Indeed. Any competent piece of entertainment requires good design. But if I try to decipher what separates the terms "art" and "design", spontaneity and self-expression are key. Emphasis on "self" over "expression" which Ripostes nice post illustrated above. For me, art is something I have to do for myself. The piece doesn't care if it's seen by others, whether it works or is readable at all. So it pretty much defies all good practices of design.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Why Games Don't Feel Like Art
- Thread starter Nepenthe
- Start date
Indeed. Any competent piece of entertainment requires good design. But if I try to decipher what separates the terms "art" and "design", spontaneity and self-expression are key. Emphasis on "self" over "expression" which Ripostes nice post illustrated above. For me, art is something I have to do for myself. The piece doesn't care if it's seen by others, whether it works or is readable at all. So it pretty much defies all good practices of design.
Human Trashcan
Banned
Came in expecting one thing, OP gave me something else (better). Good shout. I will say I think this problem of audience pushback against political ideas is not just in gaming, it's just loudest in gaming, because gaming is young and it audience skews young, too. But you'll see a lot of this in film/TV criticism as well among fans who, for example, don't like when you say The Walking Dead is a show with strong fascist undertones (which it is).
But yeah the "culture wars" coming to a head, culminating with Gamergate, should give anyone serious pause about games and the community around it, and it is our job as members of that community to make it a better place for everyone, so that benign statements like "game X has some sexist elements" aren't met with fucking death threats. And part of doing that is saying "hey, everything is political, and you can like a thing that has some problematic elements, it's fine, you're okay".
But yeah the "culture wars" coming to a head, culminating with Gamergate, should give anyone serious pause about games and the community around it, and it is our job as members of that community to make it a better place for everyone, so that benign statements like "game X has some sexist elements" aren't met with fucking death threats. And part of doing that is saying "hey, everything is political, and you can like a thing that has some problematic elements, it's fine, you're okay".
There is a lot of context in Malevich's studies :V
I hate this vision and how prominent it is in design circles. It also defines a lot of classical statues and painting as not art as I see it.
That happens if you give "art" some kind of higher value than "design" in this context.
kqedequalsvolvo
Member
I think this is a very good point (as is the wider discussion initiated in the OP - gave me a lot to think about). This a very generalised point but it feels to me that there's a weird hypocrisy in how there's a correlation/crossover between many of the voices who push "keep politics out of games/it's not real/it's just fun" arguments and those who are particularly angry about the medium not being taken seriously in terms of media coverage and/or their peers as a 'serious' hobby in the same bracket as other artistic mediums (or say, sports). It's a strange irony to me that so many people have spent so long striving, arguing, shouting, debating with people who degrade the experience of playing video games about their artistic value - in some cases for decades...and yet many of those exact same voices argue vociferously against the very aspects that set other artistic mediums apart from gaming (i.e. meaningful discussion based on an acknowledgement that socio-political issues of race, gender and sexuality cannot exist in isolation from games as the result of a creative process initiated by other humans). It feels like there are people who want things both ways - parity with other artistic mediums (respect) without wanting to commit to the same level of scrutiny and discussion.
There's no way of knowing for sure and it's a really multi-faceted, complex array of things, but I had some thoughts on why that might be. I think there's two core reasons.
Firstly how, despite loads of exceptional work to move on from this, games are rooted in functional fun and escapism. For all of the opportunities for challenging norms you get in virtual spaces (and there's loads of fantastic examples of this), there's also plenty of opportunity to 'escape' from those social norms and the pressures of day to day life by treating games and consoles as objects to be interacted with but not 'deeply' engaged with in the manner you would a TV show or film. That's not absent from other mediums, but I think gaming's roots and relative infancy compared to other mediums means it's a lot harder to move away from. It's like you say in the last paragraph (quoted) regarding "meaningfully" discussing games as art - if games are pigeon-holed as primarily functional by a large chunk of those who interact with them (like a drinking straw or ticket stub), then those discussions can't take place.
I agree with the OP that this is not totally an issue of interactivity as installations and so on have done that decades prior to video games. However, I'd say that interactivity being at the very core of the medium - it's (not completely) Unique Selling Point compared to other artistic mediums - does play a significant role here. For many (and indeed, it's inherent in a lot of older game marketing), the act of physically playing a game separates it from the level of engagement expected from TV/Films - it's rooted in reactive thinking, problem solving and immediate thrills, not reflection and feelings beyond excitement. Again, this has massively changed, but it's still in the DNA of many who grew up with gaming. (Edit: For the record, I'm not saying 'functional' gaming experiences don't have artistic merit, I just mean that it's a factor that contributes to games not feeling like art in the same way as other mediums do).
Secondly, I think a fair amount of the reason for some wanting to push games away from engagement with socio-political issues (or rather, as the OP sets out, this is more often refusing to acknowledge that games are already absolutely intertwined with those issues in the first place but don't want to acknowledge it) is a kind of trauma response. Partly because it challenges a lot of gamers' interaction/engagement with games (functional escape vs artistic medium) and partly because of the very real trauma that has occurred when socio-political issues have been discussed in the gaming space in the recent past.
Linking to the first point, game players have ended up more closed-off as a 'community' than other mediums in terms of negative assumptions about people who love video games and the medium itself (particularly from critics and/or those who look down on it compared to other mediums). Overtly discussing socio-political stuff within games is, to some, I feel an intrusion on what they see as the very functional character of the medium they enjoy - it's injecting a significant dose of reality into their core means of, as they see it, escaping reality. That's traumatising and forces a level of engagement (and often self-reflection) that many people don't wish to engage with as it contradicts why they want to play games in the first place. Many play games for the exact opposite reason and they relish that engagement (particularly many on here, me too) - but nonetheless that feels like a shift (a necessary one) and people react differently. To me, those socio-political dimensions have always been present in video games, it's just more overt now as the medium is transitioning, slowly, to try and nurture discussion on these themes in the way you would do about TV shows, films etc. and that process takes a toll on some. It's challenging an engrained norm and that always means a level of resistance and emotional fallout.
