Support NeoGAF

[gerg]

That's stupid. It's like calling MW2 an "FPS with user-interaction elements." Any entertainment product which is not simply repackaging found content has artistic elements.

Your whole post relies on this artificial distinction between "design" (functional, commercial, goal-oriented) and "art" (elite, abstract, self-referential, divorced from modern life) which is just a reversed version of the "high art/low art" distinction intended to cast aspersion on artists from an "everyman's" perspective rather than to cast aspersion on folk and popular work from an elite perspective. It doesn't mean anything; it's the art-world version of the "core/casual" distinction, with all the implications that comparison has for how such a framing innately poisons the discourse when used.

I agree that there is no difference (necessarily) in terms of content between design and art, but surely there's an attitudinal difference (or difference in intention) which is far from being artificial and arbitrary? (Forgive the "surely".)

I'd also be wary of conflating "aesthetics elements" and "artistic elements". I agree that every entertainment product has aesthetic elements. Artistic elements? Perhaps.

 

[Tim-E]

He just said this on Twitter:

I am not too old to "get" video games. I am too wise.

then he quickly deleted it and changed it to:

I'm not too old to "get" video games, but I may be too well-read.

TweetDeck saves that shit, sir.


This dude can eat my pussy.

 

[ntropy]

This dude can eat my pussy.

brush off the sand first

 

[Jex]

This is why I love the people who write in the games industy :

I'm not too old to "get" video games, but I may be too well-read.

@ebert There's a difference between dismissing a topic you're uninterested in and outright insulting people who are interested in it.

Keep fighting the good fight!

 

[Prince of Space]

:lol :lol

He should've stayed with "too wise."

 

[140.85]

It would seem that Mr. Ebert is quite scared of having to take games seriously.

I love how he passes judgment on an interactive medium without...y'know...interacting with it. :lol

 

[Jex]

I'm not too old to "get" video games, but I may be too well-read.

@ebertchicago And yet you still like Avatar. Funny how that works.

People are just starting to sound a little annoyed.

EDIT - Confirmed, now Jeff Green is laying down some smack.

So @rogerebert's last tweet about games proves he's not really interested in mature discussion. Now he's just being willfully insulting.

I really had no issue with him until that one or his argument, but saying he's "too well read"? He may not understand who he's talking to.

I got Ebert's Twitter id wrong. (Because I'm not well read!) Anyway, his opinion is worthless on this subject. But the insult annoyed.

Thats it. Ebert made Jeff Green mad. Now he's in for it! That's EA's Jeff Green!

 

[DDayton]

Folks protest too much - why does it matter if games are called "art" or not? If a game is "art," it will eventually be recognized as such. For the moment, why does it really matter?

 

[BobsRevenge]

The whole stage vs backstage dynamic in Portal was fascinating. As was the breakdown of GlaDOS and the elegance of the Portal gun's implementation into first person. And its great humor.

I wouldn't call that dynamic fascinating. It provided another layer of complexity to the game, and it worked really well, but it wasn't fascinating to me. It's a unique game, but the elegance of implementing the Portal mechanics into first person is canceled out by how inelegant the first person shooter conventions are for a puzzle game.

The humor was great though. Definitely. Among the best in that area.

As a puzzle game, the gameplay doesn't do well to facilitate translating the player's intentions to the game relative to the puzzle games I mentioned earlier. As a first person platforming game with puzzle elements, it is well conceived. However, there wasn't enough game there and far too much time was spent on getting the player up to speed with the mechanics proportionally to actually challenging the player. I didn't actually find the first quarter, or maybe a little more, of the game very fun at all. It was actually kind of tedious. [edit: A lot of the more difficult puzzles were tedious as well, because it became more about platforming (which is kind of awkward in the game) than it was figuring the puzzles out in the first place, which usually wasn't that hard for them]

@The guy that talked about trying to understand why stuff is funny: Yeah, Portal's humor is very well conceived. Humor is an art form and Portal excels at it relative to the medium.

