Games as art.

[Zanderinfal]

*Snipped due to long comment, find it at post 5 on page 1*

I absolutely agree with everything this guy said, read it if you haven't already. We don't NEED games to be art at all, but games can be (like ICO, SoTC, The Last Guardian and Journey) if they are made in a particular way.

I personally don't want to call games like the fantastic Half-Life series as "art" in any way. As good as some games are, they do not need to be called art. What about games like the original Doom series or Painkiller (the games where it is just shooting things for fun)? Can't we just say "it's a game where you shoot stuff, the end."

I feel it's a little unnecessary. However I do want to see more "artish" games, similar to Team ICOs work. I for one love games in that have that sort of style, but calling all games art is stupid in my honest opinion.

*RANT OVER*

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I say that the games that should be considered art are the ones that we individually think are the best gaming experience. For example I would consider Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Metroid, Final Fantasy 6 and 7, hell even Gears of War to be art. Games that we personally find are the pinnacle of gaming. Therefore they should be considered art. Because games should be judged on the merits of their own medium.

I say this is quite possibly the most destructive thought imaginable in application to gaming as an art form. Even calling shit like Superman 64 works more as art than the juvenile experiences of those games, as Superman 64 can be argued to be a Dadaist anti-game.

Those games mean nothing. They have no depth or feeling, no universal truth behind them. They can't even claim to be id-driven experiences of the base mind, as they hold too much consistent internal logic.

Art is about the universal truths of life and humanity. It is about finding that kernel of the experience to share with your audience. It is NOT about "I liked this game when I was young, therefore it is art".

All I'm getting from this comment is that you seem to believe that a game must be broken or shit in order to be considered art.

Also please explain to me why these games are juvenile and lack depth or meaning?

Also universal truth?? Sounds like some meta bullshit to me. The kind of thing art critics say in order to make themselves feel relevant.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I say that the games that should be considered art are the ones that we individually think are the best gaming experience. For example I would consider Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Metroid, Final Fantasy 6 and 7, hell even Gears of War to be art. Games that we personally find are the pinnacle of gaming. Therefore they should be considered art. Because games should be judged on the merits of their own medium.

I say this is quite possibly the most destructive thought imaginable in application to gaming as an art form. Even calling shit like Superman 64 works more as art than the juvenile experiences of those games, as Superman 64 can be argued to be a Dadaist anti-game.

Those games mean nothing. They have no depth or feeling, no universal truth behind them. They can't even claim to be id-driven experiences of the base mind, as they hold too much consistent internal logic.

Art is about the universal truths of life and humanity. It is about finding that kernel of the experience to share with your audience. It is NOT about "I liked this game when I was young, therefore it is art".

All I'm getting from this comment is that you seem to believe that a game must be broken or shit in order to be considered art.

You might wanna take an English as a second language course then. Cause if you can't follow what I'm saying, learn to read.

In that case please explain your posts more clearly. You are simply writing meaningless drivel without explanation and blaming others when they say they don't understand it.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I say that the games that should be considered art are the ones that we individually think are the best gaming experience. For example I would consider Super Mario Galaxy 2, Super Metroid, Final Fantasy 6 and 7, hell even Gears of War to be art. Games that we personally find are the pinnacle of gaming. Therefore they should be considered art. Because games should be judged on the merits of their own medium.

I say this is quite possibly the most destructive thought imaginable in application to gaming as an art form. Even calling shit like Superman 64 works more as art than the juvenile experiences of those games, as Superman 64 can be argued to be a Dadaist anti-game.

Those games mean nothing. They have no depth or feeling, no universal truth behind them. They can't even claim to be id-driven experiences of the base mind, as they hold too much consistent internal logic.

Art is about the universal truths of life and humanity. It is about finding that kernel of the experience to share with your audience. It is NOT about "I liked this game when I was young, therefore it is art".

All I'm getting from this comment is that you seem to believe that a game must be broken or shit in order to be considered art.

You might wanna take an English as a second language course then. Cause if you can't follow what I'm saying, learn to read.

