Can video games be art?
This was touched upon in The Videogames Tab a bit, and I promised to start a thread on the topic, which has been discussed recently in large part thanks to Roger Ebert's blog entry on the topic, in which he dismissed the notion of video games as art.
He wrote a follow-up which some interpreted as a retraction of sorts, but which reads to me more like him saying "shame on me for wandering into this minefield." He doesn't actually recant anything, but merely suggests that he should have kept his opinion to himself, which strikes me as a really weird thing to say at that point in the discussion. But there's some confusion as to what terms are even being used in these discussions. Ebert cites counter-examples of what are allegedly artful video games ("Braid" for one), but dismisses them as poor. But by making his case in this way, he reveals that he is including a qualitative baseline in his definition of "art," which seems odd, to me, unless one thinks there is no such thing as bad art. Things get more confused in the follow-up, in which he seems to suggest that the mere malleability of story in a game disqualifies in, which seems to be dismissing games-as-art on a conceptual level. Then he says they might be art someday, which is making the argument from quality again. It's kind of a mess, argumentatively speaking. So, though Ebert is the jumping off point for this discussion, I think we might do well to abandon whatever muddled terms he's using. Heck, it's worth asking both questions: Can video games even technically be art? If not, why not? And if they can, do they need to be a certain type of game, or reach a certain level of quality to qualify? And if so, which games, if any, have reached that level? |
A couple thoughts posted in The Videogames Tab thread from Gol and Tac on this topic to get things rolling:
GOL:
Originally Posted by Tacitus (Post 712253)
Did you see the recent Ebert vs Video Games as an Art form kurfuffle? The woman from That Game Company (Flower, flOw) tried to convince him but I'm with old Rog and his slick dance/fight moves on this one. Legitimate mass entertainment yes, Art no.
It's a weird one - good art to me often makes you reflect on it afterwards (teaching you something new about the world, or how to behold it) - and is not always immediately accessible to begin with. Those two aspects mean it'll be hard for interactive gaming to be 'art' in that sense. Games are getting better at immersing you in a vibe, and even a story, and those are certainly arts in themselves (in terms of design), but I can't think of single game that touches the cerebral/emotional effects of the best films, for example. I notice that Ebert says that most films are not art, which is dead right too ;) (In the above high-faluting sense). Maybe games will get there in time. (I can't help but think it would be in some territory that plays to their strengths tho - something that drills down into truths about iteration or the role of computing in our lives?). Will LA Noire be art, as its designers say? I doubt it. But might it be a new way to enjoy the hard-boiled cop genre? Could well be :) If transportation to another world is enough for it to be art, then I guess games are already there, at their best. And if putting the viewer into the story has altered storytelling (I'm not sure it has at its roots, but it does change the vibe), then I guess they've achieved that too. (Half Life would be a fairly readable book - an overlong and repetitious film - but was a hell of story to be at the centre of :)). I can't think of a game that's used these tools to really make me mull about life though. No game has spoken of love like Casablanca did, for example. I think in some ways some of these techniques are barriers to them achieving that at the moment.
You're right. It's that intangible personal aspect which makes the perception about good art (and even what is and isn't art) differ from person to person. Games are, for the most part, intended to be consumed by as many as possible - Is the tennis player scratching her arse or the topless bloke holding a baby art?
Even if we agree that some films are art then game designers need to get up to speed on the qualities of those films - Direction, script and acting. Direction is only gonna matter in the sub-genre of specifically cinematic games like Heavy Rain but writing and voice acting are becoming the norm in all types of games and that's where the industry falls down. I watched Aliens the other day and it seems that the bloated sci-fi shooter market, from Halo onwards, has been milking it for years. Aliens isn't art. :p Long time Danny Boyle cohort Alex Garland wrote Enslaved: Odyssey To The West and 'big' acting names are popping up in voiceovers more frequently but the flip side to that coin is that Nolan North is still in employment. Games are becoming more artistic, sure, but the only one I've seen recently that comes anywhere near to provoking the feelings that I get looking at, say, a Giacomo Balla is Flower. But it's still just an evocative, life-affirming interactive animation. |
Re: Can video games be art?
