Video games = an artform?

Well, are they?

Yes.

Oooh.

Does it say anything about the human condition?

Let's put it this way. Whereas most video games are supposed to be "cool" and "fun" and give you a sense of accomplishment over adversity, this video game is a completely different experience. It challenges your mind while at the same time challenging your heart, and putting you in touch with a vast natural landscape in a way no video game ever has. And the end is more visually rich and philosophically satisifying than I would have ever expected.

Shadow of the Colossus, for all its simplicity, is the next great step in the evolution of interactive storytelling in video games.

Cool.

Video games seem to be stuck in this "in between" period right now where they're still perceived as just mindless fun, as well as something much more. At the moment, I don't think they'll be considered an artform soon, but I think they eventually will be.

i agree that it will eventually come about but meanwhile theres way too much controversy on the subject of video games for it to be considered too seriously as an artform.

Thinking about it they are characters, design and created to allow us to interact with a virtual world. Whereas as conventional art forms allow us to perceive the world, not to interact with it.

__________________

Undercoverlovers 100 REDUX

Final Fantasy VII is the finest piece of art ever created. Other games are pretty crap though. Except Minesweeper.

Oh my, that was the first thing that came to mind when I saw this topic. Never has a game brought me to tears, that one did. I think there is a period when the "art" of old is challenged by the art of the new. This is a historical fact, there have been countless debates and feuds raged over different styles of paining alone to see that art has no one specific permutation that is superior over all others.

There is bad art, don't get me wrong. But you can't consign art to a single medium. Just go outside and look at a new snowfall and tell me that doesn't move you. Not that is art.

__________________
"You have to believe in God before you can say there are things that man was not meant to know. I don't think there's anything man wasn't meant to know. There are just some stupid things that people shouldn't do." -David Cronenberg

Most games are not but anyone who has played through Metal Gear Solid 3 can't say all games are just mindless fun

__________________
"A good film is when the price of the dinner, the theater admission and the babysitter were worth it."
- Alfred Hitchcock

We talked about this topic fairly in-depth on the other forum that I go and blatantly cheat on you with. It's run by my boyfriend who has a degree in video game character modelling. He says:

Chronologically, videogames are at about the same point in time as cinema was in the 1920s. A lot of it is still technological displays rather than genuinely worthwhile art (think 'early talkies'). If videogames were to evolve at exactly the same speed as movies did, then we're due our first 'Citizen Kane' any day now: a film that made the public aware that cinema can be arty and stylistic. We're also a few years away from our own 'King Kong': a movie that dazzled its way into becoming a household name by virtue of special effects and grandeur.

In reality, we're a lot closer to the latter than the former. As noted videogame academic Ernest Adams is fond of saying, "as an industry, we've got very good at making Arnold Schwarzenegger movies". But even then, we haven't managed to do anything so well that it becomes a truly household name. Games like Ico and Okami are, without a doubt, an artform, but they're the exception to the rule. The industry itself doesn't support artistic growth at this time. Clover Studios, who made Okami and received unanimous plaudits for it, was recently dissolved by Capcom because it wasn't profitable enough. Six years ago the same thing happened to the truly inspirational Looking Glass Studios. There are artistic minds and visionaries within the industry who aren't being given the creative freedom they need to further the artform.

Roger Ebert recently said that no game yet made is as worthwhile to the growth of culture as the very best movies, and while it's a bitter pill to swallow he's right. But we're still a young artform, and we've come a long way since the late 70s. We're progressing slightly slower than movies did, but a hell of a lot faster than, say, literature. With a bit of luck we'll be as important as both sometime in the near future. We've got work to do, though.

__________________
A devilish combination of slightly bored and quite hungry

I don't agree with all this, 'they will be art some day' malarkey.

Unless you're playing a MUD, you're looking at images created by someone. There isn't a game on the planet that didn't involve an art director of some sort. Someone had a vision of what the game should look like.

Even ugly art is art.

And that is just the visual side of things. That's not even getting into plot, sound design or the art of interaction. The art of coding and the art of manipulating millions of lines of babel into coherent function.