In that case please explain your posts more clearly. You are simply writing meaningless drivel without explanation and blaming others when they say they don't understand it.

I'm blaming you because you managed to miss words that change the entire meaning of phrases. Like the word even.

Again explain to me these words I have missed. While you are at it please explain this universal truth you refer to that supposedly art must contain in order to be considered art.

 

[DioWallachia]

And how can Superman 64 be a Dada piece isntead of just plain old incompetence and executive meddling? Wont a deconstruction like Spec Ops The Line be a Dada work?

And how do you manage to mistake an extreme example, chosen for the fact that its extreme and tenuous, for the rock solid example?

Because i am not saying "How can YOU say that Superman be blah blah?", i am saying "How can Superman 64 be blah blah?" as in what kind of scenario one could see Superman 64 as a Dada. A retorical.

Final Fantasy VI has a theme being play out before your eyes, the theme of love or be loved (different kinds of love), and we see different characters reacting their way to such thing. If there is any doubt about that, then let this guy fill you in: (Warning, 3 hours video incoming)

So therefor eit comes close. But, lacking as it does the loss, it fails to cover love as well as FF VII does witht he loss of Aerith. If you had said FF VII, maybe that would work for art, but since you said VI, no.

Actually, FF VI covers more about love in general rather than the love on FF VII or FF VIII (where it was only more of an ackward teenage kind of love). The theme of love (i think i should have used the words "The joy of living") even affected the antagonist Kefka. If you want the short version, just watch the video at 2:58:30 where he tries to explain how Kefka is unique for having a Character Anti-Arc thanks of not being able to enjoy living as everyone else.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

snip

So your entire argument is based upon the fact that I misunderstood your use of the word "even"? all right then..........

I'm still waiting for an explantion of this universal truth you refer to?

Those games mean nothing. They have no depth or feeling, no universal truth behind them. They can't even claim to be id-driven experiences of the base mind, as they hold too much consistent internal logic.

Also are you seriously suggesting these games contain no meaning, depth or feeling because they have been built using a system of logic?

So the designers of games cannot impart any depth, feeling or passion that they have into their work without it being illogical? That argument is just insane.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

snip

No I do not get it. Once again you are writing meaningless drivel and failing to counter my arguments.

What is the universal truth you refer to?

 

[ShinyCharizard]

snip

No I do not get it. Once again you are writing meaningless drivel and failing to counter my arguments.

What is the universal truth you refer to?

The adult emotionally balanced reactions shared by the human race. For example, me getting pissed off at you because you are clearly trying to be annoying.

You say that adult emotion is the universal truth. So does that mean games are incapable of eliciting emotion?

 

[ShinyCharizard]

snip

No I do not get it. Once again you are writing meaningless drivel and failing to counter my arguments.

What is the universal truth you refer to?

The adult emotionally balanced reactions shared by the human race. For example, me getting pissed off at you because you are clearly trying to be annoying.

You say that adult emotion is the universal truth. So does that mean games are incapable of eliciting emotion?

No, simplistic games like the kind you gave as examples do not give complete multilayered emotions, just simplistic reactions. Mild contentedness and low-level thrills.

So my emotions are simplistic and not multi-layered? And those games were my examples. I specifically stated it would be different for everbody. And for the record please explain to me what a complex multi-layered emotion is?

 

[ShinyCharizard]

snip

No I do not get it. Once again you are writing meaningless drivel and failing to counter my arguments.

What is the universal truth you refer to?

The adult emotionally balanced reactions shared by the human race. For example, me getting pissed off at you because you are clearly trying to be annoying.

You say that adult emotion is the universal truth. So does that mean games are incapable of eliciting emotion?

No, simplistic games like the kind you gave as examples do not give complete multilayered emotions, just simplistic reactions. Mild contentedness and low-level thrills.

So my emotions are simplistic and not multi-layered? And those games were my examples. I specifically stated it would be different for everbody. And for the record please explain to me what a complex multi-layered emotion is?

The internal grief and self-hatred a person gets from being forced by a sadistic psychopath to kill someone close to them.

Ok. Now please tell me how that relates to art?

