291: Almost Art

[Therumancer]

I'll be honest in saying that I think the problem with video games right now is that they are trying too hard to be artistic, rather than it being a situation where the gaming industry is holding it back. Honestly it seems like pretty much every game produced nowadays has someone trying to claim that the game is new, or putting a unique spin on things, when really it's just retreading the same regurgitated garbage spewed out by every other left wing artist. Pretty much every game out there now has to have some political, or sociological subtext added into it, almost every war game has to include some kind of anti-war propaganda, etc...

Games should focus on being games, and entertaining the people who play them. True art comes about on it's own, it's not something that can be forced, and right now the entire problem is people aping the current aristic community, and what's more, doing it badly. Either they will become art on their own, or they will not. Trying to be artistic is the best way to ensure it doesn't happen.

I find it kind of odd that people would say that games aren't trying to rise to the challenge of becoming art, because all of the Emo-Angst ridden garbage is done largely for that reason. That's the kind of stuff that the industy sees being taken seriously as art, so it apes it.

I'll also say that the industry as a whole has a vested interest in such recognition, which is why it's actually pushing the issue so hard. Right now there is an international pressure on games, aside from the censorship issue in the US (going before the Supreme Court) we've seen video games under attack in Australia, and even throughout Europe courtasy of nations like Germany (and some of Germany's policies are one of the reasons why the PEGI system concerns me). If games can get a universal recognition as art, that allows the laws in many of the nations doing the bellyaching to be turned back on them.

 

[Shadeovblack]

ALL games are art.

from Super Mario Bros. to Settlers of Catan to Rock, Paper, Scissors.

All in their own way.

 

[beefpelican]

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.

I agree with you on this point. I have been moved by certain parts of great games, for example, the end of Braid, or the scene that you pointed out in Bioshock. However, in both those cases, control was removed from me and put in the hands of the game designer, and that's what made the scenes beautiful and touching.
A big part of the 'games are art already' argument is that the player relates more to a character they are controlling, implying that movies and books can't do this as well as games. I have never found this to be true. A well crafted movie can draw the viewer into the perspective of the main character much more easily than a game, because the movie character always does exactly what is scripted, instead of running around looking for secret rooms or kicking chickens or anything else to distract from the constantly building tension.

 

[geizr]

Art does not exist in a particular set of rules or a particular kind of message(intellectual, ethical, moral, or otherwise). Art exists in the ability of the work to exist as a uniquely identifiable, singular whole. It is not the parts themselves or their construction which makes the art(any trained monkey can make a detailed, pretty picture); rather, it is the way the parts interact such to create a coherent, cohesive structure that satisfies consistency and continuity across the entirety of the work itself that makes art. It is the creation of a holistic experience that obtains a life, spirit, and identity of its own, unfractured and uncompromised by ad hoc influences or considerations, that lends artistry to the work. In this regard, even a game that is just for fun can be artistic because it is not the deliverance of an "artistic message" that makes it be art. It is the creation of the "artistic experience" that makes it be art.

In my opinion, the first step to consistently creating artistic games is to stop with the toddler's busy-center style design with a lot of games(lots of parts and pieces thrown together without any real coherent purpose or function) and actually make a complete, consistent, and continuous experience. This experience has to exist in total. Be careful about throwing in parts that are "cool" or "cool-looking". Everything has to actually work with the rest of the game to create a total, holistic experience, and, unfortunately, "cool" or "cool-looking" stuff has a tendency to not work well with other things(this is because coolness is the ultimate expression of unique individual identity; it does not like to be subsumed into a greater whole).

Stop trying to make the game artistic and just focus on making the game make sense with itself, get the pieces actually working together in a seamless, self-consistent whole. The artistry will follow on its own.

EDIT: Minor rephrasing in one sentence.

 

[Mouse One]

I agree with you on this point. I have been moved by certain parts of great games, for example, the end of Braid, or the scene that you pointed out in Bioshock. However, in both those cases, control was removed from me and put in the hands of the game designer, and that's what made the scenes beautiful and touching.
.

I haven't played Braid (although you've just talked me into downloading the demo). But I think the really well thought out bit in Bioshock was that much of the narrative depended on losing control of your character in those scenes. The Path has something similar, in fact-- a scene in which you can only travel in one direction, but must hit a key to move at all.

