Ebert:"Video games are an inherently inferior medium" [Archive] - Page 2

GarrettCRW

01-17-2006, 10:14 PM

OK, I just found the full quote:

OPM: "Have you heard of Roger Ebert's assessment that videogames can never be viewed as art? How do you feel about that?"

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

"For example, look at a concept car. You don't have to be able to drive a car, but it's called a car and it has artistic elements in the visuals, then it's art. But an actual car, like a videogame, is interactive, so it's something used by people, so it's like a car where you have to drive it. There are 100 people driving a car; they have 100 ways of driving it and using it. It could be families driving the car. It could be a couple driving a car. The owner of the car could be driving along the coastline, or they could go up into the mountains, so this car has to be able to be driven by all 100 of these people, so in that sense it's totally not art."

Nature Boy

01-18-2006, 09:14 AM

Furthermore, I'd point out that people who really know art - say the paintings of the Dutch Masters - spend far more than 2-3 hours observing just one painting.

I'd point out that people who really know art know that it's entirely subjective. It's not something you can argue with facts, it's just a feeling.

My feeling remains as is. I use time as a way to illustrate my point, but that doesn't mean that time can be used to 'convince' me otherwise. It's an opinion, and so it remains.

Ed Oscuro

01-20-2006, 10:30 AM

I'd point out that people who really know art know that it's entirely subjective. It's not something you can argue with facts, it's just a feeling.

My feeling remains as is. I use time as a way to illustrate my point, but that doesn't mean that time can be used to 'convince' me otherwise. It's an opinion, and so it remains.
Well, the original point (which unfortunately I cut out of my quote) Mr. Sirhan Sirhan made was that you can't call art bad simply because it "requires committment." Such as books or great artworks. Yes, I suppose you can look at a painting and a statue and "get" the "meaning" within seconds, but isn't that shallow? Take political cartoons...when are they ever right?

Nature Boy

01-20-2006, 12:43 PM

Well, the original point (which unfortunately I cut out of my quote) Mr. Sirhan Sirhan made was that you can't call art bad simply because it "requires committment." Such as books or great artworks. Yes, I suppose you can look at a painting and a statue and "get" the "meaning" within seconds, but isn't that shallow? Take political cartoons...when are they ever right?

But I'm not saying video games are bad art, I'm saying they're not art at all. There's a definite distinction.

Again, the time thing is just something I use to help illustrate why I feel that way. It's not a fact that you can use as a counterpoint.

Tan

01-20-2006, 02:49 PM

anything can be art depending on the person who's interpreting it's message and what they get from it, elevator music can be art if you listen closely and is a piece of the composers imagination, but yet it's a functional piece of ambience to others, or merely a distraction, it's all in your personal interpretation

goemon

05-18-2007, 11:23 PM

I don't think that videogames are art. The biggest problem is that game designers have to be motivated by profit in order to succeed. Developing games, especially for current-gen systems, is a huge investment that one lone person cannot reasonably make. Anyone could paint a masterpiece or write a novel with minimal investment, but the cost of making a film or a game pushes away the solitary geniuses. Since games and films have to make money to cover the cost of making it, they have to appeal to as many people as possible. This is why the majority of games and films are unartistic -- they have to sell out to the tasteless masses.

Don't misunderstand me -- I love games. I just don't think most of them are art. For the record I think the same about movies and television.

skylark

05-19-2007, 07:59 AM

I don't think they're art, either. Maybe a transcendant game will come along some day, but I don't think it's here yet. The heart of a game is an interaction between people and machines. That's what defines the medium - not graphics, narrative, or sound. I think a focus on this interaction will be key if games ever approach the level of art. I've never heard an argument in favor of games being art that led me to believe the speaker had any critical basis on which to judge art in the first place. The whole argument that art is whatever a person chooses it to be reflects a current popular Western mindset which has been attacking standards of any sort for a few decades now, but it doesn't really hold up in the face of thousands of years of critical theory.

Good topic, but not one I think we'll settle over the internet.

Slate

05-19-2007, 10:57 PM

I remember this topic! Who dug it up?

RockOfAges

05-20-2007, 09:05 AM

This is ridiculous.

So videogames aren't art because they make money?

But films are? Okay, so the slew of movies for the last decade that has been marketed to braindead morons (Stomp the Yard, Norbit, Epic Movie, any number of derivative, pastiche filled pieces of trash) is art, but Metal Gear Solid 3 is for the lowest common denominator?

Most Art/Film studies majors are enormous snobs. Trust me, I've already got my credits in university art and film studies. These are the kinds of people who go teary-eyed over Citizen Kane (over-rated piece of garbage) and Le Chien Andelou.

Video games are simply interactive dialogues. What serious painter or film-maker does not believe that the audience participation factor is an important piece of the art process? Rocky, for example, is a piece of art. It is not pretentious, it is not filled to the brim with academic claptrap - it is a simply but ultimately TOUCHING and INSPIRATIONAL movie that derives it's strength from the audience empathizing with the protagonist and feeling something deep about the concepts of love, dedication, and courage.

Role-playing games in particular epitomize the concept of video game as art. Human dramas that unfold, involving the audience emotionally, immersing them in a foreign world complete with associated visuals, music, society. How is this, in any sense, NOT art?

Foolishness.

Chris

05-20-2007, 12:04 PM

I think that the process of designing and creating a game can be considered as art, but if the game you breed, can also be considered art, I'm not too sure of. Maybe some videogames are in the broadest sense, a specific kind of interactive art.

I don't think that videogames are art. The biggest problem is that game designers have to be motivated by profit in order to succeed.
This is only true for the biggest part of the commercial market, but there's also the indie and freeware scene, were budgets and time schedules aren't always compromising artistic vision.

Developing games, especially for current-gen systems, is a huge investment that one lone person cannot reasonably make. Anyone could paint a masterpiece or write a novel with minimal investment, but the cost of making a film or a game pushes away the solitary geniuses.
I'm developing a game atm and it costs me nothing, except time and effort.
As anyone can write a novel or paint a masterpiece, anyone can make a game nowadays, especially with the rise of these socalled "game authoring tools" that don't even require any programming skills.
And the argument that you can't compare with the nifty 3D engines and CG sequences of the commercial products is rather unimportant, cause videogames aren't primary about these things, they're about the gameplay.
All you need is an idea and enough enthusiasm.

Nice thread btw and cause I haven't discovered it earlier, I hope it's not too rude to quote an older post.

I wrote about this on V-TNG, and it seems this thread only reinforces what I wrote.

Currently, I'm reading Crime and Punishment. Movies I've recently seen include The Red Shoes, Nights of Cabiria, Juliet of the Spirits, Ivan the Terrible (Parts 1 & 2), Alexander Nevsky, For All Mankind, Salesman, and The Searchers. I'm also now watching Isao Takahata's 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother.

I also happen to have a Nintendo DS, and have killed time with Metroid Pinball, Mario Kart, Tony Hawk, and Castlevania. It's a fun way to waste time, but I'm aware that videogames are, in the grand scheme of life, a waste of time. It's a Hershey Bar, and I'm not foolish enough to pretend that it's the equivalent to a full meal.