I do think Portal is great, but it is way overexposed, and overrated as a game. My overreaction to that is just to counter-balance what I see as overexposure and overrating. It is presented as over-the-top so that people don't take it too seriously. :lol

edit: @HK-47, I do like being contrarian when I find a good opportunity to be. But it always comes from an honest place.

 

[Jex]

After Eberts most recent, insulting tweet, I actually got round to updating the OP. If anyone has any good responses from game journalists/developers I'll put them up there as well.

 

[LordAzrael]

Eberts right. seriously.

 

[Tellaerin]

Eberts right. seriously.

You make such a convincing argument.

 

[Safe Bet]

As for effecting the story you are participating in, it is then that it ceases to be art as you loos the authoritative voice of the artist.

How the fuck do you lose " the voice of the artist" when it is the artist offering the choices and deciding the consequences?

 

[The Technomancer]

@The guy that talked about trying to understand why stuff is funny: Yeah, Portal's humor is very well conceived. Humor is an art form and Portal excels at it relative to the medium.

Well, theres a great debate to be had here about the "relative to the medium" statement, as I think most "comedy" films are terrible as well. And most writers attempts to be funny are cringe-worthy. But that would be rather off topic.

 

[Zachack]

Hmm where do you base that. You are basically saying that I can't force myself to draw anything that wouldn't become art no? As in it's written in stone.

I'd be willing to consider pen marks made by your hand twitching slightly from electrical impulses/blood flow as you paid attention to something else to be not-art. It gets pretty reductive but art intrudes at some level of most creative things done by humans. That range is pretty huge, though; you can have things that are barely artistic, or recreations of art (which thereby reflect or amplify art), etc.

I agree that there is no difference (necessarily) in terms of content between design and art, but surely there's an attitudinal difference (or difference in intention) which is far from being artificial and arbitrary? (Forgive the "surely".)

But that's not a case of art/not-art, but rather the difference between facile art or meaningful art or ugly art etc. It's one thing to argue about the scale, it's another to argue that something isn't even on the scale.

I'd also be wary of conflating "aesthetics elements" and "artistic elements". I agree that every entertainment product has aesthetic elements. Artistic elements? Perhaps.

Entertainment will invariably contain some artistic element, and even something with none would become art for having none.

 

[BobsRevenge]

Well, theres a great debate to be had here about the "relative to the medium" statement, as I think most "comedy" films these days are terrible as well. But that would be rather off topic.

Portal really can't compete to the likes of The Hangover. It isn't close to Wedding Crashers or The 40 Year Old Virgin. It never got the laughs out of me that Hot Tub Time Machine did, even if that movie was kind of dumb.

The humor isn't nearly as funny as the best sitcoms, nor as smart or witty.

But it is pretty much the best in gaming. I mean, I guess you have something like Giants: Citizen Kabuto to compare it to, but I feel like that game's humor probably doesn't hold up in retrospect. So yeah, relative to the medium.

 

[Seanspeed]

That anybody would have such a strict definition of 'art' ruins any credentials he has for judging what is art and what isn't in the first place.

And anyways, he's obviously very narrow-minded, taking shallow potshots at perfectly valid examples of video games as art(Braid, especially) as a way to quickly dismiss the evidence. He's probably never actually played any of them, just seen a Youtube video or two, looked for absolutely anything he could find to prove his theory right(ignoring all the beautiful evidence in front of him that goes against what he thinks), and then acts like he's fully debunked the opposition's argument.

Its laughably ignorant from a supposedly respected critic. You'd think of all people, they'd have a bit better 'debate skillz' than this.

 

[Zachack]

Folks protest too much - why does it matter if games are called "art" or not? If a game is "art," it will eventually be recognized as such. For the moment, why does it really matter?

I said this elsewhere but the issue is that Ebert should really know better.

How the fuck do you lose " the voice of the artist" when it is the artist offering the choices and deciding the consequences?

I could be misinterpreting his comment but I think he means that when you cease to have parameters and wind up with basically a simulator of real-life, then it's not-art.

