Videogames as Art

[The Deadpool]

I mostly agree with the article, but I HATE this new age idea that opinions and points of view CAN'T be wrong. If it's my opinion that I am a God and you are all put on this Earth to do my bidding, then I am WRONG. If it's my opinion frogs are the smartest beings on the planet, I am WRONG. If it's my point of view that the sky is pink, I am WRONG. If it's my point of view that the world is flat, I am WRONG.

Opinions are wrong ALL THE TIME...

But yes, it IS stupid to argue whether or not games are art when no one's finished arguing what art IS... Ebert basically says it doesn't fit into a set of criteria and no one's managed to figure out what that set INCLUDES... Why are we arguing?

 

[Cryofthewolf]

I mostly agree with the article, but I HATE this new age idea that opinions and points of view CAN'T be wrong. If it's my opinion that I am a God and you are all put on this Earth to do my bidding, then I am WRONG. If it's my opinion frogs are the smartest beings on the planet, I am WRONG. If it's my point of view that the sky is pink, I am WRONG. If it's my point of view that the world is flat, I am WRONG.

Opinions are wrong ALL THE TIME...

But yes, it IS stupid to argue whether or not games are art when no one's finished arguing what art IS... Ebert basically says it doesn't fit into a set of criteria and no one's managed to figure out what that set INCLUDES... Why are we arguing?

I think it all depends on what or how you see things really. If you are having an argument with someone on how frogs are or are not the smartest animals on the planet you have to first determine on what you mean by smart. Are we talking IQ smart, or on what bugs are good to eat smart? It this putting human characteristics on an animal or is it really measuring the intelligence of the amphibian? It all depends on putting things into perspective my friend.

 

[Slug]

Yahtzee is art.

 

[SomeUnregPunk]

"TL/DR: Art is any created work that provokes strong emotions in you, personally. And trying to impose your feelings on someone else is as pointless and time-consuming as trying to impregnate a dishwasher."

But it is still funny to watch.
I have listened/watched two extreme patriotic americans/brits discuss politics, religious debates go sour, and even a discussion on which beer is better. Majority of your fans just really want to see you rip into something. We are one dimensional little men & women that either want to agree with your every word like it's handed down by god or laugh as you rip into something. We are petty. I believe there a significant bunch of us that are disappointed that you went the mature route.

 

[Pills_Here]

Good show, Yahtzee, good show. I still find the situation of Ebert reviewing games without playing them and making judgments of gaming as a whole to be a pretty absurd thing to do but there's not much else to say other than that.

 

[Capt_Jack_Doicy]

I gotta say I prefer it when he rants rather than is just sensible intelligent and making sense in a dispassionate way, because well wheres the FUNNY!

 

[The Deadpool]

or on what bugs are good to eat smart?

A human is better equipped to find out what bugs are good to eat than a frog. Frogs live limtted lifespans, in limited areas, with a limited choice of bugs to eat, and they pick which ones they want on instinct.

Humans have access to the entire world, meaning several thousand more bugs to examine than any one frog would have, and we're far more capable of determining nutrional value than a frog's instincts.

So to bring your red herring back to the original point via illustration: Your opinion is wrong.

Edit: And for the record, I didn't mention comparing frogs to HUMANS, I said comparing it to every other animal on the planet and judging them the smartest. slightly different.

 

[chickens11]

The point about how art is subjective is exactly what occurred to me after I read IGN's panties-in-a-bunch article in an attempt at a rebuttal to Ebert. I also define art as anything man made that provokes emotions. But I would probably say that art must DELIBERATELY provoke emotions. I think video games were even more subjective when graphics were primitive, and required imagination to fill in the gaps. Choice systems (moral and otherwise) are an interesting solution, but I think games (or what they're becoming, which the term "game" isn't always accurate for) will always be the subjective. More subjective than other mediums even, because the gamer experiences a unique variation of the game's events (not as unique as it seems, with the vast number of gamers out there, but unique none the less) AND a unique interpretation of that experience, as in any other medium. I still respect Ebert's opinion, but I'm a bit peeved that he decided to say games could NEVER be art. That seems overly dismissive. Then again, I really don't know his qualifications for art. They could rule out interaction with the actual content of the artwork (rather than interpretation of its ideas) completely.

 

[ReverseEngineered]

That was a very well-reasoned response, Yahtzee, which is probably the opposite of what many people expected. I think it says a lot that even our most flagrant spokesperson can be mature in his discussion of such a topic.

I agree with you that the "videogames are art" argument is a subjective one that can never be answered objectively, but I don't agree that the question is unimportant. The problem is, that question greatly affects the games industry.