I think that when young people make claims of artistic greatness to games, they're starved for the real thing. Also, I don't think criticisms from the grown-ups would sting as much if they weren't far off the mark.

This isn't a very good comparison, cause Metroid Pinball and the like are not only a Hershey Bar in comparison to those films mentioned, but can also be seen as such in comparison to the medium of video games as a whole.

It's just like with Mr. Ebert, when you're not that involved in a medium and only know a few commercial fast-food titles, you can't really form an objective opinion.

Exchange Mario Kart and Metroid Pinball with something like A Mind Forever Voyaging, The Legacy of Siboot, The Last Express or (to a certain degree) even PONG and things might be a little different, although I've to agree, that you have to search really hard to come up with anything meaningful and/or artistically challenging.

I'm also one of those that believe, that the medium has to rely on its strength and its defyning characteristic instead of just imitating books or movies.
Games have to deliver interactivity before all else, they have to give the player meaningful choices and they have to loosen the grip of the authorial control, otherwise they won't be able to truly stand on their own.

And if that means that they can't be considered art (as Ebert states) than so be it.

Three-P

05-20-2007, 01:58 PM

And that's why I don't put much stock into the words of a film critic. The only one I ever took the slightest bit seriously was Jay Sherman, who isn't even a real person. (He was dead-on about Citizen Kane being a great film.)

Golden Bear

09-20-2007, 05:22 PM

Consider examples like Time Crisis or Karateka. You can't get to the end and decide, "Instead of saving the princess, I'll kill her" and completely change the ending. The story is the same, and it always unfolds the same way.

Well, this isn't 100% true. There was an easter egg on the Atari computer version of Karateka that if you walked to the woman in your fighting stance rather than running into her arms, she'd kill you with a single kick.

But more to the point, if games are not works of art, how would Don Bluth's Dragon's Lair or Space Ace be categorized? Cliff Hanger also used extensive scenes from Miyazaki's Castle of Cagliostro.

Maybe it's all in the eye of the beholder.

neogamer

09-20-2007, 08:08 PM

Why does one man's opinion bother everyone so much?

I don't see what the uproar is.

Iron Draggon

09-21-2007, 04:38 AM

all "true" art becomes interactive the moment that the audience begins to interpret it... so Ebert is a fool, because his excuse for a job is exactly what makes what he reviews art... without an audience to interpret and critique it, all art becomes nothing more than an object... it is the idea of the artist's ideas sparking new ideas, emotions, and opinions in others that makes the artist's work art... without that interactivity, the artist's work becomes moot... nothing more than an object, no different from any other object...

so the very fact that Ebert and the rest of us are even discussing whether or not video games are truly art is what makes them "true" art... if the subject wasn't open to debate, and our own opinions of it, they wouldn't be art...

an example of truly interactive "true" art would be one of those novels in which the reader makes choices for one or more of the characters in the story, to determine what course the plot takes from there... another example would be kinetic art that can be controlled or influenced in some way by the audience, or an ongoing project that can be added to or taken away from by the audience... the AIDS quilt would be an example of that kind of art... and that's why graffiti qualifies as art too... sure, it's "junk" art, but it's still art...

so Ebert's rigid definitions of what is and isn't "true" art disqualifies most of what he considers to be true art just as much as it disqualifies most video games... reading literature is simply passing the time by reading words on pages... watching film is simply passing the time by viewing images on a screen... playing video games is simply passing the time by manipulating images on a screen... observing objects in a museum is simply passing the time by observing objects in a museum... so it's all just a waste of time...

FUCK Ebert... he's a critic... that's what critics do... they piss people off by trying convince them that somehow their interpretations and opinions are more valid than the interpretations and opinions of the average viewer...

NAY, I say... video games are indeed art... always have been and always will be... so it's only a matter of time until they've been around long enough to qualify as "true" art, by establishing themselves as such, simply by enduring the tests of time... the longer an art form exists, the more highly regarded it becomes for qualifying as "true" art... so just give it a few more decades...

G-Boobie

09-21-2007, 04:52 AM

Its all subjective. I doubt even Mr. Ebert can defend the movie "Ski School" as a more valid example of art than, say, "Bioshock".

For that matter, I won't defend games like "25 to Life", "Cold Fear", or "Shadow the hedgehog" as art, either. Because, you know.... They're worse than "Ski School".

In ALL MEDIUMS, from books to film to television to video games, the percentage of entries in the medium that resonate deeply and powerfully enough to be considered 'art' is so small as to be negligible. For every Casablanca there are five hundred "Scary Movies". For every "Nausea" there are fifty crap romance novels or books written by or about Rush Limbaugh. And for every "Rez" or "Ico", there are fifty Nickelodeon licensed DS or Gameboy games.

Ebert DOES make a well reasoned and eloquent point for his point of view. In the end though, it is JUST his point of view.

I think that this particular web site may be a bit biased against that point of view, though :)

G-Boobie, out.

Iron Draggon

09-21-2007, 05:21 AM

a few other points that just occurred to me... by Ebert's definitions, all live performances are not art, because no two live perfermances are exactly the same... so all plays are not art, all musicals are not art, all operas are not art, all ballets are not art, all symphonies are not art, and all concerts are not art... they are not static, even though their scripts, compositions, and choreographies are static, therefore they simply don't qualify as "true" art...

also, if I create something within a game, is my creation not art? say that I create a park in Roller Coaster Tycoon, filled with coasters that I designed myself... is the park itself and each and every coaster that I created within it not art, simply because it all still exists only within the contexts of the game? to say that my creations are not art simply for that reason would be pure nonsense, would it not? or do I have to go out in the real world and actually build real working replicas of my creations, in order for them to be validated and become "true" art? is a real roller coaster at its core nothing more than a very elegant kinetic sculpture that its audience can actually ride upon? or is it not really "true" art, because no two rides on a coaster are ever exactly the same? in my opinion, real coasters are indeed art, because to me they are indeed nothing more than very elaborate kinetic sculptures that their audience can actually ride upon... they are as much a work of art as any architecture is art, or any mode of transportation is art... if an object or a form of entertainment required a designer to create it, then it is truly art...

so it makes no difference if the designer is an author, a poet, a playwright, a musician, a painter, a sculptor, a photographer, a game programmer, or whatever, as long as the designer designed something to be viewed or otherwise used by the public in some way... to say that something is not art simply because it can be manipulated to become something else is to say that no art is truly art, because that is the concept of art itself... by its very nature, art is meant to be changed in some way by its audience, either literally or figuratively... video games are only different in that they are meant to be changed literally, while most other forms of art are meant to be changed figuratively... when you interpret the artist's work by forming your own opinions of it, you are changing the artist's original vision... because the artist will always have his or her own opinion of their work, and it will always be as unique to them as your opinions are to you... all artists' works are personal... if they weren't, no artist would have a reason to create them...

another thing that occurred to me is that by Ebert's definitions, tattoos are not art either, because they are merely inks and dyes injected into a person's skin... a tattooed person is still free to move around at will, and in doing so, they change the positions of their bodies, and consequently they change the images created by the inks and dyes imbedded just beneath their skin... so by that logic, all mimes are not art either, because their performances are kinetic in nature... in fact, by Ebert's definitions, no kinetic form of art is truly art... and only a fool would hold art in any form to such rigid definitions of it...

