Smithsonian And National Endowment For The Arts Ends Argument: Video Games ARE Art

[Rob2600]

Good points.

I think little development studios would continue to pop up and close even if video games were officially recognized as art though. What do you think?

Also, I think of video games, movies, music, and writing as "entertainment" first and as "art" second. That's just me though. For example, when I played Super Mario 64 for the first time in 1996, I kept thinking how much fun it was and how technologically impressive it was...but I usually didn't think "Wow, this is an amazing piece of art."

I definitely see the artistic merits in video games, but to me, again, it's secondary to the fun. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether or not video games are officially recognized as art.

[Bojay1997]

Good points.

I think little development studios would continue to pop up and close even if video games were officially recognized as art though. What do you think?

Also, I think of video games, movies, music, and writing as "entertainment" first and as "art" second. That's just me though. For example, when I played Super Mario 64 for the first time in 1996, I kept thinking how much fun it was and how technologically impressive it was...but I usually didn't think "Wow, this is an amazing piece of art."

I definitely see the artistic merits in video games, but to me, again, it's secondary to the fun. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether or not video games are officially recognized as art.

Fair enough. I agree with you that having games recognized as art isn't the be all and end all of whether or not the industry continues to grow, but I do believe it certainly can be helpful. I also agree that for me, games are entertainment first and art second, which is exactly how I feel about literature, films, television, and most other older media that are now considered to be art. I completely respect your views on the debate and I have no problem with people not caring either way. I only take issue with that small group of people who seem hell bent on opposing the view that games can be art as I can't possibly understand what stake they would have in seeing that their view carries the day.

[Rob2600]

What's funny is that in 1996, I was playing Super Mario 64 with my friend. Her older sister majored in art and worked at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan. She hadn't played video games since the NES, but she was watching us play and kept commenting how SM64 was so "non-linear" and "postmodern." She loved it. Meanwhile, we just thought it was fun.

So, for what it's worth, an actual artist and art aficionado perceived SM64 as modern art.

[SplashChick]

What's funny is that in 1996, I was playing Super Mario 64 with my friend. Her older sister majored in art and worked at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan. She hadn't played video games since the NES, but she was watching us play and kept commenting how SM64 was so "non-linear" and "postmodern." She loved it. Meanwhile, we just thought it was fun.

So, for what it's worth, an actual artist and art aficionado perceived SM64 as modern art.

She has a good eye.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I would imagine that most contemporary artists have a different perspective on exactly how video games may (or may not) qualify as "art", especially considering that most of them have experience with digital art/design in some capacity. Perspective means a lot when forming an opinion like this.

But on topic ... considering that the vast majority of art academia, art professionals, art critics, and the general public haven't been able to come up with any empirical consensus or measurable "formula" for what "art is" for, like, centuries (and they STILL haven't) ... is it really worth debating whether what is essentially a new media in its infant stages is or is not "art"?

If games will ever grow to be "accepted" as art on a larger near-universal scale (say, on the level of something immediately identifiable as a concise-definition art product like portrait or landscape painting) it's going to need to take a completely organic and meritorious route to happening, and it's going to take a long long time. Longer than it has to get to the point we're at now. I personally feel that it's on it's way and moving along the right path, but it needs a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) more "milestones" for artists, critics, academics and scholars to use as supporting arguments.

The argument is far from ended based on anything that the Smithsonian has done.

[Rob2600]

If you passed on it the first time in this thread, I again invite everybody to watch this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iczKP0TQRes

I can't watch the video. YouTube gives me the message, "This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions."

[TonyTheTiger]

I suspect if one day everyone woke up and agreed that paintings weren't art, the number of painters making a decent or remarkable living would shrink to nothing.

See, this is what I really doubt. We're in here bemusing the meaning and value of art as a concept because we find it stimulating in this setting. We probably don't, however, see a trailer for a new movie and think, "Hm...is that art? Should I spend my money on something that might not be art?" Instead we think, "Hm...this looks entertaining." People don't buy paintings because they're art. They buy paintings and hang them in their halls because either they look nice or somebody gave it to them and they feel obligated to display it. The whole "art" debate is really mostly academic. It doesn't have a whole lot of impact on the average consumer. Nor do I think it has much of an impact on the flow of money. With the exception of a few government sponsored programs, people don't fund "art" for it's own sake. They fund things that will bring a return.


Also, I think of video games, movies, music, and writing as "entertainment" first and as "art" second. That's just me though. For example, when I played Super Mario 64 for the first time in 1996, I kept thinking how much fun it was and how technologically impressive it was...but I usually didn't think "Wow, this is an amazing piece of art."

I agree with this sentiment. I think when people sit down to write a book, film a movie, or even paint a picture they're thinking that they want to get something out there. They have a goal to reach, be it a story to tell, an image to express, something. It being art is incidental. It's a side effect, so to speak.


I only take issue with that small group of people who seem hell bent on opposing the view that games can be art as I can't possibly understand what stake they would have in seeing that their view carries the day.

This is what I mean when I speak of inferiority complexes though. Even if there is some sect that, come hell or high water, refuses the art moniker to video games, to focus so heavily on that and to take such personal offense implies that this industry and constituency has a lot of growing up to do. I can name people who think Shakespeare was a complete hack. I don't, however, think Shakespeare experts are personally bothered by that. They still do their thing, confident in what they do. There's no need to fight for Shakespeare's honor or something silly like that. Same goes for video games. If Roger Ebert has a viewpoint, so what? Who's he hurting? Not the video game industry, that's for sure.

[Bojay1997]

See, this is what I really doubt. We're in here bemusing the meaning and value of art as a concept because we find it stimulating in this setting. We probably don't, however, see a trailer for a new movie and think, "Hm...is that art? Should I spend my money on something that might not be art?" Instead we think, "Hm...this looks entertaining." People don't buy paintings because they're art. They buy paintings and hang them in their halls because either they look nice or somebody gave it to them and they feel obligated to display it. The whole "art" debate is really mostly academic. It doesn't have a whole lot of impact on the average consumer.



I agree with this sentiment. I think when people sit down to write a book, film a movie, or even paint a picture they're thinking that they want to get something out there. They have a goal to reach, be it a story to tell, an image to express, something. It being art is incidental. It's a side effect, so to speak.



This is what I mean when I speak of inferiority complexes though. Even if there is some sect that, come hell or high water, refuses the art moniker to video games, to focus so heavily on that and to take such personal offense implies that this industry and constituency has a lot of growing up to do. I can name people who think Shakespeare was a complete hack. I don't, however, think Shakespeare experts are personally bothered by that. They still do their thing, confident in what they do. There's no need to fight for Shakespeare's honor or something silly like that. Same goes for video games. If Roger Ebert has a viewpoint, so what? Who's he hurting? Not the video game industry, that's for sure.

Actually, people do buy paintings specifically because they have been told or believe they are art. That's how galleries and auction houses stay in business. Sure, if I walk into Ikea and buy a $20 framed print of some flowers, I'm probably not too concerned about anything other than covering my walls. If I walk into a gallery and pay $5,000 for something, I'm probably going to be a lot more concerned about what the world in general thinks about it, particularly since I might want to recoup my investment someday.

I would agree with you that the artist is typically just looking to get something creative out there. That's usually not the motivation of the person who is paying the bills, however. There are lots of financiers that look at a script and only support it because they believe that the final filmed product will be "art". There are also plenty of financiers that could care less and their only desire is to collect a significant return on their investment. Similarly, there are very wealthy people who become patrons of particular artists and expect that in exchange for their support, the artist will produce works of art.

Nobody here has an inferiority complex. I just personally don't get why anyone feels the need to argue that games can't be art. It just seems like a ridiculous position to take. I have no problem with people expressing the "not art" opinion, but I have yet to hear an articulate argument for the position.

[SplashChick]

Actually, people do buy paintings specifically because they have been told or believe they are art. That's how galleries and auction houses stay in business. Sure, if I walk into Ikea and buy a $20 framed print of some flowers, I'm probably not too concerned about anything other than covering my walls. If I walk into a gallery and pay $5,000 for something, I'm probably going to be a lot more concerned about what the world in general thinks about it, particularly since I might want to recoup my investment someday.

