BBC Debate: Games Aren't Art ... Yet

[Alphavillain]

I don't consider games art. Games to me are more fashion than art. I love playing games, talking about games and going on the internet to watch videos avout games and reading about them -but I also love nice clothes. And to me the intensification of games releases makes gaming more than ever a phenomenon of ever-decreasing cycles of anticipation and then moving on to the next game for many gamers.

 

[Sean Deli]

The correct question was asked when this discussion first popped up on escapist:
"What happens if we win this debate? What happens if we convince this guy that games indeed are art - will he drop any good loot?"

A generation is being raised on games right now. Same, how several previous generations very primarily raised on films and radio, and multiple generations before that were raised on books and theatre.

Previously parents told their kids "You must see this film - it's a classic", or "You must read this book". In 5-10 years they'll be saying "You got to play this game, it will teach you a lot"

It happens even now, whether the self-appointed conoisseurs of high-culture call games an art or not.

 

[dessertmonkeyjk]

"If video games are art then you HAVE TO ASK QUESTIONS like what you're doing this and this for and for what purpose." That's the statement that I can gather... free will and reflection on said actions of such is what he appears to addressing. All he's looking for is having this question provoked enough times.

The problem with that is that you willingly LOOK for it or you don't. Art can mean different things to different people which can include importance of, say, an item or an important figure. How you see them depends on your morale understanding and knowledge of said object, place, or thing. You can just bypass it altogether and say "This doesn't need consideration" or you can spend time looking at what benefits an action may have. There's... ah geez.

This is an interactive medium you're analyzing here buddy. You can ask questions about things and then you make your choice about it similar to doing so in real life.

 

[The_ModeRazor]

But if the community that produces video games, and the community that they are produced for (which I guess are probably fairly mixed with each otehr) grovel at the media's feet like good little sycophants and act like they really want to prove themselves, games might just be accepted as a proper art form and we can all rejoice! The appreciation will be the kind that is given to a physically debilitated child trying his best to be as good as his peers (which is obviously impossible), but it's totally worth it!

Well, techincally I can't know how much people actually care about this... issue. Personally I feel that "not giving a single perfunctory fuck" is the right approach. Might be wrong. Have a tendency to be that.

EDIT: Oh, just thought of something. Probably been mentioned before. Well, introspection into the nature of your own work, "deconstruction", and examining the tools of the trade, like the way we perceive fiction and stuff like that, could generally be considered art, right? When a videogame has great writing or you can create different sorts of art within it, that isn't really the art "genre" of a videogame. That would be the gameplay itself, the conventions we are used to when handling vidyagames. Just where am I going with this? Towards Bioshock. It deconstructs the very nature of the Gamer following the objectives, which is kind of an obvious part of gameplay in games, being the way to progress. It also questions the "freedom" given to you by the interactive nature of... videogames. I keep using that word. Ah well.

This same following of objectives is also the point of The Stanley Parable, a source engine mod. You should probably check it out. If nothing else, look up a walkthrough on Youtube, it isn't a very long game. But it does kinda the same thing as Bioshock. It also takes a look at narrators, particularly the interactive ones. Just much more condensed and... words. Can't find them. Fuck my limited vocabulary.

You get the idea. And now I just gone against my first post. Being a hypocrite is good!

 

[raankh]

BBC Debate: Games Aren't Art ... Yet

Ekow Eshun, former director of the UK's Institute of Contemporary Arts, doesn't think games are art right now but he sees their potential.
[snip]
"Lots of books, lots of TV shows, lots of films aren't art. That doesn't make them bad, it makes them really enjoyable."

"Most of the things we like, enjoy and admire are really good but whether they're at the precise high level where we say this changes how I see the world in a significant and deep way[...]"

"I'd suggest that the things we really consider art are the things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us. I think most games don't get to that place, and it's important to set that bar quite high."
[snip]

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-01-bbc-debate-games-arent-art-yet-but-thats-okay-article]


Permalink

Those are ridiculous statements. He's disqualilfying instrumental music as an art-form. Instrumental music is abstract to the point of being near-spiritual experiences, but it certainly does not fulfill those criteria. Does Tchaikovsky facilitate questions about who we are? If we are reaching that far, then absolutely games can easily be classified as art too. Certainly a game like Perimiter facilitate questions about who we are and the likes, if a classical symphony does.

BZZZZZZZZ, try again.

 

[Palindromemordnilap_v1legacy]

I still fail to see why games can't be art, but Fountain can

 

[2012 Wont Happen]

This is all rubbish. All entertainment is art

that's bull, entertainment IS art

False. Entertainment is entertainment. Art is something that has meaning.

For example, pornography is not art. I am incredibly entertained by pornography. Especially if it focuses on hot red head and Asian women. However, while very entertaining, it is not art.

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

the question is, do we - as gamers want games to be considered art? i mean, somebody smearing peanut butter on a floor is considered art. i dont want my favorite hobby to be compared to that....

