Support NeoGAF

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Remember what Hideo Kojima said after Ebert's first blog about this? Kojima agreed and said he doesn't think games are art either.

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

I'm not going to say anything because I feel unqualified to say anything on this matter. I'm just one of the people who enjoy the art from other artists.

But there you go.

 

[Peronthious]

That is a distinction without meaning. If games have visual art, musical art, and literary (story) art . . . how can it not be art? Adding a game mechanic doesn't take away from the rest, it adds to it.


So even if he thinks a game mechanic cannot be called art (which I disagree with), you can't call it not art just because a game mechanic has been added to visuals, music, and story.

A film projector, a DVD player, and a television set don't make a film no longer art just because they are mechanical machines. Nor does a game mechanic take away from the art.

Here is a game that is art:
http://www.newsgaming.com/games/index12.htm

So if I include the last supper in a game, the game is automatically art? I'm sorry, but that strikes me as a bit silly.

The question here is not whether something in the game can elicit an emotional response. That's a given. The question is what about the game is eliciting the emotional response. Video games are by their nature aggregate products, containing many other different forms of media that in some cases are just window dressing, but in others are used to strengthen the rule system that defines the state of play in the game. If the media that is eliciting the emotional response is implicit in the game rules, and is causing this response through its interaction with the game rules, that may make the game art.

 

[BocoDragon]

There doesn't seem to be any real consensus on what exactly constitutes art. The main point of games is for the player to have fun, and that is why I can't see them as art. Art just is. It's an expression of its creator, but beyond that it doesn't do anything. Video games certainly express the ideas of their creators, but this is not their primary purpose for existence.

I guess I see calling games of any kind art the equivalent of calling a rollercoaster art.

I think a rollercoaster is art.

It's not a science. You can't just engineer it to be objectively fun (well, you can... but you can also engineer a movie to be fun: Ask Bruckheimer). It's not purely functional either.

Also the design of a school might be art. The design of a water fountain might be art. Something which has a function is not disqualified from being art.

 

[swoon]

don't worry people, 100 years ago, people said movies weren't art... in 50 years or so, people will all agree that videogames are art.

no they didn't.

also ebert's arguing with someone, who didn't make the creation of video games as an artform, but the end product as art which is a bit different. the creation of graphic design and logos and stadium for football might be art, but the game itself isn't.

Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.

is pretty important, why do we to claim our games as art. games at the purest leve are rule based, and the playing with the new rules as the new breed of indie developers have shown are pretty fun, but it's still rules based play.

 

[BocoDragon]

Remember what Hideo Kojima said after Ebert's first blog about this? Kojima agreed and said he doesn't think games are art either.

As time as gone on.. the more Kojima has revealed that his games are services. I don't think his opinion is open and shut...

I mean the man puts in online modes destined to be shut down, he puts in product placement.... his games are services, much like a lazer tag arena is a service... but that doesn't mean all games should be like this.

 

[badcrumble]

These threads would be better if they were about the opinions of someone with more interesting things to say, like Žižek.

 

[Cep]

Why does the gaming community get worked up about this? Who cares what he says, it doesn't matter. Only time will tell.

This is human nature dude.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Remember what Hideo Kojima said after Ebert's first blog about this? Kojima agreed and said he doesn't think games are art either.

1a. This implies that Kojima is an authority on the matter.
1b. I would LOVE to see Ebert critique Kojima's video games. I would pay for a hardbound copy.

2. Ebert probably thinks architecture is art (though perhaps not industrial design, so sorry, coffee table-makers), though critics also acknowledge its function.

 

[hiro4]

but you can't manipulate the sculpture. the sculpture is presented to you and is viewed (and only viewed) by you. if a video game was comparable to a sculpture, it would be a simulation of viewing a sculpture. if developers want to make an interactive museum where i can view and subjectively judge pieces of digital art so be it, but it sounds like a boring fucking game.

So basically what you are saying is that art is boring?

 

[Haunted]

Why does the gaming community get worked up about this? Who cares what he says, it doesn't matter. Only time will tell.

Hobbyists constantly seek validation for their hobby, that's just how it is.

 

[B.K.]

He's right. Games aren't art. Neither are tv shows, movies, or music.

 

[swoon]

1b. I would LOVE to see Ebert critique Kojima's video games. I would pay for a hardbound copy.

2. Ebert probably thinks architecture is art (though perhaps not industrial design, so sorry, coffee table-makers), though critics also acknowledge its function.

1b. oh god yes.

2. i'm sure he'd think industrial design is art, he's problem with games involves interaction along rules based play, not having function. like documentaries or newsreels are still art.

