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

[The 1 2 P]

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.

[vivaeljason]

Good to know the Smithsonian has come around to an opinion I've held for about a decade.

Now if we can just win Hideo Kojima over, we'll be set.

[boatofcar]

I didn't realize the Smithsonian was in charge making those kind of decisions. And not being in the actual Smithsonian is like running a musical off-broadway. Cool, but it's not in the big leagues yet.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm confused. Are they saying that games themselves are art or that they contain art?

I don't think it's ever been an argument that they can contain art. If this display is nothing more than a bunch of drawings of Super Mario and some screenshots from Okami I don't think that says all that much about whether or not the entire package fits the bill.

[jb143]

I'm confused. Are they saying that games themselves are art or that they contain art?

I don't think it's ever been an argument that they can contain art. If this display is nothing more than a bunch of drawings of Super Mario and some screenshots from Okami I don't think that says all that much about whether or not the entire package fits the bill.

That's what I was wondering as well. "Chronicling the development of art in video games" isn't quite the same as calling video games art in and of themselves.

[The 1 2 P]

I'm confused. Are they saying that games themselves are art or that they contain art?

Here's what they have initially planned:


Many museums have explored art inspired by video games, but this exhibition will be the first to examine comprehensively the evolution of video games themselves as an artistic medium. From the Atari VCS to the Playstation 3, The Art of Video Games will show the development of visual effects and aesthetics during four decades, the emergence of games as a means for storytelling, the influence of world events and popular culture on game development, and the impact that the games can have on society. It will include multimedia presentations of game footage, video interviews with developers and artists, large prints of in-game screen shots, historic game consoles, and a selection of working game systems for visitors to play. In addition, the public will be asked to assist with the selection of materials for the show by choosing the games that they feel best represent particular moments in the overall timeline.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'm guessing Ebert will not be attending the exhibit...

While I view some games as having art like qualities, I still can't think of them as "Art". Love and appreciate them as I do. Someone explain to me how Cabela's Billy Big-Mouth Bass and Deercide Fest 08 qualifies as art and I might be on the verge of shifting opinion. Oh, and the Smithsonian... You're not the Louve, get over yourselves. :rolleyes:

[Bojay1997]

I didn't realize the Smithsonian was in charge making those kind of decisions. And not being in the actual Smithsonian is like running a musical off-broadway. Cool, but it's not in the big leagues yet.

I'm guessing you've never actually visited the Smithsonian. It's a complex of different physical structures, some of which are in different sections of Washington DC and the vast majority of its collections are housed off-site at various storage facilities not open to the public. There isn't some sort of prestige hierarchy associated with which physical building the exhibition is housed in, it's all about the subject matter and the square footage required. The Smithsonian's American art collection has been displayed in the American Art Museum since it opened and contrary to your assertions, it is considered an equal part of the Smithsonian Museum.

I will never understand the loathing and self-hatred gamers have for the idea that something that now costs millions of dollars to create, involves teams of thousands of artists, sound designers and voice-over talent and generates as much or more revenue than the film industry is somehow not "art". In any event, this exhibition doesn't definitively settle that debate, but it is nice to see that the leading institution in this country is finally recognizing the importance of video games.

[Bojay1997]

I'm guessing Ebert will not be attending the exhibit...

While I view some games as having art like qualities, I still can't think of them as "Art". Love and appreciate them as I do. Someone explain to me how Cabela's Billy Big-Mouth Bass and Deercide Fest 08 qualifies as art and I might be on the verge of shifting opinion. Oh, and the Smithsonian... You're not the Louve, get over yourselves. :rolleyes:

I don't know that any of us want to restart that whole debate, but there are plenty of crappy paintings, movies, sculptures, etc...but that doesn't mean that their existence means that the medium itself is not capable of producing art.

[Icarus Moonsight]

True that. It's ungoodness to drudge that old bag up.

All that crap, postmodern nightmarish regalia... Yeah, that ain't art either I reckon. :p

[phreakindee]

I always thought the argument simple: art is art when enough (important) people say it's art. And being at the Smithsonian really helps that position. Just gets its foot in the door a bit more.

Is it on the same level as a Van gogh or even an ice sculpture? Whatever, who cares, comparing apples and oranges and in the end It's still fruit. And not everyone likes all fruit. So maybe Ebert won't like video games as art but that doesn't mean they're not. When it becomes acceptable that they're art, maybe we won't see Yar's Revenge next to The Scream, but it will happen I think.

[Ro-J]

Having lived in the DC area most of my life, I love the Smithsonian museums. It wasn't until I moved to Philadelphia 10 years back that I realized most museums actually CHARGED people admission.

I like how they're including the public in the selection of the games, should provide for a lot of debate.

[RCM]

I always thought the argument simple: art is art when enough (important) people say it's art. And being at the Smithsonian really helps that position. Just gets its foot in the door a bit more.

Perception can certainly become reality. But the gamer battlecry has always been a little off on this subject. It shouldn't be so absolute. We shouldn't be screaming "videogames are art," we should be asking "Are games capable of being art?" Are all films, paintings, music etc. art? And just what is art anyway? Is there some strict definition (there are several) we should adhere to, or is there some unique qualifier for art that's very personal?

And is Britney Spears or Megan Fox really more of an artist than Cliffy B?

[TonyTheTiger]

I will never understand the loathing and self-hatred gamers have for the idea that something that now costs millions of dollars to create, involves teams of thousands of artists, sound designers and voice-over talent and generates as much or more revenue than the film industry is somehow not "art".

I don't think it's self loathing at all. Whether something is or is not "art" has no bearing whatsoever on its quality and value. The word "art" means nothing in terms of quality or lack thereof. It's just a noun or adjective.

Besides, I'm not sure what art is let alone if video games qualify.

[Aussie2B]

I just hope that if video games are finally being recognized as art that it isn't limited to the "artsy" games.

But seriously, if this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg

and even this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

are art, then certainly video games can be as well. Both of those are taught in the college art history course I'm currently taking, by the way.

[Nonplus]

I look at the video games as art debate like I look at every other media: just because something's capable of being art doesn't necessarily make it art. I don't think Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen is art. I don't think Twilight is art. I don't think anything Jackson Polluck ever did was art, and I don't think Bubble Bath Babes is art.
That doesn't mean I can't enjoy things that aren't art. I like Piet Mondrian's paintings (he painted the first link Aussie 2B gave us). I don't think it's art--it's stupid--but I like the way it looks. I don't think it's worth a million dollars. I don't think it's worth twenty. But when I was a kid I was obsessed with geometrical shapes so it resonates with me. I would never hang it up in my house--I don't want to be associated with the kinds of people who would. Those are the kinds of people who like Andy Warhol.
Hell, look at Gradius IV. It's a wonderful game that does very little to move the genre, but it does what it's trying to do well. Does that make it art? I don't think so, but it's a great game.

[Fuyukaze]

I'd say games contain aspects of art. I also dont believe that game art has changed over the years so much as the tools that allow the artists the ability to greater represent their original ideals have. Look at the Final Fantasy series for example. Same guy has done the art for each game. As the tech became better and better, so has the visuals of each game. Yoshitaka Amano's work didnt somehow drasticly change with each game, but damned if the games didnt get better looking with each generation. The same could be said of Akira Toriyama with Dragon Quest.

I'll never consider games to be art itself though. Art can be done for profit and last I knew, always was (atleast, the attempt was made) but something so mass produced without a care how it will be recieved even five years after doesnt feel like it reguardless what anyone else tells me. It's like calling a kia sport art. Or a can of coca-cola art. I can list any number of mass produced products we see on a daily basis that have just as much art as a video game yet no one will ever call it such.

Art is an over used expresion that has so loose a definition everything and nothing can qualify as such.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

These "arguments" always remind me of one of my favorite comedy sketches by "The State" - http://www.megavideo.com/?v=SYMMJ3O1

While I don't think this exhibit, or anything will ever end this debate, I (personally) don't see any reason to disqualify games as a medium capable of supporting the term "art".

It took centuries for certain "movements" by technicians and crafts-people to be considered "art" by the "schools" who dictate such things. Most recently expanded aspects of graphic design have (mostly) overcome this prejudice (as more educational institutions offer expanded training in the field(s) which most games production/design would fall into.)

HOWEVER,

"Art" as a concept is largely a user-defined one, so no single institution will ever be able to empirically define what is or isn't art. (Though that won't stop them from printing $100 textbooks on anything from cave-paintings to post-modernism.)