In terms of the recent past, I don't need to go on about the very well-documented, passionate arguments - both the hateful and loving responses to Anita Sarkeesian's critiques is already a very good example. But I think an often missed part of the puzzle are the people who do not (explicitly) have any strong views on socio-political issues but are often the most vocal in terms of their unwillingness to meaningfully engage with those themes and issues because of the passion and anger it causes within the gaming community they inhabit. This is gonna sound unintentionally patronising, I just mean this as an analogy, but I think of it a bit like traumatised children during a parental argument. Gamers who only explicitly engaged in debate around mechanics, graphics, opinions on developers etc. were suddenly thrust into a very different level of passionate debate, particularly on forums and social media. In the wake of 'Gamergate', what I found really striking was the relatively large amount of people simply wanting it all to "go away" - speaking in terms of the community uniting, but crucially not uniting under any banner other than "please stop arguing about these things that we didn't argue about before". I'm not trying to paint people like this as neutral - personally, I think those kinda discussions are absolutely crucial and citing 'can't we all just get along as gamers' in the face of open, hateful, violent misogyny, racism, homophobia etc. is really sad and essentially alienating. But yeah, it feels to me like there's a lot of gamers out there who do not want to engage as the level of passion is entirely new in their cosy gaming space - it forces self-reflection, to think of things in a way they may well have turned to games to escape from in the first place and that's traumatic. I think that's partly a gaming demographic issue - engagement with socio-political reality in the gaming space necessarily tends to challenge and/or encourage discussion on behaviour that wouldn't be tolerated in other 'scenes' - it challenges power and comfort. Or rather, many don't care who's 'right', they just want their parents to stop shouting and threatening eachother - which in turn feeds into why games do not *feel* like art in the way other mediums do. I don't agree, but I 'get it'.
I would say here that sometimes it's easy to be a bit harsh to people who love games compared to film/TV fans etc. - there's as much horrid, dumb shit in discussions on other mediums too as discrimination is structural and will therefore just come up. But the core difference is that there's far, far less willingness within gaming to even acknowledge those discussions of being worthy of taking place in the first place compared to other artistic mediums. Anyway, I am very caffeinated so sorry if this is rambling. Big thanks for Nepenthe for kicking this discussion off, it's really interesting.
Just letting people know I'm hitting the hay (It's 7:15 am, wtf?) so if I don't respond immediately, that's why. I'm happy this generated positive discussion and the unveiling of a few art nerds (I see you and your Duchamp shout out, WarRock). Thanks to everyone for the compliments as well!
ForsakenLotus
Member
I don't think many would disagree with your assessment of the discussion of games versus other mediums, however I guess where you and I differ is how important the discussion is among movie goers and gamers is to the legitimization of their respective mediums. For instance, reviews of mainstream films aren't exactly rife with artistic interpretations of intended or unintended commentary and how it jibes with the movie or possibly elevates it. In longform reviews or discussions those impressions will be given, but for your standard review it's not as prevalent. I would say game reviews are fairly similar, although to be fair there are fewer instances of deeper inferences of meaning in the narrative although I think part of the reason is because with games so much of what needs to be conveyed about the quality of the experience is tied to the mechanical interactions with the game.
I understand that your point is, for the most part, the discussion among a medium's audience and that within the gaming community the discussion isn't as welcomed as other mediums. I can't refute that. But to me, every artistic medium has its own level of discourse and I don't personally hold it against the art if its difficult to find nuanced discussions. And, for what it's worth, you can absolutely find and participate in intelligent and interesting discourse about games. Just tune out the idiots
Airola
Member
I personally think "pure art" doesn't really exist anymore. Instead everything is art.
Art is entertainment and entertainment is art.
Sometimes art is also politics and politics is art.
People strongly feel that if something made by human hands is pleasing to the eye or conveys emotions then it is art. Or if something made by human hands gives a political message, then it is art. But often the same people might think that this art is supposed to convey only certain emotions or is supposed to give only certain political messages.
For example, when a person feels strong sadness then the product feels like art, but a movie that just plays for "cheap laughs" or is made to sexually titillate the viewer doesn't feel like art. And if the political message is about world peace and getting rid of tyranny, then it feels like art, but if the political message is pro-oppression and pro-apartheid etc, then it doesn't feel like art but it's seen as just a piece of propaganda.
I feel that in increasingly secularising world the definition of art has completely changed. I think art in it's "purest" form is a religious thing. It is a puzzle at its core which the viewer needs to solve. When the "experiencer" can feel and understand the message but not quite tell it in words, then that creation has struck in somewhere deep inside of us which is not based on intellect or our sense of aesthetics.
I think art appears when a person doesn't quite have the words to tell you the thing the person would want to tell you, but the person is able to tell it by using sounds or images, or even other words (sometimes you can explain the unexplainable by using allegories).
Things like that still exists but not nearly as much as it used to. Instead we have made things to be art based on the existence of the visual image and not what the images mean.
So, basically in a post-modern world absolutely everything is art. There is no distinction between art and entertainment. There are still things that seek to go for something beyond that but it is all lumped with all the rest because that's how decade after decade after decade after decade after decade we have collectively slowly but surely changed the definition of art.
Art is entertainment and entertainment is art.
Sometimes art is also politics and politics is art.
People strongly feel that if something made by human hands is pleasing to the eye or conveys emotions then it is art. Or if something made by human hands gives a political message, then it is art. But often the same people might think that this art is supposed to convey only certain emotions or is supposed to give only certain political messages.
