Videogames as Art

Burning Flags

New member
May 2, 2010
6
0
0
Firstly, it seems obvious to me that any argument differentiating video games and film by labeling one 'art' and the other 'not art' misses the fact that a lot of games these days play like films. Heavy Rain etc etc. Some games these days have scripts that are far better written than a lot of films. Games and film crossover, if only in one direction (gaming doesnt exactly manifest itself in film, although, saying that, the style of some games has been used in film). So to call one art and the other not is a little shortsighted.

On the topic of defining art, its a tricky fucker. Many have tried and failed to do it. This is due not really to the subjective nature of artistic experience but to the nature of language. Use of the word 'art' covers many different phenomena. It is much like the word 'game'. There are some activites you would call a game which have no characteristics in common with other activities you would call games, but you still name them all 'games'. Much like art. Some art is merely aesthetic. Some expressive of emotion. etc etc. A multitude of artifacts and activities bear the label art, some having nothing in common with one another. A definition cannot encompass them all.

As for Yahtzee's definition, i recently wrote an essay criticizing a similar position. The problem is, its very easy to find counterexamples to definitions. Artists spend a lot of time purposefully creating these counterexamples.

A created work that provokes strong, personal emotions. Well, something that belonged to my dead grandfather might provoke strong emotions in me, but its not art.
Also, conceptual art like One and Three Chairs or Four Minutes and Thirty Three provokes ideas, or contemplation of the nature of art, or music. In most cases it likely doesnt provoke any strong emotions, but these surely must be accepted (and have been) as artworks.
 

Beardon65

New member
Jul 16, 2009
252
0
0
I agree with Ebert's veiw as games not being art. If he'd played a game (I don't know if he did or not) he'd understand that it's more of a stroy, rather than art. And why people are hoping for someone to throw a counter-comment is that this would further people to bring the hate on videogames. Though I'm sure bashing videogames is not his intent, it is for a large number of people.
 

plunderbunny

New member
Sep 6, 2008
34
0
0
Interesting article! I liked it :)I think many agree that art is subjective, and it's meaning isn't really something that can be controlled.
 

Macgyvercas

Spice & Wolf Restored!
Feb 19, 2009
6,103
0
0
Kind of stupid that we get mad when Ebert says games are not art, but when Hideo Kojima says essentially the same thing, no one bats an eye. Then again, when do we care what he says?

Link if anyone's interested.
http://kotaku.com/150043/kojima-says-games-are-not-art
 

the D0rk One

New member
Apr 29, 2010
154
0
0
dude, I think they're sayin totally different things: Kojima's "point" is that games shouldn't be thought of as art because each video game is meant to like to 100 people, whereas a true artist focuses on expressing his idea and doesn't care how many people out that hundred like his shit, as long as at least someone gets it. I think Kojima's wrong and some games are indeed art because beauty is in the eye of the beholder and if some people cry when Aeris died etc. it's only fair for them to call it art. some of Michelangelo's greatest work is indeed "meant to like to 100 people", or maybe his thing was painting on church ceilings instead of canvas.

as for Ebert, he's just dumb. he talks of a single game, ok, an "artsy" game, but wtf? so one of the ideas in this game is against the very rules of chess, a GAME HE LIKES very much. so I guess that makes time travel stupid and boring. (some)games aren't about winning only. it's like saying a film's about telling a story alone.
 

Generalg28

New member
Oct 8, 2009
8
0
0
Very good Yahtzee, couldn't agree more.

"The truth you speak has no past and no future. It is and that?s all it needs to be."
-Richard Bach
 

PharCry

New member
Apr 16, 2009
5
0
0
No, I have not read the entire XX pages of the thread. However, after reading the article a single statement is poised highest among them all: "Because art is subjective." <-----

I'm usually not one to post in forums, (call me a troll, whatever) but movie critics critique movies, written entertainment critics (or whatever they are called) critique books/novles/etc and gaming critics critique video games (cinematic or otherwise) and anyone who thinks otherwise is just plain off-page.
 

bbjbrat

New member
Jun 9, 2009
6
0
0
It's really great to see Yahtzee once again breaking his "sweary ninja" stereotype.

