Games....art or not?

[Silent_Bob]

I suppose there are definitions of "art" that video games don't fit. I doubt a video game will ever be displayed in an art gallery and sell for thousands of dollars, for instance.

It's true that games will never sell for thousands of dollars or be displayed in a museum,

Hate to correct you, but Nintendo World Championships: Gold Edition was sold in an auction for $18000, and i would argue that some collections i've seen could certainly qualify as a private museum.

Personally i don't hold any stock in Eberts declaration. Having never even played a videogame, why should anyone listen to his opinion?My opinion on whether the latest piece of avant-garde film making by Jurgen Haabermaaster was art or not would be worthless since i don't watch avant-garde films, so i'm not too bothered what Ebert rants on about.

 

[clint g]

I suppose there are definitions of "art" that video games don't fit. I doubt a video game will ever be displayed in an art gallery and sell for thousands of dollars, for instance.

It's true that games will never sell for thousands of dollars or be displayed in a museum,

Hate to correct you, but Nintendo World Championships: Gold Edition was sold in an auction for $18000, and i would argue that some collections i've seen could certainly qualify as a private museum.

Alright, I stand corrected Perhaps I should have said, barring special collections/rare items

 

[Mistral]

video games are a visually interactive medium. paintings are a visually interactive medium. Paintings can be art. Video games can be art. Anyone who has seen the water effects in Halo3 or the birds flying overhead in Far Cry 2 know that there is an artistic element to video games. As for Ebert-never cared what he said before about movies so I sure don't care about his take on games.

 

[CaptainStoner]

Everyone has covered the bases well here. A lot depends on where one's highbrow-lowbrow barometer lies. There were those who said jazz wasn't art. Rock wasn't art. Hip-hop wasn't art. Dance/trance wasn't art. Pop-country....well maybe the naysayers are right once in a while - - but not so! Even if you hate the genre, the session players can't be discounted.
Games are more analogous to movies - there are so many departments working together. The sum may seldom equal the parts - hence so many games with nice graphics that are a bore.

It is an interesting question. Is Chess an art? Perhaps the thing about games is the art co-exists in how they are played. But ultimately all of these things are subjective.
Being a primarily musical artist myself, I feel that anything that says its art, is art. Like it, dislike it, judge it how you will, but all artists have that creative license, and it's something that no one can ever take away from you.

 

[Davros]

Art is anything presented as art.

 

[Arrqh]

What I find particularly interesting is that while I'm solidly in the "games can be art" camp... I very much disagree with many of the arguments presented by other people on the same side.

 

[LitmusDragon]

A good example of a game which is also art would be Chrono Trigger, in my opinion.

You could take that story and turn it into a 1,000 word novel or a mini series and it would be good but oddly the original video game cartridge would probably be more affecting. The game play is also somehow a part of art, it's not simply art which happens to be a game.

 

[CorporalClegg]

A good example of a game which is also art would be Chrono Trigger, in my opinion.

You could take that story and turn it into a 1,000 word novel or a mini series and it would be good but oddly the original video game cartridge would probably be more affecting. The game play is also somehow a part of art, it's not simply art which happens to be a game.

 

[Iasius]

in the grand scheme of things, who cares?

i can understand the arguments for both sides and in the end, i still think, "why does it matter?"

It does have a certain consequences in Germany...

§ 86 StGB Dissemination of Means of Propaganda of Unconstitutional Organizations
(1) Whoever domestically disseminates or produces, stocks, imports or exports or makes publicly accessible through data storage media for dissemination domestically or abroad, means of propaganda:

[…]
4. means of propaganda, the contents of which are intended to further the aims of a former National Socialist organization, shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine. […]
(3) Subsection (1) shall not be applicable if the means of propaganda or the act serves to further civil enlightenment, to avert unconstitutional aims, to promote art or science, research or teaching, reporting about current historical events or similar purposes.

Currently, movies are considered art. Thus you have lots of swastikas (banned propaganda symbol) for example in movies like Indiana Jones or The Downfall in Germany.
However games are not considered art, thus games like Indiana Jones can't be sold in Germany if they display swastikas.

It's ridiculous (all of it), but ... yeah, it matters here whether games are art or not.

 

[firehawk12]

That's similar to what's happening at the Supreme Court in the US at the moment as well.

A good example of a game which is also art would be Chrono Trigger, in my opinion.

You could take that story and turn it into a 1,000 word novel or a mini series and it would be good but oddly the original video game cartridge would probably be more affecting. The game play is also somehow a part of art, it's not simply art which happens to be a game.

Maybe not the cart itself, but at least the code and the actions and reactions the code illicits in its players.

 

[LitmusDragon]

That's similar to what's happening at the Supreme Court in the US at the moment as well.

A good example of a game which is also art would be Chrono Trigger, in my opinion.

You could take that story and turn it into a 1,000 word novel or a mini series and it would be good but oddly the original video game cartridge would probably be more affecting. The game play is also somehow a part of art, it's not simply art which happens to be a game.

Maybe not the cart itself, but at least the code and the actions and reactions the code illicits in its players.

Yes that's what I meant. I mean the interactive game creates a sense of emotional investment in these characters that I think could not be equaled if you were to tell the same exact story conventionally.

I cited that game specifically because it's old and the technology is not at all impressive by today's standards but it uses the limited tools it had available quite effectively.

 

[Arrqh]

That's similar to what's happening at the Supreme Court in the US at the moment as well.

Not really; whether a game is art or not has no bearing on the legality of restricting its sale in the US... the first amendment applies to all forms of expression, not just art.

On that subject, it's amazing how many people in the US don't realize that movie ratings are self regulated and not actually enforced by law.

