Videogames as Art
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Considering what passes for art these days, leveraging videogames as art would be a hollow accomplishment indeed.
Lets just say that videogames can be awesome, as great as any supposed work of "art," and leave it at that.
Personally, considering all the various forms of recognized art (pictures, music, sounds, concepts) that you can fit in one any video game, I don't consider video games art. I consider them digitized art museums, or perhaps incredibly well fabricated montages.
Lets just say that videogames can be awesome, as great as any supposed work of "art," and leave it at that.
Personally, considering all the various forms of recognized art (pictures, music, sounds, concepts) that you can fit in one any video game, I don't consider video games art. I consider them digitized art museums, or perhaps incredibly well fabricated montages.
I agree on the whole "Don't feel bad about it" part, but I really think that debates are a good thing. A lack of dialogue between opposing opinions lead to stagnation, while having your thoughts on the world challenged really isn't a bad thing. Personal growth and all that. The whole "Keep it to yourself" thing strikes me as an lazy excuse to not challenge oneself. So really, if you have the chance to talk about videogames and art with Ebert, then take it. Who knows, maybe both of you will learn something.
I'm just gonna throw this into the mix for the hell of it but my interpretation of art goes beyond what most people have even mentioned here. My definition would include architecture, theater, cinema, games, comic books, in some cases medicine or research, and even war (Sun Tzu called it that, or at least it translated that way in English). For me it's more the skilled work of a craftsman who wishes to discover, create, or share his work. Not every painting is art and not every film, game, or building is either. Art must appeal to the audience for its own acceptance, but I think it's a bit of a mistake to eliminate the effort of the author from the equation.
Huh, so it wasn't just me (although I was nine or ten, but still).Yahtzee Croshaw said:
Thanks for a very good read. I was surprised to see something very rational, instead of all the hate you've been seeing lately.
In short, I agree with you: Ebert's a film critic, not a game critic.
Warning to the TL;DR crowd: Wall-of-text ahead.
I've had and expressed thoughts on this very subject both here on the Escapist forums and elsewhere. Only thing I can say to Roger Ebert is, you are a well respected and prominently successful film critic; however, in my opinion, you may need to expand your perspective.
In my opinion, games are an artistic medium and, therefore, have the potential to be made as art. The unfortunate problem is that only a few games have ever successfully achieved the status of being art or artistic(Yahtzee mentions Shadow of the Colossus; Ico is a personal favorite of mine as an example of the artistic game because of its consistent style, interaction, story, and the emotional connection with the main characters, being the only game in which I actually cared about the protagonists). I attribute this primarily to the source of the game, i.e. the game developer and game publisher. Basically, game developers are cut from the same mold of geekery that many of us are and, thus, usually lack in artistic sensibilities or an understanding of what makes something artistic. Game publishers, being more motivated by pure profit, seek quick sell short-cuts to boost their revenue, hence the high reliance on the more basal aspects of sex and violence in games and a glut of sequels and clones on the market(this is what sells, and this is what gamers are buying, plain and simple).
To me, art is not created by any one singular element in a work, and a detailed, pretty picture is not necessarily art or artistic(any trained monkey can learn how to make a detailed, pretty picture). Art occurs when different expressive elements are juxtaposed and made to cooperatively interact in such a manner to create a coherent expression of an idea, concept, thought, emotion, or perspective. (This is why, in my opinion, a game that has a bunch of cool elements slap together is not artistic; it's just a mess. Art requires its elements to work together to create a cohesive whole. Coolness, unfortunately for art, is the ultimate expression of individuality and uniqueness and does not seek to cooperate with anything; it tries too hard to stand out on its own and competes with the rest of the work for the observer's attention.) Art often forces us to examine the "human condition" and the "human experience." Art also can allow us to explore alternate possibilities of reality and perspective and test how the human consciousness would react and interact with such a reality. Art makes us feel, question, and explore our existence.
In my opinion, most video games don't really take this particular spirit of artistry. Instead, most games seem to be based around trite, mindless violence and a juvenile attitude and perspective of sexuality and adulthood. They're just base, hence, failing to be artistic. Often, game developers try to use extreme detailing of visual imagery as a means of achieving art; however, such efforts often fail to create art for the reason stated above, that detailed, pretty pictures are not necessarily art or artistic.
In my opinion, for games to shift more toward being artistic, gamers have to become more discerning in their taste of games and be willing to support the more artistic games by purchasing them. At the same time, the talent pool of game developers has to become more knowledgeable of art and what makes art(take some art appreciation courses, maybe), as well as learning how to create art as a concept rather than mere repetition of mechanical technique(this is the trained monkey creating the detailed, pretty picture). It would also help if game developers expanded their own repertoire of ideas and experiences, rather than recirculating the same old stale ideas that we've seen time and again. Also, game publishers need to be more willing to invest in innovation and experimentation of new ideas rather than forcing output of the same old junk(how many Guitar Heroes, Haloes, Metal Gear Solids, GTAs, God of Wars, and Devil May Cries do we need?). Finally, the gaming press needs to give more space and journalism to the lesser known but more inventive game titles, rather than fill their publications with a glut of the same games(and the same information about those games) about which we've known and have been hearing for months on end. Basically, give new, fresh ideas a chance to percolate to the forefront. Sure, not all will be great hits, but you never know when you may find that shining jewel amongst the steaming pile.
