Support NeoGAF

[Acosta]

Art, for me and only for me, I don´t pretend anyone embracing my vision or that it will fit into the "academic" definition, is anything that makes me feel something, that move something inside of me.

So, are videogames art? they can be. Decissions from the player just add strenght, a good designer can make the freedom of choices for the player something manipulative and shocking for him. And then you have so many narrative, visual, aural aspects you can control, that I don´t see how anyone could ignore the huge potential.

Not every film is art, not every book is art, not every music is art and not every videogame is art, there is a ton of entertainmet in every field (that is not bad). So I fail to see what is exactly what makes the media unable for artistic expression when other medias are.

Actually I don´t know who is this Ebert, it seems is film critic, isn´t? That doen´t work. As every field of art, you need some kind of previous understanding of the media. There are lot of masterpieces that are unable to say anything to persons, because those persons doen´t have the neccesary understanding of what they are seeing/reading/listening...

 

[Speevy]

He's obviously never played Sudeki.

 

[VALIS]

Great art reflects upon/comments on/parallels the human experience in some manner, video games rarely do. And this is coming from someone who's loved video games for most of my 33 years, but they just aren't art like cinema or fiction. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, however. It's just different. You can go through the world's greatest works of movies and fiction and each one will reveal a "piece of the puzzle" concerning the human experience, whether it's the big questions (like 2001: A Space Odyssey) or the minutia of interpersonal relationships (Annie Hall, say). Video games simply do not do this. At all.

But, again, I don't see this as a slight to video games, it just makes them different. Advancing the narrative, providing character depth and setting the mood are secondary concerns to giving the user a functional, playable experience, things cinema and fiction don't have to worry about (not exactly, anyway). It's not really fair to compare video games to movies and ask if it's just as valid an artform. It's different. Video games may not be great art, but they're certainly not artless, either.

 

[Beowvlf]

i'm pretty certain if it weren't for gaming i would be alot more successful than i am now...

Capitalism at it's best; I love it. Money = success. I also enjoyed how Ebert believes there are only a finite amount of methods in this world that can cause one to become cultured and enriched, as if to say those he does not understand, do not qualify. Such a disgusting Western attitude. Where has happiness and enlightenment fallen on our chart of importance?

Art is art. It is emotion, and the act of eliciting a response in another through your actions/creations/feelings/opinions. Games are art. Anyone who believes otherwise doesn't understand what art is, or worse yet, looks for its fucking definition in a dictionary. Are games inferior to film and literature? This is an inanswerable question. Is literature inferior to film, or vice versa? What defines the medium's quality? And when the shit did the medium become the art? The art is the medium.

Ebert is a great, great film critic, because he knows film. And he has gained that knowledge through the only true way to gain such; experience. Without the same experience in gaming, I would have normally disregarded this thread, because I'm of the belief that in today's world, everyone is not entitled to their own opinion. Unless it is informed, is it a worse loss of time and energy than if the entire world sat on their asses playing Postal til we all starved to death.

What gets me is what Ebert said here:

There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.

Pardon me? The greatest filmmakers and writers did not set out to teach us lessons, or bestow upon us their great wisdom. They had stories to tell, just like Ueda or Kojima, and those stories related to our world, our lives, our humanity, etc., in many different ways. A film or novel that is interpreted along multiple avenues isn't considered inferior, it is considered superior. Because art is personal. Art is the very intangible that defines human thought.

Art succeeds because it is never explainable. We can have critics that voice their opinions, experts that break down technicalities, and historians that explain trends, but it never brings the answer, because the answer is the experience. To call gaming an inferior or non-art, or to break it up into some arbitrary categories such as 'artistic importance as a visual experience' is to deny the very essence of art as a whole, and to completely devalue his own damn argument.

He can criticism/evaluate film all he wants, but there is no one experienced or knowledgable enough in this entire world to judge what is and what isn't art.

 

[Speevy]

That was very thoughtful and intelligent, Heian-Kyo.

I'm misunderstanding something though.

Games are art.

there is no one experienced or knowledgable enough in this entire world to judge what is and what isn't art.

Btw, I am not on the other side. IMO, games are a superior form of entertainment and as such I invest a great deal of time and money into them. I love video games.

 

[Taichu]

Games are an art form, in my opinion.

I mean, just look at Tetris. It's as easily recognizable as the Mona Lisa. It is emotional/rewarding time spent. It triumphes over film/paintings/literature by providing a new experience each time played.

A game like Castlevania can be mentioned in the same breath as movies like Alien or Jurassic Park. If those can qualify as art, certainly games can too. Games like Zelda, Super Mario Bros. 3, and Pokemon can be equated to the likes of Sleeping Beauty or Finding Nemo.

 

[Redbeard]

I'd agree and say that games aren't art, but they have art in them.

 

[Diablos]

Poor Hollywood, 10 years from now when videogames probably sell 4 to 6x the amount as movies do they won't even have a big enough voice to complain. Enjoy the spotlight while you still have it

But really, the fact that he doesn't even see videogames as an art form is just sad.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Thoughts:

Ebert is a smart man but pigeonholed in by his own knowledge and lack of flexibility. Thus, he is quite simply making fundamental errors in a field he doesn't appear to understand very well at all.

On the other hand, the blog entry about game creators themselves making mistakes in how games are presented is very insightful.