 

[FordSVT]

There is a very large school of thought in the art world that if something has a purpose other than simply being appreciated for the creative endeavour, it can't be considered true art. A video game can contain artistic merit (the textures and music and level design for example), but the whole can't be "art" itself. Neither can a car or a fork or any other object that was created to be used for something practical or tangible. I don't think something that is beautiful, enjoyable, or aesthetically pleasing can automatically be labelled art either. Neither is design synonymous with art, though it may contain or represent artistic qualities.

Most of this discussion is subjective.

 

[Arrqh]

There is a very large school of thought in the art world that if something has a purpose other than simply being appreciated for the creative endeavour, it can't be considered true art.

And there are absolutely some games that would qualify based on this criteria. And even if it's just a single game, it justifies the medium as a whole.

On the one hand, you're certainly right that just because art goes in to making a game that this does not make a game art. I always get very confused when people put this sort of thing forward as why they qualify games as art... it would be like saying a movie is art because the set designer is an artist. And yes they are, but the sum artistic components of a movie is not what defines the movie as a whole as an artistic experience... they're just components designed to do a job.

And it's the same with video games. The level art or the cinematics or any of that are created by artists but are designed to do a job. They may have artistic merit on their own, but all of that summed together is not what would make a game be art. What would is the experience perceived by a player as they interact with the game. Shadow of the Colossus is one of my favorite examples, partially because lots of people use it incorrectly as an example. Yes, the game looks gorgeous. Yes, all of the colossus look great. Yes, the game mechanics are engaging. But none of that is what makes the game as a whole art.

What does make it a form of artistic expression, at least in my point of view, is everytime I killed a colossus I felt sad. The game, through its structured experience and reliance on interactivity (which is intrinsic to the medium) created a spontaneous and intentional emotional response in me, the player. And even if a game contains a single moment out of so many hours that triggers an emotional or intellectual experince like this as a result of the game's structure leveraging the fundamental components of the medium, then the game as a whole presents artistic merit. That's something a car or a fork can never do.

You're right of course when you say that most of this discussion is subjective... but so it is with a discussion of any art. It just comes with the territory.

 

[darthraidr]

You're right of course when you say that most of this discussion is subjective... but so it is with a discussion of any art. It just comes with the territory.

exactly, and since "art" is so subjective, i feel it's not worth arguing about what is and what isn't art.

evoking an emotional response is also very subjective. you say a car or fork can't make you feel sad. i am sure that some people could find a car that evokes an emotional response.

but again, it doesnt matter nor should it matter. if everyone suddenly agreed "games are art" it doesnt change anything (except whatever the lame legal hoop jumping required for Germany). Shadow of the Colossus doesn't change. Braid doesn't change. Chrono Trigger doesn't change. Mortal Kombat doesn't change.

same if the world suddenly decides "games are not art." the games wouldnt change. the gameplay doesnt change. Shadow of the Colossus is not suddenly a worse game, nor is Braid, Chrono Trigger, Mortal Kombat, etc.

 

[firehawk12]

It's all context though. As Duchamp showed, you can make a urinal a piece of art if you want it to be.

I suppose the problem is whether game designers even want their games to be interpreted. Certainly, there's not much to say about big name American/Canadian games other than a) we like to kill each other and b) we like homoerotic subtext in the vein of 300.

(Marcus... I can't quit you... EAT SHIT AND DIE!!!!)

 

[STR]

There is a very large school of thought in the art world that if something has a purpose other than simply being appreciated for the creative endeavour, it can't be considered true art.

Self congratulating pretentious bull plop. Art is creativity for enjoyment. If it is not creative, it is surely not art. If it is not enjoyable, it is not art. A random splash of paint on a canvas that supposedly is an abstract idea, but was ultimately made in 10 minutes, is not art. A carefully considered composition is, unless it's just following some unwritten rulebook created by some self-appointed orthodoxy.

Therefore, a run-of-the mill generic shooter is not art, as it is not creative. Mass Effect is.

 

[darthraidr]

I suppose the problem is whether game designers even want their games to be interpreted.

speaking only for myself, i dont care if my work is viewed as art or not. one of my main concerns is if the people playing the game are enjoying it.

 

[FPAlpha]

If a canvas full of colored dots and lines can be called art just because Jackson Pollock went apeshit with some paint containers than video games have to regarded as art too.

Granted.. about 95-99% aren't. They are for entertainment purposes and they do fine in that regard but every once in a while a game is released that transcends these limitations.

Heck.. the terrorist mission on Modern Warfare 2 could be called art because it challenges the players to make a decision and reflect on violence and terrorism in general (utter bullshit because the mission was there for pure shock value and to drive sales with the heated discussion but that's a different topic).

Art is such a broad term and so highly subjective that Ebert's commentary reeks of arrogance.. especially if he never has played videogames beyond Super Mario or Pac Man.

 

[Teelie]

There is a very large school of thought in the art world that if something has a purpose other than simply being appreciated for the creative endeavour, it can't be considered true art.

Video games are art. It's an interactive art but an art none the less. The school of thought that says something with a purpose other than being appreciated for creativity are flat out wrong IMO. If it were true then you would have to disqualify virtually all movies, music, books or anything that's got more than just a creative reasoning behind it.

If people are disqualifying what is art because some aspect of it is not solely done for creative purposes (ie; video games), then the same standard must apply everywhere else. Movies could not be art because some are merely made for money. Same for music or sculptures or paintings. Write a book, it's not art because someone wrote it to make money and profit.

That standard of consideration cannot be subjectively used on a medium you disagree with like that.

Most of this discussion is subjective.

Most definitely, but someone like Ebert, a film critic, cannot be taken seriously as an art critic outside his profession. I wouldn't go to him to ask his opinion on whether someone's writings are artistic enough or what they mean because he is not trained in those fields.

Giving him credence for being something he's not doesn't make sense to me.