Games as art.
- Thread starter ShinyCharizard
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I suppose he wants a game that does what Catch 22 does, a game where you get subjected to a " no-win situation" or "a double bind".ShinyCharizard said:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MortonsFork
Planescape Torment did some of that with The Pillar of Skulls scene.
In the other hand, there are horror games that explore a part of the player's self, like Silent Hill 2. So its not like there isnt already some aplicability to real life with games:
On a personal note, i think that we need a game that puts the theme of "Nesesity knows NO bounds" in play, with the meta twist that your are not presented with a case of "Its either this well written NPC or my avatar who dies" . Instead, you are pitted against your OWN player character who is trying to be free of your control, because you are murdering people for no reason with its body for some excuse of entertaiment. The game is basically you trying to mentally breakdown this avatar or yours in ANY way possible (by force or by lectures) so you can regain full control and return to the fun stuff. Since the avatar is just a fictional being, there is no remorse at all when you wipe out its mind to be your perfect puppet of your desires...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_fiction
...or are they trully fictional?
Now THAT is nice way to explore the human condition, wont you say?
I am so sorry! I thought you were dismissing me, and I started assuming thingsZeldias said:Hope I didn't come off as aggressive; I love the conversations and think on art a lot (as an academic and artist), so it gets me going :-D.Bocaj2000 said:
I think we agree. I just used the more mainstream games to make my point, but I would definitely say something like Trauma Center or Lumines is an artistic experience, more so than Mass Effect. Or Etrian Odyssey, where you chart unknown worlds, moves more in the space of art than most JRPGs.
I think you're right, though on what you say about interactive art, and I agree that the notions of "winning" and "fun" are limiting to video games as artistic expression. I think my issue, really, is that I have limited experience with the interactive art in museums; I'm a literature guy, so most of my energy goes towards literary art.
I didn't mean to sound dismissive re: the Ono bit, just saying that in form, it looks like a poem. I'm not saying it can't serve as a part of a performance piece with audience participation and stuff like that; the point of any poem I've ever called good is to deliver an experience, whether that's to place the reader in a moment of understanding, or subvert that understanding, or disassociate us with our common understanding of language. I wasn't saying it's not art, just that it is poetry: that doesn't mean it can't also be other things, you know? Most people typically experience plays like novels, but they're still meant to be cast, performed, and directed, so a play can actually be several different kinds of art simultaneously.
And cool on FTL :-D. I agree with you; the emergent nature of gameplay is really special. But I dunno. I think the question that has to be answered for critics that want to defends video games as art is "what am I looking for out of art?" Basically, aesthetic, you know? What should art be doing, if anything? I'm not sure that catharsis and emotional experiences alone should be that. But I do think the space for telling our own stories is part of what makes game an interesting artistic endeavor: for me, FTL is this constantly feminine (although, apparently, racist, since all I have are white dudes on the Kestrel) thing where I always have a female captain piloting the ship. And I realize that it's different from the spaces other people create. Then there's this interesting thing (to me) where I'm wondering how feminist is it when I, as a guy, am doing this thing. But my take on art is that it's always doing some kind of sociocultural work, whether it means to or not.
Thanks for the response.
Damn you internet and your lack of vocal inflections!
Thanks for the clarifications. It's always nice to discuss with another artist. I am currently in school for Digital Media & Animation, and lately I have been experimenting in interactivity and the purposes behind it. I have been researching interactive art and made some experiments in Max/MSP/Jitter. I hope to use my degree as a stepping stone to become a game designer and put all of my theories to the test.
It is a misconception that all interactive pieces are Hollywood inspired AAA games. This is because they are the only ones advertised. It's a problem with culture more than the actual medium. We tend to dismiss puzzle games, visual novels, or anything else that might be too "casual" for us. The only to correct this is to start paying attention to indie games and handheld games. They are the most unique ones changing the industry. But if you want to see some interactive art, just youtube it some time, you'll find some amazing stuff. This is one of them:
As for Yoko Ono. View it how you want; it's open to interpretation
Lastly, as for FTL, I agree that it is a proponent in making video games viewed art. Everything about it is personal. On top of that it has a thick atmosphere that I fell in love with.
