Proof that video games can be art

[Savagezion]

I'm sorry if I offended you. I don't have the need to 'troll'. I merely seek to educate on topics I deem interesting. Aesthetics is a philosophical discipline that deals with beauty, what is, what is art, how do we differentiate art from non-art, why we create art etc. Many thinkers discussed these topics and never could really come to a conclusion, but a few things are certain.

That was a good read and gave me a little to ponder on for the past hour or two. Haha, I seriously thought you were trolling at first. Don't worry, I wasn't offended by anything I was nipping being trolled in the bud before it got started. I mean with Cowpoo as a handle and a postcount of 25. Your join date was the only thing that made me raise an eyebrow. My use of the term pretentious wasn't meant to be derogatory either.

I am glad you posted something a bit more meaty this time to get a good view of where you are coming from. I almost missed this post by forgetting about the thread. Admittedly, I had missed your first post on page 1. Which of course threw me way off from where you were coming from originally. Having read this and that combined, I can get a better picture of where your focal point is.

It seems we have both been in this same debate more than enough times to count and are relatively in the same position. However, where you give the not-art argument validity, I don't. I find trying to define something by defining what it isn't is not the best method. That will always result in a vague conclusion at best.

Art isn't the synonym for 'I like something'. It's not. Liking something means liking something. To rewrite what I wrote in previous posts: Art is the result of deliberate human action that is intended to be judged primarily by it's aesthetic value (wether or not you like it, it's still art). Bad art is still art. Just because you like something, doesn't mean it's art. It means you like something. You can like something that is not art. You can reflect your views on life and the human condition in something that is not art. Of course there are exceptions as there are to every rule, but those exceptions aren't made based on wether or not someone likes it.

Judging aesthetics means judging something on a sensory and emotional level. Judging it with some form of rational thought is something else, which can be there, but doesn't necessarily have to be. If there is such a thing as art(and obviously there is), what is not-art? The best definition would probably be something that is to be primarily judged by its technical value. Nature itself isn't considered art, although you can judge it's aesthetics.

I agree that bad art is still art and I have used that line myself many times. Art is a synonym for "I found beauty inherent in the purpose of something." That is way more useful than what it is not a synonym for. By trying to pinpoint exactly what art is you are going to make ground faster than by claiming what it is not. Not that there is absolutely no merit behind the other method, it just seems back asswards to me personally.

"What does it matter what people consider art? How does it directly impact you in any way?"
Because, language is a means of communication. When creating anything (art, but pretty much anything else too) in a group, you need to share ideas. You share these ideas with words, and to better understand each other, we need to come to an agreement as to what each word means, so we can resolve conflict. We need to know what art is in order to create it. When you use the same words with someone, it's better if you both know what the other is trying to express.
A lot of words are thrown around as filler (aesthetics, art, game mechanic, storytelling etc.) and lose meaning. When a group of people can properly define something, they can properly improve it.

I agree with what you put here but want to mention that I find it funny that I assume you are talking about development studios here but a major bulk of society can't even come to an agreement on this. Right now there isn't even a majority that favor one definition of art over another. The word subjective gets thrown around so much that it can at times make the whole argument seem subjective. Which is why I think art needs 2 layers. You have an individual layer where a person is allowed to consider anything they want to as art. Then you have another layer as to what society considers art. These two layers will constantly be at odds with one another because an individual can accept something as art faster and easier than society can. Some individuals will consider those singing fish art and that is OK. Society won't ever accept the fish as art and telling Ben Kimble that his singing fish isn't art when it isn't hurting anybody and he truly believes it is art is douchey if he isn't trying to push the fact that it is on you.

Language is meant to improve our lives. Labeling something as 'Art' isn't about its status, but by labeling a game art, knowing what art is, we can improve on its aesthetics (sensory-emotional response). By discussing what is beauty we can improve on it. We can create beauty. Leaving it at "It's all just your opinion it doesn't matter." is devolving our language into meaningless blabbering until we are cave-men again and speak only in syllables and rape our women and don't shave down there.