I would agree with you that the artist is typically just looking to get something creative out there. That's usually not the motivation of the person who is paying the bills, however. There are lots of financiers that look at a script and only support it because they believe that the final filmed product will be "art". There are also plenty of financiers that could care less and their only desire is to collect a significant return on their investment. Similarly, there are very wealthy people who become patrons of particular artists and expect that in exchange for their support, the artist will produce works of art.

Nobody here has an inferiority complex. I just personally don't get why anyone feels the need to argue that games can't be art. It just seems like a ridiculous position to take. I have no problem with people expressing the "not art" opinion, but I have yet to hear an articulate argument for the position.

This. I think that if games were universally viewed as "not art", then games like Braid and Flower would have a much more difficult time getting funding.


If games will ever grow to be "accepted" as art on a larger near-universal scale (say, on the level of something immediately identifiable as a concise-definition art product like portrait or landscape painting) it's going to need to take a completely organic and meritorious route to happening, and it's going to take a long long time. Longer than it has to get to the point we're at now. I personally feel that it's on it's way and moving along the right path, but it needs a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) more "milestones" for artists, critics, academics and scholars to use as supporting arguments.

I don't think anyone is arguing for that, much older mediums such as cinema haven't even reached that.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I can't watch the video. YouTube gives me the message, "This video is not available in your country due to copyright restrictions."

LOL, damn it. Viacom strikes again.

I'll host it elsewhere.

Here you (and everybody) go http://www.megavideo.com/?v=SYMMJ3O1

[TonyTheTiger]

Actually, people do buy paintings specifically because they have been told or believe they are art. That's how galleries and auction houses stay in business. Sure, if I walk into Ikea and buy a $20 framed print of some flowers, I'm probably not too concerned about anything other than covering my walls. If I walk into a gallery and pay $5,000 for something, I'm probably going to be a lot more concerned about what the world in general thinks about it, particularly since I might want to recoup my investment someday.

Again, the "art" part of it is incidental. A high market value has much more to do with the perception that something is holy shit amazing as opposed to holy shit super high brow art. People pay quadruple and quintuple digits for Van Gough paintings because he's managed to reach that level of stardom based on how good his work is. Shakespeare is studied today because he was the king of the ring back in 1600. Perhaps 400 years from now people will study Spielberg and Scorsese. If they do it'll be because they're just that damn good. Not simply by virtue of them being artists.

Hell, you want to talk about resale value and public perception we can look at our very own hobby for that. A gold NWC 1990 cart is generally one of the most, if not the absolute most, valuable video game item in the world. And, surprise, it's not the absolute rarest item out there. There are things out there with literally one copy in existence. Random prototypes of games that never were and such. But those aren't as in demand because, well, people just care less. NWC has the Nintendo mythos surrounding it.

A prototype for a Mario game, likewise, is going to be worth more than an equally rare prototype for Superman 64. Is that because Mario is more "artistic"? No. It's because Mario is just better and thus more popular.


I would agree with you that the artist is typically just looking to get something creative out there. That's usually not the motivation of the person who is paying the bills, however. There are lots of financiers that look at a script and only support it because they believe that the final filmed product will be "art". There are also plenty of financiers that could care less and their only desire is to collect a significant return on their investment. Similarly, there are very wealthy people who become patrons of particular artists and expect that in exchange for their support, the artist will produce works of art.

Who are these financiers? Who are these people who are paying $5,000 for paintings just because they're art rather than because they actually look decent? I get the feeling you're relying on a negligibly small sample size that doesn't reflect an accurate cross section of the world of entertainment.

The primary motivation of the person paying the bills is by far and away to make a return. Everything else is in a distant second. Nobody is going to finance an "art" film that they expect will crash and burn at the box office, or worse, never be picked up by a distributor at all. If something has artistic merit, whatever the hell that is, it better be just plain entertaining enough to attract an audience. One of the most transparent acts by somebody with a bruised ego is to say, "No wonder my work didn't sell. None of these people understand my art!" Nobody ever likes to say, "Damn, I must suck."

Sure, there will be people who find a niche. Some financiers might feel more comfortable funding an introspective movie about life in the inner city. Others might be more inclined to back a Rambo-style run and gun action movie. None, however, are going to measure success by how "artsy" the final product turns out to be. "Art" doesn't put food on the table. Van Gough, sadly, learned that during his life.


Nobody here has an inferiority complex. I just personally don't get why anyone feels the need to argue that games can't be art. It just seems like a ridiculous position to take. I have no problem with people expressing the "not art" opinion, but I have yet to hear an articulate argument for the position.

Roger Ebert did articulate his reasoning but few people seemed to acknowledge it and rather degenerated into "kill Ebert!" He used the interactive nature of games as the foundation for his argument. He said that, while games can be perfectly enjoyable, the nature of art is a passive experience whereby the audience absorbs what the artist is delivering.

Now agree or disagree, that's not exactly a disrespectful argument nor is it laughably weak. But apparently Roger Ebert has become about as popular as Jack Thompson for, believe it or not, saying that games can be perfectly enjoyable.

For all the talk of the meaning of art being a very personal thing, the gaming constituency sure likes to force one viewpoint down people's throats and then ridicule anybody who presents an argument, even a decent one, that's the least bit different.

That's my stance in a nutshell. Even if I do believe games are art, something I'm on the fence about since I've still yet to determine what art is, I am embarrassed by how the "games are art" people tend to argue their point because they usually present it in a hypocritical, childish, and sometimes venomous way. How can games be respected when gamers in general haven't become respectable? Fire up Xbox Live and listen in for about 10 minutes. :-/

[Icarus Moonsight]

Mario 64 pomo huh? No wonder I didn't care for it much. LOL

So, would I be mistaken to guess the aim for games as art is to get new releases exclusive to 'gallery' type settings where the copies sell for tens of thousands of dollars?

I just threw up a little. Chewed it back though. :yipes:

That's why ill-formed concepts should be avoided like plague...

[SplashChick]

Mario 64 pomo huh? No wonder I didn't care for it much. LOL

So, would I be mistaken to guess the aim for games as art is to get new releases exclusive to 'gallery' type settings where the copies sell for tens of thousands of dollars?

I just threw up a little. Chewed it back though. :yipes:

That's why ill-formed concepts should be avoided like plague...

Very mistaken.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Visual fix to illustrate why this whole mess is hard to swallow...

http://www.conservapedia.com/images/thumb/d/dc/Fragonard_Happy_Lovers.jpg/330px-Fragonard_Happy_Lovers.jpg

http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/naughty/naughty04a.gif

Artistic equals.

And now, the pun comes full circle...

The whole push seems to be an everything and nothing proposition and ultimately, a big deal over nothing.

[SplashChick]

Okay, serious question, have you just been ignoring all the times people have said that not all games are art and how that's not what anyone is trying to say? I'm pretty sure I have at least 3 or 4 times so far.

Because it does go both ways, unless you agree that the following are...

http://www.binarymoon.co.uk/files/images/sotc_1.jpg
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j207/drhart2006/fffffuuuuuuu.jpg

Artistic equals.

[Richter Belmount]

Arent you just going for pure aesthetics? How bout games such as Killer 7? I define that as art , its just one surreal acid trip with a crazy storyline you would see in a Stanley Kubrick Flick. Even the pure design of the game could be considered art how the gameplay is executed and the graphics.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Rageguy...

Maybe I'm in the wrong thread? Smithsonian ends argument: Video Games ARE Art... Nope. Beat em and Eat em IS a game, and art now apparently.

And if you haven't noticed, there is overlap with opinions in this matter. Some try and give some of the reasons why, and others say "naw-uh" or an elaborate version of it.

Killer 7... Agreed. It was a wonderful piece of Entertainment Art.

[Rob2600]

Killer 7... Agreed. It was a wonderful piece of Entertainment Art.

I've noticed people are more inclined to consider cel-shaded or very highly stylized games as "art" than realistic-looking games.

[TonyTheTiger]

unless you agree that the following are...

Artistic equals.

Maybe they are. That's the issue.


Video Games ARE Art... Nope. Beat em and Eat em IS a game, and art now apparently.

It really depends on how we choose to apply "art" in this case, or any case for that matter.