I hope Ebert reads this and I know it won't change his mind, but I hope he is a big enough man to agree that it is a valid opinion.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
Tharticus said:
I heartfully agree Mr. Croshaw. While people are crying about Ebert's opinion about "Video Games are not art", Ebert has some good points about it.

But what happens if we do convince Mr. Ebert that Video Games are Art? It's not gonna change anything.

I quote from Jerry Holkins from Penny Arcade:
Also, do we win something if we defeat him? Does he drop a good helm? Because I can't for the life of me figure out why we give a shit what that creature says. He doesn't operate under some divine shroud that lets him determine what is or is not valid culture. He cannot rob you, retroactively, of wholly valid experiences; he cannot transform them into worthless things.
So what if a famous movie critic says that video games aren't art? That doesn't make it true.
I think that's true of ALL critics, Yahtzee included.

No critic can truly claim to represent all of the films audience (intended or otherwise). Except for Metacritic Omega of course, but Humanity is barely on the cusp of realising the glorious revolution and the installation of the hivemind that will make all entertainment critisism perfect for the rest of humanity and the universe itself- but I digress.

I've certainly played games that make me feel emotions that other art does. Hell, even old games like Mario Brothers made me feel. Aural Joy at the 8-bit beeps and boops that have become synonomous with an entire generation of gamers, hatred at that goddamn mushroom who keeps getting kidnapped. Hell, the immense satisfaction that I get from beating Bowser for the final time and getting that kiss.

I've also always truely believed that art is not about making people think about the art, but rather making them think about themselves in relation to the art. Let me use an exmple:

Forgive me, but I can't for the life of me remember the name of the piece, but recently at the Asia Pacific Triennial of Modern art exhabition in Brisbane, there was a fantastic installation work, which in essence was a hollowed-out Combi filled with nick-nacks and memorabilia, all useless bric-a-brac, none of which had any real artistic merit. But looking at the piece made me reflect on old family holidays, and indeed travelling alone.

Now look at a game like, say, Fallout. Most of the time I kept thinking to myself "hell, I wonder how I'd survive in a post-nuclear wasteland, with only my wits and natural skills to keep me from death?" Made me think about myself in a whole new, barely-touched-upon light: How I'd do come the apocalypse.

I'm going to wrap this up before I re-break my Pretentious-appendix, but I'll leave you with one more:

Consider that some of the greatest "art"works of all time were considered propaganda in the original context: The famous photograph of Che Guevera, Raising the flag at Iwo Jima, The stories and sagas of the Greeks and Romans, Hell, even movies like Casablanca.

Now think about recent WWII games, like Medal of Honour, the first few Call of Duty games, Brothers in Arms, etc. etc. They're all pro-American (/Allies), anti Nazi propaganda machines. Granted, they're sixty years too late, but don't the achieve the same effect that the former "True art" were striving to achieve in the first place?

You know, it's possible I lost my train of thought halfway through this and am actually replying to a forum thread about puppies, but bear with me here.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
Redlin5 said:
Finally someone with some sense! Ebert's opinion is just that, an opinion. Everyone I was talking to was thinking "Oh, Yahtzee is probably going to word rape that stupid Ebert's entire article." I think gaming gets a black mark in the art community because of our more extreme fanboys who would rather burn the Mona Lisa than admit that Ebert can have an outsiders view of video gaming. That said, I disagree in the extreme but not to the point where I'll go burn his house down for being the wrong kind of critic.
Ah, but that's where you fail.

All great art has had it's obsessive psycopaths in both extremes. We have ours. Didn't The Magic Flute instigate a riot between those who considered it great art, and those who wanted to kill The conductor himself? Aren't people who acknowledge Banksy split between those who want him arrested and convicted, and those who consider him a modern-day folk hero?

Aren't... Yeah, I'm gonna stop.
 

TheRealCJ

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,831
0
0
CyricZ said:
Yahtzee, you're right.

You're not funny when you're not being mean. :p
Aww, you want me to post a picture of a hastily-drawn cartoon penis? That'll calm your Yahtzee tremors.
 

