291: Almost Art

[CatmanStu]

What a load of pretentious bollocks.

The reason games aren't 'accepted' by the mass public is because of the insular community that the mediums current format creates. Look at Nintendo; they have widened the market for video games single handedly just by making them more accessible. How has the community responded to this? With 'hardcore gamers' screaming that the industry is being corrupted by 'casual gamers'. If gaming is to reach the masses IT HAS TO BE CASUAL!

This type of self serving 'games can be art' argument works from the deluded belief that art is only art if it has some sort of moral or intellectual high ground, but this will not create a mass interest in games as this is the same elitist viewpoint that fuels the entire modern art community. The same viewpoint that lets current artists set up piles of junk in an 'instillation' at a gallery and justify it with a description based on a conceptual or ideological loop of self referential symbolism that cannot be argued against due to 'intellectual' peer pressure.

Art, in my opinion, is anything created from imagination that elicits an intentional emotional reaction in the audience. So as far as I am concerned, games are already art; the trick is to let the general public see this too.

 

[Marcusss]

I strongly disagree with this article. If you inforce those crieteria to exclude videogames from the art, you have to also exclude movies, books and even paintings. Because most of works in said areas do not filfill those criteria - most of movies are just bland form of entertainment without any theme of explorations, most of books are just cheap pulp literature (again designed for entertainment), and for paintings... are you saying me if I draw a stick figure it is art, but if I create a videogame with said stick figure as character it is not?

 

[BreakfastMan]

I agree with some of the points you made, but one of the things you talk about rubs me the wrong way. You talk about the story in the game like it is the only thing that can make a game artistic. What about the visual style of the game? What about the sound design? Why cannot the mechanics of the game itself be art? Also, I think there are more games that qualify as art out today than you let on.

 

[SamElliot'sMustache]

Reading this article reminded me of several statements David Cage made about gaming while in the midst of hyping Heavy Rain. Then, I got the impression that he not only didn't understand games, and the history of gaming as a medium, but that he didn't want to, and only tolerated working in the medium because producers kept turning down his terrible film scripts. Not sure if the same applies to you, Mr. Samyn, but it does give me moment to pause.

Yes, there are lots of games out there with little or no artistic merit, but the broad blanket statements that are made in this article (notably lacking in any actual examples) ignores a section of games that is far larger than the likes of you or Mr. Cage would ever, or will ever, admit. The scales might be in favor of the Uncharteds and Halos of the world, but discounting the existence of the Silent Hills, the Psychonauts, the Fallouts, or even offbeat fare like Seaman or Katamari Damacy doesn't help your argument so much as make you sound pretentious, as does your statement that "Art creation is not a team sport."

While it's true that much of the arts revolve around singular visions, that statement is actually the worst offender, as the very existence of the Beatles blows the theory that only one person drives home an artistic vision out of the water. George, Paul, Ringo, and John collaborated heavily on their music, as do most bands as it turns out (Michael Stipe of R.E.M. mentions in the liner notes of the compilation "In Time" how he will write the lyrics, then give them to the other band members to write the actual music, a practice that's actually common amongst bands). Video game development, while having a few qualities similar to filmmaking, seems to already follow this philosophy. Some designers, like Ueda or Miyamato, might be the Mozarts of gaming, while others, like Warren Spector or Ken Levine, are John Lennons who work great with collaborators, and discarding this ideal is a little quaint.

I don't even want to get into how you ignore that the mechanics of gameplay can actually be used to express ideas, themes, and to emotionally invest players in the game, because I'm short on time.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I still feel that matter how complicated an outcome their are for moral choices you are still massive constrained. Just to use the moral choice system here as an argument against current games as art, I'm not saying that's the only thing required. The main problem is that it is a moral system designed by someone else, they have populated the world with absolute rights and wrongs. You get no say in the matter, when in reality you can decided what you personally feel is right or wrong. A painting can present you an idea of what is right but you don't have to go along with however if I want to be "good" in Mass effect I have to what they have decided is good. There's a bit in Mass Effect 2(I think it's the second one) where you can either memory wipe or kill hundreds of robots, and the developers of this have made "memory wipe" on a massive scale a "good action." However such a wipe is essentially death anyway but they have deemed it good, so good it shall be.

Sorry I'll get off moral choice systems for a moment. Why would I stop playing a game because its "futile." The majority of things you do in life are ultimately futile. I don't think the game play of Bioshock is "weak" because you aren't allowed choices and pretty much linear, if it's enjoyable then its a good game. I personally feel it was just a really cool twist that made you sit back and think, all those hours I've played how much say did I really have in it. I will still play them since I enjoyed those hours, bioshock raises a few questions about life as well when you think about it how much say do you really have in what you do in life? In bioshock you arrive in a sunkan city surrounded by genetic monsters, damn straight you'd listen to the one human voice that seems to care for your plight. Even if just to save his family, not quite art but I wouldn't go as far to call it weak.