Why can Michaelangelo's "David" stand out in public in all his glory, while "Penthouse" has to be covered up and only sold to adults? Because one is art and the other isn't. It's the same reason some places can have grindhouse films in the cinema, but no blood and gore in their video games -- in the cinema, it's art. If society in general doesn't agree that games /can/ be art, freedom of expression is hampered considerably. Art forms are allowed to bend the rules and buck social norms because they are expressions of art, but if games aren't art, they aren't allowed the same freedoms. You can bet Michael Atkinson would have a much harder time banning games for sexuality and violence if they were recognized as a form of art and not just as toys for children.

It also has implications for the people who develop games. From what I've seen of the industry, those who work in the games industry are viewed as being drones who make toys for children. Because of this, they are compensated accordingly: game programmers make lack-luster wages, work extreme amounts of overtime, and are hired and fired without a second thought. But in the arts, actors, directors, screenwriters -- they all become stars. They are recognized for their work and are paid humongous salaries. Now, this may not be common to all art, but all art forms have their legends whose works are worth millions. Where are the highly-paid artists in the games industry?

Whether or not video games actually are art doesn't matter, but whether or not we view them as art has a significant affect on how the industry and its people are treated. This makes the question, "are video games art?" important for the industry to argue.

 

[ReverseEngineered]

I still respect Ebert's opinion, but I'm a bit peeved that he decided to say games could NEVER be art. That seems overly dismissive. Then again, I really don't know his qualifications for art. They could rule out interaction with the actual content of the artwork (rather than interpretation of its ideas) completely.

While I don't claim to be an art major, I'm of the understanding that art is meant to be interacted with; that's what makes it subjective.

As an example, consider an abstract painting. It contains a few squares of varying size and color. Objectively, it has no meaning. But subjectively, some people finding meaning in it. What they find depends on their own experiences, prejudices, and world views. This interaction between the work itself and the viewer is what (supposedly) makes the work a piece of art.

The same thing applies equally to films. It's not uncommon to see a scene where terrorists hijack a bus and threaten to blow it up. On its face, this is merely an event -- a sequence of actions. But to the viewer, this stirs up emotions, which depend on how they perceive the event. To a terrorist, this may be something they would associate with and feel proud of, or they may be quite offended by the stereotypical portrayal of the situation. To a resident of New York, the very image of the terrorist would be something they would hate and they would immediately view the negotiator as a hero. Our experience of that art depends on our own interaction with it internally.

Now, it should be clear that this also applies to video games. Sure, we could consider the stories and cutscenes, because they are little more than films and novels themselves. But what about the mechanics? While most games don't attempt to relate emotions through the character's interaction with the mechanics, some do. As an example, try the game "The Marriage". If you ask me, it's not a very exciting game, but the mechanics themselves speak to something. The fact that every word you say has severe consequences, and the fact that there is no "right" answer, tells a story of hopelessness. Some people may associate this with their own marriage or another part of their life. The mechanics of Braid tell an even more abstract story. Ignoring the story within the game, the ability to play with time -- rewinding it and intertwining it -- cause the player to consider many things: What would I do if I could turn back time? What effect would it have on me and those around me? Could I make life perfect? What would that be like? Playing with the game's mechanics allows the player to play with this idea, just as watching a film involving a love story allows the viewer to play with the idea of being in a passionate romance.

The argument that games aren't art because they are interactive doesn't make sense. All art is interactive, and it's through interaction that we experience them. Games are more interactive than other art forms, which should allow them to be even more artful.

 

[Jenx]

I find this whole situation with Ebert's opinions weird, but for a bit different reasons than most seem to.

I mean, when you get down to it, the whole thing is basically - A guy who has no expertise in a field makes a bold claim regarding that field and everyone starts screaming and yelling that he's wrong/right.

Come on guys, the entire Internet is built on this, why is Roger Ebert getting so much attention for doing what everyone else is already doing?

 

[Mojohobo]

Mr. Croshaw, you are truly an inspiration. I love your show and your stance on showing us that nothing is perfect and you can't just fanboy scream over anything. Now that I have started reading your articles "Extra Punctuation" I find myself further moved by your persona and opinions. You have my respect, good sir.

 

[Clunks]

Of course, the real question here is: how seriously should we be taking anything that any critic says? I mean, I like reading Ebert's articles as much as anybody, and I too am disappointed that he doesn't seem to understand videogames, but come on, guys: he hated Kick-Ass (good film) and he loved Avatar (it's a piece of shit). He's not some infallible authority figure; he's just another dude, like Yahtzee, who gets paid to voice their opinion in an entertaining way. He's not paid to agree with what you or I may think about any given subject, or even to be particularly open-minded, or even to be entirely unbiased and reasonable.

I think we all have a tendency to forget that art is subjective, and so is writing about art. People like to think so, but there's not really such a thing as a consensus about what is or isn't art, nor should there be. The critics job is merely to say what they think, right or wrong. Agreeing or disagreeing with their opinion is fine, but ultimately I'd rather just enjoy hearing it.