As an art teacher with multiple art degrees I can say with impunity (and do so as humbly as possible) that regardless of what's printed on my diplomas or licenses, I know that it's impossible for me to "convince" some people what is or isn't "art" based on the hugely personal/emotional nature of the concept. And that goes WAY beyond just video games. I'm more than happy to teach technique and share my personal opinions ... but in my classroom and in my life people are encouraged to make up their own opinions on what is or isn't art, I'll never argue the concept with them or downplay their opinions.

I think that the best we can do is make up our own minds about whatever we feel IS art and hold true to those feelings. Because, if you feel that the medium of video games is art ... why should it matter what anybody else thinks? (The medium and the industry certainly has plenty of mainstream success and validation...it doesn't need greater or universal academic acceptance as "art" to soldier on and contiune to elevate itself.)

[RCM]

As an art teacher

You're a teacher? Had no idea!



I think that the best we can do is make up our own minds about whatever we feel IS art and hold true to those feelings. Because, if you feel that the medium of video games is art ... why should it matter what anybody else thinks? (The medium and the industry certainly has plenty of mainstream success and validation...it doesn't need greater or universal academic acceptance as "art" to soldier on and contiune to elevate itself.)

It matters when the powers that be (politicians and the like) continue to attack the medium. Gamers seem to feel (generally) if videogames are universally accepted they'll be left alone. I don't think many of them truly care if games are art or not.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

You're a teacher? Had no idea!

Yup. High school art. Not currently working full time in that profession, but I did for quite some time, and I'm fully licensed for when a spot in a local department opens up. (Art teachers typically hold on to their tenured positions until they keel over.)


It matters when the powers that be (politicians and the like) continue to attack the medium. Gamers seem to feel (generally) if videogames are universally accepted they'll be left alone. I don't think many of them truly care if games are art or not.

Yeah, well, nothing in this life is universally accepted, even less so when you're talking about art and politics.

I think games are, most importantly, as I stated becoming accepted as a viable profession from an art/design standpoint.

More universities are opening programs in game design, and that may or may not trickle down into the public school system ... who knows. Graphic design has become far more prominent in standard high school art curriculums in recent years, and those classes typically cover a broad spectrum of commercial art/design.

It's got a lot to do with generational changes in the art educators in school systems. As young teachers come into the fold, they (typically) bring with them a greater awareness and understanding of modern media. The arts tend to directionally "trend" a lot more than math, science, history, etc.

Compared to other entertainment mediums, I think games have perhaps come the longest way in the shortest period of time on their path to mainstream acceptance ... there have been some bumps along the way, and there's more than likely to be more, but, give it another 50 years or so and see what happens.

[chrisbid]

I'm guessing Ebert will not be attending the exhibit...

While I view some games as having art like qualities, I still can't think of them as "Art". Love and appreciate them as I do. Someone explain to me how Cabela's Billy Big-Mouth Bass and Deercide Fest 08 qualifies as art and I might be on the verge of shifting opinion. Oh, and the Smithsonian... You're not the Louve, get over yourselves. :rolleyes:



does quality come into the equation when deciding if something is art or not? i would say a painting of dogs playing poker is art.

should something like this be in the smithsonian? fine arts in the US have had to incorporate pop culture in order to get people to visit. look at all the symphonies playing video game and star wars music now. while there are trade offs, overall i dont think this trend is a bad thing

[kaedesdisciple]

Meh, call me when this means that the value of the SMB/DH carts go up...

[Aussie2B]

Yeah, I'll second that calling something "art" doesn't necessitate that it be good or worthwhile. Just spend some time on Deviant Art. :P

[boatofcar]

I'm guessing you've never actually visited the Smithsonian. It's a complex of different physical structures, some of which are in different sections of Washington DC and the vast majority of its collections are housed off-site at various storage facilities not open to the public. There isn't some sort of prestige hierarchy associated with which physical building the exhibition is housed in, it's all about the subject matter and the square footage required. The Smithsonian's American art collection has been displayed in the American Art Museum since it opened and contrary to your assertions, it is considered an equal part of the Smithsonian Museum.


I'm guessing you disagree with my opinion so you're trying to make me look ignorant.

Classy.

The main buildings of the Smithsonian, the important ones, start with "National Museum of..." The rest, while technically part of the museum's structure, are farm teams compared to the big leagues.

Oh, and I used to live in DC and have visited the Smithsonian many a time. Not that I should have to mention that to the likes of you, but whatever.

[Bojay1997]

I'm guessing you disagree with my opinion so you're trying to make me look ignorant.

Classy.

The main buildings of the Smithsonian, the important ones, start with "National Museum of..." The rest, while technically part of the museum's structure, are farm teams compared to the big leagues.

Oh, and I used to live in DC and have visited the Smithsonian many a time. Not that I should have to mention that to the likes of you, but whatever.

I'm not trying to make you look like anything. You stated an inaccurate fact to support your opinion and I'm calling you out on it. The Smithsonian's entire American art collection is housed in the American Art Museum where this show is being held. I've been a donor to the museum for probably 20 years, so I get the quarterly publications and e-mail updates and I probably visit at least once a year.

All of the branches of the Smithsonian are considered to be equal and each individual museum facility specializes in a particular area. I will agree with you that maybe 10-15 years ago, this wasn't the case, but the addition of new facilities in that time has meant more specialization of each facility. There is no prestige hierarchy, it's all considered the Smithsonian collection.

[BHvrd]

One of the games that really helped push this forward:

http://www.nickschager.com/.a/6a00d8341cc32e53ef011571db0cd3970b-pi

Truly the most artisticly crafted game to date, pure beauty in motion.

[The 1 2 P]

To me a game like Castlevania: Symthony of the Night is the perfect representation of game art. It's hand drawn animations are top notch, the 2D gameplay is perfect(even more impressive considering the emphasis that companies were placing on 3D at the time) and the soundtrack is one of the best in the series or any other series for that matter. The game doesn't try to be "art" by definition at all. But the fact that it does so many different things so well makes it an interactive masterpiece of video game art.

[j_factor]

I've never understood why anyone objected to videogames being considered "art". Anything man-made that is designed (beyond pure functionality) can be art. Architecture is not art when the architect designs a building merely to be structurally sound, but when he/she makes design choices for aesthetic purposes, it becomes art. Thus I think there's a valid argument to be made that absolute shovelware isn't art, when the developer throws together a game that's just designed "to spec" and puts in no creativity. But the majority of games are art, even the bad ones. Art doesn't have to be "good"; bad art is still art.

By the way, I thought the Smithsonian had already exhibited a few games? I seem to remember hearing that Dragon's Lair and Virtua Fighter were featured in their permanent collection.

[Ed Oscuro]

Architecture is not art when the architect designs a building merely to be structurally sound, but when he/she makes design choices for aesthetic purposes, it becomes art.
I don't even think that artistic intent really is the ultimate factor. WWII-era German anti-air fortifications look suspiciously like they belong in The Wizard of Oz but they were doubtlessly meant to be purely functional. This hasn't stopped people from considering them on their artistic merits.

In any case, big point of agreement: Games can easily be art; I'd say that the large number of games out this decade that I play through once would indicate there's been a lot more focus on art than on some gameplay essentials as of late. :p

[TonyTheTiger]

I think the issue is that a game is a sum of a lot of different parts. Are all parts art in and of themselves or are they only art when combined into a final product? And if video games can be art can board games? Is Connect Four a work of art? And if board games can be art then can sports? Is basketball art? Is the guy who first concocted the game of basketball an artist?

That's why I have a problem with the whole art thing. As a philosophy junkie I have difficulty wrapping my head around the whole thing as a concept. We eventually start playing the reductio game and we then have one of two options. Either we arbitrarily set a cut off point usually not based on anything concrete because any concrete definition often has exceptions or we just eventually say "Yeah, everything is art." But if everything is art, then nothing is. It becomes a worthless word.

[Ed Oscuro]

Yet precisely because art is the sum of many different endeavors and disciplines you can judge it in many different ways (and even non-art can be judged in the same ways, i.e. the physical occurrence of a sunset is not only not art, but not a product of human activity). I don't think that calling things art or not is particularly illuminating unless it is solely classify them as a product of the processes intended to be identified as artistic, in the way you would add the word "project." For example: Code is usually beautiful before art (usually, neither, of course), but you wouldn't call it an art project. Instead, noticing and appraising points of aesthetic interest is the closest one gets to quantifying the contributing points within art (and things that weren't meant to be "Art" but certainly are art).

