Videogames as Art

[carpenter20m]

Here is some food for thought, related to the topic.

When cinema got through its infancy period and started becoming mainstream (that is 30's and 40's), some of the greatest theorists of the period (Horkheimer and Adorno, for those who know their marxism) claimed that cinema can never become art because: 1) too many people are involved in the process, 2) profit is part of its process.

Games are more or less in the same situation now. We've gone past the period where one person in a basement would make a game and we have major corporations building games that would appeal to the public. However, there are some other smaller/indie firms, still working under the logic of profit, but with more stylized creations.

We all know that cinema is now considered art and there are distinctions (not always clear) between mainstream and artistic films. We may reach a point when this is true for games also. Certainly Braid is a step towards that direction, but not quite there. Maybe it is more difficult for games, since narrative is involved in more processes than cinema (what you have in cinema to tell a story -art direction, script etc.- you have in a game plus gameplay). Maybe we need another generation, which has grown up in computers, to give games that push they need.

I am sure that in ten years, we'll know for sure.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Well i suppose games have the potential to be an art form to some degree and to be the greatest storytelling medium devised, but at the moment the game industry is still kicking off the primordial sludge.

 

[tzimize]

-Snip-
When something is defended this vigorously, you know it's raised a lot of powerful opinions in people - and that's the core of art.

Very well said. I agree completely.

I am one of the defenders of games I guess, and I wholeheartedly believe that games can be art. Not all games, but some. In the same way that not all paintings are art.

One of the reasons I want to defend games is because I would like some people to aknowledge games as a "serious" medium. Not because I particulary care much, but because of the positive results that might follow. Gamers might be less frowned upon (which is slowly happening I know) and enjoying a good game might be as intellectually accepted as enjoing a fine literary work or an artful movie.

 

[Mullahgrrl]

my eight-year-old self blubbing equally hard at a funeral scene in Wing Commander.

Dude! Spoilers!

 

[nonroker]

Please don't describe my deep and meaningful relationship with the dishwasher as pointless. We keep trying.

 

[fireflyfae]

I'm sad there haven't been more examples thrown out ... surely I'm not the only one who adores http://www.ludomancy.com/blog/2008/09/03/i-wish-i-were-the-moon/ and the like?

 

[mikekearn]

I don't particularly care what Ebert thinks. I've certainly disagreed with him over quite a few movie reviews. My only gripe with him is the same as my frustration with anyone whose ignorance becomes apparent to me. I get annoyed that there are people so close minded to feel the need to declare something or someone else as inferior, just because they don't like it. There are plenty of things I don't enjoy, but I make it clear it's merely my own opinion and doesn't affect anyone else. Ebert's tone comes across as more a declaration that anyone who appreciates games as art are simply wrong, and foolish to think so.

And anyone who disagrees with me is simply wrong and a fool.

 

[Lovesfool]

Is video games art? The answer can be found in three simple words.

World

Of

Goo

P.S. You mean to tell me you cannot impregrate a dishwasher? I don't believe this (and Lord knows I have tried)!!!

 

[solarsenshi]

Well put, Yahtzee.

 

[Galletea]

My problem with Ebert's statement is that in his article he spends a lot of time mulling over the different definitions of art, saying that if a videogame is art then so is chess. Then he still makes the statement that games "cannot" be art, when he's already said that art is something that is hard to pin down. I have no problem with the man having his opinion on the issue, but in his article I find it difficult to find any real coherent reasoning. He writes about literature and essentially says that good literature is art but bad literature cannot be.
Throughout the article it seems to be him disagreeing with Kellee Santiago about nothing substantial. His article can be summed up thus : Ebert likes films, doesn't like videogames. His statement is based merely on the fact that he doesn't like games, rather than the artistic intention, or creativity.

So while I agree that getting upset over someone's opinion is dumb, I also think that his intent was probably to cause that upset.

 

[Dora]

I would agree. I was a bit perplexed that everyone was so upset about this; it's not like he has the final word on content and developers were going to start wailing and rending their garments going, "MY GOD, HE'S RIGHT! HE'S RIIII-HIIII-HIIIIGHT!" before sprinting off a cliff, thus ending forever the era of gaming.

This is like a Twilight fan freaking out about someone trashing the novels. It doesn't matter what I think because YOU enjoy it.

 

[Stellmarine]

I myself hate to use the word "art", because everyone has different definitions, connotations and opinions about it - it makes it just plain useless in everyday dialogue. The question "is something art" is unintelligible, unless you put in a "if you define art as blah and blah". Dead word.