Game of life I am famiular with, the one where a square surrounded by a certain number of squares comes to life and isolated squares die (the isolated squares, or cells, dying is pretty cool because that's what happens with human cells.) Now this does produce unpredictability but and some really cool stuff. Like the patterns that travel across the map and it generates rules about movement and stuff. But its still just some rules chosen by another human being, and every time you a put x amounts of counters in you get y amount of counters out. Not to say it's a bad experience I just find it hard to call it art. Ofcourse you can argue that the universe as a whole had x amount of counters at the beginning and we are just the in between steps are just y, but its a lot different when you don't have the rules of the universe written down. I don't think you could make a formula that creates art.

Yes, moral choice systems are shallow because they really don't amount to much more than a multiple choice test on morality set by people who normally don't have much actual expertise in the area. Moany old computer RPG fans have known as much for years and companies like Bioware have recognised this and shifted away from them somewhat but they still like the gimmick. They are just not an interesting subject of discussion for me. I don't even know why we are talking about them as if they are the best that game design has to offer.

Yeah, having the person guiding you in a game betray you or just use you for their own purpose isn't actually that surprising for older gamers. It's actually a pretty lazy device they use to get themselves out of a narrative jam. To the point that when Morrowind was being developed one of the design principles was "no betrayal" which they used to try and make the game more fresh and innovative. I expect that these things come in cycles since there are only so many stories that can be told. I could say that narrative structure is very limiting compared to gameplay but this has already gone on too far to drop such a joke and have people miss the funny side.

I don't really care if Game of Life is art although it is something that artists with broader ranges of influences have been inspired by. Emergent complexity is something that can be used to make a game unpredictable, lifelike and other good things.

 

[powercall]

Actually I think most just confuse speech with art...I ts just a cultural definition misunderstanding...

 

[Epic Fail 1977]

Almost Art

Hear hear!

 

[Irridium]

It also doesn't help that Publishers, the ones with the money, don't really care about games being art. If Warren Spector is anything to go by, what most want is "just another shooter" and they cringe at the word "story".

So yeah, if the people pushing the games don't see them as art, why the hell should the rest of the world?

 

[LogicNProportion]

This article was kinda trashy.

Honestly, this just generalized and plain out sucked...

I think it just tries to hard to get us to think, whereas most of us who are into this kinda thing know the game board, and what the problem is. We don't want our art in galleries, we want them on our TV screens...just like the movies.

Video games are by nature, pretty much collages of concept art, digital art, etc. So why is the finished product, much akin to a movie, not art?

And btw, many game developers do have a meaning behind their work. It's just ignored.

 

[Debatra]

Ars Gratia Artis

 

[boholikeu]

And secondly, we're not talking about so-called high art here anyway. The fine art on display in museums of contemporary art has long lost the social and cultural relevance that we are after.

We're not looking for a spot in the museum; we're looking for a place in the heart of the public at large.

Read Full Article

Man, I love your games, but honestly, which category do you think your own work falls under?
I mean, I can sympathize with many of your arguments, but so far it seems like the "rules-based" and "team-created" attempts at artistic games are much more effective at getting out of the museum and into the hearts and minds of the public at large.

 

[Heejo]

..."Art creation is not a team sport."

While it's true that much of the arts revolve around singular visions, that statement is actually the worst offender, as the very existence of the Beatles blows the theory that only one person drives home an artistic vision out of the water.

To mirror SamElliot'sMustace's sentiment the absurdidity of saying that true art is derived from a singular person's vision is close minded. Not a team sport? Look at "real" art. If a painter creates a new piece it will just sit there if there is no one to get it out to the masses. Music, like a song, might be created by one person, but when it comes to performing and recording the music it is very much a "team sport". Movies are made by a large amount of people. Watch the credits of even the most independent movies and gaze upon the scores of people involved to fulfill the vision of the director. Games are no different. Plus the rudimentary fact that art is not created in a vacuum proves this claim as incorrect. To say that art is created solely by one person is bogus.

What about the people who view art? Art wouldn't be art without a viewer. They are just as important to an artistic vision as the artist.