Trying to strictly categorize art and non-art seems to ignore the fact that aesthetic appreciation is completely arbitrary, without care for point or process of origin, and is based almost solely off emotions rooted mainly in ancient and primitive biology - there is no real logical "sense" to it, no clear distinction between better and worse or pressing need.

[TonyTheTiger]

I totally agree that the concept of art works much more cleanly as a kind of surreal interpretation of something "deeper" going on. Effectively "art" being the uttered word when something touches your very soul. That makes it easy because then we don't have to debate anything at all. It's effectively as personal as favorite foods.

The issue I have is that it seems that while that works in principle, it doesn't seem to work in practice. The real world seems to have a bit of a concrete idea of what constitutes art. We might not like what is hung in a museum but it's still in a museum. Presumably somebody somewhere said "this is art" and the world more or less acquiesces to that. There are even government sponsored programs dedicated to cultivating "the arts."

Now I'm not saying all of this is wrong. I'm just saying that I get mixed signals. On one hand, people will say "art is in the eye of the beholder." On the other hand, when you say, for instance, "video games are not art" a certain constituency (to be realistic, this constituency on this site) aggressively retaliates. A retaliation that doesn't happen if the original assertion were simply "I do not like X video game." So even if the ideal is to say "art is in the eye of the beholder" it doesn't seem to work that way in practice. The world seems to proffer something more concrete.

[Baloo]

Personally, I think the original NiGHTS into Dreams... was a work of art.

[j_factor]

I think the issue is that a game is a sum of a lot of different parts. Are all parts art in and of themselves or are they only art when combined into a final product?

Which parts do you think are not art? I would say most, but not all are, but it depends on how you divide "parts", and I'm not sure it's a relevant question. I mean, any work of art can be broken down into a series of non-art pieces. One musical note is not art. Two musical notes isn't art either, and there's no exact number of notes after which it becomes art. It's like the difference between whiskers and a beard, you can't define an exact line.


And if video games can be art can board games? Is Connect Four a work of art? And if board games can be art then can sports? Is basketball art? Is the guy who first concocted the game of basketball an artist?

Sure, board games and sports can be art. I think even Magic: The Gathering is art, in a sense. Not that every card is art, but it's art in the sense of how the game was created, how the gameplay structure and specific rules were designed.

A game (video or otherwise) is no different from a movie or album, in my view. While you can create a game or movie or album to serve a "purpose" in a sense, they're not physically purposeful. Their primary reason for existence isn't utilitarian in nature. Now, basketball is arguable, because I believe the guy's motivation for creating it was to have a non-contact indoor sport that was still physically strenuous (although I could be completely mistaken). If you view basketball as merely a straightforward implementation of that goal, it is not art. If basketball is just people running without hitting each other and throwing a ball through a hoop, it isn't art. But if you view basketball in the sense of it being a unique set of rules and boundaries, it is art. That doesn't mean an individual game of basketball is a work of art; only the creation of the game of basketball is a work of art.

I mean, how is gameplay design not art? If how you see something is art, and how you hear something is art, why not how you interact with something? The process is just as creative, and determinations of quality are just as reliant on subjective opinion. Or do you believe that art has to be passively experienced?


That's why I have a problem with the whole art thing. As a philosophy junkie I have difficulty wrapping my head around the whole thing as a concept. We eventually start playing the reductio game and we then have one of two options. Either we arbitrarily set a cut off point usually not based on anything concrete because any concrete definition often has exceptions or we just eventually say "Yeah, everything is art." But if everything is art, then nothing is. It becomes a worthless word.

How about this: Everything man-made isn't inherently not art. (Double negative intended.) Whether or not its art depends on the significance of non-functional differences between works/items. For an outlandish example, a RAM stick is not art. All RAM sticks do the same thing, and the significant differences between them are purely functional (i.e., speed, capacity, and compatibility). Any non-functional differences between RAM sticks -- say, their appearance, shape, physical texture -- are not considered important. In theory, it is possible that someday, RAM sticks will be art, when speed, capacity, and compatibility cease to be major concerns, and people start designing ornate RAM sticks with the main thrust of the design process being around non-functional aspects. In fact it is possible for someone to design a RAM stick in that fashion right now, and such a stick would be art. Most likely, that will not happen, because when the technology becomes that advanced, they will probably just become more standardized, and right now, there is little to no demand for "art RAM sticks". But they're not inherently not art. However, they're not art now, or at least, 99.999% of them aren't.

Of course, you could make a deeper epistemological argument about the nature of defining a concept such as art, but let's not go there. Instead I'll just say that this is my definition and I'm sticking to it, unless someone comes up with a compelling counterexample (either something that convincingly is art and doesn't fit, or something that does fit and convincingly isn't art).

[Zap!]

I said the same thing four years ago here and got laughed at. Video games are art 100%.

[TonyTheTiger]

My biggest gripe is that people make such a big deal of the whole thing. Why does it matter?

If I walk around with a basketball and claim "This is NOT round" people will just look at me funny and be done with it.

But if I walk around and say "X is NOT art" people will take personal offense and see to it that I burn in hell.

Why in holy hell is the "art" moniker treated as if it were a badge of honor? And why is the withholding of the noun/adjective somehow interpreted as an insult to the product? It's just a damn word. It says nothing of the value of the object itself.

If people can explain why they invest so much personal interest in "art" as a descriptor, when they fail to do the same with any other term in the English language, then I might stop looking at the whole debate with restrained cynicism.

[Aussie2B]

I'd venture to guess that it's because people take their creative expression seriously, and if someone tells them that what they're doing isn't art, it's akin to saying that you don't believe they put any creativity into what they did or that you don't respect their creative expression. It's all a very personal thing.

Granted it's different when it's directed at a fan rather than the creator him or herself, but it can have the same belittling effect.

[Icarus Moonsight]

The demand for art is a certain level. And the amount of artisans and their work output supply has always overblown that demand and always will. Calling every creative work "Art" sort of heals that wound of rejection, that they feel. The problem is, they are looking at it in the wrong way. Art needs no external validation. Anytime you create something, it should be for personal expression and fulfillment.

Basically, if you have to tell other people that it is Art, it's surely anything but.

[Bojay1997]

My biggest gripe is that people make such a big deal of the whole thing. Why does it matter?

If I walk around with a basketball and claim "This is NOT round" people will just look at me funny and be done with it.

But if I walk around and say "X is NOT art" people will take personal offense and see to it that I burn in hell.

Why in holy hell is the "art" moniker treated as if it were a badge of honor? And why is the withholding of the noun/adjective somehow interpreted as an insult to the product? It's just a damn word. It says nothing of the value of the object itself.

If people can explain why they invest so much personal interest in "art" as a descriptor, when they fail to do the same with any other term in the English language, then I might stop looking at the whole debate with restrained cynicism.

But it's a word that has the power to bring social acceptance and inclusion. As someone who has been an avid gamer for going on 30 years now, it has only been recently that playing games has been seen as something more than what nerdy little kids do in their bedroom. With the general public starting to recognize that like other media, games can be considered artistic or art, it reduces the level of stigma attached to being a gamer. That's the reason I care so much.

[SplashChick]

Video games aren't inherently art, but they are an artistic medium. Like music or painting, not everything created within the medium is art, but art can and does get created with it(for example, Rock & Roll Adventures is in no way art, but Mother 3 sure as hell is).

[LaughingMAN.S9]

I'm guessing Ebert will not be attending the exhibit...

While I view some games as having art like qualities, I still can't think of them as "Art". Love and appreciate them as I do. Someone explain to me how Cabela's Billy Big-Mouth Bass and Deercide Fest 08 qualifies as art and I might be on the verge of shifting opinion. Oh, and the Smithsonian... You're not the Louve, get over yourselves. :rolleyes:


that would depend on how you define art dont you think?

i think this like most anything in life is open to interpretation, governed by the courts of both public and personal opinion.

of course to use the word "art" as a blanket term enveloping the entire spectrum in anything gaming related is not only egregious but incredibly presumptious, because not all games fall under the same umbrella much in the same way that not all movies do.

you wouldnt put dumb and dumber in the same pocket as you would eternal sunshine of the spotless mind or the truman show would you? likewise i wouldnt put metal gear solid in even the same universe as army men. but im sure there is some misguided soul out there who thinks army men was the ps1's singular magnum opus. who am i to argue?


i hate these pretentious art house film reviewers sipping their 20 cent coffees from 9 dollar cups, typing up reviews on on obscure criterion collection films no one has ever heard of on macbooks, using their sharp and signature "acid-tongued" prose for their blog that no one reads, using words like "trite", "non-conformist" and "contrived" in whatever hip new "anti-establishment" soho hole in the wall coffee shop, waving around their nyu film degrees/pyschological validations, believing with every fiber of their being, that somehow having the sundance channel makes their opinions on all things art, somehow more valid than yours.

