Convincing my art teacher that video games are art

[t3h br0th3r]

study up on the art vs craft debate.

because games are mass produced for profit, your teacher may call them craft instead of art.

 

[Godhead]

Ask her if she liked Red Dawn, if yes then make her play Homefront. Boom.

Or if you want to take this seriously just slap together a whole bunch of points about the integration of many mediums into one with the inclusion of interactivity and see how that fares.

 

[Valdus]

You could explain that most games, like movies, aren't art, but that doesn't mean they can't be art.

I'd suggest trying The Path. The gameplay element of the game is utter crap, but the artistic element is, IMO, brilliant. it actually pushed me to play through it with all 6 characters despite taking half a hour to get each one to walk slowly from the front of the house to the inside after meeting "the wolf".

 

[Chefodeath]

games aren't art, do your project on something else.

 

[Conner42]

Under all the other games that might bury my post, I'll pipe in anyway.

Yahtzee was talking about what kind of game would work to show that games are art. When Roger Ebert made the claim that games can't be art, people were making suggestions of which games to play to change his mind. Yahtzee was surprised that people were suggesting Shadow of the Collosus as he didn't think it would be a good game to introduce to people who've never played a game before. Or at least, very little. He said what would be a good game is Little Big Planet, so, I guess that's a game you could use.

Only problem is, I can't find where he said that. I don't remember where he said it in his Extra Punctuation thing, but I read it more than once, so I know it isn't a memory I made up, but here's a article related to video games as art anyway.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/columns/extra-punctuation/7473-Extra-Punctuation-Videogames-as-Art

If you want, you can try searching where he said that, maybe you'll have more luck than I do.

 

[The_Deleted]

For me it's about the design, which may be what your art teacher is getting at, having, admittedly, skimmed the thread, there is a lot of talk about characters and setting. While some of these games are very well established and rendered, can you really say the design is all that interesting? I'd look back over you're gaming history, from the design of the Space invaders to the simplicity of Pac Man and the modern aesthetics of LocoRoco, Noby Noby Boy, Beat City, Katamari Damarcy, Parapa The Rapper, Vib Ribbon, Limbo, Braid, Flower, Electroplankton, if only to offset the modern games already mentioned and emphasise your argument that game design, in all it's facets, is as varied and exciting as any number of books, films or musical styles.

As for how a story is put across. From the modern action games like your CoDs and GoW's to your more thoughtful experiences from Catherine to Trauma Centre you really could 'wipe the floor' with the guy.


Apologies if any of this has been covered, but the idea that art in gaming should only amount to what they look like has always struck me as very narrow minded and damaging to the point we are trying to put across.


Now, I'm off to shoot zombies and rock hard.

 

[Spookimitsu]

TC, I would strongly recommend that you don't try to pass of games as art purely on the visuals of the medium. That would make for a very weak thesis.
First It would be make your argument strong if you provide specific examples of 1. other motion picture pieces as art. Animation included. Secondly I would try to provide specific examples of 2. Installation exhibitions as art, this is important, as some abstract installations can only be appreciated when engaged with by the audience, therefore the audience becomes part of the exhibit. I would talk about how art in definition has transcended the traditional, from cave drawings, to the oil works of the masters, to fleeting paintings by monks out of nothing but coloured sand, to towering statues of rock and metals, to buildings of the same, to spirals of sculptured fences of fabric on a rolling landscape, to any genre of music from every corner of the planet, and to live dance and performance.

After that I would begin to argue that even though it is a relatively young medium, the instruments that create our entertainment programs have come far enough to implement and convey a wide variety of information and emotion, and this implementation can translate a unique interpretive message and experience from the creators/programmers/artists to the audience, an interesting play of the objectivity of the programmers motivation with the subjectivity of the audience's experience.
If you use any of this thread, make sure you reference the poster APA style, I'm sure your teacher would get a kick out of it.
On second thought, don't use this, I think I will write a book.

and we really need another name for the medium. Although appropriate, I think "video games" or "games" more or less trivializes the experiences. But then again, maybe that's the point, and part of the charm. But it is undoubtebly the reason why the modern prevalent interpretation translates it as a medium for children and the under matured, and this point in particular is an unacceptable social stigma. (and now I feel as if I am starting to digress a bit) but its not as if you overhear someone mention movies, and you immediately think that they can only either be talking about adult naughties, or kiddy features. There is a wide array of Movies out there, and the medium would be done a disservice to confine it to only a few subgenres. I'mma quit for now, so I can get back to work. But good luck, TC!

thoughts?

