Convincing my art teacher that video games are art

[Stall]

Ah, the Roger Ebert argument. =p

Player freedom can be a hindrance if you let it, but in a scripted, linear experience the designer makes it so that player freedom is an illusion. Paths you take, objects you approach, scenery you take note of are all planned for by the designer. Good level design means that the player will unconsciously do what the designer wants them to do. Of course players are welcome to abuse the freedom, but then again it's not Shakespeare's fault if you decide to only read the first page of Romeo and Juliet in a funny accent.

Basically I think a well designed game is capable of both allowing the player the illusion of freedom and having them perform and see what you want them to. Whether this has been done skilfully today or not is a matter of debate, but I think it's easy to see the possibilities in the medium.

As much as people hated him for it, he did make a few good points . He's certainly not stupid.

To some extent I agree with that, although I think it would be hard to draw a line between abusing the freedom and taking extreme liberties with it. Where would you draw the line between reading Romeo and Juliet in a funny accent, or reading Romeo and Juliet in what you think is a perfectly serious dramatic recitation, but in all reality, you sound like an absolute moron? Even with a very linear game like you described, it is possible for someone to feel like really exploring, and end up "seeing something wrong". Something tells me that if gaming does get far enough in exploration its artistic capacities, then this is definitely going to be one our "you just didn't get it" arguments heh. That's why I made that sculpture remark. I think gaming really can learn a lot from sculpture, since they have figured out how to create three dimensional objects with clear points of focus for the last 2000+ years. I'm not sure how much budding game designers study sculpture, but I think there certainly is a rich bank of knowledge that perhaps hasn't been fully tapped.

I think its hard to even speculate on, since as you said, it's tough to know if its been done well or not yet.

 

[BrailleOperatic]

-snip-

And just as many professional mathematicians would nod their heads in agreement, as even mathematics can be art. Indeed mathematics form the basis of art, as the concept of beauty s reflected in formulaic mathematics through thing such as the Golden Ratio. Hell, Wikipedia has an entire article about Mathematical Beauty. If you can find people who think sign spinning is a candidate for an Oympic sport (and sadly, you can), then you can find at least as many people wiling to recognise the art of science. I work as an electrician and still find an artistry n what I do, and that's just laying cables.
Though I will agree concept art is not art, but for a different reason: it's a rough draft. It is a starting place, an idea to expand upon, not a final product for presentation. It's a quick easy way for the dsigners to try out different ideas and see what they like having to go and make a full finished product before finding out if something is good.

 

[DracoSuave]

You won't be able to, since video games aren't art. The whole belief that games are somehow art is nothing beyond crap created by people who feel uncomfortable playing video games (most likely that they associate their hobby with childishness), thus feel the need to invent the whole "games are art" thing in order to justify their hobby to what they perceive is society, but is actually themselves. In their mind, they aren't playing the toys of children, but pieces of art... it makes them feel better about play games.

This is the same absolute drivel that was brought up when the surrealists started their examinations of Freudian imagery as reflections of the nature of thought.

This is the same mental pablum that was recited when silent movies were first being displayed as lewd and vulgar entertainment.

This is the same contemptuous beefwitted brainsickly reverie that was directed towards Shakespeare's plays by his contemporaries.

In other words, you need better than this to make a convincing counter argument.

For the OP:

If one needs to defend video games as art, start with mentioning the difficulties surrealists had in getting their work accepted as art due to biases from communities that were not equipped to understand it. Then continue by going into a brief history of early cinema, the hurdles it had to go through.

Lastly... Everyday Shooter... which is surrealism presented in video game form. Not a AAA-title, not very well known actually... but look it up, and you'll notice that it speaks the language of visual art, not the language of traditional video games (even tho it's really just a modern Robotron 2084)

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

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.

