A reasonable argument against games as art

K

kelbear

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 22, 2005
Messages
1,579
I think you are missing the thrust of his article. He's not saying that games aren't an art form, but rather that they haven't reached a level that high-brow critics would recognize as art. His whole argument is comparing games to movies, which I think everyone would agree are an art form.

His gripe is that games aren't deep enough to be acceptable for him. I personally think that this is a horrible position, as what meets this sort of barrier is completely subjective. For example, I think the vast majority of "modern art" is absolute crap that should have been stuck in the trash rather than being placed on a pedestal. However, I do admit that this is a judgment call, and will not argue that poor art is not art.

Short version: bad movies are still cinema. Bad games are still games. Both are art, though some people are too stuck-up to admit.
 
Of course, a computer game is the work of many individuals whereas a book or a novel is the work of one person's vision. It is a tough order for a game to explore the inner emotions of humanity when much what you do with such emotion is limited by the technology. For instance, how do you deal with love in a game? How do you treat the subject of death in a game? So far, in a game, all you do is run around and shoot stuff. Or run around and find this or find that.

A work of art can reflect and make clear of your sense of confusion or emotional trauma. Can you say that after playing so and so game, you have discovered a new meaning in life? A sense of emotional and spiritual renewal?

kelbear said:
This article's writer actually developed a reasoned explanation for why he feels that games are not yet art.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/28/opinion/28radosh.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I think he's referencing Planescape: Torment towards the end there. That was a rare game where the game's content specialized on non-combat events and role-playing, and combat was minimized or potentially bypassed altogether in some areas.
Click to expand...
 
I'll agree with the article and say that games have not yet reached art.

Art's an extension of the artists - whether it's Matisse, Shakespeare, or Mahler, all are direct products of a single visionary. Games are designed to be an interactive type of story that you're allowed to participate in - you're entering a sort of virtual reality, designed by a team of persons working towards a common goal.

That being said, I've yet to be intellectually or emotionally stimulated by any video game. Epic storytelling, yes. However, it's our interaction with the storytelling ("choose your own adventure") that differentiates games from art - we're meant to witness, decipher, and appreciate art.

In art, the composer, artist, or novelist was inspired to create something that you've been privileged enough to contemplate - games leave little to contemplate. The majority of video games are centered around reaction time and strategy, and are therefore more akin to sport. IMHO, unless you're prepared to acknowledge sport as an art form (which it really isn't), then video games are not art.

/conservative rant :p
 
All bullshit and nonsense. The only reason games aren't yet considered "art" is that storytelling gaming is too young to have been common to the average critic during their formative years. The quality of the medium is irrelevant in the face of ignorance.

Frankly, I think gaming is too busy for modern critics. They are absolutely set on being led by the nose through whichever medium they are responsible for that they lack the ability to think and act at the same time. They've internalized the notion that the two cannot be combined while being art; that art can only be a passive experience.

Admittedly, examples of games as art are few and far between, but you can sure as hell say the same of Hollywood.
 
Agree, Its all Bullshit, Art is in the Eye of the Beholder. 20 years ago street graffiti wasn't considered art, it was just a crime. but today it is recognized as an art form. Nothing changed about it except the way people look at it. Comic books were the same way back in the 50s, now there considered art, nothing changed with comic books, just people perception of it. Same goes for video games, people dont yet see it is an art form, but 50 years from now we will walk into a museum and see pics of Mario and the Princess hanging on the wall. The Unreal fly by will be playing on a large screen with a brass plaque below it. Nothing about them will have changed other than peoples perception about them.
Its kinda like "Style" Who is it that makes the rules! Who is it that says something is in style or out? Who is it that determins what is art and what isn't!
 
Paladin21 said:
Short version: bad movies are still cinema. Bad games are still games. Both are art, though some people are too stuck-up to admit.
Click to expand...
This

jaegertech said:
Frankly, I think gaming is too busy for modern critics. They are absolutely set on being led by the nose through whichever medium they are responsible for that they lack the ability to think and act at the same time. They've internalized the notion that the two cannot be combined while being art; that art can only be a passive experience.
Click to expand...
and this.