 

[TheXRatedDodo]

If I were to write something about this, I would not take some arty farty game such as Flower or Limbo (as much as Limbo is a work of absolute genius..) but would instead probably focus on the subjective, relative nature of art in the first place. I would talk about the joy that playing games gives to me, the act of fully immersing myself into another world on a large scale (more than a 2 hour film, more than an hour long album, but rather 20 hour games.) I would talk about specific genres perhaps. The simple joy of ye olde platformer, leaping across a hole in the ground and the enjoyment that has brought to me and how I feel that has enriched my experience of being a human being, perhaps the archetypal story of Final Fantasy 7 and how to me, that is more akin to a nursery rhyme than any of the well known nursery rhymes (a story of tortured but ultimately good people against an evil that threatens the world, that's a story for the ages!)

All of these things are what makes games art, TO ME. Art is not just some thing that can be defined and put into a little box and displayed as a singular entity. Art is an extension of the self, of how you see the world. If you find joy in gazing at a single blade of grass, who is to say that is not art in and of itself?

So yeah, I'd suggest not using Flower but rather Super Mario, Crash Bandicoot, Tekken, and if it instills something powerful in you, why not a CoD game? It is all relative, it is all subjective, and the snobs who need to something to be "high art" are the ones who truly do not understand what art is in the first place.

 

[Lance Vader]

Today I die [http://www.ludomancy.com/games/today.php] is art. It's not the kind of art that a professional artist would produce, it's more like something produced by a high school girl who's mad at the world and frustrated with her own loneliness.

But a lot of the art that comes out of art class is exactly like that.

 

[Darknacht]

Like I said, we haven't had our Citizen Kane yet. Perhaps it is coming... perhaps it is not. Who knows?

Movies were art before Citizen Kane. It did not suddenly make movies art.
What would even make a game "our Citizen Kane"? What does that mean and who would determine this?
The incorporation of other forms of art does not negate a mediums artistic potential. That would be like saying that adding sound to movies removed some of the artistic potential of moving pictures.
There currently are games, like the Void, that the game play and mechanics, not story, music, or visuals, are the central artistic expression of the game. Why are game like this not art?

 

[Spookimitsu]

So, then, you're suggesting that you're the ultimate authority on what can and what can't be considered art. And boom, just like that your argument is invalid.

God dammit... I hate this argument. It's such a cop-out. Just because I never said "I think/feel/believe" doesn't mean I am throwing around my opinion as fact, or that I somehow I feel I am the ultimate authority on this. Listen... just because someone doesn't say that they are stating their opinion every second doesn't mean they are assuming their opinion to be fact. You are taught in any college argumentative writing class to NEVER EVER say things like "I think/feel/believe" since your audience understands its your opinions since you are writing it.

Of COURSE its my opinion... I'm not pretending to be the authority on ANYTHING. Just because people don't remind you they are stating their damn opinion every other word doesn't mean they aren't.

what makes film art?

The elevation and use of the elements exclusive to film to tell a story in a significantly different way than that of a book or play. Film isn't art because of the writing or visuals, but because of how filmmakers use what makes film film to tell stories in a way not possible without them. If you took a well constructed film and tried to tell that story as a book or play, then you'd lose a lot. I think games are getting closer and closer to doing this, but I don't think a game has come along that couldn't have its theme or story told in a different medium without losing much. We need to focus on what makes games games to cause widespread acceptance that this medium is art... not just show people that games can have good writing and pretty visuals, since that alone isn't enough.

Like I said, we haven't had our Citizen Kane yet. Perhaps it is coming... perhaps it is not. Who knows?

Really good point! But I dotta say, Ip Man was a work of art! So was "Sword of Doom" (Dai-bosatsu Tōge)! but I gotta admit I'm no art critic by any means, but Sword of Doom is sculpture in motion to fans of chanbara.

But yeah TC argue for what works and especially what doesn't work as art across all genres.