Send me a message if you want to talk more about this stuff
Fitting for a fellow who has Cthulhu as an avatar pic to engage my first discussion on metaphysical stuff.DioWallachia said:
A game doesn't solve a practical problem, to paraphrase the The Engineer. It doesn't really solve a problem at all. We play games because of emotional needs (boredom, loneliness, lust in the case of Soul Caliber) but that can hardly be equated to the use of a tool. Your point about a hammer not baking a cake isn't exactly the point I was trying to make. A piece of art doesn't have a single practical function besides killing some time. If you had were stuck in the wilds with a hammer, you could kill some food or do something useful. Stuck in the same situation with a game disk, you could only make use out of the disk itself, unless you ran into a bear that happened to love himself some Halo Reach. The game would be useless, and cannot be used to solve any practical problem.
Depends on how you classify art.
In my opinion, art is a selfish thing. Art is a materialization of your imagination, not something that you made to cater to others and make money off.
Art is the most personal form of expression. So no, in general, creative works under the flag of commercial distribution isn't art, but entertainment. Albeit sometimes very creative and innovating entertainment, but still... Entertainment.
In my opinion, art is a selfish thing. Art is a materialization of your imagination, not something that you made to cater to others and make money off.
Art is the most personal form of expression. So no, in general, creative works under the flag of commercial distribution isn't art, but entertainment. Albeit sometimes very creative and innovating entertainment, but still... Entertainment.
Does it inspire any emotion or convey any idea deliberately?
As far as I'm concerned, whenever someone has done something for a reason that is observed and interpreted by an observer, that's art. I just pulled that out of thin air just then but it basically encompasses everything I consider to be art. The thing is, I dislike a lot of abstract art. But I reconcile that with a simple saying: "Not all art is good art". Videogames are art, but when they're kneecapped by incompetent suprevisors, financial issues, brand recognition, audience broadening - anything that can happen to a game that may impact its quality - it can just be shitty art, we don't have to exclude it. I mean for fuck's sake, if a blank canvas and a silent piano piece which is played by sitting still is art, Dark Souls is art. The user input I basically equate to your interpretation of an artwork anyway.
That said, I really don't give a fuck what other people consider games. I play them.
As far as I'm concerned, whenever someone has done something for a reason that is observed and interpreted by an observer, that's art. I just pulled that out of thin air just then but it basically encompasses everything I consider to be art. The thing is, I dislike a lot of abstract art. But I reconcile that with a simple saying: "Not all art is good art". Videogames are art, but when they're kneecapped by incompetent suprevisors, financial issues, brand recognition, audience broadening - anything that can happen to a game that may impact its quality - it can just be shitty art, we don't have to exclude it. I mean for fuck's sake, if a blank canvas and a silent piano piece which is played by sitting still is art, Dark Souls is art. The user input I basically equate to your interpretation of an artwork anyway.
That said, I really don't give a fuck what other people consider games. I play them.
I get a very similar vibe when discussing video games as art to a postmodernist lecture/class/things's discussion on what constitutes "art". Needless to say, Video Games are an art form. Some may say the best art form. Also those asshats who say that game mechanics marginalise narrative must be the dumbest pieces of stupid in the world because that just proves that games are multi-dimensional where other forms of media have to focus on stuff like looking pretty and trying to evoke some obscure (or blatant) philosophical subtext. Also I've found most critics in other forms to be stuffy and aristocratic when it concerns our art, and it's because we just happened to be less established. Wait another few decades and you'll see change; happens to just about everything.
Also from briefly skimming over (almost) everyone else's comments, it seems to me that you are all experts (in a good way) in this particular topic... wow... Escapists: Philosophers of the Gaming world? Maybe.