The interpretation of "something that evokes feelings, conveys ideas, ..." etc is actually only the basis. What comes beyond that? Because if you only wanted to convey something, it'd suffice to be merely shocking, provocative, cute, ... You could piss on the street when drunk and make it a social statement, performance art. (Let's set aside the issue if that could be counted as art or not, it's not what I'm driving it.)
So, let's say a piece of art requires that the artist puts in conscious and effort to create art. Art as organized expression. The man shouting at the top of his lungs is not being artistic, but the man singing opera is. That kind of definition doesn't really work any more. Modern art broke up and questioned the rules of art, of how we perceive anything and nowadays, men shouting at the top of their lungs might be art... (if they do it intentionally) and there is one Soetsu Yanagi, who actually declares those things of utmost beauty that no one has tried to make beautiful. Art created by those who don't intend it to be art and the rest is all inferior... which completely foils any attempts to create art whatsoever.

In the end, I found my personal answer in Okakura Kakuzo's Book Of Tea. In it, he recounts the fable of a magic harp made from the wood of a tree in a wild and beautiful valley. Every harpist trying to play it failed to make it produce any fair sound, until one day a master harpist came along. He struck the strings and played song after song about love like clouds over the trees and war like storm in the mountains, and the harp remembered its home valley and accompanied him with beautiful melodies. When the performance was over, the harpist was asked how he had managed to play the magic harp and he answered: "Those other harpist only talked about themselves, I let the harp choose her own theme."
The conclusion is: Art should be like that harpist, and the viewer the harp. It is the classic "evoke feelings and ideas" with a twist. A good piece of art doesn't lecture, it doesn't just show you something. A good piece of art is not complete without you, it requires you to bring yourself into the picture, fill it out with your own ideas, feelings, memories, and unnameables and make it a part of yourself.
And if you take it like that, video games have immeasurable potential to be art.

 

[yeah_so_no]

THANK YOU!

I completely agree, especially with this: And that why it's stupid to get angry and butthurt about it, or anyone else who dismisses gaming. It speaks more to your own insecurity than their obvious ignorance.

I'm glad to see a rational voice instead of all the outraging howling that so many gamers have been doing. It all seemed like so many cries of "VALIDATE ME, DAMMIT!!" than anything else.

 

[Stellmarine]

Actually, on second thought: Why does everyone want it to be art? It's as if "art" was the ultimate badge of honor to bestow on something. It is not, because, for one reason it is too serious, and second many things that are art are indigestable.

Armageddon was a good movie. Harry Potter was a good book. Chrono Trigger was an awesome game. None of them were artsy.
So how come the old "good-bad" division doesn't suffice any more?

 

[Therumancer]

The problem I have with Ebert is that he's not criticizing a specific work that is debatable like Yahtzee's referanced "Dirty Bed" but the entire medium. What he said is similar to saying "paintings can never be art", not that a specific painting shouldn't count as art or whatever. It's about the dismissal of an entire medium. The thing is that it goes beyond one man's opinion to an extent because while people might argue about a specific work, virtually no one will argue about mediums like painting, sculpture, etc... as being capable of creating artwork.

The response he's inspired is beyond a bunch of irate, insecure fanboys. The thing is that if Ebert or someone like him was running a nation or whatever, his statement is more or less the kind of thing that would lead to the demand that all state funded art museums burn their paintings because maintaining them is a waste of tax payer money since it's not art.

That's an extreme (and doubtlessly poorly written) example, but similar things have happened, which is why gamers are so into defending the medium.

The fact that there are people out there interesting in censoring games, or even banning them (depending on the group) also fuels things. Consider the number of books that have been banned or burned through the years... I believe in some extreme cases people claiming that the only books that should exist were religious texts.

Defining video games as an artistic medium, gives them a degree of protection. Ironically I suspect this is quite probably why guys like Ebert are saying what they do. Did he receive money from the anti-video game crowd?

I also look towards film and the accusations thrown against it, including European attacks like the 1980s "Video Nasties" list (look it up, I'm not even kidding about the name). I find it odd that Ebert can defend Films as an artistic medium, but will join the other side when it comes to video games. Of course as a film lover who has lived as long as he has, he might just be happy that video games are under attack instead of his personal love. By throwing his influance against video games being recognized as a viable artistic medium, he helps lower the chances that "the mob" will turn their attention back to film for a while.

Remember film has created things like "It's a Wonderful Life" but it's also included things featuring titles like "Debbie Does The Barnyard". Even if one was to say that most games are cr@p artistically speaking, including pretentious attempts like "Braid", the same could arguably be said about films (as snobs will point out) yet very few people doubt film as a medium, and someone who can acknowlege it, should also logically acknowlege games which pretty much are just adding an interactive component to visual arts... unless of course one has an ulterior motive (which being a cynical paranoid I always suspect).

 

[masterblaze0]

"Games" as a whole are not "art"

There are games that ARE art, though, and anyone who ignores them pretty much has an invalid opinion.

