BBC Debate: Games Aren't Art ... Yet
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
All elephants are grey; not all grey things are elephants.
Likewise, games can be artistic, but not all games are art. Portal and Portal 2 can be heralded as unparalleled in art, gaming, story, device, etc., and can be argued as such, but few would argue that Duke Nukem Forever or Call of Duty will be anything more than a game. Hopscotch was a game, but it is far from art. Something like Bastion, however, with it's tasteful blend of imagery, audio, gameplay, story, and character, could be considered art and could simultaneously be considered a game. Minecraft is a game, as much as playing with Lego is; art can come from the creations, but the product itself is not art--it is why paint is not art, nor is canvas, but paint on canvas might be art.
But, to his other point, of saying that art is something that makes us reflect on ourselves, then that is a subjective matter. I have reflected on myself in Assassin's Creed, while killing a guard, and suddenly imagining his family learning that his easy job strolling a rooftop, to pay the rent, got him killed by an unthinking assassin who could have done it much better by sneaking around. It got me to the point that, for a time, I completed a mission or two with only the minimalist of kills, or none at all. I have tried driving as carefully as possible in sandbox games, knowing that insurance is a *****, and I would hate to be that guy who gets some asshole that plows headlong into the side of my car, reverses, then drives off again, with no cares about me. Things like this have made me reconsider myself, and put my life in view.
But then, I get past it, knowing that this is a game, much as I know that the characters in a book that die can be alive again if only I start reading the book anew.
Likewise, games can be artistic, but not all games are art. Portal and Portal 2 can be heralded as unparalleled in art, gaming, story, device, etc., and can be argued as such, but few would argue that Duke Nukem Forever or Call of Duty will be anything more than a game. Hopscotch was a game, but it is far from art. Something like Bastion, however, with it's tasteful blend of imagery, audio, gameplay, story, and character, could be considered art and could simultaneously be considered a game. Minecraft is a game, as much as playing with Lego is; art can come from the creations, but the product itself is not art--it is why paint is not art, nor is canvas, but paint on canvas might be art.
But, to his other point, of saying that art is something that makes us reflect on ourselves, then that is a subjective matter. I have reflected on myself in Assassin's Creed, while killing a guard, and suddenly imagining his family learning that his easy job strolling a rooftop, to pay the rent, got him killed by an unthinking assassin who could have done it much better by sneaking around. It got me to the point that, for a time, I completed a mission or two with only the minimalist of kills, or none at all. I have tried driving as carefully as possible in sandbox games, knowing that insurance is a *****, and I would hate to be that guy who gets some asshole that plows headlong into the side of my car, reverses, then drives off again, with no cares about me. Things like this have made me reconsider myself, and put my life in view.
But then, I get past it, knowing that this is a game, much as I know that the characters in a book that die can be alive again if only I start reading the book anew.
That's how I've always felt. Most (probably close to all) the critics that feel the need to single out video games don't seem like gamers and are unlikely to have seen or heard of any "art games".z121231211 said:
Anyone can single out the most popular films, movies, music etc. and say most of its not art. But, since all those mediums have been well established its easy to point to examples of each that are considered art. Videogames don't have that kind of history to point to... Yet.
In another decade or so more of the great works of the medium will come to light (many of which have already been created). Many films we now view as classics were at one time considered shallow exploitation.
Sounds like a typical subjective opinion from a typical art critic to me... Sorry mister but games that change lives and our perception of the world around us DO exist already.Grey Carter said:
I've found games a lot more impactful on my life then any single still image or sculpture ever has; so by his logic none of that is art, and games in fact are. Oh, but wait, that's not what he thinks, so of course it's wrong.
ANYTHING can be 'art' if it affects a person... the very essence of any kind of art demands a subjective viewpoint, so it is not possible to dictate one's own opinion as a greater truth then another.
That's why I said we'd get better games, not less worse ones.Plinglebob said:
Of course we'll have shit, but we can concentrate on the good chocolate to make it better chocolate.
I don't have any problem with games just meant to titillate us either. Enjoy what you want, I don't care, if you liked Transformers 3 then more power to you.
This does not mean, however, that we should not strive for more. That's a big issue I think is with this whole "games as art" stuff going around, if we can convince everyone (and most importantly ourselves), then we can move past the whole titillation phase and make games that are more than just that.
I think quite the opposite, actually. Maybe the way the fans of "games as art" seem to cluster around places like these, but I think that those guys are really a very vocal minority. I say that we are not pushing hard enough, and developers aren't listening in the first place. They're content with just making another run-of-the-mill shooter and they let their PR guys spout bullshit after bullshit, trying to somehow magically make their game more interesting behind the bullshit (I have become so jaded with video game PR that it's just depressing).
The thing about the "it took film 40 years to become recognized as an artform!" that I don't think works for me anymore is that the world is a much faster place than it was all those years ago. Technology is unfolding at astronomical speeds, new technologies are always introduced. I dunno, it still doesn't mean that we shouldn't push for more.
But also, that argument seems to come from this thinking that developing mediums are on a set timeline. Video games may be a budding artform like film, and while it may take some queues from film, that does not mean it will develop so similarly to it. There's a lot more that video games can do that films will never be able to do, and we have to push for that.
I would argue that it is art, just that the player creates it alongside the game.
