Video Games As Art - The New Faraci Heresy - Page 9

Devin,

Thanks for responding. I guess I just don't agree with you that if *a* game can be art than all games must be art, or that if all games are not art than none can be. You say the argument is "videogames are art" but that is not my argument. My argument is that you can make a work of art that is also a 'videogame'.

Is a cellphone video home movie of your kids eating worms "art"? Its just a home movie, IMHO. Is a pornographic video with no story or plot 'art'? No, it's just sleaze.

Just because those things are not 'art' but were created through the same medium used to make the Godfather does not mean that all film can not be art

I don't know what peggle is, but assuming peggle is not art, I'm not sure what that has to do with a game like Deus Ex. Interactive electronic software is just a medium. It can be something functional like photoshop or something like digital chess, or, sometimes, it can be a work of interactive art. That's my take anyway. Thanks for listening

Sure, just like architecture is not art, just like Abramovic's work is not art. All of which is fine with me. But it does seem to render the word 'art' a bit dull. Like if you can't hang it in a museum, don't even bother.

Well, the definition of art is very broad as time passes; I remember when a local museum was under fire for a exhibit consisting of a series of blenders, each with a live goldfish inside.
Yup, the artist claimed that the work was focused on wheter someone turned the thing on or not (they were unplugged, BTW)
Why was that considered "Art"?

I thought the Ebert piece backed up a lot of what Devin said. I didn't think people would use it as an excuse to trot out already well-refuted arguments.

Where? When? Cause the damn search function didnt give me much results for blender or goldfish amd an i just read the last 2 pages of posts.

I think that Roger makes a good point with his article.

But, we must consider that videogames have evolved from just being games. Take Mass Effect 2 for example, it can be an emotional rollercoaster ride and it's not about beating it or reaching a highscore. It's about the experience.

It's a coherent and structured interactive narrative, escapism on the purest level, and like all good art it tells you about yourself and your own nature just as much it tells you about the nature of the people who designed it.

Problem is that Ebert sees all videogames as purely games. He does make a great point (not his wording but my deduction) in that what we perceive as games might be more than that, and maybe should not qualify to be merely called games...

I will (although you might as well ask around how many people are willing to read a 9 page long thread every time they decide to post for the first time or after a long time).
However, if my example was new and still served as a valid point/question, why the hell point it out?

Who says that everyone plays the game that way?

Personally I played Shepard as if I was in his shoes and not all my choices led to the absolute positive.

If your approach to Mass Effect 2 is to 100% it and not enjoy the true value of the game which is it's immersion, characters and narrative, than that's not the fault of Mass Effect 2, but your own.

To me, saying that ME2 is about beating it is like saying that LOTR is about the ring being thrown in to Mount Doom, or that Blade Runner is about Rick getting the girl at the end.

The operative words here are "game" and "played". A game can't be art, it's a game.

You don't 'play' Starry Night or Night Of The Hunter.

...and not a single proponent of the 'games as art' argument seems willing to aderres the question of why they so desperately need them to be seen as art in the first place. What is wrong with them just being games? Why is that a bad thing? Art is not a qualitive statement, a game can be fucking incredible and move you and immerse you in it, why does it need to be qualified as art on top of that by so many people?

It just smacks of arch insecurity to me.

Read my prior comment, since I think that videogames ceased to be merely games.

And from my perspective you can call them potatoes for all I care, just wanted to contribute my opinion on Ebert's latest article.

But that's the point, isn't it? Games will be art as soon as you can get the majority of people to go along with the notion that they are - whatever that means. That's the way it worked with all artforms, and that is why we're having this discussion, AGAIN.

Personally, I don't care either way. I like things that are "good", in the sense that they give me something that I think is of value in return for what I invest in them. That doesn't change, no matter what label is en vogue to try and pin on it at the moment.

In the end, the concept of art probably only exists because in the dawn of time someone had to explain to their parents why they didn't get a real job ;-)

Yes but 'what you call them' is the crux of all this. A potato isn't art either.

