After reading Ebert say that videogames can never be art and then reading the ensuing arguement that sprung from it at GAF, I started thinking seriously about this. Art videogames really art? If so why? And if they aren't, can they ever be?
First off, we all consider movies to be art right? Okay, but how did art progress to that point? Several thousand years ago there were three distinct types of art: music, visual medium [painting, sculptures, ect.], and books. These three art styles rarely, if it all, had anything what-so-ever to do with one another. Fast forward a few thousand years to the birth of theater. It combined in all three and as well as adding new elements such as actors, set design, costumes, and so on. Now, no one today would dispute that theater is a legimate form of art, but it's quite likely that when it was first introduced their were many who were skeptical that it could hold a candle to a good book or a well-conducted orchestra. Fast forward to 1895 to the birth of cinema. It took all the the elements of theater it expounded them far beyond what could ever be possible on a stage. It added a sense of realism, depth, and a feeling of immersion that even the most elaborate stage plays can only hint. No one today would argue that cinema isn't a legimate art form, yet many people back in the early days thought that it could never be as good as well-made and acted stage play. However, the 1930's and 1940's proved that movies could be art in their own right with movies such as Citizen Kane, Metropolis, and Casablanca.
Cinema didn't become art overnight, it took dedication by skilled creators to transform it from mere moving pictures to legitmate art. To accomplish this all the factors that make a movie a movie had to be working in perfect harmony with one another. A 100 piece orchestra will still sound good even if a few of the instruments are working properly, but the truly great compositions need all 100 instruments to be working together perfectly.
And now we have videogames. My thoughts have lead me to believe that videogames are the next evolution in art, much like cinema and theater before. What seperates videogames from stage plays and books is that the audience is put in a seat of relative power. No longer are they merely watching scripted events play out in perfect timing, they now have the ability to decide how and when these events play out. In other words, videogames add freedom and interactivity, as well as a larger level of immersion, to what movies have added to art.
If videogames CAN be art, are there any yet that ARE? This is a difficult question to answer. While it's true that games such as ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, and the Metal Gear Solid series have expanded the meaning of videogames, they are still no match for the for greats of other art forms. They give us a hint, a taste, of what videogames can do in the realm of art, but they are merely stepping stones in the evolution of the art form to heights that we cannot begin to imagine. It'll happen eventually; one day videogames will be considered legimate art in the same way that paintings, movies, books, music, and stage plays are, but until all the parts that make a videogame a videogame are able to work in perfect harmony this will still be a dream of the future.
Let me ask you one question. Can a game ever be considered an art? That is, a naked game, played only for the sake of the gameplay.
I have to disagree with you on one point, that being that current games can't really be considered art so much as an evolutionary stepping stone to art.
What are the earliest-known examples of human artistic expression? Cave paintings. Bone carvings. Pottery with crude adornments and designs. These are most certainly the baby steps in the evolution of human art. Compared to what we can create today, they lack much in the way of aesthetics and meaning. Yet, we still call it art. So why can't even early, crude games be art, if we are to say that videogames in general can ever be considered art?
Personally, I think there are tons of games that can be considered art, some for their graphical beauty, some for their musical scores, and others still for their complete package. For example, I consider Silent Hill 2 a game that transcends any other medium for sheer immersiveness and artistic value. It's deeper than any movie, deeper than many books, and is so full of hidden meanings that hardcore fans debate the finer points of the game a half-decade after its release.
Videogames are evolving much faster than movies are as an art form.
Quote: Videogames are evolving much faster than movies are as an art form.
Not necessarily. We've had videogames for roughly 30 years, Metropolis came out roughly 30 years after the invention of movies.
Videogames are being held back from being the art form that, I believe, they one day will be by one thing. Older generations still shrug them off as toys, amusement for children. I hate to say it, but I don't think viddogames will be wholly accepted as an art form until you and I comprise the older generation. We've grown up with games our whole lives, a luxury our parents and grandparents did not have. Our love for games, however dormant it may become, will always be there. Until the "childrens toy" stigma is lifted from gaming, I believe we're at an evolutionary standstill.
You say Metropolis like it's some bastion that speaks across generations and to the human condition, abstractifying some aspect of reality into a form that is recognizable by the average person for what it is.
