-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Video games as art controversy/Roger Ebert....
- Thread starter crackhead_bob
- Start date
Perhaps not the book itself, but I think there's an argument that the English language (or any language in fact) is a work of art.
I guess they're trying to argue the "It's just a tawdry product intended to make money" angle. For what it's worth, I think a piece of advertising can absolutely be a work of art, even if it only exists to sell burgers.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Comic books I'd argue didn't rise into "artistic merit" until the likes of Neil Geilman came to be, unlike tv shows or movies which had "artistic value" before.
Jon Carter
Member
A piece of art makes its commentary about the human condition or the world or whatever through its medium's defining feature - paint, sculpture, music, moving images, the written word, etc. Gaming's defining feature is interactivity. And you can't make a commentary through interactivity. A game can have Oscar-worthy story, music and art direction, and it still would not be a piece of art because it could have done all of that without interactivity. So not being art doesn't mean not being great. It just means it's not art.
Boss Doggie
all my loli wolf companions are so moe
Its creation is also a tale of its own, apparently the man behind Tetris never got his dues until only recently, post-communist Russia?
PatThePassive
Member
True games are relatively young but it only took film 10-15 years to make the leap from purely commercial entertainment (rescued by rover, other short films) to commercial art(Griffith BoaN) then 10 more to pure art (The Passion of Joan of Arc)
Armoured Priest
Member
Video Games can potentially represent a modern conception of Gesamtkunstwerk.
I've never understood the controversy because anything creative can be art.
I guess the controversy would more be is it fair or realistic to compare video games as artistic pieces to other forms of media, books, movies, paintings, etc. Are they able to represent themes and ideas to the same level and strength that other forms are able to? I would argue that due to the inherent nature of interactivity and reactivity in games, certain themes and feelings are better able to impress themselves through video games than other forms of art. Or more that the capacity to do so is there, although in most cases I'm not sure it's been done yet.
Just like paintings, and movies, and books, not all of them are good representations of artistry.
I guess the controversy would more be is it fair or realistic to compare video games as artistic pieces to other forms of media, books, movies, paintings, etc. Are they able to represent themes and ideas to the same level and strength that other forms are able to? I would argue that due to the inherent nature of interactivity and reactivity in games, certain themes and feelings are better able to impress themselves through video games than other forms of art. Or more that the capacity to do so is there, although in most cases I'm not sure it's been done yet.
Just like paintings, and movies, and books, not all of them are good representations of artistry.
Ignoring for a moment how weirdly specific and restrictive your definition of art is (where does that definition come from, if you don't mind me asking?), how about something like The Stanley Parable? I'd argue that game does exactly what you say a game can't do; it makes a commentary through interactivity.
i don't believe that's the case. You can absolutely tailor systems to mean that interactivity is stuck within a range of outcomes imho
More_Badass
Member
A door handle is interactive too
Games defining feature is the interweaving of interactivity with how story, art, themes and commentary, etc are expressed through interactivity.
Conkerkid11
Member
Why are you trying to redefine art in this thread?
What!?
Of course you can! There are entire genres of art focused on simply this. Interactive art didn't start with computers.
People loved and respected Ebert and he helped define film criticism at the same time that film analysis was being introduced in schools. So when Ebert first made the statement it was a real blow to those who appreciated the craft of videogames and who feel it can evoke emotions and ideas just as well as any other medium. Eventually he did a more in-depth explanation to his thoughts and frankly the anger seemed to subside, at least in my view. It became apparent that he fundamentally didn't understand the medium - why people might play them, the craft not just in visual and auditory elements but in the mechanics themselves and how they can communicate with the player or how they can allow the player to express themselves through it. he had no concept of the genres and their history or how they evolved. He simply wasn't versed in the medium and so couldn't make an educated critique of it.
Zelenogorsk
Banned
nevermind lol
PatThePassive
Member
The best game dose not stack up at all to the best or even great films (in my eyes)
The creation of a commercial uses a culmination of every type of art, framing, color theory, a narrative. etc.
He went ultra extreme in pointing to a purely commercial culmination of art to point that because its made up of things art uses and has does not make it art.
Also I really was caught off guard and his point resonated with me thats why it got the God Damn.
You haven't played a lot of RPGs have you?
Conkerkid11
Member
And the best movie doesn't stack up at all to the best or even great books (in my eyes). What's your point?
And how is a commercial not art?
brianmcdoogle
Member
The totality of my post was about what is your definition? Tetris was lacking some things you considered, as would a board game. And, again I may very much be misremembering Ebert's critique, but I thought part of it was about the weathering down of the definition? Last of Us is a piece of art. Ok. So, what of Tetris? What of Boom Beach or FarmVille? What of Pong? And, if Pong is art, is tennis then art?