I'm going to disagree with your opinion and say: RPGs have already done this. Can Baldur's gate or KoTOR or Mass Effect or New Vegas or The Witcher or Dragon Age: Orginis be recreated as films? Probably, yes (many of them even started as books, e.g. Witcher). But these games integrate player choice and immersion so thoroughly into the very fabric of the game, that the movies can never ever even begin, to hope, to make me feel the same sense of personal investment and connection as each and every one of those individual works of art have, with relative ease.

By the end of a playthrough of an RPG, you ARE the protagonist. You have been his/her mind, soul and body for the last 60-80 realworld hours of their existence.

When House tells me at the end of F:NV how "[parapharse]Thanks to me, New Vegas will soon return to the splendor and glory of it's pre-war days; followed shortly by the Mojave and then America itself!", it's not just a rich, well-paid actor spouting lines, because it says so in the script. No, I earned that piece of text and line of dialogue. I activated his robot army instead of disabling it. I single-handedly talked the NCR into relinquishing it's hold over the Mojave, instead of just "giving" it to them. I brought about an era of unparalleled economic boom for New Vegas, instead of killing House and inadvertently plunging it into a time of Chaos and Anarchy. I made those decisions. Not some Actor; ME. House is talking to ME. What other medium allows you to have a high level, two-way discussion about the merits of Democracy versus Autocracy.

Similarly, when Alistair lifts the broken remains of my petite elven body into his arms, and weeps for the Grey Warden who sacrificed it all to end the blight- a lost comrade, friend... Lover- he weeps for ME. And I wept with him. A little bit. I'm not ashamed to admit that.

Games are art because they can allow you to live a life beyond anything that is physically possible for you to do in the real world. Not glimpse into someone else's pretension of doing so, as in movies; or listen to the raw emotions something like that might invoke, as in a Lord of the Rings OST song. In games there is no pretense. Not if you don't want there to be.

I realize that not everyone can engross themselves into RPGs as much as I can. That is where the subjectivity of it comes in. Those who can, I believe would not hesitate to agree with me on lauding this medium's potential to show us unadulterated, crystal clear images of amazing worlds. Something that no other medium, with their restrictive camera angles and necessity to be grounded by real world physics, can or will ever accomplish.

 

[AdumbroDeus]

I've seen you scatter around this same post on separate topics and I'm tempted to call you out for flame-baiting. Art is subjective and this topic is about people with a different subjective opinion on the nature of art, who believe that videogames are art, deciding how best this opinion might be conveyed to someone else. Fair enough if you hold a different opinion but know that this topic isn't for you, though I think you probably knew that anyway...

The post is on topic, so I fail to see why it is flame-baiting. Games simply are not art. This is why I feel people who HAVE to run around and white knight the medium as artistic must have some kind of "problem" with games, since we haven't had something that truly justifies this medium as art. Ultimately, no game has come along that shows that the elements exclusive to video games can make them art. Most people simply define an artistic game as one with good writing and good visuals (and perhaps music as well), which is a narrow and shallow definition: the visuals are subpar compared to painting and film, and the writing subpar to stage, literature and film, due to the fact that games have to AT LEAST be 8 hours, which comes down to a quantity over quality thing (I don't think the gaming community will ever accept more and more games of significantly shorter length, even for greater artistic merit, which is sort of ironic when you think about it).

We haven't had the Citizen Kane of gaming yet, so to speak. Is it coming? Maybe... maybe not.

Movies were art before citizen kane, the perfect example of the artistic potential of a medium does not make the medium art. What makes the medium art is authorial control, which in turn gives the ability to impart meaning. It is that possibility for meaning that makes a medium art.

 

[Littaly]

You have the same problem here as with all discussions concerning video games and art, what does she define as art? If you can't define what art is, or if you don't know what is defined as art in this particular situation, it's going to be tricky convincing her, I'm sure you can see why. Once you know that you can start making up your arguments.

