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

[Jabberwock xeno]

"Lots of books, lots of TV shows, lots of films aren't art. That doesn't make them bad, it makes them really enjoyable.""

See, in this respect, he'd be right.

Art can be one of 3 things:

- Anything "artsy". Drawings, films, music, etc. In this defination, all video games are art.

- Meaningful. In this defination, just because something is "artsy", doesn't mean its art. A stick figure may be a drawing, but it doesn't make it art. Only SOME video games would be art.

- Subjective. What is and is't art is entirely subjective.

 

[Jumplion]

The problem is whenever these arguments come up people just go "Games Are Art!" and think thats the end of the argument and this is where the danger lies. As long as people insist that the Titillation is art, people arn't going to be encourged to strive for more. This seperation is starting to happen within the community, but so far the number of well received and highly publicised/noticed "Arthouse Games" is almost non-existant. As long as the majority of people who make and/or enjoy games applaud the titillation, the public won't take us seriously.

This brings me to another subject that I've seen crop up, mainly that somehow "art games" and "fun games" are inherently separate. There is no reason why a game can't be both artistically motivated and entertaining ("fun" and "entertaining" are two different things, which I think is a very important distinction to make.)

I'm not asking for more pretentious, snooty games where the creator is all "I want to make an experience, man." but I am asking for developers to think more critically about what they put into their game and create richer worlds and experiences with their games.

You have to remember that in this 40 years 2 things happened. The first is that the "old guard of art", who came about before film existed, slowly died or left public life and were taken over by those who had lived the majority of their life with films. These people were more accepting of film because it wasn't a "New fad" to them, but part of life. While this is happening with games, its still going to take time for us to get our equivalents of Orsen Wells and Roger Ebert.

It will take a while for sure, and if I may delve into yet another topic briefly, that's why I think the whole "auteur" method of game design (people like Ken Levine or Cliffy B, who basically are the face to the company and have their visions put forth) should be attempted more often. Video games are definitely a team effort, but other times you need the focus of a single person to guide that team. A faceless, bureaucratic company like, I dunno, EA will probably not produce the Citizen Kane of gaming, but a person who strives for that achievement like, say, Ken Levine would provide that accomplishment with a face.

The second is films broke away from just being "Plays on Screen" and started to use techiniques that are unique to cinema (editing, camera tricks) to get emotion from the audience. Someone else has gone over it better, but essentially a game isn't art just because its cinematography, story, music etc are all artfully done. There has to then be something that only a game can provide. 2 contrasting examples for me are Bioshock and Flower (GO BUY IT!!).
Bioshock is considered as art because of the design of Rapture, players emotion for the Little Sisters etc, but if you turned it into a 6 hour film with the player instead being an actor, you would see the same thing and feel the same emotions because all the tricks Bioshock use are cinematic.
Flower (GO BUY IT!!) on the other hand is considered art and I would say should be held up as the landmark people should be striving for. Turn Flower (GO BUY IT!!) into a six hour film and while people would say its very nice to watch, there wouldn't be any emotional involvement or connection. However as a game we are given a direct connection with the petal and start to project onto it in a way that could never happen in film. This makes it a great example for games as art.

This is absolutely true about Flower. And yes, I did buy Flower, and I teared up at the end. Don't ask me why, I really have no idea, but it call just came together and I started tearing up. A really magical game if you're in the right mindset.

However, I completely disagree with Bioshock. There are plenty of methods Bioshock used that just cannot be replicated by film. The whole "would you kindly?" part of the story could only have been done through gameplay, basically subverting every player's expectation and questioning free will. The atmosphere, the progression, the twists and turns, while you could very well make a movie out of it, I don't think it would be nearly as effective if it was. This is why I have so much respect for Ken Levine, he is a damn smart person and I doubt that any other developer could have done the same thing he did with Bioshock (and in the future with Bioshock: Infinite).

Video games definitely need to start pushing what is unique to them rather than just pushing for more "cinematic gameplay". In this regard, I really do feel that story should take center role in making games. Story is the central mechanic that every other medium works by, why not video games? Not only that, but developers seem to be obsessed over trying to mimic Hollywood instead of pushing their own unique features to bring out new ways to develop story in games.

Finally, the gaming industry is a mess right now and its never going to be taken seriously until itself, and the media surrounding it, stop acting like idiots. Remember, this is an industy that can't even do an awards show without acting like children and pandering to the popular titillation. We need the industry as a whole (people like EA and Activision) to start taking more risks with more experimental lower budget games and the support around gaming (retailers, reviewers) needs to start encouraging those that play to try the riskier stuff. Until the big studios get involved, its never going to happen.

I agree with this so hard.

So, basically, I agree with everything. I just felt like exercising my fingers.