Shadow Of The Collosus, Eternal Darkness, The Getaway (basically a movie), Ocarina Of Time = proof
His article was 20 paragraphs that could be reworded to simply say "no...NO NONONONOWAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" |
Originally Posted by wintertriangles (Post 715941)
Shadow Of The Collosus, Eternal Darkness, The Getaway (basically a movie), Ocarina Of Time = proof
Are things which contain artistic elements art? Some video games Ice skating Rolf Harris A bloke relieving himself over a snow-covered field Shadow of The Colossus is one of my favourite games from the previous generation, no question. If, however, it had been created 20 years previously for the technology of the Spectrum or C64 would it now be considered art? |
Just to show I'm not being totally Cromwellian in this, here is Yahtzee's counter to Ebert's original post - Link
|
I once watched a gal relieving herself, writing her name in the snow.
Now THAT was art. |
Because? Are things which contain artistic elements art?
Shadow of The Colossus is one of my favourite games from the previous generation, no question. If, however, it had been created 20 years previously for the technology of the Spectrum or C64 would it now be considered art?
|
Originally Posted by earlsmoviepicks (Post 715967)
I once watched a gal relieving herself, writing her name in the snow.
Now THAT was art. |
Re: Can video games be art?
What is art? None of you can even move on before setting this straight.
|
Originally Posted by planet news (Post 715991)
What is art? None of you can even move on before setting this straight.
|
Re: Can video games be art?
Would have to be more specific I suspect. Especially since "consciousness" is sort of in the air right now. What do you even mean by it?
|
Re: Can video games be art?
It appeals enough aesthetically to someone to the point where they feel "different", consciously or subconsciously, about the subject at hand, life, unrelated topics, whatever. It's harder to explain the phrase than to say it, I know what I mean but gah.
I'll resort to examples in a defined medium: The Cure - Disintegration, when listening to that record (assuming you're not ARTless [geddit?]) one is able to feel the intangible, not giving answers or asking questions directly, but causing the person to interpret for him/herself what these things mean to them, and because of this they are either inspired to do something with this newfound information or just simply see things in a different way, however subtle. Art. Three Days Grace, do nothing for music, do nothing for musicians, do nothing for thought process, just passing noise, and I'm firmly grounded to the fact that this is not opinion. Not art. In film, Rashomon, investigates subtext with the camera, viewer feels it on a subconscious level, generally understands what the film conveys about its topic(s), consciousness rearranged even if s/he hates it. Art. Hitch, does nothing to explore the topic at hand, says nothing new about anything, fleeting images, "what cinematographer?", not art. |
Re: Can video games be art?
Originally Posted by wintertriangles (Post 715994)
It appeals enough aesthetically to someone to the point where they feel "different", consciously or subconsciously, about the subject at hand, life, unrelated topics, whatever. It's harder to explain the phrase than to say it, I know what I mean but gah.
I'll resort to examples in a defined medium: The Cure - Disintegration, when listening to that record (assuming you're not ARTless [geddit?]) one is able to feel the intangible, not giving answers or asking questions directly, but causing the person to interpret for him/herself what these things mean to them, and because of this they are either inspired to do something with this newfound information or just simply see things in a different way, however subtle. Art. Three Days Grace, do nothing for music, do nothing for musicians, do nothing for thought process, just passing noise, and I'm firmly grounded to the fact that this is not opinion. Not art. In film, Rashomon, investigates subtext with the camera, viewer feels it on a subconscious level, generally understands what the film conveys about its topic(s), consciousness rearranged even if s/he hates it. Art. Hitch, does nothing to explore the topic at hand, says nothing new about anything, fleeting images, "what cinematographer?", not art. You can't know the effect of Three Days Grace or Hitch on other people. On the other hand, you can't know how meaningless Rashomon could be to some people. Personally, Three Days Grace makes me cry out for the soul of existence, and I consider Hitch to be one of the greatest commentaries on sexual relations ever put on screen. Disintegration is a monotonous piece of trailer trash. You do have a point with those examples, but I don't think it's properly developed (at least in that post). There is also the matter that your definition doesn't explain why there are lots of things that people generally refer to as art and are automatically assumed to be art when they are created. People see a painting and it is automatically art before they feel or experience anything. Now, because art is not "real", I think relying on a social assessment is crucial. I still think a painting is art even though I am very rarely moved or changed by paintings. Also, I suspect that this kind of "intangibility" can come about a variety of different ways and does. I think it happens all the time in everyday experience. I can see things around me happening and feel changed by them. Not everything meaningful comes from a work of art---art only can do that. It doesn't have to. But before you say that life itself is an art, I seriously think we should limit art as something produced for the sake of itself. And in this case, art brut is a very real distinction from art itself. There is necessarily a man-made character. Still, perhaps all your examples still hold if I amend your definition into: Anything that re-arranges consciousness towards what art is. In other words, it has to already rest within a popular conception of art but manages to change our entire perception of all past works of art with its induction. This is the "change" I think you might be referring to. At which point, of course videos can and already are art. I mean, Shadow of the Colossus is literally brought up in EVERY SINGLE THREAD ever made about Ebert's post ever on the internet. Could there be more of a popular consensus? |
Originally Posted by planet news (Post 715996)
YES BUT
You can't know the effect of Three Days Grace or Hitch on other people. On the other hand, you can't know how meaningless Rashomon could be to some people.