Videogames are still seen as toys for children and teens - toys that are not works of fiction or art with a creator, author, or director, but faceless "product" that is churned out of a giant factory that makes babydolls and toy trucks. This is because games are still, usually, presented as such products. I believe there was a comment some years ago about one problem being the game industry was run by men who sold toasters for a living. It's all just Product. Look at EA and their attitude, and pumping out stuff like Madden.

Videogames are more like motion pictures of course, than novels or music; early in the history of game design, one creator might be totally responsible for a game, but now armies are required and even the "director" and "lead designer" of a game may not really be responsible for that much of the content... just some key details, sweeping direction, and trying to keep the entire mess on track. Despite this, putting a more human face on them is really a must.

I wonder what would happen though, if that human face were suddenly put on gaming as it is today. I wonder what it would be like if the guys who made GTA had to actually step up in interviews and to public relations and speak for their creation, and why they find a game of urban chaos and crime sprees a worthwhile experience to spend so much time creating, for so many people to invest so much time in playing.

I have always gotten the impression that people in the game industry are still basically shut-in geeks, safely tucked away in geek fortresses, not really exposed to median culture or dealing with it - both by circumstance and choice. They put stuff out there, not -really- thinking about the consequences of it, because it is from their perspective, largely made for people like themselves. Heh, I've read interviews with the guys at Rockstar, for example. Smart people, but also coming across as socially immature and cut off from culture outside of their own pool.

Heavens forbid, might it be possible that putting game creators more in the public spotlight might end up benefiting everyone, by exposing them to a broader range of perspectives? Possibly even higher standards? (Come on. You can TELL that most game "stories", even in games that attempt to be "cinematic" are written by guys who probably think Star Wars fanfic written by 16 year olds is kick ass lit-er-a-chure.)

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

screw art

 

[Dr_Cogent]

Ebert is a dinosaur.

Who gives a shit what that old man thinks. We are the future, and the future is videogames.

Code is art even. He's an idiot.

 

[DjangoReinhardt]

I'd like to think that Electroplankton, Rez, or any narrative-heavy game is proof that the medium is at least compatible with traditional and contemporary notions of art and aesthetic value. At the same time, though, I'm not comfortable calling blackjack or checkers art, and I don't know that I can draw a meaningful disctinction between them and videogames right now. I do expect there to be a watershed game at some point that will end this type of debate.

 

[jgkspsx]

Here's Ebert's review of one of the best films of the decade:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20030314/REVIEWS/303140304/1023
He either understands what Andy Goldsworthy does or he does well at feigning understanding.
Yet he can't make the conceptual leap to what a video game designer does.

He's a great critic, but for him as for most people there comes a point at which the generational gap can't be bridged.

 

[VALIS]

The greatest filmmakers and writers did not set out to teach us lessons, or bestow upon us their great wisdom. They had stories to tell, just like Ueda or Kojima, and those stories related to our world, our lives, our humanity, etc., in many different ways. A film or novel that is interpreted along multiple avenues isn't considered inferior, it is considered superior. Because art is personal. Art is the very intangible that defines human thought.

Art succeeds because it is never explainable. We can have critics that voice their opinions, experts that break down technicalities, and historians that explain trends, but it never brings the answer, because the answer is the experience. To call gaming an inferior or non-art, or to break it up into some arbitrary categories such as 'artistic importance as a visual experience' is to deny the very essence of art as a whole, and to completely devalue his own damn argument.

Sure, speaking in conceptual terms, vague generalities and putting the onus entirely upon the audience to determine artistic merit, anything can be made to be seen as great art. Dog poop, for instance. But let's break it down:

99% of the narratives in video games are garbage. Cliched, B-movie level drek. I don't think anyone who's looking at this realistically would disagree. So then what makes video games as an artform stand shoulder to shoulder with an artform like cinema? The fact that video games have accomplished in making experiences as compelling and enriching as a genre movie like Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark or Colors is good, but it doesn't get you a spot at the big boy's table for artistic merit, either. Where is video games' Citizen Kane? Or 2001? Or Seven Samurai? Or The Seventh Seal? Where are the video games that contribute to and reflect upon the human experience instead of just engage in naval gazing fantasy? There have been games which have featured art direction as stunning and visionary as any movie I've seen, but on the downside, these games either featured silly, generic narratives (Myst) or no narratives at all (ICO).

And before someone accuses me of putting down video games, I'm not. But you can't just say, "video games are really special to me, that's what makes them as artisically vibrant as cinema," which is what a lot of you are doing.

 

[Cronox]

Code is art even. He's an idiot.

Code is art in the same way that a high schooler's history notes are art. Let's not get too crazy when proclaiming broad definitions. Draw the line above ridiculousness.

 

[teruterubozu]

SotC is "artistic" but I don't think it exemplifies the entire experience of games as a storytelling device. It's very moody but the story can be summed up in a few minutes, minus the repetitive sequence of getting on the horse, finding the giant and killing it.

That being said, I think Ebert is caught up in the media frenzy of "GTA" - the idea that players "make choices" in a game - while most games are actually very linear and have a predetermined path.

I think he would enjoy games with character development, story and dialogue like Grim Fandango, Psychonauts and Indigo Propchecy more than "moody" games like Ico or SotC.