Well that's a personal preference I guess, I call some videogames art just as I call some movies art, or some books. You call them games and that's fine with me.

Telling people that they're wrong in calling something art or not art is very pointless if you ask me, all I can do is argue my view on the subject, but that's it.

People seem to want to call video games art because some gaming journalists and critics are hot to call it art. Not all of them, but enough seem to think of it as art to keep the tired debate alive.

I think certain videogames could certainly be described as artful, but not art. They're an entertainment product.

I play chess by smearing peanut butter on all of the pieces and seeing which stick to the wall best. I may be creating some kind of terrible abstract art in the process, but I'm also playing the game incorrectly.

With some games, there may be various ways to "win." But there's still some ultimate goal in mind - some ending point that you seek to reach by the use of strategy. This is the equivalent of using different moves in chess so that you either win or, if need be, reach a stalemate so that you don't lose.

It's a silly argument, and it's Ebert who keeps bringing the damned thing up.

There is an art to creating a game universe. This doesn't translate. I think you can get into the gray areas with certain craftsmanship (say, architecture), but games in principle no.

This sounds about right. Craftsmanship is one thing, and a game can certainly incorporate art elements, but these things are window dressing, and have not yet, and possibly cannot translate to actual gameplay mechanics, which have remained more or less the same since the dawn of time... right, left, up, down. Although, now we have an action/fire button, so I guess we're getting somewhere.

Too much time is spent discussing the look of a game when considering it art, but the fact remains that any game could just as easily be played on paper. Games are more or less abstract concepts, sets of parameters that have to be followed... and if you don't follow them, you don't win. That's not art.

The other thing is, SHADOW OF THE COLOSSUS, whatever, you may get emotionally invested in these games. But as the Tiger Woods Whore Fiasco teaches us, we imbue our sports figures with characteristics, and qualities to add to our enjoyment of the game. And you can find emotion in a lot of games, but it doesn't change the basic function of the thing itself. A Laker vs. Cavs game can create a narrative about how Kobe and Shaw used to be old teammates, and the inherent rivalry between Lebron and Kobe, but that doesn't make that game more artistic than the Clippers playing the Trailblazers.

Leaving the "art or not" debate aside, what about a game like Train? While there are rules, breaking them or - at least in the mind of its creator - refusing to play it at all can be part of the game. Can this be an argument for broadening the definition of what is and isn't a game, or is it some other form of entertainment/communication of ideas masquerading as one?

My response before I read what Train is: "I'm currently refusing to play Train. I'm also refusing to play Trivial Pursuit. But I'm also refusing to watch the Seventh Seal and read the New York Times (not indefinitely - I have a paper to finish). My refusal to do something is not intrinsic to the art argument, so I'm not sure what the point is."

My response after I read what Train is: "That's quite possibly the dumbest idea for a game ever. You could put that same ridiculous twist ending on the end of Candy Land and claim it has subtext: YOU WEREN'T JUST WINNING THE GAME! YOU WERE LEADING YOUR PIECE TO THE GAS CHAMBER!!!"

So you are saying that I'm experiencing Mass Effect incorrectly by letting myself get immersed in the world, the story and the characters? Okay...

My point is that most people don't play games like this for the purpose of beating it, but for the experience if offers as a whole. Just like a movie or a novel, you don't watch/read it for the sole reason to get to the last frame/page.

Also, most artists are craftsmen as well. Painting, sculpting even filmmaking are crafts. Why can't a virtual sculptor, architect or even a painter be an artist?

I don't watch pornography for the fucking, I come for the story.

That's the best argument against games being art I've heard so far, and it's true in most cases for videogames. People play them because the gameplay is fun.

But like all new artform it introduces a new element to the table, games haven't come this far yet (maybe they never will) but why wouldn't how you play a game be an artistic expression of the player? The potential is there.

