291: Almost Art

[MrPrecocious]

T

But what about the games that already embrace the criteria you set up?
Are you saying there are none?
The Game you used as an illustration for the article, and indeed have made as I see, the Path, how is that not art? I played it quite a few times, and everytime it moved me and I thought I had learned something about people afterwards.
(Yeah, consider me a fan ;-))

The writer of this article was one of the developers on the Path. So... yeah... eat your words, and stuff.

 

[beefpelican]

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).

The thing is, I have been emotionally moved by bits in cut scenes. I'm really trying my hardest not to do any spoilers here, but there's two cut scenes in Half Life 2 episode 2 that made me drop the controller and almost cry. What I have yet to see is something that could move me while still giving my character the same complete control he's had all game. Maybe Limbo, but only maybe.

And yes, I can completely identify with you as far as Dragon Age goes. My elf was a hero of the nation, and also a champion nug wrangler. It was a little silly.

 

[infohippie]

Gameplay in itself can be art. You don't need an epic storyline or amazing art assets to create art.

I think a perfect illustration of this point is the game fl0w.
http://www.jenovachen.com/flowingames/flowing.htm

 

[Nova Helix]

If this the below picture is considered art then video games are sure as hell art.
[img height =250 width=284]http://emptyeasel.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/fountainbymarcelduchamp.jpg[/img]

 

[DefiantWolf]

I find it hard to take this guy seriously. Every time I read anything he writes, he strikes me as either a narrow-minded moron or an outright fraud.

The art is outthere, in stories within the games that will make sit and challenge your moralities. While the message might not be subtle and blungeon you over the head with all the tact of a nuke, the messege is sent. Which is more than I can say for certain "art" games that are not only subtle in their message, but absolutely cryptic and boring in the direction of their gameplay. If the message is delivered in such a cryptic way that a majority of the audience misses it, then the artist has failed in his vision.

 

[mireko]

Well it was written by one of the makers of the game "the path". So perhaps they know a little bit about what actually goes on inside games.

Spoiler

[small]Sorry if this comes across as singling you out or something, I mean no offense to you.[/small]

 

[archvile93]

Can't you say the same thing about movies and literature as well, that most is just pointless entertainment?

 

[Citrus]

The "are games art?" debate is getting really stale. How about we just assume that they are and go from there?

 

[Phuctifyno]

Okay, the "Are Video Games Art?" question has become tedious, and I'm convinced most people don't know what art is.

I want to put a hammer down: VIDEO GAMES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ART, as have board games, card games, or sports games. Artistic merit has nothing to with content - it doesn't need story, or meaning, or cultural relevence. This article says that video games are too concerned with "rules and mechanics" to be art, but that's exactly what the art is. That's the crux on which the game designer (artist) tries to communicate an idea or emotion to the player (observer).

I want to quote a couple of obscure artists you've never heard of to support my point:

"The play's the thing"
-William Shakespeare

"All art is experience"
-Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchcock elaborates in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG43hjICE2U&feature=related
He basically explains why a painting of a bowl of fruit isn't made interesting by the fruit.

And if you think the person who invented chess wasn't an artist, you're lost.

 

[Trogdor1138]

Okay, the "Are Video Games Art?" question has become tedious, and I'm convinced most people don't know what art is.

I want to put a hammer down: VIDEO GAMES HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ART, as have board games, card games, or sports games. Artistic merit has nothing to with content - it doesn't need story, or meaning, or cultural relevence. This article says that video games are too concerned with "rules and mechanics" to be art, but that's exactly what the art is. That's the crux on which the game designer (artist) tries to communicate an idea or emotion to the player (observer).

I want to quote a couple of obscure artists you've never heard of to support my point:

"The play's the thing"
-William Shakespeare

"All art is experience"
-Alfred Hitchcock

Hitchcock elaborates in this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uG43hjICE2U&feature=related
He basically explains why a painting of a bowl of fruit isn't made interesting by the fruit.

And if you think the person who invented chess wasn't an artist, you're lost.

