeted to at least one person, Kojima argued that video game creation is more of a service than an artistic endeavor.[36]

At the 2010 Art History of Games conference, Michael Samyn and Auriea Harvey (founding members of indie studio Tale of Tales), argued in no uncertain terms that games "are not art" and that they are by and large "a waste of time." Central to Tale of Tales' distinction between games and art is the purposive nature of games as opposed to art: Whereas humans possess a biological need that is only satisfied by play, argues Samyn, and as play has manifested itself in the form of games, games represent nothing more than a physiological necessity. Art, on the other hand, is not created out of a physical need but rather it represents a search for higher purposes. Thus the fact that a game acts to fulfill the physical needs of the player is sufficient, according to Samyn, to disqualify it as art.[4]

Gamers were surprised by this controversial stance due to the frequency of prior third-party characterizations of Tale of Tales' productions as "art games," however Tale of Tales clarified that the games they were making simply expanded the conception of games. The characterization of their games as "art games," noted Samyn, was merely a byproduct of the imaginative stagnation and lack of progressivism in the video game industry. While Tale of Tales acknowledged that old media featuring one-way communication was not enough, and that two-way communication via computers offers the way forward for art, the studio argued that such communication today is being held hostage by the video game industry.[4] To enable and foment this futuristic two-way art, suggests Tale of Tales, the concept of "the game" must be eviscerated by games that do not fit within the current paradigm and then "life must be breathed into the carcass" through the creation of artworks Samyn and Harvey refer to as "not games."[4]

In 2011, Samyn further refined his argument that games are not art by emphasizing the fact that games are systematic and rule-based. Samyn identified an industry emphasis on gameplay mechanics as directly responsible for the marginalization of artistic narrative in games and he described modern video games as little more than digital sport. Pointing to systemic problems, Samyn criticized the current model whereby the putative artist must work through a large and highly efficient development team who may not share the artist's vision. However, Samyn does not reject the idea that games, as a medium, can be used to create art. To create art using the medium of the video game Samyn suggests that the artistic message must precede the means of its expression in the guidance of gameplay mechanics, the development of "funness" or economic considerations must cease to guide the work's creation, and the development process must embrace a model wherein a single artist-author's vision gains central primacy.[37]

In 2012, Guardian art critic Jonathan Jones published an article arguing that games are more like a playground and not art. Jones also notes that the nature of creating video games robs "one person’s reaction to life" and that "no one owns the game, so there is no artist, and therefore no work of art."[38]