Put another way: would a holodeck simulation be art? Granted, we assume that all the building blocks are programmed in by a person at some point, but if Skynet achieved sentience, programmed itself beyond its initial programming, absorbed information regarding "enough" reality, and then built a holodeck so people could ride a virtual pony, at that point you'd start to have not-art. Maybe.

 

[BobsRevenge]

edit: Sorry bro, misread.

 

[Mar]

Thats it. Ebert made Jeff Green mad. Now he's in for it! That's EA's Jeff Green!

See, I didn't care about Ebert or anyone else arguing this point. But now he's gone too far. You don't get Black Dragon mad, because that gets me mad. Rally the troops!

 

[charlequin]

Except in this case, FPS is a clearly defined term.

"Entertainment product" ain't exactly the Riddle of the Sphinx either.

I'm not trying to cast aspersions on anyone.

No, you're not -- but you are advocating a stance that implicitly divides human artistic expression into a false dichotomy. It is not actually necessary for you to hold a personally negative view of one or the other for this particular approach to the issue to be harmful to meaningful discussion and consideration of the matter, just like someone can enjoy both Wii Sports and DoDonPachi Black Label (say) but that person choosing to give credence to the "core/casual" split in a discussion will still harm the ability of said discussion to yield any true insight.

Pretty much the entire history of art in the 20th century was about breaking down these kinds of barriers and reflecting the reality that commercial design, folk art, culturally-recognized works, and everything in-between are all outsprings of the same fundamental human impulse to create. I don't really think it makes sense to go back to what's basically a pre-postmodernism way of looking at this sort of thing when talking about some new medium.

 

[thetrin]

Photopia.

Photopia is brilliant, and a fantastic example of what gaming is capable of when the devs are not obsessed with amazing graphics and a sweeping hollywood score.

Photopia is where gaming need to get.

 

[mentalfloss]

Thank god he finally put his foot in his mouth for the last time. Now we can let someone who's willing to put a well balanced argument speak up instead of using his narrow-minded rhetoric as a launch pad for this discussion.

 

[The Technomancer]

Portal really can't compete to the likes of The Hangover. It isn't close to Wedding Crashers or The 40 Year Old Virgin. It never got the laughs out of me that Hot Tub Time Machine did, even if that movie was kind of dumb.

The humor isn't nearly as funny as the best sitcoms, nor as smart or witty.

But it is pretty much the best in gaming. I mean, I guess you have something like Giants: Citizen Kabuto to compare it to, but I feel like that game's humor probably doesn't hold up in retrospect. So yeah, relative to the medium.

Hmm, well, I'd disagree with you there, but now we're really down to personal opinions, so there's no further ground to be gained. We seem to agree on the broader points of the argument. It doesn't have to be funnier than all funny movies for me (and I'd agree, the Hangover was funnier), just most of them, compared to some shitty comedy like "Meet the Spartans" or "Taladega Nights"

 

[Version 3.0]

There's really no saying who's right. It's too open to interpretation. The whole thing is like arguing whether something tastes good.

But his condescending attitude is deserving of ridicule. He clearly dislikes that anyone could consider games relevant. I wouldn't be surprised if he has the same opinion of comic books (which are as valid as books, if not more, despite the majority of content being childish). His stance, despite his protests to the contrary, reeks of the old guy deriding the interests of youth. I find that especially funny considering how old some of us gamers have gotten.

The "well-read" comment was good, too. I'd expect many gamers are as well-read as he is. People who are truly well-read often look down on movies as an inferior medium; they're probably not likely to become reviewers. :lol

I did enjoy his miserable attempt to define a game, though. That made me laugh. He's so narrow-minded! But I guess "game" is hard to pin down, too, just like "art". ;-p

 

[Ikael]

Yet again, Egbert shows that he has a very narrow definition of what is art and how it should be valued. Not every art should be narrative. Not every art is meant to be seen. More specifically, videogames are meant, precisely, to be experimented, which is a thing that he hasn't done yet. Watching a videogame and playing it are two entirely different things.

