[QUOTE=BanjoPickles]I understand what you're saying, to a degree(either that or I'm taking it the wrong way). It has become so easy for something to be labeled as art. I knew this guy, a few years back, that loved to brag himself up as a writer. As somebody who takes his writing very seriously, I'm a bit of a snob when it comes to the writings of other people. One night, a large group of us were hanging around this guy's apartment. I asked him to show me something he had written, so he pulls this marble comp. pad from under the couch. I took it out on his patio, went through about a half-pack of cigarettes(a nasty habit I'm hoping to drop soon) struggling through the Hallmark-cheesiness of all of it. He asked me what I thought, after coming in. "Well," I thought aloud, "it rhymed." After reading some of his "choice cuts," I never thought of him as a writer again. The same way that some may see a difference between games and art, I see a HUGE difference between writers and people who write from the cracked womb of a petty dose of puppy love every so often.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that really disqualifies what he did as art. What you've made is a value judgement, not a judgement on its identity as art. Art is a kind of thing, a recognition that this is an expression that this individual is making from his own heart and mind or even his own arrogance, if that's the route he took. It isn't a judgement on whether other people will really value his offering. Just recognizing that some art is banal and should be avoided isn't a recognition that the offering isn't a work of art.
In fact, I think using "art" as a value judgement is the largest part of what muddies the water in these cases. The critic may not get some modern art works, but he doesn't have to get them for them to be art. He can say (as do I in most cases of modern art) that it isn't good art, because good art is designed to be a communication, not a muddlement, but he can't say that it's not "art" in the context I am describing.
Back in college, I was reading an essay that an art critic wrote in the 50s. I forget her name or I'd just reference this directly here, but in any case, she was discussing how one of her friends was pushing her to attend a particular exhibit because it was an art exhibit offered up by someone he knew personally. She explained to him that she had limited time to go to every art exhibit for every up and coming artist. "But it's art", he insisted. She replied "Well, yes, but is it good?" I tend to agree with her sentiment behind that dialog.
Art is subject to many many value judgements. It might be judged on its message or the ethics of that message. It might be judged at a technical level on the craft of the artist. It might be judged even on the success it has in communicating the ideas the artist intended. Those are the value judgements we should be arguing about here rather than arguing on the identity of an individual work as "art".
[QUOTE=N64Dude]And so on and so on. Most of the fun games made I find were actually self-indulgent.Then again there are those games that are not remotely original and end up with a result like Metal Gear Solid 4.[/QUOTE]
People who think they can remove ego from art don't understand art. In fact, they haven't even tried to understand it. Just saying that a creation you've participated in came about as an expression of the love you have for some activity that you enjoy is an expression of ego. Not everyone enjoys gardening, but an artist can encapsulate his enjoyment of gardening in a way that captivates others without them having to become lovers of gardening.
[QUOTE=Emehr]I agree that the individual components that make up a game: graphics, music, sounds, and story are (or can be considered) art. A game, however, is not. It's like saying Monopoly is art. Sure, it can be said that the line drawings of Mr. Moneybags on the Chance cards is art, but the experience of playing the game is not. I think that once you throw interaction into the mix the product as a whole ceases to be art. I think the box art for Warlords (Atari 2600) is art. That doesn't make the game art.[/QUOTE]
Nah. Collaborative creations are art works in and of themselves, even if you can also recognize each individual component as a piece of art. In fact, the final result in a collaboration usually results from some directorial management of the material, such as a director has in his vision of a film. Many artists are involved in that, but he has the task of keeping the focus of the process of creating the final work as a whole in the realm of a particular vision.
This is why games like Shadow of the Colossus and Ico are in fact art. When someone says games like those are not art, they are effectively claiming that the final result was the product of random events.
[QUOTE=snakeboy][QUOTE=BanjoPickles]But Critic, isn't art something that brings emotions out in people?[/QUOTE] So does PMS, but I don't think even in the depths of hell it would ever be considered art.[/QUOTE]
PMS is a hormonal response in the body. It's not a human creation that is meant to express human values. Emotions are evoked in human beings who interact with art because of the though process involved in the evaluation and recognition of the values being communicated, not because their hormones are out of whack or their spouse's hormones are out of whack.
We could say this is because it is "entertainment" too, and that entertainment evokes emotions, but as I've already mentioned, I don't think there's a true dichotomy between art and entertainment.
Are Video Games Art?
-
Emehr
Are Video Games Art?
