Support NeoGAF

[John Kowalski]

Ehhh. Depends on the game, the topic, and the crowd.

I don't think there's really a community specifically for more nuanced critique.

There is that community, it's the dudes and girls writing games criticism. The kind of stuff that's posted on critical distance.

 

[zoukka]

Games are so purely design that they seldom approach any state where they could be held as art. Sure there's the talent and artistry of hundreds of people inside a single AAA-game production, but they all follow the principals of design in every step. There are very few people inside the production that have the luxury to think about vision, message or self-expression.

Consider we're on a literal video game discussion forum there are hundreds of posts saying "Keep politics out of my games plz." And here's the thing, these aren't things that it's just something I can talk to with my friends with, tons of people are willing to talk about these things in other mediums in a casual setting. Most people are adults with at least some semblance of critical thinking skills and a willingness to discuss the themes and implications of a work.

Similar opinions can be found in off-topic whenever a new superhero movie is being discussed. Some people want them to be deeper and people always respond that they don't want politics or anything serious in those movies.

 

[WhateverItTakes]

It is entirely subjective. Some games/films/paintings/drawings do not have the same effect to me as others do. A work of art is a product that can dig deep into my self and stimulate my inner feelings and emotions.
A CoD game might look good but i can not value it as art, at least as what i interpret as art.

However, there are some video game works that stand out by their own to be considered as art but, i believe that, the majority of videogames, no matter their artistic elements, are not art, at least not what i think a work has to be qualified as art.

I mean you're allowed to have a personal definition, but to me it seems like it has to be all or nothing. There is definitely bad art and good art, but the bad stuff is still art.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Similar opinions can be found in off-topic whenever a new superhero movie is being discussed. Some people want them to be deeper and people always respond that they don't want politics or anything serious in those movies.

Yes but that sort of pushback is still few and far between relative to the comic book medium, which is constantly reacting to politics. The same applies with film. Neither mediums have anywhere near a major pushback against critique and critical thinking as the gaming medium does.

 

[KO Traveling Hobo]

There is that community, it's the dudes and girls writing games criticism. The kind of stuff that's posted on critical distance.

But is there somewhere that people can have discussions about these topics without having to share conversational space with people who categorically reject it? I don't see a comments section on Critical Distance, and even if it had one, I imagine it would be about on par with most websites' comments section.

I'd never heard of Critical Distance btw. Neat site.

 

[Chao]

Why would a solid black canvas be art but not The Last of Us?

Art is not a category above everything that makes an object worthy of the gods. There are tons and tons of shitty fucking awful stuff in art galleries. Calling that shit art won't make it better, it's still shit.

The question should be: are video games -or an specific vidrogame- good art?

 

[kinoki]

I think that a lot is lost in the conversation of games when there is a very vocal ministory that derail it and makes the medium so uninviting, for example:

• "The PS+ games this month sucks"
• "Keep your politics out of my games"
• "I can't relate to my character if they're another gender"
• "Indies are worthless give me AAA"
• "I refuse to pay for a 6 hour game"
• Pre-order culture
• What makes a "Gamer"
• &c...

 

[DevilSnake]

Honestly this sounds like more of a problem with some of the vocal communities than one with the medium. I can see where you're coming from though.

It's very subjective, I'd definitely say games are an art form in both creation & community reaction, but like all forms of art it really depends on the quality of the product & who's talking about it. Ask a Silent Hill enthusiast to break down Silent Hill 2, then ask a Ghostbusters enthusiast to do the same with the reboot. You'll definitely see the problems you've described, but not necessarily applied to the medium specified.

 

[John Kowalski]

But is there somewhere that people can have discussions about these topics without having to share conversational space with people who categorically reject it? I don't see a comments section on Critical Distance, and even if it had one, I imagine it would be about on par with most websites' comments section.

I'd never heard of Critical Distance btw. Neat site.

Uh twitter I guess

Frankly idk I imagine they all know each other and frequently dine together

 

[mortal]

Why would a solid black canvas be art but not The Last of Us?

Art is not a category above everything that makes an object worthy of the gods. There are tons and tons of shitty fucking awful stuff in art galleries. Calling that shit art won't make it better, it's still shit.

The question should be: are video games -or an specific vidrogame- good art?

Exactly. Both conversations, I feel are important, but this even more so.

 

[robotrock]

games are a medium, art is crafted through a medium

it is not possible for all games to be art, but some games can be art

games are to art what film stock or paper and ink is to art.

all of it is art. most is bad art, but still art nonetheless

 

[zoukka]

Yes but that sort of pushback is still few and far between relative to the comic book medium, which is constantly reacting to politics. The same applies with film. Neither mediums have anywhere near a major pushback against critique and critical thinking as the gaming medium does.

I don't think people are against smaller projects that tackle these issues. The indie scene has plenty of games with artistic qualities and statements. People seem to resist these themes in AAA-games that clearly present themselves as "blockbusters". Maybe games have been the last fortress of innocent entertainment in the past for people and it pains them to see politics creeping into games too?

 

[Navidson REC]

Didnt read all that but im just saying that Ori and the blind forest felt like art to me.

Had the exact same thought going into this thread. Just did the Ginso Tree segment last night for the first time. This game is a freaking Gesamtkunstwerk.

