Support NeoGAF

[zoukka]

(BIG BIOSHOCK SPOILERS AHEAD)

If I had to nominate a single moment from any video game to be named art, it would be

Spoiler

the murder of Andrew Ryan

in Bioshock.

Spoiler

When you arrive in front of the man you thought was the main antagonist, the game treats you to a scene of self-referential horror in which the archetypal guide character, Atlas, turns out to have been controlling your character the whole time with a code phrase that discreetly compels obedience. Presently your controls are disabled and you're forced to watch yourself bludgeon to death Ryan in a brutal demonstration of what it means to have your mind enslaved.

This arresting sequence makes a keen metaphor of the familiar passive act of watching a cutscene. Very few games venture insightful commentary on themselves as a medium, or the complacence we gamers develop as we grow familiar with common gameplay and plot devices. Bioshock did it better than any other title has.

Sorry but that scene was ruined for me exactly because it wasn't interactive. Somehow I felt really disconnected with the whole scene and the

Spoiler

would you kindly

felt like a cheap gimmick. Sure it worked in the context of the story, but had no special effect on me.

The death of Boss in Snake Eater was better executed for me. You could pull the trigger or just stand there staring at her lying in the ground and wishing nothing would happen... but this is not a game where the player makes story choices, so what happens is inevitable. But just the fact that you CAN pull the trigger yourself was incredibly moving somehow.

 

[Safe Bet]

That does depend, rather, on what you think the medium is meant to do.

The capabilities of the medium are way too vast to assume we know what it is "meant to do" unless we use the most broadest of definitions such as "engaging the player".



Edit:

After a few minutes of thought...

Choice & Consequence

That's what the medium is.

 

[Sirius]

Who decides whether something is an art form, or not?

Unless da Vinci was resurrected and got acquainted with gaming, I couldn't care less about the opinion of any one individual on the matter.


Art pervades. Games captivate. We admire.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Sorry but that scene was ruined for me exactly because it wasn't interactive. Somehow I felt really disconnected with the whole scene and the

Spoiler

would you kindly

felt like a cheap gimmick. Sure it worked in the context of the story, but had no special effect on me.

I was pissed off at the game for it. It created a sort of cognitive dissonance in me, and I felt like the game betrayed me in a way. After a bit I began to appreciate it, but I still think it was kind of cheap. It was a powerful moment though.

 

[Safe Bet]

I was pissed off at the game for it.

I may be wrong, but..

I think that's the point.

You're suppose to be pissed off by the lack of control/choice.

 

[zoukka]

I may be wrong, but..

I think that's the point.

You're suppose to be pissed off by the lack of control/choice.

The scene would've been better if they'd let you in control for a while and made you believe you could make a choice. I wish I would've been pissed! I felt nothing

 

[mclem]

The scene would've been better if they'd let you in control for a while and made you believe you could make a choice. I wish I would've been pissed! I felt nothing

There is one text adventure I can think of that did something interestingly cruel along those lines.

http://zmpp.sourceforge.net/games/play.php?name=Shrapnel (Adam Cadre)&storyfile=shrapnel.z5

 

[Mael]

That does depend, rather, on what you think the medium is meant to do.

That's a good point, although I'm fairly certain that gaming is not meant to be a movie with interactive action sequence in between :-/

 

[Wickerbasket]

That's a good point, although I'm fairly certain that gaming is not meant to be a movie with interactive action sequence in between :-/

Tell that to Quantic Dream.

Spoiler

They seem to have done well for themselves.

 

[MisterHero]

Who decides whether something is an art form, or not?

Unless da Vinci was resurrected and got acquainted with gaming, I couldn't care less about the opinion of any one individual on the matter.

Art pervades. Games captivate. We admire.

I think it should be up the people that the already existing conversation somehow completely missed:

Spoiler

the game creators themselves

.

Well I just looked one opinion up, and maybe he is or isn't the authority on the matter, but Shigeru Miyamoto said this when he accepted his BAFTA award: "I have never said that video games (are) an art.". Which is okay I guess but perplexes me somewhat since Donkey Kong is recognized as one of the first (if not first) game to prioritize characters and story alongside the gameplay rather than programming and sprites. In the end though, there's his opinion on the matter.

