Games as art. Again. - Page 17

So you say. I've been in fixed rollercoasters with movie screens that made me feel very physically involved.

Also, if you want to get physically involved in a game... play sports.

I don't need to have played the game to know that there's no fucking thing as interactive synesthesia. It's like saying there's such a thing as interactive dyslexia or interactive colorblindness!

Unless that interactive synesthesia somehow makes your brain associate letters with colors or something, it's not working.

The Evolution level of Rez is a work of art.

Visually, thematically, sonically, interactively . . .

That might be the best example yet. Obviously, no one in this debate is changing their mind. Probably because a lot of these definitions of what 'art' is are meaningless.

Find me a definition of art that nails it down, that allows us to make broadly reaching conclusions as to what is and isn't, and you get a cookie. I've been looking, and about the only recurring theme in the question 'what is art' is the creative impulse. Medium, synthesis, intent, audience reaction . . . that shit is all up to debate. So many examples of what might be considered art, but cannot readily be defined as such, have been offered in this debate and summarily ignored it's comical. We're left with the bitter partisans, trying to will their way to a concession that isn't coming.

'Games as art.'

Many in the industry feel it should be considered as such. They are entitled to their opinion. And regardless whether or not we accept them as art or as simply entertainment (and entertainment is a big part of this debate that has been simply ignored, I guess because it's an 'immature' starting point, and I'm done arguing it), they are a part of our collective culture. The men and women making these video games, they're developing creative content that may or may not find emotional, thematic, and/or artistic merit with their audience. That's a pretty difficult line to argue with. No matter how much you ridicule them, some fanboys cry when Aeris' dies (hell, some people cried in Armageddon, that doesn't mean shit). If you can acknowledge that, you have to acknowledge the fact that some of that emotional and thematic attachment comes from said fanboys actually controlling, leveling, and role-playing as Aeris (again, that sounds pretty lame, but that's not the argument, since quality is irrelevant to art).

Is that art? There's not a definitive answer there, which is why both sides of this debate are so convinced they're right. And at the end of the day, both sides will leave convinced they are right. Despite the arguments presented, points debated, examples given and dismissed - the factions involved won't change their minds. Sounds like fanboy wankery at it's most acute, but I can't say I haven't enjoyed the debate.

I came in here trying to defend a few select games as works of art. After reading (and contributing) to this monster thread, my position has actually shifted. If every movie is a work of art, then I think every video game is one too. I tried to introduce the concepts of cultural artifacts to the debate, art vs commerce, but these are nothing more than definitional attempts to a subject that simply cannot be defined, no matter how much we bang our heads against it. Art is what you make of it. I'm gonna leave it at that.

On a more direct level, I would like to say this has been a very worthwhile debate. A lot of the higher level college courses I attend don't reach the level of reasoning, insight, and logic presented here. I really thought my 'Ghery Building' framing was pretty solid. After reading some of the responses, I'm being forced to reconsider my position there. I'm not saying it's a weak example, but to continue my train of thought there would require some serious critical thinking. So respect to those keeping it level headed.

There are a couple other, more pressing, issues I am struggling with right now (I have some pretty demanding term papers coming up), and if I can throw some of these points out at some of the Chewers (as opposed to the ceaselessly obnoxious students I'm sharing some of my classes with), I think my arguments might be better served.

And credit to Devin, I am a second year college student. That might not be entirely accurate (second year don't mean shit when you're paying your own way, so it's been more like 6 years since i graduated high school); but I hope my relative youth doesn't discount the debate I'm trying to engage it.

Since my original post read "physically involved in fantastical settings", you've missed the point. Again.
And who cares if you don't find it involving? Most people do.
Synesthesia is not equivalent to a disability, and it can and successfully has been made interactive, by Rez, and apparantly by Lumines as well.
You're railing against reality here.


I'm not going to quote it due to length, but bravo to Zhukov's last post.

No, but it's similar to those specific disabilities in that it's an involuntary cognitive condition.

Sez you. You don't get to choose how the pairings of the senses work in reality - I'm not sure how an "interactive" pairing of the senses is, in any way, similar to what happens in true synesthetes. It's fundamentally an involuntary state.


Umm... I'm railing against perspective here. Let's keep some, shall we?

So go fucking LARPing.

Fact is, there's material evidence of my point here, and people who've actually played Rez agree with me.

I am impressed by the coherence and relevance of your arguments.

Are they synesthetes? Because I'm not sure anyone else would really be in a position to judge.

I left this argument a while ago, but I decided to come back and check in, and low and behold... synesthesia!

We could set up some psychophysical tests to see if synesthesia is truly being induced (learned?)! Yay!

When they create a game that utilizes interactive schizophrenia, I am so there.

It's the collective opinion of everyone who's ever seriously analyzed Rez that it replicates Synesythesia. I've yet to see you adduce any evidence to the contrary other than your own speculative opinions.

Xagarath, you really are coming across as monstrously arrogant.

I'm sorry, I think I may have been talking to Devin too much.

You've personally spoken to everyone who's ever seriously analyzed Rez? You've got way too much time on your hands.

You do realize the problem with that statement, right? You don't even know how many people have seriously analyzed it. You have no idea. You read a couple of online reviews.

I do, however, have a fair idea of how many people in the mainstream gaming press have done, becuase I read regularly the work of people who keep track of that kind of thing.
It's certainly more than the no evidence being produced against me.

What are the credentials of the gaming press to judge if something reproduces synesthesia? Also, the ability to spell the word on your part might bolster your claims that you understand what it means, which you've been unable to back up.