It is imperative that critics understand these are entirely different mediums and that qualitative properties that are used to analyze one medium are not inherently applicable between mediums. To that effect a game as art should not be qualified as non-art because the audience can interact with and potentially "mess-up" a composition; but instead analyzed within the context of an interactive medium as compositions which are (can be) designed specifically to be "mess-up". What effect does the player's interaction with the composition have on story telling? Do the characters become more robust/rounded? Is the plot more/less comprehensible? Does the interactivity support or further the themes of the other design elements (sound/color/motion/etc)? Is the composition successful without common artistic elements such as story telling?

That isn't to say games can't be compared on similar grounds. I think we all agree most all game plots are weaker relative to what we find in other mediums used as story telling devices. They aren't a horrible medium for stories however. I greatly prefer the experiences found in Shadow of the Colossus or ICO to the convoluted mess of many modern films. The oral tradition has almost died in our culture, and games present a really neat opportunity for writers to communicate these simple morality stories.

If nothing else I find games vastly superior at communicate experiences opposed to plot, when contrast to movies or books. Where static story telling is cerebral interactive story telling as more visceral. Something which is felt or experienced more so than something which is interpreted or witnessed.
 
When 1/3 of the people working on a game project are graphical artists plying their trade, I think the resulting product can be considered art..

Jayp146, back in the day, games were often written by a single person.. Does that not qualify as a direct product of a single visionary?
 
GORANKAR said:
When 1/3 of the people working on a game project are graphical artists plying their trade, I think the resulting product can be considered art..

Jayp146, back in the day, games were often written by a single person.. Does that not qualify as a direct product of a single visionary?
Click to expand...

Sure, but my original argument holds true - it's interactive-based. Very little art, outside of participating in a symphony orchestra performing Beethoven, for example, is meant to be interactive. It's meant to be appreciated, contemplated, and deciphered.

Greater meaning should derive from the study of art. The fact that there's infinite depth behind great works of art give them such definition - they're meant to be pondered, considered, mulled over.

Just MHO, people. Here, we're all entitled to our individual beliefs (hence the title of "forum").

Let's keep the discussion going.
 
I was on the "games as art" side but this guy's arguments tipped me over to the other side. I agree with him that they aren't /yet/. He recognizes the potential there but is pointing out the conflicting goals of the developers in fashioning these games.

An important thing that has been touched on here in the thread is the interactivity. It's the idiosyncracy that really distinguishes games and makes this a new and unfamiliar territory. It's got to keep the gameplay fun while staying deep enough to connect with the audience. It's rarely the gameplay making the connection, but cutscenes and the like.

So a game could drive for a heavy narrative in the same vein as a script or a book which are already accepted forms of art, but still wouldn't be taking advantage of gaming's distinct nature in doing so, but is instead trying to be a script or a book in the form of a game.

I'm sure everyone has seen a great book become a horrible movie, or a great movie result in a terrible book. One of the more common mistakes there is trying to directly translate material to another medium without proper handling of the genre's specific differences. A movie has to be a much tighter and focused narrative than a book given that they only have a short period of time. They don't have the same freedom to cover an epic range of events like a book can. A movie also has the advantage of sound in influencing the audience's reaction, and the same scene can be significantly different just by changing the background music.

Movies resulting in crappy games and games becoming crappy movies suffer from a similar problem.

I think that the developers still have further to travel in manipulating the gaming genre's unique characteristics to create a work of art. For example, a traditional JRPG random encounter turn-based battle system is really tangential to the game's direction as a piece of art which revolves around story. But most importantly the game's critical advantage is audience interaction and thus emotional investment in the unfolding of the plot, whereas a book or movie is a passive experience where events occur in a space wholly separate from the audience.

But many RPGs are still fairly linear, and even those with multiple endings will often tier the endings as bad, medium, good and ratings in-between. That sort of tiered event emphasizes that you're being scored, rather than emphasizing that this is /your/ story.