Ebert says he's okay with gamers and videogames but the way he says it, it's like he's saying "let the baby have its candy" and I don't think that's an answer anyone should accept.

 

[Mael]

Tell that to Quantic Dream.

Spoiler

They seem to have done well for themselves.

That's a good point but still since you can decide the outcome of the game and have an actual impact on the scenario, I'd say it's a way more successful as a game as say....Killzone2

 

[green_focus]

How can games not be art?
A game is the combination of multiple art forms. Music, textures, actors and directors (and anyone who has had to make code do what you want it to knows that there is clever design made by talented hands). Not that this argument matters terribly much either way.

whatev'...

 

[BobsRevenge]

I think it should be up the people that the already existing conversation somehow completely missed:

Spoiler

the game creators themselves

.

Well I just looked one opinion up, and maybe he is or isn't the authority on the matter, but Shigeru Miyamoto said this when he accepted his BAFTA award: "I have never said that video games (are) an art.". Which is okay I guess but perplexes me somewhat since Donkey Kong is recognized as one of the first (if not first) game to prioritize characters and story alongside the gameplay rather than programming and sprites. In the end though, there's his opinion on the matter.

Ebert says he's okay with gamers and videogames but the way he says it, it's like he's saying "let the baby have its candy" and I don't think that's an answer anyone should accept.

I don't think this is necessary at all for games to be an art. Like I said before, I think Osmos is more artful than the vast majority of games by having such an elegant design that emphasizes concepts such as orbital gravity and the cosmos, as well as competition, evolution, and biology. The latter is more abstractly presented than the former, but I still find it apparent. It is open to interpretation as well. The more challenging levels really emphasize an understanding of efficiency and require a thoughtfulness that sort of bring these thoughts home.

When playing it I am constantly struck by its elegance, and I honestly believe it to be the most elegant game I've ever played. I think it is fascinating as art. There is no story or characters, and it is a wonderful example of how gameplay alone can be art by reducing concepts to something so simple yet rich. Concepts basic to our understanding of the universe.

 

[Mael]

How can games not be art?
A game is the combination of multiple art forms. Music, textures, actors and directors (and anyone who has had to make code do what you want it to knows that there is clever design made by talented hands). Not that this argument matters terribly much either way.

whatev'...

question that says are all games art is like saying are all buildings art...
I mean sure the Eiffel Tower and Liberty Statue but the warehouse in the docks?

 

[charlequin]

There is one text adventure I can think of that did something interestingly cruel along those lines.

If someone who was open-minded (i.e. not Roger Ebert) wanted to investigate the possibility of games-as-art, I'd unquestionably point them to the world of Interactive Fiction to start with. IF games are pretty much just prose text (a medium whose artistic value is well-understood, and which is broadly understandable to a wide group of people), expanded with interactivity: it's both an ideal way to view the interactive narrative elements of gaming in as close to isolation as possible, and the area of the gaming medium where pretty much all of the really innovative experimentation with interactive narrative is being done.

 

[jdogmoney]

Emotion isn't art it's emotion. If i get a sense of desperation looking at modern day society is that then art? No.
What you experience emotionally doesn't then define what it actually is, only what emotionally it means to you. That's not art.

You...you just said...look:

Isn't art almost timeless? Where video games certainly are not.
If you put say something like flower forward as art in 5 years time from now you'll be laughed at so hard it would be ridiculous, however a classic painting will still be considered art for centuries.
Why do people want games to be classed as art anyway?
Games are to be played for a sense of achievement/competition/enjoyment. If you seriously want anything else from games then it could probably be much better served to you else where.

Take just one of my examples, and give me an example of how that could be better conveyed in a different medium.

 

[mclem]

If someone who was open-minded (i.e. not Roger Ebert) wanted to investigate the possibility of games-as-art, I'd unquestionably point them to the world of Interactive Fiction to start with. IF games are pretty much just prose text (a medium whose artistic value is well-understood, and which is broadly understandable to a wide group of people), expanded with interactivity: it's both an ideal way to view the interactive narrative elements of gaming in as close to isolation as possible, and the area of the gaming medium where pretty much all of the really innovative experimentation with interactive narrative is being done.