Take this example. I have both a Bentley and a Kia in front of me. One is clearly superior to the other. But they still both qualify as cars. They fit the definition. Calling either one of them a "car" only speaks as to what it is rather than how good it is.

If "art" is descriptive rather than qualitative then we can say both those images are equally "art." If, however, "art" is dependent on quality then we enter a weird universe where a word is given a shit load of power despite being wholly subjective. So is a painting I think is good "art" while a painting I think is crap "not art"? Why is Pablo Picasso a great artist while Rob Liefeld is crap? Both ask me to do the work to figure out what's going on in the picture.

If we are going to call something "not art" or "lesser art" because it is simply worse then who gets to decide what is good enough?


I've noticed people are more inclined to consider cel-shaded or very highly stylized games as "art" than realistic-looking games.

Interesting isn't it? How Okami is so obviously art but nobody ever says that about Gears of War?

[LaughingMAN.S9]

Okay, serious question, have you just been ignoring all the times people have said that not all games are art and how that's not what anyone is trying to say? I'm pretty sure I have at least 3 or 4 times so far.

Because it does go both ways, unless you agree that the following are...

http://www.binarymoon.co.uk/files/images/sotc_1.jpg
http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j207/drhart2006/fffffuuuuuuu.jpg

Artistic equals.

why couldnt they be?

[PastPixels]

Yes. And I call bullshit on that. It's not mine or anybody else's responsibility to tend to bruised egos based on arbitrary nonsense. I know I didn't declare "art" some sort of social badge of honor. Nor do I know who did. Why should I let that interfere with my hobby? If somebody out there thinks lesser of video games because they aren't "art" then that's on them. It has no influence whatsoever on any of our lives. I don't see the problem as being on people who deem X art or not art. I see the problem being on people who care about whether that person deems X art or not art.


Sorry to necro this, but wanted to jump in and say hi and add a few thoughts.

I'm the guest curator on the exhibition that we are building at the Smithsonian American Art Museum (NOTE: The museum is actually the principle art museum for the Smithsonian Institution and is not an "off-Broadway" venue in the slightest. Perhaps it is that some people never consider going to the art museum when the Air and Space museum is right down the block. I hope this exhibition will help change a bit of that!). I am also a classic gamer, like most of you here (the oldest piece in my personal collection is a PONG arcade board that is stamped with the name SYZYGY, and not Atari :)) and have been coding and playing games since the 1970's. Now, to be clear on this, the exhibition is not about the "high art" community.

What I hope people will get out of this exhibition is a reflection of the imprint that games have made on them, not just admiring the composition, artistry or stories of the games themselves. The greatest thing about video games is that they allow us to inject ourselves in the work of the artist or developer. It is a mechanism that is wholly unique to video games.

The development of the "experience" is currently underway and I think we are going to strike a very good chord between discovery of the messaging, composition and artistry and the personal experience that the public brings with them to the museum. I hope to see multiple generations of game players discover a commonality that transcends age, gender and station in life. It is more than just the game, it is the life that occurred around it when you experienced it.

For those of you old enough to remember, do you remember when you first played PacMan when it was new? If so, I bet you can remember the friends you were with, the venue in which you played, what your first game was like, what sounds were around you, what smells in the air, etc. It is the experience centered around the discovery of the game that is equally important.

Is it all "art"? I don't know. What I DO know is that it is more important to me that the exhibition strikes a personal chord with those of us who view video games as a cultural touchstone; one that becomes more intertwined with popular culture each passing year. In my opinion, if a work speaks to you, strikes you emotionally, see yourself/life reflected in it, it can be considered art.

As for the label of video games as "art", you may not think it is important, but it actually is where it matters. This is about elevating the understanding of the medium, casting light in the corners and further expanding the discussion with the broadest segments of society. Right now there is a case going before the supreme court that threatens to place government controlled restrictions on video games. Selling M rated games to kids is not the issue and I believe it is up to the parent and the stores to do that on their own.

The issue is that video games, if this is passed by the SC, will have government sanctions placed on them. Sanctions that don't exist for any other form of media (to be clear, we are not talking about explicit content). Part of the reason that this has gone this far is the misunderstading of what video games are, what they can be, and the humanity behind many of them.

Anything we can do to further the discussion, understanding and appreciation of the medium is warranted and, as gamers, is something we should hope continues.

Now, I hope you will like the exhibition, hope you will participate in the voting, and my "dev diary" site will be going live by next week and hope you will visit and comment.

/soapbox

Cheers!

Chris Melissinos
PastPixels.com

[PastPixels]

Roger Ebert did articulate his reasoning but few people seemed to acknowledge it and rather degenerated into "kill Ebert!" He used the interactive nature of games as the foundation for his argument. He said that, while games can be perfectly enjoyable, the nature of art is a passive experience whereby the audience absorbs what the artist is delivering.

The problem with Ebert's assertion is that he is contrasting the medium against the medium he knows, which is static content. It is not an equal comparison. As well, he states that he has never tried to play any of the games he is critical of, and stated he doesn't need to to form his opinion.

Lastly, his reasoning is his personal view of what constitutes art. That is fine with me, no issues! But to state that it will never be art in the eyes of someone else is just not true.

[TonyTheTiger]

Hey, I remember this thread! LOL

I have no problem with the exhibition as a celebration of the cultural effect video games have had on society. Art or not, video games are relevant and should be acknowledged for it. Emphasizing the importance of the medium and its value can be done regardless of whether or not it's art. It's completely unrelated. Even if I were 100% certain games are not art, it wouldn't change the fact that I can relate to your Pac-Man example for many, many different games over the years. And I can do the same for many movies and even many Saturday morning cartoons. Their status as "art" or otherwise is incidental to the fact that they simply matter to me.

The whole issue about restrictions on games and court decisions has more to do with First Amendment concerns than art vs. not art. If we draw a Venn diagram of what's at stake you'll have a small circle representing art fully engulfed in a larger circle representing general speech and expression issues. Whether or not video games fall in the smaller circle or not doesn't matter very much. And for what it's worth, these things always tend to fail anyway and for good reason.

But...


The greatest thing about video games is that they allow us to inject ourselves in the work of the artist or developer. It is a mechanism that is wholly unique to video games.


The issue is that video games, if this is passed by the SC, will have government sanctions placed on them. Sanctions that don't exist for any other form of media.

This is somewhat contradictory. Of course I'm not saying the proposed sanctions are constitutional or even necessary, but if we're going to say that video games are unlike any other medium then we can't necessarily say they should always be treated like other mediums in the same breath. One possible argument for treating games differently than other entertainment mediums is specifically because they are inherently different thereby justifying different treatment.


The problem with Ebert's assertion is that he is contrasting the medium against the medium he knows, which is static content. It is not an equal comparison. As well, he states that he has never tried to play any of the games he is critical of, and stated he doesn't need to to form his opinion.

Lastly, his reasoning is his personal view of what constitutes art. That is fine with me, no issues! But to state that it will never be art in the eyes of someone else is just not true.

It's been a long time since I read exactly what he said but I think he was only giving his opinion. I don't think he ever made such a sweeping statement that other people wouldn't see games as art. And (assuming what qualifies as art can be based on pure opinion) if his opinion is that anything interactive is not art then he's right that he doesn't have to play any of the games. All games are inherently interactive. If all games are interactive, and he doesn't think an interactive medium can be art, then it must follow that games are not art. He doesn't ever have to pick up a controller. The logic is sound assuming that the definition of "art" is purely subjective, which I'm not quite convinced it is.

This always turns into a merry-go-round of "I think this" vs. "you think that" because there is no concrete definition for "art" and likely never will be. But I personally think that whatever qualifies as art or not art, the word "art" itself is just a descriptor. It does not imply quality and "not art" does not imply a lack of quality. Yet whenever somebody says video games are not art people in our community interpret it as an attack on the medium. Personally, I think that's crazy.

[eskobar]

The problem with videogames as a form of art or art is that they are so artificial that the whole industry seems very underdeveloped to be taken seriously.

For instance, a renaissance painting displays the finest quality and technique over many years .... and Shadow of the Colossus dated a few years after. :mad:

[sheath]

The Smithsonian is allowing us to vote on which games will make it into their "The Art of Video Games" exhibit.

http://www.artofvideogames.org/

Games might be art, but it looks like the Smithsonian doesn't know how to develop a website that works outside of Internet Explorer. IE tab for me.