The thing is, in a book or movie, these scenes wouldn't work as well. The audience/reader has never had control, so there's no way to lose it or limit it. But that loss of control is huge in those particular games. Contrast this with the typical cut scene which is really just "okay, now watch a short movie". The difference is that the first examples *use* the game mechanics to make a point and impact the player emotionally.

I think as videogames mature, we're going to see more ideas like that. But there is no getting around the fact that often the game can detract from the narrative-- as in your example about RPG characters who really really need to get on with the mission but instead wander around looting barrels and running errands for locals. Pacing? Wot's dat? (Dragon Age, I love ya, but I'm looking at you here).

 

[redeyecoyote]

I realize that arguing with this article is asinine. This article does nothing to actually say why games aren't art. I'm going to work backwards because that's the precise descending order of the validity of these arguments, and also to show that the arguments don't necessarily follow.

He ends discussing game development and talks about giving creative control back to a single author or a small team. Agreed. This can be a great idea. Prior to that he states that art is made on purpose. I disagree. One doesn't create art simply by setting out to make art. Art has a way of arising without considering its creator's intent. But in this section he states that gaming should start with an idea and construct the game from scratch around the idea. Also a great idea. Prior to that, though, he essentially says games aren't art because they don't act like other art. They have a responsibility to be art because they can do things similar to art forms like cinema and painting. That's just not the case. There were things unique to cinema and unique to painting, as well as poetry and novels, and any other art form. So, too, are there things unique to videogames that must be embraced for videogames to refine themselves as a unique art form. He says games only exist for fun. For a number of years cinema only existed to record moving life, with no higher purpose. It wasn't until decades later, new technique after new technique, that cinema was accepted as an artistic form of expression beyond straight recording or narrative cinema. If anything many would say gaming is developing much faster. This first part of the argument contains that controversial "art is about something," statement commenters keep coming back to. I, and many others I imagine, have understood art to be not just about something, but about us. If we walk away from a work understanding something about humans or ourselves, congratulations Jasper Johns, you just did art. This is as much a blanket statement as "art is about something," but with the focus on the creators and the observers. I can walk away from Silent Hill 2 with a new view on grief and regret and how people deal with it. Someone else might walk away from Fallout 3 thinking about man's ability to persevere. Someone else might even put down God of War with a new understanding of myth and oral tradition. If this is the case then these works have managed to express ideas in a way that effectively communicates with and profoundly affects the observer. But this article ignores the observer and puts the task of creating its poorly-defined art in the hands of the developers. That serves something of a purpose for the end of the article, when development is discussed, but nothing is done to argue much why games aren't art beyond those vague statements. The very beginning even says games have no cultural significance. One will rarely find cultural significance in a single work. It's found between works, comparing works and seeing what traits, themes, and styles consistently appear, and comparing works between cultures. Compare Western RPGs to eachother, then compare an exemplary Western RPG to an exemplary JRPG, I guarantee any reader here could fill a list with the cultural significance of each.

As a call for change in the mechanical and business aspects of development this article makes good points. But it fails utterly at addressing the art issue beyond a few statements too vague to hold any merit and seem to exist only for that later call-for-change. Now I feel more like an English teacher than a commenter. Bad form, Jack.

 

[Luke Cartner]

I'm a bit confused, what was the author's criteria for art anyway?
Film, media, theater, painting, music, books and sculpture all these art forms have the primary goal to be consumed and enjoyed by their respective audiences. In fact my mother who is an accomplished painter, potter and otherwise active artist believes (or told me she believes once) that art that you cant sell to others for enjoyment isn't art it is simply self indolence. And with the notable exception of Van Goff's work I agree with her (well you can sell it now but you couldn't when he was alive).

My point is I think stating games are not art because they focus on game play and do not follow the rules of other art forms misses the point. Like saying poems are not art because they paint pictures without brush strokes, or theater is not art because its just people pretending.

I've played games that make me question what it is to be human, that contained breath taking beauty and even made me question my own belief system, in fact I would argue any one who has played games for more than a few years has.
My point is if games are not art then what is?
By the same rules painting and photos are just images, books and poems are just text, plays, opera and film are just people pretending to amuse us the audience.