Exactly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fileuchamp_Fountaine.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Emin-My-Bed.jpg

The very concept of art is nonsense nowadays. Art used to just be something aesthetically pleasing. I would consider good architecture or landscaping better art than the crap in art galleries these days. The whole idea that "Art" must be thought provoking or must have some sort of message is a bunch of crap. If the aesthetic form of the thing brings out emotions in the observer then it's art. The emotions don't have to be complex or life changing.

There is only one way to get a message out: cold rational argumentation. Everything else is propaganda and sophistry.

 

[Svenparty]

As mentioned I think there are sections of games(Usually the parts people remember) that are Art. But as a whole it's not as developed as other arts yet.

This whole debate also brings the question of "What is Art" into debate...

 

[ReiverCorrupter]

BBC Debate: Games Aren't Art ... Yet

Ekow Eshun, former director of the UK's Institute of Contemporary Arts, doesn't think games are art right now but he sees their potential.
[snip]
"Lots of books, lots of TV shows, lots of films aren't art. That doesn't make them bad, it makes them really enjoyable."

"Most of the things we like, enjoy and admire are really good but whether they're at the precise high level where we say this changes how I see the world in a significant and deep way[...]"

"I'd suggest that the things we really consider art are the things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us. I think most games don't get to that place, and it's important to set that bar quite high."
[snip]

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-01-bbc-debate-games-arent-art-yet-but-thats-okay-article]


Permalink

Those are ridiculous statements. He's disqualilfying instrumental music as an art-form. Instrumental music is abstract to the point of being near-spiritual experiences, but it certainly does not fulfill those criteria. Does Tchaikovsky facilitate questions about who we are? If we are reaching that far, then absolutely games can easily be classified as art too. Certainly a game like Perimiter facilitate questions about who we are and the likes, if a classical symphony does.

BZZZZZZZZ, try again.

Agreed. As I've said before, if something brings out emotions in the observer through it's aesthetic form: whether they be brush strokes or musical notes, it is art. The emotions don't have to be life changing, they could be as simple as an experience of beauty or longing or sadness or happiness. These art pedants are completely full of crap.

 

[zehydra]

This is all rubbish. All entertainment is art

that's bull, entertainment IS art

False. Entertainment is entertainment. Art is something that has meaning.

For example, pornography is not art. I am incredibly entertained by pornography. Especially if it focuses on hot red head and Asian women. However, while very entertaining, it is not art.

Incorrect. Entertainment IS art. Art does not have to have any logical or thoughtful meaning behind it.

 

[jecht35]

final fantasy tactics made me think a lot about the story. What about braid, limbo, BASTION honestly there are artsy games out there.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

All elephants are grey; not all grey things are elephants.

Likewise, games can be artistic, but not all games are art. Portal and Portal 2 can be heralded as unparalleled in art, gaming, story, device, etc., and can be argued as such, but few would argue that Duke Nukem Forever or Call of Duty will be anything more than a game. Hopscotch was a game, but it is far from art. Something like Bastion, however, with it's tasteful blend of imagery, audio, gameplay, story, and character, could be considered art and could simultaneously be considered a game. Minecraft is a game, as much as playing with Lego is; art can come from the creations, but the product itself is not art--it is why paint is not art, nor is canvas, but paint on canvas might be art.

But, to his other point, of saying that art is something that makes us reflect on ourselves, then that is a subjective matter. I have reflected on myself in Assassin's Creed, while killing a guard, and suddenly imagining his family learning that his easy job strolling a rooftop, to pay the rent, got him killed by an unthinking assassin who could have done it much better by sneaking around. It got me to the point that, for a time, I completed a mission or two with only the minimalist of kills, or none at all. I have tried driving as carefully as possible in sandbox games, knowing that insurance is a *****, and I would hate to be that guy who gets some asshole that plows headlong into the side of my car, reverses, then drives off again, with no cares about me. Things like this have made me reconsider myself, and put my life in view.

But then, I get past it, knowing that this is a game, much as I know that the characters in a book that die can be alive again if only I start reading the book anew.

 

[SanguineSymphony]

I think that the major critics aren't accepting games as art because the games that might actually be art by their definitions are under their radar.

That's how I've always felt. Most (probably close to all) the critics that feel the need to single out video games don't seem like gamers and are unlikely to have seen or heard of any "art games".

Anyone can single out the most popular films, movies, music etc. and say most of its not art. But, since all those mediums have been well established its easy to point to examples of each that are considered art. Videogames don't have that kind of history to point to... Yet.

In another decade or so more of the great works of the medium will come to light (many of which have already been created). Many films we now view as classics were at one time considered shallow exploitation.

 

[Nami nom noms]

BBC Debate: Games Aren't Art ... Yet

"Most of the things we like, enjoy and admire are really good but whether they're at the precise high level where we say this changes how I see the world in a significant and deep way, well, actually they don't."

