Post by: Svevan on July 20, 2007, 11:45:59 AM
Even worse is the question "which video games are art?" For whatever reason, people think that art is a compliment, and only some games achieve the status of art. Ergo, someone could claim that Zelda is "art" but Charlie's Angels is not, because one is successful (in terms of quality, not commerce) and the other isn't.
I understand the question, I really do. We call things "artful" which is apparently a compliment. And we believe there are such a thing as skilled "artisans" who create things with their hands. And the definition of what art actually entails is very difficult too. Here's some broad definitions I want to throw down, from Dictionary.com (which references multiple dictionaries). Please note that I had to pick and choose since the word has many, many definitions.
Quote
the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria
Quote
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
Quote
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
When most people say "I believe that this is art," they are really meaning that they believe it is "artful." A secondary definition of the word art is this:
Quote
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
If something has art in it, it is beautiful or of high quality. But if something actually is art, then it is part of "the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria." There's a difference.
So I don't really have much of a problem when someone says "this is art," because I know they mean it is of higher quality than something else, even if they're saying it wrong. But when someone says "this isn't art," they're not just saying that it is "artless." They're demanding that the thing (be it a game or a movie) not be classified as art at all, and not be treated in the same field as other works that are "more valid." They're actually saying that discourse about this title be relegated to another area, that if we consider it "art" we have made a statement of endorsement and we cannot intellectually discuss its merits (or demerits).
This is an epidemic! All video games are art. I posit this statement as a fact, and I hope that it won't engender a giant discussion. Of course it will, and I probably won't dive too far into the ensuing rabble for fear of being argumentative and controversial. Let me just say that once we recognize that video games are of "the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria," then we know that we must always criticize them as works of art, meaning how they sound, what they look like, and how it feels (via the controller) to play them. All video games are made up of a combination of those three: sight, sound, touch.
The primary art of gaming, though, is control: what do I get to do, and what don't I? When do I get to do it? What are the effects (usually visual or auditory) of my actions? How does it feel to do the actions physically with a controller?
So yes, Superman 64 is art. It's not a compliment! There is such a thing as bad art. If you say a film is art, you're just stating the obvious. Let's move past the idea that some things are art and some things aren't, otherwise we will be mired in subjectivity and individualistic responses like "this is art to me," and "I feel like this isn't art." Relativism destroys nations, and right now our culture is being torn down from the inside. Art is one of the many things that is being destroyed by subjective response. In fact, with art, we've gone beyond subjective response and into subjective identification! So my opinion is that something is art, and no one can change that since it's my opinion.
Raph Koster (who's fairly famous) added fuel to this fire back in February, and I responded with a blog. The blog includes links back to Raph's original post, about a video game called High Delivery that was very "artful," and is definitely "art." Raph asked "is this art?" Most of the responses were "it's art to me!" And then Joystiq posted the most idiotic thing I have ever read on the Internet. Please read the post for links to that as well.
Well I'm sure I was too harsh and inflammatory with this post. Please know that I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that this is a problem that will forever set back games criticism and scholarship. If we don't agree, right now as a community, that games are art, then we will never hold our own against the other major art forms. If we wait for judges to decide for us whether our favorite medium is art or not, we'll be very dissatisfied with the answer they give us.
Post by: ShyGuy on July 20, 2007, 11:53:49 AM
Post by: Mashiro on July 20, 2007, 11:59:54 AM
/threadend =P
Post by: Kairon on July 20, 2007, 12:16:00 PM
I like the way Svevan breaks down the question and his definition of terms is also useful. The distinction between artfull/artless and art/not-art I find to be so important in defining what exactly we mean when we talk about such things. Although we once again enter the same "everything is art" territory as some have often done before, I can understand this perspective now whereas before it produced conflict within me. Especially important to the discussion is the reminder that there is such a thing as "bad art" and that things are "artless."
As Svevan said in another thread, yes, Superman 64 is art. By the definitions we're using, it is. That doesn't imply it's good, it's tasteful, it doesn't imply it's worthwhile or enduring or important, it doesn't imply ANYTHING about the quality of the work. But that's the next question, the follow-up. And it's much more interesting and easy to explore once we acknowledge the first.