"oh but i've seen everything jean luc goddard has ever made!"

wow really? GO FUCK YOURSELF, seven samurai sucked, a film being foreign doesnt automatically make it better and no matter what you want to believe, FIGHT CLUB IS NOT AN INDIE FILM!


i would also like to add...

that the mona lisa is a piece of shit, i dont care about the whimsical interplay of light and shadow and all that garbage, to me its just some stupid bitch in a room, i consider the watchmen & dark knight strikes again graphic novels to be some of the finest examples of literary art in history, but if i said that to a librarian, she'd probably tell me that alan moore is a douche and that ernest hemingway probably had sex with my mother.

point is, given that the word "art" is so mercurial and context sensitive, it shouldnt be taken so seriously when self appointed judges on all things art cosign it or not.

i personally define art as anything that can be perceived as being emotionally provocative, if beethovens 9th (an admittedly moving piece by conventional standards) is considered art of the highest order, then why can't the same be said of the wu tang clans enter the 36 chambers or nirvanas in utero?

art is subjective by its own admission, regardless of credentials, it should never be dictated, especially by a person who isnt involved or a part of the subculture. ebert is no authority on the matter and neither is the smithsonian. the smithsonian coming around and labeling it as such is great, but should in no way shape or define your views on it one way or the other. you all have the freedom to decide for yourself.


hideo kojimas personal view on gaming not being art is lamentable, especially considering metal gear solid and mgs4 are 2 of the best examples of gaming as art. i found both genre defining blockbusters to be 2 of the most moving, visually stunning, engrossing, cinematic and interactive expierences i have ever witnessed. but ultimately, he doesnt get to decide how i feel on it. the fact that its interactive shouldnt be reason to exclude it from being in the same company as picasso (another artist i think sucks), monet, charlie parker, the beatles, futura 2000, shakespeare or Dostoievsky.


moral of the story? art is just a word, it can be lent meaning, but only if the beholder wills it to have one, forever a product of the human condition, slave to our ever changing fickle nature :(

finallyyyyyy.......FINISHED!

[TonyTheTiger]

But it's a word that has the power to bring social acceptance and inclusion.

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.

Imagine this in any other scenario. Imagine if I were an astronaut training to go to Mars for the first time. Now imagine if a certain sect of people started saying how pointless that trip is because it's just a dead chunk of rock. What do I care what those people say? I want to go to Mars and those people aren't going to stop me. If I freak out about it then I'm the one with the problem.

It's the ultimate inferiority complex to care whether or not something is "accepted," socially or otherwise.


As someone who has been an avid gamer for going on 30 years now, it has only been recently that playing games has been seen as something more than what nerdy little kids do in their bedroom. With the general public starting to recognize that like other media, games can be considered artistic or art, it reduces the level of stigma attached to being a gamer. That's the reason I care so much.

That's a waste of time and energy though because regardless of whether something is deemed "art" it's just a matter of time before it's just "what it is." If I sit down to write something, which I do quite often, I'm not thinking that I'm trying to be artistic or "making art." I'm just doing what I want to do. I don't really give a shit what the guy next door calls what I'm doing. He can call it art if he wants. He can just as easily call it interdimensional travel if that's what floats his boat. It has no bearing on what I'm doing or whether or not I can make a buck or two on it.

You'd think that video games being a multi-billion dollar a year industry is far more important to the whole "acceptance" thing than whether or not Roger Ebert thinks Sonic Spinball is a work of art. And, again, "acceptance" means jack shit.

I just get tired of this constituency playing the martyr card, "Woe are we, games and gamers get shit upon once again," or the inferiority complex card, "We just want to be accepted by the whole world." It's a culture of butthurt.

I think the first step to any kind of acceptance is being secure enough to not care what this guy is saying or that guy is doing.


you wouldnt put dumb and dumber in the same pocket as you would eternal sunshine of the spotless mind or the truman show would you?

Considering that I find Dumb and Dumber to be the superior movie...and incredibly entertaining in it's own right...

But, to address what you're getting at, I do find the whole idea of "high art" and "low art" to be some of the most pompous, elitist, and pretentious nonsense I've ever heard.


hideo kojimas personal view on gaming not being art is regretable

Why? Why is his view regrettable but yours is not? Weren't you just saying it's a very personal thing? Not to point any fingers, but this is the kind of butthurt I'm talking about.

[SplashChick]

seven samurai sucked

Stopped reading here, it's obvious to me you don't have any real perception of what art is. Something isn't automatically art just because someone says so, there are still standards that have to be lived up to. Just because you don't care about cultural history of foreign countries and hate reading subtitles doesn't mean the movie sucked or that it isn't art. It just means you don't care about it and aren't one to judge it.

[Aussie2B]

that the mona lisa is a piece of shit, i dont care about the whimsical interplay of light and shadow and all that garbage, to me its just some stupid bitch in a room

Protip: The background is a landscape, not a room.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

Stopped reading here, it's obvious to me you don't have any real perception of what art is. Something isn't automatically art just because someone says so, there are still standards that have to be lived up to. Just because you don't care about cultural history of foreign countries and hate reading subtitles doesn't mean the movie sucked or that it isn't art. It just means you don't care about it and aren't one to judge it.

you're doing your best to live up to the film buff stereotype i laid forward and i for one applaud you for that.

but you're mistaken in your inference.

where in my post did you get the impression that i dont care about cultural history of foreign countries? ARE all things FOREIGN automatically art then to you?


listen, my perception of art may not coincide with YOUR definition of art, let me clarify something for you...THERE ARE NO STANDARDS FOR ART TO LIVE UP TO. PERIOD. THE END.

i feel the rapper nas is the greatest contemporary artist of our time, you may not feel the same way, and i might even take a little offense if u tried to discredit hip hop as a viable artform to begin with. but if u dont feel its art, i cant stop you nor would i want to. you draw from it what you will, it doesnt mean that you arent qualified enough to gauge what art is, it just means that we have a different outlook on the subject, we're both right.


i probably could have saved us both a little time by pointing out that your arguement was self defeating in that you answered your own post with your 2nd sentence, but i got alot of time to kill and nip tuck doesnt start for another 3 hours :(



P.S. I love foreign and indie films, chan wook park is one of my favorite directors and im an avid fan of anime. i DO watch IFC and the sundance channel when i have down time, so i wasnt taking shots at people who do, only the people who do so and automatically think it makes their opinion worth more than mine.

the fact that i even know who da hell jean luc godard is should have hinted at me being at least a LITTLE knowledgeable about film. still doesnt make an art critic words any less hollow to me though, sowwy :(


p.p.s. seven samurai is still 3 hours of black and white garbage.


Protip: The background is a landscape, not a room.

woops....guess it really is art then :(

im gonna go eat an entire block of cheese now, wish me luck

[LaughingMAN.S9]

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.

Imagine this in any other scenario. Imagine if I were an astronaut training to go to Mars for the first time. Now imagine if a certain sect of people started saying how pointless that trip is because it's just a dead chunk of rock. What do I care what those people say? I want to go to Mars and those people aren't going to stop me. If I freak out about it then I'm the one with the problem.

It's the ultimate inferiority complex to care whether or not something is "accepted," socially or otherwise.



That's a waste of time and energy though because regardless of whether something is deemed "art" it's just a matter of time before it's just "what it is." If I sit down to write something, which I do quite often, I'm not thinking that I'm trying to be artistic or "making art." I'm just doing what I want to do. I don't really give a shit what the guy next door calls what I'm doing. He can call it art if he wants. He can just as easily call it interdimensional travel if that's what floats his boat. It has no bearing on what I'm doing or whether or not I can make a buck or two on it.

You'd think that video games being a multi-billion dollar a year industry is far more important to the whole "acceptance" thing than whether or not Roger Ebert thinks Sonic Spinball is a work of art. And, again, "acceptance" means jack shit.

