Re: Are Video Games Art?
Posted: July 4th, 2015, 1:33 pm
This is an old thread, almost the forum as microcosm, and to use Chief Justice Robert's words, at times very inartful itself.
Came across this article the other day:
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/video-breaks- ... 1715503010
Its focused on movies, but the idea is computers and CGI reached a point 10 years ago when they could not just insert some CGI into a scene, but create the entire scene within the computers. An example used is the two Hulk films. The first film inserts a digital Hulk into a real scene, the second puts a much more graphically refined Hulk into a completely artificial scene, with fire and smoke and what not....because they can. The article (or actually, the article is about a video, so the video's author's) point is that doing so creates a sort of uncanny valley where while it all so spectacular and impressive, its so unreal our suspension of disbelief is assaulted we become very aware of watching a movie, and therefore, its emotional resonance goes down ... a lot.
Which made me think about video games, and Ebert again since, whether he meant to or not, its become part of his legacy as not just one of the premier movie critics of the 20th century, but the movie critic who did not see 'art' in video games. I wonder if this was part of it...that he (and by extension, many) have their suspension of disbelief assaulted by polygons and pixels? Yet he did not say an animated film could not be art, did he?
Second, by playing lots of games, are gamers more or less likely to become emotionally moved by a video game? We are so used to engaging in a video game world, does it change things for us?
Third, could an FMV renaissance shift the idea of video games as art?
Came across this article the other day:
http://sploid.gizmodo.com/video-breaks- ... 1715503010
Its focused on movies, but the idea is computers and CGI reached a point 10 years ago when they could not just insert some CGI into a scene, but create the entire scene within the computers. An example used is the two Hulk films. The first film inserts a digital Hulk into a real scene, the second puts a much more graphically refined Hulk into a completely artificial scene, with fire and smoke and what not....because they can. The article (or actually, the article is about a video, so the video's author's) point is that doing so creates a sort of uncanny valley where while it all so spectacular and impressive, its so unreal our suspension of disbelief is assaulted we become very aware of watching a movie, and therefore, its emotional resonance goes down ... a lot.
Which made me think about video games, and Ebert again since, whether he meant to or not, its become part of his legacy as not just one of the premier movie critics of the 20th century, but the movie critic who did not see 'art' in video games. I wonder if this was part of it...that he (and by extension, many) have their suspension of disbelief assaulted by polygons and pixels? Yet he did not say an animated film could not be art, did he?
Second, by playing lots of games, are gamers more or less likely to become emotionally moved by a video game? We are so used to engaging in a video game world, does it change things for us?
Third, could an FMV renaissance shift the idea of video games as art?