For example, when a person feels strong sadness then the product feels like art, but a movie that just plays for "cheap laughs" or is made to sexually titillate the viewer doesn't feel like art. And if the political message is about world peace and getting rid of tyranny, then it feels like art, but if the political message is pro-oppression and pro-apartheid etc, then it doesn't feel like art but it's seen as just a piece of propaganda.
I feel that in increasingly secularising world the definition of art has completely changed. I think art in it's "purest" form is a religious thing. It is a puzzle at its core which the viewer needs to solve. When the "experiencer" can feel and understand the message but not quite tell it in words, then that creation has struck in somewhere deep inside of us which is not based on intellect or our sense of aesthetics.
I think art appears when a person doesn't quite have the words to tell you the thing the person would want to tell you, but the person is able to tell it by using sounds or images, or even other words (sometimes you can explain the unexplainable by using allegories).
Things like that still exists but not nearly as much as it used to. Instead we have made things to be art based on the existence of the visual image and not what the images mean.
So, basically in a post-modern world absolutely everything is art. There is no distinction between art and entertainment. There are still things that seek to go for something beyond that but it is all lumped with all the rest because that's how decade after decade after decade after decade after decade we have collectively slowly but surely changed the definition of art.
Those are absolutely not even close to the same thing.
I mentioned abstraction for a reason.
Me saying "imagine some dark ambient music", and me playing Lustmord, are not going to elicit the same response, even if the information gathered may be similar on a superficial level.
I also never claimed, nor do i think, that there's anything mystical about expression (nor art), but i do think that we engage with things on more layers than just the immediately logical one, so reading a biography doesn't really qualify in the same way as watching Mulholland Dr., as far as exploring parts of David Lynch's "mind".
Excellent Post OP you have really summed up a lot of aggravation I have as a game developer I want games to grow up that means analysing the politics of even seemingly mundane games.
I completely disagree. Gameplay first games can be art, art through their systems and the feelings they make Thumper is a prime example of this. It's all gameplay and design but the emotion it makes the player feel, (while not being social commentary or anything deep) the game is art just due to the intense feelings it gives the player.
I completely disagree. Gameplay first games can be art, art through their systems and the feelings they make Thumper is a prime example of this. It's all gameplay and design but the emotion it makes the player feel, (while not being social commentary or anything deep) the game is art just due to the intense feelings it gives the player.
Could you elaborate? By the that definition, something like this is supposed to be design and not art, isn't it?
It's a great discussion =)
I think it's both, but more design than art if I have to be specific. During those times the definition of art was strict so it's a bit funny when people take the works made back then to illustrate points about modern art discussion.
You may want to read some John Dewey =)
Fair enough, I also see it as being both.
kqedequalsvolvo
Member
For sure. So much of that stuff is experienced subjectively too - the mechanics of one game may be a pleasant distraction to one person, but really evocative to someone else. Thumper is a great example in terms of how I've got some friends who like it almost in the way they like Brain Training - engaging on a pretty base level, distracting, satisfying repetitive mechanic - and another who gets very emotional about it in terms of memories of his experience with music and the friends he made via it etc.
The Horror the horror
Banned
Those who say that tend to be the ones satisfied with the status quo.
boiled goose
good with gravy
Paintings dont have stories. Why do games need one to be art?
What I think games might need is some "narrative" or. intent other than entertain. It can be much more minimalist than a story.
I know some games are unequivocally art.
Majoras mask, shadow of the Colossus are clear art works. They evoke emotional respondes, have narratives that are up for some interpretation, and powerfully convey these things through gameplay mechanics and design, not just cutscenes
kqedequalsvolvo
Member
To build on that though, even stuff with a really bare bones story or none at all can elicit a very emotional response from people, which is often seen as a hallmark of something being artistic. Like, hearing the start music from the Donkey Kong arcade game stirs butterflies in the stomach of many older gamers, but that's very rarely going to be linked to connecting to the backstory of DK kidnapping Mario's girlfriend.
Airola
Member
Sorry to jump in the middle of the discussion of others, but:
That could be seen as a designed building that contains pieces of art. A certain style of the architecture doesn't make the architecture be art. A vast amount of paintings doesn't make the visual sight be art. But I do think these church paintings most probably are art. So then it's art inside a building quite like the other poster said games might not be art but games might have art.
I'm not saying architecture can't be art, or that this certain building can't be art. Just jumping in to play the devil's advocate.
I think that is what it is said to be. It is a portrait. It is a painting.
You can use those same techniques to either paint art or paint something else. Painting being a painting doesn't necessarily make the painting be art. It's an amazing example of highly skilled painting work, but it doesn't necessarily make it art.
That could be seen as a designed building that contains pieces of art. A certain style of the architecture doesn't make the architecture be art. A vast amount of paintings doesn't make the visual sight be art. But I do think these church paintings most probably are art. So then it's art inside a building quite like the other poster said games might not be art but games might have art.
I'm not saying architecture can't be art, or that this certain building can't be art. Just jumping in to play the devil's advocate.
I think that is what it is said to be. It is a portrait. It is a painting.
You can use those same techniques to either paint art or paint something else. Painting being a painting doesn't necessarily make the painting be art. It's an amazing example of highly skilled painting work, but it doesn't necessarily make it art.
I think the problem was both the genesis of the industry and the continuing vast variety of experiences that we insist on labelling 'video games' as if they were the same thing.
Video games started off as nothing more than toys. You'd have to go on a seriously pretentious tangent to find meaning in Pong, Space Invaders or Mario Bros. They were fun diversions - that's all they were meant to be. Everyone understood this, and it established what a video game 'is' in the public consciousness and it has been very difficult to break out of that mode of thinking - that games are meaningless diversions - toys - and what's more, to some gamers it established that that's all they should be. Gameplay uber alles - gameplay is all that matters. The rest is fluff. This is a video game.