 

[BocoDragon]

Folks protest too much - why does it matter if games are called "art" or not? If a game is "art," it will eventually be recognized as such. For the moment, why does it really matter?

That's what we're doing: recognizing it as such. Who else do we think is going to recognize it? Movie critics?

 

[Version 3.0]

That's what we're doing: recognizing it as such. Who else do we think is going to recognize it? Movie critics?

Exactly. I don't think there's some International Association of Recognizing Art; the best the medium can hope for is some sort of general unspoken consensus. Most people don't care and would never think about it. The only people who are likely to care are gamers and those who are derisive of the growing legitimization of the medium--like Ebert.

 

[MaritalWheat]

So has Ebert ever commented on any of Jason Rohrer's stuff, particularly Passage? It would take him all of five minutes to play, and if he fails to recognize at least any potential from a game like that...

 

[Version 3.0]

I know I'm coming in late here, and I'm not going to look through the whole thread, but has anyone posted the dictionary definition of "art" yet? The relevant one is as follows:

Art: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

If that doesn't cement the discussion as a definite "yes", then whomever disagrees will need to take it up with Webster. Videogames are undeniably "works produced through the conscious use of skill and creative imagination".

 

[Firestorm]

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.'

I've always struggled with art vs design in games. This is why I usually look at what other art is defined by. To an extent, a lot of things are design. They are engineered specifically for a purpose.

Artistic media, to me, provides an outlet for self-expression and ability to evoke an emotional response. Can video games do that? Yes. Do all game developers take advantage of that? No.

I'm not familiar with many architects, but I would consider Zaha Hadid both an artist and a designer.

This is also why I dislike games being critiqued soley on being fun. If they're interesting, and I feel my time was well spent on it, I'm willing to call it a good game. Case in point: Flower. I wasn't having fun in the traditional sense, in fact, I was even frustrated at points. However, the experience was really something else and I think my time with it was worthwhile.

 

[Monocle]

Except that gaming is all about interactivity, the fact that the game make a point in showing how little your action affect the game kinda shows how much the medium fails at what it's meant to do and what it offers and separate it from the other media

Every plot driven game is a series of predetermined outcomes limited by the developer's resources. Choice is an illusion. Bioshock makes this inherent weakness of video games its greatest narrative strength by underlining the player's powerlessness at exactly the moment it will echo your character's situation loudest.

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.

Your lack of control at that time reinforces the connection between your actions as a player and your character's actions in his fictional world. Games alone, among all other media, can contrast the active with the passive via the audience's direct participation. I think your preconceptions about what a game should be led you to expect interactivity in a sequence whose metaphorical power would have been reduced by it.

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.

Gungrave did it first. Anyway, if your (false) choice in MGS3 means something, the inverse of that situation in Bioshock should too.

I know I'm coming in late here, and I'm not going to look through the whole thread, but has anyone posted the dictionary definition of "art" yet? The relevant one is as follows:


If that doesn't cement the discussion as a definite "yes", then whomever disagrees will need to take it up with Webster. Videogames are undeniably "works produced through the conscious use of skill and creative imagination".

That definition is broad enough to encompass pissing a shape into a bed of snow.

 

[Firestorm]

Just a point about what was said above about Snake Eater, but in Heavy Rain and BioShock 2 there are points where it's not a false choice and goddamn those hit me hard x.x

Folks protest too much - why does it matter if games are called "art" or not? If a game is "art," it will eventually be recognized as such. For the moment, why does it really matter?

It's because people keep telling us they aren't and they for some reason have a voice. I've never run into this issue offline. When I go to school, games are considered art and culturally relevant. It's just a given. When I come online, for some reason I see 10 page debates on something that I always accepted as obvious.

 

[timetokill]

That definition is broad enough to encompass pissing a shape into a bed of snow.

Well have you done that yourself? I'm just asking because I want to be sure whether your claims as to whether pissing a shape into a snowbed is art or not are worthy of consideration.

 

[Version 3.0]

That definition is broad enough to encompass pissing a shape into a bed of snow.