Definitely seconded. I've spoken a great deal about games-as-art from the point of view of *gameplay*-as-art, but one other valid interpretation is where some aspect of the gameplay has meaning in the context of the story.

As in the Bioshock example listed above,

Spoiler

the limitations in a gameplay sense, the fact that you are forced to play through the plotline of the game, ends up having a significant meaning from a storyline point-of-view.

Another good example, looping back to IF, is what many people think of as one of the crowning achievements of the modern IF era; Photopia, also does something similar. In that,

Spoiler

many of the key scenes are what would appear to be 'cutscenes', with extremely limited actions or reactions. However, the most game-like portions are also meaningful as part of the story it's telling; they're all part of the framing 'babysitter' sequences, and I think the realisation of this fact adds extra poignancy to the overall storyline

.

 

[spazzfish]

You...you just said...look:



Take just one of my examples, and give me an example of how that could be better conveyed in a different medium.

Ok sure lets take your example of introspection.

Definition:Contemplation of one's own thoughts, feelings, and sensations; self-examination.

Books, films, ocean diving, visiting other cultures, looking up at the stars with a telescope, using a microscope, heck even religion (though not my choice). Just about anything in the real world can lead to introspection far greater then any game, simply on the basis that they are real.
Watch the news, witness a tragedy, drink to much. Seriously I can list for ages but i wont
If your talking specifically about what you are doing in SOTC with regards what the game is showing you then that can be created better in books and films.

 

[Prince of Space]

So you're saying Flower is just art, not a game.

Uh....no?

Three words, sire, in stark disagreement:

Spoiler

Would you kindly?

The gameplay was linear. You couldn't progress until you did what you were told. "A man chooses, a slave obeys" ties into the game's "message" pretty well, I think.

BioShock might've been a good example if the game actually let you choose what you wanted to do following that pivotal scene. It didn't though, so the game's "message" falls flat in the end.

 

[jdogmoney]

Perhaps I was unclear. Name one example of art, a specific example, that leads the participant, (be they reader or viewer or listener), to question their own actions as well as SotC did.

 

[Mael]

Perhaps I was unclear. Name one example of art, a specific example, that leads the participant, (be they reader or viewer or listener), to question their own actions as well as SotC did.

You REALLY don't want to go there

 

[BobsRevenge]

Ok sure lets take your example of introspection.

Definition:Contemplation of one's own thoughts, feelings, and sensations; self-examination.

Books, films, ocean diving, visiting other cultures, looking up at the stars with a telescope, using a microscope, heck even religion (though not my choice). Just about anything in the real world can lead to introspection far greater then any game, simply on the basis that they are real.
Watch the news, witness a tragedy, drink to much. Seriously I can list for ages but i wont
If your talking specifically about what you are doing in SOTC with regards what the game is showing you then that can be created better in books and films.

But, it's not about what the game is showing you, it's what you're doing in the game. That's the point. And that can't be presented in books or films. However, for the game it is essential to its effect.

I don't think it is very useful for introspection, but it is brilliantly presented, aesthetic, and impactful in ways rivaling good films and books. Not really great books and movies, but it stands above the average quality of releases in both mediums in terms of quality as a piece of art. At least, that's how I judged it.

 

[MisterHero]

I don't think this is necessary at all for games to be an art. Like I said before, I think Osmos is more artful than the vast majority of games by having such an elegant design that emphasizes concepts such as orbital gravity and the cosmos, as well as competition, evolution, and biology. The latter is more abstractly presented than the former, but I still find it apparent. It is open to interpretation as well. The more challenging levels really emphasize an understanding of efficiency and require a thoughtfulness that sort of bring these thoughts home.

When playing it I am constantly struck by its elegance, and I honestly believe it to be the most elegant game I've ever played. I think it is fascinating as art. There is no story or characters, and it is a wonderful example of how gameplay alone can be art by reducing concepts to something so simple yet rich.

I understand that games don't have to be art to be enjoyable, I just don't like Ebert's disparaging view about something that so many people enjoy.