 

[DioWallachia]

snip

No I do not get it. Once again you are writing meaningless drivel and failing to counter my arguments.

What is the universal truth you refer to?

The adult emotionally balanced reactions shared by the human race. For example, me getting pissed off at you because you are clearly trying to be annoying.

You say that adult emotion is the universal truth. So does that mean games are incapable of eliciting emotion?

No, simplistic games like the kind you gave as examples do not give complete multilayered emotions, just simplistic reactions. Mild contentedness and low-level thrills.

So my emotions are simplistic and not multi-layered? And those games were my examples. I specifically stated it would be different for everbody. And for the record please explain to me what a complex multi-layered emotion is?

The internal grief and self-hatred a person gets from being forced by a sadistic psychopath to kill someone close to them.

Ok. Now please tell me how that relates to art?

I suppose he wants a game that does what Catch 22 does, a game where you get subjected to a " no-win situation" or "a double bind".

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MortonsFork

Planescape Torment did some of that with The Pillar of Skulls scene.

In the other hand, there are horror games that explore a part of the player's self, like Silent Hill 2. So its not like there isnt already some aplicability to real life with games:


On a personal note, i think that we need a game that puts the theme of "Nesesity knows NO bounds" in play, with the meta twist that your are not presented with a case of "Its either this well written NPC or my avatar who dies" . Instead, you are pitted against your OWN player character who is trying to be free of your control, because you are murdering people for no reason with its body for some excuse of entertaiment. The game is basically you trying to mentally breakdown this avatar or yours in ANY way possible (by force or by lectures) so you can regain full control and return to the fun stuff. Since the avatar is just a fictional being, there is no remorse at all when you wipe out its mind to be your perfect puppet of your desires...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_fiction

...or are they trully fictional?

Now THAT is nice way to explore the human condition, wont you say?

 

[Bocaj2000]

snip

crickle

pip

Hope I didn't come off as aggressive; I love the conversations and think on art a lot (as an academic and artist), so it gets me going :-D.

I think we agree. I just used the more mainstream games to make my point, but I would definitely say something like Trauma Center or Lumines is an artistic experience, more so than Mass Effect. Or Etrian Odyssey, where you chart unknown worlds, moves more in the space of art than most JRPGs.

I think you're right, though on what you say about interactive art, and I agree that the notions of "winning" and "fun" are limiting to video games as artistic expression. I think my issue, really, is that I have limited experience with the interactive art in museums; I'm a literature guy, so most of my energy goes towards literary art.

I didn't mean to sound dismissive re: the Ono bit, just saying that in form, it looks like a poem. I'm not saying it can't serve as a part of a performance piece with audience participation and stuff like that; the point of any poem I've ever called good is to deliver an experience, whether that's to place the reader in a moment of understanding, or subvert that understanding, or disassociate us with our common understanding of language. I wasn't saying it's not art, just that it is poetry: that doesn't mean it can't also be other things, you know? Most people typically experience plays like novels, but they're still meant to be cast, performed, and directed, so a play can actually be several different kinds of art simultaneously.

And cool on FTL :-D. I agree with you; the emergent nature of gameplay is really special. But I dunno. I think the question that has to be answered for critics that want to defends video games as art is "what am I looking for out of art?" Basically, aesthetic, you know? What should art be doing, if anything? I'm not sure that catharsis and emotional experiences alone should be that. But I do think the space for telling our own stories is part of what makes game an interesting artistic endeavor: for me, FTL is this constantly feminine (although, apparently, racist, since all I have are white dudes on the Kestrel) thing where I always have a female captain piloting the ship. And I realize that it's different from the spaces other people create. Then there's this interesting thing (to me) where I'm wondering how feminist is it when I, as a guy, am doing this thing. But my take on art is that it's always doing some kind of sociocultural work, whether it means to or not.

Thanks for the response .

I am so sorry! I thought you were dismissing me, and I started assuming things

Damn you internet and your lack of vocal inflections!

