I call bullshit on this guy's definition.
Niether Da Vinci's paintings nor Mozart's music cause me to ask profound question about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us.
Yet these things are unquestionably considered art.
BBC Debate: Games Aren't Art ... Yet
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Niether Da Vinci's paintings nor Mozart's music cause me to ask profound question about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us.
Yet these things are unquestionably considered art.
"I'd suggest that the things we really consider art are the things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us."
Most 'actual' art doesn't do that.
Portal asks the question as to whether a human can become emotionally attached to a computer rendering of a cube with hearts on it from another reality having carried it around for five minutes. If the answer is anything other than 'of course not, what the hell are you talking about?' then portal is more a work of art than a urinal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 or '50 cc of Paris Air'.
Most 'actual' art doesn't do that.
Portal asks the question as to whether a human can become emotionally attached to a computer rendering of a cube with hearts on it from another reality having carried it around for five minutes. If the answer is anything other than 'of course not, what the hell are you talking about?' then portal is more a work of art than a urinal http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29 or '50 cc of Paris Air'.
I've yet to encounter a game with a layered story, or one that actually deals with such important questions of life. A lot of games have tried for both. A lot of japanese-based games try to evoke the profound life questions throughout the game, but it usually just comes off as pretentious bull coming from an unlikely source. Like some spikey haired man-teen saying how the good must sacrifice in order to stop the bad, right before they mow down an army with a sword bigger than a car. It's all rehashed dialogue we've heard before that sounds pretty but doesn't say a lot. Even Bioshock was just an Ayn Rand novel/Republican Tea Party talking point. But even if a game has profound dialogue, all of its profoundness is lost the moment you start walking the streets with a rocket launcher, or mowing down waves of enemies. In games, no matter how great the artistic tones or exposition or presentation, it's the gameplay that sets the emotional tone of the game. And, for almost all games, that tone has to be fun.
It's hard to evoke serious life questions and keep the player having fun at the same time.
It's hard to evoke serious life questions and keep the player having fun at the same time.
Bah! I've been touting this position for ages! There are games which can make a very good argument for being considered as art, but there is no game which truly does that. In my opinion, no game can ever fully represent the genre if it has cut-scenes. Lose them and we can seriously start considering it as art.
The problem is that I think saying 'so-and-so is an art' is a fallacy in itself. He admits himself that most movies aren't art. But no one would argue cinema isn't an art. Therefore, some movies are art and some aren't; likewise, it's possible for most games to not be art while some are. Unless you have played all games that exist, you can't say games aren't art.
Minecraft? Really?
Oh, and pizzas have existed for about four times as long as hamburgers, and no one argues that pizzas are delicious, but the only people arguing that hamburgers are delicious are people who are hamburger fans to begin with, while there are some people who think hamburger isn't even food at all.
Oh, and the diner started serving sandwiches recently, and a lot more people have been showing up, but this has made the regulars mad, because a sandwich is a lot like a hamburger but is just too easy to make and nowhere as filling! They are afraid that sandwiches will become so popular no one will want to make hamburgers any more, and they hate sandwich fans for it!
I forgot the point I was making, this metaphor is just so fun.
LIGHTNING EDIT:
Minecraft? Really?
For the metaphor to fit, most of the hamburgers should in fact taste like salad or pizza. In fact, David Cage would have come out with a pepperoni and anchovies hamburger and said that the future of the hamburger lies in abandoning the amateurish concept of bread altogether. On the other field, the ultra-indie crowd is clamoring that hamburgers should abandon anything that isn't unique to hamburgers and should in fact be only a patty and two slices of bread.Hal10k said:
Oh, and pizzas have existed for about four times as long as hamburgers, and no one argues that pizzas are delicious, but the only people arguing that hamburgers are delicious are people who are hamburger fans to begin with, while there are some people who think hamburger isn't even food at all.
Oh, and the diner started serving sandwiches recently, and a lot more people have been showing up, but this has made the regulars mad, because a sandwich is a lot like a hamburger but is just too easy to make and nowhere as filling! They are afraid that sandwiches will become so popular no one will want to make hamburgers any more, and they hate sandwich fans for it!