In 2013, video game journalist Patricia Hernandez described a puzzle in the interactive fiction game Photopia. The solution of the puzzle involves a reveal regarding the player's controlled playable character, prompting experiences which Hernandez argues could not be made "as powerful as they are" in any other art form without interactivity. Hernandez says that narrations in the interactive medium happen in the first person and the present tense, which are "fundamental (and often misunderstood) elements of the interactive medium".[39]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ abcdefgFelan Parker (2013). "An Art World for Artgames". Loading... Simon Fraser University. 7 (11): 54–55. ISSN 1923-2691. 
  2. ^ abcStalker, Phillipa Jane. Gaming In Art: A Case Study Of Two Examples Of The Artistic Appropriation Of Computer Games And The Mapping Of Historical Trajectories Of 'Art Games' Versus Mainstream Computer Games. University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. 2005.
  3. ^ abHolmes, Tiffany. Art games and Breakout: New media meets the American arcade. Computer Games and Digital Cultures conference (Tampere, Finland); Art Gallery, Siggraph 2002. August 2002.
  4. ^ abcdefPratt, Charles J. The Art History... Of Games? Games As Art May Be A Lost Cause. Gamasutra. 8 February 2010.
  5. ^Holmes, Tiffany. Arcade Classics Span Art? Current Trends in the Art Game GenreArchived April 20, 2013, at the Wayback Machine.. Melbourne DAC 2003. 2003.
  6. ^Crampton, Thomas. For France, Video Games Are as Artful as Cinema. New York Times. 2 November 2006.
  7. ^Funk, John (2011-05-06). "Games Now Legally Considered an Art Form (in the USA)". Escapist. Retrieved 2011-05-06. 
  8. ^"Exhibitions: The Art of Video Games". Smithsonian American Art Museum. Retrieved 2011-02-16. 
  9. ^McWhertor, Michael (2013-12-17). "Smithsonian acquires Flower, Halo 2600 for its permanent collection". Polygon. Retrieved 2013-12-17. 
  10. ^Solon, Olivia (2012-11-29). "MoMA to Exhibit Videogames, From Pong to Minecraft". Wired. Retrieved 2012-11-30. 
  11. ^Goldberg, Harold (2013-06-12). "Pixels Floating on the Art World's Margins". New York Times. Retrieved 2013-06-15. 
  12. ^Campbell, Colin (May 9, 2013). "Gaming's New Frontier: Cancer, Depression, Suicide". Polygon. Retrieved November 15, 2016. 
  13. ^Dougherty, Conon (August 15, 2013). "Videogames About Alcoholism, Depression and Cancer". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved November 15, 2016. 
  14. ^Begley, Patrick (November 1, 2014). "'Empathy gaming' focuses on emotions and moral decisions". Syndey Morning Herald. Retrieved November 15, 2016. 
  15. ^America's Best Family Showplace Corp. v. City of New York, Dept. of Bldgs., 536 F.Supp. 170, D.C.N.Y., 1982.
  16. ^American Amusement Mach. Ass'n v. Kendrick, 115 F.Supp.2d 943 (S.D.Ind.2000).
  17. ^Interactive Digital Software Ass'n v. St. Louis County, Mo., 200 F.Supp.2d 1126, E.D.Mo.,2002.
  18. ^Wagner, James. "Playing games with free speech". Salon. 6 May 2002.
  19. ^Sutter, John D. "Supreme Court sees video games as art". CNN. 
  20. ^Pearson, Dan. "The First Guardian: Keith Stuart on getting games into Culture". 
  21. ^John, Lanchester (January 1, 2009). "Is It Art?". London Review of Books. Nicholas Spice. 31 (1): 18–20. Retrieved October 3, 2016. 
  22. ^ abcSmith, Edward. "Indie Games Aren't Art Games". International Business Times. 
  23. ^ abYoung, Nora & Misener, Dan. Repeat of Spark 126 – October 16 & 19, 2011: Games as Art (Podcast available: Games as ArtArchived October 29, 2014, at the Wayback Machine.). Spark. 7 November 2010.
  24. ^Rigney, Ryan. "Portal Designer Kim Swift Won't Let You Take Her Toys Away". WIRED. 
  25. ^ abcdeMoriarty, Brian; Caoili, Eric (ed.). Opinion: Brian Moriarty's Apology For Roger Ebert. GameSetWatch. 15 March 2011.
  26. ^Ebert, Roger (2005-11-27). "Why did the chicken cross the genders?". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2010-08-31. 
  27. ^Emerson, Jim (2006-04-16). "Video games: The 'epic debate'". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2010-08-31. 
  28. ^Ebert, Roger (2006-04-13). An Epic Debate: Are Video Games an Art Form?. 62nd Annual Conference on World Affairs. 
  29. ^Ebert, Roger (2007-07-21). "Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2010-08-31. 
  30. ^ abEbert, Roger (2010-04-16). "Video games can never be art". Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 2010-08-31. 
  31. ^Nosowitz, Dan (2010-04-20). "Game Designer Kellee Santiago Responds to Roger Ebert's "Video Games Are Not Art" Rant". Fast Company. Retrieved 2010-08-31. 
  32. ^Sjöberg, Lore (2010-04-23). "Alt Text: Are Videogames Art? Time Will Tell". Wired. Retrieved 2010-08-31. 
  33. ^Sapieha, Chad (2010-04-18). "Roger Ebert: Video games cannot be art". The Globe and Mail. Retrieved 2010-08-31. 
  34. ^Santiago, Kellee (2010-04-19). "Right. Moving On… [My Response to Ebert]". thatgamecompany. Retrieved 2010-08-31. 
  35. ^Ebert, Roger (2010-07-01). "Okay, kids, play on my lawn". Chicago Sun-Times. Archived from the original on August 11, 2010. Retrieved 2010-08-31. 
  36. ^Gibson, Ellie. Games aren't art, says Kojima. Eurogamer. 24 January 2006.
  37. ^Samyn, Michael. Almost Art. Escapist. 1 February 2011.
  38. ^Jones, Jonathan (2012-11-30). "Sorry MoMA, video games are not art". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2016-04-06. 
  39. ^"A Moment of Perfect Beauty". Nightmare Mode [Archived]. 2013-01-19. Retrieved 2017-10-03. 

External links[edit]