 

[Dynamite Shikoku]

Sure, speaking in conceptual terms, vague generalities and putting the onus entirely upon the audience to determine artistic merit, anything can be made to be seen as great art. Dog poop, for instance. But let's break it down:

99% of the narratives in video games are garbage. Cliched, B-movie level drek. I don't think anyone who's looking at this realistically would disagree. So then what makes video games as an artform stand shoulder to shoulder with an artform like cinema? The fact that video games have accomplished in making experiences as compelling and enriching as a genre movie like Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark or Colors is good, but it doesn't get you a spot at the big boy's table for artistic merit, either. Where is video games' Citizen Kane? Or 2001? Or Seven Samurai? Or The Seventh Seal? Where are the video games that contribute to and reflect upon the human experience instead of just engage in naval gazing fantasy? There have been games which have featured art direction as stunning and visionary as any movie I've seen, but on the downside, these games either featured silly, generic narratives (Myst) or no narratives at all (ICO).

And before someone accuses me of putting down video games, I'm not. But you can't just say, "video games are really special to me, that's what makes them as artisically vibrant as cinema," which is what a lot of you are doing.

This is the truth

 

[KarishBHR]

can i get a link to the original article he ran

 

[Speevy]

Saying nothing of the entire history of film, I'd put video games up against this wretched film year anyday.

 

[Beowvlf]

That was very thoughtful and intelligent, Heian-Kyo.

I'm misunderstanding something though.

Thanks. Apologies on those two quotes, together they do contradict one another. I merely said 'games are art' to exemplify that if film and literature is considered such, then so must games be as well.

Sure, speaking in conceptual terms, vague generalities and putting the onus entirely upon the audience to determine artistic merit, anything can be made to be seen as great art. Dog poop, for instance.

This quote reeks of an individual burnt out on overinterpretation of Shakespeare in high school. The ol' 'you can see anything if you look hard enough' defense. It's bull shit, and one day you'll realize it. There is no art without the creator and the receiver. It is not merely expression that defines art, but also the reaction to such. No great art exists that no one has seen or heard, for no true great art goes unnoticed.

...or no narratives at all (ICO).

This was enough to convince me that you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

 

[Snaku]

Last year Katamari, this year Colossus. Pick a new Japanese game to champion, someone!

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Personally, though I find quite a bit of what has been offered up in this thread to be agreeable, I think, perhaps, that getting hung up on the relative quality and human appeal of video game narratives misses the point that art isn't exclusively about going from point A to B and that games tell their own narratives through the whims of the user. Hmmm...maybe I'm not sober enough to complete this as I want to, so I'll try again a little later, I think. Consider this post a placeholder for something a bit more coherent and meaningful in the near future or something. :lol

 

[Dan]

Grim Fandango >>> 99% of the movies Ebert has sat through this year

 

[Gahiggidy]

Nextgame.it: A lot of people think that a videogame, like a movie, can be considered a piece of art. What do you think about it?

Shigeru Miyamoto: Creating a form of entertainment can't be considered art, real artists are others. I don't consider myself an artist, for example, it would be insulting towards real ones.

- http://www.miyamotoshrine.com/theman/interviews/160202.shtml

Miyamoto Says == games not art
Miyamoto == never wrong.
This debate == over.

 

[davidjaffe]

I was discussing this issue with a fellow game designer a few weeks ago on a plane ride out to Utah and to test a theory, I ran a scenario by him. I said:

What if you had a FPS where you could carry up to 8 weapons at a time BUT beyond 2 weapons, your motion thru the game world got a bit slower AND it became- by nature of having so many weapon slots you have to cycle thru (console game, not PC with 1-9 keyboard shortcuts) that it became a burden to have so many weapons. But you COULD carry 10 weapons if you wanted to...

He was like: eh, it's ok strategically but I dunno if I would like it very much.

And then I said: well it's a metaphor for man's greed expressed via play mechanics. It's about us taking too much and not only taking what we need. And maybe the setting of the game is some war torn African country where you play a UN PEACEKEEPER and are under attack be rebels who don't want the locals to get any food...that way, we can TALK about the metaphor as it applies to food (so there is some context to the thing) and you experience it via your play mechanics as well...

And he kinda lit up and was like: oh hey, that's cool. I like it more now that you've explained it.

But the thing is, I had to explain it. Now this raises- to me- a few questions about the issue of games as art:

a- is art only art when someone who you deem worthy/smart/intelligent TELLS you it is and points out that the message of the art exists?

b- would these sorts of metaphors be lost on 99% of the players? I mean, I can go see a movie and be moved by it and NOT need the details explained to me by a critic...I just GET it, you know? At a conference I went to, Will Wright talked about how the SIMS was designed to be read as a metaphor for greed and how as you got more and more and more stuff, it became more of a hassle to take care of it all and eventually things began to break down. Now this is a cool ass reading on the game, but I can tell you that I never felt it during my play time with THE SIMS. So I think games can- by USING THE INTERACTIVE MEDIUM (not using film technique) SAY something via play/interactive mechanics...the question is, do people get it and if not, HOW can we make them get it?

c- How can abstract art move us (and it can...I have been moved to tears by a few abstract paintings in my time) but games can not? Maybe this medium has simply not fallen into the proper hands yet. I do not think I am an artist. I think I have been lucky enough to have been given a stage to fuck around on and play at being an artist, but end of the day, I am not. And I can tell you from first hand experience that I have had a hell of a time getting great screenwriters working on games and taking it seriously because they would rather do film...so there is the challenge of convincing those with unique viewpoints on the world (i.e. artists) why this medium should be their medium of choice. I do think that if games can create emotion, when the right person comes along and does it and does it well, many artists will be dying to get into games because they will see the potential. But as of now, not so much....