So while I would have pointed towards epic jRPG stories as examples of games as art, I'm now seeing them as having good script as art, good visuals as art, but as for gameplay specifically, that is a problem to worked through in order to get to these other things, rather than the primary artform in that game. The separate components in the game are already well-recognized forms of art, but the gaming component isn't at the same level of impact. The article referenced text-based games, and I referenced PS:T as examples that came close. PS:T had very little combat, and what was more important was your decisions and interactions with the characters that often made combat unnecessary(WIS and INT were the most important stats in the game).

As ridiculous as it sounds, Sims sounds like the closest example of a games as art in recent gaming, going completely freeform with stories almost entirely crafted by the players. The gameplay itself is what's crafting the relevance and impact on the audience, and still crafts a distinct sense of the "Sims" in atmosphere and themes.
 
An empty bucket that has been left out to rust in front of a tree during a sad september rainy day is art if it can touch your heart and/or mind, just like a picasso painting can be art if it does the same.

Art, no matter what people believe or art critics (bleah!) say, is like love. It can't be seen it can't be defined and it can't be judged.

The very first post of this thread instantly nullifies the thread's value. People trying to define what is art and what is not without realising they can ONLY do that for themselves, are bad for art.

The article author should have tried to write down a poem, or paint a picture, or compose a tune instead of wasting his time.
 
Stardusted said:
An empty bucket that has been left out to rust in front of a tree during a sad september rainy day is art if it can touch your heart and/or mind, just like a picasso painting can be art if it does the same.

Art, no matter what people believe or art critics (bleah!) say, is like love. It can't be seen it can't be defined and it can't be judged.

The very first post of this thread instantly nullifies the thread's value. People trying to define what is art and what is not without realising they can ONLY do that for themselves, are bad for art.

The article author should have tried to write down a poem, or paint a picture, or compose a tune instead of wasting his time.
Click to expand...
Bad for art... ok, I suppose I will give you that, but not bad for artists! Remember, these people make a living off of what they do. If everything is art then how do you sell your product to clients? Just how do you convince people what you have is something unique, or otherwise worth their money? Well, you come to a definition of art.

Let me put it this way. You are an artist. Do you want compositions you spent months, or perhaps even years of your life being categorized with the children's doodles? How about ANYONE'S doodles? The market will simply adapt? Maybe, but when you have to compete against similarly talented artists for either floor space or a job position the one who can better define their art AS art will get the job. We've gotta eat too.
 
Kiggles said:
Bad for art... ok, I suppose I will give you that, but not bad for artists! Remember, these people make a living off of what they do. If everything is art then how do you sell your product to clients? Just how do you convince people what you have is something unique, or otherwise worth their money? Well, you come to a definition of art.

Let me put it this way. You are an artist. Do you want compositions you spent months, or perhaps even years of your life being categorized with the children's doodles? How about ANYONE'S doodles? The market will simply adapt? Maybe, but when you have to compete against similarly talented artists for either floor space or a job position the one who can better define their art AS art will get the job. We've gotta eat too.
Click to expand...

So you base your point of view on market terms and conditions ? Look, I have nothing personal against critics and against categorizing and stuff. In fact, since my first uni degree is an economics one, I totally understand them (and for that, dislike them, but that's subjective I guess).

People try to sell art, so they need to define art as product. It's only normal since we live in a world that sells and buys everything, including thoughts moments and feelings.

If you look at it from the market's point of view then, I guess you are right and the article is of some value. But don't be fooled by that, it won't change the core of art. It won't change how you are supposed to feel when you meet art. No matter if you meet art in a video game, or in the eyes of a beautiful girl.

And a sidenote... it is a bright shiny day over here, hot too. Only a few small clouds I can see, and they look like forming a tree. Or is it a house ? Either way, that is art my friend, and don't let any technocrat tell you that it's not. They'll only say so because it is [H]ard for them to sell it.
 