As the medium progressed we developed tools to make narrative games that are clearly art in every sense of the word, but still function as fun interactive diversions at the same time. That interactive element allows people to still consider said piece of art under the umbrella of all the other interactive content they consider devoid of meaningful cultural content.
And even further, many games these days still are fun diversions with little context or meaning. Your sports games, your racing games, your Resoguns etc, and a huge amount mobile titles (match 4 games etc). These kinds of games still dominate what the broader swathe of society thinks of as video games.
I've always thought that a narrative game and a non-narrative game are different enough to warrant entirely different descriptors, personally. And I think if we did that it might be easier for people to get used to taking socio-cultural criticism of narrative games seriously.
Video games started off as nothing more than toys. You'd have to go on a seriously pretentious tangent to find meaning in Pong, Space Invaders or Mario Bros. They were fun diversions - that's all they were meant to be. Everyone understood this, and it established what a video game 'is' in the public consciousness and it has been very difficult to break out of that mode of thinking - that games are meaningless diversions - toys - and what's more, to some gamers it established that that's all they should be. Gameplay uber alles - gameplay is all that matters. The rest is fluff. This is a video game.
As the medium progressed we developed tools to make narrative games that are clearly art in every sense of the word, but still function as fun interactive diversions at the same time. That interactive element allows people to still consider said piece of art under the umbrella of all the other interactive content they consider devoid of meaningful cultural content.
And even further, many games these days still are fun diversions with little context or meaning. Your sports games, your racing games, your Resoguns etc, and a huge amount mobile titles (match 4 games etc). These kinds of games still dominate what the broader swathe of society thinks of as video games.
I've always thought that a narrative game and a non-narrative game are different enough to warrant entirely different descriptors, personally. And I think if we did that it might be easier for people to get used to taking socio-cultural criticism of narrative games seriously.
Airola
Member
boiled goose
good with gravy
To build on THAT. I do think intent is needed for art right? A beautiful tree is not art till someone takes a picture or alters the tree somehow.
In your example the emotional reaction seems peripheral to the intent of the game.
Can have. Dont see how this alters my point. Is this the only painting that is considered art?
Also I would call that narrative, not a clear story. Games have narrative too, even without story. Narrative is important to games as art.
Art is context.
Drift wood is not art. Drift wood hung on the wall is.
Games are art, they don't feel like art because they haven't quite gotten over the same hurdles faced by photography and movies and comic books. It's young, but it's getting closer.
I know when I finished INSIDE I defintely felt like I had experienced a powerful piece of art.
I do think most games amount to a hotwheels toy. But many other games have surpassed that in their intent and have succeded, IMO.
Weltall Zero
Member
Amazing OP; bravo. I wonder how many will reply without bothering to read it.
But indeed, insisting that games not be political is the same as advocating their castration and lobotomy, and turning them into fast food; it means you might like playing games but you have little love for games, as a medium.
But indeed, insisting that games not be political is the same as advocating their castration and lobotomy, and turning them into fast food; it means you might like playing games but you have little love for games, as a medium.
boiled goose
good with gravy
To me it's some games that feel like art while others less so.
As I said, sotc and mm to me are clearly art.
Something like splatoon, despite having beautiful style, music, even some story and plenty of narrative feels less like art and more like awesome entertainment.
Are all movies art? I dont consider all movies "films". Some are just entertainment.
Weltall Zero
Member
This is a wonderful metaphor, too.
I'm referring to Michelangelo's painting in the Chapel, and not its architecture. It has a pretty interesting history.
Unaha-Closp
Member
It could stem from how video games were first marketed towards children. It's a hard shackle to get rid of I imagine. All other art that gets talked about in those terms is all aimed at adults right? If I walk into a Museum I expect to see grown ass people standing around contemplating the art, if I attend a poetry night again I'm assuming it adults going to it. Go to a video game store and children, young adults and parents of said children abound. There is I think an inbuilt notion of fun attached to video games that stems from its earliest marketability that gives this pushback you feel. No no no politics I'm jumping from this ledge to get that shiny star. I'm having fun. There is no consideration as to what the ledge might mean or what the star represents. I feel you OP. Nice post.
Always-honest
Banned
Always that obsession with art... It's a nonsense word but we all use it for things we see as exceptional. People should not feel so offended when their profession isn't considered "art". Just do your best and try to be great at it. You decide for yourself what is art. You don't need anyone's opinion for that.
In my definition of this nonsense word, art is made by an artists for the artist.
He or she doesn't care who else loves or likes it. It's highly authentic and is different from what other people make. It's not made from a commercial point of view.
But i sincerely hate the word. It says nothing and it's way way waaay too subjective.
In my definition of this nonsense word, art is made by an artists for the artist.
He or she doesn't care who else loves or likes it. It's highly authentic and is different from what other people make. It's not made from a commercial point of view.
But i sincerely hate the word. It says nothing and it's way way waaay too subjective.
It's difficult to say when video games are art, simply because it's so difficult to define what art actually is. However, being something intimately tied to human experience, we tend to know when something is art, but not how - so we can hypothesise as to why we may consider something to not truly be art, by likening it to what we consider as art, while acknowledging that it could be art and not satisfy any previously defined criteria.
While not all art may be a social commentary, the diminishment of political and societal commentaries in games by their audience does definitely diminish video games' standing as art. I think what people often fail to grasp, is that art is never right. A video game showing the negatives of say, racism, in a neutral tone by creating fictional racism between fictional species - or even using fictional forms of discrimination as an allegory, such as against those with magical powers, or are different in some other way - does not necessarily say that racism is wrong, definitively. (I've purposely chosen a crazy form of this to outline that my point doesn't limit itself at the limits of our morality. A game promoting genocide doesn't necessarily say that genocide is right.) The characters may say it, actions and effects throughout the world may hint at it, and the game may hit you on the head with a hammer about it, but all it's doing is providing a form of experience that calls it out, subtly or overtly.