 

[doriant]

I like how this article puts being considered art over fun. No really, there are tons of fun games out there, but we need to stop "settling" for games that we can enjoy so people will take us seriously. What the game industry needs is pretentious shit that we get in movies by film students.
And I'm not saying that being considered art is bad, but when you make a "call to arms" for the whole industry to change, you're being unrealistic. No other medium has confined itself to being artsy or started that way. Some of the first movies were basic comedies, but nobody decided "we need to increase our standards". People are always demanding more from game developers, and better games are being made. Eventually, if it merits it, video games will reach a point where they qualify as art. If not, we'll always have Angry Birds.

 

[Callate]

I kind of see what the author is saying, but I think the argument runs into some unnecessary and inhibitive snares along the way. It seems to imply that something isn't art until it's recognized as such by the greater public ("...videogames are immature [because] the games industry actively prevents them from growing..." with "...there is far more opportunity in the large market of non-gamers than there is in the crammed and fiercely competitive niche of gamers" implies that the act of "becoming art" and being more accessible are somehow synonymous or parallel) and it explicitly states that art is created "...to explore certain themes or to convey messages that cannot be said in any other way."

Art has never been defined by commercial success or even public recognition. How many authors, painters, and composers have only truly gained recognition after their deaths? Did their work exist in some kind of Schrodinger's box, neither art nor not-art until finally recognized?

Art has also long existed to various degrees in a series of artist-patron relationships, sometimes drastically limiting its audience. If someone pays a painter to do an intricate oil portrait of their terrier, it's hard to argue that said portrait was created "to explore themes and/or convey messsages that can be said no other way". That said, I wouldn't necessarily leap to declare that a well-done portrait of a terrier wasn't art, that it's subject matter or crass commercial considerations rendered it ineligible for vague and possibly arrogant reasons. Not all art has to challenge or speak to the soul, to be a clarion call for justice or inescapable scream of the creator's inner turmoil.

It's dangerous to put art on a pedestal, to make it into some kind of phantasmal classification with which we can bludgeon "lesser" creations. I would hesitate to say that there are no video games that are art, or even that there haven't existed games before video games that constitute art. Chess is as intricately crafted and infinitely faceted as any oil painting, and people have devoted their entire lives to its study. Sennet addresses the travel of the soul into the afterlife in Egyptian mythology. How would we dance to create a definition in which these games weren't art?

 

[Mouse One]

I'm a huge fan of Samyn's work, and I think a lot of his harsh (but let's be honest, spot on) words come from a frustration with the current state of the art. Yeah, there's a few games out there with fantastic storylines. The Bioware games come to mind, for example. But even so, said writing is overlayed on a fundamentally "game based" foundation. Bioshock might be a pointed satire about Objectivism and the illusion of free choice, but at the end of the day, the vast majority of the game is about the FPS mechanics. Most of the narrative is delivered in non interactive cutscenes-- which begs the question of why have a game at all. Why not just watch a movie? Even extremely narrative games like Heavy Rain are essentially short movies-- a Choose Your Own Adventure book with cutscenes in place of pages.

Samyn and Harvey have made a few interactive explorations of a virtual environment: a phrase that trips off the tongue with a decided lack of ease. Since Tale of Tales uses videogame technology, their work gets dropped into the game catagory. But really, they don't make games (despite the slightly snarky jokes about games in The Path's mechanics)

Videogame technology has an awful lot of potential, but as Samyn points out, it's much clunkier than we think it is. I think as the technology becomes easier to work with, we're going to see more independent studios creating works like Tale of Tales'. To a certain extent, it's happening in the 2D realm already with Flash. For all its flaws, the relative ease of Flash has allowed many artists to create web based 2D art, often interactive-- and more importantly, informed by that interactivity.

 

[Azaraxzealot]

Really? in order to become an art form we need to follow a specific theme/emotion/action? well then hell, WE'RE ALREADY THERE! i mean, when it comes to games like Mass Effect and Red Dead Redemption, what do you think was thought about first? the guns or the setting/characters/story?

Thing is, setting/characters/story are not something that are specific to games.

hmm... then what should we be exploring? an interactive way of conveying the setting/story/characters without resorting to "Guy blows a lot of shit up."? we'll have to wait and see.

 

[notaninvaildname]

I think this is a really well done and written article, as you address where most of my personal problems within the industry lie. I do think that a script should be brought into the games development much earlier as a basis and foundation rather than a cover up to it.

However, I would like to say, if Gaming is not an art form, what is it? Or What is an Art? You can't scratch off gaming as simply being "not art. period.", can you? Even dissecting it you can discover art. "Brutal Legend", look at the landscape in that. What's the difference between looking at that and, per say, a finely painted painting? A designer and concept artist have still sat down and thought and animated and brought to life this scenic view, just the same as the painter has sat down to turn the canvas colourful.