Do you think it says something that for years this debate has been raging without much movement on either side (those who think games can be art/are art vs. those who don't)?

I mean, did movies and books struggle so much to be taken seriously? How about television?

Someone did mention the movies and how it took 40 years until Lang made what many consider to be the first artistic flix. However, wasn't Battleship Potempkin(sp?) earlier than that?

Either way, as a guy who makes games, I can tell you that I have no freaking clue. There are moments where I WISH what we did was taken in a more serious light (both for ego reasons as well as getting more people into games)...and there are things I think I might have to say that might be relevant to others...I dunno...

 

[ronito]

Games are art, much like this variety:

 

[VALIS]

Ha! What a copout, Heian. I guess my pointing out that the narratives in 99% of video games are lowest common denominator hackneyed drek doesn't fit into your rosy, wide-eyed college kid view of artistic merit being this magical, highly personal thing that anyone can define to any manner they see fit. That's enjoyment you're talking about. No one can define enjoyment, but I'll be damned if you can't define artistic merit to some quantifiable degree. The fact that you were so rudely dismissive makes me think you shouldn't engage in debates like this at all if you don't know how to debate in the first place, college boy.

 

[blindrocket]

But the thing is, I had to explain it. Now this raises- to me- a few questions about the issue of games as art:

a- is art only art when someone who you deem worthy/smart/intelligent TELLS you it is and points out that the message of the art exists?

b- would these sorts of metaphors be lost on 99% of the players? I mean, I can go see a movie and be moved by it and NOT need the details explained to me by a critic...I just GET it, you know? At a conference I went to, Will Wright talked about how the SIMS was designed to be read as a metaphor for greed and how as you got more and more and more stuff, it became more of a hassle to take care of it all and eventually things began to break down. Now this is a cool ass reading on the game, but I can tell you that I never felt it during my play time with THE SIMS. So I think games can- by USING THE INTERACTIVE MEDIUM (not using film technique) SAY something via play/interactive mechanics...the question is, do people get it and if not, HOW can we make them get it?

c- How can abstract art move us (and it can...I have been moved to tears by a few abstract paintings in my time) but games can not? Maybe this medium has simply not fallen into the proper hands yet. I do not think I am an artist. I think I have been lucky enough to have been given a stage to fuck around on and play at being an artist, but end of the day, I am not. And I can tell you from first hand experience that I have had a hell of a time getting great screenwriters working on games and taking it seriously because they would rather do film...so there is the challenge of convincing those with unique viewpoints on the world (i.e. artists) why this medium should be their medium of choice. I do think that if games can create emotion, when the right person comes along and does it and does it well, many artists will be dying to get into games because they will see the potential. But as of now, not so much....

That seems like very good points. And with games becoming more and more complicated it isolates the average person out there. I don't think art has to effect the masses though, not everyone can relate to certain music but that doesn't make it less artistic.

 

[Warm Machine]

Remember that a game's story is not what is told to the player it is what the player does within the environment or rules of the game. Jumping into a Hummer and racing down a street while machinegunning pedestrians is essentially story. If it were a movie it would be an action sequence that at its end would have pushed the narrative in one direction or another.

I don't agree with Ebert's definition. Games are created using nothing but art. 3d models are art, illustrations are art, effects are art, as well as music, sound, etc. All of this art cannot culminate in something that is artless. As well, Ebert's concept that there isn't an overall direction to a game is completely baseless. Some games do well have a story and every event or situation the player has run into in a particular game has (really should) been carefully thought out to conclude with a defined outcome. These outcomes when placed together form the direction and the overall design from which the played will have learned something or experienced something depending on the vision of the creator.

Games are not emotionless as even a violent FPS may encourage feelings of stress, tension, and relief.

Obviously there are levels to the medium as to what is great art and what is shoddy junk. I find Tetris to be one of the many pinnacles of art for the medium as it is extremely elegant and wonderfully thought out.

 

[Duck of Death]

b- would these sorts of metaphors be lost on 99% of the players? I mean, I can go see a movie and be moved by it and NOT need the details explained to me by a critic...I just GET it, you know? At a conference I went to, Will Wright talked about how the SIMS was designed to be read as a metaphor for greed and how as you got more and more and more stuff, it became more of a hassle to take care of it all and eventually things began to break down. Now this is a cool ass reading on the game, but I can tell you that I never felt it during my play time with THE SIMS. So I think games can- by USING THE INTERACTIVE MEDIUM (not using film technique) SAY something via play/interactive mechanics...the question is, do people get it and if not, HOW can we make them get it?

This is what Gonzalo Frasca and other video game theorist have been trying to figure out, using the term "simulation. It's basically what you described; the educational potential through the rules and mechanics of video games. A good site to check out is Frasca's blog, Ludology.org. He has some of his papers posted there, as well as a link to a "game" he helped design, titled September 12. You might want to check it out (if you haven't already) to see how the game clearly uses the rules to promote a message.

EDIT: And Warm Machine just articulated what I was trying to write for about a half hour, but could never find the words.