Post by: ShyGuy on July 20, 2007, 12:19:47 PM
Post by: mantidor on July 20, 2007, 12:28:24 PM
and yes games are art. I agree with your sentiment against relativism too(although saying its destroying your nation is taking things a bit far).
One of the main issues of movies and games is the huge ammount of resources they need, and add to that an inmense ammount of technical knowledge and skills for games. If you are feeling "artsy" and want to express yourself somehow you can take a pencil and draw something or write a poem, or sculpt something, you most certainly can't easily make a feature film or a specially a game to express that.
Then again, a long time ago people couldn't just pick up a pen and write, most people didn't even know how to read! I see in the future we will get more of this type of amateur art, and so it will stablish games as an art form.
Post by: Kairon on July 20, 2007, 12:31:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Kairon, are you speaking for Miyamoto? That's Bill Trinen's job.
MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!! *goes out to learn some Japanese*
Post by: Ian Sane on July 20, 2007, 12:57:19 PM
Part of the classicifaction of art in my view is that it's very non-scientific. There aren't rules and practices to make art. I can teach someone the fundamental skills to make a house and if they have the talent they can make a house. But art has an creative quality to it. I know people who are amazing guitar players but aren't really artists in my mind because they never write any songs. Give them a song and they'll play it just like the original artist but there's no real added personal touch to their performance. They're just a guitar machine. It's just a skill but not really art. To design a game requires some creativity even if the result is a really lame idea. So it must be art.
And honestly if we don't want the government censoring games we need to treat games like art. If we don't want sloppy crap like screwed up buttons on Mega Man Anniversary Collection we need those making games to treat their work like art. If we don't want some old games lost like old films are then we need games to be considered art.
Post by: UERD on July 20, 2007, 02:18:24 PM
Also, artforms don't spring out of nowhere fully formed and ready to be embraced by critics and academics. For writing this really isn't that clear, because people have been composing written text since the beginning of civilization, but as Ian said, it's definitely visible when you consider movies. One of the big things, though, that games don't have as much as other 'forms of art' is general acceptance. Things are changing, but still novels, painting, music, and movies are regularly appreciated by a wide slice of the general population. Although we are moving away from this image (and have come a long way recently), a lot of people still think of games as glorified electronic toys played by delinquent adolescents at arcades. It doesn't matter if Miyamoto makes something that puts the classics to shame if the majority of the people who will even consider touching it are 12 to 24 year olds.
Quote
And honestly if we don't want the government censoring games we need to treat games like art. If we don't want sloppy crap like screwed up buttons on Mega Man Anniversary Collection we need those making games to treat their work like art. If we don't want some old games lost like old films are then we need games to be considered art.
This is a really, really good point.
Post by: bustin98 on July 20, 2007, 03:59:23 PM
And the funny thing is, people always come down to one of two sides and never budge. Has anyone here ever said "I was wrong, you were right. I have changed my opinion."?
I think its fair to say not every painting is art. Look at my high school lunch room. A lovely shade of blue stripe. Ok, thats a joke, but I think there is a difference based on motivation. I believe the goal of art is to reflect the society around it and/ or invoke an emotional response. Artwork created for commercial purpose may not entirely fall in that category. Heck, I create artwork all day long, but I don't consider it art. My motivation is its what I'm paid to do for someone else. But if the mood were to strike, I could use what I know to create something that I would consider art.
So with games, I think we are at a point of calling them art and have been at that point for a while. Not all of them. Not the ones made purely for profit, but when you hear development teams saying 'we wanted to make a game we want play', or pretty much anything Denis Dyack says, thats art. In the same way that film is art.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 20, 2007, 04:06:01 PM
Regardless I want to sum up this thread with the following.
If you don't think GTA is art, you are destroying our culture. The end.
Post by: LuigiHann on July 20, 2007, 04:06:05 PM
Post by: darknight06 on July 20, 2007, 04:34:34 PM
Post by: bustin98 on July 20, 2007, 04:43:04 PM
Post by: Kairon on July 20, 2007, 05:05:13 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: darknight06
Video games are design, not art. I really wish people would stop trying to make more out of video games than they are.
Wow...so... architecture? Fashion? Film?
Post by: Mashiro on July 20, 2007, 06:00:21 PM
Quote
Has anyone here ever said "I was wrong, you were right. I have changed my opinion."?