Anyone who thinks video games aren't art is an idiot.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

This is always brought up...personally, I'm not always interested in interacting with a world. There are films and literature made to be watched as an outside observer, rather than pulling the audience in (the latter usually applies to Hollywood blockbusters, most of which I don't consider to be art, but product). Correct me if I'm wrong, but due to the visceral nature of video games, they tend to focus on external conflict, rather than internal, like most great art does.

That's a completely different definition of 'art' than what I'm working off. But going down that course of discussion is a slippery slope.

cinema is perception and interaction. so are games.

the comparison to film is completely on the nail. video games are still in development, they began in the 1970s/1980s, a generation or two behind film. give them another generation or two, and they'll make their "Citizen Kane." in the meantime, we get glimmerings of "great video games" but note to date no video game has truly *touched* both the soul, mind, and gaming hunger of players. they have a habit of getting as constrained by budget or marketing demands as blockbuster films and getting a little tainted, falling a little short, running out of money, etc. (causing them to have to cut back where they would have expanded, to skim where they planned to dive deep, etc.)

one day some genius is going to have the budget, backing, and pure goal with a supportive team in place to create and finance the vision and when they do, it's going to explode and make video games as integral to the human experience as film and music are now.

in comparing again to film - games are already making use of the following, though not uniformly or with equal budgets or the same masterminds behind each. when they develop further, this will become more common, making them full-bodied parallels to film:

a) powerful, original, complex musical scores
b) complex, nuanced, talented actors (voiceover)
c) more "real" and evocative surroundings and environment, like set design and cinematography (level design, art direction, creative direction)
d) marketing, distribution, trailers, packaging
e) cross-market product tie ins (multiple gaming systems, multiple formats, games/books/movies/online sites

if they're doing a lot of the same things, and carry a lot of the same practices as film ... ??? how can they not be following in cinematic footsteps ... and not BE comparable to films?

games have the same cult fanatic audiences as movies do. they have the same group of people who argue and dissect the meanings and storylines, plot arcs and characters of the games they play for 40 hours straight during their weekend - as the geeks in film class dissecting Citizen Kane or whatever else.

i actually went into a 20 min discussion the other day when i was - YES - about to sit in the front row on the floor at the Video Game Awards in LA. Alas the only gaming creators we saw were scattered thinly throughout the celebrities and execs, but they were getting their crowds cheering at their great accomplishments when their game or studio nominations were called out or they went up to accept their awards.

yes, you read that right - game STUDIOS. just like movie studios. just like music studios.

and the game trailers up on the screen - visible also in your movie theaters and on your tv - were as well funded and beautifully rendered as any movie trailer. the trailer for the next World of Warcraft had a live choir dressed in robes and the whole thing was operatic, made the hair on the back of my neck rise, my heart race, my mouth go dry in anticipation and awe.

if that isn't art, i don't know what the hell is.

__________________
life without movies is like cereal without milk. possible, but disgusting. but not nearly as bad as cereal with water. don't lie. I know you've done it.

I can imagine that one day, maybe in the year 2354 if global warming hasn't killed us all, there will be a museum where people walk around and try out different video games from different years/eras, much like looking at paintings and things now.

Perhaps there's already a small museum like this somewhere... ? Or even a big one?

Well, art is a subjective term. Like most anything, basically. What isn't art? What's not? We all have different interpretations of what art is or isn't. To say video games aren't an art form (to me) is a bit ridiculous. It seems to me that to most art focuses on an internal conflict (like what was said earlier), rather than an external one. Which is mostly true. But what really limits video games from having the same effect? Nothing at all. Just not many games have a profound effect on us and move us the way we "think art should". Art has progressed so much over the years we can't even begin to discuss how art will change further. Art is going in limitless directions (sometimes for the better, or for worse, it's all subjective). For instance, some detest Harmony Korine's style of filmmaking. Some find it inane and completely pointless. But is it, really? I mean, sure, we can call it that because it's a new form of art. But it's still cinema. People like Godard and Fellini were certainly the renegades of their time. What makes Harmony Korine any different? Video games are the same way. They are new and most like to call them a dull, stupid form of entertainment. But it's something new to be added to the world of art. Basically, all I'm saying is that art has no limit. Whether it be video games, or whatever, it can still be art. All in all, it comes down to subjectivity. To some, art is strictly film,literature, and paintings/sculptures, etc. But to others video games can be included into those. I just hope that someday people will be more open to newer experiences, rather than shunning them.