 

[jenov4]

Wow some really interesting responses here. First of all, like others have said, Roger Ebert has no idea about video games and have probably come to his conclusions based on the video game movies that he's had to watch.

I totally respect him as a movie critic, and I mostly agree with his reasonings behind them. Calling him an idiot is quite harsh, I mean he's the only guy to win a pulitizer for writing in his field.

Anyways, How will society look back at videogames in 50, 100 years from now at this time? Which games will still stand the test of time? I'd say only a handful will actually make a real impact.

I bet Roger's mailbox is going to get filled up with gamer nerds defending their medium. :lol

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Remember that a game's story is not what is told to the player it is what the player does within the environment or rules of the game. Jumping into a Hummer and racing down a street while machinegunning pedestrians is essentially story. If it were a movie it would be an action sequence that at its end would have pushed the narrative in one direction or another.

I don't agree with Ebert's definition. Games are created using nothing but art. 3d models are art, illustrations are art, effects are art, as well as music, sound, etc. All of this art cannot culminate in something that is artless. As well, Ebert's concept that there isn't an overall direction to a game is completely baseless. Some games do well have a story and every event or situation the player has run into in a particular game has (really should) been carefully thought out to conclude with a defined outcome. These outcomes when placed together form the direction and the overall design from which the played will have learned something or experienced something depending on the vision of the creator.

Games are not emotionless as even a violent FPS may encourage feelings of stress, tension, and relief.

Obviously there are levels to the medium as to what is great art and what is shoddy junk. I find Tetris to be one of the many pinnacles of art for the medium as it is extremely elegant and wonderfully thought out.

Hey, you saved me from a lot of thinking.

 

[Dan]

b- would these sorts of metaphors be lost on 99% of the players? I mean, I can go see a movie and be moved by it and NOT need the details explained to me by a critic...I just GET it, you know? At a conference I went to, Will Wright talked about how the SIMS was designed to be read as a metaphor for greed and how as you got more and more and more stuff, it became more of a hassle to take care of it all and eventually things began to break down. Now this is a cool ass reading on the game, but I can tell you that I never felt it during my play time with THE SIMS. So I think games can- by USING THE INTERACTIVE MEDIUM (not using film technique) SAY something via play/interactive mechanics...the question is, do people get it and if not, HOW can we make them get it?

Well, I hope you're not insinuating that a game could only be artistic if a significant portion of its users were to take something away from it more than mere entertainment. I don't think you are, but given the general population's interest in other artistic mediums... I wouldn't be asking for a really high percentage.

I think part of the answer to your question would be that it might take a while longer for people to start looking at games with such a critical eye. Lots of people look at films, novels, paintings, etc, with a higher eye, but I don't think games are quite there. I think if you took that eye to plenty of modern and past games that people would come away with a variety of intelligent interpretations and theses beyond the baser consequences of playing them.

So I guess I'd say at least part of the issue is the way people approach video games, and the uh... blame shouldn't be put solely on those making the games.

P.S. You helped design Mickey Mania?! Rock on, man!

 

[blackadde]

a- is art only art when someone who you deem worthy/smart/intelligent TELLS you it is and points out that the message of the art exists?

>> art is art when anyone believes as such, whether it's good or bad art is an exercise best left to the reader. a post-modern reality the lines between utilitarian 'stuff' and art don't just blur, they disappear altogether.

b- would these sorts of metaphors be lost on 99% of the players? I mean, I can go see a movie and be moved by it and NOT need the details explained to me by a critic...I just GET it, you know? At a conference I went to, Will Wright talked about how the SIMS was designed to be read as a metaphor for greed and how as you got more and more and more stuff, it became more of a hassle to take care of it all and eventually things began to break down. Now this is a cool ass reading on the game, but I can tell you that I never felt it during my play time with THE SIMS. So I think games can- by USING THE INTERACTIVE MEDIUM (not using film technique) SAY something via play/interactive mechanics...the question is, do people get it and if not, HOW can we make them get it?

>> do they have to? most people will never understand finnegans wake, or catch the metaphors in brazil but for the people who do it can be a moving experience. you're right though, popular opinon is going to remain the way it is until someone in authority 'gets it' and starts to shout from the mountaintop.

I mean, did movies and books struggle so much to be taken seriously? How about television?

>> yes. books had to fight oral tradition, film had to fight the books, television had to fight the films. read 'understanding media' or 'the gutenberg galaxy' by marshall macluhan if you get the chance.

Someone did mention the movies and how it took 40 years until Lang made what many consider to be the first artistic flix. However, wasn't Battleship Potempkin(sp?) earlier than that?

>> there was a great outburst of french/german earlier than metropolis which would qualify as 'experimental' (i believe marcel duchamp dabbled in this, see 'anemic cinema' http://movies2.nytimes.com/gst/movies/filmography.html?p_id=88339) and are certainly recognized as art here and now. it's just that none of them ensnared the popular imagination at the time.

..