In film Kubrick bridged this gap between storyteller and the audience with 2001: A Space Odyssey.

First of all, this is not about what art is. Secondly, the idea behind the game and others created by Brathwaite isn't so much about out-Shyamalaning M. Night as it is about eliciting a response from the player not through narrative elements (admittedly a shaky argument) or competition (no win/lose scenario), but primarily through the mechanics of the game themselves - the rules.

What's really interesting, though, is the idea that the game is open-ended, and that it's up to the player to decide what to do after the twist is revealed. In your example the game would end there ("Don't you feel like an asshole now!"), but Train continues from there, asking: "Now that you know what you've been doing, what is your response? What do you do now?". Among other things, it adds a layer of personal responsibility for the fate of your pieces, instead of allowing you the comfort of knowing that it was fate (the rules) or God (the game designer) that lead you to the grim outcome of your Candyland adventure.

Stopping to play is a legitimate choice to end the game, as opposed to cheating or breaking the game (leaving it unfinished or wiping the pieces off the chess board in the face of inevitable defeat) - something the current definition of what a game is does not allow.

My question is: Is Train a game, or is it something else? You cannot beat it in a traditional sense, you are not bound to its rules, and yet you can "play" it, or interact with it as you see fit. What does that make it? (Again, this is not about art.)

Immersiveness is not an argument for art. As mentioned above, people get immersed in professional sports. People also get immersed in butterfly collecting, having sex, and taking LSD. This doesn't mean that these activities involve the experience of art.

You can say this of every game. Does that mean that checkers is art?

Premise 1: Most artists are craftsmen.
Premise 2: Game designers are craftsmen.
Conclusion: Game designers are artists.

Invalid reasoning.

Kubrick didn't bridge any gap that hadn't been bridged the first time a caveman drew something on the wall and other cavemen took a look at it. The creation of meaning is always a collaborative, communicative activity.

It's a game.

That you can stop playing at any time.

Just like Candyland or chess.

Indeed it's not. But is any of the things you mentioned a guided narrative experience like a modern videogame? Hence me saying a few posts back that what we perceive today as videogames has evolved in to something more.

And my argument was not for immersion, but for how I play the game and for what purpose, since Devin stated that everyone plays a game like Mass Effect 2 for the sole reason of beating it. Which is absolutely untrue.

I just took 2001 as an example, not a pioneer of anything. Because one of the unique features of 2001 is that it lets the audience form it's own reasoning and conclusion from the evens that happened in the film, making the audience an active participator in the storytelling. And no matter what they conclude there is no wrong answer, as Kubrick himself said it.

Ah, but it can be given the proper context.


Art is used to entertain as well.

From where I stand, this "game as art" would be classified to the area of Interactive arthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art From this it's "programmed in order to elicit responses based on participant action"

It really depends on the school of thought that you subscribe to.

R.G. Collingwood says "Works of art are only means to an end; the end is this total imaginative experience which they enable us to enjoy"

So have what you well, it all falls into your own personal opinion on what art is.

I agree as well. I do not play games to just beat them, I play to experience them.

I can understand that you can call a pencil, a chair or a curtain art. To a certain extent, I empathize as I have had discussions with people where I blanch when they suggest certain movies aren't cinema, or art, or whatever. I think there is a danger in suggesting that certain things can be dismissed from discussion. At the same time, if the discussion is that all man-made things are art is not very interesting.

"The documentary made an enormous appeal to my senses and emotions, although I am not proposing it as art."
This troubles me.
What about docs, like Ebert calls out?
A craftsman makes a violin. An artist (musician) uses that violin as a tool to make art (music). But no matter how beautiful the craftsmanship, that violin can never be art... Unless you hang it on the wall. Am I getting it right? But according to the ICP, music is MAGIC!