 

[jdstorm]

While i dont think all games are "Art" especially multiplayer games. I think most mechanically sound games do have value as a performance art.

To watch a skilled gamer execute a series of movements in game can be just as breathtaking as watching a band live or a theatre peformance.

I would generally agree that there is little neuance in game writing and while a few great games probably do close the gap with traditional artistic mediums. I can think of less then 5 games that would qualify, and even those games have certain qualifiers

 

[patapuf]

Consider we're on a literal video game discussion forum there are hundreds of posts saying "Keep politics out of my games plz." And here's the thing, these aren't things that it's just something I can talk to with my friends with, tons of people are willing to talk about these things in other mediums in a casual setting. Most people are adults with at least some semblance of critical thinking skills and a willingness to discuss the themes and implications of a work.

I don't know, especially when i comes to your average action movie, i'm not going to be able to find "tons" of people willing to disect it's societal impact unless i'm literally sitting with friends from university that like doing that kind of stuff.

Something that's more deliberately made to aks hard questions - sure.

Just like you won't have any troubles discussing the political implications of papers please but doing the same for Call of Duty will prove more difficult.

 

[TissueBox]

Games are so purely design that they seldom approach any state where they could be held as art. Sure there's the talent and artistry of hundreds of people inside a single AAA-game production, but they all follow the principals of design in every step. There are very few people inside the production that have the luxury to think about vision, message or self-expression.

Indeed. I would say it goes beyond just that, but also is rooted in their inability to be one thing.

Games are just so consistently eclectic that they refuse to be pinned down to a single prominent genre, form, raison d'etre, or aesthetic at any given time.

Sport, nerdy pastime, simulation, technical showcase, software, entertainment -- while other forms can dip their toes into the others in serviceable ways, games have a much more level reach. Every aspect of it is very proportionely fulfilled because of how flexible and maximalist the medium is by nature, and thus you have a lot of games for each kind of category that don't really feel like niches, just another 'game' -- even the particularly offbeat ones.

I dunno if what I'm saying makes much sense rn since I'm pretty sleep-deprived lol.

But the main point is that eclecticism is what has made games unfathomable. It is their most unique, singular feature at least as of now. Humans don't quite know how to approach something like this yet, so we've only gone where the flow of culture has taken us. Only now can gamers en mass, rather than just the same nexus of 'hardcore gamers', sort of look at gaming as a response to culture rather than just a byproduct of it.

 

[Crossing Eden]

I don't think people are against smaller projects that tackle these issues. The indie scene has plenty of games with artistic qualities and statements. People seem to resist these themes in AAA-games that clearly present themselves as "blockbusters". Maybe games have been the last fortress of innocent entertainment in the past for people and it pains them to see politics creeping into games too?

Politics were almost always seeped into this medium as soon as narratives started to crop up. Politics are less creeping into games and more devs are asking their audience to think more often.

I don't know, especially when i comes to your average action movie, i'm not going to be able to find "tons" of people willing to disect it's societal impact unless i'm literally sitting with friends from university that like doing that kind of stuff.

Something that's more deliberately made to aks hard questions - sure.

Just like you won't have any troubles discussing the political implications of papers please but doing the same for Call of Duty will prove more difficult.

That's more because something like Call of Duty, like a typical action movie, portray incredibly shallow depictions of politics and require less thinking on the part of the viewer, which breeds less discussion.

 

[Fat4all]

• "The PS+ games this month sucks"
• "Keep your politics out of my games"
• "I can't relate to my character if they're another gender"
• "Indies are worthless give me AAA"
• "I refuse to pay for a 6 hour game"

oh man, these in particular peeve me off.

 

[DrDamn]

Something feeling like art for me is very much the personal experience I get from the art itself, not the discussion around it. Whether it's a painting, a sculpture, a film or a game. The discussion of it, particularly by other people who don't hold the same views as me on what a game should or shouldn't be, are irrelevant to my appreciation and understanding of the art.

 

[chillybright]

I find OP a little confusing.

Is it about "keep politics out of my games" mentality?

If so why phase is under the discussion of "art"?

Is it because something is less of an art if it is devoid of political messages?

Anyway sorry, I read it a few times but I am not following.

 

[Bamboo]

Games are so purely design that they seldom approach any state where they could be held as art. Sure there's the talent and artistry of hundreds of people inside a single AAA-game production, but they all follow the principals of design in every step. There are very few people inside the production that have the luxury to think about vision, message or self-expression.

That's what I wanted to mention. The MOMA for example collects games as part of their design department. Games as interactive desgin. Just like the stool OP mentioned. It can be functional, it can be beautiful, it can be both, it can be none, it can be transformed into art and both keep or loose it's function. Of course desgin and art is an artificial seperation, it's more like a fluid transtition between the two.

A curator of the MOMA explains her stance here: https://www.ted.com/talks/paola_antonelli_why_i_brought_pacman_to_moma
I have some problems about how she speaks on games and reinforces the idea of the genius author. But it general she's pretty spot on.

tbh, I don't really care all that much about the discussion if games are art or not. You had the same discussion about TV. You had the same discussion about movies. The example with Jack Thompson and games being "different" i that regard... if you look far enough back, people were freaking out about their teenagers reading too many novels. A slightly different but prominent example would be the concerns and bans of the the novel Die Leiden des jungen Werther / The Sorrows of Young Werther. It was hugely popular during its time, but discussed very controversial, with people imitating the main characters suicide (while being dressed like him) which resulted in bans of the book and a plethora of concerned parents. I have to think of it every time someone tries to ban GTA for being a bad example. Or someone blames metal for making children violent.