 

[n3ss]

From my girlfriend the composer:

Art can only be defined within its given medium. If a painting is art, and a painting is a work which you see and analyze, is a piece of music not art because you hear it?
And since many instrumental works (and most paintings) don't have stories they are describing, are they paltry compared to a good book? In other words, every medium has its own characteristics which makes it "art". Games have yet to define what makes them "artistic" - story? gameplay? music? cinematics? It is still in the infancy of its development, whereas movies seem to have solidified its definition to some extent (hence critics, like Ebert). We can't say whether the gameplay and visual prowess of MGS makes it art, despite its (apparent) lackluster storytelling; if Katamari is art despite its total lack of story; if ICO is art despite its (apparently) uncompelling gameplay. What we CAN say is that in time, games will solidify its own definition of art, and games will become "art" when it happens (and we'll know it when it does).

I totally agree with this...

 

[Dilbert]

In general, I would tend to agree with Ebert, but there have been some outstanding points and counterexamples in this thread -- it's not a simple question. This is seriously one of the best threads I've read on the Gaming Forum in a long, long time. In a better world, this would reach 1,000 posts.

Ebert IS clearly biased against games, but his second paragraph does have a nugget of truth in it. The time you spend with games is time that you DON'T spend on something else. Whether that "something else" is "better" than games is a personal judgment...but I get the feeling that people are not as cultured as they used to be.

 

[Duck of Death]

Yes, this thread has been great so far. Except for the handful of distracting remarks such as "screw art" and "this thread makes me cry."

 

[capslock]

I would frankly play a not so good game for an hour than watch a not so good movie for the same period of time. At least, I would feel that the time was less wasted.

 

[jgkspsx]

Thank you for being a devil's advocate. Otherwise this thread would get insufferable.

Where are the video games that contribute to and reflect upon the human experience instead of just engage in naval gazing fantasy?

Do you reject the notion that architecture can be art? What does Fallingwater say about the human experience? You can argue that it argues that humans should live in aesthetic harmony with the world around them, I suppose, but it seems a stretch to me. You can argue that it's pure craft, not art, but I'd disagree.

What does Sarah Winchester's house say about human existence? Well, you can pull any of a dozen interpretations of the "thing" in its historical context, depending on what "facts" about her life that you believe, but the house itself is a thing separate from her life. If you strip away the "mystery" of her life, it's just a house that does non-functional things. As such, I think it is art -- accidental art, not something that was controlled all the way, but art nonetheless.

Back to games: Dave Theurer, a designer from when game design was something programmers did while coding, created games that came out of his nightmares. Tempest, though taken to be a sort of standard "shoot the space invaders" game, is "about" trying to repel a horde of alien-but-native creatures from within the earth, creatures that will grab you and pull you into the darkness. If that's not a fundamental meme of human art, I don't what is.

Missile Command was inspired by his nightmares of nuclear blasts annihilating his home and himself. Surely the scenario, that you can't win, that you can't counterattack, that you can do nothing except temporarily stave off extinction, and that you know there are humans on the other side of the attack, says something about the human condition? It's as conceptually deep as, say, "Miracle Mile," at least. (You can say that arcade games of the time seldom had an "end", but Theurer's interviews state that he rejected the suggestion by management that it have an ending because nobody could really win a nuclear war.) By your criteria, is this art?

I think you're getting hung up on the narrative issue, given that this conversation is coming from film and literature. But who says art needs any narrative? Is there a need for a narrative in order to appreciate Church's "Cotopaxi", or Bosch's "Ship of Fools"? There are contexts to them that inform a viewing, certainly, but don't they stand on their own?

Admittedly, most narratives in games suck very badly. I can't play most JRPGs anymore for that reason, and I've never been able to get into any western fantasy-influenced games because of the ludicrous stupidity of it all. But narrative isn't everything. It isn't even the main focus of a game. It's one aspect of a complete package that also includes music, visual design, control of character(s) in a miniature universe created by humans, etc. Much as film integrated script, visual design, and music, games integrate those and more.

I expect that the concept of games as art will have a longer gestation than film. After all, film could piggyback from stage, already an accepted artform. Video games have as their antecedents: movies and their ancestors; formal logic puzzles, ala Lewis Carroll; formal abstract games, like Go, Chess, and card games; and "human" games, such as hide'n'seek, sports, and debate. These are not like forms, and a form that integrates them is going to have major growing pains. However, whether or not you believe that anything has yet done so successfully, it is foolish to deny that a form that amalgamates these unlike forms has the potential to be art.

An aside:

no narratives at all (ICO).

I find the Big Plot Twist of ICO (which I had spoilered for me) to be evocative and deeply disturbing, and I think it does say Something about the Human Condition. I feel the same way about conquering wandering Colossi, killing something great and elemental because after all its frightening and is perfectly willing to kill me.

 

[Optimistic]

Ebert's right. Hell, the exceptions people have listed here are laughable. I mean, Metal Gear Solid? It's pretty much an interactive 80s action b-movie for fuck's sake. Anyone who would favourably compare any videogame to say, Life is Beautful, Amores Perros, or Crime and Punishment, etc etc, is quite simply a fucking idiot.

 

[Flo_Evans]

a- is art only art when someone who you deem worthy/smart/intelligent TELLS you it is and points out that the message of the art exists?