The idea seems absurd when considering racism, which is very much wrong, but can be more easily considered by looking at the Shin Megami Tensei series. Usually there's a split between a chaotic route, a lawful route and a neutral route. The game often hints that the neutral route is the most correct, but fleshes out each route in terms of ideologies and aims, and realistically you can go for the route which most aligns with what you perceive to be "right". In this way, you see that you can disagree with the game on what right is. You could consider law and order above all, something which provides equality and fairness, while stifling freedom and expression; you could consider chaos - freedom and anarchy - above all; or perhaps go for the neutral route, most likely the status quo, or admitting that one person cannot speak for the entirety of humanity. Thus you don't have to be outraged when you disagree with the perceived message of a game, just like how you don't have to agree with the message of a particular book. Many fantasy novels feature the divine right of kings, and an idea of destined rule, which while romantic, is generally rejected by most of society, for example. It does make one think that perhaps the outrage is that they in fact agree with the message, but want to disagree.
At the other end of the spectrum, it's interesting to consider - is Pong art? We can first consider why pong may not be art - it's utilitarian approach to enjoyment, for example. There's no depth in its attempt to produce enjoyment, it's essentially a two dimensional computerised version of ping pong. It lacks emotional and narrative depth.
On the other hand, you can liken its utilitarian approach to that of commissioned music and art of old. They were designed, to specifications, essentially to sell and for the nobility to enjoy them. It has the cold hand of capitalism that people often point to diminishing the value of games as art, but if we look at art produced for the exact same reason from centuries ago we'd consider them to be just that - art. Likewise, these pieces often lack emotional depth, the appreciation gained from them may be for their formal qualities, such as mathematical and conceptual symmetry and balance. Consider Pong in a video game museum a hundred years from now. Is it a historical artifact of enjoyment, or is it a historical artwork?
While not all art may be a social commentary, the diminishment of political and societal commentaries in games by their audience does definitely diminish video games' standing as art. I think what people often fail to grasp, is that art is never right. A video game showing the negatives of say, racism, in a neutral tone by creating fictional racism between fictional species - or even using fictional forms of discrimination as an allegory, such as against those with magical powers, or are different in some other way - does not necessarily say that racism is wrong, definitively. (I've purposely chosen a crazy form of this to outline that my point doesn't limit itself at the limits of our morality. A game promoting genocide doesn't necessarily say that genocide is right.) The characters may say it, actions and effects throughout the world may hint at it, and the game may hit you on the head with a hammer about it, but all it's doing is providing a form of experience that calls it out, subtly or overtly.
The idea seems absurd when considering racism, which is very much wrong, but can be more easily considered by looking at the Shin Megami Tensei series. Usually there's a split between a chaotic route, a lawful route and a neutral route. The game often hints that the neutral route is the most correct, but fleshes out each route in terms of ideologies and aims, and realistically you can go for the route which most aligns with what you perceive to be "right". In this way, you see that you can disagree with the game on what right is. You could consider law and order above all, something which provides equality and fairness, while stifling freedom and expression; you could consider chaos - freedom and anarchy - above all; or perhaps go for the neutral route, most likely the status quo, or admitting that one person cannot speak for the entirety of humanity. Thus you don't have to be outraged when you disagree with the perceived message of a game, just like how you don't have to agree with the message of a particular book. Many fantasy novels feature the divine right of kings, and an idea of destined rule, which while romantic, is generally rejected by most of society, for example. It does make one think that perhaps the outrage is that they in fact agree with the message, but want to disagree.
At the other end of the spectrum, it's interesting to consider - is Pong art? We can first consider why pong may not be art - it's utilitarian approach to enjoyment, for example. There's no depth in its attempt to produce enjoyment, it's essentially a two dimensional computerised version of ping pong. It lacks emotional and narrative depth.
On the other hand, you can liken its utilitarian approach to that of commissioned music and art of old. They were designed, to specifications, essentially to sell and for the nobility to enjoy them. It has the cold hand of capitalism that people often point to diminishing the value of games as art, but if we look at art produced for the exact same reason from centuries ago we'd consider them to be just that - art. Likewise, these pieces often lack emotional depth, the appreciation gained from them may be for their formal qualities, such as mathematical and conceptual symmetry and balance. Consider Pong in a video game museum a hundred years from now. Is it a historical artifact of enjoyment, or is it a historical artwork?
GoldenCrow
Member
I agree with OP. Some games have more obvious artistic merit of course, and most contain some regardless of how little but the industry as a whole misses the critique element that you find from other mediums, the closest I can think of is Kill Screen which I enjoy but most is the equivalent of The Daily Mail or Heat Magazine, all about the clicks with very little intellectual discussion preferring to spend time focusing on whatever bullshit drama is trending on twitter or even worse this forum.
The technical element also gets in the way a lot, be it the discussion on how the game runs (I personally like this but why it is covered in the way it is I quite frankly find bizarre) or advertising that treats the product as if it was a household appliance. This hasn't always been the case though the British adverts for Playstation and Xbox in the late 90's / early 00's were very much treating the product as an artistic medium and made massive steps in moving the image away from toys that Nintendo and Sega cultivated, now they are the same as car advertisements the only difference being that they don't show the product in every shot. And it isn't just the fault of the platform holders the publishers are just as problematic either going for the blockbuster method or the tech reel method, often both but lack any advertising highlighting the artistic merits of their product.