G-Boobie

09-22-2007, 03:54 AM

Why does one man's opinion bother everyone so much? I don't see what the uproar is.

Your question supposes that all peoples opinions are equal; this simply isn't true. Roger Ebert is a critic with a wide area of influence. When he says something, a certain group of people listens. When you or I say something, we're lucky if we aren't called a retard. That's called the 'value of audience'.

Consider that your lesson in political science for today.

The medium of video games doesn't need yet more negative press. That's pretty much the long and short of it.

neogamer

09-22-2007, 05:33 AM

Your question supposes that all peoples opinions are equal; this simply isn't true. Roger Ebert is a critic with a wide area of influence. When he says something, a certain group of people listens. When you or I say something, we're lucky if we aren't called a retard. That's called the 'value of audience'.

Consider that your lesson in political science for today.

The medium of video games doesn't need yet more negative press. That's pretty much the long and short of it.

Then don't give him more of an audience.

And yes, I have had political science before, but I still don't see how you can give that much credit to a film critic!

He's a film critic! Who cares. If he was talking about paintings or music would you feel a need to respond? Would those respective industries feel a need to respond?

I think 50 Cent would just laugh and not even give a statement at all!

neogamer

09-22-2007, 05:49 AM

Your question supposes that all peoples opinions are equal; this simply isn't true. Roger Ebert is a critic with a wide area of influence. When he says something, a certain group of people listens. When you or I say something, we're lucky if we aren't called a retard. That's called the 'value of audience'.

Consider that your lesson in political science for today.

The medium of video games doesn't need yet more negative press. That's pretty much the long and short of it.

One more thing to consider:

You consider Ebert a film critic with a wide area of influence. Why then is it often the case that when he reviews a film poorly, it still does well at the box office? This happens to a lot of the films he rates poorly actually! Do the research and you will see what I mean.

I can count numerous films he has given a famous "thumbs down" to, that have done wonderfully at the box office. So again, why do you care what he thinks about video games or any other medium?

I don't consider Ebert to be a great film critic either though. If you do, then maybe I can see where you are coming from.

G-Boobie

09-22-2007, 06:11 AM

Then don't give him more of an audience.

And yes, I have had political science before, but I still don't see how you can give that much credit to a film critic!

He's a film critic! Who cares. If he was talking about paintings or music would you feel a need to respond? Would those respective industries feel a need to respond?

I think 50 Cent would just laugh and not even give a statement at all!

The larger problem that the Ebert situation illustrates is an unwillingness to come to terms with video games by the literati. This is a problem, because it is the literati who have traditionally driven acceptance of new art forms by the masses throughout history.

This is, perhaps, a tempest in a teapot, but since this is OUR fucking teapot, it is a big deal to us. We are video gamers, and the relevance of our hobby has been called into question by someone with very broad media reach. That's a big fucking deal to us, especially because some of us are going to be making them as well as playing them.

And in that same vein, the music industry is not under siege politically, nor is its relevance as art being called into question... Though given the fact that 50 Cent is considered an 'artist', maybe it should be.

Just... Just think before you post. Seriously. You're making an ass of yourself.

neogamer

09-22-2007, 08:40 AM

The larger problem that the Ebert situation illustrates is an unwillingness to come to terms with video games by the literati. This is a problem, because it is the literati who have traditionally driven acceptance of new art forms by the masses throughout history.

This is, perhaps, a tempest in a teapot, but since this is OUR fucking teapot, it is a big deal to us. We are video gamers, and the relevance of our hobby has been called into question by someone with very broad media reach. That's a big fucking deal to us, especially because some of us are going to be making them as well as playing them.

And in that same vein, the music industry is not under siege politically, nor is its relevance as art being called into question... Though given the fact that 50 Cent is considered an 'artist', maybe it should be.

Just... Just think before you post. Seriously. You're making an ass of yourself.

I think you have that last part backwards....

It's up to the video game industry to respond as a whole. Have they made a formal statement? I have yet to hear one!

Nature Boy

09-25-2007, 04:32 PM

I still don't consider golf to be a sport or video games to be art, and yet I still continue to enjoy both. Go figure!

spoon

09-26-2007, 06:10 AM

Iron Dragon I cant agree with you more.

Random thoughts on this subject.

There are so many roads this topic could travel down. I think that that in part is almost the best way to put into words my personal reactions to Mr. Ebert's statements.And, also , the biggest "You're wrong Ebert" response. I just couldn't see such a debate if they were not.

If games are not the single fusion of the most common forms of art forms, I don't know what is.

Don't artists, musicians, cinematographers, directors, the like work on games?

The reactions and feelings generated from games can be endless. They just happen to be interactive with your hands as well as your mind.

All people more or less experience the same feelings. Some of us are just more creative/ use a bigger thesaurus than others. That does not make one better than another nor should their opinion be lauded as the end all be all.

One man garbage is another mans art. seriously, I have seen things that I could never even begin to understand how they could be considered art, but, They do make me wonder just what the hell said "artist" was trying to say/express.

I really just don't think the guy gets it. I can give you all my thoughts and opinions on 18th century architecture worded oh so eloquently. Doesn't mean it makes me an expert or that I even know just what the hell I am talking about.

The respect and admiration I have for all the people whom work on said truly "art" type games and allow me to escape to a place where most of the time I am only bound by the limits of my own imagination is indescribable. I thank you for the chance to experience what you have created.

G-Boobie

09-27-2007, 05:40 AM

Too true, Spoon. I salute you.

Another thing to consider here is that video games are a medium with no real parallels; it's a wholly new genre of entertainment. That added dimension, participation, shades the experience in a way that no other form of media can.

Video games don't compare favorably with movies, TV, plays, radio, books, comics, or anything else. They compare VERY well with interactive fiction, like roleplaying and campfire tales, but those aren't billion dollar businesses, either...

To summarize a convoluted thesis into a single sentence, videogames are adding a new wrinkle to the whole idea of 'popular media', simply by not being passive.

Just a theory.

j_factor

03-05-2009, 05:33 AM

Bumping this thread because I found something interesting. Roger Ebert published this videogame review. (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.09/streetcred.html) In 1994! It's an adventure game for Mac (I believe it also had a DOS release) that I've never played, called The Cosmology of Kyoto. And he liked it!

I wonder what other games Roger Ebert has played. He said he had limited experience with videogames, but he's played at least one obscure adventure game and given it a positive review. Of course, just because he thought it was a good game and an enjoyable experience, doesn't really contradict his opinion that games are an inferior medium. But like, has he played The Last Express? Has he experienced Indigo Prophecy? Does the answer to these questions have any bearing on the validity of his opinion of videogames as an art form?

