Rockstar the only real videogame artists

[arrr_matey]

Reading a lot of the discussion about videogames as art, it seems like one crucial idea is missing. Beyond technical or aesthetic issues, isn't the whole point of art supposed to be that it forces people to start talking about things? Like a picture of an impoverished farmer next to a wealthy banker might not be technically or aesthetically that great, but it would certainly provoke some discussion about the morality of where money goes or something like that.

If you think about it this way, only Rockstar has consistently used their games to provoke society into actually talking about itself. Look at what's going to happen once the boy-on-boy kissing in Bully hits the mainstream. If conservatives demand a rating change for the game, it'll bring up all kinds of gay rights issues (why are gay kisses considered worse than straight kisses, etc) and freedom of speech issues. I can't think of another developer that has had as much of an effect on mainstream society than Rockstar.

Although, I guess if you follow this argument all the way, then games like Mortal Kombat and Postal would have to be considered art too?

 

[Lara Crigger]

Reading a lot of the discussion about videogames as art, it seems like one crucial idea is missing. Beyond technical or aesthetic issues, isn't the whole point of art supposed to be that it forces people to start talking about things? Like a picture of an impoverished farmer next to a wealthy banker might not be technically or aesthetically that great, but it would certainly provoke some discussion about the morality of where money goes or something like that.

No, I don't think starting discussion is the ultimate goal of art. It's a side-effect, to be sure, but not the only worthwhile achievement. Using the common definition of art I put forth in "The Milkman Cometh", (that is, that art is the method we use to quantify and express the human condition), art is essentially an internal dialogue between artist and audience. That dialogue can taken to include other people, of course, but art's goal is a personal affair.

Following your logic through, if the definition of art is that it forces people to start talking about things, then is Hot Coffee the 21st century "Guernica"? It certainly got people talking. I think there must be a distinction made between discussion about a subject and insight into a subject. Mortal Kombat inspires discussion; Shadow of the Colossus provides insight.

 

[Virgil]

I don't necessarily agree that the point of art is that "it forces people to start talking about things". We can look at many other examples of different media we consider art as counter-examples - the Monet exhibition coming through town here is unlikely to cause any cultural examination, but nobody is going to seriously debate whether or not it's really art.

I also don't know if I agree that Rockstar has done much in the way of intentionally provoking discussion any more than someone chaining themselves to a tree really brings attention to the plight of the rainforest. Certainly they've garnered attention for themselves and their cause/product, but it's probably not the sort of attention that should be cast on those issues.

Of course, there are definitely people that hold "shock art" in high esteem, I just don't happen to agree.

I'm not saying that Rockstar's games aren't artistic, just that this wouldn't be the reason I'd use. To me, anything that is trying to 'say something' could be considered art, and it feels like a lot of other games are trying harder at that.

 

[arrr_matey]

No, I don't think starting discussion is the ultimate goal of art. It's a side-effect, to be sure, but not the only worthwhile achievement. Using the common definition of art I put forth in "The Milkman Cometh", (that is, that art is the method we use to quantify and express the human condition), art is essentially an internal dialogue between artist and audience. That dialogue can taken to include other people, of course, but art's goal is a personal affair.

I don't necessarily disagree, but for argument's sake... what's the point of expressing the human condition, really? Don't all variations of that essentially boil down to, "Gosh, humans are really effed up, see!"

What might be more noble, and maybe more "artistic," is holding up a mirror to human beings that confronts them with what they are, rather than merely expressing it. Grand Theft Auto and Bully say to us, "Hey, your society is messed up. You should try fixing it."

I think there must be a distinction made between discussion about a subject and insight into a subject. Mortal Kombat inspires discussion; Shadow of the Colossus provides insight.

I like that a lot. I'd argue that, in a heavily sarcastic and satirical way, Rockstar's games do offer a lot of insight into the inequalities that lurk behind the curtain of American-style democracy. Some people may say that they just court controversy for the hell of it, but I don't see anyone else with the balls to include same-sex kissing in their games.

 

[arrr_matey]

We can look at many other examples of different media we consider art as counter-examples - the Monet exhibition coming through town here is unlikely to cause any cultural examination, but nobody is going to seriously debate whether or not it's really art.

But back when Monet was first painting, wasn't impressionism very controversial?

 

[Ian Dorsch]

I don't necessarily disagree, but for argument's sake... what's the point of expressing the human condition, really? Don't all variations of that essentially boil down to, "Gosh, humans are really effed up, see!"