Thanks for the clarifications. It's always nice to discuss with another artist. I am currently in school for Digital Media & Animation, and lately I have been experimenting in interactivity and the purposes behind it. I have been researching interactive art and made some experiments in Max/MSP/Jitter. I hope to use my degree as a stepping stone to become a game designer and put all of my theories to the test.

It is a misconception that all interactive pieces are Hollywood inspired AAA games. This is because they are the only ones advertised. It's a problem with culture more than the actual medium. We tend to dismiss puzzle games, visual novels, or anything else that might be too "casual" for us. The only to correct this is to start paying attention to indie games and handheld games. They are the most unique ones changing the industry. But if you want to see some interactive art, just youtube it some time, you'll find some amazing stuff. This is one of them:


As for Yoko Ono. View it how you want; it's open to interpretation

Lastly, as for FTL, I agree that it is a proponent in making video games viewed art. Everything about it is personal. On top of that it has a thick atmosphere that I fell in love with.

Send me a message if you want to talk more about this stuff

 

[AsurasEyes]

What if i am making a game to quantify how many people react under a simulation of extreme circunstances, that question what it means to be "civilized" in a world that tells you in every way possible that "Nessesity knows NO bounds"?

Or how about making a game like Catherine, where you get asked about your relationships and eventually you get a graphic that shows the % of people that answered one way or another?

What if i am making a really shitty game under a well know company to test the loyalty of the blinded fans?

Wont that mean that games CAN be tools?

A piece of art cannot be a tool. It'd be like a movie that heals your broken bones. Or a game that makes your ceiling tiles fix themselves. A tool is something that affects the material world and performs a material function. Psychological crap doesn't count as material function, and that's all art can affect. The human mind.

1) http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/120164-Science-Judges-Your-Personality-Using-Fallout-3

2)
3)In the same way that a hammer cannot bake my cake or calculator cannot fix the microwave, a game cannot fix the ceiling. Good..........but who says that games can fix the ceiling? you say it yourself, they affect the mind.

4)You DO realize that the mind is part of your body, right? a MATERIAL object that works on chemicals. Just like Jean Paul Sartre said: "Descarte's error was to think of counciousness as somehow trascendent from reality, looking down to it. But in reality, you exist within the world, and its only throught your consciousness that you can make any sense of the world at all"

Fitting for a fellow who has Cthulhu as an avatar pic to engage my first discussion on metaphysical stuff.

A game doesn't solve a practical problem, to paraphrase the The Engineer. It doesn't really solve a problem at all. We play games because of emotional needs (boredom, loneliness, lust in the case of Soul Caliber) but that can hardly be equated to the use of a tool. Your point about a hammer not baking a cake isn't exactly the point I was trying to make. A piece of art doesn't have a single practical function besides killing some time. If you had were stuck in the wilds with a hammer, you could kill some food or do something useful. Stuck in the same situation with a game disk, you could only make use out of the disk itself, unless you ran into a bear that happened to love himself some Halo Reach. The game would be useless, and cannot be used to solve any practical problem.

 

[JochemHippie]

Depends on how you classify art.

In my opinion, art is a selfish thing. Art is a materialization of your imagination, not something that you made to cater to others and make money off.
Art is the most personal form of expression. So no, in general, creative works under the flag of commercial distribution isn't art, but entertainment. Albeit sometimes very creative and innovating entertainment, but still... Entertainment.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

Does it inspire any emotion or convey any idea deliberately?

As far as I'm concerned, whenever someone has done something for a reason that is observed and interpreted by an observer, that's art. I just pulled that out of thin air just then but it basically encompasses everything I consider to be art. The thing is, I dislike a lot of abstract art. But I reconcile that with a simple saying: "Not all art is good art". Videogames are art, but when they're kneecapped by incompetent suprevisors, financial issues, brand recognition, audience broadening - anything that can happen to a game that may impact its quality - it can just be shitty art, we don't have to exclude it. I mean for fuck's sake, if a blank canvas and a silent piano piece which is played by sitting still is art, Dark Souls is art. The user input I basically equate to your interpretation of an artwork anyway.

That said, I really don't give a fuck what other people consider games. I play them.