 

[Riposte]

The whole idea that it is (increasingly specific) criticism which turns something into art rather than its own inherent properties or effect on you just goes to show how much of a scam "art" is in the first place.

Almost every definition of art is revealed to be a non-starter with a bit of analysis. That doesn't stop people from making use of the term though, as they can abuse its vagueness to mean whatever they personally please and 90% of the time they won't be called out on it (especially by gamers, who are commonly desperate and self-defeating in their shame - if only they were brave enough to come up with their own definition for art). Then, without establishing any sort of basis, they can say something along the lines of "videogames are not art until we look at them "politically". If you don't engage in politically commentary then you are not engaging in art. Or, you are getting in the way of videogames being art". Looking over this thread, this is more or less exactly the strategy being put in place. In such a scenario, the whole concept of aesthetics, nevermind "entertainment", has been expelled from this property of "art".

As one kind of criticism / appeal / understanding is raised, other kinds are lowered. Without ever coming close to answering what it truly means for something to be art, one can simply shovel over that problem and use it apply pressure to get what they want (in this case, the elevation of political influence in media - and, of course, the elevation of politically themed artists and their allied critics). This pressure works, because, despite not really meaning anything, the title of art is still valued. Art is a marketing brand that has no meaning besides the fact it is desired, hence piss and shit being sold for thousands, hence the scam. It's basically what priests did with terms like "holy" or "halal".


"Art naturally says stuff, with or without us trying to." - everything says something ("naturally"). This is as true for art as it is everything else in the observable universe, including this sentence and the symbols that make it up. You feel a sensation, your brain interprets this something based on past experiences, and then goes on to create a message that has been "said" by this stimuli. These messages can come together to mean bigger, complex messages. In other words, this is yet another definition of art that goes on to include every object in the universe. It turns out, as this thread and every other one on the internet will show, the best way to get a message across is through words, which makes art look pretty pathetic if that's the whole point.

 

[hemo memo]

What is art really?

 

[Fat4all]

What is art really?

a miserable pile of secrets

 

[Prisoner KSC2-303]

Excellent points OP. I think you just have to look at the push back against new terminology being used to see why we're struggling to evolve critiquing and get past our roots as a pastime seen as for children. "Ludonarrative dissonance" expressed something complex in a short manner, but some acted like it was simply being coined as an act of deliberate intellectual snobbery.

There's still a lot of defensiveness in gamers, and it comes out in strange ways.

Having said that, I've no issue with anyone who wants to ignore all the different ways you can interpret games and just focus on whether they consider them fun, as long as they don't attack anyone or anything that looks to value the experience based on other criteria. A game can be art for me, and fun for someone else; neither are wrong.

 

[filly]

The last of us 'felt' like art to me

 

[patapuf]

That's more because something like Call of Duty, like a typical action movie, portray incredibly shallow depictions of politics and require less thinking on the part of the viewer, which breeds less discussion.

Right, but what i'm saying is that the audience does not reject that type of analysis on principle. Games made for that crowd generally also attract people interested in doing it and conversations about those topics happen naturally.
Whereas with Call of Duty, or Fallout, or asassin's creed. Most will never even complete the game - or not even bother with single player at all.

Even among enthusiats you have lots of people that don't care at all about story and art and are more interested in mastering mechanics or tinkering with the tech.

Unless it's specifically about feminism/racism most critical analysis is not rejected but ignored.

 

[kennyamr]

I have felt an immense quantity of feelings playing through video games during all of my life.
Terrible sadness, great joy, laughs, anger, terror, awe, surprise, and all the others I forgot to mention.
They make me part of their worlds and let me experience the countless stories along characters that I get to know and get attached to.
I love everything about video games because they make me feel alive.

That is what I call art, so yes, without a doubt, they are and definitely feel like art.

 

[Holy Order Sol]

What is art really?

Basically code/a label for "the right people (whoever that is) have acknowledged this thing as being worth discussing".

It says nothing in terms of the actual content, it's about validation.

 

[BGBW]

But why does all art need in-depth meaning?

If commercial art is made to reflect current fashions shouldn't CoD be seen as art too? It is, after all, just a reflection of what people want? Both commercial art and CoD are at the forefront of their industries, both have found a working formula, stuck to it and churned out similar looking products, and both have become seen as the typical product.

The reason there's likely "resistance" to games being seen as art is because some don't understand why they need to be seen as art in the first place. Why is gaming being seen as art any better than what it is now? A lot of what is considered art, to be honest, is hogwash. Not being seen as art doesn't make gaming lesser.

 

[UrbanRats]

The whole idea that it is (increasingly specific) criticism which turns something into art rather than its own inherent properties or effect on you just goes to show how much of a scam "art" is in the first place.