That's the definition I've heard for art, but what to make of beads and jewelry? What possible message can that get across, or does it simply look "pretty"? I say this because that's some of the earliest art humans have produced. Are they not art simply because there is no message? Or, is the message simply a mathematical one? The math that is hard wired into our minds that allows us to determine what is and is not pretty.
By the same token, I would like to hear a valid definition of what constitutes "art". Unless we can nail down the definition, the word "art" is utterly meaningless. From there we can decide what does and does not match that definition and see if games are among that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
Wikipedia defines art as anything crafted by intelligence. Martial arts, for example, or a painting, all fit in this. Video games are art by this definition as well. Problem solved.
Not so fast. There is something some might contend. By this definition, a rainbow, a nebula, flowers, a sunset, a spider's web, accidently spilling some paint producing, by accident, a sheerly random event that still has meaning to the beholder, even (possibly) meaningful images generated by a computer via artificial "natural selection" (the last one is actually somewhere in between, since the nature of this digital evolution program is artificed, and is thus art itself, but can art make art even though after that point no intelligence is involved?) are not art. None of these are made by an intelligence, and are merely the nature of reality. However, we certainly find meaning in them, and a number of people do consider such things art even without an intelligence involved in their construction.
So what then? Does "art" become defined as "anything which can potentially have meaning to us"? Well, that would describe ALL things in existance, and the nonexistant as well. Art suddenly becomes a non-word. If it can describe everything, of what good is the word at all? One might say "well it means everything can have an artistic quality", but that misses the point. If art defines everything, an artistic quality suddenly defines everything as well. Artistic qualities themselves become art. And, we already have a word for "everything". In fact, I just said it. Art is utterly meaningless if it describes everything. We have to try again.
So, define art.
Requires creative perception both by the artist and by the audience
Elusive (as in "tending to evade cut-and-dried definitions or being fixedly grasped")
Communicates on many levels and is open to many interpretations
Connotes a sense of ability
Interplay between the conscious and unconscious mind, between what is real and what is an illusion
May contain an idea other than its utilitarian purpose.
Created with the intention to be experienced as art
Displays different forms of captivating beauty or intrigue.
Here are the current characteristics listed for what "art" is. Very concice and I can't really argue with it, except for the "created with the intention to be experienced as art" issue, which runs into the same problems I listed above. Far too many people would take issue with such a thing. After all, a sunset can easily have a deeper meaning applied to it by us humans, and interpreted as a microcosm of something, or a macrocosm.
But, note this. With all these characteristics listed by wiki, video games are not once excluded from the definition. In fact, the majority of games in general are not excluded. Pong = Art However, this isn't new. Just as martial arts or dance can be considered art, some have stated a good game of "the football" is poetry in motion. If sports can be art, why can't games?
In all cases, it can't be art unless there is someone to experience it as art. It may also be that someone has to have intelligently designed it to begin with to be art.
Anyway, it's narrowed down further I think. I will say this. I have yet to see a single definition that excludes video games. Thus, I must say from everything I've seen, video games aren't just an emerging art form, they have emerged and have always been art.
More study reveals this to me:
Quote:Tolstoy detaches art from non-art (or counterfeit art); art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "infects" the viewer. Thus, real art requires the capacity to unite people via communication (clearness and genuineness are therefore crucial values). This aesthetic conception led Tolstoy to widen the criteria of what exactly a work of art is; he believed that the concept art embraces any human activity in which one emitter, by means of external signs, transmits previously experienced feelings. Tolstoy exemplifies this: a boy that has experienced fear after an encounter with a wolf and later relates that experience, infecting the hearers and compelling them to feel what he had experienced—that is a perfect example of a work art.
Video games are the very essance of this idea of what art should do. In some ways a game (well, video or otherwise) can be considered the very pinnicle of art.
Quote:You say Metropolis like it's some bastion that speaks across generations and to the human condition, abstractifying some aspect of reality into a form that is recognizable by the average person for what it is.
In many ways it is.
The question isn't whether videogames are a form of artistic expression, in the general sense... of course they are... the issue is where they fit -- 'better' or 'worse' than movies, etc. I don't know... movies have had a lot longer to develop of course, and are probably farther, but videogames have created some truly great works too...
I think the issue of "better or worse" is a bit silly. They are different catagories. A good game has different needs to meet than a good movie.