When asked whether Minecraft, one of the usual suspects wheeled out by the games-are-art crowd, counted as art, Eshun replied in the negative. "No, it's not art and I think it's probably not trying to be art either," he said. "I'd suggest that the things we really consider art are the things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us. I think most games don't get to that place, and it's important to set that bar quite high."

What separates Eshun from, say, Roger Ebert [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100062-Ebert-Re-Emphasizes-That-Games-Will-Never-Be-Art], is that while he believes no current games can be counted as art - though you do have to wonder how many games he's played - that isn't a condemnation of the entire medium. "I think the likelihood is that at some point there will be games that ask profound questions," he noted.

Permalink

Sounds like a typical subjective opinion from a typical art critic to me... Sorry mister but games that change lives and our perception of the world around us DO exist already.

I've found games a lot more impactful on my life then any single still image or sculpture ever has; so by his logic none of that is art, and games in fact are. Oh, but wait, that's not what he thinks, so of course it's wrong.

ANYTHING can be 'art' if it affects a person... the very essence of any kind of art demands a subjective viewpoint, so it is not possible to dictate one's own opinion as a greater truth then another.

 

[Nurb]

Art is any form of expression that doesn't relate to survival. They're wrong.

 

[crystalsnow]

A far more interesting question is why acquiring the "art" label matters to the gaming community in the first place.

These, my friends, are golden words of wisdom.

 

[Jumplion]

Because the sooner games are recognized as a legitimate medium for artistic expression, the sooner we'll get better games.

*cough*Transformers 3*cough*

That's why I said we'd get better games, not less worse ones.

Of course we'll have shit, but we can concentrate on the good chocolate to make it better chocolate.

Personally I agree with him. While I do think that some games could be called works of art while still keeping a straight face, and games should be considered art in a legal sense, the majority of games put out are meant to excite and titillate us for X period of time and in that regards they have the same artistic value as Porn. I have no problem with this seeing as I'm fine with people making/playing games for this reason just like I have no real issue with those that enjoyed Transformers 3 (and who doesn't enjoy porn).

I don't have any problem with games just meant to titillate us either. Enjoy what you want, I don't care, if you liked Transformers 3 then more power to you.

This does not mean, however, that we should not strive for more. That's a big issue I think is with this whole "games as art" stuff going around, if we can convince everyone (and most importantly ourselves), then we can move past the whole titillation phase and make games that are more than just that.

I think the big problem with this debate is that fans and the industry are pushing too hard, too fast. Remember, it took films 40 to 50 years to be considered a true artform and then even longer to fully escape censorship issues. Expecting games to do the same in 30 is optimistic at best, naive at worse.

I think quite the opposite, actually. Maybe the way the fans of "games as art" seem to cluster around places like these, but I think that those guys are really a very vocal minority. I say that we are not pushing hard enough, and developers aren't listening in the first place. They're content with just making another run-of-the-mill shooter and they let their PR guys spout bullshit after bullshit, trying to somehow magically make their game more interesting behind the bullshit (I have become so jaded with video game PR that it's just depressing).

The thing about the "it took film 40 years to become recognized as an artform!" that I don't think works for me anymore is that the world is a much faster place than it was all those years ago. Technology is unfolding at astronomical speeds, new technologies are always introduced. I dunno, it still doesn't mean that we shouldn't push for more.

But also, that argument seems to come from this thinking that developing mediums are on a set timeline. Video games may be a budding artform like film, and while it may take some queues from film, that does not mean it will develop so similarly to it. There's a lot more that video games can do that films will never be able to do, and we have to push for that.

Oh, and Minecraft isn't art, its a computer based artistic medium and on its own is as much art as MS Paint.

I would argue that it is art, just that the player creates it alongside the game.

Though, my personal definition of "art" is just "anything that purposefully constructed to illicit an emotion of some kind" or whatever, so I wouldn't mind calling anything "art", I would just separate it to "good art" (the stuff made with care) and "bad art" (the crap that gets slogged out on a monthly basis).

 

[kenu12345]

Going by his explanation I can think of a couple right off the bat

 

[144_v1legacy]

I'd say he's right on the whole. Painting is usually art. It's not for any other purpose, for the most part. Music depends entirely on the intention of the creator. Photography as well. Writing, movies, and videogames, however, are less capable of reaching that bar. I wouldn't say the Emmy's award for artistic merits but overall quality, for example. The easy way is to pick up your movie or something and imagine if you'd have to work hard to convince your mom or something that would say "I don't think that's art."

A lot of people think it's about a plot that deals with powerful issues, but that's not usually the case. Though I don't know what this exactly means it does have to do, but there's more to it at least.

So far, the only game I've played that is close to art is Portal. Not Portal 2, just Portal. It deals with questions of trust, manipulation and loneliness and other things. But I don't know if that reaches the "art bar" or not.