Regardless of what art is though, I don't think Assassin's Creed is the way to go for this specific occasion. Remember, what you're after here is justifying making a video game for an art class, even if she's blown away by Assassin's Creed, that isn't the kind of video game you'll be making. Show her something simpler, something that at least vaguely resembles what you'll be doing. Ever played Rez? In terms of arcade type games, it's about as much art as it gets. I'd try showing her Limbo too, or one of the many imitators. Or even better, you could look for some browser game, I'm not an expert in the field, but maybe someone else can help you out, (I know there's an Extra Credits episode somewhere that lists a couple of really good browser games).

 

[AmaterasuGrim]

The game art, The 3D/2D model art, Soundtrack of a game(Music Art) games feature just about every form of art & the best kind of art interactive, you can take some bodys art & play with it can't do that with museum art i.e. paintings stuff, art community is pretty up itself.

 

[mwpher]

In my opinion, "Braid" is probably one of the best standing examples of the games-are-art area. Not only are the graphics reminiscent of paintings, but the puzzles are immensely clever and the storyline has a lot of metaphors in it which should appeal to an art teacher. It's also $10 on the Mac app store, and your teacher doesn't even have to play much to get the point.

Assassin's Creed might work, but I feel it's designed to appeal a little too much. If you were trying to convince someone that movies were art, you could show them the J. J.Abrams Star Trek, but you might be better off with something with more of a focus on the artsy side, like 12 Angry Men, perhaps. Remember, you're trying to say "this medium is an artistic one, NOT JUST a method to entertain or appeal to humans." You're trying to defeat the preconceptions (games = runny jumpy shooty) of the person you're talking to -- you're trying to break them out of the box they put this art form into.

And regarding the actual project, assuming your teacher accepts it, you may want to be 100% certain of what you want to do with this game and that it's doable BEFORE you sign on for it. Trust me on this: computer programming and development is an absolute magnet for unforeseen complications. If you're ready, though, go to it. keep us updated!

 

[DemikidZA]

"art/ärt/Noun
1. The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
2. Works produced by such skill and imagination"

By Google's definition Games are art because the game is a byproduct of the developers skills and imagination, no need to get into a discussion of whether or not its art if games are by the definition of art, works of art

 

[Mr.Squishy]

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

I'm commander Shepard and this is my favorite post in the thread.

 

[AyreonMaiden]

Pick something minimalistic, like Limbo or The Path, and bullshit the rest.

Hey, it fooled intelligent and perceptive gamers into thinking they're deep. It'll fool an artesse connoisseurressessesse such as your professor, as well.



But seriously, pick something vague like Limbo or The Path and extrapolate on loneliness and breaking convention (respectively, if you pick one of these) Artistesessesses eat that shit up.

 

[Stall]

A game could make that drastic alteration to the story possible (if the developers thought of it) as a result of player choice. In this way games tell a story in a significantly different way through the use of interaction, letting the player be the artist and (within limits) create the story.

That could be the element exclusive to games you are looking for Stall.

Perhaps it is. It's hard to know. It certainly is one of the most unique elements to games, and I certainly think utilizing it will be key in progressing video games as an art form. I think the problem with interactivity is that you can still end up exploring any of the various possibilities in different media. On your example, I think you could certainly explore that alternate setting of Romeo and Juliet in film, or as some bizarre "choose your own Shakespeare" novel-play thing. I think interactivity is going to be important, but its also going to have to be somehow fundamentally ingrained into the other aspects unique to games, namely gameplay the the mechanics.

But its hard to say, since its entirely subjective weather or not we think it has been "done right".

And it's likely this next suggestion won't garner me any fans but...minecraft.
Continuing the whole interaction line of tought, minecraft and similar games make the player the artist. Is someone who sculpts with mouse and keyboard any different from one who sculpts with hammer and chisel? This would be and example of a game while is less a finished piece of art and more an artistic medium istelf through which art can be created.

You know what? I think you made a great example with Minecraft. It delivers an experience you couldn't really replicate with anything else, which is the direction I think personally think gaming needs to head if it wants to have wide acceptance as an artistic medium. I think there is a lot to be said about Minecraft, since it can only really be a video game. I think there could be a lot said about really adjusting ones paradigm of how they view art so that we can appreciate games like this on another level, since it is gameplay that really makes our medium so much different than movies and films, since it is a great example of how games CAN be wholly unique.