Great artists should not have to explain their work. It may mean diffrent things to diffrent people, but one persons understanding (or lack of) the 'meaning' of a peice of art does not nullify it's artistic importance.

b- would these sorts of metaphors be lost on 99% of the players? I mean, I can go see a movie and be moved by it and NOT need the details explained to me by a critic...I just GET it, you know? At a conference I went to, Will Wright talked about how the SIMS was designed to be read as a metaphor for greed and how as you got more and more and more stuff, it became more of a hassle to take care of it all and eventually things began to break down. Now this is a cool ass reading on the game, but I can tell you that I never felt it during my play time with THE SIMS. So I think games can- by USING THE INTERACTIVE MEDIUM (not using film technique) SAY something via play/interactive mechanics...the question is, do people get it and if not, HOW can we make them get it?

probably. MGS theme is "war is bad m'kay!" It slaps you in the face with this messege several times. Part of the reason is that the viewers are genraly not as sophisticated as film viewers or novel readers. So if you are to subtle with the message, it will probably be missed by 99% of the audience that just wants to snap some necks to releive stress/pass the time ect. One of the better parts of MGS3 was the End fight, where you had to wade through the river of all the dead soldiers you had killed. I just don't know if most gamers felt remorse... or where giggling at all the destruction they caused. Again - personal interpratation.

c- How can abstract art move us (and it can...I have been moved to tears by a few abstract paintings in my time) but games can not? Maybe this medium has simply not fallen into the proper hands yet. I do not think I am an artist. I think I have been lucky enough to have been given a stage to fuck around on and play at being an artist, but end of the day, I am not. And I can tell you from first hand experience that I have had a hell of a time getting great screenwriters working on games and taking it seriously because they would rather do film...so there is the challenge of convincing those with unique viewpoints on the world (i.e. artists) why this medium should be their medium of choice. I do think that if games can create emotion, when the right person comes along and does it and does it well, many artists will be dying to get into games because they will see the potential. But as of now, not so much....

well I look at it like this: for every jackson pollack there are 1000 people simply throwing paint at a canvas. Not every painting, song, or film is a thought provoking social commentary. Why should every game be? Some movies are fun to watch because shit blows up real good. Some games are fun because shit blows up real good.

Do you think it says something that for years this debate has been raging without much movement on either side (those who think games can be art/are art vs. those who don't)?

I mean, did movies and books struggle so much to be taken seriously? How about television?

possibly, as of yet there is no beethoven or picaso of the game industry. I would put games on the same level as big record company produced bands right now. Most of them are made to make a profit for a large corparation, not as a vehicle for an artists expression . But you could really say the same thing about most movies.

Movies definalty struggled in the early days to be taken serouisly againts plays and opera. Can't really say about books.... IIRC the 1st published book in wide distribution was the bible. And that depends on who you talk to if you take it serouisly

 

[Warm Machine]

Ebert's right. Hell, the exceptions people have listed here are laughable. I mean, Metal Gear Solid? It's pretty much an interactive 80s action b-movie for fuck's sake. Anyone who would favourably compare any videogame to say, Life is Beautful, Amores Perros, or Crime and Punishment, etc etc, is quite simply a fucking idiot.

But how about comparing the movies you listed to a piece of music, a building, sculpture, vehicle, a painting, natural landscape? I agree what has been said that the definition of art come not from other media that surround it but from within the medium that it originates from.

 

[vitaflo]

a- is art only art when someone who you deem worthy/smart/intelligent TELLS you it is and points out that the message of the art exists?

No, and I think this is the hangup people have about art institutions and artists, especially contemporary art, like the institution I'm employed at. The elitism surrounding art is mostly driven from the fans of said art, not usually by the artists themselves. This isn't much different from fanboyism in gaming vs the people who actually craft the games such as yourself.

For a lot of art, especially the abstract variety, there's of course the artist satement on the piece, but the users viewpoint on it and what *they* get out of it is just as valid, even if their opinion is "that's a piece of shit". Usually a piece will make more sense when explained, like you've shown in your case, but that doesn't preclude the viewer from drawing thier own conclusions on what it means to them.

b- would these sorts of metaphors be lost on 99% of the players? I mean, I can go see a movie and be moved by it and NOT need the details explained to me by a critic...I just GET it, you know?

I think you'd be surprised. When we had Gus Van Sant in to speak at our museum, it's amazing what I learned of his movies that you just don't always capture when watching them. Sure you may understand what you're watching, but you don't get the why and the hows of what made him put it together. Same is true when you're looking at an Andy Warhol Cambell soup can.

So yes, the metaphors may be lost on gamers, but that doesn't mean there is no social commentary in your work. Many great peices of art have underlying metaphors on various things and are still lost on people. That doesn't mean it's not art, for the reasons I stated above.

c- How can abstract art move us (and it can...I have been moved to tears by a few abstract paintings in my time) but games can not?

I think the question to ask yourself here is why did it move you? And why does certain art not move you? The hard part here is everyone is moved by different things. But if you start there, I think it's easier to latch on to what it is that really got to you about various art you've seen in the past.

Personally I think the game that most closely captures true art for me is Rez and the notion of evolving into a plane of being higher than ones self. The idea isn't all that new, but if you let yourself really get immersed in that game you can almost feel yourself move to that higher state. Well, for me anyway.

I said before I think the biggest thing missing from games is social commentary. We have games that are very realistic and games that recreate past events fairly well, but very few when after their done really make you sit back and think. Good art, film, paintings, etc, tend to do this.

Do you think it says something that for years this debate has been raging without much movement on either side (those who think games can be art/are art vs. those who don't)?

No, because the same argument has been going on for even longer about "regular" art. Do you know how many times I've had people come into our museum and say "this isn't art, anyone could do half this shit!". The debate in the game world is not unique.