I've had and expressed thoughts on this very subject both here on the Escapist forums and elsewhere. Only thing I can say to Roger Ebert is, you are a well respected and prominently successful film critic; however, in my opinion, you may need to expand your perspective.
In my opinion, games are an artistic medium and, therefore, have the potential to be made as art. The unfortunate problem is that only a few games have ever successfully achieved the status of being art or artistic(Yahtzee mentions Shadow of the Colossus; Ico is a personal favorite of mine as an example of the artistic game because of its consistent style, interaction, story, and the emotional connection with the main characters, being the only game in which I actually cared about the protagonists). I attribute this primarily to the source of the game, i.e. the game developer and game publisher. Basically, game developers are cut from the same mold of geekery that many of us are and, thus, usually lack in artistic sensibilities or an understanding of what makes something artistic. Game publishers, being more motivated by pure profit, seek quick sell short-cuts to boost their revenue, hence the high reliance on the more basal aspects of sex and violence in games and a glut of sequels and clones on the market(this is what sells, and this is what gamers are buying, plain and simple).
To me, art is not created by any one singular element in a work, and a detailed, pretty picture is not necessarily art or artistic(any trained monkey can learn how to make a detailed, pretty picture). Art occurs when different expressive elements are juxtaposed and made to cooperatively interact in such a manner to create a coherent expression of an idea, concept, thought, emotion, or perspective. (This is why, in my opinion, a game that has a bunch of cool elements slap together is not artistic; it's just a mess. Art requires its elements to work together to create a cohesive whole. Coolness, unfortunately for art, is the ultimate expression of individuality and uniqueness and does not seek to cooperate with anything; it tries too hard to stand out on its own and competes with the rest of the work for the observer's attention.) Art often forces us to examine the "human condition" and the "human experience." Art also can allow us to explore alternate possibilities of reality and perspective and test how the human consciousness would react and interact with such a reality. Art makes us feel, question, and explore our existence.
In my opinion, most video games don't really take this particular spirit of artistry. Instead, most games seem to be based around trite, mindless violence and a juvenile attitude and perspective of sexuality and adulthood. They're just base, hence, failing to be artistic. Often, game developers try to use extreme detailing of visual imagery as a means of achieving art; however, such efforts often fail to create art for the reason stated above, that detailed, pretty pictures are not necessarily art or artistic.
In my opinion, for games to shift more toward being artistic, gamers have to become more discerning in their taste of games and be willing to support the more artistic games by purchasing them. At the same time, the talent pool of game developers has to become more knowledgeable of art and what makes art(take some art appreciation courses, maybe), as well as learning how to create art as a concept rather than mere repetition of mechanical technique(this is the trained monkey creating the detailed, pretty picture). It would also help if game developers expanded their own repertoire of ideas and experiences, rather than recirculating the same old stale ideas that we've seen time and again. Also, game publishers need to be more willing to invest in innovation and experimentation of new ideas rather than forcing output of the same old junk(how many Guitar Heroes, Haloes, Metal Gear Solids, GTAs, God of Wars, and Devil May Cries do we need?). Finally, the gaming press needs to give more space and journalism to the lesser known but more inventive game titles, rather than fill their publications with a glut of the same games(and the same information about those games) about which we've known and have been hearing for months on end. Basically, give new, fresh ideas a chance to percolate to the forefront. Sure, not all will be great hits, but you never know when you may find that shining jewel amongst the steaming pile.
I agree that debate is important.
It is not foolish to put your ideas out there. It is not stupid to think your ideas may change how someone else looks at things.
Just think of how many amazing things would never have come into existence if the original creator had simply thought "Eh, no one cares what I think anyways!"
You know what I do think is silly? Writing an article/post espousing that you don't care about the issue at hand and everyone should keep their ideas to themselves.
One would have to ask: Why didn't you take your own advice?
The point is not to change Ebert?s mind. The objective is to make certain a dissenting view is provided. In this way opinions are formed, ideas evolve and eventually change is made.
Or, you can just sit quietly and slowly cultivate your hatred for the world.
It?s up to you.
It is not foolish to put your ideas out there. It is not stupid to think your ideas may change how someone else looks at things.
Just think of how many amazing things would never have come into existence if the original creator had simply thought "Eh, no one cares what I think anyways!"
You know what I do think is silly? Writing an article/post espousing that you don't care about the issue at hand and everyone should keep their ideas to themselves.
One would have to ask: Why didn't you take your own advice?