Believe it or not I've been known to on occasion =)
Quote
Video games are design, not art. I really wish people would stop trying to make more out of video games than they are.
To each their own, I mean people can splatter paint on a canvas and call it art. Maybe even give it a name like "anger" because it's red or something. Some consider it art. Others, like myself, don't.
I think anything like a video game, which (can) contain beautiful environments, rich characters, well thought out stories and a beautiful soundtrack should be considered art.
But again everyone has different views on what exactly is 'art' to them and in the end it's something that always ends up in an endless debate.
Post by: King of Twitch on July 20, 2007, 07:10:22 PM
I agree with some of the points made above. But I would think the above definition would rule out superman 64 and Atari pacman and ET from being considered art, as it's clear the humans made little effort in their production.
I also think another definition should include something that aims at, and achieves, capturing people's attention, or enjoyment as Golden
Phoenix said. Nobody wants to play superman 64 for very long. Otherwise I could just throw a painted toilet seat into the street and call that art.
*Disregard this post; i just googled "toilet seat art" and apparently there are painted toilet seat museums across the country.
Post by: denjet78 on July 20, 2007, 07:42:14 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
If you don't think GTA is art, you are destroying our culture. The end.
I think 10,000 of my brain cells just committed suicide. Thanks so much for that.
You can't force people to accept your opinion of what is or what isn't art. That's why I instigated this whole thing in the first place by bringing up Superman 64. If all games are art then sure, I can admit that GTA is art insofar that it is a game and all games are art. But as for the artistic quality of the game, well I find it to be severely lacking in depth, emotion and thought. It's a reflection of the absolutely worst parts of modern society. If someone were to make a film about modern society in such a way people may applaud it as well, but for different reasons. For bringing to light the issues that we all struggle with and shining a light on the darker side of our culture. GTA though glorifies those terrible attributes and gamers seem to embrace it not only with open arms but with a fever that has rarely been seen before. I think that's actually it's biggest contribution to humanity. Showing us just how sick and twisted we really are. Or at least showing me.
So GTA is art, but I'd say it's about on par with games like Superman 64 or an incredibly tacky "B" movie. You want to see good art? Look for the small games that hardly get any attention. Play the games that also get bad reviews from the mainstream sites. Quit sitting there just playing the next big name title. If you ask me it is the complacency of people that is destroying our culture. Everything is subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure and on that note I'd have to say that GTA is some of the worst trash that I have ever seen.
But of course all of this is just my opinion, something that I shouldn't even have to state.
Post by: Mario on July 20, 2007, 07:57:14 PM
Post by: Mashiro on July 20, 2007, 08:12:07 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
who cares
/threadwin
Post by: that Baby guy on July 20, 2007, 08:14:22 PM
Post by: Mashiro on July 20, 2007, 08:18:34 PM
Post by: KDR_11k on July 20, 2007, 09:52:05 PM
Post by: Kairon on July 20, 2007, 10:55:31 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
You want to see good art? Look for the small games that hardly get any attention. Play the games that also get bad reviews from the mainstream sites. Quit sitting there just playing the next big name title. If you ask me it is the complacency of people that is destroying our culture.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M DOING!!!
...Finally... finally... someone gets me! /happy
Hey guys? One word. And one word only.
SPRUNG
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Post by: Kairon on July 20, 2007, 11:00:25 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Evan said it first, having different opinions of what is most important to you when you judge the inner beauty of things is what is tearing down this nation. Not to mention you better believe GTA is an artistic masterpiece, there is no denying that or you are being a relativist! How about we judge games on the basis whether we derive enjoyment from them? I like that idea much better.
Regardless I want to sum up this thread with the following.
If you don't think GTA is art, you are destroying our culture. The end.
Why are you treating us with so much contempt? I feel... debased!
Post by: Stogi on July 20, 2007, 11:03:31 PM
Before I starting playing, you want to know what I thought?
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
So, youre supposed to interact with people, eh? I hope that doesn't mean listen to them repeat the same phrases over and over again like any other videogame NPC and occassioanlly handing them items.
And you know what it turned about to be?
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
So, youre supposed to interact with people, eh? I hope that doesn't mean listen to them repeat the same phrases over and over again like any other videogame NPC and occassioanlly handing them items.