There are moments where I WISH what we did was taken in a more serious light (both for ego reasons as well as getting more people into games)

So do I. For all the talk of gaming "maturing", most of it is fairly juvinile and fan service. Honestly I think it will take someone who doesn't give a fuck what others think (socially and financially), or doesn't have the baggage of years of gaming to come forward and really push the boundaries in this regard.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

Why?

I just think its ridiculous to bash games because they dont have stories as powerful as something like "To Kill a Mocking Bird".

It would be like bashing Nobuo Uematsu's FF work because its not Beethoven or Mozart.

Games are completely different and should be judged on their own terms.

 

[Dilbert]

well I look at it like this: for every jackson pollack there are 1000 people simply throwing paint at a canvas.

Funny thing -- that's all Pollock did too.

 

[jgkspsx]

but I get the feeling that people are not as cultured as they used to be.

This is a feeling that goes back to Neanderthal days, I'm quite sure

Culture is always dying and being reborn. Certainly we Americans are more cultured than our ancestors who owned slaves, lynched blacks, and fought unjustifiable and bloody wars of expansion; certainly European culture has improved from the days of constant religious warring, fascism, and (Godwin's law will not apply here) Nazism. The only thing is, all these bad things we've risen above were movements to restore or preserve the "grand culture" that "used to exist" or "was in danger." "The good old days" is very likely the single most destructive fallacy to which the human mind clings.

Back on topic: no new art form is accepted as art right away. In fact, many don't start as what we recognize as art. Cave paintings were a utilitarian thing; fairy stories and tall tales teach cultural norms and morality. Yet of course cave paintings gave rise to visual art, religious totems gave rise to sculpture, tall tales and fairy tales are the oral culture that gave us Homer, the Bible, Gilgamesh, etc. Novels as we know them were not considered art; they were barely considered fit for youths to possess! As "cultured" as "classical" music (I mean post-medieval) is considered to be, it was a very organic synthesis of popular and sacred music.

So: if games aren't yet art (and I believe some are) they will be accepted as such someday. It's inevitable.

P.S.: If the current state of the game industry (EAs and Ubisofts swallowing all the little fishies) distresses you, at least consider how overwhelming and repressive the American film industry was. And yet now, a century on, indie film seems on the whole healthier than the studio system.

 

[Musashi Wins!]

I don't think art needs the validation of the all or the few to be art, but there can be fault to both sides. In defining art away so subjectively that it's useless to attempt to define (because it encompasses everything) art becomes a useless label to make us feel better about our hobby and its meaning. I feel like a lot of the new wave of video game theorists throw depth onto trivia, mining what we have already experienced. And while thinking about what it is we find so appealing about games is valuable and can be an interesting excercise, it also lets a lot of gamemakers, publishers, etc. off the hook for not trying harder to find new ways of expression in this form.

I kind of think new forms of expression are really kept at bay by both the types of people in the game industry and by the fact that it's an incredibly market driven, insular field lorded over (especially in the console field) by a few increasingly powerful companies. But as I mentioned before, at least there are a few people with the power and reputation to explore a bit. I hope it gives others the same drive.

I don't know as much about it, but a lot of times I think the kind of model of growth (culturally) that sheds more light on games is comics and not film. Recently I read some books by Scott McCloud that rang pretty true simply by replacing "comic" with "game" in his analysis. It seems especially relevant when you think of the road comics have gone to gain some real literary respectability, the pressures of independent development, and how a higher form of development exists at the edges and occasionally within a pretty schlocky, genre ridden field.

 

[dark10x]

And I can tell you from first hand experience that I have had a hell of a time getting great screenwriters working on games and taking it seriously because they would rather do film...so there is the challenge of convincing those with unique viewpoints on the world (i.e. artists) why this medium should be their medium of choice.

Actually, this point is interesting as I feel that it may actually reveal why many of us feel that Japanese game creators seem to take the medium more seriously and attempt to create something that could be considered art. The movie industry, for example, is much larger in America. If the team you have working on a specific game is composed of folks that are, in reality, more interested in working on a film, you may have a difficult time convincing them to take their current work seriously (to the degree necessary to create something truly inspired, artistically). In Japan, the film industry is nowhere near as prominent and it seems that people may, in fact, be perfectly satisfied with putting their best effort forward in an attempt to create something that could potentially be classified as "art"...or at least put their heart and soul into it.

I dunno, perhaps that sounds a bit wrong, as I'm just thinking in text here...but it's something I've always wondered about. I mean, it seems to me that, upon reaching a certain level, Western writers and artists would prefer to leave games behind whereas that doesn't seem to be the case with Japanese artists.

For a lot of art, especially the abstract variety, there's of course the artist satement on the piece, but the users viewpoint on it and what *they* get out of it is just as valid, even if their opinion is "that's a piece of shit".

Just like a number of games...

 

[GhaleonEB]

This is one of the most elitist and ridiculous things I have ever read

Agreed. I always knew that Ebert looked down on video games, but this is something else entirely. It seems his impression of games was formed during the NES era and has not advanced since.

 

[Flo_Evans]

Funny thing -- that's all Pollock did too.

I don't want to get into a debate about Pollock, personally I am not a fan of his work - but there was a definate design to his madness. You are Pollock's Ebert! :lol