The point is not to change Ebert?s mind. The objective is to make certain a dissenting view is provided. In this way opinions are formed, ideas evolve and eventually change is made.
Or, you can just sit quietly and slowly cultivate your hatred for the world.
It?s up to you.
Much like many people here, I agree with what Yahtzee has said in this article. Even expressed a similiar viewpoint on the BlogTalk show "Pop Culture America" at this link. The April 25th, 2010 show, specifically.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pophour
Actually what I found amazing about Ebert's comments where his seeming inability to understand why video games wanted to be more than just games where you go from point A to point B while thrashing everything inbetween just to "win." But, hey, that's what I got out of it.
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/pophour
Actually what I found amazing about Ebert's comments where his seeming inability to understand why video games wanted to be more than just games where you go from point A to point B while thrashing everything inbetween just to "win." But, hey, that's what I got out of it.
I didn't agree with Ebert entirely, but I was generally unimpressed by the response of the gaming community, which was more or less "Grah, you're old, I hate you", particularly Penny-Arcade who resorted to incredibly petty name calling.
Now, we all turn to the alpha among sweary mean assassins, and what do we get? A mature, well written and argued essay addressing the point respectfully and with well reasoned points.
*Applauds*
Thank you Yahtzee, stellar work.
Now, we all turn to the alpha among sweary mean assassins, and what do we get? A mature, well written and argued essay addressing the point respectfully and with well reasoned points.
*Applauds*
Thank you Yahtzee, stellar work.
Well, his final word during that video was that some mainstream titles are popular for a reason: "because they're good, or because Will Smith is in it". It seems to me that he thought it was a bad sign for the future, but a good game in itself. *Shrugs.*Quiet Stranger said:
Since when has Will Smith ever been in a game? (did he actually say that or did you just put that in?) also that's still only 6 games compared to Ebert's love of many more moviesQuorothorn said:
I was worried that this was slipping into Relativism, but perhaps it managed to go into pluralism instead. My, that was shockingly lame on my part.
It was more balanced than I expected, which is good, and speaks to the quality of the article.
I would however argue that Ebert is wrong, not because I am "butthurt" but rather because I believe humans are meaning-making machines who use any medium to create meaning (essentially art). To try and remove some aspect of human communication from the realm of art, really in a sense, removes all of them...
It was more balanced than I expected, which is good, and speaks to the quality of the article.
I would however argue that Ebert is wrong, not because I am "butthurt" but rather because I believe humans are meaning-making machines who use any medium to create meaning (essentially art). To try and remove some aspect of human communication from the realm of art, really in a sense, removes all of them...
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.
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.
Do we want games to be art in traditional sense? Aren't they supposed to be fun and/or entertaining? Even if games are art, is it fair to compare movies with games, is it fair to compare a pictures with sounds...as some mentioned, there are different elements that affect our judgement and different things that provoke, again different, emotions.
Even if early games amounted to "I win", that is an emotion as well, yet I never saw a movie, read a book and be happy to have finished it as a reward.
And another thing, for any Godfather, there is a hundred Scary movies, for every Carmina Burana, there is a trashy pop song and yet, we wouldn't say music or movies will never be art, although what is considered art is seriously outnumbered by stuff that serves as entertainment or is just plain rubbish.
I wouldn't criticize Ebert for saying games aren't art, I would judge him for not even considering it or giving it a real chance, not to mention he probably doesn't play them, that is far worse.
And, as someone pointed out and Yahtz kind of said it, is his opinion on this important. Should I ask about my diet and workout schedule, maybe he can recommend what I should wear or similar that really isn't his speciality.
Even if early games amounted to "I win", that is an emotion as well, yet I never saw a movie, read a book and be happy to have finished it as a reward.
And another thing, for any Godfather, there is a hundred Scary movies, for every Carmina Burana, there is a trashy pop song and yet, we wouldn't say music or movies will never be art, although what is considered art is seriously outnumbered by stuff that serves as entertainment or is just plain rubbish.
I wouldn't criticize Ebert for saying games aren't art, I would judge him for not even considering it or giving it a real chance, not to mention he probably doesn't play them, that is far worse.
And, as someone pointed out and Yahtz kind of said it, is his opinion on this important. Should I ask about my diet and workout schedule, maybe he can recommend what I should wear or similar that really isn't his speciality.
Yahtzee just handed us a TL;DR..... I don't know how I am supposed to react to this.
In my own opinion, I agree with Yahtzee that there's no sense in getting worked up about this; and as I see it games aren't art, but art can exist in the form of a game (See "The Path"). But again, this is simply my opinion.
In my own opinion, I agree with Yahtzee that there's no sense in getting worked up about this; and as I see it games aren't art, but art can exist in the form of a game (See "The Path"). But again, this is simply my opinion.
Well, Roger Ebert is wrong here but it's just his opinion. Some people don't understand and don't like opera. So? Opinion is just an opinion, especially considering the fact that mr. Roger Ebert does not belong to videogame industry.