You do have a point with those examples, but I don't think it's properly developed (at least in that post).
|
Originally Posted by wintertriangles (Post 715997)
Those aren't people.
|
All art is quite useless...
What if we take the standpoint that traditionally the artist created works to be viewed/read/listened to? The emotional response is evoked by the art alone. Can a game be art without the player's physical interaction with it? The casual viewer might see something artistic, but is that the same thing? What Sexy says about merchandise and long-term attachments: Is following the same football team for 30 years (and hoovering up their replica shirts etc) art? Games are a legitimate form of mass entertainment which frequently contain artistic elements and can prompt emotional reactions. So does football to the football fan or fine dining to the gourmand - George Best was frequently called an artist as are hosts of chefs but are they? Are they really? I like cars. They're created (visually, anyway) by artistically talented designers and driving a good car along a country road evokes emotions in me. How different is that really from a video game? I'm rambling (and will probably contradict myself when I get some sleep), I know, but it's late. :) |
Re: Can video games be art?
Basically, everything that someone went to the trouble of creating is art?
We're back to the top of the circle - what is art? :D Personally, I think cars can be aesthetically pleasing design. Who was it that said (with me paraphrasing like a mad thing) that art should have only one purpose? To be art. Some old duffer no doubt. I'm actually open to the idea of games as some sort of new art form but just haven't been swayed by anyone's arguments for the idea and that goes back to the old 'what is art?' chestnut where viewpoints differ wildly. Is Maggie Cheung art? I find her visually pleasing and she evokes .. ermm I'll stop now. :p |
Re: Can video games be art?
Who am I to say what is art IMO these guys are artists
http://www.carltonwoods.com/images/d...gif?ID=1401854 FAZIO http://lightwater.files.wordpress.co...klaus-1986.jpg NICKLAUS and my favorite course designer http://www.haeger.net/Images/Fame/ArnoldPalmer.jpg PALMER I remember when this place was a swampy mess now I play here atleast once a month thanks to Palmer http://www.insidegolf.ca/images/stor...-northview.jpg Now thats art IMO |
Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity (Post 716010)
Everything is an art! The Universe is just a gigantic art maker. Human beings, animals, planets, stars -- art is just out of control. God is a gay artist in the sky and he's gonna show everybody up come Fashion Week.
EDIT: and just because playing football is not an art does not mean it is any less of a thing or any less worthy of interest. Art is, as Tacitus said, very useless. I would disagree that art is only about capturing/inducing emotions. Things are still art regardless of what you feel about them. I think it's a kind of self-constructed social category always dependent on a certain historicity. So a few years ago, Videogames weren't art. But now they are. It's constantly changing and waiting for something new to enter into it and something old to pass out of it (Hitch, sh*tty rock music, etc.). |
Re: Can video games be art?
The Stadiums needed to play football in is art and so are the uniforms yadayada
http://s3.amazonaws.com/bzzagent-bzz...tadium-lrg.png Cowboys new stadium is a work of art but I get what your saying News |
| All times are GMT -3. The time now is 12:51 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright, ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
User Alert System provided by
Advanced User Tagging v3.3.0 (Lite) -
vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2024 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Movie Forums