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

[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.

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:



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.

[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).