So you disagree with it? Take it up with Webster. It seems a perfectly reasonable definition to me. Art is everywhere. People love to create.

 

[mentalfloss]

Well have you done that yourself? I'm just asking because I want to be sure whether your claims as to whether pissing a shape into a snowbed is art or not are worthy of consideration.

I'd be really impressed if one could piss a perfect circle. Refining that skill is definitely an art.

 

[Drahcir]

Just because one is suddenly inspired to do something creative does not automatically mean it's art. You or your peers cannot tell you whether something is art or not because unless they're an authority on the matter, they're just opinions. The post-modern definition of art is that it is defined by authority figures through which they are associated. Ebert has long been an authority figure in cinema, so he can say all he wants to regarding film as art. But what he can't do is discuss the same about video games. When he does, that's just an opinion. The same kind of opinion any of us can make. End of story. It's been mentioned before, I know, but that's the bottom line.

So, knowing that, when Miyamoto comes out and straight out says games are not art, they're entertainment, he's making a statement as an authority figure on the matter and we have to respect that. Of course, we can debate that all fucking day long until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, he's Miyamoto and you're not.

Now if we're gonna get all philosophical about it, then I would subscribe to James Joyce's aesthetic theory between kinetic (pornographic and didactic) and static art (aesthetic arrest), but right now it's closing time I gotta beat traffic.

 

[HK-47]

Just because one is suddenly inspired to do something creative does not automatically mean it's art. You or your peers cannot tell you whether something is art or not because unless they're an authority on the matter, they're just opinions. The post-modern definition of art is that it is defined by authority figures through which they are associated. Ebert has long been an authority figure in cinema, so he can say all he wants to regarding film as art. But what he can't do is discuss the same about video games. When he does, that's just an opinion. The same kind of opinion any of us can make. End of story. It's been mentioned before, I know, but that's the bottom line.

So, knowing that, when Miyamoto comes out and straight out says games are not art, they're entertainment, he's making a statement as an authority figure on the matter and we have to respect that. Of course, we can debate that all fucking day long until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, he's Miyamoto and you're not.

Now if we're gonna get all philosophical about it, then I would subscribe to James Joyce's aesthetic theory between kinetic (pornographic and didactic) and static art (aesthetic arrest), but right now it's closing time I gotta beat traffic.

And there are other figures in the industry that do believe its art, so Miyamoto isnt the be all end all, even though some people treat him as such.

 

[mentalfloss]

Just because one is suddenly inspired to do something creative does not automatically mean it's art. You or your peers cannot tell you whether something is art or not because unless they're an authority on the matter, they're just opinions. The post-modern definition of art is that it is defined by authority figures through which they are associated. Ebert has long been an authority figure in cinema, so he can say all he wants to regarding film as art. But what he can't do is discuss the same about video games. When he does, that's just an opinion. The same kind of opinion any of us can make. End of story. It's been mentioned before, I know, but that's the bottom line.

So, knowing that, when Miyamoto comes out and straight out says games are not art, they're entertainment, he's making a statement as an authority figure on the matter and we have to respect that. Of course, we can debate that all fucking day long until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, he's Miyamoto and you're not.

Now if we're gonna get all philosophical about it, then I would subscribe to James Joyce's aesthetic theory between kinetic (pornographic and didactic) and static art (aesthetic arrest), but right now it's closing time I gotta beat traffic.

Wait. So you're openly admitting to an appeal to authority?

 

[Flachmatuch]

What exactly are you trying to understand?

What other people think about art, and through this, what art "really" is (as much as it's possible). I'm not interested in the technical consequences of an arbitrary definition.

Pretty much the entire history of art in the 20th century was about breaking down these kinds of barriers and reflecting the reality that commercial design, folk art, culturally-recognized works, and everything in-between are all outsprings of the same fundamental human impulse to create. I don't really think it makes sense to go back to what's basically a pre-postmodernism way of looking at this sort of thing when talking about some new medium.