 

[Derek Westlund]

you could just look for the "video games are art" episode from extra credits, the big picture with movie bob, or tell her "the supreme court said so"

 

[Sethzard]

Have her watch every video Extra Credits has ever made. And just to be safe, kill Jim Sterling.

I'd add the game overthinker to something she should watch.

 

[Beryl77]

I think you should use small scenes from several games and explain to your teacher why you think that those scenes are art in your opinion and not just use one big game as a whole.
One that comes to my mind right now is a scene I just played yesterday.

It's from Half-Life 2 and it's the part where you first meet Father Grigori

Spoiler

What I like about that scene is a combination of different things. First, it's the way you experience the part until you get there. You think you're alone in that deserted town, until you meet the zombies. Now you know why the population of that town is gone and you realize that the evil can lurk in every dark corner but you still feel completely alone. It also helps that you play Ravenholm when it's night.
So you're playing through that part, thinking no other human being is here when you suddenly hear a voice but only a voice, you see no body. You're not alone anymore, now you want to know where that voice comes from, you have a goal.
It's a great way how they play with the emotions of the player, that's great gameplay design in my opinion.
Anyway, you get to the part that the picture shows. Just the way father Grigori is being shown in that part is really well made.
He comes out, behind him this light in the normally dark place. Underneath him is a fire where the zombies burn. He's holding a gun and he promises from above the fire that he'll watch over you. He seems to represent a religious metaphor given that his name is father Grigori, he looks like some kind of guardian angel. The funny thing is that he seems to represent an angel but he isn't at all like the classical image of an angel. First of all, he protects you with a shotgun and later in the game you realize that he has lost his mind while living with the zombies all alone in Ravenholm for such a long time. But still, he's the only "normal" person in Ravenholm besides you, which means that you're not completely alone anymore.

This was just an example of how I've experienced that part when I played it for the first time. And I think, things like that are exactly what you should tell your teacher, things that show the unique artistic possibilities of games. These things distinguish games from movies and books. You experience things differently, the way you can interact with the world is unique in games. The gameplay design is artistically very well made.
In a book or movie, I don't think the part which I just explained would have felt the same. At least the emotions and experience would have been different, not necessarily worse but just not the way it is in the game.

Well, that's just my opinion on art in games but I hope I was able to help you a bit and if you want more games with scenes like that, you could also look for example at Shadow of the Colossus or Bioshock.

 

[XDravond]

Well to be honest games are art but not all of them are good art or good examples of an the art "genre" that is games.
Since I had this discussion many times before I start to compare it.

Are movies art? Yes then is all movies great examples of the art? No.
Are paintings art? Yes. Are all of them great beautiful or strong emotional objects? No
Is writing art? Yes. Is all the books therefore great examples of fantastic great artists? No.
Is sculpturing art? Yes. Are all sculptures good? No...
And so on..

So are games art? Yes in my view. Are all of them great? No certainly not. Does art awaken feelings? In some people, yes, others no but the same goes for all other art forms. One person might love a painting others think it's a waste of time and money, one person might love a movie some people think it's so dull and unemotional. And so on.
Does all games invoke feelings and admiration no they do not have to. All art-forms have people arguing for and against them (also different time periods and say "modern art" some people think it is great others doesn't understand it at all..)

Also met a person who though games were not art because they were commercial objects made to earn money.. I had trouble not laughing, movies, paintings, books, music, more or less all art is possible to earn money on and some people just create to earn money whilst others don't same goes for games.




And if nothing else just show your teacher (or other doubter) this forum and see how people argue about something they are very passionate about, if games isn't art why are does so many love (or hate) them. To me art is created to get people to feel something about the piece, and here is a bunch of people that feels something about games

 

[Moeez]

Don't show a game that is incredibly violent. That'll just make the teacher think lesser of the game's artistic achievements.

Choose a SHORT game that marries aesthetics and narrative, like Limbo (very easy to see the intent of small kid vs dangerous world)
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01683/limbo-game1_1683129c.jpg

Loved [http://www.alexanderocias.com/loved.php] (free short flash game with multiple choice).
http://barelyrelevant.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/loved_620x258-11.jpg

 

[Purplecoyote]

The newly upcomming game "Journey" might also be a nice example of video games as art.