THANK YOU! This is what I've been saying to people for ages, they've always been art. Growing up I just assumed people considered it as such, many other people I know thought the same. This whole debate popped up because of guys like Ebert setting off people and it just kind of grew out of control from there.

Gaming is above this kind of trivial crap, they're perfectly fine how they are and they don't need to be justified. This is a non-issue, nobody was saying games weren't art, it seems to have just been a battle fought by gamers with no opposition.

I apologize to people if I sound a bit annoyed or anything, but this is getting so stale and stupid now. Gaming has been art since bloody Space Invaders.

Also, thanks for posting that Hitchcock video, I'm a fan and I hadn't come across that before. He was a genius, the fact that the same statements can be applied to games decades later shows that games are just fine how they are as their "art form".

 

[Gothproxy]

Have to say that I think this article is plain bunk. It does nothing, in my view, that many others who have called out to the industry to be 'artistic' have already done. And with much less bitching, to be sure.

Art is art. You can't define it. It would be like trying to define a raw emotion without using any other emotions to compare it or contrast it with. "One man's junk is another man's art". Don't remember who said that first, but he/she had a point. You and I and a hundred other readers may have 102 different views as to what 'art' is.

In my eyes, art is about emotion. If a painting, or song, or movie brings about some form of emotional response (be it joy, anger, disgust, elation) then I would call it 'art'. If not, then it's just a picture or what have you. I won't say that it's bad, but I won't consider it art in my eyes.

There have been quite a few video games that I will consider as 'art'. These have brought about emotional reactions from me in one way shape or form (that does not include frustration over bad control, etc =D). But my games may or may not be included in other people's lists. Be that as it may, I really don't feel that touting about that making video games must be 'art'. At least without some kind of suggestions as to 'how'. But if you gave any, would it still be art?

 

[JamesBr]

Good article, although I think the author has some pretty lofty ideals on what constitutes "art" and I take objection to his definitions. Why does art have to mean anything? Why must there be a message or meaning behind ones art? I find this kind of attitude to be part of the problem with art world. It's elitism. As an artist I can understand the psychological urge to want ones work to be meaningful and important, but really that's a narrow definition of art. To say that art must mean something to be considered art is limiting and an insult to all artists who simply enjoy making beautiful things.

I, for instance, work both in pencil and scratchboard, I am a surrealist and abstract artist. Most of my work in stream of consciousness style nonsense and that's the way I like it. I don't explore themes or lofty ideals, there is no greater meaning behind anything I make. I simply create beautiful (subjective of course) imagery for it's own sake. Is it not art? Is it not worthy of attention?

This games as art debate has always struck me as sort of silly because people can't agree on a definition to art. At it's most basic level, anything created with the intent to be aesthetically appealing can be considered art, it need not have deeper meaning. But no, no video games are not art even though they contain art. They are not art even though they provide a narrative framework through which the author can tell a tale or show off pretty scenery. At what point does the creation of a game become art? When it successfully grants insight into the human condition? That's too abstract. The Mona Lisa is a pretty picture and nothing more. Why is it art? Is it technical skill? Anyone can gain that level of skill with enough time and dedication. Why does the interactive nature of the medium even bring it's artistic nature into question? Why can't a "game" be "art"? Why the division? It's not like "games" and "art" are mutually exclusive.

I'm starting to ramble here. I guess all I'm trying to get at is art should not be defined requiring meaning. To pigeonhole art as some lofty high-brow thing is exactly what is wrong with the art industry. High-brow people making high-brow decision on what the rest of us low-brow people consider art. Unfortunately, creativity is part of the human condition and those who declare what is and isn't art are often those with the least contributions to the movement. Anyone can be creative and anything creative can be artistic. So why are games any different?

 

[fundayz]

Currently video games are on par with regular cable TV on the Art scale.
They still haven`t reached a "movie classic" level of art yet.

 

[saintchristopher]

This seems to be a call for a sea change in game design at large. Unfortunately we won't see such a change to the development landscape until the industry suffers from another collapse.