That game made me depressed to play it. Like, "why am I sitting here playing a survey?" And even questions like, "God, when will one of these chicks put out. I'm sick of all this bullsh!t. *Continues playing* How about you get your own f#cking candy bar!"
Post by: Stogi on July 20, 2007, 11:06:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Evan said it first, having different opinions of what is most important to you when you judge the inner beauty of things is what is tearing down this nation. Not to mention you better believe GTA is an artistic masterpiece, there is no denying that or you are being a relativist! How about we judge games on the basis whether we derive enjoyment from them? I like that idea much better.
Regardless I want to sum up this thread with the following.
If you don't think GTA is art, you are destroying our culture. The end.
Why are you treating us with so much contempt? I feel... debased!
"Tell that bitch to chill!" - Samuel L. Jackson - Pulp Fiction
Post by: Kairon on July 20, 2007, 11:07:56 PM
Post by: Stogi on July 20, 2007, 11:14:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Hahahaha! But in order to get that Candy Bar Shana goes absolutely NUTSO! *sighs happily* Mooooooooooo!
That's exactly the point I threw the game across the room.
Ironically, I couldn't relate to her even though I'm a little hippy at heart.
Post by: Kairon on July 20, 2007, 11:24:44 PM
Yes... they've made MORE. MOAR.
Btw, Shana's earth name is Ariel O'laughlin Du Lac. Just fyi.
Post by: Infernal Monkey on July 21, 2007, 01:17:29 AM
Post by: ShyGuy on July 22, 2007, 11:42:50 AM
Post by: that Baby guy on July 22, 2007, 12:47:28 PM
Of course, there's artwork in video games, too. He neglects to mention that.
Super Metroid is very interesting. It tells one story. A very loose story, and it lets the player experience that story in many different paths if they choose to. It's a story of isolation and exploration. He would classify the game as a scavenger hunt/point-shoot hybrid, and that's accurate to some degree, but it's really about exploration.
The controls in Ecco the Dolphin, the swimming and jumping, in particular, are beautiful.
He does say at the end that he does not believe all movies are art, but he refuses to accept that some, but not all games are art.
I haven't played Shadow of the Colossus, but I've heard the ideas in that game were pretty artsy, the game wasn't a point/shoot game, it was a collect-a-thon, and it didn't have much in common with Myst, either.
Essentially, Ebert is being very selective. He mentions a few genres of video games, then devalues them all, saying that nearly every game exists within that mix. Couldn't we do the same with movies? With paintings? With dances? With song? Just because games can be classified doesn't make them less of an art, though it does show that some games, along with movies, paintings, dances and songs are out only for the money to be gained, but like I stated, that's true with every art. Nearly every thing in the world that is created is created to be consumed, and for the creator to gain some benefit. Otherwise, why would he or she do it? To try to use that against a particular medium is a ridiculous notion, because even Ebert admits that some movies are cool with little artistic value, solely meant to cash in.
By classify something as a high art while classifying others as low art, he devalues the human condition. Someone needs to get this man some snowy Calvin & Hobbes, just so he can truly see how biased he is. Art is art, and it is up to the creator to decide whether their art will be "low" or "high" in production, and more importantly, it is up to each and every individual consumer to decide whether or not he or she thinks something produced is "low" or "high." Industry and critics shouldn't try to make these decisions for us. We should make them ourselves. I do agree that a higher percentage of games than movies are cashing in right now, but I have found several titles that have high artistic value to me personally. Just because he is yet to find games that are valuable to him does not mean the media form should be written off. In the end, what only really matters is what we, as individuals, choose to see as art. We should not form such opinions about a collective medium, but rather, as each individual piece.
And surely, Andy Warhol saw the can itself as art, perhaps through his memories, his family, his childhood, or out of his necessity. Otherwise, he would not have taken the time to paint one. After all, paintings of a sunset are considered art, as are paintings of the beach. These are economical creations, necessary to sustain types of life, whether you believe in the big bang or creation, you have to admit that every thing on this planet was pretty much created to be part of a cycle of life, and is therefore a part of some large economy. The difference between a coup can and the sunset? Someone determined a long time ago that the sunset should be considered worthy of art, and people listened, whereas, a relatively short time ago, someone else was determined to prove things like soup cans were worthy of art, and some people listened. Essentially, all it takes for something to be art is recognition. If absolutely no one recognizes something as art, it ceases to be art. However, if any one person sees something as art, then all must accept and respect that there is artistical merit to that thing. Ebert realizes this, and he tries to minimize it. To degrade it with an abstract label of "low" shows that in some respect, he must fear it, since he chooses to openly attempt to belittle it. He admits games are art, and in doing so, shows his fear of the medium. He uses simple, broad classification as an attempt to neglect the medium, and it is his choice to neglect this art. He can't make me or you, or anyone else neglect the medium, though. He's tried and failed, obviously, which is why he fears it and attempts to justify himself. It's a little sad, but if that's his decision, then let him believe it.
