291: Almost Art

[FollowUp]

First, kudos to the Escapist for running and article that'll generate a lot of negative feedback.

Second, I find myself, due to my own beliefs, forced into the position that anything that even one sentient being considers art, is art by definition. If one argues that anything is not art, they lose a lot of their credibility when trying to promote something else. Art is not something with a set definition of rules that can be spliced onto some medium. Art is defined by its lack of definition. When someone paints a glorious portrait, any simpleton can piss on it and say it's nothing more than oils. But what makes that person's opinion less valid? Besides being off on a horribly meandering tangent, I'm trying to make the point that one cannot put rules on what's art and what isn't, because that makes art into a classification, the same as "RPG" or "Shooter."

Some things are there so we can pigeonhole bits of medium, not necessarily a bad thing, but it's not the same as applying a concept that would raise an example of a medium to some higher quality.

If someone says it's art, it is. And of course, anyone with half a brain can shoot holes in this explanation, because I'm not exactly a genius, I wanted to express my opinion.

 

[Mouse One]

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.

Sure. But that's playing with the definition of art. Technically, yes, the worst romance novel ever written falls under the rubric of art. After all, there is nothing separating that from Pride and Prejudice other than quality (aside: Austen haters can deal. She's canon).

But let's be honest. There's a pretty steep signal to noise ratio between games that challenge our thoughts and emotions to games that make Michael Bay movies look like complex examinations of the human condition.

Now, I think there's enough good out there for someone who knows the genre to pick out enough great games to keep them happy. But is it any surprise that non-gamers who want more than pow pow bang bang (read: potential thoughtful audiences) are turned off by what they see at first glance? And given that, is it any surprise that game companies (who want to make money) often go for the low road over the high?

 

[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.