 

[vortalism]

I get a very similar vibe when discussing video games as art to a postmodernist lecture/class/things's discussion on what constitutes "art". Needless to say, Video Games are an art form. Some may say the best art form. Also those asshats who say that game mechanics marginalise narrative must be the dumbest pieces of stupid in the world because that just proves that games are multi-dimensional where other forms of media have to focus on stuff like looking pretty and trying to evoke some obscure (or blatant) philosophical subtext. Also I've found most critics in other forms to be stuffy and aristocratic when it concerns our art, and it's because we just happened to be less established. Wait another few decades and you'll see change; happens to just about everything.

Also from briefly skimming over (almost) everyone else's comments, it seems to me that you are all experts (in a good way) in this particular topic... wow... Escapists: Philosophers of the Gaming world? Maybe.

 

[DioWallachia]

Fitting for a fellow who has Cthulhu as an avatar pic to engage my first discussion on metaphysical stuff.

A game doesn't solve a practical problem, to paraphrase the The Engineer. It doesn't really solve a problem at all. We play games because of emotional needs (boredom, loneliness, lust in the case of Soul Caliber) but that can hardly be equated to the use of a tool. Your point about a hammer not baking a cake isn't exactly the point I was trying to make. A piece of art doesn't have a single practical function besides killing some time. If you had were stuck in the wilds with a hammer, you could kill some food or do something useful. Stuck in the same situation with a game disk, you could only make use out of the disk itself, unless you ran into a bear that happened to love himself some Halo Reach. The game would be useless, and cannot be used to solve any practical problem.

What about the works of art that challenge (or in some cases, frighten) the audience into reconsidering their opinion in a "Appeal to Consequenses" sort off way?

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/WarGames?from=Main.WarGames

I heard that War Games did something like that (but i cant really say if it was THAT effective as people say, during the Cold War). The entire plot of WarGames is about how the only way to "win" a nuclear war is not to start it in the first place. Of course, it doesn't go so far as to have an actual war occur, but it gets fairly close.

A hammer may indeed be also be useful for fighting a bear, outside its intented use of....well, hammering a nail, but you STILL wont use a hammer to fix or even measure the Amperes of a electrical current, would you? Same for a work of art, it just happens to have a more specific function than other tools.

 

[DioWallachia]

I get a very similar vibe when discussing video games as art to a postmodernist lecture/class/things's discussion on what constitutes "art". Needless to say, Video Games are an art form. Some may say the best art form. Also those asshats who say that game mechanics marginalise narrative must be the dumbest pieces of stupid in the world because that just proves that games are multi-dimensional where other forms of media have to focus on stuff like looking pretty and trying to evoke some obscure (or blatant) philosophical subtext. Also I've found most critics in other forms to be stuffy and aristocratic when it concerns our art, and it's because we just happened to be less established. Wait another few decades and you'll see change; happens to just about everything.

Also from briefly skimming over (almost) everyone else's comments, it seems to me that you are all experts (in a good way) in this particular topic... wow... Escapists: Philosophers of the Gaming world? Maybe.

We are not experts. We just pick up everything we can find and throw it against the wall of text on the forum because most of us have NO idea where to start, so we may as well say somthing and test it until proven wrong.

 

[vortalism]

We are not experts. We just pick up everything we can find and throw it against the wall of text on the forum because most of us have NO idea where to start, so we may as well say somthing and test it until proven wrong.

I suppose so. Although I still applaud the fact that you guys even give a chuff about this topic. I may be from a very different part of the internet indeed. Furthermore some people's ideas actually hold some semblance of truth not all of it is wall-poop throwing.

 

[DioWallachia]

Sure you can. If art had to follow rules, everyone could eventually be an artist. It's a matter of breaking the rules correctly that makes art art, as opposed to just interesting.

Check out Bhanu Khapil's Humanimal and Maggie Nelson's Bluets. A lot of rules get broken in those books, just off the top of my head. The Fixed Stars by Brian Conn also does weird stuff (though not nearly as weird), and I also like to push it because I was part of the production of the book .

But isnt "Art must (follow no rules / break all rules)" a rule by itself?