Though, my personal definition of "art" is just "anything that purposefully constructed to illicit an emotion of some kind" or whatever, so I wouldn't mind calling anything "art", I would just separate it to "good art" (the stuff made with care) and "bad art" (the crap that gets slogged out on a monthly basis).
I'd say he's right on the whole. Painting is usually art. It's not for any other purpose, for the most part. Music depends entirely on the intention of the creator. Photography as well. Writing, movies, and videogames, however, are less capable of reaching that bar. I wouldn't say the Emmy's award for artistic merits but overall quality, for example. The easy way is to pick up your movie or something and imagine if you'd have to work hard to convince your mom or something that would say "I don't think that's art."
A lot of people think it's about a plot that deals with powerful issues, but that's not usually the case. Though I don't know what this exactly means it does have to do, but there's more to it at least.
So far, the only game I've played that is close to art is Portal. Not Portal 2, just Portal. It deals with questions of trust, manipulation and loneliness and other things. But I don't know if that reaches the "art bar" or not.
A lot of people think it's about a plot that deals with powerful issues, but that's not usually the case. Though I don't know what this exactly means it does have to do, but there's more to it at least.
So far, the only game I've played that is close to art is Portal. Not Portal 2, just Portal. It deals with questions of trust, manipulation and loneliness and other things. But I don't know if that reaches the "art bar" or not.
It's a facilitator for art. Like MS paint. Like a paintbrush. The brush itself isn't the art, it's what you make with it. If you make a penis, you haven't used it to make art (unless it's a very artistic penis), and if you make a masterpiece of your soul, you have. But either way, the brush wasn't the art. Neither were you. It was your creation.Jumplion said:
Other games might be genuine art as created by the developer, like a movie made by a director, but the minecraft creators or more like the canvas builders. They don't consider their canvas an art, but they hope others will be able to make art on it.
P.S.
I'm not going to ask for lists, some people have already made enough of them and I mostly disagree anyway, but I couldn't help but notice that a lot more people say "I can think of a lot," and then don't say anything, which sounds like a groundless statement...
A lot of what you said is true. I wouldn't say Permiter is art, but whatever. Don't bother responding to that part. But his mistake isn't his overall opinion, and most of his statements are not that radical. The main problem is giving too broad of criteria for, and too broad a definition of, art. This allows for too many groundless statement and examples to be thrown around without a full understanding of the intent of the other.raankh said:
I thought that for something to be art, it had to have no real purpose other than for some kind of appreciation or entertainment. I think there are a lot of things things you can actually learn and real skills we can develop from certain games. I think I would rather not see games become art because people who don't play many games will never see it as anything more than entertainment.
What if that penis is your masterpiece? I mean, I'll be fucked if I could draw anything better than a stickfigure, so what if I choose a stickfigure as an expression of my own thoughts and emotions? Would be art as far as I'm concerned, maybe not good, thoughtful art, but art nonetheless.144 said:
I've enjoyed playing video games for roughly half my life. If a bunch of pretentious assholes don't accept them into their glorious "art" pantheon, it doesn't diminish that enjoyment in the slightest.
There is a guy named Gary Blum from Rochester, Minnesota who literally paints with shit. He mixes goose feces and glue together to make embossed frames. Some art critics liken him to a genius. So ask yourself: Is public opinion on what makes something art REALLY that damn important?
There is a guy named Gary Blum from Rochester, Minnesota who literally paints with shit. He mixes goose feces and glue together to make embossed frames. Some art critics liken him to a genius. So ask yourself: Is public opinion on what makes something art REALLY that damn important?
Yes, frequently, and to be honest I hate every single 'BBC radio' show and am making massive generalizations but they in themselves are amusing generalizations of each generation they try to pander to. And I think you've just proved my point, they talk. A lot.Plinglebob said:
And a great deal of it is debates and history, interviews and radio drama. And many of the guests I've had to endure listening to in my parents car have reeked of Upper Middle class scare mongering sensationalism in order to prove a point or just basically talk for hours about something one could pick up a book and cover in less time and it is terribly tiresome. There is a reason I try to avoid it and I am sure there is some actual content of worth in there somewhere, but on the whole when I'm not having to drive with my parents I feel my time is better spent in quiet self contemplation rather than that waffle. But that is my opinion, just like the interview here is also, what a shocker, opinion.
And getting back to the earlier post of mine you quoted, okay, he said they are not art. Fine that is his opinion, good for him.
Educationally, they are all classified and taught under the banner of art, that's the line that has been drawn and I object to in the UK. Understand me now?
Again, as I usually post on this topic how do things that separately are are go together and become not-art?
Sculpting, acting, concept art, music, writing these are ALL art forms, however when they combine to form an interactive medium that's NOT art.
There IS no defense for this, these are artforms but because of some arbitrary reason they're not when put together.
Sculpting, acting, concept art, music, writing these are ALL art forms, however when they combine to form an interactive medium that's NOT art.
There IS no defense for this, these are artforms but because of some arbitrary reason they're not when put together.
I think this guy needs to play more video games. I have similar beliefs about what constitutes art, yet there are a few games I've played that I believed could be called art.
Of course, there are people who say no game is or will never be art, but the same thing was said about novels and movies. I expect this debate will ultimately end much the same way as those ones did... with the question changing from "are these things art" to "which of them are art?"
Of course, there are people who say no game is or will never be art, but the same thing was said about novels and movies. I expect this debate will ultimately end much the same way as those ones did... with the question changing from "are these things art" to "which of them are art?"