No, because things like love, joy and wonder are every bit as much a part of the human condition as suffering, bigotry and death.

 

[Virgil]

But back when Monet was first painting, wasn't impressionism very controversial?

In the "This isn't a valid artistic style" sort of way, yes. In the "Society should use humans as a foodsource" sort of way, no.

Some people may say that they just court controversy for the hell of it, but I don't see anyone else with the balls to include same-sex kissing in their games.

Fable, The Sims, and Sim Copter (though that was a sneaky programmer 'easter egg') are three off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others. Japanese RPGs do include homosexual characters regularly, though they generally don't show physical contact and are usually way over the top stereotypes.

 

[Lara Crigger]

I don't necessarily disagree, but for argument's sake... what's the point of expressing the human condition, really? Don't all variations of that essentially boil down to, "Gosh, humans are really effed up, see!"

What might be more noble, and maybe more "artistic," is holding up a mirror to human beings that confronts them with what they are, rather than merely expressing it.

Right, that's exactly what I mean by "expressing the human condition". It is a reflection of who we are, what we could be, and what we want to be, all at once. That being said, I think only the narrowest of definitions of the human condition could be summed up as 'Gosh, humans are really effed up.' As Ian mentioned above, there's love, joy and wonder to be had, as well as beauty, truth, logic, mystery, etc. The 'human condition' is a very broad term.

 

[TomBeraha]

While the discussion is interesting, I'm not sure it's going to ever really reach a conclusion. The only consistent definition for Art is that every single person seems to define it their own way. To me art is more of a feeling than a tangible effect. Lara, "Expressing the human condition" to me feels buzz-wordy and insubstantial. Any creation (note: not artwork) will be to greater or lesser extent a reflection on it's creator and his stimuli.

For me - Art is what brings me emotion - sometimes nothing more than a pretty array of colors created by a gradient in Photoshop will bring a smile and wonder to me, at those points it is art. Some nights I can see the rain drops falling and splashing their ripples into each other and it is mesmerizing, at those times the rain itself is art for me. Some photographs move me to anger or tears or frustration or to joy. Music can do all of that and more - as do video games for me on occasion.

In another way - If instead of expressing the artist's view, if the experience of something causes the viewer to change - it is art, for that moment. Games have moments which can transcend their sum total of parts just as a sunset can bring us memories / thoughts / feelings even though it's just light waves reflecting through our atmosphere. Those individual experiences are what make us think of something as art.

 

[Ludological Outlaw]

Rockstar is, to a certain degree, a group of satirists and provocateurs, but they're making extremely successful products, which means that they really aren't goint too far out on a limb to be provocative to the gaming community. The one game in which they really pushed it, Manhunt, sold poorly. In GTA they also to a certain extent perform cultural autopsies on recent periods in American history, and replicate their atmosphere while satirizing them to death.

 

[arrr_matey]

In the "This isn't a valid artistic style" sort of way, yes. In the "Society should use humans as a foodsource" sort of way, no.

I don't know. I think there was more than just brushstrokes going on there. Impressionism represented a different way of seeing the world. A much more secular subject matter, which probably would have been fairly controversial. And in encouraging people to focus on their own experience of the world rather than embracing any universal "reality" the impressionists were pretty radical. And I mean that in both the political and Bill and Ted sense of the word.

 

[arrr_matey]

Before 1962, everybody thought pop music was sort of... Nobody would have ever remotely called it art, and then somebody comes along and is just so incredibly creative in it, just because they love it to bits and think it's the greatest fun you can possibly have. And within a few years, you've got Sgt. Pepper's and so on, and everybody's calling it art. I think media are at their most interesting before anybody's thought of calling them art, when people still think they're just a load of junk."

He sounds like Hideo Kojima.

Creative people do this all the time because they know being labelled an "artist" comes with a lot of negative baggage. Elitism is so shunned that if you look like you think you're smart or something, people will hate you. "I don't make art, just a bunch of stupid videogames" is way more likely to make you friends than "I program interactive narratives coupled with a coordinated visual style to bring my audience an immersive artistic experience no other medium can offer."

The last people you should listen to when it comes to art are the actual artists. Art exists in the experience of it, not the creation.

 

[heavyfeul]

I think Rockstar and Take-Two deliberately put controversial content in their games to garner all this attention so that they can sell more games. Period. They are trying to sell units, not challenge society. The flasher on the subway is more of an artist than Rockstar. At least he's not looking to get any money from me, despite the explicit and controversial content under his raincoat.