The technical element also gets in the way a lot, be it the discussion on how the game runs (I personally like this but why it is covered in the way it is I quite frankly find bizarre) or advertising that treats the product as if it was a household appliance. This hasn't always been the case though the British adverts for Playstation and Xbox in the late 90's / early 00's were very much treating the product as an artistic medium and made massive steps in moving the image away from toys that Nintendo and Sega cultivated, now they are the same as car advertisements the only difference being that they don't show the product in every shot. And it isn't just the fault of the platform holders the publishers are just as problematic either going for the blockbuster method or the tech reel method, often both but lack any advertising highlighting the artistic merits of their product.
So to summarize... Games don't feel like art because lots of folks don't talk about them like art (because they don't feel like art). Am I reading you right? I'm not sure which is the chicken and which the egg here.
For my part, I can't say I agree with the premise; games do feel like and are treated like art. For the vast majority of folks, that means they feel like and are treated as aesthetic pleasures which one may or may not be interested in. For a few folks, that means they feel like and are treated as artifacts to be analyzed.
This is also true for films, books, paintings, and so on. If you think most folks look at a painting and think anything other than "would this match the couch in my living room?", I believe you are mistaken.
For my part, I can't say I agree with the premise; games do feel like and are treated like art. For the vast majority of folks, that means they feel like and are treated as aesthetic pleasures which one may or may not be interested in. For a few folks, that means they feel like and are treated as artifacts to be analyzed.
This is also true for films, books, paintings, and so on. If you think most folks look at a painting and think anything other than "would this match the couch in my living room?", I believe you are mistaken.
There is really no such thing as art "being" art. "Feeling" is all it can be, as an abstract idea in our minds. A painting is objectively just a canvas with some paint applied to it. It takes a human with eyes and a brain evolved with a yearning for finding and identifying patterns to evoke the experience known as art. When we point at, say, the Mona Lisa and say "that's a woman", and no one really objects to that statement, it's because we have an implicit understanding that what is really said that we interpret it as an artful representation of a woman. I think this frame of mind is something we often forget when debating what is and isn't art.
Kind of the same as sound isn't sound per se until the pressure changes in the atmosphere have hit our eardrums and been psychoacoustically processed by our brain.
Kind of the same as sound isn't sound per se until the pressure changes in the atmosphere have hit our eardrums and been psychoacoustically processed by our brain.
Do games need to be classified as art? Does its classification justify its existence? You can make an art exhibit out of anything. Many times walking through a museum I've thought about how amazing it would be if those grand halls were filled with game art - concept sketches, screenshots, video montages.
Theognosis
Member
A video game is a COLLECTION of art forms. Science brings them all together in one glorious package.
I can agree to a point, but not in the way that the only people who are stopping games 'feeling' like art are the ones who shit up discussion with talk of "keeping politics out muh video games!" You've explained that part of the argument much better than I probably could so I won't dwell on it, instead I'll add some extra thoughts of mine.
To me, if games are ever going to 'feel' like art then those discussing them as art should welcome any and all reasonable criticism when, right now, they seemingly don't want to do that. What I mean by this is, often, when a game is brought into the 'art' discussion said 'discussion' is only ever agreement, with anyone going against said agreement being painted as having a seriously negative intent. A recent example of this is with The Last of Us: Part 2 and its design for Ellie. I've seen two main criticisms of this design, one the idiotic "I can't identify with a lesbian/girl/whatever!" and one criticizing the design itself as being stereotypical and lacking nuance; however if you look at the reaction to the latter you'd think both of them were equally as bad. Another example is the sheer dismissal towards terms such as 'ludo-narrative dissonance' which, to me personally, feels incredibly similar to the way in which many want to keep politics and socio-political commentary out of video-games; see the dismissal of talk surrounding Uncharted or Bioshock Infinite's ludo-narrative dissonance as silly and meaningless.
Now this isn't unique to video-games, of course, any art form has its hostility to criticism, but events like GG and the disgusting treatment of Sarkeesian before it have had a pretty major effect on the artistic discussion of video games as it's become less a discussion and more a series of justifications and attempts to 'fight' those who do actually hold terrible viewpoints. If you dare to criticize The Last of Us' story, or INSIDE, or the lack of game-play in Gone Home, or Anita Sarkeesian's methodology you will often be met with dismissal at best and implications of sexism, racism, "hating indie games," or something else at worst no matter how well thought out and reasonable that criticism is. Essentially, by putting certain games, and people, on a pedestal exempt from any and all criticism the 'games are art' crowd are inadvertently making those games and discussions feel less like art and more like justifications for why video-games are art. Video games are art, no question about that, but the scene surrounding them needs to mature on both sides and we won't truly have video-games 'feeling' like art until that happens.
To me, if games are ever going to 'feel' like art then those discussing them as art should welcome any and all reasonable criticism when, right now, they seemingly don't want to do that. What I mean by this is, often, when a game is brought into the 'art' discussion said 'discussion' is only ever agreement, with anyone going against said agreement being painted as having a seriously negative intent. A recent example of this is with The Last of Us: Part 2 and its design for Ellie. I've seen two main criticisms of this design, one the idiotic "I can't identify with a lesbian/girl/whatever!" and one criticizing the design itself as being stereotypical and lacking nuance; however if you look at the reaction to the latter you'd think both of them were equally as bad. Another example is the sheer dismissal towards terms such as 'ludo-narrative dissonance' which, to me personally, feels incredibly similar to the way in which many want to keep politics and socio-political commentary out of video-games; see the dismissal of talk surrounding Uncharted or Bioshock Infinite's ludo-narrative dissonance as silly and meaningless.