Almost every definition of art is revealed to be a non-starter with a bit of analysis. That doesn't stop people from making use of the term though, as they can abuse its vagueness to mean whatever they personally please and 90% of the time they won't be called out on it (especially by gamers, who are commonly desperate and self-defeating in their shame - if only they were brave enough to come up with their own definition for art). Then, without establishing any sort of basis, they can say something along the lines of "videogames are not art until we look at them "politically". If you don't engage in politically commentary then you are not engaging in art. Or, you are getting in the way of videogames being art". Looking over this thread, this is more or less exactly the strategy being put in place. In such a scenario, the whole concept of aesthetics, nevermind "entertainment", has been expelled from this property of "art".

As one kind of criticism / appeal / understanding is raised, other kinds are lowered. Without ever coming close to answering what it truly means for something to be art, one can simply shovel over that problem and use it apply pressure to get what they want (in this case, the elevation of political influence in media - and, of course, the elevation of politically themed artists and their allied critics). This pressure works, because, despite not really meaning anything, the title of art is still valued. Art is a marketing brand that has no meaning besides the fact it is desired, hence piss and shit being sold for thousands, hence the scam. It's basically what priests did with terms like "holy" or "halal".


"Art naturally says stuff, with or without us trying to." - everything says something ("naturally"). This is as true for art as it is everything else in the observable universe, including this sentence and the symbols that make it up. You feel a sensation, your brain interprets this something based on past experiences, and then goes on to create a message that has been "said" by this stimuli. These messages can come together to mean bigger, complex messages. In other words, this is yet another definition of art that goes on to include every object in the universe. It turns out, as this thread and every other one on the internet will show, the best way to get a message across is through words, which makes art look pretty pathetic if that's the whole point.

Uhm... i think art is about self expression first, and having a clear message second.
I think a big problem with games being art is just how controlled and manufactured the chain of production is, for certain big games, but that's also true of many big movies, and not as true for smaller games.
To me the idea of art is more about getting into someone else's head, and through the abstraction of their art, glimpse at something they couldn't express in a more straightforward manner.
If art was all about "Fascism is bad!" it'd be a pretty fucking pathetic medium of expression.

 

[patapuf]

But why does all art need in-depth meaning?

If commercial art is made to reflect current fashions shouldn't CoD be seen as art too? It is, after all, just a reflection of what people want? Both commercial art and CoD are at the forefront of their industries, both have found a working formula, stuck to it and churned out similar looking products, and both have become seen as the typical product.

The reason there's likely "resistance" to games being seen as art is because some don't understand why they need to be seen as art in the first place. Why is gaming being seen as art any better than what it is now? A lot of what is considered art, to be honest, is hogwash. Not being seen as art doesn't make gaming lesser.

Discussing things like CoD is interesting because they are as successful as they are. And for that you have to also look at what it says and how people engage with it.

It's not something i expect everyone to do, but enthusiast are usually interested in something beyond what the average person ist.

 

[R aka Bon]

it's actually very true. I have been a big fan of Halo(as an example) and it never occurred to me that the Covenant could be a metaphor for something that's related to humans, either ongoing events or what have happened in the past.

I guess the problem is, that games as an art form are much newer than the others. And games were born like toys, (correct me on that if i'm wrong) but games like pong etc, where they were there to please people. Tons of games that are popular today for mainstream are also like that, insert Candy crush...
Where as games that convey obvious political messages aren't as new or many(Bioshock).

Perhaps we need to change how we perceive games, be more open about them, when discussing them.

I feel like there is more diversity now than ever, with a lot of games that have characters from all different backgrounds, that should invite more sensible audiences or grow the audience that's already present.

 

[zoukka]

What is art really?

Self-expression that spontaneously pours out of you. Everything beyond that is design.

 

[hemo memo]

a miserable pile of secrets

Basically code/a label for "the right people (whoever that is) have acknowledged this thing as being worth discussing".

It says nothing in terms of the actual content, it's about validation.

So games are art.

 

[Nepenthe]

The whole idea that it is (increasingly specific) criticism which turns something into art rather than its own inherent properties or effect on you just goes to show how much of a scam "art" is in the first place.

Almost every definition of art is revealed to be a non-starter with a bit of analysis. That doesn't stop people from making use of the term though, as they can abuse its vagueness to mean whatever they personally please and 90% of the time they won't be called out on it (especially by gamers, who are commonly desperate and self-defeating in their shame - if only they were brave enough to come up with their own definition for art). Then, without establishing any sort of basis, they can say something along the lines of "videogames are not art until we look at them "politically". If you don't engage in politically commentary then you are not engaging in art. Or, you are getting in the way of videogames being art". Looking over this thread, this is more or less exactly the strategy being put in place. In such a scenario, the whole concept of aesthetics, nevermind "entertainment", has been expelled from this property of "art".

As one kind of criticism / appeal / understanding is raised, other kinds are lowered. Without ever coming close to answering what it truly means for something to be art, one can simply shovel over that problem and use it apply pressure to get what they want (in this case, the elevation of political influence in media - and, of course, the elevation of politically themed artists and their allied critics). This pressure works, because, despite not really meaning anything, the title of art is still valued. Art is a marketing brand that has no meaning besides the fact it is desired, hence piss and shit being sold for thousands, hence the scam. It's basically what priests did with terms like "holy" or "halal".