[QUOTE=m0zart][QUOTE=Emehr]I agree that the individual components that make up a game: graphics, music, sounds, and story are (or can be considered) art. A game, however, is not. It's like saying Monopoly is art. Sure, it can be said that the line drawings of Mr. Moneybags on the Chance cards is art, but the experience of playing the game is not. I think that once you throw interaction into the mix the product as a whole ceases to be art. I think the box art for Warlords (Atari 2600) is art. That doesn't make the game art.[/QUOTE]
Nah. Collaborative creations are art works in and of themselves, even if you can also recognize each individual component as a piece of art. In fact, the final result in a collaboration usually results from some directorial management of the material, such as a director has in his vision of a film. Many artists are involved in that, but he has the task of keeping the focus of the process of creating the final work as a whole in the realm of a particular vision.
This is why games like Shadow of the Colossus and Ico are in fact art. When someone says games like those are not art, they are effectively claiming that the final result was the product of random events.[/QUOTE]
My point is that a game (an interactive event for the purpose of meeting goals for recreation) cannot be art. There is no art in game play mechanics. A film can be art because it is not interactive. One cannot change the outcome. It is presented consistently every time. I think the visuals in Shadow of the Colossus are art but I don't think that I am playing art because I do not believe art can be "played".
If there existed a museum where all of the paintings are arranged so that you have to put them in order alphabetically by the person who painted them to unlock the room that holds the Mona Lisa, that museum would not be called "art". Sure, the paintings inside are, but the process and experience of going into the museum and arranging the paintings is not.
I can accept a blanket statement like "Windwaker. Now that game is a work of art!" to acknowledge the efforts of those who collaborated in the sound, graphics, and music department to make the game, but I would not call the video game "art" in the general sense. Game play mechanics are not art and I think it is the one thing that separates video games from it. If you were to extract all of the non-interactive cinema elements from a game such as Windwaker, Metal Gear, or whatever, string them together and make a coherent presentation then sure, it could be art.
Nah. Collaborative creations are art works in and of themselves, even if you can also recognize each individual component as a piece of art. In fact, the final result in a collaboration usually results from some directorial management of the material, such as a director has in his vision of a film. Many artists are involved in that, but he has the task of keeping the focus of the process of creating the final work as a whole in the realm of a particular vision.
This is why games like Shadow of the Colossus and Ico are in fact art. When someone says games like those are not art, they are effectively claiming that the final result was the product of random events.[/QUOTE]
My point is that a game (an interactive event for the purpose of meeting goals for recreation) cannot be art. There is no art in game play mechanics. A film can be art because it is not interactive. One cannot change the outcome. It is presented consistently every time. I think the visuals in Shadow of the Colossus are art but I don't think that I am playing art because I do not believe art can be "played".
If there existed a museum where all of the paintings are arranged so that you have to put them in order alphabetically by the person who painted them to unlock the room that holds the Mona Lisa, that museum would not be called "art". Sure, the paintings inside are, but the process and experience of going into the museum and arranging the paintings is not.
I can accept a blanket statement like "Windwaker. Now that game is a work of art!" to acknowledge the efforts of those who collaborated in the sound, graphics, and music department to make the game, but I would not call the video game "art" in the general sense. Game play mechanics are not art and I think it is the one thing that separates video games from it. If you were to extract all of the non-interactive cinema elements from a game such as Windwaker, Metal Gear, or whatever, string them together and make a coherent presentation then sure, it could be art.
-
m0zart1
- Posts: 3117
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Are Video Games Art?
[QUOTE=Emehr]My point is that a game (an interactive event for the purpose of meeting goals for recreation) cannot be art. There is no art in game play mechanics. A film can be art because it is not interactive. One cannot change the outcome. It is presented consistently every time. I think the visuals in Shadow of the Colossus are art but I don't think that I am playing art because I do not believe art can be "played".[/QUOTE]
I disagree with you that art cannot be "played". In fact, I believe this is the main strength of video games as a medium -- that the ability to make choices allows an artist or artists to express more than one path of possibiliity to demontrate any number of human values from their perspective. Those values could be ethical but they don't have to be. It is the mechanic that separates video games from most other mediums.Some plays have done this to a much lesser extent: Ayn Rand's "Night of January 16th" being one of them. But video games have much more potential in that area than any other art form.