Now this isn't unique to video-games, of course, any art form has its hostility to criticism, but events like GG and the disgusting treatment of Sarkeesian before it have had a pretty major effect on the artistic discussion of video games as it's become less a discussion and more a series of justifications and attempts to 'fight' those who do actually hold terrible viewpoints. If you dare to criticize The Last of Us' story, or INSIDE, or the lack of game-play in Gone Home, or Anita Sarkeesian's methodology you will often be met with dismissal at best and implications of sexism, racism, "hating indie games," or something else at worst no matter how well thought out and reasonable that criticism is. Essentially, by putting certain games, and people, on a pedestal exempt from any and all criticism the 'games are art' crowd are inadvertently making those games and discussions feel less like art and more like justifications for why video-games are art. Video games are art, no question about that, but the scene surrounding them needs to mature on both sides and we won't truly have video-games 'feeling' like art until that happens.
petran79
Banned
Video games are a cold medium that encompasses mostly hot media, especially with the realistic graphics. Previously with pixel art it was regarded as cold media.
Finale Fireworker
Member
That was a great OP, and I'm glad you made this thread. I feel like you do - I view games as innately artistic productions and take great pleasure in analyzing their meaning. You may have seen some of my threads here on GAF.
One of the greatest problems I face when I make threads like these, or even start conversations about the artistic merit of games, is how often people will merely say I'm reaching and that there is no value in the game. They don't make any sort of counterpoint or offer a different perspective on the material, they just insist it has no meaning. To these people, games are toys and nothing more.
For lots of these people, the insinuation that games have artistic value is almost insulting. I don't know why. They go on the defensive so quickly. To them, suggesting games are art seems to devalue what they love about games rather than increase their value overall. I used to think it was just anti-intellectualism and I hated it, but I've really just come to respect the difference in perspective.
Take a vending machine, for example.
People press a button, they get a soda. This is a purely mechanical interaction and a basic action-reward exercise. There is no deeper meaning here. There is no complex analysis that will elevate the vending machine as a social construct. For many people, games are just like this. They press buttons, they enjoy the satisfaction of pressing them and reap the reward for their input, and that's the end of the relationship.
But take the minimum wage machine.
This device is not all that different from a vending machine. The user presses a button (or in this case, turns a crank) and receives one cent every four seconds. They could do this as long as they want to. The user turns the crank, gets the penny. Turns the crank, gets the penny. This purely mechanical interaction, unlike a vending machine, is laden with deeper meaning. At 1 cent every four seconds, anybody using the device will be making $9 and hour. However, most people will laugh and not find it worth it to collect a penny every four seconds. The reward is meaningless. The message here is that people all over the country, and world, work much harder than turning a crank every four seconds and make less than $9 and hour for doing it. So what does that say about our wage compensation system? What does it say about minimum wage?
This is how games work. Some games are just toys and Skinner Boxes. Other games are more than that - either because the team who made it tried to make something meaningful from the outset or because it was just how the design components came together. Telling the difference between something like BioShock and Counter-Strike is easy, but really seeing deeper into what makes these games artistically different takes practice. It takes awareness. It takes people like you and me being willing to say there is meaning behind the mechanics.
But in the meantime, there will always be players who are not interested. It's the same with any medium. Millions of people came out of The Dark Knight and didn't give a moment's thought to The Patriot Act or post-9/11 security politics. For these people, it's just an awesome Batman movie. But because they have already come to expect movies to be art because of the hundred years history of the format, they are less offended when you say The Dark Knight had a lot to say about the American response to terrorism in the early 2000s.
But when you say Pokemon Yellow Version is about the importance of unselfish friendships or that Luigi's Mansion is a simple but effective tale about facing your fears and finding confidence in those who rely on you, people don't know what to say. Their first reaction is to deny you. You just have to let them and keep furthering the conversation with people who are interested. We all started seeing movies as just movies and games as just games. Eventually, it will click with more people. But you have to create the material for them to reference so they can discover it for themselves.
One of the greatest problems I face when I make threads like these, or even start conversations about the artistic merit of games, is how often people will merely say I'm reaching and that there is no value in the game. They don't make any sort of counterpoint or offer a different perspective on the material, they just insist it has no meaning. To these people, games are toys and nothing more.
For lots of these people, the insinuation that games have artistic value is almost insulting. I don't know why. They go on the defensive so quickly. To them, suggesting games are art seems to devalue what they love about games rather than increase their value overall. I used to think it was just anti-intellectualism and I hated it, but I've really just come to respect the difference in perspective.
Take a vending machine, for example.
People press a button, they get a soda. This is a purely mechanical interaction and a basic action-reward exercise. There is no deeper meaning here. There is no complex analysis that will elevate the vending machine as a social construct. For many people, games are just like this. They press buttons, they enjoy the satisfaction of pressing them and reap the reward for their input, and that's the end of the relationship.
But take the minimum wage machine.
This device is not all that different from a vending machine. The user presses a button (or in this case, turns a crank) and receives one cent every four seconds. They could do this as long as they want to. The user turns the crank, gets the penny. Turns the crank, gets the penny. This purely mechanical interaction, unlike a vending machine, is laden with deeper meaning. At 1 cent every four seconds, anybody using the device will be making $9 and hour. However, most people will laugh and not find it worth it to collect a penny every four seconds. The reward is meaningless. The message here is that people all over the country, and world, work much harder than turning a crank every four seconds and make less than $9 and hour for doing it. So what does that say about our wage compensation system? What does it say about minimum wage?
This is how games work. Some games are just toys and Skinner Boxes. Other games are more than that - either because the team who made it tried to make something meaningful from the outset or because it was just how the design components came together. Telling the difference between something like BioShock and Counter-Strike is easy, but really seeing deeper into what makes these games artistically different takes practice. It takes awareness. It takes people like you and me being willing to say there is meaning behind the mechanics.
But in the meantime, there will always be players who are not interested. It's the same with any medium. Millions of people came out of The Dark Knight and didn't give a moment's thought to The Patriot Act or post-9/11 security politics. For these people, it's just an awesome Batman movie. But because they have already come to expect movies to be art because of the hundred years history of the format, they are less offended when you say The Dark Knight had a lot to say about the American response to terrorism in the early 2000s.