-edit-

Wow, was that ever a strange selection of games (and genre shoehorning).

[Icarus Moonsight]

Let the ineptitude begin! *called it*

[sheath]

Let the ineptitude begin! *called it*

Hah! Some of the games I would have voted for are on platforms I never played them on with choices I haven't even heard of! This is an open poll, anybody with an email address can vote.

Seriously, this must have been created by an individual or a group of like minded individuals and will amount to much "discussion". ;)

[Icarus Moonsight]

Dare one speculate, a committee?

Want to sell me on something? Give me an argument or well thought out reasons for your stance, but a poll? Sheesh. Chicken-shit written all over it. We got the circus, now where's the bread? LOL

[eskobar]

Several of us have had the "are games art" argument, but now the greatest art institution in the world steps in to rule in video games favor (http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/213181/smithsonian-to-host-art-of-video-games-in-2012/). The Smithsonian Art Museum will host "Art of Video Games" in 2012, running for six months. Although it won't take place in the actual Smithsonian, the American Art Museum is nearly as prestigious.

The reason why I put this in modern gaming as opposed to classic gaming was because the press release stated that the exhibit would showcase game art from the Atari VCS to the Playstation 3. Plus, the last two and current generation(in my opinion) have done more for the "are games art" argument than any other time frame.

I have a feeling that Mr. Ebert might sit this one out. Discuss your opinion about this upcoming groundbreaking exhibit that will showcase one of our favorite hobbies.



Is art created to profit ?

I think that is a very powerful argument that really makes a difference between real art and "artsy" :roll:

[Bojay1997]

Although I still believe that video games are a form of art, I find the criteria listed on the poll page for what they would like to put in the exhibit disturbing. Apparently, to qualify, a game has to be "visually spectacular" or contain "innovative design". Apparently if a game is not visually spectacular or innovative in its design, it's not art. I'm actually starting to warm to the "not-art" side of things now.

[sheath]

Art is anything that invokes the sublime (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sublime?show=1&t=1297800554). If this society valued philosophy at all everybody would have already concluded that only some games are art, and even then not everybody can appreciate them.

Mount Everest can be sublime to those who can see it in person, or it can just be a picture. The Sistine Chapel can be sublime to those who haven't been ruined by religion. A video game can be sublime if it is accessible enough, challenging enough, and it, the publisher, or the platform, hasn't ruined its opportunity.

[TonyTheTiger]

Art is anything that invokes the sublime (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sublime?show=1&t=1297800554). If this society valued philosophy at all everybody would have already concluded that only some games are art, and even then not everybody can appreciate them.

Mount Everest can be sublime to those who can see it in person, or it can just be a picture. The Sistine Chapel can be sublime to those who haven't been ruined by religion. A video game can be sublime if it is accessible enough, challenging enough, and it, the publisher, or the platform, hasn't ruined its opportunity.

With all due respect, that's very pretentious. Regardless of where games stand, it's a real turn off when art is used as a weapon like that.


Although I still believe that video games are a form of art, I find the criteria listed on the poll page for what they would like to put in the exhibit disturbing. Apparently, to qualify, a game has to be "visually spectacular" or contain "innovative design". Apparently if a game is not visually spectacular or innovative in its design, it's not art. I'm actually starting to warm to the "not-art" side of things now.

It's again those arbitrary lines we've gone back and forth over 100 times. I don't much like drawing lines in the sand when they're predicated on vague concepts like "innovative" and "spectacular." I don't get why they're not just saying "what are the best games" if that's the case. Can a shit game be innovative and visually spectacular? I assume so provided it's also a glitchy mess. But lord knows that's not going to make the cut.


Dare one speculate, a committee?

Want to sell me on something? Give me an argument or well thought out reasons for your stance, but a poll? Sheesh. Chicken-shit written all over it. We got the circus, now where's the bread? LOL

It does sound eerily GameFAQs, doesn't it? I'm all for polls and public opinion and maybe some things like the Oscars would do well to take the blinders off and being more open to the real world. But something about this in particular comes off like a patronizing afterthought. Not the great respect conferred upon games that everybody expected, huh?

[PapaStu]

Is art created to profit ?

I think that is a very powerful argument that really makes a difference between real art and "artsy" :roll:


Yes. Art is sold by the artist for money day in and day out. My artist friends live on the sales of their works. Should someone choose to pay more than the actual costs in creation of sed 'art' (paint/brushes/canvas etc) then they are profiting.

There are entire business models based on the sales of art. Thomas Kinkade (http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.home.web.tk.HomeServlet) is just one of many artists that sell works in a business model built around max profits.

Movies are often considered art, and those are sold to the general public and the hopes are for profit with the release of any film.

[sheath]

With all due respect, that's very pretentious. Regardless of where games stand, it's a real turn off when art is used as a weapon like that.

I know, we live in a post-modern skeptic world and the philosophy I just crudely paraphrased from Plato and Kant is heavily looked down upon.

All the same, the alternative philosophical view simply states that everything is art and nothing is art, which makes the entire discussion worthless. ;)

Also, how did I use art as a weapon?

[eskobar]

Yes. Art is sold by the artist for money day in and day out. My artist friends live on the sales of their works. Should someone choose to pay more than the actual costs in creation of sed 'art' (paint/brushes/canvas etc) then they are profiting.

There are entire business models based on the sales of art. Thomas Kinkade (http://www.thomaskinkade.com/magi/servlet/com.asucon.ebiz.home.web.tk.HomeServlet) is just one of many artists that sell works in a business model built around max profits.

Movies are often considered art, and those are sold to the general public and the hopes are for profit with the release of any film.


Aren't you "cheaping" art ?

Art is obviously a very profitable bussines, but the REAL ART was not created to profit.

You obviously can sell "art" .... but the real business is made from artists that made great independent efforts to Art Galleries and Museums. If REAL ART could be sold that easy, thousands of Pollocks and VanGoghs could exist.

Movies that are considered as art are always independent films that struggle to reach an audience, not even the best Hollywood movies rank among the true masterpieces of cinematography.

If Dalí or Picasso painted only to make money, they couldn't create such pieces. The greatest and most recognized TRUE ARTIST were never filled with gold in his pockets.

[Wolfrider31]

Aren't you "cheaping" art ?

Art is obviously a very profitable bussines, but the REAL ART was not created to profit.

You obviously can sell "art" .... but the real business is made from artists that made great independent efforts to Art Galleries and Museums. If REAL ART could be sold that easy, thousands of Pollocks and VanGoghs could exist.

Movies that are considered as art are always independent films that struggle to reach an audience, not even the best Hollywood movies rank among the true masterpieces of cinematography.

If Dalí or Picasso painted only to make money, they couldn't create such pieces. The greatest and most recognized TRUE ARTIST were never filled with gold in his pockets.

Shakespeare would like to have a word with you. Actually, if you look at the history of art and literature a great many artists were incredibly affluent - or at least supported financially by the aristocracy. It wasn't because art was particularly profitable, but you simply couldn't be a member of the working class and still have time to devote yourself to artistic endeavors. In fact pretty much all the literature written from the Augustan Period to the end of the Romantic period were written by those from the upper class. Music and visual art follows a similar trend.

[Ryaan1234]

You know what, I'm going to throw my $0.02 in here.

Art embodies the human ability to express oneself. It can be made for profit, to send a message, and even for fun. That's the beauty of it. At least that's how I see it. Video games as art? Yes, I think in a way all video games are art. For instance something like Ocarina of Time would be the art world's equivalent of the Mona Lisa, mainstream, brilliant, and loved by many. What about Madden 94? Would that be art too? Yes, it would be a really basic nondescript flower painting. (Imagine something you see hanging in the doctor's office LOL)

I believe there are different "tiers" of art ranging from the really boring mass produced pieces (Kinkade is a great example) up to the really wonderful pieces Da Vinci and Dali created. Lowbrow and highbrow if you will. We can then classify video games as art where the really amazing ones stand out and the games created just for profit (and some other categories) fall into the lower tier. You don't have to judge Guitar Hero 27 on the same level as Earthbound. Some people use art as a catch-all term where it means everything needs to be judged equally. And that's not the case.