And as I've said before, I consider even logical constructs that don't mean concrete things to be art when the artist is intending them to be viewed that way. This means that even if the interactivity doesn't lead one down a path that demonstrates a specific viewpoint, it is still art because it still transmits a very human value.
[QUOTE=Emehr]If there existed a museum where all of the paintings are arranged so that you have to put them in order alphabetically by the person who painted them to unlock the room that holds the Mona Lisa, that museum would not be called "art". Sure, the paintings inside are, but the process and experience of going into the museum and arranging the paintings is not.[/QUOTE]
The manager of an art gallery isn't usually using all of the art works he obtains to express common themes that are specifically communicated in his alphabetal art organization. A director of a movie or a video game is doing that and more by managing the art direction of all of the components that make up the vision behind the final offering.
If an art director did take his existing art work, and choose to present it in a way that demonstrates a specific theme, then yes, it would be art. It still wouldn't be the same kind of result one obtains from a work composed of pieces that had the benefit of a single art direction that is managed in practically every part of a movie or a game, but it would be an art work in and of itself.
[QUOTE=Emehr]I can accept a blanket statement like "Windwaker. Now that game is a work of art!" to acknowledge the efforts of those who collaborated in the sound, graphics, and music department to make the game, but I would not call the video game "art" in the general sense. Game play mechanics are not art and I think it is the one thing that separates video games from it. If you were to extract all of the non-interactive cinema elements from a game such as Windwaker, Metal Gear, or whatever, string them together and make a coherent presentation then sure, it could be art.[/QUOTE]
I find that argument lacking for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that the game already has a coherent direction and is communicating something the director of the game intends to communicate. He can do that by combining mediums with the help of other artists without taking anything away from his own presentation (in fact, he'd only be using the strengths of those artists to add to his presentation). Removing the work of those other artists only takes away from the communication of that overall focus, rather than helping to clarify and express it more fully.
This is why when I pointed out Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, I specifically referenced the final product and not the individual components. By themselves those are art works, but the final product itself is also held together by the organization and vision of a few key people, people who kept even those composing works focused on the end result. That end result is itself an art work, not just some happy-go-lucky composite that somehow worked, like the proverbial handwatch that just formed on a desert shore by time and chance. The end result is greater than the sum of its parts.
So I guess if I had to summarize my objection to this view, it would be that art *never* happens in a vaccuum. To expect it to do so to give it legitimacy as art is to disqualify all art.
-
Shiranui13
Are Video Games Art?
Art is about expression--of emotion, of ideas, of criticism and many other things besides. The term ‘art’ is just that, a term. Its definition is as malleable and superfluous as people are. There will never be a set definition of art because of how intimate and personal art is. For instance, I will never understand or enjoy Wuthering Heights. I cannot even make it past the first twenty pages. Does that mean that it should be removed from reading lists or libraries? No!
It is the expression that is important. No one is able to experience everything in their lives (and really who would want to?). Isn’t it easier to read about Hamlet’s revenge than to act out our own? Reading about how Dorian Gray waltzes through his life while destroying others is fascinating, but disgusting. Expanding your horizons is fun, but Icarus and Ulysses are examples that curiosity needs to be tempered with prudence.
Yet, art is about more than personal gratification or improvement. Art can serve to edify religions, governments and leaders. Moliere’s Tartuffe targeted the excesses and hypocrisy of the Catholic Church while William Blake’s The Chimney Sweep decried the immorality of child labor. However, Moliere was imprisoned because of his work and risked imprisonment or execution because of Tartuffe, and William Blake certainly did not win many friends by vilifying a commonly accepted practice.
Video games are as big a part of our culture as plays and novels are. Right now they are censored for violence and sexuality, but will it stop there? What happens when a video games cross the line and make serious social criticism? The issue of their credibility as an art form, and all of the importance that distinction possesses, needs to be thought through carefully. Dismissing it out of hand because video games are “designed to entertain” is childish. All classical forms of art were designed to entertain.
It is the expression that is important. No one is able to experience everything in their lives (and really who would want to?). Isn’t it easier to read about Hamlet’s revenge than to act out our own? Reading about how Dorian Gray waltzes through his life while destroying others is fascinating, but disgusting. Expanding your horizons is fun, but Icarus and Ulysses are examples that curiosity needs to be tempered with prudence.
Yet, art is about more than personal gratification or improvement. Art can serve to edify religions, governments and leaders. Moliere’s Tartuffe targeted the excesses and hypocrisy of the Catholic Church while William Blake’s The Chimney Sweep decried the immorality of child labor. However, Moliere was imprisoned because of his work and risked imprisonment or execution because of Tartuffe, and William Blake certainly did not win many friends by vilifying a commonly accepted practice.