Maybe I can compare with the status animated movies have compared to their live-action counterparts. Wanting the Oscars to give an animated film Best Picture might be a presumption that one of the animated movies released that year is superior to any live-action film in that year. However, the opposite is true year after year.

I don't know if they'll make an animated film that will ever take the place of a live-action film. Not because they're bad, but because live-action just offers much more for people to absorb and analyze, both intentionally and accidentally.

 

[bunbun777]

Last time I checked art in the loosest sense is the affectation of emotions and senses. Seems like this or comic books (sorry) gets the short end of the stick.

Of course they are bloody art but some choose to consider it lowbrow, and that goes for celluloid and practically everything modern culture holds dear.

 

[Odrion]

ebert is old and out of touch when it comes to games

wait a couple decades for the change in generation and for people who are more familiar around games to populate the critic ring

 

[Safe Bet]

BioShock might've been a good example if the game actually let you choose what you wanted to do following that pivotal scene.

*standing clap*

If it would have let you choose what to do next the message of the game would have been "Where once there was no choice, there now is."

Instead we got "There is no choice in video games. You suck and so does your passion. Now go do more of what your told like the good little boy you are."

 

[Safe Bet]

I think it should be up the people that the already existing conversation somehow completely missed:

Spoiler

the game creators themselves

.

Fuck Them

 

[140.85]

In the end Ebert is just guessing here. He's arguing from a point of ignorance.

 

[spazzfish]

But, it's not about what the game is showing you, it's what you're doing in the game. That's the point. And that can't be presented in books or films. However, for the game it is essential to its effect.

I don't think it is very useful for introspection, but it is brilliantly presented, aesthetic, and impactful in ways rivaling good films and books. Not really great books and movies, but it stands above the average quality of releases in both mediums in terms of quality as a piece of art. At least, that's how I judged it.

Ok so if i get what your saying, the fact that you have an interaction with a video game based on reflex that makes it artistic (in this case)?
A game can only show you what the creator wants via reflex input in a very linear fashion.
This in itself will limit/hamstring games in a way films wont be. They have more scope to create what they want without a need for a game getting in the way.
Now i'm not saying games can't do this, but the more they get this right the more games as games will suffer (but that's another argument). So you might as well watch a film instead.
To say reflexive interaction makes much difference is moot. If your talking about emotion and triggering it, i've seen more people cry looking at a picture on a wall then i've ever known in a video game, but again triggering emotions has no relevance on what's art or not.
You can look at a sculpture or picture and have no emotional response at all, but still appreciate it as a piece of art.
What i'm surprised to see unless i'm wrong with some posters is that emotion=art, where really art might provoke emotion.

 

[zoukka]

Perhaps I was unclear. Name one example of art, a specific example, that leads the participant, (be they reader or viewer or listener), to question their own actions as well as SotC did.

Most good books that study humanity. Most good war novels. The list will not end.

Though I have to admit that games are the optimal medium in evoking feelings from the user. We'll just have to wait till the smoke & mirrors start to rival books or movies.

 

[mclem]

In the end Ebert is just guessing here. He's arguing from a point of ignorance.

Like criticising the Enigma Variations after watching an orchestra.

 

[jdogmoney]

You REALLY don't want to go there

Why not?

A game can only show you what the creator wants via reflex input in a very linear fashion.
This in itself will limit/hamstring games in a way films wont be.

I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

Games are limited because they can only show you what the creator wants...unlike film?

Film is only showing you what the creator wants.

Spoiler

Games' strengths as art =/= film's strengths as art.

EDIT:

Most good books that study humanity. Most good war novels. The list will not end.

Though I have to admit that games are the optimal medium in evoking feelings from the user. We'll just have to wait till the smoke & mirrors start to rival books or movies.

Are you personally responsible for what Henry does in The Red Badge of Courage?

[See, that was a specific example. Like, a specific one.]

No.

But you killed the things in SotC. You did it. Yeah, the plot required you to, but you could have turned off the game. You killed them.

You monster.

 

[Zachack]

BioShock might've been a good example if the game actually let you choose what you wanted to do following that pivotal scene. It didn't though, so the game's "message" falls flat in the end.