Art is obviously a very profitable bussines, but the REAL ART was not created to profit.

This is one of the STUPIDEST things I have read in a long time. Some of the most respected pieces of art were created for profit! For instance Da Vinci's The Last Supper was created on commission!

[sheath]

You know what, I'm going to throw my $0.02 in here.

Art embodies the human ability to express oneself. It can be made for profit, to send a message, and even for fun. That's the beauty of it. At least that's how I see it. Video games as art? Yes, I think in a way all video games are art. For instance something like Ocarina of Time would be the art world's equivalent of the Mona Lisa, mainstream, brilliant, and loved by many. What about Madden 94? Would that be art too? Yes, it would be a really basic nondescript flower painting. (Imagine something you see hanging in the doctor's office LOL)

I believe there are different "tiers" of art ranging from the really boring mass produced pieces (Kinkade is a great example) up to the really wonderful pieces Da Vinci and Dali created. Lowbrow and highbrow if you will. We can then classify video games as art where the really amazing ones stand out and the games created just for profit (and some other categories) fall into the lower tier. You don't have to judge Guitar Hero 27 on the same level as Earthbound. Some people use art as a catch-all term where it means everything needs to be judged equally. And that's not the case.

Just to be clear, the above is undoubtedly a reflection on a post-modern (current) world view. If the history of aesthetics ended today this would be the "winner" by sheer volume.

I would like to point out that the philosophy of aesthetics has been much more specific throughout human history until today. The alternative view that is popular today would say that the law of gravity is not a law at all. Tomorrow you might drop something and and the law of gravity will be something else entirely.

I don't live in that world, so I prefer the pre-modern view on art as well. In gaming, that means anything that makes me think of something more than myself.

[Ryaan1234]

I don't live in that world, so I prefer the pre-modern view on art as well. In gaming, that means anything that makes me think of something more than myself.
Laughing gleefully, Sheath sits by the fireside with a vintage wine in one hand, and a SNES controller in the other, going on and on about how Shaq-Fu is an incredibly wonderful work of art because it makes him think of something more than his own self.

>_>

For you to be pretentious in this matter is absurd. To say that a game is art simply because it "makes you think of something more than yourself" is simplifying the concept of art too much for my tastes and at least to me it says that you think of nothing but yourself all the time.

With my first post in this thread I just attempted to solve the main problem with considering games as art. If you think of something like Shining Force (which undoubtedly in my book is a fine work of art) then the idea is that you must consider something like Grand Theft Auto by the same standards. That's not always the case and I don't think it has ever been the case with works in the art world. Things are held to different standards by different people.

[sheath]

For you to be pretentious in this matter is absurd. To say that a game is art simply because it "makes you think of something more than yourself" is simplifying the concept of art too much for my tastes and at least to me it says that you think of nothing but yourself all the time.

I agree. I was attempting, and obviously failed, to make the concept more relateable. I would summarize aesthetics proper as more of a love of things beautiful. Art to me is whatever makes me forget myself or that causes me to see myself as infinitely smaller than something else.

People today don't like to think like that, but that was the perspective of most of the artists we know and love today.

[TonyTheTiger]

I've said this before, maybe even in this very thread, but it all comes down to a slippery slope when you start defining stuff.

A game like Ico is often lauded as an artistic achievement. But it's also a good game. What if it were shitty? All other things being the same, all aesthetics being identical, what if it froze up a lot and had bad physics? What if it also had a non-functional save feature and laughable hit detection? That's why this poll seems less about art than simply about general quality.

Technically, by definition, a functionally bad game should also be able to meet the standard of "art." But I just don't see that happening in the real world.

[The 1 2 P]

I just put my picks in, although I completely skipped over a good bit because I didn't feel that none of the three selectable answers were worth it. I also had to smh at the fact that E.T. for the 2600 was a selectable entry:? But what I found most dissappointing were the selections for the PS1. It's one of my favorite systems and yet I didn't want to vote for any of those games. But obviously they couldn't list every game so it is what it is:|

[TonyTheTiger]

I also had to smh at the fact that E.T. for the 2600 was a selectable entry:?

I guess bad games can be art, too? Hm, maybe this poll has more value than I originally gave it credit for. ;)

[The 1 2 P]

I guess bad games can be art, too?

Of course they can, just like bad sculptures and bad paintings are still considered art. My stance was just that a more deserving game should have been in it's place but then theres the argument of who decides whats more deserving.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I know, we live in a post-modern skeptic world and the philosophy I just crudely paraphrased from Plato and Kant is heavily looked down upon.

All the same, the alternative philosophical view simply states that everything is art and nothing is art, which makes the entire discussion worthless. ;)

Also, how did I use art as a weapon?

Valuing truth over opinion. That's the weapon. Tony's a nice guy, but that's one instance where our views consistently clash. Opinions have to fall to truth, or there is no such thing as either. They then blur together, internally speaking.

I do disagree with you vehemently one one issue. The world in general has accepted Kant in regard to truth, knowledge and the nature of reality. This recent sampling of muck-about nonsense is the result. Kant took Plato and secularized Platonic other-worldly essences through the analytic-synthetic dichotomy (Aristotle had problems with identifying the source of concepts as well, slightly materialist with a dose of Plato). Effectively throwing out gods along with objective truth. It classifies truth into two exhaustive and mutually exclusive groups, one group says nothing about reality, the other says nothing about 'actual' truth because facts need not be so... insofar as they could have been different. Abnegated truth, opinions played wild, gravity could repel instead of attract tomorrow, "How do magnets work?"... Welcome to the world.

This is why you get an exhibit and not a new philosophical work including video games into art. Where standards are defined and arguments are made. The Emperor has to be naked and clothed all at once.

Art as sublime leaves me wanting. I don't accept some things Rand wrote about her philosophy of art, but I feel as if she had a rail of insight that may inspire a lead to something better than what's already out there. Art is the last of the schools in my hierarchy, because it's founded upon the rest. Most of the world hasn't even begun to accept and act on a proper base, let alone the top. We have much work and time to go.

Art is deeply personal, whether it is your creation in question, or your reaction/interpretation of another's. Art has to have something to do with me primarily, not externalities as prime, or it's just irrelevant as art. Materialist/Egoist/Individualist... Couldn't have guessed huh? LOL

Otherwise, we are on the same page. Everyone should care about philosophy, because everyone operates on it, explicitly or implicitly.

[sheath]

Great description. It has been a while since I have read any of these works. With my Kant-Plato comparison I was referring to Kant's later works. Younger Kant was all against religion, if I recall, then he changed his mind (more specifically about Truth) and his later works reflect this. I was referring to Hume's skeptic philosophy in the gravity allegory in comparison to the (popular) post-modern world view.

As far as the world not agreeing with Hume more than (older) Kant today, I think our experiences have clashed. ;)

[Icarus Moonsight]

Most philosophers meander all over the place throughout their life, true. People have been known to change. Analytic-Synthetic is Kant though, and it does persist. As people age they get increasingly pragmatic. When one is about to die, what's the harm in accepting something you previously rejected if it brings your mind some ease? You could just say you're going senile. LOL

[sheath]

Dr. Marshall Bradley, the prof who taught me this stuff years ago, said it like something this. Like most young brilliant thinkers, Kant thought he could overthrow the world and was anti-establishment. Then he got married, had kids and started seeing them spontaneously do things he never taught them. At which point, and I'll quote this, he said "son of a bitch, jesus-christ, those things the bible says are true after all!"

I wasn't sure if Bradley was talking about himself or something he knew about Kant at that point. The guy could read and write German and Greek and made a lot of sense though, so I took him at his word on that one. ;)

[eskobar]

Shakespeare would like to have a word with you. Actually, if you look at the history of art and literature a great many artists were incredibly affluent - or at least supported financially by the aristocracy. It wasn't because art was particularly profitable, but you simply couldn't be a member of the working class and still have time to devote yourself to artistic endeavors. In fact pretty much all the literature written from the Augustan Period to the end of the Romantic period were written by those from the upper class. Music and visual art follows a similar trend.


You know what, I'm going to throw my $0.02 in here.

