Posted May 04, 2012
I don't mind if a game tries to be a piece of art, as long as it's also a good game. Some games lean too much towards the "art" side. Like that game where all you do is walk around as an old lady in a graveyard, and then die.
maycett
New User
Registered: Dec 2011
From Australia
N0x0ss
Grim Acolyte
Registered: Mar 2012
From Lebanon
Posted May 04, 2012
Why can't it consider itself art, and a painting of an old lady in a graveyard can be considered art ? Surely they've worked as much as the people who worked on said painting.
The "Game" because it's not a game really, offers you an experience.
If you like it or not is your problem, but it IS art. It doesn't try to me more or less ... It just is.
bazilisek
gone
Registered: Oct 2009
From Czech Republic
Posted May 04, 2012
That being said, that is a rather extreme example. I'm glad it exists, but it is very dull.
maycett
New User
Registered: Dec 2011
From Australia
Posted May 04, 2012
Why can't it consider itself art, and a painting of an old lady in a graveyard can be considered art ? Surely they've worked as much as the people who worked on said painting.
The "Game" because it's not a game really, offers you an experience.
If you like it or not is your problem, but it IS art. It doesn't try to me more or less ... It just is.
Post edited May 04, 2012 by maycett
P-E-S
I like games
Registered: Nov 2008
From United States
Posted May 04, 2012
Why can't it consider itself art, and a painting of an old lady in a graveyard can be considered art ? Surely they've worked as much as the people who worked on said painting.
The "Game" because it's not a game really, offers you an experience.
If you like it or not is your problem, but it IS art. It doesn't try to me more or less ... It just is.
Trilarion
New User
Registered: Jul 2010
From Germany
Posted May 04, 2012
Games are art but art doesn't mean much. Often art in games is very low quality. Like in a tuppenny novel. Although there are exceptions.
Post edited May 04, 2012 by Trilarion
Jaime
Ivory and Gold
Registered: Apr 2009
From Germany
Posted May 04, 2012
I love you, mistermumbles, and your whole post, especially the passage about indie games, honestly did restore my faith in humanity a little bit.
mistermumbles: The subject matter at hand then: Games as art. Anytime I see someone - may it be through a simple comment, forum post, blog entry, or even a (real) game journalist's article - bring this topic up I just can't help myself but cringe. In a way it always looks like they, the supporters of this notion, try to bring it up in such a way to justify the existence of video gaming (perhaps in a more mainstream/more sophisticated style) we like to call our hobby/pastime in general. At least that's how it comes across to me. I like to call this the whole discussion a "discussion by proxy". Though to be fair, it goes both ways - lots of gamers insist that games are art simply in order to validate their hobby, while in turn many of their opponents attack the notion for the very same reason - if games are widely accepted as art, they can't be as easily targeted as evil anymore - one has to make a distinction between "good" and "bad" games for a start.
The thing is, neither side actually has a concept for, or often even interest in, art.
Also, something can have worth, and not be art, and the other way around.
Fred_DM: every film is considered 'art'. every painting, every book. every piece of music ever written.
it makes no sense to treat videogames differently. I disagree, actually. There's a fundamental difference between games and the other media you've mentioned - games are inherently interactive. In fact, that's the one, sufficiant definition of "game" for me - it has to be interactive.
Personally, I don't think that games are art, but I have absolutely no problem with people who believe otherwise, that's perfectly fine and I can see their reasoning.
What I have a problem with, though, is when people proclaim games as art but treat them in a way that implies a very different outlook.
One recent example for this is the controversy over the Mass Effect 3 ending, and people saying it shouldn't be changed because of "artistic integrity" - I'm convinced that most, if not all of these people have no problem with demanding a game should be made easier or harder, or the walking speed of the player character should be changed, or a million other gamedesign issues. So why on earth is it OK to change a "technical" element of a game, but not the story?
And then of course there are people who overrate the story or writing of a game (why does this discussion so often come down to these two elements?) to the point of absolute ridiculousness. Weren't there some guys who sent Roger Ebert the script of Braid? That's a bit like trying to impress the father of your girlfriend, who thinks you're a bit of a chav, by shitting on his dinner table. I like to call this phenomenon the RPS (from Rock, Paper, Shotgun) complex, or the John Walker complex. When you describe Call of Duty as one of the most harrowing portrayals of the horrors of war you know, or say something similar about Dragon Age's treatment of slavery, then, well, that's just not cool.
Similarly there was this RPS writer who wrote an article about Pathologic being this great work of art, and one of his points was how the bodged russian translation and the cool beard of the lead designer added to the mystery of the whole game... again, this guy had no concept of art, he simply fetishizes the thought of appreciating art, and art for him somehow means "something I don't understand". And then there's the way RPS treats indie games, of course.
Finally, I like to add that I don't think art can't be popular or commercial – I love ABBA, for god's sake.
The thing is, neither side actually has a concept for, or often even interest in, art.
Also, something can have worth, and not be art, and the other way around.
it makes no sense to treat videogames differently.
Personally, I don't think that games are art, but I have absolutely no problem with people who believe otherwise, that's perfectly fine and I can see their reasoning.
What I have a problem with, though, is when people proclaim games as art but treat them in a way that implies a very different outlook.
One recent example for this is the controversy over the Mass Effect 3 ending, and people saying it shouldn't be changed because of "artistic integrity" - I'm convinced that most, if not all of these people have no problem with demanding a game should be made easier or harder, or the walking speed of the player character should be changed, or a million other gamedesign issues. So why on earth is it OK to change a "technical" element of a game, but not the story?