On a separate note, I've noticed that when people argue for videogames being a leigitimate form of art, they tend to form their arguments around examples of games imitating other art forms, most especially movies. Or they focus on the visual artistic beauty that some games have. Not to say that these aspects of games aren't art, but I think these arguments miss the mark. Who says that pure gameplay can't be art? At the last CGE, one of the speakers at the Atari discussion panel used the phrase "new art form" in passing while referring to creating Atari 2600 games circa 1980. "Games as art" wasn't the subject of the discussion, and there was no elaboration, but that kind of got me thinking about things like Yars' Revenge and how that can be considered real art. Since then, I've had some conversations with people who were heavily into games other than videogames. Enthusiasts of board games, role-playing games, and card games all told me that these were art forms -- that there is a true art to the construction of game structure, objective, and rules. One person, who was into both videogames and card games, explained further that art can be a two-way street, where the choices the player makes during gameplay "finishes" the art, and the actual, complete work of art is the game as experienced by the player from start to finish. That means it's different art to different consumers, but that's not unheard-of. (For example, performance art is slightly different every time it's performed. And there are non-game things that are considered "interactive art", hosted as such at museums. And I guess Electroplankton is kind of in this category. But I digress.) Art is two things, the process of creating it and the experience of taking it in. Games are incomplete works of art that are completed by the process of playing them. Somes games go an extra step of making the player an artist, such as Graffiti Kingdom. There are also games that basically just give you a framework, and the actual game is whatever you make of it (Pirates! and Elite to give two classic examples). Perhaps the ultimate game, or arguably the highest art form, is something like 1000 Blank White Cards.

Another thing to consider here is that video games are a medium with no real parallels; it's a wholly new genre of entertainment. That added dimension, participation, shades the experience in a way that no other form of media can.

Wikipedia has an article on "Participatory Art (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_Art)", and while it's just a stub, it's a concept that piqued my interest. The external articles that this Wikipedia page links to are some interesting (though not extensive) reading. This all has nothing to do with videogames, which may be why I find it interesting. Although what they're referring to isn't media either. But it is apparently an old concept.

kedawa

03-05-2009, 05:58 AM

Games aren't an inferior medium, just not a great way to tell a story.
And that's fine, because I prefer my games with as little exposition as possible.
I don't want the games I play to be art any more than I want the sports I play to be art.

Famidrive-16

03-05-2009, 08:24 PM

I read a rumor somewhere that he got really hooked on one of the TMNT games on the NES.

chicnstu

03-06-2009, 05:42 PM

It feels to me that anything you create is art. Ebert likes to talk about bowel movements, I guess according to what I said, bowel movements are art. Maybe bad art, but still art.

Games are a combination of all other art forms, they have text (books), they have scenes and images (movies), and they have sound (music). But there is one extra thing there that is different from the others, interactivity. And with the other art forms you just...look at them, or listen to them, they are linear. Games are a three dimensional "art", you still look and listen, but you can also control/decide what you want to see/hear. That seems to be what Ebert doesn't like. But just because it's different or new, it's not allowed to be a part of the "art" group? You all realize and have seen that things that are different have to struggle to be accepted.

TonyTheTiger

03-06-2009, 06:28 PM

chicnstu

03-06-2009, 06:35 PM

Why does it matter? The term has been stretched so far that the only thing that apparently can't possibly be art is a math equation. Yet we don't see mathematicians freaking out that their hobby isn't "art." So why should we?

I'm not sure if anyone is freaking out, it's just something to discuss (or at least I am).

Also, I know it was just an example, but have mathematicians been accused of using something that isn't art?

eugenek

03-06-2009, 06:52 PM

I'm not sure art exists anymore. Or, rather, I'm not sure anybody really knows what it is anymore. It's become such a cliche that I wonder what the argument is about. "Games are art!" "Games are not art!" Why does it matter? The term has been stretched so far that the only thing that apparently can't possibly be art is a math equation. Yet we don't see mathematicians freaking out that their hobby isn't "art." So why should we?

A game is a game. A movie is a movie. A book is a book. It's all entertainment. The "art" moniker is, for whatever BS reason, seen as a badge of honor. "Art" is simply a descriptor. It's not a measure of quality. As if something that isn't art is somehow lesser. The whole debate reeks of a deep inferiority complex.

Well said. Who cares if someone doesn't think it's art, especially a tool like Roger Ebert? If you appreciate games and enjoy them, it's irrelevant what section of the library they're filed under. I wouldn't consider any of Rob Schneider's films "art" either, but he's too busy blowing coke off a hooker in Hawaii right now to care what the fuck I think about his body of work.

Gamers are just so defensive about everything like this, as if we have to prove something to the world. We don't.

kedawa

03-06-2009, 06:53 PM

I have to agree that art is one of those words that has had so many meanings attributed to it that it is now practically meaningless.

Video games are like board games or pinball or electromechanical games. They can be as much about competition as they are about expression.

The beauty of it is that gaming really is above the whole argument. It doesn't need to be legitimized or accepted as art. The industry has flourished even when dismissed as frivolous fun.

TonyTheTiger

03-06-2009, 07:47 PM

I'm not sure if anyone is freaking out, it's just something to discuss (or at least I am).

Also, I know it was just an example, but have mathematicians been accused of using something that isn't art?

I'm mostly referring to the venom spewed toward Roger Ebert's general direction when I speak of "freaking out." And, no, I just used math as an example because I suppose if there's one thing we can all agree is not art it's math.

Well said. Who cares if someone doesn't think it's art, especially a tool like Roger Ebert?

Hehehe. Maybe I didn't word it right but I was borderline agreeing with Ebert. Or at least defending his position in his stead. At least on the issue of whether or not games are "art."

grolt

03-06-2009, 09:12 PM

The 1 2 P

03-06-2009, 11:21 PM

For me, video games are an interactive experience unlike any other entertainment mediums I enjoy. Is it artistic? Most definitely. But then you have games like E.T., Superman 64, The Crow: City of Angels and so many more. Are those games art too? Well, not all art is good art. So yeah, I guess those are art too.

Ed Oscuro

03-07-2009, 01:33 AM

Wow, this thread is a blast from the past. Lots of names on the first page I haven't seen in a while.

Mr. Ebert's assumption is that the player will be able to break authorial intent by looking the wrong way at the critical juncture - but the game itself can see what's going on and react to it in a way that, by definition, is what the artist intended; it may not follow a plan exactly, but it can compensate, something movies can't do. A movie won't notice if you've blinked, but games can tell. A little note here: I'll be talking about some of this as theoretical potential; clearly we don't all have eye-tracking sensors in our gaming setups, but there's no reason why this and other assumptions I make will be impractical for too long. I make some invisible assumptions like that in my post.

I have to say I dropped the ball in my '05 post. Yes, I was right that most games only have one "path" or storytelling line, but I'm just cluttering my head with irrelevant gaming history. Even in the most restrictive games you can create your own "narrative," as in an arcade game ("I died a lot in Space Ace," or "first I went into the room on the left, and then Otto appeared and chased me"), or even by determining where you're looking. Half-Life 2: Episode One's Commentary mode reflected on this situation: They placed a lone Combine trooper on a ledge to shoot at the player in order to cause the player to be more likely to be looking in the desired direction in anticipation of a big scripted event.