Sorry I haven't been able to respond to everyone. I don't like just schlocking down replies, and have tried to post something that contributes to some extent to the debate. I've got to head to class unfortunately... cheers everyone. Plenty of good and thought provoking arguments to think about.

 

[General BrEeZy]

its MOVING art, used as entertainment, thats why people dont treat it as such.

pull out freezeframes, videos of programming processes such as concept art, 3D modeling, demonstrations, etc. Shadow of the Colossus is a good game to use, as previously mentioned; as well as Bioshock, and other things.

Good Luck!

 

[Renegade-pizza]

Games are made from art, music and performance. Its made from art, therefore it is.
Also, games were declared as art months ago.

 

[Steve Butts]

Yeah, there's a big difference here between calling games art because they USE art, and calling them art because they ARE art. I think defining what art means is the first step here.

Videogames as art has to be defined and distinguished from that games merely use art. For instance, operas require music and poetry and costumes and sets and stagecraft. Each of those elements are a type of art, but the synthesis of them creates an entirely new art form called opera. It's the same with film and games. If you want to make them Art with a capital A, you can't merely point out that they combine stories and pictures. That's just the technical and superficial analysis of the form. It's what's DONE with it that makes it art.

You have to find the games that communicate the truth in art to you.

 

[DudeistBelieve]

You won't be able to, since video games aren't art. The whole belief that games are somehow art is nothing beyond crap created by people who feel uncomfortable playing video games (most likely that they associate their hobby with childishness), thus feel the need to invent the whole "games are art" thing in order to justify their hobby to what they perceive is society, but is actually themselves. In their mind, they aren't playing the toys of children, but pieces of art... it makes them feel better about play games.

I agree with this and Hideo Kojima's stance. Games aren't art so long as we the players are able to manipulate them. There are artistic elements to them... cutscenes, story, presentation, but the total package at the end of the day isn't art. Just the same, I don't think any of us look at the classic board games like Mouse Trap or LIFE as art even though they do have a high artistic quality to them.

 

[Ldude893]

Get the structure of your essay straight. My suggestion is to first define what art is, and use examples from various other mediums other than video games; explaining why each example qualifies as art. After building a list of criteria for art from the previous examples, explain why video games qualify as art and why they fit the criteria for art. Use examples of video games; preferrably the quality ones.

By the way, creating a decent video game is not a quick easy assignment, ESPECIALLY when you're the only one who's involved in the project and if there's limited time. If you are planning on building a video game, don't waste your time. Once your teacher approves it, act immediately.

 

[DanielDeFig]

Games like Portal and Flower, are in my opinion the best way to show off games as art. As they both are excellently designed games, and short enough for a person to get through them comprehensively. Finally, they are easy for "outsiders" to get into, without need for prior knowledge/familiarity with games.

If you want to make an artistic comparison, then you can compare video games to art galleries that cater to other senses than sight or hearing. There are some very interesting "touch" galleries where you go blindfolded/in a dark room/ from enclosed box to box, feeling different substances, or galleries where you are exposed to unusual mixes of smells.

These kinds of art galleries are nowhere near "mainstream", but I'm sure an art teacher would know about them, and they prove that art is about the experience, and the creativity behind presenting that experience. As all games are interactive experiences, they are all creative to some extent (some more than others, but in my opinion the minimum amount of creativity required makes all games art at some levels)

 

[Arrogancy]

Explaining why games are art is a relatively straightforward task, provided you're explaining to any reasonable, open-minded person. The main way to explain how games are art is to, as many people on this thread have said, define just what "art" is. Everyone's definition is slightly different so the important thing is to establish what you mean by "art". My definition is something that enriches my life.

 

[Jerubbaal]

Go with very simple games with a nice aesthetic like Flower and Braid (though the latter is hardly simple, but you can make her think it is).

EDIT: The trailers for these games should be more than enough.