 

[Blaxton]

The last people you should listen to when it comes to art are the actual artists. Art exists in the experience of it, not the creation.

I'm sorry but I don't think I can get on board with what you are saying here. I like the overall feel of what you appear to be saying; however, I see some contradiction. The conclusive sense that I get from you is that art is about feeling and experience. I think that is dead on. On the other hand, to suggest that the artist is not a valuable resource in understanding art is, in my opinion, inaccurate. An artist, one which actively seeks to create art, should understand the principle that the classification of whether or not something is 'art' stands as strictly subjective. There is no reason that an artist should lack the ability to explain this concept to someone interested in their work.

However, I also agree with you. Creating a work will, no doubt, affect the relationship the artist has with the piece. It is entirely probable that the perspective of the artist differs greatly from the perspective of most other people. The act of creating a piece would automatically give an experience to the artist, in relation to that piece, that an onlooker will not be able to replicate. This can easily make what an artist says about his work, more or less, unsubstantial to anyone other than himself.

Taking everything into account, I would have to say that Rockstar and Take-two are the only two companies producing art if, and only if, everyone sees that to be the case. I can say for certain (as someone that plays titles from other companies and experiences art within them) that this is not the case. As you said yourself:

Art exists in the experience of it, not the creation.

I like that you bring up the idea of art in games though. I feel like there is so much potential for great art within the entertainment software medium. People already feel so much after playing even the most basic games. I remember feeling like a God after beating the NES version of Punch Out for the first time. I think this next generation will bring a lot to the table in respect to art. I have heard that Peter Jackson has not only been in talks about directing a HALO film (which, on a personal note, I hope never happens), but also in talks about working with developers on games. I look forward to a great improvement in game presentation and storytelling if he does.

 

[water_bearer]

I don't think Rockstar is the only one making "art" in games, art is objective and controversy does not equal art.

I do think that Rockstar is one of the few publishers who are really committed to serving up titles for an adult audience, and I think we need more companies who do that.

 

[Archon]

TomBeraha earlier gave a pointed definition of art as that which elicits emotion. I'll go one further and say it is "artificial technique that elicits emotion." A beautiful sky or a punch in the nose might elicit emotion, but aren't art. A painting, music, or movie might be.

Logically there is no reason that oil dabbed on canvas or electronic noise piped through headphones or moving pictures on a screen should cause an emotional reaction in a person. It happens so often that we've perhaps lost sight of how amazing it is that we can become emotional over that which we know is not real. Humans without the ability to be moved by aesthetics would be unable to appreciate art. We might be able to appreciate technique but sterile technique doesn't necessarily translate to art.

Given this definition, I think art is far more prevalent in video games than just in Rockstar's products...

 

[Kojima [deprecated]]

Reading a lot of the discussion about videogames as art, it seems like one crucial idea is missing. Beyond technical or aesthetic issues, isn't the whole point of art supposed to be that it forces people to start talking about things? Like a picture of an impoverished farmer next to a wealthy banker might not be technically or aesthetically that great, but it would certainly provoke some discussion about the morality of where money goes or something like that.

If you think about it this way, only Rockstar has consistently used their games to provoke society into actually talking about itself. Look at what's going to happen once the boy-on-boy kissing in Bully hits the mainstream. If conservatives demand a rating change for the game, it'll bring up all kinds of gay rights issues (why are gay kisses considered worse than straight kisses, etc) and freedom of speech issues. I can't think of another developer that has had as much of an effect on mainstream society than Rockstar.

Although, I guess if you follow this argument all the way, then games like Mortal Kombat and Postal would have to be considered art too?

First of all allow me to call you a rockstar fanboi

Art can be defined in many different ways, I don't intend to list them but I don't think what you pointed out is considered that. I think associating the word art with Okami, for I think associating art with Okami, for example is more appropriate. I do however agree with you that Rockstar is the most controversial company in the field and whenever I see the name of that company in a thread I know its about a big fight with either ESRB or some political party about their games.

 

[BolognaBaloney]

Being controversial doesn't make something art, it makes it controversial.

 

[Khazoth]

No.. Just no. They don't raise issues, what they do is add controversy for the sake of selling games.

My eye is twitching so hard I fear I might pull a facial muscle.

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

NO.. not at all Rockstar is only art in the art of stealing my 60$ for an incredibly fucking linear GTA4 that held my interest for about a day. Try 2k Boston with Bioshock, Ubisofts Beyond Good and Evil, not that crap.