 

[ScientificDJ]

Yahtzee I love you! I don't care in the slightest about what Ebert said, I'm just extremely happy about the fact that as far as I can remember, your article was the first thing I have ever read that I totally agreed with, without a single word that didn't mirror my own opinion (apart from your personal definition of art, but seeing as it is just that, a personal defintion, I didn't care that yours was different to mine).

Actually, I'm doubtful about the comment you made on religion so the article wasn't the perfect match to my own thoughts that I just claimed it was, but nevertheless it was extremely close and probably still closer than anything else I've ever read.

 

[ostro-whiskey]

This is the first time Yahtzee has made himself look like a moron, I think hes ego has gotten the better of him.

Videogames are not art for one simple reason, videogames are directly participatory, as such they are entertainment. If an artist relinquishes his art to free tampering by the audeince he is no longer an artist.

When an artist creates a piece of work everything has an implication and the audience simply observe, this immutability allows us to enter the mind and world of the artist.

Videogames remove this immutability, allowing the audience to interact with the world and story, cheapening them by revealing that they are an illusion we can manipulate. As such videogames kill the connection between character and story.

The reason confusion exists is because artists create games, you have concept artists, graphic designers, writers, composers, etc. As such games have artistic elements but the nature of the videogame - the audience being able to edit, change or omit elements of the creation remove the connection with what art is meant to be.

Think of graphics painted on a car, the graphics are art, is the car art ?
The car was created to serve the purpose of transporting people, and does this as always intended.


To claim games are art is to claim that pong or asteroids are also art, as todays games are made to serve the same desires that were being served when they were created.

If one looks at the history of film, since its origins it was artistic in vision and design, films like Nosferatu and Metropolis are evidence of this.


Yahtzees definition of art is so far beyond stupidity I would have fired him if I were the baws. "My personal definition of art is something that provokes emotional attachment."
By this logic beating a woman is art, so is watching your team win the world cup, and going to a gig of a kick ass band.

Improvisation Theatre is considered art and that is interactive.

But not through the audience, please put more thought into what you say.

Someone's snippy.

There's plenty of art that involves viewer interaction. Galleries full of video cameras that record the viewers and project them onto a wall. Blank spaces that invite the viewer to draw or write on them. The whole point of that kind of art is that it makes a statement about the audience and their reactions to the piece, as part of the piece itself. Games do it too on a very individual level.

omfg, I dont think you understand my point, is the audience allowed to adjust facial features on Picasso's abstract portraits ?
Is the audience allowed to make Batman go apeshit and start killing civillians in The Dark Knight ?

I think the problem is that many of you dont even understand the purpose of art, and therefore cannot appreciate what it means to be an artist, which is why you have no problem in devaluing art by trying to frame videogames with it.

Yeah, so, thanks for saying 'You don't understand art' and then not explaining why not or what art is. Real solid debating. What, so you're saying the examples I gave aren't actually art? Why not? It's still an artist conveying an emotional and intellectual statement, and a component of that statement is how the audience behaves when they experience it. Your definition of what constitutes a statement is simply narrower. You can't manipulate The Dark Knight or Picasso because they aren't pieces about the audience. Games are.

[small]I would like to add I fully grasp the irony of arguing about this underneath an article that says arguing about this is pointless.[/small]

Jesus Christ guy, why cant you grasp the concept I am writing about. If an artist allows the audience to change their creation, they are not an artist. I did not say the examples you gave werent art, they simply have nothing to do with what I am stating.

I dont know if you're actually this stupid or just trying to piss me off.

 

[Cryofthewolf]

I agree with Yahtzee to an extent. I do think that it is pointless to try and change the mind of Ebert as well as being all hot and bothered by his comments is pointless, but I don't think that art (or religion) should be kept in the confines of one's own mind.

If we didn't share our art, faiths, or whatever people wouldn't come to appreciate other's differences. I don't think one should try to change another's mind about a personal choice or preferences a person has, but sharing with each other their views on art/religion/politics/etc. in a respectful way can lead to a wondrous form of intimacy between people.

Being a Christian and an artsty-fartsy kind of person I can relate on both levels. Share to your heart's content what you consider important, but don't share to try to convert another to your point of view. If you share respectfully the things you care about who knows, maybe that person will come to see things the way you do. =-D

That's all I have to say. Keep sharing what's on your mind Yahtzee. You have a good one on your shoulders. =-)

 

[frozenfox]

Good article. Maybe people will take what you (and others) have said about games as art into consideration, and not get all bent out of shape when someone from an entirely different area of media appreciation states their opinion about this pointless debate.

In other news, my dishwasher and I are expecting, and come June will be blessed with a 2kg set of crockery.