Author Topic: Video Games: Toys and Art  (Read 5499 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline nemo_83

  • Dream Master
  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
Video Games: Toys and Art
« on: February 15, 2006, 11:22:12 AM »
I concede that the majority of videogames I have played have not been art, it is an industry, more so than even the movie industry which still produces and distributes projects that required little more than a camera and a director with a vision. Film can be very direct. Videogames however are most commonly a team effort; it would be something else to see someone do an entire game by today's standards alone. But there are games which I believe are without a doubt art. And not because of flashy visuals, orchestrated music, or long CGI movies forcing cliche and melodramatic stories with laughable dialogue upon gamers.

Games tell their stories best on the surface; in The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past the player rescues the princess rather than watching a short clip of the character rescuing the princess; the outcome does not change, but the journey is always unique and it is the journey which matters, not the end. Everything that happens unfolds during play before the gamer's eyes. The experience is the farthest reach of showing the audience rather than telling the audience in fiction. The audience gets to step in as the actor in the play. In the future it would great to be able to talk through the character via microphone so when you speak, it is real time, and it is the character's voice in the game.

Furthermore the Zelda IP draws on some of the oldest archetypes, makes allusions, and explores themes from stories like Beowulf, Le Morte d'Arthur, the Gospels, and Norish mythology.

I feel the medium of videogames can act as a path for expression. Art is the act of communicating, it may be Allen Ginsberg carrying on a conversation with Walt Whitman, Chuck Jones talking to Walt Disney, or Malory and Miyamoto. I believe history will look back upon early videogames and proclaim them art.

If you ask me, technology has changed things; and honestly the painter has been left behind. When the camera first came out painters sought to do things with color (another benefit of the new industrialized world) which the camera could not. And eventually moving pictures came along, so painters became abstract portraying objects in multiple perspectives from multiple moments in time; it became a technique, it became an aesthetic, and in my opinion was elitist. In writing classes one of the first things one learns is to not be abstract. I propose an analogy; Robert Frost vs Ezra Pound. Both poets explored imagism in their poetry, but Frost chose to keep to familiar subject matter and talked about it with a simpler tongue. Pound was less interested in the regular Joe reading his poetry. In the same way, painting has sort of gone off and left the masses far behind speaking only to other painters with their art. I much prefer Bacon to some geometric lines and three colors trying to tell me about composition. If I want to study composition I will look at Da Vinci.

If Whitman can sing about himself without form; then one can paint spontaneously. Art can be sculptural, organic, and still graphic.

If a story is told with images in words, then it can be told with images on film or in a game as only film and games can go where painting cannot without becoming abstract. Videogames and film are direct expressions of the fourth dimension. Like reading a book, one doesn't always have to play a game in the direction it is meant to be played. I see the videogame as the a place where the gamer gets to enter the stage and experience the side of art which is performance. The developer creates the world in which the story takes place, and the gamer plays the lead role in the tale; a great game is one which your friends can sit and watch and enjoy it along with you as though it were a movie, but I prefer coop.



Some quotes from the February issue of Official Playstation Magazine:

OPM: Have you heard of [film critic] Roger Ebert's assessment that videogames can never be viewed as art? How do you feel about that?

Hideo Kojima: I don't think they're art either, videogames. The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, then it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play the game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art.

For example, look at a concept car. You don't have to be able to drive a car, but if it's called a car and it has artistic elements in the visuals, then it's art. But an actual car, like a videogame, is interactive, so it's something used by people, so it's like a car where you have to drive it. There are 100 people driving a car; they have 100 ways of driving it and using it. It could be families driving the car. It could be a couple driving a car. The owner of the car could be driving along the coastline, or they could go up into the mountains, so this car has to be able to be driven by all 100 of these people, so in that sense it's totally not art.



OPM: So do you think the user's involvement in affecting the outcome of a game affects a game's artistic credibility, because it's left to the user to "finish" the painting?

HK: Not necessarily. Online games maybe, because what you're doing is basically providing them the arena, the play tools, and leaving everything up to the player, so for online games, maybe yes. What I do with my videogames, and specifically Metal Gear Solid, is provide a canvas and paint and the paintbrushes to everyone who buys the game. Obviously, some people can draw well or paint well while some people cannot. I basically provide them with the tools and make sure these people are satisfied with their painting. They're like, "Man, I'm a marvelous artist. I can paint! I can draw!" I make sure they get the satisfaction when they play my games, that they're able to draw something that they're satisfied with at the end.

OPM: Games like Shadow of the Colossus and Ico are the game most often referred to as art in videogame form, due to their distinct visual quality. Many people point to those games as art. Do you think there are exceptions, such as these games, where you could look at them and say, "OK, those are art"? Or do you think all games fall under a blanket assessment?