First, I have to disagree that by defining beauty we can do anything with that definition. aesthetic tastes vary so much they can't be streamlined anymore than they already are by social stigmas and what is considered "normal". Something like beauty isn't something we can make more accessible by having a definition.

I get what you are saying but by merging an individual's concept of what they see as art and what society deems as art sidesteps the entire point behind the idea of art itself. There is a slippery slope close to your argument about making art for art's sake. Some people consider their golf swing a work of art and they are not going to drop that opinion because society tells them not to. There is nothing wrong with that mentality and so long as they can accept a socially restricted sense of the word art without having to abandon their own personal view of art. By doing this the system is more inclusive, constructive, and weighted in multiple views as to what art means to different people.

Why is labeling/not labeling video games as art important? We all like art, albeit different forms of it, we still like it. I'm sure that both you and me share many common opinions on what is beautiful; what appeals to our senses(like in video games). Finding these commonalities is important to creating a good video game. And if I'm pretentious for wanting to find a common language so we can discuss one of our most favourite hobbies and improve it, then so be it.

This is where talking about what isn't art is a problem. People are going to be less receptive of your ideas or sharing their ideas if they state what they see and have seen as art and are told "Nope, you're wrong." It essentially works to segregate any part of the community that disagrees with that mentality until everyone left is inevitably in agreement. What I am saying is that excluding definitions on art because they contrast your own so that yours can be the foundation undermines the purpose of what you are trying to do on the grounds of pretension.

I bet we would also disagree on many things we find beautiful and what appeals to our senses. I think that establishing that there is a diverse market is important to making a great video game. Just as you go on to say that reception is key in your next quote reception is key in beauty as well.

Edit: Forgot the explanation as to why art isn't a form of communication, but CAN be. Communication is sharing information(in some languages it can mean the transport of physical objects too). For something to be called 'information' it needs to have some sort of context. I.E. needs to be informative. Because we view art so subjectively, I could make a sculpture which you would interpret as something, but someone else might interpret it differently. Thus whatever was (according to you)communicated, depends entirely on the person viewing it.

That is a fair enough point, however I will say that outside of abstract art, pretty much all art is trying to communicate with its audience. I see communication outside of some definition and more of "I am thinking of something and want you to know what it is so I do something to get that across to you" How you perceive that I am thinking that once you receive it is entirely separate.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

The Stanley Parable was much more fun and interesting.

Now that was a great game. The narrator of that had an excellent voice.

 

[Dimitriov]

It was boring and irritating. However, I subjected myself to see if there was anything of worth there. There wasn't.

Poor visuals. Poor gameplay. No story. Oh yeah, NOT FUN.

Fails as art, fails as a game.


I honestly have no idea what you are on about, and I certainly do consider games as having the potential to be art.

 

[PatchlingZoon]

According to Ekow Eshun's definition, ideal art enables deep introspection and consideration. That in itself is a highly subjective experience entirely based on the observer/participant/user. The same pangs of fear I felt playing Silent Hill 2 were felt looking at Francisco Goya's "The Shootings of May Third." Who can take that away from me or argue otherwise? The police can't. Neither can the art critics. And BBC sure as hell can't tell me what "art" is or isn't. The validity of a personal experience is so damn relative.

I believe arguing over the semantics of "art" is a superfluous, pseudo-intellectual endeavor. Because paintings have been around for over two millenia?electronic games: a few decades. Of course the big wigs are afraid of us and how this medium can potentially subvert the significance of theirs. We're challenging their own notions about "art" en masse as they are to us.

What really fascinates me most about this discussion? The ability to share that introspection with others. I think bringing non-gamers into the debate (and thereby allowing them to experience the cream of the crop titles many of you have mentioned) pushes to case for communal growth. In turn, this would transform games from an semi-diverted subculture into a field worthy of BBC/elitist distinction.