Is a concept car parked in a car museum art? It's purpose is not to be driven now (interaction), but to be appreciated for its innovation and in many cases, its aesthetic qualities. So, the pleasing design is art possibly, but not the object itself. Unless you turn it upside down and transfer it to an ART museum for art appreciators to ponder the meaning behind turning it upside down.

I strongly suggest reading the rest of this thread. We've been over the "but this is a narrative" rationale a number of times already. It really doesn't hold up: narrative is not a requirement for art, thus the inclusion of narrative does not automatically designate something as art.

It's not the sole reason, but it's a reason. That's enough.

Okay, this is the problem with these discussions. I'm trying to remain conscious of where this becomes condescending (and I apologize if this steps over the line), but these arguments for video games-as-art always seem to come from a position that lacks perspective on art.

Okay, here goes:

There is nothing unique or unusual about any piece of art that lets an audience form its own conclusions about its meaning.

In fact, I'd say that's essential for art. The only difference with 2001 and other works that stress textual or subtextual ambiguity (and these works ARE NOT NOVEL) is that they make you conscious of your role in this meaning-making.

I bring this up only to pre-emptively refute the inevitable point that someone will make that Kubrick or some other artist just recently introduced the idea of collaborative meaning-making and video game designers are just taking this supposedly new development to a natural conclusion. Collaborative meaning-making is intrinsic to all art and even all communication. No exceptions. This is not the same as interactivity in a gaming sense.

The obvious difference being that you only reach the legitimate conclusion of the game in only one of these examples. According to your own definition, one can play a game incorrectly, but this choice - again, referring to the article that I may have misinterpreted - appears not to be given with this "game".

If Train is just another game, then games don't have an inherent need for unbreakable rules or a possibility to win or lose, which would call into question the definition of "game" as proposed in this thread.

Honestly, I'm not trying to make a point one way or another in the whole "games as art" mess. I came across this "game" recently, and thought maybe this thread was the right place to discuss it in order to form my own opinions on it. Now that you've challenged me to really consider it, I think perhaps simulation is the best way to describe Train.

Funny thing is I never said such a thing. And I never made a connection between collaborative meaning making and interactivity in games. If someone else did then I haven't noticed it.

I took 2001 as an example of an artist bridging the gap between himself and the audience as a storyteller, and like I said before not a pioneer of any kind.

How about we start reading to what we're replying from now on before jumping on the preacher's cart?

"Not meaning-making but as a storyteller" doesn't mean anything - it's a false distinction. If you're trying to say that Kubrick invited the audience to conclude the story by bringing out the ambiguity of it, then you're saying that he's inviting them to participate in meaning-making. Again - this is not unusual, much less "unique," which is the word you used.

I've fully addressed your point, but you seem to think we're talking about different things (meaning-making vs. storytelling), so you missed it.

And, as I said in my post, some of it was pre-emptive*, because if you try to argue that Kubrick did something new by encouraging participation, then the obvious next move in a thread about videogames is to find the analogy on the videogame end.

* Strawman? Maybe, but if you read the thread (PLEASE READ THE THREAD), many of us have been through every possible permutation of this argument before. It's pretty predictable.

Interesting thread.

At present, video games are not art but it isn't inconceivable that in the future they'll be considered art. They've already begun to break thresholds but I'd still easily put them in the developmental stage but well past infancy. Remember, it took almost 30 years from inception for film to be considered an art form and I'd set the starting marker for games at 1993 with Myst.

For those keeping track, there was another thread only a month or so that tackled this:
http://chud.com/forum/showthread.php?t=121637

If anyone desparately wants to know what I think on the topic (and I'm sure you don't), it's in there.

I'd put the starting marker at the point that someone first came up with rules for throwing a rock into a designated area for points (or whatever our ancestors did for fun). And I'd note that in all the millennia for which humanity has played games, the issue of artistry seldom came up until video game designers started putting realistic-looking backgrounds on shoot-em-ups as if that changes the fundamental nature of game play*.