HK: I think they're good games, but I think they're just another game. In [Shadow of the Colossus], you ride a horse. It's a horse; it looks like a horse. But in art, I can paint this cup [lifts up his coffee cup] and call the painting Horse. That's art. The music and the graphics used in a game--they have artistic elements, I agree. But everything else is very intuitive. It's easy to play in the sense that the horse looks like a horse and you obviously know that you have to ride the horse, so what I think it does is provide a service.

Maybe let's say there's a game out there where there's a boss that you cannot defeat. It's made that way. Normallly, when you beat the boss in a game, there's a sense of satisfaction and accomplishment, but if you can't beat the boss at all, if what you're left with is a sense of loss, then maybe that could be defined as art. You know Taro Okamoto--he's dead but a very famous Japanese artist. I don't know the official English translation of it, but one of his pieces is called The Refusing Chair. It's something that sort of looks like a chair, but it's got bumps on it, so you can't sit on it, but if you do, it's going to hurt your butt. With videogames you have to make sure you can sit on the chair. That's why you want to think about art and videogames. I think the lousiest videogames can be considered art. Because bad games with no fun aren't really games, by definition.

OPM: Speaking of Mori Museum, there's an exhibit going on there right now on Hiroshi Sugimoto. One of the placecards on a photograph of a mathematically inspired sculpture has a quote of Sugimoto's that says, "Art resides even in things with no artistic intentions." So it's reasonable to suggest that a game has just as much opportunity to be art as an apple on a plate.

HK: You know, with videogames becoming something that anyone can play at any time because they've become so popular and mainstream in our lives, I think contemporary artists out there could use videogames and create art--like The Refusing Chair, the unplayable videogame. It's there, it looks playable, but you just can't control it.



What I got from the interview was that Hideo Kojima feels games and game design are more a craft than an art as games like pottery are ment to be used.  I like that he thinks of his games as a canvas or sandbox; but his opinions on how games can't be art because they are something anyone can use are scary.  Is great film not accessible; does not Shakespeare endure because he is easy to read?  I believe if there is any reason a game is not art it is because of the interface keeping it from being directly interacted with by the gamer.  That is why I decided to post this here.  The Revolution can truly make games art.

You may disagree, you may believe there are no games at all that qualify as art, but I believe history will have louder voice and I believe, like a Spiderman comic or Elvis song, this new medium will have its day of recognition.  
Life is like a hurricane-- here in Duckburg

Offline Ian Sane

  • Champion for Urban Champion
  • Score: 1
    • View Profile
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #1 on: February 15, 2006, 11:56:32 AM »
I think Kojima is being an elitist with his comments like painters who would not consider a realistic drawing of a landscape as art.

I consider some games art though typically my opinion of what games are and what games aren't doesn't follow a set of rules.  I consider Super Metroid art.  I don't consider Madden 2006 art.  Deep down my opinion is probably more "if I think it sucks it's not art" which isn't really a fair way to critique.

I've always had an idea in the back of my head that if videogames became standardized like DVDs for movies or CDs for music what old games would have to be made available for the one console.  The criteria for what games I would include, if for whatever reason I was in charge of this task, would all have a timeless nature to them.  Basically for something like Zelda all the games would be included.  For something like Madden however probably none of the games would be and EA would just continue with their annual releases starting with the first year the standard console was available.  At best maybe Madden '94 would be included as a historical representation of what Madden was like in 2D but there wouldn't be much reason to include all the Maddens.

Some games are made in such a way that they can be enjoyed forever.  Even if they become dated they'll be fondly remembered for groundbreaking features that influenced the games of today.  Those games I consider art.  Some games aren't made to be timeless.  When EA makes a game typically the shelf life of that game is only supposed to be a year at which point the next sequel comes out.  EA doesn't care if people still play Madden 2005.  They don't want you to play that game anymore.  They want you to buy the new one.  Other games that fall into this category would be copycat games that just rip off a hot formula.  The games are not expected to last after the "fad" wears off, they don't provide anything noteworthy to gaming and they were never meant to.  That would be something like Aero the Acrobat.  The goal was never to make anything significant.  It was just supposed to be a cash-in on the mascot game craze.  Finally I would also consider franchise milking to not be art depending on the situation.  Space Invaders is art.  Taito remaking Space Invaders for the 10th time in hope that the familiar name gets them a few bucks isn't.