"Art naturally says stuff, with or without us trying to." - everything says something ("naturally"). This is as true for art as it is everything else in the observable universe, including this sentence and the symbols that make it up. You feel a sensation, your brain interprets this something based on past experiences, and then goes on to create a message that has been "said" by this stimuli. These messages can come together to mean bigger, complex messages. In other words, this is yet another definition of art that goes on to include every object in the universe. It turns out, as this thread and every other one on the internet will show, the best way to get a message across is through words, which makes art look pretty pathetic if that's the whole point.

I thought my post was pretty clear that art is a creative work made by humans whose intent is to engage an audience on an emotional or social level, which categorically does not include everything in the observable universe by the fact that, obviously, most of everything in the observable universe wasn't made by humans.

The point about art "saying things" (which is an obvious metonymy for the infinite amount of subjects and ideas that have been expressed through all art that I can't possibly include in any one post) ties into the ultimate point of the thread, which isn't to debate the definition of art, but rather to highlight that art is specifically made in a context that is dependent upon and thus reflects the human experience (because that's all that anyone knows and thus all anyone can use creatively to make art), and that the discussion of how this experience is communicated in any given piece of art is fundamental to an object's categorization and "feeling" of art. We talk about the sociopolitical meanings of works in other mediums more freely than we do with games.

My conclusion then is that this hesitance in discussing these sociopolitical ramifications is what separates games from other mediums of art, even if I personally categorize games as art anyway. It is in an uncomfortable limbo where it legally and technically enjoys classification as art like a book or film but none of the cultural customs in regards to criticism and discussion are allowed to the same extent. Thus, games "feel" less like art to me and more like glorified toys or techie/nerd experiments- things I'm not allowed to engage in with the full extent of my emotion and intellect lest I be labelled as an "outsider" or someone trying to "ruin games."

In other words, you missed the whole point of my therad in an effort to trash "art" as a whole. Overall, I'm far less interested in discussing this argument because it's tired, and moreso basically wondering why I can talk about Mad Max's feminism but not Mario's without a greater propensity for backlash from gamers.

 

[GamerJM]

I think part of this comes from the fact that there will always be games created with the "utilitarian purpose of play," like a hot wheels toy. The most basic/obvious example of this that I can think of is Pong, which was never designed to be judged based on the merits of its themes, visual design, etc. Even as the medium evolves games as visually and thematically basic as Pong designed with utilitarian purpose of play in mind will always exist alongside games that are designed to be evaluated on visual, thematic,and artistic elements.

This is pretty different from other artistic mediums from what I understand though I'll confess I don't know a ton about art history. But like, when it comes to film, even the most basic plotless movie can still be interpreted as art from the way it's shot and directed.

I'm not saying this to dismiss the problems the gaming community has though, since that's probably the biggest reason why games don't really "feel," like art to the OP and others. This is just what came to my mind when reading the OP because of the comparison used.

 

[Crossing Eden]

Right, but what i'm saying is that the audience does not reject that type of analysis on principle. Games made for that crowd generally also attract people interested in doing it and conversations about those topics happen naturally.
Whereas with Call of Duty, or Fallout, or asassin's creed. Most will never even complete the game - or not even bother with single player at all.

Even among enthusiats you have lots of people that don't care at all about story and art and are more interested in mastering mechanics or tinkering with the tech.

Unless it's specifically about feminism/racism most critical analysis is not rejected but ignored.

And therein lies the problem.

 

[Nepenthe]

I think part of this comes from the fact that there will always be games created with the "utilitarian purpose of play," like a hot wheels toy. The most basic/obvious example of this that I can think of is Pong, which was never designed to be judged based on the merits of its themes, visual design, etc. Even as the medium evolves games as visually and thematically basic as Pong designed with utilitarian purpose of play in mind will always exist alongside games that are designed to be evaluated on visual, thematic,and artistic elements.

This is pretty different from other artistic mediums from what I understand though I'll confess I don't know a ton about art history. But like, when it comes to film, even the most basic plotless movie can still be interpreted as art from the way it's shot and directed.

I'm not saying this to dismiss the problems the gaming community has though, since that's probably the biggest reason why games don't really "feel," like art to the OP and others. This is just what came to my mind when reading the OP.

Well, I think any medium starts out as an experiment or something devoid of what people would consider "artistic meaning," because the tools and their limits are new, thus the theory behind self-expression using those tools has yet to be developed. Writing was invented to clearly communicate complex ideas in a way that could be universally understood (Ex. the letter A in English is always the letter A; never B). Literature did not come until afterwards. Would we then classify literature as something that isn't art because its beginnings lacked a more concrete artistic purpose? Probably not, and the same is for film, which started out as toys and experiments dating back to Ancient China where people experimented with simulated motion using pictures in see-through wheels. Does that mean film isn't art?

Sure; Pong is little more than a crude simulation of tennis and thus any real meaning is difficult to derive from that. Does that mean what followed afterwards cannot be art?

 

[ForsakenLotus]

The issue with your statement is you are ascribing your perspective on the subtext or lack thereof in games in general as reason enough to suppose that in the larger scope games don't feel like art. However, art is perhaps most importantly about the meaning and the emotions it elicits from the person experiencing the art. That you don't find particularly complex themes in a game like Sonic Unleashed or an underlying societal criticism doesn't preclude the game from offering that to somebody else.