Further, why would reproducing synesthesia make something art?

From Webster's Dictionary (I edited it down to the pertinent section:

Main Entry: 2art
Pronunciation: 'ärt
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin art-, ars -- more at

6: referring to any discrete, tangible object capable of reproducing the affect of synethesia in humans who interact with it. However, reproducing the effect of other neurological disorders such as epilepsy is not sufficient to qualify the object as "art"; only synethesia will do.

Synesthesia in that instance is referring to the effect of producing a feeling through art. Like a feeling of sadness or joy while viewing a painting or listening to music. The Synesthesia Xagarath is talking about is a neurological condition in which a person literally and involuntarily hears colors and smells numbers. Two different things.

That is still up for debate. The neural mechanism may actually be the same. There are multiple (respected) theories out there on this. I can type more later, but I'm on my way out at the moment.

More than those who haven't actually played it, I'd imagine.

Never actually said which I meant, but it's more a combination of the two, if they're not in fact the same thing anyway.

In regards to my own comments which were in regards to Amphibatron's comments... I misunderstood (i.e., I didn't read very closely as I was in a hurry).

I was referring more to "natural" synesthesia vs. "trained" synesthesia.

Carry on.

Probably not, actually. I know the mechanics of video games enough to realize that they have no more ability to faithfully replicate synesthesia than a movie or TV show, because the interactivity issue (the only thing separating these media in this instance) is absolutely moot. Synesthesia is involuntary.

And replicating it onscreen is like replicating dylexia onscreen.

You're grasping at straws. The synesthesia referenced in the definition that Overlord quoted is very clearly not the "synesthesia" intended by the makers and marketing people behind Rez, and, frankly, I'm not sure that the definition even uses the term correctly. I just checked our enormous Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language (14 definitions of art) and the OED online, and neither references synesthesia (or "synaesthesia" in the OED*) in their definitions of art. Considering the consistent misspellings of "synesthesia," I'm halfway wondering if Overlord is fucking with us, actually. Assuming he isn't, it still sounds like the synesthesia referenced in that definition would apply to all art (which is SUPER questionable - I can see an argument for books evoking senses other than sight or music evoking senses other than sound, but I don't think either is a given, and movies, drama, and visual art are certainly not well-served by the definition), which would not make Rez particularly notable, art or not. I'm not sure why it would be a big deal if that were the meaning intended.

Incidentally, in that same big ol' dictionary, it defines synesthesia as "a sensation produced in one modality when a stimulus is applied to another modality, as when the hearing of a certain sound induces the visualization of a certain color." So unless you can put earplugs in and hear sounds just from visuals on the screen or you close your eyes and are seeing things based on sounds produced by the game, it probably ain't synesthesia.

Look, you've lost this argument. It doesn't matter that most of us haven't played the game. It's an issue of the medium (and ANY medium, unless you count LSD as a medium), not the game.

* British spelling of the word, which suggests that Xagarath - an Englishman - probably only knows the word from reading Rez promotional material or something.

I wondered that, also. I looked it op on Webster's online edition and saw no mention of the definition Overlord posted. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, though, and tried to come up with a possible meaning for the word in that instance even though it's a bit of a stretch. But, you're right, the term is not being used correctly if it's in regards to art in general.

The phrase "Synesthesia in art" is usually in reference to specific experiments in synthesizing different art forms. Unless you are trying to argue that a music video is an actual attempt at recreating the experience of the neurological disorder known as "Synesthesia", but no one would argue that. Or, the definition that Overlord quoted was possibly in regard to art specifically created by synesthetes in an attempt to evoke their experience through association. Though, even in that instance, they are trying to convey through experiment and can't actually physically recreate the experience in non-synesthetes. Conveying something is completely different than actually physically recreating the experience.

Or maybe the term "interactive synesthesia" is marketing bullshit cooked up by a PR hump, and it actually means nothing whatsoever. I'm inclined to go with that.

The fact remains that none of you have played Rez.
None of you can be sure of what you're talking about.

The word probably indicates the whole in your agrument.
They all stimulate each other at once. Doesn;t have to be confined to one sense.

When the game came out there were certainly several articles with the games creator about what they were trying to achieve. I'm sure I saw at least one in Edge Magazine. The creators certainly talked about how they wanted to make a game where sound and vision were strongly related, similar to the experience people find going clubbing. And the word 'synesthesia' definitely came up.

So you can argue whether or not the game succeeds in producing 'synesthesia' (or a similar effect). But at least give the creators credit for their ambitions and don't fob it off as something the marketing team dreamed up.

It's still a nonsensical buzzword, no matter who actually cooked it up.

Now I'm actually curious about Rez... not as art, but for its possible synesthetic qualities.

I still don't quite follow if it is an attempt to emulate synesthesia, or if it is trying to induce synesthesia.

If it is actually able to induce some form of synesthesia, that would be interesting.

I made up the Webster's definition as a tongue-in-cheek joke. I thought the epilepsy bit gave it away, but I guess not.

Carry on.

Seriously, this is what you're reducing your argument down to?

That's indeed what it's doing.


No, it's simply the point I felt needed repeating.
I've made plenty of others, and they still stand, not least the critical consensus.

If it's the entire aim and point of the endeavour, "buzzword" isn't a correct term to use at all.

Ah, I read it as the first sentence was the quoted definition with additional thoughts of your own. Wondered what was going on with that post.


I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Not trying to be an asshole but it reads a bit nonsensical. Care to clarify?