A lot of time I see "art" mentioned in regards to video games, I feel like it's an 11th tier after the 1-10 video game review scale. As in like "art" was just something you said about a video game you felt really special about for numerous reasons.
But I think every video game is art (as well as every movie and every album), but some of it is really bad art and some is really good art. As in, the medium is an art form as everything else. Is this completely unrelated to this Roger Ebert art debate that's been happening forever? Am I completely mistaken about art?
But I think every video game is art (as well as every movie and every album), but some of it is really bad art and some is really good art. As in, the medium is an art form as everything else. Is this completely unrelated to this Roger Ebert art debate that's been happening forever? Am I completely mistaken about art?
PatThePassive
Member
So we have reached the point were art is subjective.
The art of a commercial is subjective I dont see it as art.
I Love games but don't see them as art.
All video games are art
You can think art is shitty though
I feel like that makes no damn sense
that's like having a long addition problem but suggestion your answer wouldn't be a number.
games are art
games are quite literally a combination of every popular art form today.
More_Badass
Member
Or Papers Please. Or Inside. Or any 4X game (I mean, exploit being part of your strategies?) or city-builder. And so on
What makes a commercial not art?
I mean if your bar for what is art is no higher than creative expression, then sure, most games are art.
But a strong argument can be made that art transcends that to become important to culture, to challenge the status quo and communicate/reveal insightful truths about life. This is the goal of The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Andy Warhol, Kara Walker, any fine artist, Quentin Tarantino, Stanley Kubrick, George R R Martin, George Orwell, Kendrick Lamar, and pretty much any important artist of the past 100 years.
Are there any video games that challenge players and reveal insights about life the way those artists do? Or are video games mostly intended to be products designed for escapism?
But a strong argument can be made that art transcends that to become important to culture, to challenge the status quo and communicate/reveal insightful truths about life. This is the goal of The Beatles, Bob Dylan, Andy Warhol, Kara Walker, any fine artist, Quentin Tarantino, Stanley Kubrick, George R R Martin, George Orwell, Kendrick Lamar, and pretty much any important artist of the past 100 years.
Are there any video games that challenge players and reveal insights about life the way those artists do? Or are video games mostly intended to be products designed for escapism?
Conkerkid11
Member
I'm sorry Timmy, I can't hang that monstrosity on the fridge. It simply isn't up to par with the works of Picasso.
PatThePassive
Member
For me when the purpose of your creation is to sell me something its not art.
if a commercial was created by Kubrick with the only purpose for it is to sell me something isn't art (to me)
Games are trying and some are getting better and closer to what I would consider art but they are not there yet.
I have been told I'm a talented illustrator. I make a living designing and illustrating. I wouldn't call myself an artist.
Yeah the endgame isnt being art. Nobody really cares whether they themselves can fit video games into some coherent & useful definition of art. People were upset about Ebert because they wanted *validation* from someone they respected. Of course video games can be art. But nobody craves to hear that from me, they crave to hear it from their parents and their bosses and their girlfriends and etc.
The thing that matters isnt are games art or can games be art but rather do people generally treat games as art. And the actual answer is that yes, lots of institutions that treat art seriously do treat video games seriously as art. Academia, museums, thinky magazines like the New Yorker or whatever. Games dont get as much exposure as, say, novels or paintings or photography, but then very few games actually rise above pulp.
The thing that matters isnt are games art or can games be art but rather do people generally treat games as art. And the actual answer is that yes, lots of institutions that treat art seriously do treat video games seriously as art. Academia, museums, thinky magazines like the New Yorker or whatever. Games dont get as much exposure as, say, novels or paintings or photography, but then very few games actually rise above pulp.
Conkerkid11
Member
Regardless of what you think you are, you're an artist.
Damn, I didn't realize that as soon as a movie or television show featured product placement, it was no longer considered a piece of art. I'll have to remember that one.
More_Badass
Member
Are any games important/cultural art pieces is a very different question than are games art
Nope, I'm an illustrator and graphic designer.
There ARE illustrators and graphic designers who are artists, but those are the guys on the front lines who put social commentary and bigger, more complex ideas into their work. I mean, I COULD do that as well, but it's not in me to be the person who should - that's for people with the soul of an artist. There's no shame in being a concept illustrator for video games instead of a gallery artist or something.
PatThePassive
Member
We are all artists (our photos, our stories we tell each other, our personas we create to present to others) but not everything we make is art.
Try to stop looking for a gotcha moment, we are talking about a completely subjective topic, its not math if it was we would call it math.
Did the people commissioning the works make those works into the art they are.
Try to stop looking for a gotcha moment, we are talking about a completely subjective topic, its not math if it was we would call it math.
But I'm asking if any games, from a narrative or artistic expression standpoint, are intended to be culturally important and pull it off. Obviously stuff like Sonic the Hedgehog, Mario and Zelda are important due to their place in the cultural lexicon, but you could say the same about a Volkswagon or barbie dolls too.