For greater public interest of it being an art, that might be harder, due to the current views that still stigmatise the label. It's not like gaming is the only medium that has drawn stigma either. Comics went through it in the 30s, I believe. Video Nasties, the banned Horror Films of the 80's. Christ, what about the Bonfire of the Vanities in Italy? Everything form of expression goes through some form of it. Is it because gaming is trying to go through a period of expression and merely seems to have difficulty to find its feet that everyone is so quick to dismiss it?

"Video Games? They make my son do bad things, no there not an art form"
"Yes, your sons addiction to Smacking Up that he cleverly hides behind you back has nothing to do with that, no."

So, if FOX and other places are going to proclaim this Stigma, what about a greater public perception of gaming? What if gaming is still possibly a cult thing still? A fearfully large, passionate cult thing, yes, but I'm pretty sure music isn't because most people do engage with it. You ask a person on the street their favourite band, most will give you a reply, gaming? Not so much.

Until it does gain recognition, I guess this is the way it will be followed. An art reigned down by media oppression. Beautiful, isn't it? What about "6 Days in Fallujah"? Here is a game that the developers did go about to gain some artistic integrity. They even designed a new engine for the game to operate to the most authenticity it could, to deliver the true story of what these soldiers went through, and not just run off another COD or Gears rip. And as soon as it was announced, it was "horrible", "disgusting", "not giving our heroes a true word". Here is the medium being used for art. Would it be perceived the same way if it were a book or a film? I doubt so.

So yes, you're right, games are "almost" and art. But they are only "almost" by your definition. And for an idea; an emotion felt by the author of a game? I'm very eager to suggest to you to watch the "Game Mechanics" episode by Extra Credits on the Escapist, to see if it does change your perception, even slightly.

Even though I know you have your opinions and I have mine (and I am honestly not trying to demote your own opinion, I just go over a bit when it comes to gaming), I still think that gaming is an art form as current, but to reach YOUR definition of an art form, it goes need to take steps forward and publishers do need to be more weary of it. But if you keep your eyes open, you can see some examples already living.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

Some games art, some aren't.

In fact, all games are art if one says they are. The entire concept of what art is is that it's something that's it means something to someone more than the sum of it's parts.

If I throw a stick at a wall, and call it art, who are you to say ohterwise?

What if I told you that the action of me throwing that stick was a symbolic representation of my life and feelings? what if I told you that me doing that caused me to come to terms with my own personal demons?

Is it art then?

It's like in slumdog millionare. To the boy (forgot his name), every question in who wants to be a millionare he knew the answer to because of a infliutinal moment of his life.

To you ane me, it's just a quiz question, but to him, it's his parent's dying or his brother becoming a hitman etc.

 

[cake_crawler]

This article generalises to the nth degree. Games are not art. Cinema is not art. Books are not, TV is not, 'art' is not. Music is not. SOME instances of any of these things ARE artistic, and deserve to be called art, though these instances in all areas are, arguably, considerably rarer than those that aren't art: pure entertainment, and -to coin a phrase- 'shit'. I want to pick out a couple of points messy made earlier.

I also found the 'Would you kindly.' reveal to be very potent. I had thought about it earlier in the game, but just put it down to bad characterisation or something and moved on. That said, it didn't really have much effect on the game itself. To what messy said about any amount of freedom in a game simply being a only respresentation of freedom, I say all art is but representation, and offers far less freedom. Freedom is hardly a criteria for art, representation however, of whatever you can get your hands or mind on, is.

On another point the article made, why can't the game mechanics be the focus of the art? As a programmer I say poo to that, and I shall mock and belittle any who dare say that game mechanics cannot be artistic. You seem to want the industry to 'think outside the box' by focussing on what the other mediums already focus on, story and/or presentation. This is already the problem with games today though. Perhaps not the story, but the presentation certainly is looked upon as being more important than how fun it is.

 

[MASTACHIEFPWN]

"One man's trash is another mans tresure."
The reason games are "bland" and not made for the story is because the public ignores the story. Art is there, you just have to TRY to find it. Look at Crysis, The game has a lot of beauty, I concider the graphics of that to be art. I concider the story in games to be as much of a story as a book. As a game designer/ writer myself, I heavily disagree with saying games aren't made for a story. I got the ideas for the games I am attempting to make by writing stories about them. The art and writing is there, you just have to pay attention. Up until a year ago, I liked the campeign of games, but I never really payed any attention. Halo 3 ODST was the game to open my eyes, to make me replay Halo and Call of Duty to get the full effect of the campaign. I think that the writer of this is lazy, honestly.