Furthermore, art isn't required to have a base level of sociopolitical critique or any other non-formal statement. Art can be shallow or intricately deep. It seems incongruent to label Eraserhead or 2001: A Space Odyssey art yet not also consider The Avengers or Transformers art because the latter has simpler themes and little to no commentary on society (seemingly). Even if one were to be pedantic and assign the label of art on a movie by movie basis, you still couldn't generalize the medium of film as not art.

So as such, I don't think it's fair to suggest the video games as a medium don't feel like art because your constraints are arbitrary and most importantly based on your critiques on games.

Quite frankly, I think over the course of hundreds of years people have deigned to attribute greater meanings to works of art than the artists likely intended. It creates a culture that, while fascinating and introspective, is kind of pretentious - especially when proponents of said art dismiss or dispute the artistic values of other mediums for being superficial or vapid. I don't take umbrage with the practice of trying to understand art and deeper meanings that can be found within, but I do have an issue with the idea that art must meet a set criteria of qualities to justify the label.

Call it shallow if you want, but don't say it isn't art.

 

[Caipirinha]

I think these are common issues in any fledgling art form, the issue is that it's been 30 years or so and gaming still feels basically fledgling..

Fledgling in the sense that the acting and writing has far far lagged behind in quality relative to the gameplay/level design, art design, programming etc. but most of all, the diversity.

To be a true art form it needs to have diversity. Right now there are limited ways in which 99% of games allow you to interact with elements within the game, and by far most of them involve killing that element.

On the flipside, there are movies throughout the year in which nobody or few people are harmed let alone killed. They appeal to every possible human emotion, they can be flippant, they can be comedic, they can be action packed and thrilling... Or they can make you sad, stoke feelings of romance, they can teach you (documentaries) etc.

Gaming is still incredibly myopic in that sense imo. I think that the breakthrough will require diversity in the audience:

Apparently gaming is the biggest media business in the world, so why am I the only hardcore gamer that I know? Why can't I ask my workmates "anyone play any good games this weekend?" but for 50+ years you've been able to ask what movies people have seen? Why does my girlfriend play only around 3 games a year and that makes her the biggest gamer of any of her female friends?

Not enough different kinds of people game. I think that based on the current audience, gaming has matured and developed about as much diversity in themes as you'd expect from that audience, but that's not enough for it to compete with any other major art form or become relevant to global culture in the way that film/music/TV is.

Ultimately I think that the way to do that is not, as Nintendo and many on GAF seem to think, through "fun", but through telling different kinds of stories. Stories are basically what underpins all narrative art forms, every human being enjoys a good story and stories can appeal to anyone because they can be about anything - so make them about things that non-gamers care about.

 

[Conkerkid11]

That's fine with me. I don't like most art anyways. I'm frequently in Portland, Oregon, and I've been to a couple art galleries. Overall, it just comes off as a medium almost solely focused on interpreting something that just isn't there. I like things that are what they are more on a literal level.

Take film though. Aren't movies rated based on how entertaining they are as well? I don't go see a movie just because the director aimed the camera at some pretty landscapes a few times without making the actual story intriguing enough to sit through for 2 hours.

At the same time, don't downplay games as something that are judged solely based on how fun they are. How fun a game is can be heavily influenced by its other various elements.

Then again, my post not even make sense, because I only briefly skimmed through your post, and didn't even look at the thread this is largely a response to.

I dunno.

Edit: I just woke up. I read some other posts. Maybe ignore me. I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Stallion Dan]

Because if they were art they'd be super low quality, and art doesn't try and nickel and dime you.

Despite the 'Everything is art' nonsense statement, most games are not created as art, you think the next CoD is made primarily as an art piece or as a product to make money?

 

[Caipirinha]

Take film though. Aren't movies rated based on how entertaining they are as well? I don't go see a movie just because the director aimed the camera at some pretty landscapes a few times without making the actual story intriguing enough to sit through for 2 hours.

Yeah but it doesn't matter who you are, there are multiple films out every year that will appeal to every one of your interests.

Games don't even appeal to half of my interests, let alone half of society. They need to massively broaden their themes if they want to become as relevant to society as film is.

Right now people could be a playing a game in which they experience first hand the plight of refugees in a way that is so immersive that it could change their world view in a way film really can't. It's such a wasted opportunity.

 

[Nepenthe]

The issue with your statement is you are ascribing your perspective on the subtext or lack thereof in games in general as reason enough to suppose that in the larger scope games don't feel like art. However, art is perhaps most importantly about the meaning and the emotions it elicits from the person experiencing the art. That you don't find particularly complex themes in a game like Sonic Unleashed or an underlying societal criticism doesn't preclude the game from offering that to somebody else.

Furthermore, art isn't required to have a base level of sociopolitical critique or any other non-formal statement. Art can be shallow or intricately deep. It seems incongruent to label Eraserhead or 2001: A Space Odyssey art yet not also consider The Avengers or Transformers art because the latter has simpler themes and little to no commentary on society (seemingly). Even if one were to be pedantic and assign the label of art on a movie by movie basis, you still couldn't generalize the medium of film as not art.

So as such, I don't think it's fair to suggest the video games as a medium don't feel like art because your constraints are arbitrary and most importantly based on your critiques on games.