 

[RowdyRodimus]

I have learned two things from this article:
1) I will never waste my money on anything from Tale of Tales
2) If the future of games become what this guy wants, I am done forever with them

 

[Tsun Tzu]

The definition of "Art" is dependent on the perception of the viewer.

Therefore, this article is simply one of billions of outright opposing or perhaps only slightly differing opinions on the overarching subject of what constitutes "Art".

Therefore, arguing over it is a little less than useless, as you're not at all very likely to change the minds of anyone involved in the discussion.

Therefore, take it with a grain of salt. I know I am.

 

[Viik]

You're missing the point of art. All of the art you've cited are heavily emphasized on context.

For example: phone number as art can be seen as a hypocritical irony about the identification of individuals by numbers.
2. never heard of this example
3. the blocks came at a time when art required form, Mondrian is radicalizing this concept by his exploration of what form means.
4. Most modern art is created in context (see street art), therefore, a simple doll can be artistic if there's a context to it. However, when you take a picture away from its context, sure they all look the same, therefore it's impossible for critics to say what's the art.

But the difference is that games include a self-contained context, meaning that the context is within the world itself; therefore, the art in games is in itself. And the point of it all is that, like the art that you've used as examples, games can achieve artistic merit if they say something meaningful within its own context. This means that even without outside context, games should be able to say something about their subjects, but without outside context, many modern paintings are just random scribbles.

In this case I would advice you to study theories behind game design, so you could easily find "artistic vision" behind game mechanics. As for many people phone number is just a number and not an art, for many "artist" developed set of gameplay rules are just rules. By following same path I could exclude all content from the game, leave only pure game mechanics and show that it has artistic meaning cause I can see it.

As to the article, sometimes I have a filling that some people working in gamedev should be working in movie poduction - they are trying too hard to make movies using game development technologies. Simple example is COD, most people here won't call it an art, ok. Now look from this side: many different players, with different goals, one wants to get the highes score, another is focused on teamplay, yet another one just one to get 100 frags with tomahawk and etc; some of them get similar emotions some not, some emotions are clear and some a basically mixed. Developers didn't put that experience into game, they created a basis for experience to happen individually to each player. Now lets look at The Path - prepared experince, the same for all players, enforced by how character in game is controled and strict rules of what player can do. Sorry but your "game" to me is less art than COD in terms of creating emotions.
Btw, many competetive games do have "something to tell about" - mostly to you about yourself and possibly your friends if you playing together.

 

[Viik]

Second example. As sculptor can take a stone and create a believable and recognizable face of person that you know, depicting certaine emotion on his face, without recreating every single possible detail of real face; game programmer can create believable behaviour for a flock of deer, put them into believable forest and by playing with their behavior reflect primal fear of death, without recreating the whole system in its complexity. So why games are not art already?

 

[Blazeaga]

I really enjoyed this article, and fellow escapists some of your comments really englightened me so thank you very much ^^. My view is that as someone said he tends to generalize a bit my main thoguht was fable, yes there is hate but i truly loved this game, i followed it before it got realeased and watched videos of the making and etc. The developers were trying to make it so the player feels like a hero and the "message" of fable if there has to be one is that choices can make drastic effects ( even thou this was implemented poorly in the game ).

 

[CatmanStu]

Edited for brevity

Edited for further brevity

I can completely understand the fear and disdain of a more widely accessible games market creating a dearth of mass produced dross with no creative merit, but that is the price of introducing an audience to a new medium.

First you give them casual, throw away products so they can develop an acceptance of the medium in the comfort of their predefined understanding of it; next you slowly introduce more complex design and story telling; finally culminating with the introduction of moral and social commentary.

Just as film had to go through the period of awful cut and paste action movies and comics had to go through the influx of shallow, creator owned, gritty super heroes to get to where they are now; games will have to go through a period where for every good quality release there are 50 shallow cashins.

 

[0986875533423]

A lot of this seems to depend on Michael's personal definition of what art is.

And to be honest, that will always be the problem with declaring any medium a form of art.