I forgot the point I was making, this metaphor is just so fun.
LIGHTNING EDIT:
That's such a weird example, as the question those pieces are asking is pretty much the same. Namely, "Can I turn an absolutely normal object/something that is conceptually nothing at all into art by simply saying it is?" If the answer is anything other than "of course not, you dimwit" than it's valid. And it apparently isn't, but in fact it is "maybe, but let's not risk it in case it is".baconsarnie said:
The Stanley Parable
The Path
Braid
The Cat and the Coup
Portal
Dwarf Fortress
Grim Fandango
Audiosurf
The Fate of the World
If Modern Art is truly Art, then how come that certain people cannot derive the pleasure one associates with true Art?
The big question is, can Art ever be truly considered Games?
The Path
Braid
The Cat and the Coup
Portal
Dwarf Fortress
Grim Fandango
Audiosurf
The Fate of the World
Which of these games haven't made you question some aspect of your life?
If Modern Art is truly Art, then how come that certain people cannot derive the pleasure one associates with true Art?
The big question is, can Art ever be truly considered Games?
I see where he's coming from but on the other hand I've walked through several art museums and galleries and admired many of the paintings and other forms of art there, but they never evoked a profound feeling that made me contemplate the nature of existence. So, by his definition, are those paintings and sculptures not art as well?
...or maybe he'd say I can't appreciate art beyond "look at the pretty pictures" and dismiss my argument entirely.
...or maybe he'd say I can't appreciate art beyond "look at the pretty pictures" and dismiss my argument entirely.
There are games that are art. It's just that there is only a few of them. He should play some Deus Ex and Bioshock.
I thought art had no definition. Is it not subjective?
The whole debate is silly in my opinion. Why do gamers want the games-are-art label? To justify playing them that's why.
The whole debate is silly in my opinion. Why do gamers want the games-are-art label? To justify playing them that's why.
Definitely some games are art - not all of them, hell, not most of them, but some of them. Even games that aren't all that great in terms of their artistic qualities have their moments. Fallout 3 isn't really "art" but there are segments when you are wandering around burnt-out DC that really strike an emotional chord (and I'm not even an American) and bring across the themes of loss and the desire to rebuild quite well. Segments of Bastion are DEFINITELY art - from a visual and auditory perspective.
But let's face it - most games aren't art. Fallout 3 might have a very nice style and contemplative moments... but at the end of the day you are still using a shot-gun to blast a Super Mutant's face into gory chunks. There's not much artistic merit to games like Quake or Call of Duty or Battlefield (and I play and love all those types of games... they're just not art. I certainly wouldn't put any military FPS in a museum and show it to future generations).
Some games are definitely art - even now. But most aren't, and won't be for a long, long time. Long time. We just don't have the technology or the market for it. But as gamers grow older, and hopefully out of the teenager mindset of "Bewbs! Guns!" they'll still want to play games but would have hopefully developed a more complex taste and they might desire games that make them think. Hopefully.
But let's face it - most games aren't art. Fallout 3 might have a very nice style and contemplative moments... but at the end of the day you are still using a shot-gun to blast a Super Mutant's face into gory chunks. There's not much artistic merit to games like Quake or Call of Duty or Battlefield (and I play and love all those types of games... they're just not art. I certainly wouldn't put any military FPS in a museum and show it to future generations).
Some games are definitely art - even now. But most aren't, and won't be for a long, long time. Long time. We just don't have the technology or the market for it. But as gamers grow older, and hopefully out of the teenager mindset of "Bewbs! Guns!" they'll still want to play games but would have hopefully developed a more complex taste and they might desire games that make them think. Hopefully.
The Art label matters for legal reasons that were explained at length during the entire US Supreme Court fiasco.
That said, I've thought for a while that the definition of art needs to be more strictly nailed down.