Art embodies the human ability to express oneself. It can be made for profit, to send a message, and even for fun. That's the beauty of it. At least that's how I see it. Video games as art? Yes, I think in a way all video games are art. For instance something like Ocarina of Time would be the art world's equivalent of the Mona Lisa, mainstream, brilliant, and loved by many. What about Madden 94? Would that be art too? Yes, it would be a really basic nondescript flower painting. (Imagine something you see hanging in the doctor's office LOL)

I believe there are different "tiers" of art ranging from the really boring mass produced pieces (Kinkade is a great example) up to the really wonderful pieces Da Vinci and Dali created. Lowbrow and highbrow if you will. We can then classify video games as art where the really amazing ones stand out and the games created just for profit (and some other categories) fall into the lower tier. You don't have to judge Guitar Hero 27 on the same level as Earthbound. Some people use art as a catch-all term where it means everything needs to be judged equally. And that's not the case.



This is one of the STUPIDEST things I have read in a long time. Some of the most respected pieces of art were created for profit! For instance Da Vinci's The Last Supper was created on commission!



There is a HUGE difference in supporting an artist and embrace his/her talent and obviously pay him to work .... for god's sake, don't take things too literally, people have to eat.

But Da Vinci didn't do it for money, he was one of the most intelligent and gifted persons to ever exist; the money was the least of his problems, hahahahaha. He did it JUST TO MAKE THE MOST IMPRESSIVE WORK OF ART EVER, like all of its works.

You are talking about THE LAST SUPPER !!!!!!!!!!!!!, not some stupid Apple painted on canvas for a rich guy, hahahaha.

Did you have to use the work "stupidest" ? I mean, you can just answer a bit more polite when you disagree .... :confused:

What i really find incredible is that you dared to compare THE LAST SUPPER with a VideoGame .... come on, there are many other examples that worked best, like the PopArt revolution of Andy Warhol or something else, just not the LAST SUPPER ....:deadhorse:

Video Games are just created to profit, not to be on a museum. There are real artists and very talented people creating these amazing digital entertainment pieces, but in the end the GOAL is only to make money.

Most independent works on VG try to express something .... but in the end they get sold to a huge studio and the message is usually lost. To create something with meaning, that should be the main goal .... if you don't have FULL SUPPORT to create something, its very hard not to lost focus on the real meaning of your work.




Just to make more clear my argument: Art will sell and is profitable, but profit is not the main goal. You can sell millions of Twilight books and also millions of the "Iliad and the Odyssey" because of its greatness.

[Ryaan1234]

There is a HUGE difference in supporting an artist and embrace his/her talent and obviously pay him to work .... for god's sake, don't take things too literally, people have to eat.

But Da Vinci didn't do it for money, he was one of the most intelligent and gifted persons to ever exist; the money was the least of his problems, hahahahaha. He did it JUST TO MAKE THE MOST IMPRESSIVE WORK OF ART EVER, like all of its works.
First of all, I don't disagree with you there. Da Vinci was a brilliant man. Of course he tried to create a great work of art but the point was that he still was paid to create the piece. He was passionate about his work but I highly doubt he did it just to make an impressive piece.

(The Mona Lisa was also made on commission but I digress)



You are talking about THE LAST SUPPER !!!!!!!!!!!!!, not some stupid Apple painted on canvas for a rich guy, hahahaha.

I'm going to add as an aside, the owners of The Last Supper sure treated the piece like a crappy apple painting. Not only did it fall into a state of total deterioration by 1556, but in 1652 a doorway was cut through the darn thing! That doesn't sound too respected to me!


What i really find incredible is that you dared to compare THE LAST SUPPER with a VideoGame .... come on, there are many other examples that worked best, like the PopArt revolution of Andy Warhol or something else, just not the LAST SUPPER ....:deadhorse:

I NEVER compared the Last Supper to a video game. I only used it as an example for your ridiculous statement that "real art" isn't created for profit. It is, and all the time!

[Icarus Moonsight]

Dr. Marshall Bradley, the prof who taught me this stuff years ago, said it like something this. Like most young brilliant thinkers, Kant thought he could overthrow the world and was anti-establishment. Then he got married, had kids and started seeing them spontaneously do things he never taught them. At which point, and I'll quote this, he said "son of a bitch, jesus-christ, those things the bible says are true after all!"

I wasn't sure if Bradley was talking about himself or something he knew about Kant at that point. The guy could read and write German and Greek and made a lot of sense though, so I took him at his word on that one. ;)

Sounds like emergence to me. Quite a rational leap to go to God on that one. LOL

Speaking of which:
Frankie said in another thread that the market of ideas and the market of trade will work together and sort it (the art stuff) out given time. That's my reduced primary for living life, for everything. I'm paraphrasing him, of course, but if I am representing him accurately, then we completely agree (though he didn't expressly delimit it to art, I can't claim him an extension beyond that context, but I can for myself and do). It's emergence, emergence all over the place. Unless it's force. Then it's just evil all over. We'll get better.

[TonyTheTiger]

Valuing truth over opinion. That's the weapon. Tony's a nice guy, but that's one instance where our views consistently clash.

He said "If this society valued philosophy at all everybody would have already concluded that only some games are art, and even then not everybody can appreciate them."

That's not a "truth" and it's a passive aggressive assault on anybody who somehow "can't see the brilliance" or something. I've heard it 1000 times and every single time it sounds awfully self-serving. How convenient everybody who believes it are also the people who already can see the truth, huh?

Show me a single "truth" about art and I'll show you a hundred loopholes. That's why people get so deep in this to begin with. There's zero consistency. You ask somebody to define art and they say something along the lines of "a creative endeavor that has no practical application." Then you get to watch them backpedal when you bring up architecture.

If people want to argue that art is a completely personal experience with no factual foundations, fine. That ends it right there. But the world we live in doesn't seem to conform to that theory so there is an apparent definition. But I'll be damned if anybody has ever actually said what that definition is.

Then despite the vague concept and people arguing how personal art is, once Roger Ebert says games aren't art he gets nothing but cold stares. So apparently even if people can't define it, they sure as hell feel offended when their favorite entertainment medium isn't called it. Rational? Maybe not. But I'm not going to try to explain what's going on in people's heads. I'm only going to look at video games and whatever few generally accepted principles of art actually exist. And when I see people arguing over not just whether or not games are art as a medium but which games are art and which aren't, I'm not going to have a particularly favorable view on the argument.

I'm not a cynical person but it's blatantly obvious in this case that people are just trying to make sure their "favorite" games get some pretty badge of honor. So what's really "art" in any of this? Isn't it just a display of some of the best games?

[eskobar]

First of all, I don't disagree with you there. Da Vinci was a brilliant man. Of course he tried to create a great work of art but the point was that he still was paid to create the piece. He was passionate about his work but I highly doubt he did it just to make an impressive piece.

(The Mona Lisa was also made on commission but I digress)


I'm going to add as an aside, the owners of The Last Supper sure treated the piece like a crappy apple painting. Not only did it fall into a state of total deterioration by 1556, but in 1652 a doorway was cut through the darn thing! That doesn't sound too respected to me!

I NEVER compared the Last Supper to a video game. I only used it as an example for your ridiculous statement that "real art" isn't created for profit. It is, and all the time!


I think that i am not expressing myself properly.

Profit:

- a financial gain, esp. the difference between the amount earned and the amount spent in buying, operating, or producing something

- advantage; benefit



An artist is a person who lives in the extremes of life, its the only way to create something above anything else, something so amazing and powerful that will last forever.

Art needs money, like everything; but one thing is create a piece to make money and another is to create a piece to make it the most incredible piece of art, that's the way it works.

A VG Console, for example, is not even a medium to freely express something; a console revolves around a business model and the only goal is to make profit ... Studios that try to do something else and fail to make profit, even if they recovered the investment, just die immediately.

If you need to express something on a video game, the PC is the way to go because is an open "canvas"; you can publish a piece of work and don't worry about the ESRB, royalty fees to SONY, approval of your game to be published ... THERE ARE JUST TOO MANY LIMITATIONS TO KEEP CONSOLE VIDEOGAMES AS A MEDIUM TO FREELY EXPRESS SOMETHING, THIS TAKES AWAY ALL OF THE SERIOUSNESS THAT AN ART PIECE REQUIRES.