Quite frankly, I think over the course of hundreds of years people have deigned to attribute greater meanings to works of art than the artists likely intended. It creates a culture that, while fascinating and introspective, is kind of pretentious - especially when proponents of said art dismiss or dispute the artistic values of other mediums for being superficial or vapid. I don't take umbrage with the practice of trying to understand art and deeper meanings that can be found within, but I do have an issue with the idea that art must meet a set criteria of qualities to justify the label.

Call it shallow if you want, but don't say it isn't art.

You're mistaken. I could talk about the themes and commentary about Unleashed all day (I love the game to bits and might make a topic about why it's the best modern Sonic game if I survive this thread =P)! I've done so before in more Sonic-centric circles. My issue is that this kind of discussion would be seen as weird or perhaps "thinking too hard" about the game in question- inserting commentary that doesn't exist or even "belong" in something meant strictly for enjoyment- when I could level the same kind of discussion on a random Disney film, a work of similar artistic and thematic magnitude as Sonic Unleashed, and it would be less socially taboo for me to do so. My question is "why?"

Also, I don't think art is necessarily required to deliberately have any deep sociopolitical qualities, because I feel like that would inherently limit the scope of what art can be. Art can be cheap shit like Transformers or it can be amazing shit like 2001. But even cheap shit like Transformers says something, even if that something is simple as "The American military is a force of good." I don't think the quality of any work matters to whether or not it's classified as art, and subsequently quality doesn't matter to the point I intend to make, said point being that I can delve into the meaning of the military in Transformers and what that means about Michael Bay as a film maker and person (I can hazard an educated guess he likes America and our military, can I not?), but if I were to do the same to Call of Duty which is a similar-ish magnitude of stupid blockbuster entertainment, there's a greater chance people would decry me for "inserting politics into games and thus ruining them!" even though Call of Duty is undeniably more based in real world military and political conflict than the Transformers films are.

Just as well, I don't think games aren't art. I was very clear in saying games don't "feel" like art, even though I agree with you they are regardless. I don't feel as if people who like discussing the sociopolitical stuff and artistic/thematic meanings in games have as open a platform to do so as they do with other mediums, and that this is a recognizable difference between gaming culture and the culture of other mediums with the possible exception of American superhero comic books. I feel like if the gaming community ever comes to a consensus that games should be legally and culturally recognized as art (culture of course being subjective and all), then it needs to accept all of the understood responsibilities that come with the territory, including the ability to allow unfettered criticism into the games' art and narrative from all sorts of different viewpoints without risk of harassment, no matter how pretentious one thinks any given person's thoughts are.

Because if they were art they'd be super low quality, and art doesn't try and nickel and dime you.

Low quality art is still art!

Just as well, we've all been had by a misleading movie trailer or book insert, have we not? I certainly feel like I deserve my money back on Max Steel... and that shit was free.

 

[WarRock]

However, I think part of where people like Ebert were basing those counterarguments from is in the fact that games are still "different." It's not because of the interactive element; we've had interactive art installations since before games were a thing, and you can make the argument as Folding Ideas does that all art is interactive because the act of mentally engaging with a film or physically turning the pages of a book can fall under the definition too. It's not the rampant corporatism and nickle-and-diming either; after all, look at the clusterfuck that is Hollywood.

Games are a whole new language that Ebert never learned to "speak" or "read". Not only him, but most of the population. So, yeah, it's hard to understand it as art.

A toy's purpose- let's say a Hot Wheels car- is to preoccupy a child in play, the same way a game does. They come to exist as a result a multiple artistic disciplines, but for the most part their purpose leans towards the utilitarian purpose of play versus engagement in the car on the merits of its physical qualities and what those qualities mean from a thematic or a sociopolitical perspective. The car isn't painted red because it intends to visually convey "passion" or "rage." It's painted red because red is a simultaneously eye-catching and popular color. And you'd all look at me like a fool or call me some hipster art student if I tried to wrangle any meaning I felt from the color of some generic Hot Wheels car. A toy is more in line with a footstool than a work of art.

You can't affirm that that is true for every and any Hot Wheels car. Personally, I would bet that tons of Hot Wheels cars are painted red to convey ideas of fire, fury, shininess, etc, but in the end it's a pointless discussion.

Also, yourself said about games:

First, it's important that I make a distinction between "being" and "feeling," because I've believed wholeheartedly since I've had a concept of what "art" was that games fell into the category along with everything else like books and movies and comics and stuff. They employ multiple artistic disciplines and primarily exist to invite audiences to have an emotional experience. They're also experimenting with more complex narratives similar to films. So of course they're art.

The joy a children (or a not children) gets from seeing, playing, collecting in a shelf, etc the cars are emotional experiences too. The fact that there are so many cars, and some provoke certain tastes and interests and others do not in someone looking at them is a whole experience in itself.

Your discussion about the footstool is an interesting one (hi, Duchamp), but is also a whole another can of worms in trying to understand and define what is art and kinda derails the intent of the thread though.

And the day I can say something as simple and perhaps observant as Sonic Unleashed's eating mechanic thematically ties into its themes of positive cultural representation and camaraderie, or something more pressing and socially challenging such as Resident Evil 5's use of generic African settings uncomfortably recalls highly negative stereotypes of Africans and black people as disposable savages, without the risk of dismissal or outright hostility, is the day games will finally start feeling like art.