I just get tired of this constituency playing the martyr card, "Woe are we, games and gamers get shit upon once again," or the inferiority complex card, "We just want to be accepted by the whole world." It's a culture of butthurt.

I think the first step to any kind of acceptance is being secure enough to not care what this guy is saying or that guy is doing.



Considering that I find Dumb and Dumber to be the superior movie...and incredibly entertaining in it's own right...

But, to address what you're getting at, I do find the whole idea of "high art" and "low art" to be some of the most pompous, elitist, and pretentious nonsense I've ever heard.



Why? Why is his view regrettable but yours is not? Weren't you just saying it's a very personal thing? Not to point any fingers, but this is the kind of butthurt I'm talking about.


i only meant insofar as, it kinda sucks that one of the greatest pieces of art imo, not just in gaming, but i mean in general to me, isnt looked at and appreciated as such by the very person who created it, but i also go on to say its not really that big of a deal tho if u read further on, its more funny than anything i guess is what im trying to say.

its the same type of reaction you'd probably get if one if one of your friends happens to think that your favorite car is one of the ugliest pieces of shit he's ever seen. you'd probably let out a noticeable guffaw before shrugging it off like "ehh" whatever.

[TonyTheTiger]

i only meant insofar as, it kinda sucks that one of the greatest pieces of art imo, not just in gaming, but i mean in general to me, isnt looked at and appreciated as such by the very person who created it, but i also go on to say its not really that big of a deal tho if u read further on, its more funny than anything i guess is what im trying to say.

its the same type of reaction you'd probably get if one if one of your friends happens to think that your favorite car is one of the ugliest pieces of shit he's ever seen. you'd probably let out a noticeable guffaw before shrugging it off like "ehh" whatever.

I don't want to come off as if I don't "get it" or as if I'm intentionally feigning ignorance. I do understand the idea behind the general feelings of art and why people like their stuff to be "in the big leagues" so to speak. I'm just really apathetic to the whole status seeking rat race which is what this whole "are games art?" debate always seems to boil down to.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

I don't want to come off as if I don't "get it" or as if I'm intentionally feigning ignorance. I do understand the idea behind the general feelings of art and why people like their stuff to be "in the big leagues" so to speak. I'm just really apathetic to the whole status seeking rat race which is what this whole "are games art?" debate always seems to boil down to.

same :(

[Berserker]

This is just my opinion, but I think the definition of art should really only matter to the person creating the art at the time it's being created — the idea there being that the intention shows through somehow in the work itself. So to me the definition of art is something that serves no real-world purpose other than to exist for the sake of itself as an embodiment of pure expression, but that's only something I think about when I'm trying to create something. The rest of the time, why should it matter?

And I should say that even that isn't so much an actual intention, but more like just the foundation that you lay down, upon which other meaningful intentions and expressions can be built. I don't appreciate art, I appreciate the conveyance of intention, and the manner — the elegance, beauty, or perhaps the cleverness — in which that intention is conveyed. You don't need to be an artist to understand intention, you simply need to be human. And you don't need something to be considered art before it's then able to convey intention.

So I realize this is all very broad and vague, but it's meant to be, because it's covering a pretty wide range of things. It's covering everything that's considered art, and many things that aren't, such as design, engineering, architecture, writing, and storytelling. You might notice that many of those things can also be applied to something like video games.

My personal definition of art doesn't interfere with my ability to appreciate and be touched by a well-designed bridge, or a great story, or a moment of beauty in a scene from a film or video game — and this is precisely because I choose only to apply this definition to my own actions of creation.

[Ed Oscuro]

This is just my opinion, but I think the definition of art should really only matter to the person creating the art at the time it's being created
Then some guy decides that it's not art unless it's making a point (http://www.artlurker.com/2009/09/the-rape-tunnel-by-sheila-zareno/), and that's why we can't have nice things.

Honestly, art is just squicking emotions deep within the primitive brain, and the problem with academia is that people in arts that really shouldn't feel worried about overhauling society start to feel worthless unless they're making "statements." Just letting art be aesthetics - that's fine by me.

[Tallise]

It's about time I say. If you think about it A story is concidered a type of art, a picture is concidered a type of art, a movie is even concidered art. if you put every peice of a video game into a different jar you would see a story, pictures, audio, and many other things, individually they are art, together they are interactive art :3

[Bojay1997]

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.

Imagine this in any other scenario. Imagine if I were an astronaut training to go to Mars for the first time. Now imagine if a certain sect of people started saying how pointless that trip is because it's just a dead chunk of rock. What do I care what those people say? I want to go to Mars and those people aren't going to stop me. If I freak out about it then I'm the one with the problem.

It's the ultimate inferiority complex to care whether or not something is "accepted," socially or otherwise.



That's a waste of time and energy though because regardless of whether something is deemed "art" it's just a matter of time before it's just "what it is." If I sit down to write something, which I do quite often, I'm not thinking that I'm trying to be artistic or "making art." I'm just doing what I want to do. I don't really give a shit what the guy next door calls what I'm doing. He can call it art if he wants. He can just as easily call it interdimensional travel if that's what floats his boat. It has no bearing on what I'm doing or whether or not I can make a buck or two on it.

You'd think that video games being a multi-billion dollar a year industry is far more important to the whole "acceptance" thing than whether or not Roger Ebert thinks Sonic Spinball is a work of art. And, again, "acceptance" means jack shit.

I just get tired of this constituency playing the martyr card, "Woe are we, games and gamers get shit upon once again," or the inferiority complex card, "We just want to be accepted by the whole world." It's a culture of butthurt.

I think the first step to any kind of acceptance is being secure enough to not care what this guy is saying or that guy is doing.



Considering that I find Dumb and Dumber to be the superior movie...and incredibly entertaining in it's own right...

But, to address what you're getting at, I do find the whole idea of "high art" and "low art" to be some of the most pompous, elitist, and pretentious nonsense I've ever heard.



Why? Why is his view regrettable but yours is not? Weren't you just saying it's a very personal thing? Not to point any fingers, but this is the kind of butthurt I'm talking about.

This isn't junior high and the acceptance you're talking about has nothing to do with the kind of cultural acceptance I am talking about. In the astronaut example you cited, it's not about being "butthurt" (as an aside, when you use phrases like that it leads me to believe that contrary to your claims, you're not trying to encourage discussion, but rather just trying to stir stuff up and that you really are just a troll). If the general public doesn't get behind the mission, it means there will be less funding and generally less progress in the field.

I personally would love for gaming to become an even larger global phenomenon solely because I want many, many more companies to produce more innovative and "artistic" games. Cultural acceptance means more people looking to produce product and hopefully more niche and well designed titles. I think of gaming today as film was in the mid-60s when the studio system was breaking down and storytelling was returning to the fore as European film makers and American independent film makers began to create more niche films. That type of cultural and commercial acceptance is what can really take games to the next level which will be good for all of us.

[Rob2600]

the mona lisa is a piece of shit... to me its just some stupid bitch in a room

Wow. To quote Flack from April 18, 2005:


When I hear people say, "the Beatles suck", to me that's the same as saying "look at me, I’m an idiot." It's like walking up to the Mona Lisa and saying, "what's up with this bitch?"

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?p=641813#post641813

[TonyTheTiger]

This isn't junior high and the acceptance you're talking about has nothing to do with the kind of cultural acceptance I am talking about.

I don't see much of a difference whenever this topic ends up in the media.


In the astronaut example you cited, it's not about being "butthurt" (as an aside, when you use phrases like that it leads me to believe that contrary to your claims, you're not trying to encourage discussion, but rather just trying to stir stuff up and that you really are just a troll). If the general public doesn't get behind the mission, it means there will be less funding and generally less progress in the field.

Well that clearly hasn't been a problem for video games so it's really a moot point. And forgive me for calling it as I see it. When Roger Ebert made his statements, and presented them perfectly cordially, the gaming public called for his head on a platter. I call that butthurt.


I personally would love for gaming to become an even larger global phenomenon solely because I want many, many more companies to produce more innovative and "artistic" games. Cultural acceptance means more people looking to produce product and hopefully more niche and well designed titles. I think of gaming today as film was in the mid-60s when the studio system was breaking down and storytelling was returning to the fore as European film makers and American independent film makers began to create more niche films. That type of cultural and commercial acceptance is what can really take games to the next level which will be good for all of us.