Errr, there is a fundamental human impulse to create, just like there's a fundamental human impulse to multiply, but we still don't call everything that's connected to it or results from it "sex". (It'd probably include a significant portion of art anyway.) This fundamental human impulse to create, whatever its roots are, can have a million results, and I don't know why we should call all of these "art". I mean, afaik, play is originally really a part of the learning process, but we still differentiate between playing and learning (and play and art are also pretty close afaics...it could be the root for this human creative impulse too, so would that make the word "art" synonymous with "play"?)

The problem is that you're arguing about a strawman here. Very little (if anything) is "designed through focus groups" the way you are suggesting; many things are aversely affected by marketing pressures and funding issues, but the idea that products are being created entirely absent any form of human intention and individual design is just totally ungrounded in reality.

But then, why is everything that's coming from Hollywood or large gaming companies totally, completely, 100% predictable? I mean, theory is awesome, but looking at actual big time games, it's pretty difficult to find anything that's not predictable, engineered entertainment without anything to say. The effect of money is quite obvious, no matter which way I look at it.

You seem to be lacking a working knowledge of the history of artistic expression

Absolutely. Think of this as educating me hehe :-D I mean, I'd like to know if there's some "real" basis of art, other than "creative expression", and unless someone can demonstrate that there isn't and not just postulate it, I'll still be looking for that, if this makes sense? I don't really like the relativist approach at all, because it's not really a solution to a problem but avoiding the problem altogether.

and it leads you to unreasonable conclusions like suggesting that Shakespeare's work is somehow meaningfully distinct from that of a Hollywood screenwriter despite almost identical commercial concerns lying at the heart of both.

I think it's quite obviously different. The selection system for artists is different, the process someone's work is used in is different, the goals behind the entire production are different. The selection of allowed topics is different, and the whole economic system is different - at least his work was not transformed into "IP" and immediately owned by a large corporation. He was not a cog in a well-oiled money making machine, he did stuff and made money of it. Understanding why these differences are insignificant, especially when their consequences are predictable and observable in the current system, is pretty difficult for me. I'd find it pretty strange if all these economic structures, that had no trace at all in his time but dominate modern life had no influence whatsoever on how people create stuff, how people get the chance to create stuff or what kind of stuff they're allowed to say and so on. If you look at the difference between Hollywood and indie movies, the effect is not exactly difficult to see.

The point I tried to make was this: there are limits that modern economic structures place on individual creativity, these limits are stricter the higher the production costs are, and since video games are pretty expensive to produce, and generally quite risky, this is in reality pretty limiting for them. The strongest part of my statement is that I say that this structure absolutely does mean that a lot of video games have no chance of being art at this time (even though some of their parts can be). Of course not all video games fall into this category (although the class of games that Ebert etc are discussing are close). But Indie games can be quite different, and that's where the "art" thing can come in imo.

 

[Haeleos]

So, knowing that, when Miyamoto comes out and straight out says games are not art, they're entertainment, he's making a statement as an authority figure on the matter and we have to respect that. Of course, we can debate that all fucking day long until the cows come home, but the fact of the matter is, he's Miyamoto and you're not.

One of the most ignorant things I've read on these boards in awhile.

 

[tetrisgrammaton]

I was thinking about this today at work and here's what I came up with...

The problem with categorizing games as art is with the issue of artist and audience.
Traditional art always has both a defined artist and audience.

Games on the other hand, its a little more vague. Sure, games are made by artists, but is what they make art? Well, if you consider the relationship between audience and artist important to a definition of art, then it's not. Painters don't take their easel to the exhibit and let those in attendance dab a little paint on. In games, you essentially have two creators, the ones who create the rules and assets and all that, and the creator who is playing the game. So in a way, a game is a perpetual work in progress, and because it can never be finished, it can't be called art. If a game maker were to build a game, record a single playthrough of it, and destroy everything but the copy of it, that copy could be called art.