Video games are as big a part of our culture as plays and novels are. Right now they are censored for violence and sexuality, but will it stop there? What happens when a video games cross the line and make serious social criticism? The issue of their credibility as an art form, and all of the importance that distinction possesses, needs to be thought through carefully. Dismissing it out of hand because video games are “designed to entertain” is childish. All classical forms of art were designed to entertain.
-
VideoGameCritic
- Site Admin
- Posts: 18181
- Joined: April 1st, 2015, 7:23 pm
Are Video Games Art?
A lot of people like to define art as "whatever you want it to be", but if you look in an actual dictionary, it does have a real definition:
Personally, I think the graphics in a video game might be considered art, but I think the video game itself is not art. It's a program. Is Microsoft Word art too?
| 1. | the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. |
| 2. | the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. |
Personally, I think the graphics in a video game might be considered art, but I think the video game itself is not art. It's a program. Is Microsoft Word art too?
-
Segatarious1
- Posts: 1110
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Are Video Games Art?
[QUOTE=steer]I think they can be. The simplest ones, that owe nothing to TV, movies or books, that only make sense as games -
Like Super Mario Brothers
OR Bit Trip
Game like that are art, in my opinion....
[/QUOTE]
Games that only makes sense only as games are obviously games, not art.
Art is something made by life to apprecicate or understand life. Games are contests of luck and/or skill, that are played to determine an outcome.
Videogames cnanot be art. Their nature as a game predetermines this in every case. Make a game with no game in it, and it is no longer a game.
Like Super Mario Brothers
OR Bit Trip
Game like that are art, in my opinion....
[/QUOTE]
Games that only makes sense only as games are obviously games, not art.
Art is something made by life to apprecicate or understand life. Games are contests of luck and/or skill, that are played to determine an outcome.
Videogames cnanot be art. Their nature as a game predetermines this in every case. Make a game with no game in it, and it is no longer a game.
-
Vexer1
- Posts: 883
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Are Video Games Art?
Scotland-Don't you why you're randomly bringing me up, i'll buy a PS4 before I buy a Wii U.
Anyways to answer your post, it does seem like games such as Hotline Miami are making a deliberate choice to use a retro-art style.
-
Vexer1
- Posts: 883
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Are Video Games Art?
Steer-Yes they absolutely can be art, don't see how being a "game" prevents it from doing so, that makes zero sense.
-
Vexer1
- Posts: 883
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Are Video Games Art?
Yeah I think they had a reason for the style, this "neo-retro" style is becoming popular in games like Double Dragon Neon.
-
ptdebate1
- Posts: 909
- Joined: December 31st, 1969, 7:00 pm
Are Video Games Art?
Are videogames art? Ah, such a hotly debated topic back in 2009. I remember that unfashionably long comment thread under Roger Ebert's refutation. The game industry's clumsy response. Roger Ebert's cogent counter-arguments.
Both sides failed, however, to account for the chaotic diversity contained within the most significant term under discussion, so often taken for granted: not "art," but "videogames."
The digital commodities to which we apply the label "videogames" vary so widely that the term has utterly lost its functionality as an organizing principle: a grouping of similar things. Can we really say that Dekoven and Lanier's Alien Garden, Jason Rohrer's Transcend, and Infinity Ward's Call of Duty 4 belong in the same category? The only thing they seem to have in common is interactivity. One has objectives and is designed to entertain. The other two are designed to provoke thought and inspire creativity.
Let us not cram our entire interactive digital cultural heritage into one mold and naively characterize the whole with the attributes of only one part.
Both sides failed, however, to account for the chaotic diversity contained within the most significant term under discussion, so often taken for granted: not "art," but "videogames."
The digital commodities to which we apply the label "videogames" vary so widely that the term has utterly lost its functionality as an organizing principle: a grouping of similar things. Can we really say that Dekoven and Lanier's Alien Garden, Jason Rohrer's Transcend, and Infinity Ward's Call of Duty 4 belong in the same category? The only thing they seem to have in common is interactivity. One has objectives and is designed to entertain. The other two are designed to provoke thought and inspire creativity.
Let us not cram our entire interactive digital cultural heritage into one mold and naively characterize the whole with the attributes of only one part.
Return to “Video Games General”