You always had the option of not playing or suiciding or whatever. The way the game was written post-twist basically forced an "obey or die" situation since the main villain was working towards an "everyone dies" endpoint. Up until the twist Rapture wasn't really in danger of outright failure (which would kill everyone due to being underwater).

The real problem was the pacing after the twist; the game simply went too long after it. But as an example Bioshock certainly fits the bill, and the people complaining about the lack of choice during the twist sequence are missing the point: the author of the game is in complete hidden control throughout the game, and really almost any game, because the framework and options presented through the game were already decided for you. What you get out of your experience of interacting with the story/game/experience is up to you, same as any artwork.

 

[Vinci]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference to folks in here between 'art' and 'design'? Is there a difference between a 'graphic artist' and 'graphic designer'? And if so, what is it?

My personal viewpoint - as we're taking the subjective route - is that games are similar to how we classify a game like Modern Warfare 2. It's a 'first-person shooter with RPG elements.' We don't consider it a RPG, as its design is more dependent upon the other setup. To me, games are 'entertainment products with artistic elements.' They are designed for a specific commercial and marketable purpose - which, to my thinking, places them more within the realm of design than art. I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't consider it a negative for games to not be art. 'Art,' to me, suggests a lean more towards form than function. Kind of how I would consider Frank Lloyd Wright's houses to be more art than architectural design; they aren't designed to amplify the aspect of their inherent function. Instead, the other aspect - the 'form' - is amplified for reasons outside what the core object is meant to provide on a functional level.

I guess what I'm saying is, if a game were ever created that was 'art'... I think it would be an absolutely horrible game. It would be 'art with game-based elements.'

 

[spazzfish]

Why not?



I don't even understand what you're trying to say here.

Games are limited because they can only show you what the creator wants...unlike film?

Film is only showing you what the creator wants.

Spoiler

Games' strengths as art =/= film's strengths as art.

No not really. That's why games still can't be taken seriously when put up against films/books.
A film has the scope for delivery that can't be created in games. Simply because with a game it has to last longer then an hour and requires user interaction. In a film they can do what they want, show you anything they want. in a game they can't unless you want to watch 2 hours of CGI, but then it's not a game anymore.
If you take the game part out of games/the interaction and look at what's left OBJECTIVELY your left with a poor story stretched over 10 hours with not much else in between except the odd minute of action/cinema. Games as an entertainment media are great, but to get too more comparable levels to films/books then they will have to loose what makes them games.

 

[zoukka]

Are you personally responsible for what Henry does in The Red Badge of Courage?

[See, that was a specific example. Like, a specific one.]

No.

But you killed the things in SotC. You did it. Yeah, the plot required you to, but you could have turned off the game. You killed them.

You monster.

Movies manipulate peoples thoughts and make then sympathize for characters, every single day, all around the world. I didn't kill anybody in SotC. A videogame character did. I just guided him to his goals.

What matters is the level of thought that the piece evokes from us. SotC is featherweight in the company of literal and cinematic classics.

 

[zoukka]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference to folks in here between 'art' and 'design'? Is there a difference between a 'graphic artist' and 'graphic designer'? And if so, what is it?

That is for the artist to decide. Which is my way of thinking on this matter. You need an artist for art.

EDIT: Sry for dp!

 

[BobsRevenge]

I understand that games don't have to be art to be enjoyable, I just don't like Ebert's disparaging view about something that so many people enjoy.

Maybe I can compare with the status animated movies have compared to their live-action counterparts. Wanting the Oscars to give an animated film Best Picture might be a presumption that one of the animated movies released that year is superior to any live-action film in that year. However, the opposite is true year after year.

I don't know if they'll make an animated film that will ever take the place of a live-action film. Not because they're bad, but because live-action just offers much more for people to absorb and analyze, both intentionally and accidentally.

Wall-E was just as good as Slumdog Millionaire, and MILES AND MILES better than The Reader. It was also better than Frost/Nixon and Milk. I honestly could've seen it winning over Slumdog if the Oscars were in fact fair to animated films.

The Reader kind of sucked. Kate Winslet wasn't even good in it. If Kate Winslet isn't good in your movie your doing something VERY wrong.