Another thing is that doing something can't be art. If I pet my cat, it's not art. If i get on a stage in front of an audience and pet my cat, that could be art. The LA Lakers aren't participating in art, but if the team got on stage and reenacted a play from a game, that could be art. Yet dancing could be art, but only on a stage in front of an audience, not in a room by myself. If a group of people reenacted the 4th act of Hamlet in WoW, could that be art?

Another thing I thought of.

Playing a video game seems like playing basketball on an court thats elaborately painted by Picasso. The court would be the work of art, and the game wouldn't be. Maybe that's why this dispute never seems to get anywhere.

One of the most ignorant things I've read on these boards in awhile.

One of the most ignorant things I've read on these boards in awhile.

 

[BobsRevenge]

I was thinking about this today at work and here's what I came up with...

The problem with categorizing games as art is with the issue of artist and audience.
Traditional art always has both a defined artist and audience.

Games on the other hand, its a little more vague. Sure, games are made by artists, but is what they make art? Well, if you consider the relationship between audience and artist important to a definition of art, then it's not. Painters don't take their easel to the exhibit and let those in attendance dab a little paint on. In games, you essentially have two creators, the ones who create the rules and assets and all that, and the creator who is playing the game. So in a way, a game is a perpetual work in progress, and because it can never be finished, it can't be called art. If a game maker were to build a game, record a single playthrough of it, and destroy everything but the copy of it, that copy could be called art.

Another thing is that doing something can't be art. If I pet my cat, it's not art. If i get on a stage in front of an audience and pet my cat, that could be art. The LA Lakers aren't participating in art, but if the team got on stage and reenacted a play from a game, that could be art. Yet dancing could be art, but only on a stage in front of an audience, not in a room by myself. If a group of people reenacted the 4th act of Hamlet in WoW, could that be art?

Another thing I thought of.

Playing a video game seems like playing basketball on an court thats elaborately painted by Picasso. The court would be the work of art, and the game wouldn't be. Maybe that's why this dispute never seems to get anywhere.



One of the most ignorant things I've read on these boards in awhile.

A game is a complete piece of art. What you do in it doesn't add to the art of the game, because the game is set. Maybe the game facilitates the creation of art within it, and that facilitation is part of the artistry of the game itself. That still isn't adding onto the original, complete art of the code and assets.

Also, you called that dude's ignorant statement ignorant. But he wasn't ignorant. He was right. An appeal to authority is meaningless as a logical argument. I don't give a shit what Miyamoto says, if I can show that games fit the definition of art I personally hold, as well as the definition presented in all the dictionaries I've looked at over the course of responding to this thread out or curiosity.

 

[tetrisgrammaton]

A game is a complete piece of art. What you do in it doesn't add to the art of the game, because the game is set. Maybe the game facilitates the creation of art within it, and that facilitation is part of the artistry of the game itself. That still isn't adding onto the original, complete art of the code and assets.

Also, you called that dude's ignorant statement ignorant. But he wasn't ignorant. He was right. An appeal to authority is meaningless as a logical argument. I don't give a shit what Miyamoto says, if I can show that games fit the definition of art I personally hold, as well as the definition presented in all the dictionaries I've looked at over the course of responding to this thread out or curiosity.

You may not but thats the problem with internetz, they don't give a shit about what what says.

The wide held viewpoint is that the "art world" determines what art is, and that art world is not us. Now when you have well known artists and critics start mentioning games in conversations, then it will make headwinds.

Truthfully Miyamoto's opinion matters little, because he's outside the art world as well, but it probably matters more than a forum poster.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I still find it very amusing that people are so eager to argue over what is art when so many of their starting premises are taken, perhaps unwittingly, from the long history of people trying to use "art" and "culture" as arbitrarily measured yardsticks to place one group of people above another.

A favorite definition of "art" I have is "art is what happens when you're trying to something else". Everything can be art, art can be found in anything. Everyone can be an artist. Almost everyone IS an "artist" at some point, for a lifetime or for a single moment. There is nothing elite or exclusive about art. Art belongs to everyone; everyone is a part of the human conditions that result in art.