Again, this industry is thriving. A random "art" moniker is not going to change anything. If expanding the industry is the goal then arguing for acceptance as art is one hell of a roundabout way to go about it.

[Ed Oscuro]

My only concern is that gameplay gets lost with all this talk of Art. Yeah, sure, art, hoorah. But games were pushing the boundaries, in ways that "Art" tries to, twenty years ago (see: every bad ending for an arcade game you spent too many credits on). There need to be innovations from all angles. Unfortunately, "art" sells better than demos right now because the technology isn't there to show people how fun something is - screenshots are still the cheapest way to advertise and that pushes the selling game along visual aesthetic lines instead of how satisfying the gameplay is.

I realize that this all depends on misrepresenting what art (and Art) actually is - I would be more comfortable calling the process of balancing, say, the gameplay of ultimate late '90s arcade shooters an art than a science. When I see folks pushing games that look visually splashy (like Flower, not to say there's something wrong with that one) I am concerned that fragments the attention of the game-buying public further (it's already split between "realism" and "omg, graphics" along with a dose of gameplay), with good projects become hard to sell if the package isn't completed with splashy stuff.

I hope that quicker access to better online gameplay demos will help level the playing field so games can escape categorization. I realize that along with the new aesthetics are often bundled inventive new concepts in gameplay, but it seems to me that the best games are systematic in defining a robust and deep gameplay system and extending that quality to any sort of campaign, something that a lot of the "amazing" arty games have lacked for lack of resources. I guess part of what's going on is that a lot of people are out on the fringes - a problem of apportionment of resources, a problem of today's big studio system and the need to categorize games for customers.

But I also don't often really enjoy or feel like engaged for a long period with lots of the "indie" efforts, solely because of that missing spit and shine, or a story or something else that makes me feel drawn into a world. Looking at my very short "top games of the decade" list, few of them have any sort of engaging gameplay mechanics (something I lament) that would draw me in for repeat plays, but almost all of them have top-shelf production and, in their defense, are often better about providing a compelling campaign or set of puzzles.

Too many "indie" games, in my shortsighted view, have relied on gimmicks (not so different from retail games, but thinner; I think there's still a lot more to be done with even single-button games within better computing environments; Canabalt is an example of this) or the sandbox method, i.e. the George Lucas method of giving fans ice cream ("Well, here's a bag of rock salt. You mix that with a little water and some sugar and some cream and you've got ice cream!" - Patton Oswalt)

I make this distinction because there's an awful lot of AWESOME simple games, like Canabalt, that people go "sniff this is commercial rot" at, simply because they're Not Indie and made for a website or something. Stuff on Newgrounds used to be like this (except with a lot more blundering around and too many animated fart jokes or worse). I don't have it out for Indie, but if anybody remembers a panel discussion some years back about indie developers and filling the disc (i.e. the then-new or around-the-corner Blu-Ray) there's not a lot of hope to turn out polished competitive product with a very lean budget.

So yeah whateva'.

[SplashChick]

you're doing your best to live up to the film buff stereotype i laid forward and i for one applaud you for that.

but you're mistaken in your inference.

where in my post did you get the impression that i dont care about cultural history of foreign countries? ARE all things FOREIGN automatically art then to you?


listen, my perception of art may not coincide with YOUR definition of art, let me clarify something for you...THERE ARE NO STANDARDS FOR ART TO LIVE UP TO. PERIOD. THE END.

i feel the rapper nas is the greatest contemporary artist of our time, you may not feel the same way, and i might even take a little offense if u tried to discredit hip hop as a viable artform to begin with. but if u dont feel its art, i cant stop you nor would i want to. you draw from it what you will, it doesnt mean that you arent qualified enough to gauge what art is, it just means that we have a different outlook on the subject, we're both right.


i probably could have saved us both a little time by pointing out that your arguement was self defeating in that you answered your own post with your 2nd sentence, but i got alot of time to kill and nip tuck doesnt start for another 3 hours :(



P.S. I love foreign and indie films, chan wook park is one of my favorite directors and im an avid fan of anime. i DO watch IFC and the sundance channel when i have down time, so i wasnt taking shots at people who do, only the people who do so and automatically think it makes their opinion worth more than mine.

the fact that i even know who da hell jean luc godard is should have hinted at me being at least a LITTLE knowledgeable about film. still doesnt make an art critic words any less hollow to me though, sowwy :(


p.p.s. seven samurai is still 3 hours of black and white garbage.



woops....guess it really is art then :(

im gonna go eat an entire block of cheese now, wish me luck

You really REALLY don't understand art, this is painfully obvious. Art is not art because some random idiot thinks it's good, nor is it not art because some moron says its 3 hours of black and white garbage. If there were no standards that art had to live up to, art exhibits around the world would be filled with random, meaningless garbage; your saying this is really just laughable.

[SplashChick]

My only concern is that gameplay gets lost with all this talk of Art. Yeah, sure, art, hoorah. But games were pushing the boundaries, in ways that "Art" tries to, twenty years ago (see: every bad ending for an arcade game you spent too many credits on). There need to be innovations from all angles. Unfortunately, "art" sells better than demos right now because the technology isn't there to show people how fun something is - screenshots are still the cheapest way to advertise and that pushes the selling game along visual aesthetic lines instead of how satisfying the gameplay is.

I realize that this all depends on misrepresenting what art (and Art) actually is - I would be more comfortable calling the process of balancing, say, the gameplay of ultimate late '90s arcade shooters an art than a science. When I see folks pushing games that look visually splashy (like Flower, not to say there's something wrong with that one) I am concerned that fragments the attention of the game-buying public further (it's already split between "realism" and "omg, graphics" along with a dose of gameplay), with good projects become hard to sell if the package isn't completed with splashy stuff.

I hope that quicker access to better online gameplay demos will help level the playing field so games can escape categorization. I realize that along with the new aesthetics are often bundled inventive new concepts in gameplay, but it seems to me that the best games are systematic in defining a robust and deep gameplay system and extending that quality to any sort of campaign, something that a lot of the "amazing" arty games have lacked for lack of resources. I guess part of what's going on is that a lot of people are out on the fringes - a problem of apportionment of resources, a problem of today's big studio system and the need to categorize games for customers.

But I also don't often really enjoy or feel like engaged for a long period with lots of the "indie" efforts, solely because of that missing spit and shine, or a story or something else that makes me feel drawn into a world. Looking at my very short "top games of the decade" list, few of them have any sort of engaging gameplay mechanics (something I lament) that would draw me in for repeat plays, but almost all of them have top-shelf production and, in their defense, are often better about providing a compelling campaign or set of puzzles.

Too many "indie" games, in my shortsighted view, have relied on gimmicks (not so different from retail games, but thinner; I think there's still a lot more to be done with even single-button games within better computing environments; Canabalt is an example of this) or the sandbox method, i.e. the George Lucas method of giving fans ice cream ("Well, here's a bag of rock salt. You mix that with a little water and some sugar and some cream and you've got ice cream!" - Patton Oswalt)

I make this distinction because there's an awful lot of AWESOME simple games, like Canabalt, that people go "sniff this is commercial rot" at, simply because they're Not Indie and made for a website or something. Stuff on Newgrounds used to be like this (except with a lot more blundering around and too many animated fart jokes or worse). I don't have it out for Indie, but if anybody remembers a panel discussion some years back about indie developers and filling the disc (i.e. the then-new or around-the-corner Blu-Ray) there's not a lot of hope to turn out polished competitive product with a very lean budget.

So yeah whateva'.

In my opinion, true artistry in video games is shown THROUGH the gameplay, not around it. I know what you're talking about and it annoys me as well; these games that try to pass themselves off as art using pretty looking backgrounds and sprites while the player basically gets to do nothing interesting. That isn't art. If those pretty graphics don't envelop the gameplay experience and/or help it convey the emotions the game is trying to give, then it isn't art at all, it's just cool looking graphics.

It's also infuriating to me when games like Layoff force politics into themselves somehow and call it art. That's not fucking art, you just shamelessly stole Bejeweled's gameplay and shoved political bullshit into it. You don't instantly get art status just by being political.

[Icarus Moonsight]

My only concern is that gameplay gets lost with all this talk of Art.

QFT. Some of my favorite games are near completely lacking any art type characteristics. But they have rock solid gameplay.

I honestly feel that the push for all video games being viewed as art is all for external verification and justification. It comes from a false-self or at least, extreme insecurity.