And then Valve's own stats (http://steampowered.com/status/ep1/) show that over half of players don't seem to have bothered playing all the way through the Episode. This is not relevant for the Eberts and Oscuros of the world, however; we will keep watching a movie or a playing game as long as we want; usually the audience can walk out of the presentation whenever they like (for example, I've never watched all of A Clockwork Orange). Movies have to compensate for saturation as well; new images and stimuli can't be presented on every frame of a movie if the viewer is intended to comprehend it. The limitations are ultimately presented by the viewer's ability to participate and comprehend.

In Left 4 Dead, Valve and Turtle Rock Studios pushed the boundary of the games medium once again with an AI that works to intelligently pace the game, simulating the same cycle the old storytelling "rising action - climax - denouement" cycle seeks to exploit. It's not yet sophisticated enough to take the place of directors and map designers, and only works because signal moment opportunities were plotted out beforehand.

L4D's approach will someday (likely soon) seem pretty primitive - the zombies come from here, or they come from there - but the possibility is there of anticipating and filling every moment for "cinematic" appeal.

Everything else - bugs, players acting against authorial intent, or the old games' promise of "endless entertainment," the historical nature of games, even the cost:benefit analysis versus movies - really isn't relevant when you consider what can be done with this new technology.

I don't really want to turn the argument against movies for being uncaring about the viewer's status, but they are, in the history of media, somewhat akin to an exotic African evolutionary development like a Cheetah - all speed and precision but not very flexible in other situations. The fundamentals of still photography form a base for cinema; and cinema forms a base for interactive games media. A movie needs to be stopped and started at the right time; a game kiosk can sense when you walk into a room and go through its own routines to grab your attention. There are historical and technological reasons why movies were preferred over something more interactive (like a minstrel show, or Punch & Judy theater), but I can't think of any situation where the medium absolutely must be preferred to an interactive one.

The core of Ebert's argument remains - you can, in theory, precisely adjust every bit of timing, every shade and angle, every plot development, for maximum impact (although it really doesn't matter to my empiricist way of thinking whether it's a person or a machine, and whether it was done before viewing began or whether it's an ongoing "just-in-time" process). But the same could be said of still photography versus cinema: It's a matter of choosing the right set of tools for what you want to accomplish. Like it or not, though, interactive elements creep into movies for the same reason there's a play and pause button on a home theater system.

In a world of varied artistic tastes...Roger Ebert stuck to his recipe for popcorn and insisted it worked for everything. Because, like Charlie Brown, he

didn't

know

ANYTHING ELSE.

(Aside note - about 2/3 the length of the text cut)

Half Japanese

03-07-2009, 01:36 AM

It all depends on how you define art. I define it roughly as anything that is not necessary in life, but whose presence makes life more enjoyable, pleasant, or thought-provoking. So in those terms, video games are definitely art.

That said, films are largely narrative in structure, meaning that the overwhelming majority of what is produced has a distinct plot and is rarely assembled without some purpose, which doesn't always hold true for paintings or even some of the more pretentious and/or experimental literature (Burroughs, anyone?). With that being the case, I don't think it's a bold statement to proclaim that the plots and stories in video games are embarrassingly inferior to their film counterparts. Even a lot of the games that prominently feature plots (Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, etc.) are little more than jumbled messes plot-wise compared to, say, Double Indemnity or even The Big Lebowski.

My take is that each form of art is too distinct to make meaningful comparisons. While I hope that games that aim for a great story get better as time goes on, I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing that they're seen as wastes of time by the snobby literati, because honestly a lot of those folks that aren't actively contributing to their art by writing new things are wasting their time verbally masturbating for literary journals, and no one has EVER had any fun reading one of those.

Ed Oscuro

03-07-2009, 01:42 AM

With that being the case, I don't think it's a bold statement to proclaim that the plots and stories in video games are embarrassingly inferior to their film counterparts. Even a lot of the games that prominently feature plots (Metal Gear Solid, Final Fantasy, etc.) are little more than jumbled messes plot-wise compared to, say, Double Indemnity or even The Big Lebowski.
The mostly unfortunate history of video games as art doesn't mean that it always has to be this way. Any new "game" really starts development with a blank slate, except for the assumptions the developer starts from.

And it's pretty clear that games are art, and they are also commercial ventures. Much the same way movies are, and much the same way popular novels by Danielle Stelle or Tom Clancy are. There's always going to be people on the outside who can raise legitimate complaints about high-profile productions and the manner in which they target their audience, but it's always so tempting to discount that stuff as sour grapes from people who can't or won't hack it by the sometimes inartful rules the buying public lays down (or is thought to lay down). Movies beautify our lives; games can beautify our lives; wall paintings should, and so on it goes.

Bratwurst

03-07-2009, 02:23 AM

http://home.roadrunner.com/%7Esaucisse/DPcomics/DPcomic1.gif

tom

03-07-2009, 02:24 AM

Art is entertainment. Art serves no other purpose. Video Games entertain, therfore they are art.

Kid Fenris

03-07-2009, 02:45 AM

http://www.kidfenris.com/dpcomic1.png

Ed Oscuro

03-07-2009, 02:54 AM

My only true inner desire has been fulfilled, by going inside the sausage casing.

I suppose this would be more productive if I emailed that to Ebert for the lulz and then saw what happened.

Keeping it real and non-intellectual, the DP way

The larger problem that the Ebert situation illustrates is an unwillingness to come to terms with video games by the literati. This is a problem, because it is the literati who have traditionally driven acceptance of new art forms by the masses throughout history.
Traditionally, it's been the younger generation going into academia / the literati who push this acceptance; if we still had the generation of the 1880s there'd be no serious discussion about visual novels / manga / comics, for instance, outside of maybe as an example of abberant youth culture / fascism of images. Right now, there's an explosion of interest in gaming as a form of cultural studies in academia, and literate gamers are pushing. So basically, yeah there's old farts who don't know their shit, but they don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

TonyTheTiger

03-07-2009, 04:39 PM

Art is entertainment. Art serves no other purpose. Video Games entertain, therfore they are art.

See, this is where I have trouble holding debates on the subject because no matter what, the second you bring "art" into the picture you get 100 different definitions.

I'm a big philosophy guy so I take the approach that in order to determine whether games are or are not art we first have to settle on a definition of art.

A lot of other people take the opposite position where they first decide what is or is not art and then craft a definition that sort of draws that line.

Somebody starts off with "art serves no functional purpose," which sounds perfectly fine, until you watch them backpedal when you bring up architecture. Because in their minds, architecture is art and so it must fit into the definition somehow.

I think of it like the argument of the heap. You have a heap of straw. I remove 1 piece of straw. Is it still a heap? I remove another piece. Is it still a heap? Eventually you'll get down to 1 piece of straw remaining and most people will say that it's no longer a heap. But when did the transition happen? Where's the line? 10 pieces of straw? 11 pieces? The vagueness of "art" is similar in that it seems to be a "non-definition" so who can really tell if games belong in there?

tom

03-07-2009, 05:28 PM

Ah, but the art in architecture makes the piece only look better, no more.

megasdkirby

03-07-2009, 05:42 PM

Anything a person creates is art, because it requires a certain level of expertise.