* Yes, yes, I know. It's all about the narrative, etc. But Dungeons & Dragons modules had narratives, as well, and relatively few were arguing that this, in itself, constituted art. Make the games look like cinema, though, and all of a sudden we've mysteriously got arguments for games as art. Curious.

At this point, I think we're this close to start banning certain themes/thread topics.
I'm pretty sure some of the threads in the videogame section also ended up in this.

Snark aside, the marker should obviously go during the Interactive Fiction (Infocom, etc) years.
The release of "Adventure" (1975) is a good marker for this.

I'm more in the camp that a videogame itself not art. Specifically, the gameplay aspect is not art. However, the content and design within games could be considered art. For example, both cinema and videogames have concept art and storyboards.

What button on your remote control do you press when you watch either Starry Night or Night of the Hunter at home on DVD? (just giving you some shit, I know what you're saying)

Well, there were those that had a problem considering film to be an art form as well as various styles of music. It took a strong product and advocacy to win over the establishment.

[source]

Now, simply using Ricciotto Canudo's argument it isn't hard to apply those same rational's to certain elements of video games. After all it is a synthesis of the five ancient arts. Now, it may only emerge that certain sub-genres of video games are considered an art form just as not all filmed products fall into the category of art (movies, television, documentary etc..) News, as a prime example.

It really took the last few years when we've reached a sort of technological plateau for software developers to create game engines that enabled a much more lush, robust environment(architecture, sculpture & painting) for games as well as a greater opportunity for story development (music & poetry). Game engines like Euphoria which enables the entire environment to be unique and when interaction within that environment occurs, create a unique experience really open up the medium. One of the best examples would be Grand Theft Auto IV, when you have a car crash.. it's different each and every time due to various game elements (car mass, velocity, weight, direction).

As to the entertainment aspect of it, what do you think movies, television, music, dance and art are?

Now, like I said... it's going to take a product to really push this. I think games like Dragon's Age, Fallout 3, GTAIV are some great building blocks but they are not art. I don't know what it will take but I'm sure we're heading in that direction rather than as a sub genre of film.

Not the same issues. Film is technically a hybrid form of things that were all previously considered art. Video games bring the concept of gaming, in general, into the mix, and games have never been considered art.

You can apply the argument to aspects of video games, but I think most of us who disagree with the games-as-art folks generally acknowledge that video games include aspects of art. The problem is that the very important addition of "game" to the mix is not covered by Canudo's argument.

I may have a room that contains pictures on the wall, but its main function is a place of dwelling. It's not really art; it just has some art in it.

But then you're just arguing quality, not domain. The dividing line between "art" and "not art" isn't based on whether the piece in question looks prettier or more ornate. Taste aside, Mondrian may be your Pong comparison, and Bosch may be your GTA comparison, but Mondrian and Bosch pieces are both art - lushness and quality don't matter. So if you're arguing GTA, you've got to argue Pong, too.

Uniqueness is not a requisite for art.

If this is in reference to "(or whatever our ancestors did for fun)," feel free to amend it to "(or whatever competitive things our ancestors did for fun)." I didn't mean to imply that art isn't entertainment, because it most certainly is. So are games. A lot of things fall under that umbrella.

Again, I think it's wrongheaded to assume that quality is what will bump games into art territory. We're arguing domain parameters, not quality parameters. I'm sure games will continue to become more and more complex, challenging, and perhaps even emotionally compelling. But they'll still be games, and there are no precedents for games to be considered art, thus there are no defined hurdles that they must clear to end up in the territory of art. Without such hurdles, there are no criteria other than precedent, which says games aren't art.

Indeed, as pointed out by other folks here film went through the same hoops that videogames are jumping through now to be considered an art form not so long ago.

An art form seems to be defined by a general consensus and not by the merits it provides.

As Robert McKee said the purpose of art is the furthering of human spirit, I'll agree that videogames aren't that far yet, but they definitely have potential to do so.

Except that Robert McKee is a moron.