Unfortunately I take issue with the concept of assuming everything is art, as from an artist's perspective it means we don't need to work at it. There effectively is no competition. I don't mean financially, but personally. Certainly, somethings will inexplicably move people, but that does nothing for the rest of us who wish to pursue actively producing the means.

Anyway, I think we are actually getting at the same point. I will not be one to say certain things can not inherently be art. Far from it. I believe the potential is absolutely anywhere. I am the kind of guy who puts Star Wars posters in frames and hang them in public spaces around the house because they make me feel awesome.

When actively in pursuit of producing art I don't believe hoping for the best is the way to go. If you want to make a game that people think of as art I wouldn't assume winging it is going to get you anywhere. Qualifying what you believe to be art is step one.

In the context of this article I actually think the author did a good job. They never suggested games can not be art. In fact, I believe the suggestion was precisely the opposite. That the potential was certainly there. More importantly, the general direction of game design is largely the "wrong" one when in pursuit of exploiting the medium as an artistic one. I completely agree with this notion. Even if I believe games like Smash Bros. or Ikaruga are examples of art in the interactive medium. What people typically expect from art mediums will not be commonly found in games with the current trend.
 
JaYp146 said:
That being said, I've yet to be intellectually or emotionally stimulated by any video game.
Click to expand...

how can you not have been pissed right off toward the end of bioshock when the big twist is revealed?! i was left with my mouth hanging open for a minute there, i'd call that emotion.

also, FF8 for me was a very emotional game, and i daresay the true form of art.
 
roz1281 said:
how can you not have been pissed right off toward the end of bioshock when the big twist is revealed?! i was left with my mouth hanging open for a minute there, i'd call that emotion.

also, FF8 for me was a very emotional game, and i daresay the true form of art.
Click to expand...

The closest I've come to emotion in a video game was during Homeworld - I believe it was the mission where you hyper into a system, and find your home civilization completely obliterated.

However, it was Barber's Adagio for Strings that made the moment especially poignant.
 
The idea that video games are unique because they are the first/only form of interactive "art" is just wrong.

One of the greatest forms of art (IMO) are culinary arts. It is the only art form that uses all five senses to stimulate its audeince, and it is highly interactive and a masterpiece can be utterly ruined with the simple application of ketchup.

I have been moved by many mediums, plays, movies, poetry, literature, and yes video games.

But with all "art" some incarnations are more "artful" then others, a meal by a master chief v. Mcdonalds, The Counte of Monte Cristo v. Paris Hiltons "diary", The Seven Samurai v. Epic Movie, and finally Final Fantasy seris v. GTA series

mtc
 
JaYp146 said:
The closest I've come to emotion in a video game was during Homeworld - I believe it was the mission where you hyper into a system, and find your home civilization completely obliterated.

However, it was Barber's Adagio for Strings that made the moment especially poignant.
Click to expand...

if you havent yet you need play World in Conflict
if thats not art these people can shove it

hell Bioshock had better story then 90% of the movies in the last 2 years
 
Not only are games art, they have more dimensions then any type of artistic piece out there. Think about it, there is sound, visuals, gameplay, and story.

Potentially a game could be the most stimulating piece of art ever conceived if all of these dimensions were done by the right group of people.
 
Paladin21 said:
I think you are missing the thrust of his article. He's not saying that games aren't an art form, but rather that they haven't reached a level that high-brow critics would recognize as art. His whole argument is comparing games to movies, which I think everyone would agree are an art form.

His gripe is that games aren't deep enough to be acceptable for him. I personally think that this is a horrible position, as what meets this sort of barrier is completely subjective. For example, I think the vast majority of "modern art" is absolute crap that should have been stuck in the trash rather than being placed on a pedestal. However, I do admit that this is a judgment call, and will not argue that poor art is not art.

Short version: bad movies are still cinema. Bad games are still games. Both are art, though some people are too stuck-up to admit.
Click to expand...

I couldn't explain it any better. Well said.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top