Of course video games are a form of art because at its core is a form of story telling. Not the actual script of the game mind you or dialogue of the characters, though that can be enough to place it in the catagory of art - an interavtive graphic novel.
But video games are the expression of commiting to simple goals in order to achieve larger goals that progressively becomes more complicated and/or more difficult. The interaction of the player to the game which has been designed by play-mechanics and the director in to the environment which has been digitally sculpted to carry a vision of the director and art director along with the music and sound effects to bring more emotion and life in to that environment whether that content be of a comedic, dramatic, surreal or what have you, to form the illusion of realism even if that realism is what we know to be untrue.
That interaction of the player to the game is the real art. The player becomes the antagonist causing the change to the game which is then the (game itself) protagonist. Because we are individuals by nature each person extrapolates their own version of what is happening, their life experiences and exposure to other aspects of entertainment (film, TV, books, etc) or life creates a larger pallete that in the case of video games made with the ideal of being 'larger than life' to have deeper more significant ideals as the player gains more real life experience. This can be seen in anything from the bible to a steven spielberg movie, in other words anything with a well-thought out presentation of ideals
What it all really comes down to is the amount of time and thought put in to something to create that illusion. For example the Mona Lisa grabs us and causes us to wonder what the artist was thinking but also what Mona Lisa is thinking, why the smile? why the surroundings of nature? Thousands of theories pop up, Leonardo obviously felt that women are superior and that they are more in tune with nature. / Leonardo obviously felt that women are dangerous because they have become far removed from nature. etc. The real truth is the Mona Lisa is leonardo Da Vinci in a female body, smiling because of his willingness to accept his deviant sexuality.
We can find things like in Kubrick movies called 'hidden meanings' or the ability to use sound, visuals and dialogue to tell more than one story simultaneously, and we can also find this video games. Like Silent Hill or Final Fantasy and especially Zelda.
Ryan told me about something that gives us a glipse in to the hidden meanings of Zelda when Nintendo was taken to court over th use of certain symbols and music in the game 'Ocarina of Time'. Turns out the symbol of the muslim faith was used on the mirror shield and muslim chanting was mixed in to the sound track of the fire temple. If we look closely at Ocarina of Time, we can see more hints about the various cultures in conflict during the progression of the game and find a common thread to real history and its translation in to the Zelda universe.
Just as Kubrick laid a foundation of hidden meanings in his films like in the shining where subtle hints of the european invasion of America and the slaughtering of indians is found through the film in various ways, completely hidden and iconicaly presented. The same ideal behind many stories in the bible or other religious stories.
So it is time and thought put in to the creation of a thing that is given to individuals to enjoy as entertainment that we consider art, and video games, using a mixture of many different previously existing forms of art and completely new avenues of interaction to it, is definitely art. That cannot be argued. But it is the willingness of the individual to accept it that truely seperates the creation of a thing from what is considered to be art.
Some people find the engine used in muscle cars to be a form of art, seeing its beauty and wondering at its design, but those people are few and we dont accept a mechanical device that is used in practical life to be a form of art. Video games are a mechanical device that is used in our practical lives, the manipulation of light on a display for entertainment purposes. But it is what the designers do with that base that creates the thing to be judged, and so on.
Besides, if a woman can spray paint from her vagina and display it in artistic venues where it is judged by individuals, both professional and casual who proclaim it to be a form of art, than video games can DEFINITELY be wholly placed in the catagory.
Quote:You say Metropolis like it's some bastion that speaks across generations and to the human condition, abstractifying some aspect of reality into a form that is recognizable by the average person for what it is.
Not only does the film speak volumes of man's inherent desire to create life and his love/hate relationship with the opposite sex but also of his fear of the future and its security. Will you live on the skyscrapers enjoying life's pleasures or toil in the boilers and machines slaving your life for them. For the audience we see the Olympus like skyscrapers holding untruths and giving its people a false sense of reality, even to the point of making them weak. While th people who slave for their government under the city have a strength and understanding - we see (as th audience) that if these two worlds would collide it could be massive panic... or very beneficial. But it also speaks of a man's good intentions and how those intentions are viewed by a world - fear of change, fear of the unknown.
But more than anything, it speaks of man's greatest evil, our desire to be more than what we are. To think that we can perfect God's greatest creation.