 

[Ninjat_126]

I believe arguing over the semantics of "art" is a superfluous, pseudo-intellectual endeavor. Because paintings have been around for over two millenia?electronic games: a few decades. Of course the big wigs are afraid of us and how this medium can potentially subvert the significance of theirs. We're challenging their own notions about "art" en masse as they are to us.

I think that people just think that because some paintings, books and films are art they all are. I think art needs to have some sort of meaning attached, or make some sort of point about our lives. While an insane paint-splatter painting might be new and thought provoking the first time it's done, just ripping the same concept off hundreds of times means it loses its appeal.

Unfortunately, much of the postmodern art designed to make the viewer completely reconsider their concepts of art has become commonplace. Now, painting a tin of soup on a blank canvas isn't new or exciting, it's old and cliche. Kind of ironic, really.



I found this game

I just sat there waiting for something interesting to happen, which it didnt, and then resenting the time I wasted waiting for something interesting to happen.

It is a game, you're supposed to play it. Did you try moving around with the arrow keys?

 

[Ninjat_126]

If a written/spoken story is art, then a game with text/spoken narrative that tells a story is art.
If a song is art, then a song in a game is art.
If I draw a picture that is more than a purely informative diagram, that is art, so then a game with graphics is art.
If acting is art, then a game with voice actors is art.
If dancing is art, then a game with dancing in it is art.

By that argument, Little Miss Cloned Pop Princess (tm)'s new song "I want to get drunk and have sex with you" is also art. That is entertainment. (For some people)

Likewise, I wouldn't consider Team Fortress 2 art. Even though it has characters and graphics and music and if you press the "G" key around Halloween your character does the Thriller dance, merely including these elements does not give your work artistic merit.

As to the lack of instructions, that is part of the game. Not that it should be particularly difficult to spot that you move with the arrow keys, click highlighted words with the mouse and that is all. I picked it up after a couple of seconds.

 

[Blade1130]

Well, it's definitely an interesting example of art. Is it art? Maybe, certainly provides a unique argument. Though I do wish it went more in depth than "Good boy / girl" and "How disappointing" being the only two reactions.

I did chuckle when it second-guessed my gender, something I wish games would do a little more often. Positive reinforcement works fine, but negative reinforcement can be just as useful. Why don't I get scolded when I die? Why doesn't Grunt point out how terrible of fighter Shepard is and question his own reason for fighting under him whenever Shepard dies? That seems like a great way to further characterize him as well as make me feel insignificant to a character that I want to like me. And I'm just pulling that out of my ass, I'm sure there are a million ways to better use negative reinforcement like that.

Actually, I just remembered back in Half-Life: Opposing Force there are a number of fat donut-ridden security guards there for comic relief, and when I got to point where one couldn't follow me, I shot him to take his ammo and as he died he said something along the lines of: "Hey! I though we were becoming friends..." I was so mad at myself for killing him that I had reload the last quicksave. Not exactly negative reinforcement, but it makes the player feel bad for doing something stupid, rather than simply saying, "Yeah, you probably shouldn't have done that, but no one's going to care anyways".

In case you skipped all the previous posts mentioning this, it reminds me a lot of Stanley's Parable (link below) a Half-Life 2 mod that is also a kind of meta commentary on designing player experiences, kinda similar, though a bit more cryptic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gblvOhnv2k0

 

[EzraPound]

Alright, here's my issue with "art games": Most of them, this one included, seem to have been designed completely around a single metaphor. While it's neat to play this, or Jason Rohrer's Gravitation, it honestly feels a little gimmicky. It's just such a simple mechanic, I don't think it justifies the minimalist style. If you think about minimalist Film or Paintings or Music, is the meaning immediately clear? Is it even clear that there is a "meaning"? Metaphors should be weaved into a work of art, not be the entire inspiration behind the work.

Personally, I feel that art is entertainment, and entertainment is art. The only difference is the level of sophistication and thematic harmony. I think of Mario Galaxy as a work of art, because I think it's brilliantly designed and evokes emotion, even if that emotion is just what you might call "fun".

This.

Also, the defining of what art "is" is entirely a matter of social constructs, anyway, so we're really arguing about nothing.