 

[Plinglebob]

This brings me to another subject that I've seen crop up, mainly that somehow "art games" and "fun games" are inherently separate. There is no reason why a game can't be both artistically motivated and entertaining ("fun" and "entertaining" are two different things, which I think is a very important distinction to make.)

I'm not asking for more pretentious, snooty games where the creator is all "I want to make an experience, man." but I am asking for developers to think more critically about what they put into their game and create richer worlds and experiences with their games.

Ok, I agree Bioshock was probably a bad choice with regards to Gameplay art vs Cinematic art because I completely forgot the "Would you kindly" How about COD:Modern Warfare 1 instead?

Regarding this point, I agree. Something can be a great piece of art as well as entertaining to the masses, but its something hard to balance and unfortunately the industry swings wildly between the two.

 

[Jumplion]

This brings me to another subject that I've seen crop up, mainly that somehow "art games" and "fun games" are inherently separate. There is no reason why a game can't be both artistically motivated and entertaining ("fun" and "entertaining" are two different things, which I think is a very important distinction to make.)

I'm not asking for more pretentious, snooty games where the creator is all "I want to make an experience, man." but I am asking for developers to think more critically about what they put into their game and create richer worlds and experiences with their games.

Ok, I agree Bioshock was probably a bad choice with regards to Gameplay art vs Cinematic art because I completely forgot the "Would you kindly" How about COD:Modern Warfare 1 instead?

Regarding this point, I agree. Something can be a great piece of art as well as entertaining to the masses, but its something hard to balance and unfortunately the industry swings wildly between the two.

I would say the first Modern Warfare game really was something special, and while I can how it would fit in your example, certain aspects of it (like the nuclear bomb scene where you're walking in a destroyed landscape before you die) are something special to games. The other Modern Warfare games, though, are pretty much Micheal Bay films in game form.

 

[Sofus]

I don't see how the Mona Lisa or any other painting for that matter, can be qualified as art either. Astronomy is however a vast enough concept that it can make my mind wander.

Then again, Piero Manzoni placed his shit in a jar (or was it canned shit.. oh who cares) and it was declared art.... yeah whatever.

 

[LesPaulLover]

I registered to this site after stumbling upon this article. All I have to say is this: "The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim."

If you think a game like "Skyrim" isn't art then, quite frankly, you're ignorant and I have no desire to talk to you anyways.

 

[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.

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

So are you saying that the lesbian golden shower porn I watched a couple days back is art? If so, more power to you I guess. However, while it was very entertaining, I doubt you could find three percent of people who would say it could be considered art.

 

[KingPiccolOwned]

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.

Spoiler: Alan Moore dissagrees with you.

Also possibly NSFW. [link]http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Comicbook/LostGirls[/link]

 

[procrasty]

Games needn't aspire to art. Sport is fun, competitive, inventive, lucrative, addictive and popular, and no one finds the need to elevate that beyond what it is: a game.

but if you view games as a meduim there is no reason they shouldn't "aspire"* to be art, sport might not be trying to be art, but it fits into the bracket of physical activity, and in that regard, you can see dance as the art end of sport.
if you view games just in terms of technically what they are, interactive computer programmes with an end goal, there is no reason why that can't be used as art.


*not really sure about the ue of this term, i think it's a mistake to regard art as a value judgement, which i think is where a lot of the anger stems from. it's not, it's just a different thing with a different aim.

 

[SyphonX]

So many games today can leave a mark on you, whether some will admit it or not. Other people don't even realize it. Almost every game I play these days has a serious effect on me. It makes me question cultural norms, observe patterns in society I never recognized. Games are so robust, and so overly-stimulating that it's hard to consciously accept you are being inspired. You're not simply staring at a static painting drawing inspiration from your own thoughts, you're being overloaded with elaborate 'alternative realities' that are so real, yet completely driven by a specific narrative.

We can make fun of GTA 4 all we want, but the entire game is brilliant. It's a parody, a farce on modern American culture. It's taken to absurd levels, but the world is still believable, and while you draw comparisons to the real America you'll have the inevitable, "This is all too much, but some of this is frighteningly real." Everything from the radio stations, the intertwined stories, the pedestrian commentary, the role of GTA's "government", everything. The game, and others like it (take your pick) leaves a mark on you. It does, profoundly so. The entire world talked about how controversial it was. How often does this happen with entertainment, hm?

We live in this absurd world where not too long ago, people like HP Lovecraft struggled to make ends meet, and largely considered himself a failure. Lovecraft was so poor, he couldn't afford a tombstone for his own grave. Yet his works are undisputed at changing the literary and horror world as we know it. Only after death do the critics remove the boot from his neck. So many games today are inspired from Lovecraft's legacy (ultimately Poe, who also had such struggles), and still the elitist "culture overlords" will not remove their boots.