But when you say Pokemon Yellow Version is about the importance of unselfish friendships or that Luigi's Mansion is a simple but effective tale about facing your fears and finding confidence in those who rely on you, people don't know what to say. Their first reaction is to deny you. You just have to let them and keep furthering the conversation with people who are interested. We all started seeing movies as just movies and games as just games. Eventually, it will click with more people. But you have to create the material for them to reference so they can discover it for themselves.
Cymbal Head
Banned
This is a fantastic thread and I want to contribute but there's a lot to catch up on, so for now I'll just say:
Adam_Vania
Banned
1. barrier to entry. you can look at a painting and instantly experience it. a movie will take 2 hours of your time. some videogames offer over 100 hours of content.
2. new media. video games are new technology and new media: the critical framework isn't there. American filmmakers had film school in the 60s and 70s to teach fundamentals, theory, craft, etc. vg will get this but the field is still in its infancy.
3. demanding. film critics watch a movie over and over and over. try doing that with 100+ hour game. not even most game players tend to complete every game. what do we do about that?
4. they feel like art to me. Roger Ebert is not the art god who decides what is or isn't art. and videogames have been in enough legit art galleries by now that it's an outdated argument anyways. fwiw there is a lot of legit art, in the real art world, that does not "feel like art", yet it's art.
the modern art world is a pretty open place with lots of room, lots of weird non-traditional things get taken for art all the time. seems like "this isn't art" really is an early 20th-century mindset.
2. new media. video games are new technology and new media: the critical framework isn't there. American filmmakers had film school in the 60s and 70s to teach fundamentals, theory, craft, etc. vg will get this but the field is still in its infancy.
3. demanding. film critics watch a movie over and over and over. try doing that with 100+ hour game. not even most game players tend to complete every game. what do we do about that?
4. they feel like art to me. Roger Ebert is not the art god who decides what is or isn't art. and videogames have been in enough legit art galleries by now that it's an outdated argument anyways. fwiw there is a lot of legit art, in the real art world, that does not "feel like art", yet it's art.
the modern art world is a pretty open place with lots of room, lots of weird non-traditional things get taken for art all the time. seems like "this isn't art" really is an early 20th-century mindset.
GoldenCrow
Member
Very few games actually feel like art, they feel like design. There is obvious artistic merit but by large they feel like they have been cut and changed to suit a specific target audience and a lack of a clear artistic vision the pervades the product. The bigger the game the further it moves away from this, Dys4ia by Anna Anthropy is the best example of a game I think feels like art rather than the above. Every mechanic is about the creators vision and uses game design as the way of telling the narrative, the game is the canvas and its sole intent is to express thoughts and ideas. There is no padding, it doesn't feel like there was a meeting about every element and there is no fluff it feels like it has a purpose to tell a story and once that is done it is over.
In general I see games as collections of individual pieces of art. Whether or not I consider the whole package as art depends on the game. On smaller projects where the game as a whole is more the product of a single vision I would consider it more so, on others where the placement of each piece is debated on and reviewed by many people, some driven by creativity others not, I would consider it less so.
Agreed, there is this really weird relationship between game consumers, marketing, game critique and games journalism that I don't see in other mediums and that really distorts things. Also, both of your links direct to the same Playstation video =)
Honest question, since I have some troubling digesting McLuhan, what about a game that is trying to look like old games, like Retro Game Challenge or 3D Dot Heroes?
What a great post. Specially agree that expectations and the medium's history play a big role in how people react to games.
Sword Of Doom
Member
I could care less tbh. For me they're more immersive than any other form of media and that's all that matters
i disagree with trying to box videogames into what we traditionally consider art. Videogames can be art in many ways. The way Gameplay feels can be art.
i disagree with trying to box videogames into what we traditionally consider art. Videogames can be art in many ways. The way Gameplay feels can be art.
I think that this feeling has a lot to do with how new video games are as a form. Most art forms take a long time before they're fully recognized as art. Some media, like Photography, still have a hard time getting that recognition because they're so ubiquitous that people don't really think that way about it. The only art form to get recognized as such early on is film, and that's largely because it's similar to stage and stage was already well established.
On the subject of video games itself, I think that there are two main impediments to feeling like art. The first is that it's most similar to film among the established art forms, but it compares unfavorably in that regard almost across the board. Until something changes in either the how video games are perceived or their quality, it's going to be hard to change people's minds about it. The second is that, for whatever reason, a lot of people are extremely defensive about the games they play. While this attachment can be very distracting, I don't think that it's necessary to let it dictate the message.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
One thing: interactivity is not a kill switch that makes something "not art". Interactive art, itself, is widely recognized and a practiced form of artistic expression and design:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art
Great OP and solid thread, with surprisingly few people missing the point.
I think in some ways, video games now could be compared to renaissance art. The form and technique are there, but the amount of work is such that significant amounts of money need to be involved. So, work either needs to appeal to the masses or appeal to its benefactors.
And that isn't specifically to say the latest COD is comparable to a work by Michelangelo, but I'm saying the reason we repeatedly get the same types of experiences is the same reason so much renaissance art was religious (and not just religious, but using the same established motifs repeatedly).
I think in some ways, video games now could be compared to renaissance art. The form and technique are there, but the amount of work is such that significant amounts of money need to be involved. So, work either needs to appeal to the masses or appeal to its benefactors.
And that isn't specifically to say the latest COD is comparable to a work by Michelangelo, but I'm saying the reason we repeatedly get the same types of experiences is the same reason so much renaissance art was religious (and not just religious, but using the same established motifs repeatedly).
This is part of why I don't like using McLuhan's hot and cool media for modern media. Too many lines are blurred. While he may have considered it a spectrum of sorts, now it's more like a slimey, blobby mass of hot and cool.