Tye The Czar
Member
It's incredibly hypocritical that they try to claim games as art while at the same time decrying any "political agendas" in games which is crucial in expressing said art.
Conkerkid11
Member
And what the hell is this supposed to mean?
A huge amount of human art was created because someone was trying to sell something.
Various Popes commissioned Michelangelo to point the Sistine Chapel to drum up tourism to the Vatican and to enhance the prestige and influence of Catholicism.
Shakespeare wrote half his political plays to keep various Lords and the Queen funding him. In turn they wanted allegories that enhanced them and their leadership of Britain.
I hate Bioshock, but if any video game is art, then every video game is art. Being bad doesn't make something not art. There is lots of bad art.
Why do you assume cultural importance has to involve intent? The Beatles didn't intend to be the biggest band ever, they just wrote some lovey-dovey pop songs and ended up being really popular.
Exactly what I said? Are you suggesting there isn't a distinction between the two? Because even some of the most talented creative directors who blur the line between art and games agree (Hideo Kojima, for example). Video games mostly tend to be escapes from the harsh realities of life whereas some of the best art intends to make the viewer/listener CONFRONT those things in a meaningful way. I cant think of many games that do that, and I can think of even fewer that do it well.
HyperZone<3
Member
as a fervent Ebert reader, I think had he lived to this day, and had not been battling a particularly nasty case of cancer (seriously, cancer must have hated him something special) In his last several years, he might have come around.
Part of what made him a great writer, and great presence on the page was his curiosity, he'd give anything a fair chance, and he enthusiastically sought out and championed obscure documentaries, indie films, foreign curios, whatever. I do think he'd be open to some of the more evocative and less 'gamey' games (he'd never warm to ICO, Papers Please maybe).
Games have changed very much even in the last few years, and in his last several he continued being a great film writer and memoirists but I'd forgive him for his tunnel vision in that regard. Guy had a lot on his plate.
Part of what made him a great writer, and great presence on the page was his curiosity, he'd give anything a fair chance, and he enthusiastically sought out and championed obscure documentaries, indie films, foreign curios, whatever. I do think he'd be open to some of the more evocative and less 'gamey' games (he'd never warm to ICO, Papers Please maybe).
Games have changed very much even in the last few years, and in his last several he continued being a great film writer and memoirists but I'd forgive him for his tunnel vision in that regard. Guy had a lot on his plate.
More_Badass
Member
Culturally important in what way?
Like does Papo & Yo qualify due to how its a semi-autobiographical metaphor for the creators childhood? Or the influx of surveillance/privacy themed games in how they reflect the fears of such in todays world like Papers Please and Orwell? Or the recent Dujanah reflecting on death and accepting death? Or CoD and modern military shooters in how they presented America, the war, etc.?
Literally not true.
Also I'm not saying ALL art needs to be about challenging the status quo and revealing insightful truths about life, but that is definitely something that defines art, especially modern, post-modern, metamodern, etc stuff.
Conkerkid11
Member
Shaming video game devs as if they're not on the same level as artists whose work is put into galleries is ridiculous.
Hideo Kojima can also say whatever he wants. That doesn't make it true. He can also say he put a half-naked woman in his game because it allows her to breathe, but that doesn't make it true.
wat
Construing someone saying no shame as them shaming on is a bold, creative work of interpretation. Congrats on your forum post here, Im certifying that it is art.
Phrozenflame500
Member
I'm not sure, but some people took the lack of validation really hard.
hahaha oh cliffyb
Anyways it was a dumb "controversy". He ended up backtracking a bit and admitting he wasn't that familiar with the medium anyways.
Obviously, I'm being fairly reductive, but as a band their cultural significance (whic is what you were referring to), began with their debut, which was well before they started experimenting.
OT though, you didn't actually answer my question. Again, why does art need to be "intended to be culturally important" to count in your book? Sure, it can be intentionally challenging, but purposefully making a work of cultural import generally requires a certain amount of privilege beforehand.
By that definition there are probably a good number of classical art pieces that are not art.
Since when does art require a message to be art? Art is simply creative expression. Whether the viewer is challenged with the harsh realities of life, driven to an emotional response, or simply admires the beauty of the thing, it is art. And as said above, not all art is good art either.
But simply adding interactivity certainly should not disqualify something from being art.
Don't forget Dys4ria and how it uses the medium of video games to share the experience of transitioning from male to female.
To be clear, I personally think some games are pretty successful at being art, but they are few and far between. I also feel like overall there are limits to how challenging/boundary-pushing as art games can be due to how they kinda also need to be successful products. I don't think there will be any games that confront society as sharply as a Todd Solondz, Steve McQueen or PT Anderson do any time soon.
Similar threads
- Poll