The guy making this arguement speaks from the perspective that art has to have meaning that causes you to evaluate the world differantly. That's not true, especially when it comes to visual arts, the usage of light, color, texture, or achieving certain effects in new ways are all enough to define something as artwork. A statue of Zeus or a painting like The Mona Lisa are cool to look at, but don't inherantly cause you to question the nature of reality.
Now I agree with him when it comes to stories and how literature can be considered artwork.
I think video games occupy a certain space similar to movies, where the storyline might make it "art" if it's unusually profound or thought provoking, much like a book. A game could also be considered art for how it achieves certain effects, sort of like how various movies that are as entertaining or profound as watching paint peel can be considered high art due to the way they are shot, or the way sound is used in specific scenes. Indeed entire films are created to show off bizzare feats of technical and cinematic wizardry rather than to be enjoyed as films.
It can be complicated, but I think we're getting to the point where what constitutes artistic merit should be somewhat formalized, probably by the medium. I think a book and a sculpture can both be art, but achieve that differantly. The problem with art is that we try and lump it all together and it becomes incredibly nebulous as a result, when it really needs to be more formally broken down into catagories... even if that does lead to some things that were formely viewed as great works of art being reduced to a bit of creative kitsch retroactively. One of the reasons attempts to define artwork have failed is because of a sort of seniority system.
That said, I've thought for a while that the definition of art needs to be more strictly nailed down.
The guy making this arguement speaks from the perspective that art has to have meaning that causes you to evaluate the world differantly. That's not true, especially when it comes to visual arts, the usage of light, color, texture, or achieving certain effects in new ways are all enough to define something as artwork. A statue of Zeus or a painting like The Mona Lisa are cool to look at, but don't inherantly cause you to question the nature of reality.
Now I agree with him when it comes to stories and how literature can be considered artwork.
I think video games occupy a certain space similar to movies, where the storyline might make it "art" if it's unusually profound or thought provoking, much like a book. A game could also be considered art for how it achieves certain effects, sort of like how various movies that are as entertaining or profound as watching paint peel can be considered high art due to the way they are shot, or the way sound is used in specific scenes. Indeed entire films are created to show off bizzare feats of technical and cinematic wizardry rather than to be enjoyed as films.
It can be complicated, but I think we're getting to the point where what constitutes artistic merit should be somewhat formalized, probably by the medium. I think a book and a sculpture can both be art, but achieve that differantly. The problem with art is that we try and lump it all together and it becomes incredibly nebulous as a result, when it really needs to be more formally broken down into catagories... even if that does lead to some things that were formely viewed as great works of art being reduced to a bit of creative kitsch retroactively. One of the reasons attempts to define artwork have failed is because of a sort of seniority system.
It's really not fair to just throw all games into the same pile and say it's all entertainment and nothing more.
Though I do agree some are there just to entertain. Just like some movies entertain and some tell a deep, emotional, impacting story.
For example - (film) Transformers - This is NOT art. It's just an excuse for explosions and big
robots. Anyone who wants to try explain the story go ahead.
(film) Lord of The rings - This IS art, in every sense of the word.
(game) Mass Effect - ART. So much detail and attention went into crafting
this world and the people who inhabit it. How can you deny
the artistic value?
(game) Call of Duty- I might get some hassle for this but in my honest opinion
this is just created as a base for entertainment. The story
is there, sure. But it's just so forgetable and generic. I
think we all know people want it for it's longer lasting
and more entertaining multiplayer.
Though I do agree some are there just to entertain. Just like some movies entertain and some tell a deep, emotional, impacting story.
For example - (film) Transformers - This is NOT art. It's just an excuse for explosions and big
robots. Anyone who wants to try explain the story go ahead.
(film) Lord of The rings - This IS art, in every sense of the word.
(game) Mass Effect - ART. So much detail and attention went into crafting
this world and the people who inhabit it. How can you deny
the artistic value?
(game) Call of Duty- I might get some hassle for this but in my honest opinion
this is just created as a base for entertainment. The story
is there, sure. But it's just so forgetable and generic. I
think we all know people want it for it's longer lasting
and more entertaining multiplayer.