Yet Wall-E wasn't even nominated.

I think Up was the first one they took seriously, but then again they took District 9 seriously that same year even though it was filled with so much shit that they managed to dilute a fascinating premise into Transformers 3.

 

[jdogmoney]

Movies manipulate peoples thoughts and make then sympathize for characters, every single day, all around the world. I didn't kill anybody in SotC. A videogame character did. I just guided him to his goals.

What matters is the level of thought that the piece evokes from us. SotC is featherweight in the company of literal and cinematic classics.

Monster.


You have to remember these literary and cinematic classics are still just books and movies.

Shakespeare is still a bunch of plays.

If you don't give a game some amount of thought because it's a game, that's up to you, but in no way does the medium itself make it less worthy.

You don't think Shadow of the Colossus merits serious consideration as art. I have a soul. Clearly, we're going to disagree.

 

[Vinci]

You don't think Shadow of the Colossus merits serious consideration as art. I have a soul. Clearly, we're going to disagree.

I think SotC is in a strange position for me, based on my perspective on the whole 'art' concept. I think it teeters on the edge between game and art; that is, an 'entertainment product with artistic elements' and just simple 'art.' But I partly believe it straddles that point due to the fact that, as a game, it honestly isn't very good. It doesn't particularly succeed as an 'entertainment product' and that allows its 'artistic elements' to be amplified more heavily.

Seriously, that game is odd for me. I love it to death though.

 

[666]

Really, who cares? Do any of you feel the need to be validated this much?

 

[jdogmoney]

No not really. That's why games still can't be taken seriously when put up against films/books.
A film has the scope for delivery that can't be created in games. Simply because with a game it has to last longer then an hour and requires user interaction. In a film they can do what they want, show you anything they want. in a game they can't unless you want to watch 2 hours of CGI, but then it's not a game anymore.
If you take the game part out of games/the interaction and look at what's left OBJECTIVELY your left with a poor story stretched over 10 hours with not much else in between except the odd minute of action/cinema. Games as an entertainment media are great, but to get too more comparable levels to films/books then they will have to loose what makes them games.

Have you played Portal? Just wondering.

Yeah, if you take the game part of games you won't have anything left most of the time. Why would you do that, though?

And who says games have to last longer than an hour? These arbitrary definitions confuse and frighten me. A game can show you anything it wants, and more importantly, it can let you interact with whatever it wants. A game has a much wider scope for delivery than a film.

 

[Zachack]

Out of curiosity, what is the difference to folks in here between 'art' and 'design'? Is there a difference between a 'graphic artist' and 'graphic designer'? And if so, what is it?

The difference is one of focus and level of utility, not art. It's pretty much all art. It's probably possible to design a warehouse without "art" entering the picture by using existing templates to just glue something together but outside of that you'll be hard pressed to avoid art creeping into most creative tasks, and thus reshaping the task into art.

My personal viewpoint - as we're taking the subjective route - is that games are similar to how we classify a game like Modern Warfare 2. It's a 'first-person shooter with RPG elements.' We don't consider it a RPG, as its design is more dependent upon the other setup.

To me, games are 'entertainment products with artistic elements.' They are designed for a specific commercial and marketable purpose - which, to my thinking, places them more within the realm of design than art.

The latter does not follow the former, and denigrates the vast majority of accepted art into commercial non-art by your standards. This includes Citizen Kane and pretty much everything housed within Vatican City. It also obliterates the majority of written works, including everything by Shakespeare.

I guess what I'm getting at is that I don't consider it a negative for games to not be art. 'Art,' to me, suggests a lean more towards form than function. Kind of how I would consider Frank Lloyd Wright's houses to be more art than architectural design; they aren't designed to amplify the aspect of their inherent function. Instead, the other aspect - the 'form' - is amplified for reasons outside what the core object is meant to provide on a functional level.

You're using an extreme example to avoid having to draw a line between art and not-art, so to save time I'll just say that you won't be able to draw an actual line separating the two without a ridiculous amount of dancing around making exceptions, conditions, and arbitrary standards.