Because gaming is a business one could argue that all games are just product since the goal is to make money.  But I think that's too limiting.  If games aren't art for that reason then neither is any comic made by DC or Marvel because those were also money-driven.  Or virtually ANY TV show for that matter.  Hell most books only exist because they publisher gave it the green light.  I think the attitude of the team creating it plays a part.  A team that strives to make the best game they can and who clearly cares about what they're making is making art.  They want to make the game and they're taking pride in their work.  Shigeru Miyamoto makes games because Nintendo makes money off of them.  He wouldn't even have the opportunity to make games otherwise.  But he clearly cares about the titles he makes so they're art.

I think a lot of people get hung up on story or the intended message and stuff like that.  If you're being creative and care about what you're making it's art.

Offline Artimus

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #2 on: February 15, 2006, 12:04:04 PM »
I dont consider any games art. Nor do I want them to become art. Because every 'art' game I've played, just isn't fun. Gameplay and fun should always be paramount (fun doesn't equal light or storyless, can still be dark and very deep).

Offline Ceric

  • Once killed four Deviljho in one hunt
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #3 on: February 15, 2006, 12:24:12 PM »
I personally think this is a pretty good article and more to be placed as an article... *hint hint* *pokes admins* ... With that out of the way.  It's the whole craft thing I like to bring up.  I'm going to use clothes.

No one will argue with me that there are some very nice looking clothes.  They have all the property of art but not considered unless they are on display.  Art is displayed not used.  "Look but don't touch"  Art is something created.  Art is never art when it's being created.  Only after it has been.  Until then it's just paint.  A performance can be art.  It has already been created and the person is just the untouchable media.  In general I agree that it can't truly be art unless it is abstracted away.  Interaction makes things unrefined and pulls them out of the art realm.

By that definition a video game could be art but only if its a routine put on for another.  So in the end Video games can never be art for the person playing it.  Only the ones around.
Need a Personal NonCitizen-Magical-Elf-Boy-Child-Game-Abused-King-Kratos-Play-Thing Crimm Unmaker-of-Worlds-Hunter-Of-Boxes
so, I don't have to edit as Much.

Offline Dirk Temporo

  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #4 on: February 15, 2006, 07:02:50 PM »
Wind Waker was art. It was bloody beautiful.
"You've had your dream old man. It's time to wake up!"
-Travis Touchdown

Offline zakkiel

  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #5 on: February 15, 2006, 07:32:41 PM »
I said it before, and I'll say it again: "art" is just a term of elite approval. No one can define it, and the things considered art vary wildly from age to age. Ergo, ain't no such thing as art in an objective sense. And if it absorbs you, captivates you, moves you, who cares what you call it anyway?
Defenestration - the only humane method of execution.

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #6 on: February 15, 2006, 09:40:55 PM »
There was a thread just like this caused by Kojima's art comments a month ago.

WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE.
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline Ceric

  • Once killed four Deviljho in one hunt
  • Score: 0
    • View Profile
RE:Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #7 on: February 16, 2006, 04:21:28 AM »
Boredom and frustrating jobs.  
Need a Personal NonCitizen-Magical-Elf-Boy-Child-Game-Abused-King-Kratos-Play-Thing Crimm Unmaker-of-Worlds-Hunter-Of-Boxes
so, I don't have to edit as Much.

Offline couchmonkey

  • I tye dyed my Wii and I love it
  • Score: 2
    • View Profile
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #8 on: February 16, 2006, 04:48:02 AM »
Everything is art, it's just either good or bad art.  Madden is bad art.  Case dismissed!
That's my opinion, not yours.
Now Playing: The Adventures of Link, Super Street Fighter 4, Dragon Quest IX

Offline nemo_83

  • Dream Master
  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
RE:Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #9 on: February 16, 2006, 11:08:09 PM »
Kojima's argument is that the reason games aren't art is because they are accessable; I believe however that accessability is a qualification for being art.  

For example, artists do not write poems or songs only for themselves; the challeng, the art of poetry is making someone else understand and maybe feel what you do.  I contend it is about the act of communicating.  And some artists like Ezra Pound purposfully build a wall between themselves and regular readers just to show they are smarter (I do it too with my own poetry some times, but I try to make allusions educated readers will either get or be curious enough to look up and learn something, and at the same time make it so the regular citizen can find something of interest there even though they don't even know what an allusion is) and noone will read their poetry and they will be forgotten and that's how the Oreo you dropped in the milk crumbles.  You're better off with a more solid cookie, not some abstract compilation of parts that seperate from one another.  

A piece's success as art depends on its ability to communicate to as many people as possible.  You can't know a good poem from garbage until you have had to eat garbage.  If the language is all pretty but the poem makes no sense it's useless.  

