Doesn't matter if you find 1 game that's lame; heck, even if ALL games sucked, that wouldn't mean anything! If all oil paintings in the world were ugly, would that mean oil paintings aren't a form of art?
Of course some games have no heart in it, no beauty, but other games are true art pieces imo, like the turret game, for example, made by the best game developer in tdc, can't remember his name, I've heard his user was removed by circy, so was his story, truly sad.
After some contemplation and in shame of my knee-jerk reaction of scoffing and immediately voting yes, I'm comfortable with noting video games as "creative products" as opposed to "art." Kind of like sports equipment or sex toys; they allow you more opportunities to enjoy yourself if you're into that sort of thing, and often include innovative design and/or new and different features.
I am a tabletop game designer as well, and I feel the same way about them, it seems. Same criteria, different medium.
I disagree with your comparison with sports equipment and sex toys. Those are tools, just a means to an end. Like the paintbrushes an artist use to make a painting, or the controller you use to play the game.
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Film wasn't "art" in its beginnings. It was first done to document life (sell), then to entertain (sell). As time went by, some people began developing new films which were not made to sell, but to talk about some truth about the author and his way of understanding the world. In the same vein, I think most videogames until now have been made to sell/entertain. Once someone begins making games not with the intent of entertaining, but to invite the gamer into contemplation, there will be art in videogames. I'm sure the same happened with sculpture, painting and music. You could say Bach still sold his pieces for a living. Yes, of course, but nobody really understood what he wrote. Rembrandt also sold his paintings, but to people who didn't realise what genius painted them. If things are pulled toward the selling/entertainment department, then you HAVE to make things that people understand, which is why Hollywood is so successfully dull. Of course, this is my perspective, based on what I've read from Heidegger, Deleuze and some of the greeks. If someone's read any of them, I'd love to discuss further.
IMO, art is just a label applied to things. It has lost its meaning (as Boothman said). People try to call things art to gain respect. Most forms of art, even culture is just what people do when they have too much excess productivity. Art is basically just a waste of time. But once you call everything art, then art is no longer a respectable thing, and a lot of people get so goddamn defensive about it.
IMO, real art is something that invokes emotions and thought. Common art may have done that at one point, now they're just drawing blobs and forcing interpretations on it. Games invoke emotion and thought way better than movies or books or paintings. In that sense, it's a form of art.
A lot of gamers like to call their stuff art, so that they can gain respect and try to get a lot of money doing something for fun. I like to avoid those people.
(btw knytt doesnt suck. the fact that people interpret knytt differently, get emotional about it, and enjoy it to different extents makes it an art form in the first place )
Edited by Muz
Disclaimer: Any sarcasm in my posts will not be mentioned as that would ruin the purpose. It is assumed that the reader is intelligent enough to tell the difference between what is sarcasm and what is not.
See, to the average wikipedia-user outside of the US, Roger Ebert is just another inscrutable facet of North American intellectual life. Why is he partaking in this debate exactly? Is he trolling Shadow of the Colossus fans?
But the game itself- its enginework, its graphics, its music, its raw elements, its cohesiveness- they are all art.
But that's just craftsmanship!
looking to tie the interactions of games to their artistry
As they fundamentally should be? It's what games are. It's inescapable. It's great!
The experience chosen is irrelevant. What was created is still the same.
But there's got to at least be the possibility of a meaningful experience rather than an opiate sense-dulling one, right? Maybe that can be delivered by a nice texture, I don't know.
We've all played art games with Themes and Metaphors, right? Like in nineteenth century novels, you know? Are games literature?
Traditional art is the only kind of art that most does what art is supposed to do. This is going to sound incredibly cryptic, but the work of art is where a truth operates, and the viewer can operate with it. The work of art is a signalling toward something that couldn't be brought to words otherwise; so much cannot it be brought to words that it cannot be otherwise "spoken" of. It can, however, be felt. This is the purpose of the work of art, to bring it to the viewer what is otherwise concealed. With "truth", I only mean reality (what we think is reality doesn't have a name yet [because we haven't yet noticed this difference]). But truth is discovered or unconcealed only in parts. The work of art discloses parts of the truth of the artist, but also of the viewer. That is why all great pieces are glorified in museums, and why great works of art seem to be immortal. Everything else that doesn't disclose part of the/a truth isn't a work of art--it is craftsmanship or something else.
Oh, and to go back to the topic, videogames are not yet a work of art. They are very good examples of craftsmanship, but as long as they keep on trying to sell instead of pointing toward some truth (and do it metaphorically and not symbolically), videogames are not works of art.
In terms of videogames, I would not dare to call myself an artist. I make the most typical games possible (even if I try to give them an interesting story). I've never seen any videogame comparable to the astonishing experience of watching a Tarkovsky film, or listening to Bach, or reading Woolf. I'm probably a neophyte when it comes to knowing all the games made by the indie communities, but I only speak from what I've seen.
Edit: I should mention I have had, naturally, very aesthetic experiences while playing videogames. But I think that's not quite the same as being pointed toward something that changes me.
I don't think there's ever anything you'll see/hear/play at first glance and say 'yeah that's art'. I didn't take more than a second's glance at most paintings and sculptures in the Louvre, just like I'll skip over a lot of games that I could easily download or play a demo of.
I don't think art has to be good or get attention or even intend to be art to be art. I see that in any creative medium there is potential for 'art', so what the hey, it's all art.
I know what Alonso is getting at, but it's also true that art is subjective and individual. Just because you don't see a 'truth' in any game, doesn't mean that somebody else might not. And this is also what I mean by the word 'art' being applied to everything - because it is subjective and individual, you cannot argue with some other person's perception of 'art'. I would find it hard to say that when I first played FFVII, it didn't change my life. But I don't think it revealed truth to me. In fact, nothing I've ever seen (ie with me eyes) has ever revealed truth to me.
Certain paintings are very artistic, other paintings are less artistic. Does that affect how much the act of "painting" is an art form? I don't think so. The closed minded need to grasp that concept before they can understand that game development can be an art form.
Matt: I regret not mentioning that I don't mean truth as in "tree" (the origin of the word; steadfast and firm) or "veritas" (verifiable: either true or false statements). The much handy definition is "ἀλήθεια" (alé-thia; unconcealment), which is inherently subjective and individual, but part of a totality of truth ( ἀλήθεια ) which sustains everything else. I don't mean an ulterior truth (which can be known progressively or in percentages), but a truth that can only be known in parts (and it does not mean that the sum will equal the totality). These parts (that are unconcealed) are what each human being understands or fails to understand about his being-in-the-world. Works of art are also called "pieces". Word play, yes, but "pieces" of truth.
Neuro: In Louvre, everything is glorified as a work of art. Unfortunately, it massifies the collection and, thus, people only browse for a few seconds something that took months or years to craft. There are even "marathons" to see every piece. Art doesn't work like that; you have to contemplate the piece for it to open itself to you. Contemplation requires time and, especially, disposition (of which you had not very much when you browsed the Louvre, by the sound of it). Great works of art immediately stand out as "art", whether you pay attention to them or not. Again, you have to be in disposition, and the Louvre is not the kind of place to have an intimate moment with anything. Nevertheless, to this day, I've never seen anyone deny the classics as artists.
Chizuko: One is precisely close-minded if one thinks art to be something progressive or quantitative (thus, phrases like "more artistic than", "less artistic than" arise). You need to read carefully what I wrote to understand my perspective. I wrote it carefully
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by Chizuko
)