And then of course there are people who overrate the story or writing of a game (why does this discussion so often come down to these two elements?) to the point of absolute ridiculousness. Weren't there some guys who sent Roger Ebert the script of Braid? That's a bit like trying to impress the father of your girlfriend, who thinks you're a bit of a chav, by shitting on his dinner table. I like to call this phenomenon the RPS (from Rock, Paper, Shotgun) complex, or the John Walker complex. When you describe Call of Duty as one of the most harrowing portrayals of the horrors of war you know, or say something similar about Dragon Age's treatment of slavery, then, well, that's just not cool.
Similarly there was this RPS writer who wrote an article about Pathologic being this great work of art, and one of his points was how the bodged russian translation and the cool beard of the lead designer added to the mystery of the whole game... again, this guy had no concept of art, he simply fetishizes the thought of appreciating art, and art for him somehow means "something I don't understand". And then there's the way RPS treats indie games, of course.
Finally, I like to add that I don't think art can't be popular or commercial – I love ABBA, for god's sake.
Post edited May 04, 2012 by Jaime
bazilisek
gone
Registered: Oct 2009
From Czech Republic
Posted May 04, 2012
I think you could broadly compare this to the distinction between poetry and prose. It's clearly in the same ballpark, but it's a very different activity. And both have their place.
The combination of the content of this post and your avatar is one of the strangest things I've seen all week.
Post edited May 04, 2012 by bazilisek
anjohl
Disconnected
Registered: Jul 2009
From Canada
Posted May 04, 2012
Games are entertainment, but not art; not most of them anyway.
Braid is art. Eufloria is art. Gears of War 3 is not.
Braid is art. Eufloria is art. Gears of War 3 is not.
N0x0ss
Grim Acolyte
Registered: Mar 2012
From Lebanon
Posted May 04, 2012
Weirdly enough, everything I wrote didn't get posted :S Talk about deception :/
Post edited May 04, 2012 by N0x0ss
Jaime
Ivory and Gold
Registered: Apr 2009
From Germany
Vestin
only_droid@town
Registered: Sep 2008
From Poland
Posted May 04, 2012
Oh my... I saw the title, the first post and was ready to pounce... until I've read the subsequent comments, where people more or less accurately express the same thought I had in mind - it's not only naive but anachronistic to use the term "art" is such a way...
One thing I can add is that people used to not consider operettas art. Why ? Because that's what they went to see in their free time for amusement. "No, no !", they'd say, "that's what I do for FUN. Art is something I dress in my suit and top hat for and sit quietly through, not understanding a goddamn thing. THAT'S art" ;P.
Either way - thank you lot for pleasantly surprising me.
One thing I can add is that people used to not consider operettas art. Why ? Because that's what they went to see in their free time for amusement. "No, no !", they'd say, "that's what I do for FUN. Art is something I dress in my suit and top hat for and sit quietly through, not understanding a goddamn thing. THAT'S art" ;P.
Either way - thank you lot for pleasantly surprising me.
amok
FREEEEDOOOM!!!!
Registered: Sep 2008
From United Kingdom
overread
Hat Husky
Registered: Nov 2008
From United Kingdom
Posted May 04, 2012
Software on the computer that is interactive can indeed be art or be used to create art - just look at the wide range of artistic programs which can be used to draw with.
There is no reason that a game in itself cannot allow a player to produce an artistic work through the course of playing that game (even if there is no "aristic skill" involved in the creation the creation itself is still valid).
Further I think we are mixing up types of art - when someone says art people generally think of visual types of artistry like paintings or photographs. The "art" in a skilled work of writing present in a book or game is generally viewed slightly different or at least expressed differently. But there is no reason that a story written in a book or within a game can be any more or less an art than each other. Books are still very interactive in how people read them - a game is simply a different form of interaction with the sometimes option to change the page you're reading to follow a different possibility of the stories conclusion.
I think its very true to say that, like in all things, the majority of games are not going to be great artistic works and that many might well fail to emotionally inspire the player to the point where they would be artistic. Such is the same for many areas - most chess sets won't be works of art; most photos won't be works of art - however that does not mean that some can't be. That some can rise to the title of being artistic.
Of course then we come to artistic theory, personal taste and also what counts as "good" and we can be here for eternity debating on that topic ;)
There is no reason that a game in itself cannot allow a player to produce an artistic work through the course of playing that game (even if there is no "aristic skill" involved in the creation the creation itself is still valid).
Further I think we are mixing up types of art - when someone says art people generally think of visual types of artistry like paintings or photographs. The "art" in a skilled work of writing present in a book or game is generally viewed slightly different or at least expressed differently. But there is no reason that a story written in a book or within a game can be any more or less an art than each other. Books are still very interactive in how people read them - a game is simply a different form of interaction with the sometimes option to change the page you're reading to follow a different possibility of the stories conclusion.
I think its very true to say that, like in all things, the majority of games are not going to be great artistic works and that many might well fail to emotionally inspire the player to the point where they would be artistic. Such is the same for many areas - most chess sets won't be works of art; most photos won't be works of art - however that does not mean that some can't be. That some can rise to the title of being artistic.
Of course then we come to artistic theory, personal taste and also what counts as "good" and we can be here for eternity debating on that topic ;)
N0x0ss
Grim Acolyte
Registered: Mar 2012
From Lebanon
Posted May 04, 2012
Braid is art. Eufloria is art. Gears of War 3 is not.
For Braid to be a piece of Art (In my humble Opinion), It must totally abandon it's purpose of being a game, it means it must give you reflexion on your own life, or existence, or at least make you think deeply and passionatly about life.
I blew through the game within several hours, incredible game that is, but other than the pastel colored sky, and the references about the A.Bomb at the end, it didn't really try to be anything more than a game. These things tried to give the game an identity, but ultimately for me it only was an entertainement ... not something that really affected me :s