I wholeheartedly agree with this. But then I ask, why can't you say that today? You just did.

At the end, if people never start doing that, games aren't going to be saw as art. But, if they never stop, eventually it'll happen.

Games are products that contain art. If art is something driven by pure self expression, then games are not art. Games have mechanics meant to be fun, meant to pander, meant to sell, with ties to major corporations. They do contain graphic design which you may call art.

One may create games that are meant to be expressive artistically, though, of course. And one may create a video game and put it in an art museum. And games like Journey are sure meant to only incite emotion, rather than for you to get good.

In the end, it's semantics, but I'd stand by games being products that contain art. Much like buildings and phones.

What you are saying is: "This is not art."

You need some art history lessons =P

Art is a bullet.

The artist is the gun.

Some people would rather get shot at with nerf darts rather than hollow points.

That's a damn good metaphor.

 

[Mman235]

I admit I was expecting something dumb, but you're pretty much right overall. The biggest obstacle to games being art is the medium's own audience (not that I think that that stops them, but it does result in barriers other mediums don't have or got past long ago).

 

[John Kowalski]

Because if they were art they'd be super low quality, and art doesn't try and nickel and dime you.

It totally does though, artists need to make money and most of their enterprise is finding how to support themselves. Games with high production values are super expensive too, so they need benefactors which exist in the shape of publishers and stockholders, e.g., which for example is something moviegoers are very used to.

Self-expression that spontaneously pours out of you. Everything beyond that is design.

Art is designed, the only real way to do good art without dedicating time to design is to become such a highly skilled craftsman of your art that you can intuit on a moment's notice good practices that don't need extensive planning and resist scrutiny, which is for example how street photographers work.

 

[Riposte]

Uhm... i think art is about self expression first, and having a clear message second.
I think a big problem with games being art is just how controlled and manufactured the chain of production is, for certain big games, but that's also true of many big movies, and not as true for smaller games.
To me the idea of art is more about getting into someone else's head, and through the abstraction of their art, glimpse at something they couldn't express in a more straightforward manner.
If art was all about "Fascism is bad!" it'd be a pretty fucking pathetic medium of expression.

If you want to get inside someone's head, I would recommend becoming a therapist.

Failing that, a biography might be the next best thing.

If we can't even get that, then reading their honest words are still best for grasping their intentions and how they came about them. Language exists entirely for the purpose of "self-expression" - it is self-expression at its most streamlined, sans the distraction of aesthetics (unless we want to get into poetry). Fumbling around like blind men, which is what trying to understand someone through art is (especially audiovisual art, and a hundredfold more with interactivity), may be fun, but its completely at odds with the idea that the purpose is to have an idea expressed to you. Basically, it's admitting the process of trying to understand someone is more important than actually understanding someone. And to that I say, why stop there? Why not simply focus on the experience altogether, how a piece of art immerses and injects emotions into you, rather than a self-defeating goal of communication?

Here we see yet another case of a phrase, this time it's "expression", being warped into something mystical, when it's really the most universal, mundane thing you can imagine. An expression is hardly any different from any sort of action a human or a collection of humans may take. You do something (anything, or even nothing), it's observed and interpreted, and thus you have conveyed a message to another human being - you have expressed something. Even the dumbest animals express things constantly; they may even do it with nothing more than the colors on their fur or scales! We humans have developed language to make the expression process very streamlined and thanks to that we've managed to build societies as advanced as our civilizations, a feat I don't think we could have managed with cave drawings alone. And if the mere saying of words account for expression, what is creating sprawling pieces of art that take hours, if not days, to fully consume, if not an even greater expression?

And to the audience, all expression follows the same process. The idea that human expression is at ends with, let's say, the "triple A" model is based on the flimsy idea that multiple expressions (or input) cancels out the fact that something is being expressed (experienced). The reason for the confusion is clear: I'm focusing on the art, while the whole "self-expression" gang is focusing on the things that exist outside the art - the circumstances of its creation. There's no fundamental difference between a hundred people collaborating and one person doing it, much like it doesn't truly matter if the author is alive or if the author is dead (or, indeed, if the artist existed at all and we haven't confused a "naturally" occurring phenomenon for something man or God made); at the end of the day, they are "expressed" (read: observed and interpreted) the same way and the difference exists "outside" of the art / the experience. Of course, you can decide to care how the game you are playing is made, you can decide the history you've been told on how the piece of art was crafted is more important than the experience itself; people clearly do this, after all, the indie marketing brand exists. "Our game is art because it was forged in a *special* way. We didn't do it for money (just prestige and fame). Let me tell you all about it." Maybe I'm suppose to care less about good graphics then. Seems like another scam to me!

This is putting aside that every input put into a (big) game's creation is still a human one (a "creative" choice, like any other), whether it comes from developers or publishers, whether an environment artist's vision is filtered through a director's (or vice versa).

 

[Eylos]

many videogames are interactive movies, there's plays that the audience participate and can change the outcome, plays based on improvisation

of course games that are only for fun, is the same as playing cards or billiard so its not art

IMO: if the game has story = art
if the game only have gameplay= like any other offline game, the difference is that the videogame have the art of music included with it