I'm actually kind of looking forward to gaming's Next Great Depression. The whole industry needs to be taken down a peg, I think. However he status quo will be protected as long as all these hapless, irredeemable morons keep buying Call of Duty.

Actually, we won't need another collapse. I bet you that if the next Call of Duty game flops (and at this point all it has to do to flop is sell under 1 million copies the first month) most, if not all, of the top-shelf development houses and publishers will have to stop and re-examine their practices.

It's been said before, but the consumers truly dictate the shape of the gaming landscape.

 

[antipunt]

I think...it really depends on your definition of 'art'. If I'm interpreting this article correctly...what they're identifying as 'video game art' isn't very...profitable. I mean, by all means, it sounds great, but damn, we're in the real world here. Video games are meant to be 'sold', AKA have a selling-point/mechanic/fun/etc.

the Path was great and there are some peeps who try and combine the two (SMT series), but overall, I don't expect massive amounts of funding for this type of game.

 

[Thorvan]

So, honestly, when are we going to stop demanding games be "art," and simply LET them be art, as they stand? I am under the impression that intelligent humans, capable of full designing and running a game production, naturally seek to create interesting works of art. And, considering the immense subjectiveness of the term, why isn't anything they produce true art? I think that the problem we have is less that we don't have enough art, but simply because we are too quick to dismiss things as "not art enough." How are we going to move forward if we don't take an honest look at our mistakes as art? And will we not discover beauty within that which we, upon first sight, considered objectively bad?

 

[Ytmh]

Oh boy, another ignorant piece on art and gaming, how fun.

I skimmed through it after reading some of the opening statements and found this glittering nugget of idiocy:

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.

So YOU get to decide what "we" are after?

Geesh.

Oh also, I'm sick of people citing SPECIFIC games as examples "games are art," this is absolute idiocy. You can take goddamn Superman 64 and use THAT as an example games are art, rather than SotC or Braid or whatever other game that gets repeatedly mentioned. If your argument is to hold any water, you have to argue for the medium, not specific examples as they all sound like EXCEPTIONS to a rule.

In reality, there's no NEED to argue for games being or not being art. They just are what they are and what they are considered by others is not any of my business. I'm not trying to get one of my hobbies somehow "legitimized" like many of these fools seem to be doing, and therefore I don't fall into any of the above pitfalls.

People should really, really, lay off the topic.

Leave it alone, honestly, things will be perfectly fine without this well-intended attempt at defending something that needs no defending which in the end makes the whole thing look retarded.

And the above poster had it right:

I think that the problem we have is less that we don't have enough art, but simply because we are too quick to dismiss things as "not art enough.

This a thousand times. If it's not SotC or Braid it's not "art enough." What a bunch of shit.

 

[Knytemare]

I think that you should beware when defining art in such rigid boxes. Art is an illusive to define and personal thing. In some schools of artistic philosophy it exists only in the viewer.

Take for instance the carpenter who makes tables, on a schedule, one per month or he cannot feed his family. He lives on the same constricting 'timetable', even tighter, with a more direct cause-effect relationship between himself and his task, his art. The tables he makes are beautiful, one of a kind. They are art. All games are art whether we like it or not. They are as different as pieces of wood, and the grain of the carved lines. Is a table exciting? Does it instill broad emotional or political ideas in the viewer? No, and niether does the mona lisa. Most games are like those tables. Slightly different, and each a labor of love. The essence of their beauty lies in their uniqueness.

Remember though, that being art does not make something 'magical' or 'better'. Many works of art are trite, meaningless drivel.

-Knytemare

 

[Mouse One]

Remember though, that being art does not make something 'magical' or 'better'. Many works of art are trite, meaningless drivel.

-Knytemare

Exactly. Now, I'm in the "games are art" camp, myself. I think Samyn made a mistake in titling his piece "Almost Art", as many are reading that as "games suck". Considering that Tale of Tales has made some of the most emotionally engaging, thought provoking, and dare I say, artistic games on the market today, that take on the piece is a bit ironic.

