Something Else Entirely

[VonKlaw]

PEDANTIC TIME.

Dictionary definition of "Art":

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Ergo, anything that takes effort to create or has some thought process behind it can be subjectively considered art. People need to get over this idea that things need to meet some weird unspecified standard for something to be considered art.

 

[Kahunaburger]

PEDANTIC TIME.

Dictionary definition of "Art":

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Ergo, anything that takes effort to create or has some thought process behind it can be subjectively considered art. People need to get over this idea that things need to meet some weird unspecified standard for something to be considered art.

But I thought art is only something that was made by a college-educated person from an upper-middle-class background (or higher) in one of the acceptable media (please check with your local Ministry of Expression for a list of acceptable media) that is hung in the sort of museum that is frequented by wealthy people?

 

[SuperBelkar]

I would like to say something. I believe that saying games could never be art may be a little harsh. However, While I remain optimistic for the future of medium, and as much as I can say I love games, I want to be the first to say that games have not had any sort of development that I would call art. Hear me out.

Games do not always offer freedom to fully express everything one wants to say. Games are restrained by things such as data space that limit what one is capable of delivering to an audience. If I wanted to create a game that gave you unlimited access and interpretation of the world given to you, I couldn't make it because there is no way we can develop entire universes that only exist in a way that we see it and interact with it.

Bioware has made great strides in this field but we have a long, long, long way to go. I hope one day that we will be able to call ourselves artists by creating the things that we enjoy, but for now, we just have to shoot at stars, and hope one day, that we'll have mass relays to take us there.

 

[Kahunaburger]

The Cherry isn't Art, if I had been creating art I would have actually put some real effort into it. There are no tears or sweat in that cherry, there is no message, that is no meaning. It's just a cherry.

None of those things are necessary for something to be art. Art is, by definition, a creative work. Come on, people, the rest of the world figured this out quite some time ago. This is not a difficult concept.

You're kind of missing my point. That other people see it that way is my entire problem. It's idiotic. Why even bother having a term for it if everything falls under it? This is the kind of thing where we could argue for days, weeks, months and never find common ground. Why? Because I actually create and I differentiate between those creations of mine that I consider art and what I merely consider design. For me, these are not one and the same and in all honesty, I find it a travesty that some people would have the gull to tell me I'm wrong about the terms I use for my own creations. Don't tell me that my stupid little cherry is art, it undermines any actual attempt at art, you are essentially telling me that it doesn't matter if I am skillful or have a message or have invested emotion into a work, it's always art. That's the kind of thing that kills the artistic spark in me, why should I even bother if some idiot is going to be equally impressed by me shitting on a book.

Tonight: one man's war against language! A word does not mean what he wants it to mean, and he is willing to argue at length about it on the internet until people accept the definition he likes!

 

[Kahunaburger]

...

Although, all things considered, I'm glad the Escapist is slowly transitioning back to ridiculous arguments about the definition of art from ridiculous arguments about Mass Effect endings.

 

[ZeroMachine]

...

Although, all things considered, I'm glad the Escapist is slowly transitioning back to ridiculous arguments about the definition of art from ridiculous arguments about Mass Effect endings.

DEAR GOD DON'T JINX IT!

 

[VonKlaw]

PEDANTIC TIME.

Dictionary definition of "Art":

the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Ergo, anything that takes effort to create or has some thought process behind it can be subjectively considered art. People need to get over this idea that things need to meet some weird unspecified standard for something to be considered art.

But I thought art is only something that was made by a college-educated person from an upper-middle-class background (or higher) in one of the acceptable media (please check with your local Ministry of Expression for a list of acceptable media) that is hung in the sort of museum that is frequented by wealthy people?

I was trying to think of a suitably witty reply to go along with that but I just couldn't. Well played sir.

 

[Some_weirdGuy]

My fellows, my fellows, clearly games are clearly not art. Clearly.

Look for yourself at some REAL art [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/116426-Artist-Uses-Urine-to-Draw-Iron-Man], can you truly say that games will ever live up to the mastery and sophistication of real art?

 

[DANEgerous]

But is this not a flaw that is in ALL mediums? McDonald in Food, Micheal Bay type movies, Generic sitcom after generic sitcom on TV, Endless romance books.

Is is a problem in all fields and it will not go away, people in general are to stupid or to lazy to grasp the new and so the old and familiar make mass amounts of cash and thus get all the attention. I am not saying it is not a problem is is not not a gaming problem it is a problem with humanity as horribly vein and narcissistic as that sounds

 

[EHKOS]

I agree, I like when I see something like kinectamls because it shows we can do so much more with gaming. Eventually I hope to see something like ARI from Heavy Rain come out.

 

[Manji187]

If gaming as a medium is truly worthy to take the place next to literature and film or even surpass them someday, it needs to do A LOT BETTER. It needs to step up. It needs to step out of its comfortable bubble of headshots, dismemberment, gore, splosions, soldiers, zombies, aliens, terrorists, ninjas and so on. It doesn't have to completely leave them behind though. It should just refrain from focussing on them like a bull does on red cloth.