 

[Boss Doggie]

Though I'm on his side, quality-wise, his argument is all over the place. I've reread it twice and his only consistent point is that bad creativity isn't art. "Video games won't be art in our lifetimes," is wholly unsupported by his arguments. That said, he started this whole thing after his illness, which is when his film criticism started sucking, too. I wish 1990s Ebert could give us a fair fight.

So it sort of is invoking the "art for art's sake" thing. Some devs actually make games because they want to explore the good and beauty, which imo, "defines" art.

Yay Civ4 tech!

 

[Peronthious]

In fact film has a specific goal point... it's linear.. you're supposed to see only specific scenes.

The key here is an observable goal or end state that is implicit in the rules. A traditional film obviously can't have a user defined end point. However, the end of the film itself also doesn't qualify, since short of looking up the length of the film beforehand the end situation is generally not presupposed. Traditional games like football, chess, etc. are different in that you as a player are focused on reaching a specific end state, whether it be having the most points at the end of the game, capturing the opponent's king, or what have you. In video games (or in some non video games) this end point may not be presupposed, but the numerous user defined goals spread throughout the game satisfy the goal definition: the player wants to kill this enemy, the player wants to build these structures, etc.

 

[BocoDragon]

Hobbyists constantly seek validation for their hobby, that's just how it is.

On the other hand... I don't so much want to elevate games, so much as I'd desire to tear down Ebert's haughty definition of "art". It's the very definition of pretensious... and as I said far back.. it's theology. It literally doesn't exist, or at least in some form that Ebert would take so seriously as to defend unerringly.

 

[xbhaskarx]

I'm glad to see Ebert bashing is more socially acceptable over here than in the OT.

 

[blame space]

So basically what you are saying is that art is boring?

yes. art needs more trigger-buttons.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

I wonder what Ebert would say about Heavy Rain.

Never played it but since it's more like a movie than a game, wonder what he'll think about it?

 

[Chaser]

I didn't read through the entire thread, so I apologize if this sentiment has been shared already:

This discussion demands the definition of 'art'.
In my opinion, the most fundamental aspect of 'art', across all mediums, is its ability to affect the person experiencing a creative piece emotionally and/or intellectually to a significant degree.

I believe that's a fair and universal definition.
And if that is the case, videogames can easily be a form of art. I'd even argue that videogames have the most potential in the future given their interactive nature

 

[ArachosiA 78]

I think a rollercoaster is art.

It's not a science. You can't just engineer it to be objectively fun (well, you can... but you can also engineer a movie to be fun: Ask Bruckheimer). It's not purely functional either.

Also the design of a school might be art. The design of a water fountain might be art. Something which has a function is not disqualified from being art.

I'll accept the idea that ANYTHING can be art. However, in order for something to be art, it must be presented as such.

For instance, a pile of leaves on a forest floor is not art. It's just a pile of leaves. However, if a person arranged the leaves in some fashion, with the purpose of expressing some sort of idea or feeling, than the pile of leaves is transformed into art.

I have never heard of a video game being presented as art.

 

[Black Rainbow]

Remember what Hideo Kojima said after Ebert's first blog about this? Kojima agreed and said he doesn't think games are art either.

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

I'm not going to say anything because I feel unqualified to say anything on this matter. I'm just one of the people who enjoy the art from other artists.

But there you go.

I wonder what Kojima would say about the sculptures, architecture, and other art pieces that are located at city halls the world over which undoubtedly perform a service, not least of which is to beautify the community.

 

[Miguga64]

He is not right...

Take all the examples from movies, they were not considered "art".
Movies make use of other arts to: photography, music, dance, etc, and videogames too.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE A COMPOSER or performer to enjoy music, and music is art. You just have to heard it and enjoy it.

You Don't have to be a painting artist and still you can enjoy paintings and art.

And you are talking about rules? well, I study music, and let me tell you, there is A LOT of rules when came to music analysis, composition, and musicology.

And actually, for something to be art, it have to express you something, its a way or "channel" to say something. Well, you can feel and recieve a lot of stuff from original game designs

 

[GhaleonQ]

I wonder what Ebert would say about Heavy Rain.

Never played it but since it's more like a movie than a game, wonder what he'll think about it?

He says (in the piece) that it gives up being a game to become a play or movie more so than nearly any other game, and he would say that it seems to be written by a 14-year old C student. If he thinks Braid is fortune cookie nonsense, a mystery story that isn't written like a mystery story would get no quarter.

 

[BocoDragon]

The key here is an observable goal or end state that is implicit in the rules. A traditional film obviously can't have a user defined end point. However, the end of the film itself also doesn't qualify, since short of looking up the length of the film beforehand the end situation is generally not presupposed. Traditional games like football, chess, etc. are different in that you as a player are focused on reaching a specific end state, whether it be having the most points at the end of the game, capturing the opponent's king, or what have you. In video games (or in some non video games) this end point may not be presupposed, but the numerous user defined goals spread throughout the game satisfy the goal definition: the player wants to kill this enemy, the player wants to build these structures, etc.