Agreed. The entire debate over whether videogames are/should be/are not/can/can't be art seems irrelevant given that there is no agreed upon definition of art. A friend of mine believes that art MUST convey some sort of ideology, and thus anything that does not (including works made primarily to entertain) are not and cannot be art, whereas I disagree with such a notion. But who is to say that either of us are correct?

Well quite. Personally I think art is any created medium that has recieved some cognitive effort from the creator(s) into its creation. Unfortunately this isn't generally taken very seriously because it means things like pornography and flyers for double glazing sales are art, which most people seem loathe to accept...

 

[MartinRayala]

People often use the term "art" to mean anything done well but for this discussion we need to use language with a bit more precision.
There are 4 common domains in the field of visual literacy.

(1) The first is basic visual communication. Many photographs, for example, are simply meant to document, record, or communicate the look of something. Photojournalism is an example of basic visual communication and people who do it well can win Pulitzer Prizes and other awards. In film this might include many documentary films.

(2) The second is design. People use visual forms to solve problems and make the world a better place for others. This includes 2D graphic design, 3D product design, 4D spatial design (architecture, etc.), and 5D experience design (including video games). In film, Avatar pushed the boundaries of design while also becoming an important part of visual culture (below).

(3) The third is visual culture. This includes folk arts, mass media, popular culture, crafts, etc. The public puts video games in this category which is usually appropriate because they are typically created as part of popular culture for mass audiences. In film, Harry Potter movies or "Hangover" might be examples of visual culture.

(4) The fourth is art. This includes attempts to explore oneself and one's place in humanity. Since the second half of the 20th century many of these forms do not focus on "story" - abstract art, films like the Cremaster Cycle by Matthew Barney, etc. When people begin making video games that aren't intended for mass audiences but are personal explorations and experiments with the medium then we will see more video games intended to be "art."

Each of these domains has exemplars and iconic masters - excellence and high quality can be found in all 4 domains - it is not a hierarchy. Like photography and film, video games will eventually have exemplars in all 4 domains even though they started as forms of (3) visual culture created by designers (2).

Read more at http://andDESIGNmagazine.blogspot.com

 

[ryukage_sama]

Mr. Samyn doesn't seem to get it. Saying that Resident Evil 5 isn't art so no zombie video games can be is like saying that since the Resident Evil movie wasn't art Night of the Living Dead can't be art either.

The quality of a medium as art is not determined by the least of its works. Literature as an art form isn't defined by Stephanie Meyer and film isn't defined by Sylvester Stallone. Video games as an art form are not defined by Koei.

 

[ThisNewGuy]

Second example. As sculptor can take a stone and create a believable and recognizable face of person that you know, depicting certaine emotion on his face, without recreating every single possible detail of real face; game programmer can create believable behaviour for a flock of deer, put them into believable forest and by playing with their behavior reflect primal fear of death, without recreating the whole system in its complexity. So why games are not art already?

Because sculptors don't just create an image. Sculptors use their image to tell a story that has a meaning and actually says something about the subject matter.

Game programmers whose aim is to recreate reality isn't creating a message about their subject matter.

You're missing the point of art. All of the art you've cited are heavily emphasized on context.

For example: phone number as art can be seen as a hypocritical irony about the identification of individuals by numbers.
2. never heard of this example
3. the blocks came at a time when art required form, Mondrian is radicalizing this concept by his exploration of what form means.
4. Most modern art is created in context (see street art), therefore, a simple doll can be artistic if there's a context to it. However, when you take a picture away from its context, sure they all look the same, therefore it's impossible for critics to say what's the art.

But the difference is that games include a self-contained context, meaning that the context is within the world itself; therefore, the art in games is in itself. And the point of it all is that, like the art that you've used as examples, games can achieve artistic merit if they say something meaningful within its own context. This means that even without outside context, games should be able to say something about their subjects, but without outside context, many modern paintings are just random scribbles.

In this case I would advice you to study theories behind game design, so you could easily find "artistic vision" behind game mechanics. As for many people phone number is just a number and not an art, for many "artist" developed set of gameplay rules are just rules. By following same path I could exclude all content from the game, leave only pure game mechanics and show that it has artistic meaning cause I can see it.