 

[Elamdri]

Really, if you think about it, art is taking various sensory elements (Visuals and Sounds) and composing them in a way that invokes some sort of emotional response from the person who experiences it.

Music is a composition of sound
Paintings and drawings are a composition of visual elements

One of the issues with art is that artists often find them limited by the means in which people can experience art. We tend to consume art with our eyes and ears. Aside from chefs, artists are pretty much locked out of utilizing taste and smell to enhance art, and that I know of, most art doesn't involve a tactile element.

That being said, art not only sensory experience, but a mental experience. We experience art when our mind begins to process the story that the artist is trying to tell.

Books use story as the medium of their art
Music and Paintings can be enhanced by the addition of a story
Plays, Dances, Television, and Movies are all compositions of visuals, art and story to create a deeper experience.

Which brings us to games. Games add another element to the artist's toolbox: Interactivity.

I think where problems come when trying to defend a game as an artform is the confusion between what I call "True Games" and "Interactive Storytelling"

"True Games" essentially are the expression of a game in it's simplest form: a set of rules under which players operate to achieve a goal.

The classic example of a "true Game" is Chess. Chess is not about expressing an emotional response. It's about playing by the rules to achieve the goal of victory over the opponent. Really, every board game and all sports are "True Games." In all these examples, the game is not art. Which is not to say that art cannot enhance the experience; a chess set for example may have beautifully crafted pieces made of heavy marble, with a marble chessboard inlaid with gold filigree. However, that beautiful chess set does not make Chess itself art. Nor does an excellent halftime show make Football art.

Video Games certainly have their fair share of "True Games" that are not art. Pong, Space Invaders, Missile Command, Pac-Man, Breakout, ect.

Then we have what I'm dubbing "Interactive Storytelling." The key here is that we are not looking at goal oriented gameplay. Rather, the player is trying to experience a story being told in which they are participating. Interactive Storytelling is games like GTA4, Heavy Rain, Shadow of The Colossus, ICO, Bioshock, ect. I would even classify DnD as art.

Where things can get tricky is when the game has both elements of a "True Game" and "Interactive Storytelling" in one package. This is the dichotomy of a Single Player/Multi-player game.

Halo, CoD, Gears of War, Medal of Honor, Battlefield: Bad Company all fall into this category. The single player elements of these games are art (they may not be particularly high quality art, but they are art). There is no goal (unless you call finishing the story a "goal" which would also disqualify books as being art) and while the game might have some ranking system or point scheme, the reason that the player is playing is to experience the story being told.

Multiplayer however is a purely competitive experience where the only goal is to defeat the opposing players. No story is being told and again, art may be utilized to enhance the experience but it does not turn the experience itself into art.

 

[w00tage]

Try one with a movie-like setting and story, which will be familiar concepts to her. The popular view of video games is button-mashing mindlessness, so you need a strong contrast. The Longest Journey or something like it would probably be a good choice.

 

[busters]

Is painting art?
Is music art?
Is writing art?
Is story telling art?
Is performance art?
Does the application of code truly counteract any of these things? Games are art through simple Gestalt, if nothing else (and given the complexities a nuances of computer code, I'd go so far as to assert that it too is art) and every game is art. Not every game is GOOD art mind you, but judging video games by Mortal Kombat is a lot like judging books by Twilight, and no one is questioning the legitimacy of literature as a medium.

Brilliant argument there.

I'd also say something about how when you're playing a game, you're experiencing something that's been carefully crafted by the game designers, through the visuals, sounds, and gameplay mechanics. Haven't really figured out exactly how to phrase it. The point is that if something that's art is, above all things, something that's to be appreciated for its beauty and emotional power, then video games are exactly that x10.

If you're going to show someone an "artistic" video game, I think you can start with something even smaller, like flash games. There are tons of really good flash games that make think about yourself.

Majesty of Colors is a wonderful, short little game where your actions result in different endings.
http://www.kongregate.com/games/GregoryWeir/the-majesty-of-colors

Company of Myself is a downer.
http://www.kongregate.com/games/2DArray/the-company-of-myself

Imortall is also a downer.
http://www.kongregate.com/games/Pixelante/immortall