The end goals of games seem to me like extraneous "bonuses" that, if you took them out of the game completely, you'd still be left which the experience of an interactive sandbox world with narrative elements... which seems a lot like a film world, and then some.

Again, I'm struck by how a film necessarily drags us down one particular narrative, while a game could potentially give us more freedom in how to uncover a narrative, or linger in a world with no narrative concern at all. Sometimes I feel that games are more art than film (at least potentially if not in practice most of the time).

 

[Deleted member 30609]

dude's really old, guys.

that's the only sentence that is relevant here.

 

[blame space]

Why?

Spoiler

Ignoring the rest of the post on the grounds that I don't understand what you're trying to say.

because art implies meaning. video games are (like) the konami code: if you input everything right, you'll get rewarded. but that predetermined reward doesn't signify that you've experienced or even participated in art; it means you've done the right fiddling with the joysticks, moved the remote in the right way, and pressed the buttons at the right time.

 

[SapientWolf]

The best thing about the definition of art is that it is completely subjective. Whether you think a video game is art or not, you are right.

 

[Diortem7]

If games aren't art:

Then a zen garden is not art.

A building's architecture is not art.

A sculpture is not art.

Performance art is not art.

Only Ebert's narrow-minded definition of a linear story in books or movies is art.

This. Just because something lacks narrative doesn't discredit it from being art. Architecture is definitely art, and like architecture games are designed and crafted piece by piece.

 

[ZealousD]

I respect Ebert as a movie critic, but ultimately that's all he is. A movie expert.

He simply doesn't understand games because he's never sought to understand them. He's part of an older generation, and he's unlikely to understand them in his lifetime.

Need I remind Ebert that early film was very primitive and would likely not pass as art by his own definition.

 

[BocoDragon]

dude's really old, guys.

that's the only sentence that is relevant here.

It's a little depressing, though... Are we doomed to be unable to recognize the next art that comes along too? I find that hard to believe.

But then again... first it's presented as utter drek (Space Invaders), and only long after we've written it off does it emerge into the art that our 20-something children are babbling about.

 

[jdogmoney]

because art implies meaning. video games are (like) the konami code: if you input everything right, you'll get rewarded. but that predetermined reward doesn't signify that you've experienced or even participated in art; it means you've done the right fiddling with the joysticks, moved the remote in the right way, and pressed the buttons at the right time.

"...but sitting until the end of Schindler's List doesn't imply that you've experienced or even participated in art; it means you've sat in the right direction, paid attention to the proper glowing rectangle, and didn't get up for popcorn at an inopportune moment."

The art in a video game (or anything) isn't about the destination, it's about the journey.

 

[UltimaPooh]

Remember what Hideo Kojima said after Ebert's first blog about this? Kojima agreed and said he doesn't think games are art either.



I'm not going to say anything because I feel unqualified to say anything on this matter. I'm just one of the people who enjoy the art from other artists.

But there you go.

and Kojima is wrong as well, since films involve multiple people as well as music and plays/operas.

 

[blame space]

I wonder what Ebert would say about Heavy Rain.

Never played it but since it's more like a movie than a game, wonder what he'll think about it?

if what you're stating is true, then it is perhaps the worst evidence for games being art; being that it's supposedly a movie in which you fiddle buttons during scenes.

 

[GhaleonQ]

Need I remind Ebert that early film was very primitive and would likely not pass as art by his own definition.

Which do you think is more successful of his examples: A Trip To The Moon or whatever your game of choice is?

 

[BocoDragon]

"...but sitting until the end of Schindler's List doesn't imply that you've experienced or even participated in art; it means you've sat in the right direction, paid attention to the proper glowing rectangle, and didn't get up for popcorn at an inopportune moment."

The art in a video game (or anything) isn't about the destination, it's about the journey.

Wonderful... exactly.

 

[Chaser]

Also, has Ebert bothered with ICO or SotC?
Both are still the best argument for 'games as art', in my opinion.

Either way, I'm pretty sure Ebert gave Better Off Dead a bad rating back in the 80's.
So fuck him.

 

[Lard]

Ebert can eat a dick.

Oh wait, he can't.

 

[blame space]

"...but sitting until the end of Schindler's List doesn't imply that you've experienced or even participated in art; it means you've sat in the right direction, paid attention to the proper glowing rectangle, and didn't get up for popcorn at an inopportune moment."

The art in a video game (or anything) isn't about the destination, it's about the journey.