With videogames, the bitching over whether "gamez are art", and this goes for those who say of course they are, and those who dismiss them as being nothing like art, is usually completely off in the wrong direction. Most people who say yay or nay are still trying to force games to be movies, or books, or paintings, or poetry, and so forth. Of course they're not that kind of art. Games are only art when they're being played; the human element is what creates art. I mean, to me this seems really freakin' obvious, because they are /games/. People have been able to observe how and when games become art for thousands of years.

A chess board sitting by itself, is just a chess board. It's not "art" except perhaps in the quality of its construction - suspiciously enough, not unlike the elements of "art" that go into the /construction/ of a videogame. But chess only becomes art when you watch a player do his thing. Football becomes an art when you see a flawless play combined with an amazing hail mary pass. Street Fighter becomes an art when you witness an amazing round, or go rewatch Daigo Full Parry for the one thousandth time. Super Mario Galaxy may as well be the goddamn Sistine Chapel of video games considering what Luigi's Purple Coins asks the player to do.

Trying to find the "art" in games by dissecting their graphics, writing, or how much the polygon puppets imitate a scene from a "real movie", is pointless. That's trying to find the forest by staring at a single tree. While Ebert is just being petty by picking on the writing in Braid's cloud rooms, he is also critiquing something that has nothing to do with what really makes Braid art (or not).

 

[Salazar]

Now if we're gonna get all philosophical about it, then I would subscribe to James Joyce's aesthetic theory between kinetic (pornographic and didactic) and static art (aesthetic arrest), but right now it's closing time I gotta beat traffic.

I do, I'm afraid, automatically distrust (and in general dislike) folks who take 'getting philosophical' to mean changing terminological gears and naming names.

 

[Micromegas]

I'm not too old to "get" video games, but I may be too well-read.

Love him.

 

[Tim-E]

Love him.

I assume you play games since you're here, so do you or the other people who "love" this quote realize that he's essentially calling you stupid?

 

[Pappasman]

I still find it very amusing that people are so eager to argue over what is art when so many of their starting premises are taken, perhaps unwittingly, from the long history of people trying to use "art" and "culture" as arbitrarily measured yardsticks to place one group of people above another.

A favorite definition of "art" I have is "art is what happens when you're trying to something else". Everything can be art, art can be found in anything. Everyone can be an artist. Almost everyone IS an "artist" at some point, for a lifetime or for a single moment. There is nothing elite or exclusive about art. Art belongs to everyone; everyone is a part of the human conditions that result in art.

With videogames, the bitching over whether "gamez are art", and this goes for those who say of course they are, and those who dismiss them as being nothing like art, is usually completely off in the wrong direction. Most people who say yay or nay are still trying to force games to be movies, or books, or paintings, or poetry, and so forth. Of course they're not that kind of art. Games are only art when they're being played; the human element is what creates art. I mean, to me this seems really freakin' obvious, because they are /games/. People have been able to observe how and when games become art for thousands of years.

A chess board sitting by itself, is just a chess board. It's not "art" except perhaps in the quality of its construction - suspiciously enough, not unlike the elements of "art" that go into the /construction/ of a videogame. But chess only becomes art when you watch a player do his thing. Football becomes an art when you see a flawless play combined with an amazing hail mary pass. Street Fighter becomes an art when you witness an amazing round, or go rewatch Daigo Full Parry for the one thousandth time. Super Mario Galaxy may as well be the goddamn Sistine Chapel of video games considering what Luigi's Purple Coins asks the player to do.

Trying to find the "art" in games by dissecting their graphics, writing, or how much the polygon puppets imitate a scene from a "real movie", is pointless. That's trying to find the forest by staring at a single tree. While Ebert is just being petty by picking on the writing in Braid's cloud rooms, he is also critiquing something that has nothing to do with what really makes Braid art (or not).

you have taken the words right out of my mouth.

 

[tiff]

I assume you play games since you're here, so do you or the other people who "love" this quote realize that he's essentially calling you stupid?

depends on what he means by "getting" video games.

either way he's trolling the hell out of gamers and it's hilarious.