So video games should be considered art as well. It requieres people with skills, or expertise, to create.

Everyone has different opinions about what is art. Like I mentioned before, for me art is something someone creates. Building a home is art. Giving a class is art...

For me, Ebert is full of it. But let him have his opinion, because it's just that: an opinion.

TonyTheTiger

03-07-2009, 06:51 PM

Ah, but the art in architecture makes the piece only look better, no more.

Some would disagree and suggest that any architectural structure is art regardless of how ornate or simple. Maybe it's just bad art.

That's another problem. Lots of times, "art" is used as a term of endearment. "That is such a work of art." Is this really how it should be? I have a sneaking suspicion that is why so many video game enthusiasts feel obligated to fight the "games are art" battle. Because, for some strange reason, being accepted as art is a badge of honor. As if being called art is like getting an award of some sort. It baffles me.

Anything a person creates is art, because it requires a certain level of expertise.

So video games should be considered art as well. It requieres people with skills, or expertise, to create.

Everyone has different opinions about what is art. Like I mentioned before, for me art is something someone creates. Building a home is art. Giving a class is art...

For me, Ebert is full of it. But let him have his opinion, because it's just that: an opinion.

If anything a person creates is art then you'll grant me that anything man made is art. So the only thing not art would be laws of math, principles of science, and creations of nature, though some would suggest even these are works of art.

If that is true then I don't see the practical difference between saying "everything is art" and "nothing is art." Because if it's just a fact of the definition that "everything man made is art" then why do we need the word at all? It offers no special distinction and becomes a redundant term. Why not just say something is "man made" then? It implies the exact same thing. And if we do use both words, then "art" and "man made" are effectively synonyms, completely interchangeable.

As for your other argument, believe me, I am fully willing to accept the idea that art is genuinely subjective with no concrete definition. I'm fine accepting that "art" is equivalent to something as subjective as favorite colors. The problem is that people can't seem to agree on that.

We generally know what "round" means. It's just a descriptor. If I walk around with a basketball saying "This is not round! This is not round!" I'll get a few funny looks from people but they'll go on their way. If, however, I walk around with a Picasso, a copy of Casablanca, or God forbid a video game saying "This is not art! This is not art!" I'm bound to get a stern tongue lashing from people just as certain sharp tongued people responded to Roger Ebert. This means that people don't think "round" and "art" are the same kind of term. To these people, "round" is a mere descriptor, an adjective. "Art," however, is far more valued a word and saying something is not art is somehow insulting to either the fanbase or the work itself. I don't really understand it.

megasdkirby

03-07-2009, 07:31 PM

If anything a person creates is art then you'll grant me that anything man made is art. So the only thing not art would be laws of math, principles of science, and creations of nature, though some would suggest even these are works of art.

Good point. For me, even those should be considered art.

For example, say you need certain principles of science, nature, and lots of math to create a video game. Notice how these are for the sole purpose of "creation". Let's look at a game's background, for instance. Art can be determines, IMO, as two:

a)The methodology involved to create the scenery

b)The aesthetic on how the scenery looks

Many consider art as the second option: aesthetics. It looks exceptionally beautiful, so it's art. But what about the skills requires to create it? Shouldn't this be considered art as well? For a video game, lots of mathematical laws, principles, and methods are required in order to project what one imagines to a visual realm. However, isn't this imaginary perception art as well? It should, as it partakes in ideas a person has, about how it should be seen.

The process behind the making of a game are of equal beauty as that of the final product.

If that is true then I don't see the practical difference between saying "everything is art" and "nothing is art." Because if it's just a fact of the definition that "everything man made is art" then why do we need the word at all? It offers no special distinction and becomes a redundant term. Why not just say something is "man made" then? It implies the exact same thing. And if we do use both words, then "art" and "man made" are effectively synonyms, completely interchangeable.

Everything man made is art. But then, what about things that were not man made, like the environment, animals, etc? This is art as well because of the process of creation. Beauty should not be limited to what man creates, but to what what is seen and perceived. This imagery is used to create video games as well.

As for your other argument, believe me, I am fully willing to accept the idea that art is genuinely subjective with no concrete definition. I'm fine accepting that "art" is equivalent to something as subjective as favorite colors. The problem is that people can't seem to agree on that.

Yeah, but that's ok. Because even this is art: the ideas of each individual human being. If it wasn't for creative thinking, we would not have some of the greatest games ever devised!

BTW, some of this rambling stems from being drunk. LOL

eugenek

03-08-2009, 11:55 AM

Everything man made is art.

Well then I dropped several pieces of art in the toilet this morning.

Zap!

03-08-2009, 01:37 PM

Ebert is an old man. Of course he thinks that. When was he a kid? The 30's? 40's? Either way, he never had the opportunity to grow up with games. That greatly influences your opinion on gaming.

TonyTheTiger

03-08-2009, 02:20 PM

Good point. For me, even those should be considered art.

For example, say you need certain principles of science, nature, and lots of math to create a video game. Notice how these are for the sole purpose of "creation". Let's look at a game's background, for instance. Art can be determines, IMO, as two:

a)The methodology involved to create the scenery

b)The aesthetic on how the scenery looks

Many consider art as the second option: aesthetics. It looks exceptionally beautiful, so it's art. But what about the skills requires to create it? Shouldn't this be considered art as well? For a video game, lots of mathematical laws, principles, and methods are required in order to project what one imagines to a visual realm. However, isn't this imaginary perception art as well? It should, as it partakes in ideas a person has, about how it should be seen.

The process behind the making of a game are of equal beauty as that of the final product.

Everything man made is art. But then, what about things that were not man made, like the environment, animals, etc? This is art as well because of the process of creation. Beauty should not be limited to what man creates, but to what what is seen and perceived. This imagery is used to create video games as well.

Yeah, but that's ok. Because even this is art: the ideas of each individual human being. If it wasn't for creative thinking, we would not have some of the greatest games ever devised!

BTW, some of this rambling stems from being drunk. LOL

This just further causes me to question art's existence or significance. If "everything is art" then the word "art" is meaningless. It's redundant. Any word is supposed to trigger some kind of thought. If the word "art" applies to everything any anything then it triggers no special thought. It'd be like if I made up a word..."Blargot" and said the definition is "everything you can perceive." If that's the case, why would anybody have any reason to use "blargot" in a sentence?

Every definition of art I've encountered has fallen into one of two categories:

1) A limited definition that does not include something traditionally considered "art" like architecture and when I bring it up the person offering the definition has to backpedal.

2) A peculiarly broad definition that includes just about anything and everything and thus renders the word useless.

This is why I'm open to the possibility that whether or not something is art is as subjective as what is your favorite color. Like the old tried and true definition of pornography: I can't define it but I know it when I see it.

The problem is that if art is that subjective, why is it such a big deal if this person doesn't think video games are art or if that person doesn't think Picasso was an artist. People get into arguments over this stuff. They don't get into arguments over favorite colors. That fact alone implies that most people think "art" is something concrete. And that just brings me back into situation 1 or 2.