"the journey" is a pixelated or polygon arena that allows no deviation besides what the developers have coded into it.

i have a baseball bat and a baseball. both are manufactured for specific purposes. if i use the baseball bat to hit the baseball, is that art?

 

[Hy_]

Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to enlarge upon it or defend it. That seemed to be a fool's errand, especially given the volume of messages I receive urging me to play this game or that and recant the error of my ways. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art.

Unless he is willing to sit down and actually play these games, it's pointless to discuss his point and he will remain a "fool". I'd love it if he did though.

 

[Kuran]

I guess I missed that artsy movie with only one name in the credits.

 

[Deleted member 30609]

It's a little depressing, though... Are we doomed to be unable to recognize the next art that comes along too? I find that hard to believe.

But then again... first it's presented as utter drek (Space Invaders), and only long after we've written it off does it emerge into the art that our 20-something children are babbling about.

Some people reach a point where they decide they have done all the learning about some aspects of life they will ever need to. There is no point in arguing a point with these people. I'd sooner throw myself against a brick wall repeatedly, it would be about as useful.

Discussing this with people who are willing to acknowledge this as a discussion to begin with, else they don't already consider themselves 'an authority' on aspects of the discussion, would be a much more engaging, worthwhile time for the community, and promotes a much healthier, compelling back and forth.

This is just subjective rock-throwing for the sake of an entire community trying to validate itself in the eyes of a highly-respected, admirable movie critic and human being. As long as there are people out there discussing this topic like an art, being affected by games like an art, seeing a vision through like an art and doing creative things in the name of their art, for all intents and purposes, this is an art to us, if not to Roger Ebert, of all people.

 

[Safe Bet]

He's only doing this to try and make us step up and "define" the medium better.

No one with any training would be stupid enough to make the statements he's making.

 

[jdogmoney]

"the journey" is a pixelated or polygon arena that allows no deviation besides what the developers have coded into it.

i have a baseball bat and a baseball. both are manufactured for specific purposes. if i use the baseball bat to hit the baseball, is that art?

Depends on how well you do it, I'd say.

What if you bounce the ball off the bat repeatedly, or balance the ball for a really, really long time?

Performance art.


Besides, I don't see how the first bit makes something not art. Weren't you arguing that a statue is art only because it's static and unchanging?

 

[BocoDragon]

"the journey" is a pixelated or polygon arena that allows no deviation besides what the developers have coded into it.

i have a baseball bat and a baseball. both are manufactured for specific purposes. if i use the baseball bat to hit the baseball, is that art?

"This scene has a specific purpose to convey information that Jules and Vincent are hitmen with a sense of humor, and to tell a few funny jokes which might endear us to them". Functional components in film.

Also you completely overlook emergent gameplay. For example, I could do different things with the baseball bat and the baseball. Pose with them. Arrange them on the ground in a symbolic meaning. (I don't think baseball makes more a great analogy for game art but you get the idea)

And there are emergent moments of beauty. I mean Zelda isn't just me charging from goal to goal... sometimes you have those moments where you slowly trot your horse as the sun goes down over the hill, your character yawn's, and there is an emergent moment of beauty not unlike a movie scene which has been scripted to elicit similar emotion...

 

[Haly]

Someone get him to play Mother 3.

 

[Mariner]

wow, a basically dead guy disses gaming. what a revolution. he needs to accept his fate and just check-in to shady acres already.

 

[Piano]

but you can't manipulate the sculpture. the sculpture is presented to you and is viewed (and only viewed) by you. if a video game was comparable to a sculpture, it would be a simulation of viewing a sculpture. if developers want to make an interactive museum where i can view and subjectively judge pieces of digital art so be it, but it sounds like a boring fucking game.

Changing your perspective is your way of manipulating it. You change what you're seeing. Same with a game, but you modify your experience with a controller, not physical repositioning (unless it's a Wii game, I guess)

 

[Piano]

"the journey" is a pixelated or polygon arena that allows no deviation besides what the developers have coded into it.

Same can be said for films, paintings, photographs, etc. If you're going to argue semantics down to the core of the experience, all of this things are just looking at things someone else created.

 

[Skiesofwonder]

if what you're stating is true, then it is perhaps the worst evidence for games being art; being that it's supposedly a movie in which you fiddle buttons during scenes.

Yep. That would be Ebert's argument.

I've said this plenty of times before, but Shattered Memories is THE game I would show Ebert if I was trying to convince him otherwise.

 

[Snuggles]

I'm just joking around

Don't be a dick. It's a tough question but I think that games a certainly capable of being art. It's just that games are much more flexible than any other medium, sometimes you're blasting dudes in the face with shotguns and sometimes you're a flower pollinating fields etc etc. In my opinion, if movies are considered art, so are videogames.