I have two good examples:

Derek Smart: This psycho was for me one of the very few "artists" of digital entertainment. He worked so hard to try to deliver an experience that was just YEARS ABOVE anything else .... the industry and the money just ate him. This guy's commitment was proven the moment he let you download his creations for free .. in a world where every one re-releases the same game over and over ..



Bob Ross: This guy just was happy to paint and deliver art to anyone. Of course the guy had to eat and he created a series of books and videotapes ... but only to be able to create art, not to fill his wallet with 1,000 bills. Proof of this is that the tv shows were distributed for free on PBS ... and all of his paintings were donated !!!!!.

Even if this guy didn't create museum pieces, for me is a real artist. Many posers called themselves artists, only take advantage of art to buy expensive cars or have millions on his accounts ... not bad for me, but I don't consider those persons as artists.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Well, one day I hope to take a stab at that myself. I can think and discuss, but I'm not ready to start building a system or framework at all yet. I think you are correct though Tony. That is the problem fundamentally.

There is a split in the ethical theory I sub to. Aesthetics play a part along with morality in that system. Actions being as they are, one may answer initiated force (evil) with force ethically, but not to correct/punish someone for having poor aesthetic values. You ought not to answer poor aesthetics with poor aesthetics either, but you can play goose and gander if you feel like it. Withdrawal of association is the most one can do to answer that aesthetic class of ethical actions. I think that would be a good place to begin with art. Art is 'beyond good and evil'. It can't initiate force. That takes human action.

So, given that, art can express or communicate ethical concepts, but it is incapable of breaking morality, in and of itself, due to it's nature. That's one-piece. Anyone want to try for the other 999? LOL

I have a hypothesis to add here as well. The more incorrect the base of the prevailing philosophy, the more contorted the more specific fields will become as a result (the starting point, I think this is pretty straightforward). Art being the top, and the only philosophical field that has an abstract output other than ideas, it's the canary in the mineshaft, or a barometer of the culture. The hidden distortions and errors at the underlaying levels are exposed and amplified by the output of artists. I have no proof of this, it's just a thought I've had.

[sheath]

Sounds like emergence to me. Quite a rational leap to go to God on that one. LOL

Speaking of which:
Frankie said in another thread that the market of ideas and the market of trade will work together and sort it (the art stuff) out given time. That's my reduced primary for living life, for everything. I'm paraphrasing him, of course, but if I am representing him accurately, then we completely agree (though he didn't expressly delimit it to art, I can't claim him an extension beyond that context, but I can for myself and do). It's emergence, emergence all over the place. Unless it's force. Then it's just evil all over. We'll get better.

Pretty much the only reason I don't read philosophical works as a hobby is because of how everything ends up swimming in a sea of terms I have to look up. But, I personally think the game industry will handle this debate itself, I just hope it doesn't turn out the way I think it will. Mega-publishers are going the way the movie industry did in the 20s-40s. I am afraid that will result in only a handful of developers making all of the games with no way for independents to edge their way in.


He said "If this society valued philosophy at all everybody would have already concluded that only some games are art, and even then not everybody can appreciate them."

That's not a "truth" and it's a passive aggressive assault on anybody who somehow "can't see the brilliance" or something. I've heard it 1000 times and every single time it sounds awfully self-serving. How convenient everybody who believes it are also the people who already can see the truth, huh?

I'm a snot, but give me a chance would yah? I was actually saying quite the opposite of what you read into it. If you played a game and it caused you to think of anything besides yourself that game was art regardless of whether I had the same experience.

Yes, that means to me that if a man made work causes *anybody* to think about lofty and awesome things it is art.

Here is an example. When I was playing Streets of Rage as a kid I would frequently find myself not even paying attention to what I was doing. Instead I was thinking about martial arts and what possibilities there were for achieving the skills and experience to win *every* fight. This caused me to think about my life and the awesome amount of time and effort it would take to achieve that goal of "perfection" in fighting skills. This thought process actually caused me to practice martial arts from then until now. Bam, Streets of Rage is art even though an experienced martial artist would find it too simple and unrealistic.
...


I'm not a cynical person but it's blatantly obvious in this case that people are just trying to make sure their "favorite" games get some pretty badge of honor. So what's really "art" in any of this? Isn't it just a display of some of the best games?

The way the Smithsonian has conducted this, yes I agree with you. It is a popularity contest and not about art at all.

[TonyTheTiger]

Pretty much the only reason I don't read philosophical works as a hobby is because of how everything ends up swimming in a sea of terms I have to look up. But, I personally think the game industry will handle this debate itself, I just hope it doesn't turn out the way I think it will. Mega-publishers are going the way the movie industry did in the 20s-40s. I am afraid that will result in only a handful of developers making all of the games with no way for independents to edge their way in.

I think it's better today for indie developers than it has been for a while. With digital distribution being a viable alternative and "classic" games making a comeback, not to mention people's growing desire for inexpensive alternatives to big budget blockbusters, I think the options are growing rather than shrinking. It'll never be easy to get a project out there but it's probably better now than it was 10 years ago.


I'm a snot, but give me a chance would yah? I was actually saying quite the opposite of what you read into it. If you played a game and it caused you to think of anything besides yourself that game was art regardless of whether I had the same experience.

Yes, that means to me that if a man made work causes *anybody* to think about lofty and awesome things it is art.

Here is an example. When I was playing Streets of Rage as a kid I would frequently find myself not even paying attention to what I was doing. Instead I was thinking about martial arts and what possibilities there were for achieving the skills and experience to win *every* fight. This caused me to think about my life and the awesome amount of time and effort it would take to achieve that goal of "perfection" in fighting skills. This thought process actually caused me to practice martial arts from then until now. Bam, Streets of Rage is art even though an experienced martial artist would find it too simple and unrealistic.
...

I see. That clears it up nicely. Not sure I agree but I understand what you're getting at now.

[sheath]

I think it's better today for indie developers than it has been for a while. With digital distribution being a viable alternative and "classic" games making a comeback, not to mention people's growing desire for inexpensive alternatives to big budget blockbusters, I think the options are growing rather than shrinking. It'll never be easy to get a project out there but it's probably better now than it was 10 years ago.

It does seem to be improving somewhat. Time will tell whether all of this talk about allowing for lower budget games and independent developers lasts past the troubled economy.


I see. That clears it up nicely. Not sure I agree but I understand what you're getting at now.

I just enjoy the discussion. Without regular discussions like these I get all kinds of mopey.

[Hawanja]

Then despite the vague concept and people arguing how personal art is, once Roger Ebert says games aren't art he gets nothing but cold stares. So apparently even if people can't define it, they sure as hell feel offended when their favorite entertainment medium isn't called it. Rational? Maybe not. But I'm not going to try to explain what's going on in people's heads. I'm only going to look at video games and whatever few generally accepted principles of art actually exist. And when I see people arguing over not just whether or not games are art as a medium but which games are art and which aren't, I'm not going to have a particularly favorable view on the argument.

If people include film as art, then games should be included as well. Fact is Roger Ebert doesn't get to define what is art and what isn't. The two mediums have a lot in common, the only difference is on one side the consumer/viewer takes an interactive role in the storytelling. Who is the artist in this case though? I would say the director in film, the person who makes the decisions, has a vision of the finished product, etc. I suppose that role on the games side would be filled by Project Manager? Or are they actually called "directors" as well on the game side? The support team in each case are also artists in their own right, but they don't control the final "vision."

And yes, if we define games as an art medium, then all games fall under that definition. Thus the bad games are also art, they're just substandard, poor art. I think it makes sense, seeing how there's plenty of musicians, painters, actors, film makers, sculptors, etc who are awful at their work as well.


An artist is a person who lives in the extremes of life, its the only way to create something above anything else, something so amazing and powerful that will last forever.

You know, that's a stereotype. An artist does not have to be an "extreme" person, most of them are normal people who have decided to develop a talent and have something to say. Not everyone who does creative things is some freakish art-weirdo who rolls around naked in paint and catapults themselves onto the canvas covered in Jello while trained shaved tattooed kitty cats on drugs screech "Devil went down to Georgia" or something.