Now every author is a bestseller, and the 'prolific writers' of our time make enough money to run a nation. The gaming industry is just as popular, just as extreme.

My point is, its only in retrospect that works are recognized as art. Usually in the span of many decades. Our time in the information age is unprecedented. We've never had this world where production of entertainment has been this large, where households can get virtually anything they want if they have the means. Critical acclaim of art is just another niche. It's a niche where people need their special place to appreciate something, it's just difficult when everything is popular. There are few items that require critical recognition, because everything is recognized. Why recognize something when it already makes thousands, or millions? If everything is popular, then nothing is art.

 

[Guardian of Nekops]

You know, I'd be hard pressed to think of a painting or a statue that really made me think about the world and my place in it. I've seen the David, I mean the real David, in the stone. It was... history. Interesting, not life-changing.

Traditional art, though often very well crafted of course, has become largely irrelevant to the lives of most people. It misses its mark... people look at it out of obligation and grasp for every bit of inspiration it gives them.

On the other hand, there are games that have reshaped the way I think about myself. There are games that I have played which leave me staring at nothing for hours afterwards, just trying to reconcile what I have just experienced.

Hell, games have given me nightmares... and not just "Oh no, something scary is chasing me!" nightmares. I'm talking about dreams where I realize I was not who I thought I was, and what I had been fighting for the whole time was actually something terrible.

 

[procrasty]

i think what eshan is refering to when he says "art" is essencially "fine art" and a big part of what defines that is presentation. games are, overwhelmingly, presented as games, they'll start being art when creators make serious attempts to present them as that.

it's not that they've failed at it so far, they're just not being used in that way yet. as creating them becomes both cheaper and easier, this will increase, and games will be another way in which people can make things for fun, for money, for exploration, for learning, and for art, just like every other meduim.

 

[The_Fezz]

All gaming is art, just not necessarily high art, the same can be leveled at film, literature and music also.

It's a varying art form.

 

[Dreadman75]

According to the definition of art on Wikipedia: Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect.


If we go by this definition then games are already art and have been for some time.

And before anyone starts arguing, yes I know wikipedia isn't the best site for getting information considering how often it can be changed. But look at the definition above and tell me that it doesn't at least have some truth to it.

 

[Stalydan]

"In terms of storytelling, a game like Grand Theft Auto is enormously complex and works on loads of different levels"
wait GTA had a story?

From 3 onward they're actually very well written crime comedy/dramas.

I agree with the bored looking owl. GTA3, Vice City and San Andreas have the story of a personal quest for vengeance becoming a tale of "From rags to riches" where the person starts as a low-rate criminal and eventually becomes notorious millionaire and kills their enemy.

GTA4 mixed it up a little with a quest for vengeance being the side plot to a lot of the game whilst the "From rage to riches" plot really changes to "From rags to slightly better rags" which I find weird for the fact you can amass half a million at least in the main plot so why no mansion or at least better house at the end of it :/ But whatever, I'm going too deep into that.

Yeah, there's a plot to Grand Theft Auto.

 

[dyre]

What is this illusive "art" thing anyway? The Witcher 2 has given me both more enjoyment and more to think about than the Mona Lisa, the Mozart Symphony no 25, or Heart of Darkness has, so what the intellectual/artistic elite has to say about what is and isn't art seems largely irrelevant to me.

Honestly, I haven't seen many paintings, works of music, or even films that made me think about the world around me in anything other than superficial terms (documentaries sometimes do a better job of it, but I bet most people don't call those art anyway). I think only literature consistently achieves that sort of "elite art" status.

 

[Adam28]

I will continue to define art as works produced by such skill and imagination. Therefore video games are art, there's good art and terrible art. Anyway, I would like to stay out of this debate, too many snobs in the art world for my liking. Here included.

But...but...but... video games are played by the stupid common mindless people!

Edit: This isn't an attack at the guy in the article, at least he sees potential.

 

[raankh]

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.

A lot of what you said is true. I wouldn't say Permiter is art, but whatever. Don't bother responding to that part. But his mistake isn't his overall opinion, and most of his statements are not that radical. The main problem is giving too broad of criteria for, and too broad a definition of, art. This allows for too many groundless statement and examples to be thrown around without a full understanding of the intent of the other.

Well, to me computer games are in general not art because of the process by which they where created. To me art is produced by a creative and artistic process-- although there is art that takes the form of a computer game, computer games as such are not art.

The entire question "Are video games art?" confuses the expression with the medium. So I would disagree, he does make a fundamental mistake in forming that opinion-- as do many others. In my opinion, of course.