A side from that, the film is also well made with beautiful special effects and a story that is told as to be accepted by everyone in any culture of any age and is still entertaining to this day. You can even find it in Blockbuster. In every film school around the world, Metropolis is the foundation to which we build our knowledge of what a film is (well and some others too but Metropolis is the coolest :D).
(I seriously need to stop reading threads backwards)
Quote:Tolstoy detaches art from non-art (or counterfeit art); art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "infects" the viewer. Thus, real art requires the capacity to unite people via communication (clearness and genuineness are therefore crucial values). This aesthetic conception led Tolstoy to widen the criteria of what exactly a work of art is; he believed that the concept art embraces any human activity in which one emitter, by means of external signs, transmits previously experienced feelings. Tolstoy exemplifies this: a boy that has experienced fear after an encounter with a wolf and later relates that experience, infecting the hearers and compelling them to feel what he had experienced—that is a perfect example of a work art.
I never agreed with Tolstoy, what he brings up is only a fraction of the entire meaning of art. Art is not just to mimic or re-create, that's a very 'scoff scoff, powdered wigs an wot' way of looking at it as you completely denounce all fictional forms of art. You cannot re-create or mimic what has never been. You can try to ground it in existing sciences or theology (science fiction), but that is only half the picture.
Interesting.
And I have to say your view of how gameplay functions as art was very much in tune with how I see it.
However, I must put you to task just for the sake of argument.
Give us an accurate and concise definition of "art".
Quote:it is time and thought put in to the creation of a thing that is given to individuals to enjoy as entertainment that we consider art... But it is the willingness of the individual to accept it that truely seperates the creation of a thing from what is considered to be art.
*jazz trumpet solo*
Hmm, seems a tad contradictory...
Let me see here. Is it your contention that art has to meet BOTH those requirements? Worded more specifically, art is something crafted by an intelligence for the purpose of entertainment and is also viewed as entertainment by the intended audience. Is that what you are stating? Or, are you saying that the former isn't accurate but rather art is whatever we accept as entertaining?
Forgive me, but the meaning isn't entirely clear.
Unfortunately it will never be clear as it's entirely based in opinion. Upbringing, education, life experiences, daily routines such as hobbies or work, sexual prefrences, etc all culminate in to a pot of judgement that is passed on anything we come in to contact with through our inherent inquisetive nature.
Art can be placed in easy to understand catagories, I could state that art only exists when it is something that the majority agrees upon as art. This is widely used as a catalyst to pronounce art. Societal standard dictates that the majority is correct even if the outcome is immoral or wrong when compared to other opinions formed by a majority in another culture or even time frame. We see this all the time through history; some of the most beautiful works of art were condemned as being pornographic up until the majority of those who hold that opinion were educated otherwise.
Then it can get really confusing when trying to catagorize th ideal of art with things like ancient artifacts. Now, the age of the object dictates its worth, no matter what it is, even a small statue made of common minerals that shows a man hitting his wife is 'priceless' and is auctioned off to museums around the world, the highest bidder getting the rights to display the priceless artifact in its halls even though the actual object shows something that makes us uncomfortable or could even be seen as wrong or immoral by the majority of people who will see it and, is made of worthless materials to boot. But antiquity, the fact that an object of hundreds or thousands of years has survived this long intact rules over all conceptions of worth. Therfore we could hypothosize that the age of an object is directly proportional to its artistic value... but that's not true at all.
truely a masterpiece of a celebrated painter of which he spent months or years in its creation is more worthy than a 10,000 year old arrowhead... right? Again, opinion of the individual takes presidence over all authority of art. In Japanese culture, tradition takes presidence; so traditional art is always worth more than modern art, even if they're made by the same person (within the same time frame). But thankfully, there are groups of 'radicals' who disagree with the culture and protest that the art carries the same value and should be embraced.
So then, it's a matter of opinion... but who carries the stronger opinion? Opinions are usually a stab at truth, when all the facts aren't widely known an opinion can carry us closer to finding the real meaning to something. We guage opinions from people based on who they are, if your friend is a mechanic who works on cars, you'd go to him to ask him his opinion on your car. But you wouldn't go to him to ask him his opinion on clothing styles or government politics, you know his opinion wouldn't carry alot of weight.
So since opinions are formulated to be truth seeking views, we can see that a piece of art with more thought and time put in to it stays in our culture longer and becomes widely accepted because of its depth and the fact that the opinions formulated are a reflection of that depth.