 

[mechanixis]

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.

But the audience isn't changing the piece in the way you're talking about. They're changing it in the ways that the artist has allowed and provided for. The game designer has designed everything it is possible for the player to do in the gamespace, and therefore everything they might do in it is part of the artist's intention. By playing the game incorrectly (killing friendly NPCs, skipping cutscenes, metagaming), the player no more 'changes' the piece than if someone viewing the Mona Lisa elects to stare only at the lower right hand corner or only at the background. Going into a game's source code and modifying it, that would be changing the piece. If you turn on noclip and let Gordon Freeman walk through walls, that's a change from the artist's intentions.

I completely grasp what you're trying to say; you're just not making a distinction between "modifying the piece" and "intended mutability as part of a piece".

 

[ElectroJosh]

I have found this to be an interesting question to discuss. Not just the ?are video games art?? question but the nature of art it self. Its important to realise that by Ebert?s definition (as vague as it is) Games are disqualified (Video or otherwise) because they are games. Its not interactivity or conjuring up emotion or even that art is superior ? it?s the fact that they are made to be played.

No, he isn?t a gamer, but he is a smart man and has a wide breadth of knowledge when it comes to literature and art (even though he primarily deals with film). His opinion has sparked a debate (again, it did the same four years ago when he first expressed it) and caused many heated reactions. I find this thread refreshing in the fact that most people are giving well-reasoned arguments instead of the knee-jerk ?he?s right, gamers suck? or ?he?s an idiot? responses that most sites of the debate are inundated with.

I think that, as art is defined now, he is correct? but maybe its time to redefine art. Maybe games, by virtue of them being games, can?t be called art in the traditional sense. But it would be foolish to dismiss them as having nothing to say to humanity or being devoid of any artistic merit (although many of them, even some of my favourites, are just that). Rather they can (or potentially can) contain art in their visuals, music, sound, characters and stories. For those special games that do it could be compared to walking through an art gallery. The gallery is not a work of art but contains many art-works in it. Alternatively a game could be viewed as a type of hyper-art where interactivity provides another way of reacting to the visuals, sound and story not available in other forms of art ? hence why perhaps how we define art (as subjective as that word can be) will have to change.

 

[Baconmonster723]

Art is defined as "the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions." Therefore, Ebert is incorrect. Video Games are art, if you don't feel emotion while playing a good game today you are dead. There is a reason people keep coming back to games. It not only provides a rush, but good games with good stories provide a connection to the characters and story that is stronger than any movie. I would argue that Video Games are more of an art form than movies are. I must wholeheartedly disagree with Ebert. By definition he is incorrect. And his stance without having played a moment of video games is also reprehensible. How about you watch a movie with your eyes closed or ear plugs in your ears. Why don't you look at a color painting in black and white. You cannot judge something until you yourself have experienced it in its truest form.

And it is very elitist of him to try to compare video games to things such as the Sistine Chapel. They are two completely different mediums. Would you ask someone whos work is better? Spielberg or Shakespeare? Michaelangelo or Poe? You can't answer those questions because they aren't actually questions. It's like asking a sports buff who was a better player Michael Jordan or Pele? You can't answer because not only are they from different times, but they are in different sports. You do not measure an artist by other artists in different mediums, you measure an artist by his contemporaries and other famous artists in his medium. Ebert's arguments are foolish and show his stubborness and quite possibly ignorance on the issue.

 

[Jzolr0708]

Wow... that was... ridiculously deep. Uhm.... can't exactly respond to that... uhh... awesome segment?

 

[FoolKiller]

1. It is possible to impregnate a dishwasher.... as long as she is a person.

2. Not only is it hard to define "art". It is actually really hard to define simpler things. When I was in high school we had to try and define "ice cream". Surprisingly, it is harder than most people would think. If we can't define something like "ice cream", then "art" is basically out of the question.

 

[DarkPanda XIII]

I'd agree with Yahtzee on this one, not because I'm a rather big fan and would love to converse with the guy, though he'd probably hate me as much as Kratos would hate him. I agree that Video Games are the workings of a generation below Ebert. That isn't to say that for some of the games it's just meant to win, win, win, but truly only recently within a ten year time span was when game-designers took a step further in just making a game to win and making it a spectacle.

Hence why I never had 'that' much of a problem from ripping off things, it uses an idea that was created before and used elsewhere (though when it becomes obvious that the ripping was just that and not some way to advance it, then there are problems).

But really, much like Yahtzee here (fixes his hat), you can respect his words, or you can ignore them. Critics are people who expresses their opinions to those who are willing to hear it. If you don't like it, you just ignore them.