As to the article, sometimes I have a filling that some people working in gamedev should be working in movie poduction - they are trying too hard to make movies using game development technologies. Simple example is COD, most people here won't call it an art, ok. Now look from this side: many different players, with different goals, one wants to get the highes score, another is focused on teamplay, yet another one just one to get 100 frags with tomahawk and etc; some of them get similar emotions some not, some emotions are clear and some a basically mixed. Developers didn't put that experience into game, they created a basis for experience to happen individually to each player. Now lets look at The Path - prepared experince, the same for all players, enforced by how character in game is controled and strict rules of what player can do. Sorry but your "game" to me is less art than COD in terms of creating emotions.
Btw, many competetive games do have "something to tell about" - mostly to you about yourself and possibly your friends if you playing together.

I have actually read a lot of game theories, and they're all talking about a mean to evoke emotions or psychological behavior. But the evocation of emotion is still different from other art mediums because other art mediums aren't purposed to evoke emotions. Other art mediums evoke a message or say something meaningful about the subject matter, and the emotional reaction is to the message that the art evokes.

It's very convenient for people to say that games say something about the player, but while that's true, when games don't say anything about their subject matter of the experience, then the experience becomes a hollow one. And if the experience has no point to it, then the player has nothing to experience. Then how well can a non-experience really reveal a message about the player?

Also, I really don't like the idea of games revealing something about the player because I don't believe that player behavior in games is similar to behavior in real life. Like I said before, game mechanics are always designed to manipulate behavior or evoke emotions, so the resulting behavior/emotion is artificially manufactured anyways. It doesn't reveal anything about the player.

Btw, I'm not saying that games aren't already art. Very few games are, the vast majority of games are not. Some examples of games that actually have meanings and say something about their subject matter are Immortall and Ico. Immortall evoke a very prominent anti-war message and the importance of altruism. Ico evoke the message of the meaning of friendship, romance, and isolation. The majority of AAA games today evoke very superficial messages that are overly simplified. In my opinion, games are like pop-up books right now, a majority of them say a very simple message of moral value, but every once in a long time a pop up book will have a very evocative message with a lot of depth. That book will live on as art.

 

[The Random One]

Great article. I agree with a lot of what was said here.

I'll say, though: games are not art. Movies are not art. Music is not art. Books are not art. Art just is. The artist chooses the medium that best fits the art. A good artist will make art fit the medium. A great artist will look at what medium can best express his art and endeavour to create it as such. An outstanding artist will look at a medium and create the art it needs. But even then, the medium follows the art.

I, too, have to disagree that games must deliver a story in order to be considered art. That is as inane as saying the importance of a song can only be conveyed by their lyrics. The lyrics can help a song fulfill its role, but the melody is more important, for the melody is music's thing, it's what it can deliver that no other medium can. Likewise, gameplay must be what speaks in a game. It's game's thing, and it's what games should focus on.

I am forced, at this point, to bring out Brenda Brathwaite[footnote=whose name I still can't spell, as my search for 'brenda braidwaithe' can attest[/footnote]'s Train [http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/03/09/brenda-brathwaites-train-when-knowing-the-game-changes-the-game/], as well as her Trail of Tears follow up. Why did a woman versed in electronic games switch to physical games when she wanted to create a work of real depth? Is it because electronic games cannot carry such weight? No - it is because she wanted to deliver a message through gameplay, and gameplay can be delivered through a board game as well as through an electronic game, just like narrative can be delivered by writing or movies or games or even songs. She heard what she wanted to say and chose the medium to fit. This is why I believe setting out the make 'art games' is a futile endeavour - instead, set out to make art, and make games one of the fields in which you do so.

I, however, have to agree wholeheartedly that the games industry is at odds with games as an artform. The industry doesn't want games to be art. Art doesn't sell. Art is impredictable. Art is, often, umcomfortable. (Look at Six Days in Fallujah! Who would want to buy that, publishers must ask themselves.) And even the devs themselves often fall in the trap of thinking that they are looking outside the box when in fact they are just trying to stick more stuff in it.

I don't think games have an obligation to be deep. I don't think that because a medium can represent concepts like war and death in a heavy handed manner they should. There is a place for lightness, for fun, for playing cops and robbers. The problems is that gaming is mired in that place, unable to reach the margins of seriousness.