You know, I could agree with you BUT I hear the same shit about movies, books, music, everything.
"OH, it's sooo bad. Why can't everything be deep and meaningful and poetic and blah blah blah."
Here's a secret:
Humans are simple and primitive creatures. Despite their occasional breakthroughs, we're still savages. Simple creatures require simple pleasures.
We like to get deep from time to time but most of the time, we're just looking for a distraction from the boredom of our existence. That's why we have all the various forms of entertainment, most of which are quite simple.
That's why Wii was such a huge success. They made simple and entertaining games and people bought them to get simple entertainment.

Well, at least one person took the time and effort to respond on topic, instead of hijacking the thread (thnx ZeroMachine, Daystar Clarion, Kaulen Fuhs and Kahunaburger).

Ahh yes...Sturgeon's law. So because you hear about it in other media you DON'T want to hear about it in gaming or what?

Also, if you read carefully you won't find me saying everything has to be meaningful and poetic. Maybe you figured I meant that (by implication), but I made a disclaimer of sorts (paragraph before the TLDR).

I understand that mindless violence has its charms, that people like to zone out and have fun. It's just not moving the medium forward. I'm not saying that artsy stuff like Dear Esther automatically moves the medium forward, GOD NO. Portal did though and Journey does...some indie stuff (just not Dear Esther) prolly does it too.

All I am saying is; videogames need to grow up, because gamers are growing up. Gaming is no longer only a teen/ adolescent industry (for example: average age of gamers in the US is 35).

It doesn't mean all violence needs to go right out the window, but can it at least be more substantial than "they have glowing eyes/ funny clothes/ strange accents (or simply: they are not us), therefore they are evil and it is okay for you to kill them"? This betrays a child's simplicity (do as you are told, no need for you to think about it). Where is the nuance/ ambiguity? Where are antagonists you can understand, if not sympathize with?

If there is "evil" to be overcome can it at least be something other than caricature (evil for evil's sake, just because) or a mob of mooks for you to slaughter. And what about stuff like guilt? Remorse? Shame? Doubt? Unsuitable topics for videogaming? Why is that?

I blame the (male) power fantasy (yep, found predominantly in teens and adolescents).

 

[Manji187]

i am going to leave this here

have fun!

Wow, this is REALLY GOOD. Thanks.

There is no denying that games are predominantly a spatial/ physics simulation, it's what they do best. It makes the choice for violence as a game mechanic that much easier. I get that.

There are still two things though:

1. Games like Portal and Journey show that violence doesn't have to dominate (or even exist in) the game.

2. Violence has no redeeming quality if is it is either meaningless or poorly justified.

Like the guy said at the very end;

"The question is whether we can beat back the stigma of empty violent empowerment fantasies with mechanics that have meaning."

I would add: not just (gameplay) mechanics, but solid writing (narrative and characters) as well.

 

[HardkorSB]

Ahh yes...Sturgeon's law. So because you hear about it in other media you DON'T want to hear about it in gaming or what?

What I mean is, everyone is making the same claim about everything.
For example, people glorify the 70's and 80's as this golden era of cinema. hen I look at it, I see a few pearls in a pile of shit. Just like today. Actually, it's better today because at least the production values have improved.
The same with gaming. The very fact that there are art games proves that this medium is growing up. Back in the 80's, games weren't intended to be art at all. If some of them are regarded as art now, it's just by accident. These days, people are creating certain games not to make big sales but to make art. Most of the times they're not good at it yet but that's because art games are a new thing in gaming.
Also, movies had over a century of progress, books and music had millenia. Games are around for 30-40 years. Give them time.

All I am saying is; videogames need to grow up, because gamers are growing up. Gaming is no longer only a teen/ adolescent industry (for example: average age of gamers in the US is 35).

An average 35 year old goes to cinema to see "The Expendables" or "The Hangover", watches "CSI" and screams at the TV screen during sports games.
Age doesn't really mean shit. I've met 14 year olds more mature than the so-called adults.

It doesn't mean all violence needs to go right out the window, but can it at least be more substantial than "they have glowing eyes/ funny clothes/ strange accents (or simply: they are not us), therefore they are evil and it is okay for you to kill them"? This betrays a child's simplicity (do as you are told, no need for you to think about it). Where is the nuance/ ambiguity? Where are antagonists you can understand, if not sympathize with?

If there is "evil" to be overcome can it at least be something other than caricature (evil for evil's sake, just because) or a mob of mooks for you to slaughter. And what about stuff like guilt? Remorse? Shame? Doubt? Unsuitable topics for videogaming? Why is that?

I blame the (male) power fantasy (yep, found predominantly in teens and adolescents).

Kids don't really care about the deep stuff. They like fast pace, explosions, stuff happening all the time, cheesy one liners, fart jokes etc. When I was a kid, I used to like all the simple crap like "Power Rangers", Stallone/Schwarzenegger movies, the freaking Ninja Turtles.
I saw "Brazil" when I was 12 and thought it was shit. Now, it's one of my favourite movies.
Let the kids be kids, let them have their fantasies about being the good guy and beating up the bad guys.
Sometimes kids like something slow as well. That's where companies like Ghibli Studio come in. From what I've learned however, their movies are watched mostly by adults, even though they're technically made for kids. Also, they're the minority.

There are deeper games:
I've mentioned SotC. "The Darkness" had artsy moments and a really powerful ending. You can argue that weird games like "Katamari Damacy" are art as well.

I don't know what I'm trying to say here, really.
"Look and you shall find" comes to mind.
As soon as the majority of people start craving intellectual experiences over mindless pleasures, the trend will change (which is probably never