But, as Knytemare points out, art can suck. For the record, I've taken a couple of semesters of 3D character design, and have studied under professionals. I'm not a pro (yet), but I'm here to tell you that all the artistic ideas about form, perspective, gesture, what have you go into those 3D models you see in games. Then marketing turns to the designers and says "Put bigger ta tas on the chicks". Is the final model still art? Sure, but let's not kid ourselves and say it carries the same impact that the concept artist and character designer wanted.

Stepping away from the dead horse of "Are games art?", what Samyn is really trying to point out is that there are some very real obstacles to artistic expression in the industry as it currently stands. And he's right-- a small studio of like minded people can more easily realize their vision. Look at some of the great games of the last few years. Many of the best (in terms of emotional impact on the player) come from indie studios (Braid, Amnesia, and yes, the Path). Why is that, when they labor under budgets that are literally less than 5% of the typical AAA title? Because they have more freedom to express themselves.

And Samyn's also right when he says that gameplay considerations and marketing issues can be a further obstacle. Marketing is a necessary evil, but when you letting the marketing boys make artistic decisions is akin to letting the hospital billing department do surgery. It's just not their department.

Gameplay is a more intriguing issue, as I firmly believe it can add to the experience-- again, look at Braid (and thanks again for the poster who mentioned it, just started playing it a few days back). And, just to prove that AAA studios can make great works, the ending of Bioshock impacts the way it does largely because of the gameplay restrictions. BUT, having said that, often gameplay is far too independent, and often interferes with the message. Worrying about the "score" can pull one out of the emotional immersion of the gaming experience, and worse yet, can replace one's motivation. Players should want to continue the game for the experience of playing, not to satisfy some conditioned response. Anyone every grind for an item or level? Did you enjoy it? If not, why did you do it? (Extra Credits had a great video on Operant Conditioning a bit ago).

As game consumers and creators, we do need to think about and address these issues, or the artistic side of videogames will languish. Knee jerk "Hey that guy over there is dissing our hobby!" responses don't get us anywhere. We need to challenge our comfortable preconceptions and try new and hopefully rewarding ideas.

And if I can use the word, isn't that what art is about?

 

[Jaime_Wolf]

Pretty baseless article actually.

First, there are plenty of games that do involve the things you're talking about. Second, your qualifications are hopelessly entrenched in thinking about art in film. The undercurrent present throughout is that video games can only be art by emulating other art forms. Without more realistic graphics, you imply, we couldn't even hope for art. Now that we have photorealism, we can finally become film, just so long as we don't let "gameplay" get in the way. But gameplay is what makes games games. And then beyond that you have some apparent rules for what art must be. Your beliefs that art can only be intentional, that it can only arise in a certain process, that only the "author" can create art, that art can't be focused on providing a fun experience, are profoundly ridiculous. You can find famous, extremely important works of art that violate all of those dictums with relative ease.

Art has already been created within video games. It's created all the time. Little bits of pieces of it can be found in sublime moments in even the largest blockbusters and we're getting unbelievable avant-garde art from every direction with the proliferation of smaller games. Braid is probably the posterboy in the latter case: a game with a mechanic that feels integral to the plot, with thematic variations on a mechanical theme, each exploring a different aspect of gameplay and of the story and character. And it doesn't rely on photorealism, it doesn't have to imitate films, it doesn't need to eschew the entertainment of the gamer.

The inability to find art in games is just that, your inability to find it, not its lack of existence. Claiming that games haven't reached the status of art is an unwitting way of perpetuating that very idea endlessly. If you say that they aren't art, but could be, as is particularly popular right now, you can feel smugly superior in your knowledge of what art "is" without alienating your audience, the people you get to feel superior in comparison to. People fall into this trap easily on both sides - people like to feel superior and people like to have experts they can appeal to in order to decide things like this.

The way games will become recognised as art is through all of us ending this stupid nonsense about insisting that they aren't yet.