I guess what I'm saying is, if a game were ever created that was 'art'... I think it would be an absolutely horrible game. It would be 'art with game-based elements.'

This has been responded to in the thread, and repeatedly.

 

[zoukka]

You don't think Shadow of the Colossus merits serious consideration as art. I have a soul. Clearly, we're going to disagree.

Dude give it a rest. I loved SotC and of course it evoked feelings in me. I'm not dead inside.

But those feelings weren't anywhere near as strong as the ones I felt while reading certain books. Many movies have had a stronger impact in me. If SotC is the pinnacle of all media to you then OK. Don't force it down the throats of others like it's somekind of truth though.

A game has a much wider scope for delivery than a film.

In theory yes.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Have you played Portal? Just wondering.

Artistically Portal is pretty vapid, or shallow, at least for me. Why are you bringing it up?

 

[zoukka]

Artistically Portal is pretty vapid, or shallow, at least for me. Why are you bringing it up?

You find yourself when you stare at your own (dat) ass.

 

[Vinci]

The difference is one of focus and level of utility, not art. It's pretty much all art. It's probably possible to design a warehouse without "art" entering the picture by using existing templates to just glue something together but outside of that you'll be hard pressed to avoid art creeping into most creative tasks, and thus reshaping the task into art.

But this is being subjective again, yes? At what point does 'art' equal 'creativity,' which is seemingly what you're doing here. To say that someone 'put their own personal spin on something' doesn't necessarily mean that they were acting artistically, just creatively. And I don't personally see those two things as being 1:1.

The latter does not follow the former, and denigrates the vast majority of accepted art into commercial non-art by your standards. This includes Citizen Kane and pretty much everything housed within Vatican City. It also obliterates the majority of written works, including everything by Shakespeare.

Again: We're being subjective. Which is true in those examples as well. As others have mentioned prior to this point, Shakespeare's works were not considered art during the time of their creation. In truth, I don't consider them art. They were created as a product, though they utilize artistic and narrative elements remarkably well. I'm not 100% sure Citizen Kane is a good example though, since it's unclear whether it really works as an 'entertainment product.' The vast majority of people that I know - granted, anecdotal - absolutely hate the film, meanwhile those who study the minutiae of its developments in film language see it as something spectacular. I would suggest that these are two sides of the same coin: Citizen Kane is art, because (by and large) it fails as a product designed to entertain. I don't even think it straddles the line quite so well as SotC.

You're using an extreme example to avoid having to draw a line between art and not-art, so to save time I'll just say that you won't be able to draw an actual line separating the two without a ridiculous amount of dancing around making exceptions, conditions, and arbitrary standards.

I used Frank LLoyd Wright as a clear example, not an 'extreme' one. I could have named off another architect, I suppose, like Gaudi - but I imagine most people know who Frank Lloyd Wright is and fewer are familiar with Gaudi.

This has been responded to in the thread, and repeatedly.

Doesn't change the perspective, nor do I imagine it will change the perspective of those opposing it.

 

[kodt]

No.

But you killed the things in SotC. You did it. Yeah, the plot required you to, but you could have turned off the game. You killed them.

You monster.

no... some character on the screen did. I controlled his actions in a fantasy game world, I felt no remorse for my actions in that game.

 

[The Technomancer]

Artistically Portal is pretty vapid, or shallow, at least for me. Why are you bringing it up?

The subversive, passive aggressive relationship between Chell and GLaDOS is one of the most complex character dynamics in gaming. I mean, its no exaggeration, GLaDOS is one of the most fascinating characters I've encountered, and I'm one of those "literary" types. Although, admittedly, this is mostly because most games consists of "him bad! go shoot!"

 

[zoukka]

The subversive, passive aggressive relationship between Chell and GLaDOS is one of the most complex character dynamics in gaming. I mean, its no exaggeration, GLaDOS is one of the most fascinating characters I've encountered, and I'm one of those "literary" types. Although, admittedly, this is mostly because most games consists of "him bad! go shoot!"

I wanted to bang GLaDOS. I blame the sexy voice.



Oh and I think Portal is one of the best games released recently. By far the most impressive title this gen. First game in a while to make me really ponder how that shit is possible... fascinating game.