Also from briefly skimming over (almost) everyone else's comments, it seems to me that you are all experts (in a good way) in this particular topic... wow... Escapists: Philosophers of the Gaming world? Maybe.
What about the works of art that challenge (or in some cases, frighten) the audience into reconsidering their opinion in a "Appeal to Consequenses" sort off way?AsurasEyes said:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Film/WarGames?from=Main.WarGames
I heard that War Games did something like that (but i cant really say if it was THAT effective as people say, during the Cold War). The entire plot of WarGames is about how the only way to "win" a nuclear war is not to start it in the first place. Of course, it doesn't go so far as to have an actual war occur, but it gets fairly close.
A hammer may indeed be also be useful for fighting a bear, outside its intented use of....well, hammering a nail, but you STILL wont use a hammer to fix or even measure the Amperes of a electrical current, would you? Same for a work of art, it just happens to have a more specific function than other tools.
We are not experts. We just pick up everything we can find and throw it against the wall of text on the forum because most of us have NO idea where to start, so we may as well say somthing and test it until proven wrong.vortalism said:
I suppose so. Although I still applaud the fact that you guys even give a chuff about this topic. I may be from a very different part of the internet indeed. Furthermore some people's ideas actually hold some semblance of truth not all of it is wall-poop throwing.DioWallachia said:
But isnt "Art must (follow no rules / break all rules)" a rule by itself?Zeldias said:Sure you can. If art had to follow rules, everyone could eventually be an artist. It's a matter of breaking the rules correctly that makes art art, as opposed to just interesting.
Check out Bhanu Khapil's Humanimal and Maggie Nelson's Bluets. A lot of rules get broken in those books, just off the top of my head. The Fixed Stars by Brian Conn also does weird stuff (though not nearly as weird), and I also like to push it because I was part of the production of the book
U sure about that?AsurasEyes said:
https://twitter.com/meta_gear/status/300975623059410944?uid=535688170&iid=6bd3a76e-1952-40f7-82a6-10fe102f596c&nid=4+248
This is something of a pet peeve of mine, so I apologize if this seems harsh in advance, but if you were really just trying to sort your thoughts out, why post it on a game discussion forum? Let alone some place where the public can read and comment on it?ShinyCharizard said:
That said, I'm going to comment.
Well, those critics are obviously full of shit and I need not say why.
Though I should note that a video game does not need to be obtuse, "artsy" or "deep" to deliver an effective experience, or comment on something beyond the realm of entertainment.
Going on my experience with film, most "art films" I've seen are little more than exploitations of surreality and have little of value to say openly; relying on "Stare into the abyss" logic and obscurity more than substance.
I'm not eager to see games follow suit, but I wouldn't complain if that sort of nonsense appeals to someone else out there.
Still, maybe there is value in the experimentation with the usual "artistic" tropes.
Eventually someone is going to stumble onto pure genius that doesn't take a Doctorate in Abyss Staring or Bullshitology to appreciate.
I think its just the result of a medium that is experienced through sound and visuals. We automatically compare games to films because we see images and hear sounds simultaneously. There's no other medium to compare it to really.
I thought that The Walking Dead games were a step towards games being art. Probably because it was completely character driven. The actual plot wasn't particularly original or special but the thing that made the game exciting was seeing how the characters reacted to whatever happened. You could have seen a mile off that Lee was a doomed man from the start but his death was still incredibly affecting and just really sad.
If we had more games like Walking Dead and less COD and Gears the gaming world would truly be a less boring and uninspired place.
I thought that The Walking Dead games were a step towards games being art. Probably because it was completely character driven. The actual plot wasn't particularly original or special but the thing that made the game exciting was seeing how the characters reacted to whatever happened. You could have seen a mile off that Lee was a doomed man from the start but his death was still incredibly affecting and just really sad.
If we had more games like Walking Dead and less COD and Gears the gaming world would truly be a less boring and uninspired place.