Law of Identity: A is A
Games are Games
Art is Art
Games =/= Art
Architecture =/= Art
Cinema =/= Art
Literature =/= Art

You can have games with various degrees of artistic qualities, and even appreciate and display them as such, even in the manner you would with art. But, to create an integrated concept where games and art merge insofar as all games are considered part of the concept "Art"... That's an error in cognition and categorically speaking, tragic for both existing concepts.. Instead of a new concept, or reforming the concept of games or art, just use a description: Art Game. Look at VG art books. That's a descriptor with three parts, each pertaining to a concept; Video Game, Art and Book.

That is also why you have descriptors such as; Architectural Art, Literary Art, Cinematic Art etc.

There, hopefully that clarifies things from my side. :)

[SplashChick]

QFT. Some of my favorite games are near completely lacking any art type characteristics. But they have rock solid gameplay.

I honestly feel that the push for all video games being viewed as art is all for external verification and justification. It comes from a false-self or at least, extreme insecurity.

Law of Identity: A is A
Games are Games
Art is Art
Games =/= Art
Architecture =/= Art
Cinema =/= Art
Literature =/= Art

You can have games with various degrees of artistic qualities, and even appreciate and display them as such, even in the manner you would with art. But, to create an integrated concept where games and art merge insofar as all games are considered part of the concept "Art"... That's an error in cognition and categorically speaking, tragic for both existing concepts.. Instead of a new concept, or reforming the concept of games or art, just use a description: Art Game. Look at VG art books. That's a descriptor with three parts, each pertaining to a concept; Video Game, Art and Book.

That is also why you have descriptors such as; Architectural Art, Literary Art, Cinematic Art etc.

There, hopefully that clarifies things from my side. :)

It doesn't, because art is a concept, while games, architecture, literature, and cinema are actual objects. Of course you can't equate an object to be the same as a concept, it doesn't make sense. Games are not inherently art, just like any of the other mediums you listed; they are mediums from which art can be created. "Art game" doesn't make any sense because you are treating "art" as an object when it is not. Descriptors such as the ones you listed refer entirely to the artistic value of the given medium, they are not saying that the given object is an "art".

[Icarus Moonsight]

Then art book doesn't make any sense either, and you've lost me.

Architecture is the concept of design of structures. Literature is the concept of volumes of written word. They're not objects. The house or magazine or book is the object. I did say book was a concept, and I fudged it on that. It is an object with certain characteristics, and it has a categorical term to distinguish those characteristics with a word: book. Descriptors can mix objects, concepts and even other descriptors. That's what I meant.

[LaughingMAN.S9]

You really REALLY don't understand art, this is painfully obvious. Art is not art because some random idiot thinks it's good, nor is it not art because some moron says its 3 hours of black and white garbage. If there were no standards that art had to live up to, art exhibits around the world would be filled with random, meaningless garbage; your saying this is really just laughable.

lady...you test my patience, so i'll try to go a bit slower...



ART HAS NO STANDARDS TO LIVE UP TO, ART EXHIBITS AROUND THE WORLD ARE FILLED WITH RANDOM, MEANINGLESS GARBAGE...


...unless of course, you CHOOSE to give it meaning, you obviously do, i obviously dont, we're both right. art isnt inherently anything, its bound to the whims of perception.

example: a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest, might be heralded as a new wave of avant guarde post modernism by someone as "refined" and "cultured" as yourself, but to my untrained and uncivilized eyes, all i see is a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest. :(



the time u spend deconstructing my every post and telling us what art isnt, could be better spent trying to convince us what art is. explain it to me in particular as its clear that my reading comprehension isnt what yours is.

remember to tell me just exactly how many years of your life you waisted in film school, and how its helped enrich your life.



oh and btw



samurai seven......FUCKING....

















sucked. :(

[SplashChick]

lady...you test my patience, so i'll try to go a bit slower...



ART HAS NO STANDARDS TO LIVE UP TO, ART EXHIBITS AROUND THE WORLD ARE FILLED WITH RANDOM, MEANINGLESS GARBAGE...


...unless of course, you CHOOSE to give it meaning, you obviously do, i obviously dont, we're both right. art isnt inherently anything, its bound to the whims of perception.

example: a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest, might be heralded as a new wave of avant guarde post modernism by someone as "refined" and "cultured" as yourself, but to my untrained and uncivilized eyes, all i see is a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest. :(



the time u spend deconstructing my every post and telling us what art isnt, could be better spent trying to convince us what art is. explain it to me in particular as its clear that my reading comprehension isnt what yours is.

remember to tell me just exactly how many years of your life you waisted in film school, and how its helped enrich your life.



oh and btw



samurai seven......FUCKING....

















sucked. :(

No, you're just wrong and have no perception of what art is. Funny you're saying I'm deconstructing your posts when you're the one writing page-long responses to my 6 line posts.

[SplashChick]

Then art book doesn't make any sense either, and you've lost me.

Architecture is the concept of design of structures. Literature is the concept of volumes of written word. They're not objects. The house or magazine or book is the object. I did say book was a concept, and I fudged it on that. It is an object with certain characteristics, and it has a categorical term to distinguish those characteristics with a word: book. Descriptors can mix objects, concepts and even other descriptors. That's what I meant.

Alright, but it mostly didn't make sense because you can't really define an "art game". Games of all genres can have artistic value in both subtle and blatant ways, labeling something as an "art game" really does nothing to help describe it.

[pseudonym]

example: a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest, might be heralded as a new wave of avant guarde post modernism by someone as "refined" and "cultured" as yourself, but to my untrained and uncivilized eyes, all i see is a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest. :(


Stuff like this is never art, people who make edgy "art" like this are douches IMO. Are you Urzu's alt account, I swear with the ellipses, spelling errors and nonsense you post most of the time, that you are.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

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

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=SYMMJ3O1

[slip81]

I just hope that if video games are finally being recognized as art that it isn't limited to the "artsy" games.

But seriously, if this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/72/Mondrian_CompRYB.jpg

and even this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

are art, then certainly video games can be as well. Both of those are taught in the college art history course I'm currently taking, by the way.

I'm curious as to why you feel selected works of Mondrian and Duchamp shouldn't be considered art? Especially since a main point of dadaism and Duchamp's Fountain in particular were made to try and broaden peoples interpretation of what could be art. I think if he were alive today he'd be all for calling games art.

And Mondrian was basically about pure aesthetics, mainly concerned with removing the "meaning" element from art by using simplistic abstract to forms to force the work to be judged based on it's primary qualities like, balance, composition, form, color, etc. Though it could be argued that his work contains a deeper meaning and philosophy simply because of the fact that he felt so strongly about what type of art he was creating and why.

[Bojay1997]

I don't see much of a difference whenever this topic ends up in the media.



Well that clearly hasn't been a problem for video games so it's really a moot point. And forgive me for calling it as I see it. When Roger Ebert made his statements, and presented them perfectly cordially, the gaming public called for his head on a platter. I call that butthurt.



Again, this industry is thriving. A random "art" moniker is not going to change anything. If expanding the industry is the goal then arguing for acceptance as art is one hell of a roundabout way to go about it.

I think you're confusing financial growth with growth and maturity of a medium. I would agree with you that more people are gaming and buying games than ever before, but that's not the same as the industry thriving in the same way that film and other media have done. The commercially viable independent games market is fairly tiny and most of the releases in 2010 appear to be sequels. I'm not saying we won't get some good games, but growing the industry further will require even more mainstream acceptance so that niche audiences can grow which will in turn mean more titles and potentially more creative games. Whether you like it or not, the "art" moniker has significance to certain people in powerful positions to influence the public. If it didn't, Ebert wouldn't have bothered to even talk about it and we wouldn't be debating it now.

[TonyTheTiger]

"Art game" doesn't make any sense

Mario Paint. :p


I think you're confusing financial growth with growth and maturity of a medium. I would agree with you that more people are gaming and buying games than ever before, but that's not the same as the industry thriving in the same way that film and other media have done. The commercially viable independent games market is fairly tiny and most of the releases in 2010 appear to be sequels. I'm not saying we won't get some good games, but growing the industry further will require even more mainstream acceptance so that niche audiences can grow which will in turn mean more titles and potentially more creative games.

Most 2010 releases are sequels because games cost more to the consumer who thereby feels less comfortable taking a chance with a new I.P. A $60 gamble at GameStop is a bit bigger than a $10 gamble at the local movie theater. And even $10 is pushing it. None of that has anything to do with art.