Ebert is an old man. Of course he thinks that. When was he a kid? The 30's? 40's? Either way, he never had the opportunity to grow up with games. That greatly influences your opinion on gaming.

If art is something concrete then it doesn't matter if you were born yesterday or 4,000 years ago because either games fit the concrete definition or they don't.

If art is something subjective then it also doesn't matter because "being old" doesn't imply favorite anything. I doubt we can find any correlation between age and favorite colors.

In fact, this causes an even bigger problem. If "what is art?" is subjective then it means "art" really does imply quality. If I say "I think this is art" it's like saying "this is my favorite color." Therefore, it gives deference to that work. My saying "this is art" is me saying "this is good." So, if something sucks then how can it be art? I don't give deference to colors I don't like. So if "art" is subjective, it makes no sense to say "This is a bad movie but it's still a work of art." Yet people do that all the time.

j_factor

03-08-2009, 05:29 PM

I don't really agree with the idea that "anything and everything" is art. I define art as something being designed, and involving skill and creativity. Math isn't (generally) art because when you do math, you're just going through the motions; there's no originality of thought involved (with the possible exception of really high-level theoretical stuff). Designing a car can be art, but assembling one is not. Architecture is definitely art. Nature isn't art because it's just there, but landscape design can be art. Photography can be art, but snapping photos isn't necessarily art in and of itself.

Ed Oscuro

03-08-2009, 05:53 PM

Making a ham sandwich and not calling it art means you've made a ham sandwich, no matter how much design and skill and creativity went into making said sandwich. It's not art until somebody calls it that, and then, hopefully nobody will be calling it art. Is a grilled cheese sandwich with the face of Jesus a miracle, or art? I prefer the term food happening.

I like to say that people don't mind what other people call their work as long as they're not getting public funding to do it. It seems the major talent a "new artist" needs is not a steady hand or even deep knowledge of art and ability to write well about it, but showmanship.

Also, science doesn't provide reason or morality, so the games we play with what we call things are the only way we keep ourselves from going mad staring into the abyss. There's no cosmic truth demanding that some things be called art and others not.

I agree with White Knight; the fact that Ebert is something of an old fart probably means he doesn't have any sort of nostalgia about games. It's like manga in Japan: People who grew up before and during the fifteen years of war didn't have manga, but the generation that grew up with manga now feels pretty comfortable reading manuals and self-help in manga form, whereas the earlier generation seems to have more or less been mystified by it (so I've read one place - I'm not convinced this is entirely true, but that's the story).

Zap!

03-09-2009, 01:32 AM

If art is something subjective then it also doesn't matter because "being old" doesn't imply favorite anything. I doubt we can find any correlation between age and favorite colors.

In fact, this causes an even bigger problem. If "what is art?" is subjective then it means "art" really does imply quality. If I say "I think this is art" it's like saying "this is my favorite color." Therefore, it gives deference to that work. My saying "this is art" is me saying "this is good." So, if something sucks then how can it be art? I don't give deference to colors I don't like. So if "art" is subjective, it makes no sense to say "This is a bad movie but it's still a work of art." Yet people do that all the time.

Major differences. Those favorite colors were there when a 66 year old was a kid. When 66 year old Ebert was 8, there was the color red, black, blue, white, purple, grey, etc. There was no Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, Pac-Man, Street Fighter II, or Resident Evil.

It's a fact that most people like what they grew up with. If it wasn't there when they were young, many don't want to even look at it. Many 80 year olds don't even have cells.

TonyTheTiger

03-09-2009, 02:59 AM

Major differences. Those favorite colors were there when a 66 year old was a kid. When 66 year old Ebert was 8, there was the color red, black, blue, white, purple, grey, etc. There was no Space Invaders, Donkey Kong, Pac-Man, Street Fighter II, or Resident Evil.

It's a fact that most people like what they grew up with. If it wasn't there when they were young, many don't want to even look at it. Many 80 year olds don't even have cells.

If that's the case, then art is never constant. And nothing can be art until it's old enough. That means that Michelangelo was just painting the ceiling when he was doing it but it became art once people started to appreciate it.

I bring all this up because, from a philosophical standpoint, art, as most people seem to define it, makes no sense.

tom

03-09-2009, 03:37 AM

I bring all this up because, from a philosophical standpoint, art, as most people seem to define it, makes no sense.

You got it in one, and trust me, I work in a Museum of Modern Art (http://www.ludwigmuseum.org/), many visitors say 'I haven't got a clue about this' or 'this doesn't make sense, what is it'.

I always say, let this entertain you, if nothing else.
My boss never agrees with me, she goes way deep, about the origins and work put into the piece, I'd say, in the end it entertains, it serves no other purpose. She always gives me a very non-agreeable look.

Gameguy

03-09-2009, 05:01 AM

I bring all this up because, from a philosophical standpoint, art, as most people seem to define it, makes no sense.
This is true. Now I'm remembering back to an episode of Dilbert where he creates art. LOL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vx_bVRHZzHI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmKU9FFgjs0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4JUZxfcP98

I feel that video games can be art, but not every game is art. I can understand how games might not be as good a medium to demonstrate art as it really depends on the skill of the player to fully experience it. If someone can't finish a game then they can't experience it as fully intended by the creators.

There always has been disputes as to what can be considered art. I'll just post the link to Wikipedia, feel free to read about it if interested.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

Solertia

03-09-2009, 08:32 AM

...says the man who is a well-known as a movie reviewer, yet loves a lot of shitty movies.

Ebert wouldn't know art if it hit him on his stupid head.

Cryomancer

03-09-2009, 10:49 AM

well to be fair, he did write this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_Valley_of_the_Dolls

TonyTheTiger

03-09-2009, 12:39 PM

double post

TonyTheTiger

03-09-2009, 01:03 PM

You got it in one, and trust me, I work in a Museum of Modern Art (http://www.ludwigmuseum.org/), many visitors say 'I haven't got a clue about this' or 'this doesn't make sense, what is it'.

I always say, let this entertain you, if nothing else.
My boss never agrees with me, she goes way deep, about the origins and work put into the piece, I'd say, in the end it entertains, it serves no other purpose. She always gives me a very non-agreeable look.

I'm all for entertainment and appreciation of craftsmanship. When I question "art" I'm not questioning the creation or purpose of the work itself.

I feel that video games can be art, but not every game is art.

This is another conundrum. Usually, if you ask for examples from somebody who's gung ho about video games being art they'll list a lot of games that are either extremely cinematic in nature (ala RPGs) or extremely fancy in presentation (ala Okami). This tells me that most people who think that video games are art are just imposing standards from film and painting. If video games are art then why isn't Tetris or Centipede at the top of the list? It's almost like the whole "art" thing didn't come into play until video games started drawing heavier influence from other mediums.

It seems like people started seeing movies being toted as art and then saw that their favorite RPGs were cinematic experiences and figured, "If Casablanca is art then why can't Final Fantasy X be?" And then in order to avoid coming off as hypocritical, they extend this theory to all games so they can then say "Tetris is art" even though Tetris was never on their minds. Then to avoid coming off as even more hypocritical, they extend the theory to terrible games, too. So now all of a sudden all games are art because these people who first thought of it as such wanted their favorite RPGs to obtain that elusive badge of honor. Because, like I said earlier, for some reason it's a high honor for a work to be called "art." And these people wanted their favorite games to receive that honor.