Axquirix

New member
Feb 21, 2010
2
0
0
And I was moved to tears by most of How to Tarin your Dragon. No seriously, I was. That film... I'm rambling.
I wholeheartedly agree with you, Yahtzee! (If I spelt it right)
 

Noxshadow

u mad?
Jan 12, 2010
188
0
0
The fact that I know, off the top of my head, who John Carmack is is kind of sad.
Having taken an Art history course, I can tell you the definition of 'art' is very inconsistent. In the modern age, (or the 'postmodern' age if I really want so sound like an art fag) art is generally perceived as something that cannot serve any purpose other than existing for its own sake. Like paintings and sculpture. Why you try to apply this modern perspective to ancient cultures, it can be odd.
"Is this 5-centimeter tall statue that was most likely used for ritual worship purposes 'Art'?"
"Is this drawing art? Even if it's just a satirical political cartoon?"
It gets even muddier if you apply something like that to modern culture.
"Is this wristwatch 'art'?"
"No, because it was produced by machine."
"Then what about this 'original' watch, that was produced by a craftsman in a workshop, by hand? Is this art? If the original is 'art', but the copies are not, what about movies on DVD? Or games? Are they not art because they are copies of something else?"
Very murky territory.
 

Ichimitch

New member
May 4, 2010
1
0
0
The whole debate on whether or not video games are art or not is, in my opinion, nonsensical. Art is in the eye of the beholder, it cannot be defined by it's medium. There are many things in the world of art that I wouldn't consider art. Such as photographer Andres Serrano submerging a photo of a crucifix in urine and creating portraits using his own feces, Gregor Schneider's newest artistic endeavor which involves a volunteer who is willing to die in a museum in observance of spectators and although I can't recall the artist's name, I vividly remember reading an article about an "art exhibit" featuring a chained up dog being starved to death. In my opinion that is NOT art, yet these people are huge figures of the art world making a living out of what it is they're doing... Some people may consider a game art, and others not. Neither are right or wrong.
 

traineesword

New member
Jan 24, 2010
410
0
0
TraderJimmy said:
riottrio said:
i agree with the whole, everyone to their own opinion thing, i just found this one sentence odd

"Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form" - an extract from the quote Yahtzee took from this Ebert

couldn't i just re-word that to say
" Let me just say that no movie watcher now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form"
or
"Let me just say that no painting-viewer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form"

i find that sentence somewhat stupid... but maybe i'm just the stupid one and have misinterpreted it...
I am sure, afterall, that people have spent much more time playing one singular game, then any person has ever spent looking at a painting... i may be mistaken however (i am sure the artist looked at it longer)... i cannot say, with confidence, that people spend more time on a single game than another person would spend watching a single movie... i swear my little sister has capped 30 hours+ watching a particular chick-flik

And indeed the novel was seen as a pointless past-time by most when they first emerged - novel-reading was for silly women, who stayed in the library instead of learning to crochet and finding a good man. Silly women like Jane Austen, as it turned out, one of the sharpest minds of her time (little competition in the days of fluffy-headed romanticism, the picturesque fad and hot-blooded revolution (not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-that!) but you take my point).

Roger Ebert is not an academic, or more pertinently a philosopher, and people are angered by his dismissal of games - and his elevation of chess ABOVE video games, which just cements his clear role as defender of the status quo.

I personally feel there's nothing wrong with the old use of art to mean skill, as in "by his/her art it is made". This allows for technical death metal and conceptual art, concrete poems and novels to live under the same roof: whether a skill is practical or intellectual, the application of that skill is art, and something we can all admire.

I loved this article, one of the many extra punctuations that make me genuinely admire Yahtzee as a journalist. May he sell out and become an old media print whore like Charlie Brooker, and end his days making scathing remarks on gameshows with David Mitchell.
i can't quite see why you quoted me... but i got a message saying i had been quoted and it was a joy to read your post, i enjoyed reading everything you said :)
 

brainslurper

New member
Aug 18, 2009
940
0
0
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. ok. heres the entire solution. FANBOYS SUCK. he is just overobsessed about movies and i dont see why anybody should value his opinion.