Whether you like it or not, the "art" moniker has significance to certain people in powerful positions to influence the public.

And if that is the case, which I doubt it is, then bowing to that, caving in to the oh so powerful Art Gods, would be a straight up act of cowardice. Talk about selling out. If this image you're painting of the world is true, I'd rather see games buck the system and be successful on their own terms, for what they are, rather than be assimilated into some hive assemblage with the mentality that genuine success can't be achieved without succumbing to some art cabal.

[Bojay1997]

Mario Paint. :p



Most 2010 releases are sequels because games cost more to the consumer who thereby feels less comfortable taking a chance with a new I.P. A $60 gamble at GameStop is a bit bigger than a $10 gamble at the local movie theater. And even $10 is pushing it. None of that has anything to do with art.



And if that is the case, which I doubt it is, then bowing to that, caving in to the oh so powerful Art Gods, would be a straight up act of cowardice. Talk about selling out. If this image you're painting of the world is true, I'd rather see games buck the system and be successful on their own terms, for what they are, rather than be assimilated into some hive assemblage with the mentality that genuine success can't be achieved without succumbing to some art cabal.


Who cares? I just want more great games. If that means "selling out" to art critics, journalists or people with huge wallets, I could care less. Games are a commercial product, there is no bucking the system because they are now and have always been part of the system. They are created to make lots of money for companies, not so that you can feel all edgy because you like them and other people don't. Like films, I just want more games to choose from and like I have been saying consistently, mainstream recognition of games as art is one powerful tool in making that a reality.

[Aussie2B]

I'm curious as to why you feel selected works of Mondrian and Duchamp shouldn't be considered art? Especially since a main point of dadaism and Duchamp's Fountain in particular were made to try and broaden peoples interpretation of what could be art. I think if he were alive today he'd be all for calling games art.

And Mondrian was basically about pure aesthetics, mainly concerned with removing the "meaning" element from art by using simplistic abstract to forms to force the work to be judged based on it's primary qualities like, balance, composition, form, color, etc. Though it could be argued that his work contains a deeper meaning and philosophy simply because of the fact that he felt so strongly about what type of art he was creating and why.

I wasn't really trying to say that they are or aren't. I just think it's silly that a guy can take a urinal (that someone else made), tilt it on its side, sign it with a pseudonym, say "look at this art I made" and the fine arts museums of the world readily accept this (shortly later at least, after the initial outcry), yet video games, which often contain very traditional arts like classical-style music and non-abstract painting, struggle for even those elements to be recognized as "real" music or "real" visual arts.

As with Mondrian, that was my feeble attempt at a clever analogy in that his paintings actually resemble early video game graphics, I feel.

[TonyTheTiger]

Who cares? I just want more great games. If that means "selling out" to art critics, journalists or people with huge wallets, I could care less. Games are a commercial product, there is no bucking the system because they are now and have always been part of the system. They are created to make lots of money for companies, not so that you can feel all edgy because you like them and other people don't. Like films, I just want more games to choose from and like I have been saying consistently, mainstream recognition of games as art is one powerful tool in making that a reality.

And you have completely missed the point. Clearly this bowing to some phantom art cabal you think exists implies a kind of homogenization of entertainment mediums. "Damn, if Street Fighter isn't appreciated by Hamlet critics just as much as Hamlet itself then we're really fucked."

Seeing enemies who don't actually exist, interpreting even innocent things as personal attacks, and constantly feeling that you have something to prove amounts to a textbook inferiority complex. That results in a kind of overcompensation. But unlike the guy who's really small in stature and goes out to buy a huge truck, I see the gaming constituency going out of it's way to "prove" that games are art. Even if they are, the constant "Look at us! We're gamers! We play art! Hironobu Sakaguchi is a modern Shakespeare!" is immature at best and outright counterproductive at worst.

Games are games. Everything else is everything else. If games are art, great. If not, get over it. Not once have I ever heard fans of Monopoly or Chess decry random art critics for denying the "legitimacy" of their past time. They don't need it. Games don't need it. Movies don't need it. Books don't need it. I'll go so far as to say paintings don't need it. What's good is good. If it's good, and not sunk by poor marketing, then it will perform decently enough out there in the world. If it sucks, then it sucks. That's all that matters.

[Bojay1997]

And you have completely missed the point. Clearly this bowing to some phantom art cabal you think exists implies a kind of homogenization of entertainment mediums. "Damn, if Street Fighter isn't appreciated by Hamlet critics just as much as Hamlet itself then we're really fucked."

Seeing enemies who don't actually exist, interpreting even innocent things as personal attacks, and constantly feeling that you have something to prove amounts to a textbook inferiority complex. That results in a kind of overcompensation. But unlike the guy who's really small in stature and goes out to buy a huge truck, I see the gaming constituency going out of it's way to "prove" that games are art. Even if they are, the constant "Look at us! We're gamers! We play art! Hironobu Sakaguchi is a modern Shakespeare!" is immature at best and outright counterproductive at worst.

Games are games. Everything else is everything else. If games are art, great. If not, get over it. Not once have I ever heard fans of Monopoly or Chess decry random art critics for denying the "legitimacy" of their past time. They don't need it. Games don't need it. Movies don't need it. Books don't need it. I'll go so far as to say paintings don't need it. What's good is good. If it's good, and not sunk by poor marketing, then it will perform decently enough out there in the world. If it sucks, then it sucks. That's all that matters.

I actually suspect that you have no point, other than to mask your belief that games can't possibly be art behind a screen of claiming it doesn't matter.

I don't think it's about overcompensation at all and I'm not hearing anyone in this thread or any other brag about the fact that they are playing art. The reality is that I consider gaming to be like any other emerging form of media that the public is now slowly starting to discover. I'm happy and excited that people are getting to enjoy what I have been enjoying for almost three decades. I'm also excited that more gamers can potentially mean more diverse games.

As someone who works for a large media studio, I can tell you that the status of a particular form of media in the view of pundits, critics and journalists does make a difference. Corporate executives allocate resources based on their perceptions of what's happening in the market and those perceptions are directly shaped by pundits, journalists and critics. Whether that's right or wrong is a whole other debate, but I know for a fact that it happens and as such, I want video games to get the most resources possible. Therefore, I have no problem promoting the view that they are art. I guess I would just ask why you are even bothering to continue debating and posting if the status of games as art doesn't even matter to you. It seems like your statement should just be, "I don't care if games are considered art. The end."

[Rob2600]

More funding? From whom? Video game companies are going to continue making video games. That's their business, it's what they do. They fund themselves. Nintendo will continue to release Super Mario games, Capcom will continue to release Resident Evil games, Sega will continue to release Sonic games, whether or not video games are officially considered art.

Also, do you know many painters or actors who are living it up, raking in millions? All of the artists I know are scraping by, living in converted old knitting factories in Williamsburg and waiting tables to pay the bills. But painting and acting are officially recognized forms of art...so why aren't my friends getting all of this magic funding you keep mentioning?

[TonyTheTiger]

Seeing enemies who don't actually exist, interpreting even innocent things as personal attacks, and constantly feeling that you have something to prove amounts to a textbook inferiority complex.


I actually suspect that you have no point, other than to mask your belief that games can't possibly be art behind a screen of claiming it doesn't matter.

Interesting. :roll:

[Bojay1997]

More funding? From whom? Video game companies are going to continue making video games. That's their business, it's what they do. They fund themselves. Nintendo will continue to release Super Mario games, Capcom will continue to release Resident Evil games, Sega will continue to release Sonic games, whether or not video games are officially considered art.

Also, do you know many painters or actors who are living it up, raking in millions? All of the artists I know are scraping by, living in converted old knitting factories in Williamsburg and waiting tables to pay the bills. But painting and acting are officially recognized forms of art...so why aren't my friends getting all of this magic funding you keep mentioning?

Actually, they don't. While all of those publishers you listed do in fact have in-house development teams, there are still many, many independent developers which end up creating new games and IPs either under contract to the big publishers or prior to selling the rights to a publisher. Those independent developers are constantly being created (and sadly closing) and they depend on capital from investment sources (whether that be investment banks, private equity or large studio financing) just like any other media-related business.

There are actually many, many artists that make a decent living as full time artists and some that make remarkable amounts of money doing it. Similarly, there are many who don't make much if anything. It's the same in game development. 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.