I know this sounds really cynical. In a way it is even though I'm pretty far from being a cynical person. The cynicism stems from my distaste for the superficial "appreciation" of video games. The "art" thing barely ever came up prior to the late 90s when Final Fantasy VII was winning hearts and minds. Nobody ever talks about how Monopoly or Connect Four are works of art even though they operate on similar principles many video games do.

Nobody ever said in a serious way that Super Metroid was a work of art when it first came out despite it being one of the most visually stunning games on the SNES. The whole "art" thing comes off as superficial to me. Rather than actually appreciating games they're using the "art" argument as a way of proving their appreciation even though that's not really what they're doing at all. Rather, they're appreciating how their favorite games are similar to something else instead of appreciating the games for what they actually are.

It's hard for me to put into words what I'm trying to say here. But imagine watching a movie and loving it. It's your favorite movie of all time. Now, all of a sudden, people start to notice that Shakespeare is studied in schools and begin to argue that this movie, a movie you love, should also be studied in schools because it's "just like Shakespeare." Now you get kind of annoyed at this because it turns out that your favorite movie is no longer appreciated because it's a great movie. Now it's like all these people are taking your favorite movie and forcing it to be something else. They're applying the standards of Shakespeare onto this movie. In a way, they're not appreciating the movie itself but rather appreciating how the movie is "similar to Shakespeare."

That's what this feels like to me. Like video games aren't really being held up on their own merits with this "art" thing. It's more like they're being appreciated because of how similar they are to other mediums. It comes off as a false appreciation.

Gameguy

03-09-2009, 06:15 PM

This is another conundrum. Usually, if you ask for examples from somebody who's gung ho about video games being art they'll list a lot of games that are either extremely cinematic in nature (ala RPGs) or extremely fancy in presentation (ala Okami). This tells me that most people who think that video games are art are just imposing standards from film and painting. If video games are art then why isn't Tetris or Centipede at the top of the list? It's almost like the whole "art" thing didn't come into play until video games started drawing heavier influence from other mediums.

It seems like people started seeing movies being toted as art and then saw that their favorite RPGs were cinematic experiences and figured, "If Casablanca is art then why can't Final Fantasy X be?" And then in order to avoid coming off as hypocritical, they extend this theory to all games so they can then say "Tetris is art" even though Tetris was never on their minds. Then to avoid coming off as even more hypocritical, they extend the theory to terrible games, too. So now all of a sudden all games are art because these people who first thought of it as such wanted their favorite RPGs to obtain that elusive badge of honor. Because, like I said earlier, for some reason it's a high honor for a work to be called "art." And these people wanted their favorite games to receive that honor.

I know this sounds really cynical. In a way it is even though I'm pretty far from being a cynical person. The cynicism stems from my distaste for the superficial "appreciation" of video games. The "art" thing barely ever came up prior to the late 90s when Final Fantasy VII was winning hearts and minds. Nobody ever talks about how Monopoly or Connect Four are works of art even though they operate on similar principles many video games do.

Nobody ever said in a serious way that Super Metroid was a work of art when it first came out despite it being one of the most visually stunning games on the SNES. The whole "art" thing comes off as superficial to me. Rather than actually appreciating games they're using the "art" argument as a way of proving their appreciation even though that's not really what they're doing at all. Rather, they're appreciating how their favorite games are similar to something else instead of appreciating the games for what they actually are.

It's hard for me to put into words what I'm trying to say here. But imagine watching a movie and loving it. It's your favorite movie of all time. Now, all of a sudden, people start to notice that Shakespeare is studied in schools and begin to argue that this movie, a movie you love, should also be studied in schools because it's "just like Shakespeare." Now you get kind of annoyed at this because it turns out that your favorite movie is no longer appreciated because it's a great movie. Now it's like all these people are taking your favorite movie and forcing it to be something else. They're applying the standards of Shakespeare onto this movie. In a way, they're not appreciating the movie itself but rather appreciating how the movie is "similar to Shakespeare."

That's what this feels like to me. Like video games aren't really being held up on their own merits with this "art" thing. It's more like they're being appreciated because of how similar they are to other mediums. It comes off as a false appreciation.
I feel the same way of most mediums. They can be art, but not everything is art. Or it might be considered art, just not good art. I don't see all movies as art, same with music or paintings.

I'll just post a basic definition of art from Wikipedia;
"Art is something that stimulates an individual's thoughts, emotions, beliefs, or ideas through the senses. It is also an expression of an idea and it can take many different forms and serve many different purposes."

What games accomplish what is described from above? I believe that stories are what makes games considered as art, same with film, photography, music, literature, etc. All that changes are the ways that they are presented. Even good music is supposed to tell a story, and can do so without words. There's really no clear cut definition of art which is why there's so much debate as to what is art, I just went with a basic one. Even graffiti can be seen as art, though I really don't feel that it's art(at least I don't like it). As for games being art just for the graphics, I personally don't like the CGI from modern games so I don't really consider games as art just because of it's looks(thought there are older games where I really like the styles of the visuals). Any form of entertainment can stimulate your emotions(that's why you'd be entertained by them, it makes you happy), so I find the definition of art to be a bit vague. That's why something may be art, but not good art.

I also feel that some pieces are created just so they can be considered art, which I find to be shallow. I don't really consider those to truely be good art, more like immitation of good art. As an example with Anime, I felt this way with Neon Genesis Evangelion. It started off good but throughout the series it just went too deep without really needing to be that deep, and by the end of the series nothing from the beginning was really resolved(it just focused on the characters mindsets, nothing about the main plot was really resolved). I'm not counting the movies which were made later, only the series which was intended to be the entire story(people disliked the way it ended so they made the movies to end it better). I still like the series, but it's not one of my top favourites.

Do watch the episode of Dilbert I posted. Dogbert successfully sells dirty laundry as art, because he frames it and just tells people it's art. So true to life. :)

TonyTheTiger

03-09-2009, 08:25 PM

Do watch the episode of Dilbert I posted. Dogbert successfully sells dirty laundry as art, because he frames it and just tells people it's art. So true to life. :)

I love Dilbert. It reminds me of this thing that was on TV once. I don't remember where I saw it or what the set up was since it was just in passing but it was sort of like a Candid Camera type thing. This guy was in a museum or some kind of art exhibit and standing next to an abstract painting. There was some big shot art critic there and this guy asked the critic what he thought of the painting. The critic was gushing over the use of color and the geometry and stuff. Then the guy asked the critic how much the painting is probably worth. The critic gave some crazy high number. Then the guy said something like, "You know this was painted by a monkey, right?"

I don't want to give the impression that I have an axe to grind with art critics or art itself. I know what I like and lots of what I like is or might be "art." I just think that sometimes a kind of group think can turn something as innocent as art or any medium, be it movies, music, video games, etc. into a self parody.