There's no point in arguing with someone who is ignorant of what I think, who doesn't know me, and who does not influence me. I won't be emailing him, and I didn't in the first place. I recommend that none of you drop him a line. He doesn't know you, your experiences, nor all of your thoughts, and he will deny any of the like that you try to tell him, so don't worry about Ebert or others like him. Let them bask in their 'high' art, because it's something they enjoy, and we should not try to take that away from them.
Post by: Kairon on July 22, 2007, 01:13:46 PM
Post by: Caliban on July 22, 2007, 01:33:30 PM
Post by: ThePerm on July 22, 2007, 03:48:50 PM
video games are created by people
therefore, they are art.
things not created by people is actually nature, except elephant and gorilla paintings..which don't have a name, one could call them art however..because a person has to hand the gorillas or elephants paintbrushes in order for them to create their works.
Post by: Kairon on July 22, 2007, 05:14:09 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Caliban
Ebert reminds me of Evan.
Or vice-versa.
Post by: Caliban on July 22, 2007, 05:34:24 PM
I wonder if Ebert knows what a dictionary is, or does he have his own private dictionary with his own definitions of reality.
I do think videogames are an art form, they are art, Pong can be seen to be many things in either its simplicity or its complexity, it's subjective of course, but that is true for any art form, whether I think if Grafitti is art or not is not up to my definition of what art is, it is art because it is an abstraction expressed by a human. We, the planets, everything is an abstraction created/expressed by the Universe (I use Universe instead of God/s because that's what I believe in), we are art. Yes, I'm known to be crazy.
Post by: Kairon on July 22, 2007, 05:44:22 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on July 22, 2007, 07:11:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Just for referencing a great calvin and hobbes strip, you win. Hopefully that exempts you from Golden Phoenix's anti-intellectual wrath.
Calvin and Hobbes is probably the epitome of our society. I hope thousands of years from now, it is what the USA is known for.
Post by: Nick DiMola on July 23, 2007, 09:12:42 AM
If you personally think video games are art, they are no matter what Roger Ebert or anyone else says.
Post by: UERD on July 23, 2007, 12:58:29 PM
*votes yes*
Post by: mantidor on July 23, 2007, 04:20:29 PM
Thats is indeed another issue with games, they are simply NOT accesible to everyone. With the remote, I really think things will change, but it will be slowly, is the first step of many.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 23, 2007, 04:25:54 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
Art is a pretentious term only thrown around by snobs to prove that what they enjoy is better than what everyone else enjoys. As Mario said earlier, who cares? Whether or not they are art doesn't change a damn thing, so why bother arguing it?
If you personally think video games are art, they are no matter what Roger Ebert or anyone else says.
Yeah but, but, but differing opinions of art is causing the moral fabric of everything we know to crumble right before our eyes.
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on July 23, 2007, 07:21:35 PM
Just thought I'd give you guys a heads up.
(And no, Evan isn't there)
Post by: KDR_11k on July 23, 2007, 08:07:01 PM
Post by: Kairon on July 23, 2007, 09:34:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ViewtifulGamer
(And no, Evan isn't there)
This is a CRIME and you know it. How else can you decode Ebert's impenetrable thinking without his heir-apparent at hand?
Post by: Karl Castaneda #2 on July 24, 2007, 06:24:47 AM
Post by: Ceric on July 24, 2007, 08:17:21 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: UERD
I completely agree. Now we can go back to deciding whether video games are antisocial murder simulators that are powered by the souls of unborn babies.
*votes yes*
That explains what Odin Sphere is trying to teach me. and the power of love will see me through the trials
Post by: Nick DiMola on July 27, 2007, 05:57:25 AM