Putting thought and time in to something is the difference between a successful piece of art and a forgotten one. Unfortunately as we progress in our iconic representation of the world around us and the infinite possibilities of that representation we can find ourselves lost in the clouded and confusing world of artistic freedom and imagination.
You may see a disgusting sculpture of a man nailed to an ornate post, bleeding to death in his final moments. A monument to pain and torture; but it is viewed as salvation, as a figure head of sacrifice for the love of God. Extremely confusing, but artistic freedom and imagination is used to convey deeper meanings this way. And this piece of art is a construct of the teachings from the bible, so if you didnt know or understand the meanings of this art or why it was created, the more research you did in to the art would shed immense amounts of knowledge and hostory, meaning the more you learn about it, the more meaning it has. Which is not true for all art.
So should we only celebrate the art that sheds more meaning in to our opinions? The only things to be viewed as art are things that continue to grow inwards as you probe its meaning? The answer might be yes if you look at popular culture, but it's not. We use this mentality when watching movies or reading a book. But what about a tree? A simple tree, nothing spectacular, it has not been manufactured or designed by any one, it does not gain opinion or meaning except for its scientific purpose of existence in the flow of life on Earth... oh :D
Now suddenly, the existence of an object in its most simple form holds more beauty than anything man can offer through his imagination. A simple nude woman, flawed, imperfect, worn, gives us a glimpse in to nature's pure design of perfection that to this day is not totally understood even by the top minds; the height of design that is so unbelievably amazing that it goes beyond our comprehension of how something like this simple unexplained thing could even exist - to this day we cannot find answers to how parts of it work or function. It is simply beyond us, and that why it deserves our highest respect, but now i'm ranting.
Dark Jaguar Wrote:art is whatever we accept as entertaining?
Yes - and the more thought and time in to the production of that art will it give more value to it. Of course, there are millions of variables to consider which is where opinion steps in and gives the majority a stable, easy to understand view of the art. Ultimately, all art falls in to 3 catagories: Good, bad, or misunderstood. :D
Thank you for clarifying.
Even if it is opinion, just like good or evil is based on opinion, it can still be clearly defined. It's just that the level of subjectivity and what attributes are subjective will be listed in any valid definition.
Good is whatever benefits a being, and evil is whatever causes harm to a being. These are very specific definitions, but they are also very subjective, as it depends on what the definer considers harmful or beneficial. I am not saying my above definition is the only one we should use. I'm only saying it is valid because it can be specified as something in particular with characteristic defining it's nature. A is A, the first letter of the alphabet, a character used to indicate a sound, written as "A" or "a". As opposed to: A has an A-like quality. If it can't be identified, the concept has no meaning. It also can't just have secondary characteristics, like "A is not any of the other letters of the alphabet", this is secondary because it's only after we establish what it is that we can properly say what it is not, that will follow based on those primary characteristics defining it for what it is. Even "the unknown cause of death" as a concept can be properly defined. It is currently unknown, it lacks evidence as to specify it, and it has caused the death of this particular person. Any more specifics are lacking, but that definition is specific enough to define exactly what the concept "the unknown cause of death" is.
However, I must say I agree with your definition.
Ancient artifacts are only mildly appreciated for artistic value a lot of the time. For those that take interest, the value comes in the historical knowledge one can gain about the past from such artifacts. For example, the piece you describe can tell us such activities were either common enough or accepted enough that art could be made depicting such domestic violence. The historical knowledge the art of the past is of value often greatly exceeding whatever artistic value may be present. There are exceptions mind you. Most people find much more value in Leonardo's artwork for it's artistic nature than it's historic nature. Personally, I enjoy the art depicting scientific concepts (like that golden mean image of a man in a rectangle in a circle) more than his other works. It relates more to my own tastes, so I prefer it. I also love studying his scientific discoveries and engineering works. I understand he was thought of as rather lazy by some of his contractors... I also understand that a number of his inventions were purposefully or otherwise flawed in the design sketches (purposefully is a common hobby in the era before copyrights, a single critical flaw only the designer knows of that prevents the invention from working should someone just steal the design from the blueprints).
Of course games are art. Have you seen some of the crap that's considered legitimate art? I'm looking at you performance art.
Tell me
this isn't art.