The best games are accessible.  Anyone can pick up Super Mario Bros or The Legend of Zelda and play because all the difficulty is within the game solving the puzzles and exploring.  The interface was direct in simple in the beginning, two buttons and a crosshair, but now the industry has made it more difficult to be art.  The controller these days is an eye sore, what way to control anything is that?  You have to be a long time Zelda fan to understand how to control the game without a long boring tutorial catching you up on the past 20 years (and meanwhile slowing down all the gamers who already know how to play and just want to jump in).  Enter, the Revolution; games are easy to experience again, the woes of controlling 3D with 2D controllers are over, and developers can begin to focus more about what is inside the game rather than button layouts.  
Life is like a hurricane-- here in Duckburg

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #10 on: February 16, 2006, 11:22:08 PM »
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline nemo_83

  • Dream Master
  • Score: -1
    • View Profile
RE:Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #11 on: February 17, 2006, 06:28:18 PM »
I knew that quote was coming.  touche  Movies are entertainment, does that disqualify them from being art?  I enjoy studying paintings and poetry, does that mean they can't be art?

If someone pisses on a piece of paper and declairs it art, it doesn't make it art; if someone puts forth the hard work to create something that has never existed and then says it isn't art, that doesn't mean it will not be looked at as art in the future.  Art will be judged not by the creator but by those who write the history books.  

Is a defaced statue of the former president of Iraq art, well a lot of people would be willing to pay a whole lot of money for it so it could very well be now.  But I'm sure the creator's intent was more to get the job done rather than to create something worthy of being in a museum; its new found value has to do with its historical significance.  


Life is like a hurricane-- here in Duckburg

Offline bustin98

  • Bustin' out kids
  • Score: 30
    • View Profile
    • Web Design Web Hosting Computer Sales and Service
RE:Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #12 on: February 17, 2006, 09:02:31 PM »
From what Hideo was saying, its almost as if the player is the artist. Video game designers just create the fabric while we do something with it. But that would be like driving to work is art.

If you are skillful at something, does that make you an artist?

I think as a concept, video games are art. The concept of Metal Gear is art, the concept of Donkey Kong is art. Those people that created the concept are artists. Even translating that concept to a workable product requires some sort of artistic skill. Its not like everything is laid out on paper and everyone puts it together like a paint by number. There are times in development cycle where adaptions must be made. The choices made from that point can't all just be "the next logical step", there has to be some "let's try this" to it.

Look at comic books. They provide a service and need to appeal to everyone, but try telling some fanboy with original pages plastered on his walls that he's not collecting art.

In the end video games are a product. But the concept and idea that goes into it, the blood, sweat, and tears, thats art.

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #13 on: February 17, 2006, 09:21:20 PM »
Right.  Videogames can be products of artists; may be composed of individual pieces of art.  But in the end they're entertainment products.  They're products that demand a "customer," an "end user."  Art, essentially, does not have that restriction.
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline wandering

  • BABY DAISY IS FREAKIN HAWT
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
    • XXX FREE HOT WADAISY PICS
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #14 on: February 17, 2006, 09:42:09 PM »
...Except art often does have that restriction. Shakespeare, at least, wrote for the masses.

With that said, most games aren't art. But that doesn't mean that they can't be art.
“...there are those who would...say, '...If I could just not have to work everyday...that would be the most wonderful life in the world.' They don't know life. Because what makes life mean something is purpose.  The battle. The struggle.  Even if you don't win it.” - Richard M. Nixon

Offline NinGurl69 *huggles

  • HI I'M CRAZY
  • Score: 28
    • View Profile
    • Six Sided Video
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #15 on: February 18, 2006, 01:34:44 AM »
I DON'T KNOW ANY MORE
:: Six Sided Video .com ~ Pietriots.com ::
PRO IS SERIOUS. GET SERIOUS.

Offline Mario

  • IWATA BOAT!?
  • Score: 8
    • View Profile
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #16 on: February 18, 2006, 02:19:46 AM »
Art can be anything. I am art, because that person over there is staring at me. This pen is art, because i'm twirling it around having a look at it. That Xbox 360 over there is art, because people are pointing at it.
Quote

With that said, most games aren't art. But that doesn't mean that they can't be art.

Which means they are! This is the most pointless discussion of all time.

Offline wandering

  • BABY DAISY IS FREAKIN HAWT
  • Score: 3
    • View Profile
    • XXX FREE HOT WADAISY PICS
RE: Video Games: Toys and Art
« Reply #17 on: February 19, 2006, 08:24:21 PM »
Things which aren't created by humans generally aren't considered art, by definition. Though perhaps they should be.
“...there are those who would...say, '...If I could just not have to work everyday...that would be the most wonderful life in the world.' They don't know life. Because what makes life mean something is purpose.  The battle. The struggle.  Even if you don't win it.” - Richard M. Nixon