Art needs money, like everything; but one thing is create a piece to make money and another is to create a piece to make it the most incredible piece of art, that's the way it works.

I reject the idea that just because something is mass produced for a consumer market then it can't be "art." It may not be "high art," it may be commercial art, but it's art still the same, and can be appreciated for what it is.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Art requires a medium, but those mediums do not require art. Chew that over a bit.

It's form (medium) and content (artistic expression/concept). Things get convoluted when you mix or confuse them for each other. Mona Lisa and David expresses a similar concept, the difference is gender depicted and the medium used (both part of the form, hence male/female form and sculpture and painting). The abstract concept is the same, a human idealized (content).

[sheath]

I have used various iterations of Photoshop and other graphic editors to create hundreds of web pages. I have also created galleries and movies. I would not call myself an artist. I was always focused on function and transmitting information. Similarly, I do not call myself a writer, even though I spend a significant amount of time refining my writing every day.

[sheath]

Only slightly off Topic, but if I promise to start a video game museum in Texas would some of you send me $1000? ;)

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/23/video-game-museum-uses-kickstarter-to-find-a-home-in-san-francis/

[Bojay1997]

Only slightly off Topic, but if I promise to start a video game museum in Texas would some of you send me $1000? ;)

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/02/23/video-game-museum-uses-kickstarter-to-find-a-home-in-san-francis/

Yeah, I'm all for supporting attempts to get a museum going, but this "plan" is likely to result in a lot of people throwing away money on something that will be gone once the $20K runs out which at San Francisco rent and utility rates will be a few months. If they are serious, they would form a real board with people who can actually bring in substantial donations, look for sponsors, get a foundation going, etc...Raising money to pay the rent on something which won't generate revenue is foolish and unsustainable.

[sheath]

UT Austin has a Video Game archive. I haven't been there but academics who don't play games tell me it is the place to start looking at video games.

[Bojay1997]

UT Austin has a Video Game archive. I haven't been there but academics who don't play games tell me it is the place to start looking at video games.

Stanford has a massive computer game archive which was basically one guy's large collection which was donated to them by his family when he passed away. There used to be a pretty good blog going by one of the student assistants there, but he hasn't posted in over a year now. Might be interesting to check out the archive someday.

[slapdash]

Here's my totally uneducated opinion...

In the now, art is any creative endeavor, good, bad, "for the spirit of art" or "for the almighty dollar". Therefor, all videogames are art, as are all paintings, songs, movies, etc.

In the future, art is any works that have survived, especially if of good examples of the skill of the creation, or exemplifying some quality of the medium it is made in. So, in some hundred years, most videogames will be forgotten, and only a few will be considered art, the same way only a small amount of paintings are truly remembered.

But not all that survives is great, and not all that is lost was worthless. Art is an ever-changing morass of creative endeavor, subject to interpretation at every point in time.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Alright, so is a fusion active star an artist? It fuses lighter elements into heavier ones, creating new elements... For example: hydrogen is the medium, helium is the art produced. Fits the standard.

How do you differentiate between a sculpture and a bowel movement?

[The 1 2 P]

Everybody knows my stance but for the people who don't think video games are art, is there anything that would change your outlook on that? What I mean is, I'm sure you consider paintings, music, film and literature art so whats missing from video games to give them that same distinction in your eyes? Or is it something that in your opinion they will never aspire to? Just curious.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I stated my position earlier. In order for video games to be a primary art form, you have to eliminate the player interaction requirement and have no barriers of progress to completion. In other words, make a game that plays exactly like a movie. Hit a button to start and then watch until it's done. Sounds boring, silly, and nothing like a game. We already have films anyway. Conversely, to change any film into a game, you can rig up a DVD player to only play for 2 Minutes for every 50pt toss you get on a Skee-Ball machine... But no one is pushing for movies to be accepted as games...

The problem is that games can use elements of almost all of the primary art forms to some degree, or only one (take Zork for an example) and still be a good game experience. Artistic expression is only a part of what games have to offer.

[TonyTheTiger]

I just don't like arbitrary lines. I'm willing to entertain the idea that games are art. But it's conditioned on board games also being accepted as such because I honestly don't see much of a distinction between Mario Party and Monopoly or Starcraft and Risk. And then of course we go all reductio ad absurdum where "well if this is art then why not this? And if that is art then why not that other thing?" Eventually we end up declaring every man-made creation "art" which completely destroys the word's entire meaning.

So, yeah...it's not that I firmly don't think games are art. I just don't think it matters much and whenever we play the "definition of art" game we get nowhere.

And perhaps more importantly, I find the constant drum beating and call to arms over the issue kind of annoying and indicative of pervasive insecurity among the gaming public. Games are games. Movies are movies. Books are books. If they're art, cool. If not, so what? Does it make them any more or less entertaining or socially relevant?

[The 1 2 P]

In other words, make a game that plays exactly like a movie. Hit a button to start and then watch until it's done.

You just described the 3DO series of Vivid porn games. You don't play them, you just sit back and watch them....in horror@_@ If they were ever considered video game art it would be at the lowest end of the spectrum. They make bad games like Superman 64 look somewhat decent.

[sheath]

TonyTheTiger,

I'm not sure you are allowing for the usual amount of participation the viewer/listener plays in accepted forms of arts. Individual perceptions have to translate into something that equates to art. Why should tactile senses not be included?

[Rob2600]

In other words, make a game that plays exactly like a movie. Hit a button to start and then watch until it's done.

You mean like Metal Gear Solid 2?

I kid, I kid... :)

[TonyTheTiger]

TonyTheTiger,

I'm not sure you are allowing for the usual amount of participation the viewer/listener plays in accepted forms of arts. Individual perceptions have to translate into something that equates to art. Why should tactile senses not be included?

Well, is the calculator program in Windows art? Is Minesweeper art? The issue isn't so much whether or not "games" are art but rather when does a computer program make that transition. I'm not even sure it's entirely easy to figure out what qualifies as a video game itself. I'd argue that the Odyssey is more a tool, a piece of hardware to be used within a game, than a game itself.

That's why I keep bringing up board games. Because I don't think there is much of a push for Monopoly or Connect Four to be accepted as works of art among the board game fanbase. What makes them any different? Or, to frame it in a loaded way, what makes them less "worthy" of the title than a video game?

Again, I don't have much vested in whether or not games are art. I'm willing to entertain the idea either way. It doesn't personally affect me or my enjoyment of the pastime. I don't feel insulted if they're not art nor do I feel like I'd be wearing a badge of honor if they are.

But I'm not an art guy to begin with. I don't know much about the significance. All I know is what I like. When something affects me personally, be it an enjoyable waste of time or a deeply involving adventure, then I can respond to that, regardless of the medium. But abstracts like "art" aren't "real" enough for me to calculate in the equation of whether or not something is "worth it."

I get the impression that the clamor for games to be accepted as art is due to people being worried that it's the only way for games to be deemed "worth it." But...considering how successful the medium is, I think they're plenty "worth it" regardless of their abstract status.

[eskobar]

Everybody knows my stance but for the people who don't think video games are art, is there anything that would change your outlook on that? What I mean is, I'm sure you consider paintings, music, film and literature art so whats missing from video games to give them that same distinction in your eyes? Or is it something that in your opinion they will never aspire to? Just curious.

For me, I could take a video game as a work of art if it was created only for that purpose, not to produce it in mass and sell it for $60 dollars. That a game has art elements doesn't necessarily make it a work of art.

If one team of artists gather together and create an interactive piece to give a message and show it in a museum or art gallery and they succeed on the creation, that would give me a real sense of art as they have no limitations from a publisher/esrb/management approval, etc. :)

[Leo_A]

I just hope it doesn't turn out the way I think it will. Mega-publishers are going the way the movie industry did in the 20s-40s. I am afraid that will result in only a handful of developers making all of the games with no way for independents to edge their way in.

And by 1950, we saw erosion of that studio system start with it's disappearance by 1970 with room yet again for independents.

So I suspect if this industry does see such consolidation, it's going to be a temporary one at best with deintegration to follow within a few years. But I highly doubt we're going to see game development follow such a path, there's been so signs I've seen of barriers to entry going up in this industry. If anything, the growth in things like games for mobile platforms is making it even easier to enter this industry today.