Jimquisition: The Definition of Art Games

[upgray3dd]

(I'm going to make a lot of film examples, because that's what I know. Sorry)

As an example... Prometheus is an art film... tells me nothing "about" Prometheus as a film, it does tell me quite a bit about the person making that statement.

Yes, calling something an art film does tell you something about the film you are watching.

No. No it does not.

Let's suppose I am making a film. I tell you "it's an art film"... now... your saying that:

It tells you what to expect from the movie in terms of style of film making, editing, visuals, and in a lot of art films cases, lack of story or coherent narrative. It also tells you target audience. Tree of Life is an art film. As pretty it is, Lord of the Rings was not made for the cinema snobs of the world. It was made for everyone to enjoy.

That singular statement I provided you does not sufficiently satisfy:

Style - of it's creation
editing - in it's post creation
visuals - not in the slightest
narrative - imagination land

You go on to say that Tree of Life and LotR are snobbish by this definition... or something... but what you have here is an advantage of refering back to the film and making a case using elements of...

Style
Editing
Visuals
Narrative

Your interpretation here as to which is art and which is not based on these metrics; is COMPLETELY SUBJECTIVE.

I think what your misinterpreting is the difference between a character driven narrative and a surrealist visualization. Because something is "surreal" does not qualify it as art, nor does having a character driven narrative on rails with the hero's journey make something "not art".

Further:

None of these elements or their delivery have been provided by saying "X is art/artistic/arty". That simple statement provides no information. Further whatever you SAY is going to be subjective and interpretive. That the interpretation is outside of anything remotely approaching "evidence" without substantiating it with either personal, outside, or constructed internal references of the film itself, the concept of "it's art" is redundant, broken, as it implies a certain flexibility of interpretation.

It requires the "work" to justify "itself". This is known as "art for art's sake".

You're assuming that calling one thing "artsy" and not calling another thing "artsy" means that it is not art. The word art has several definitions, and calling a film an "art film" isn't calling other films "not art." Furthermore, you are assuming that an expansive genre definition makes that genre definition broken is incorrect. Imagine I came up and told you something was a "horror movie" and nothing else? I could show you Dracula or Jacob's Ladder or the remake of Prom Night and they would all be correct. There are massive differences in style, editing, story and visuals in these movies. Maybe it's the fault of the person who described the movie if you have no idea what it's about, rather than one single descriptive term.

Further: If you can call all art games "surrealist," that implies the definition of "art game" works pretty well, doesn't it? That's actually a pretty fair definition of the term "arty," as far as I can tell.

You can argue all you want about how Lord of the Rings is just as artistic as Tree of Life, but no one will listen.

No. You can argue all you want... because I never mentioned those films. You did. Your the one making an argument, and in so doing make my case.

Same with video games. Certain people are gaming snobs and need to distinguish themselves form the rest of gaming.

But that is exactly what I said...

That it creates a category exclusive to itself from which it is beyond reproach. So your just saying what I said, back to me... for no real reason?

I said that because "art" or "game art" is a phrase or word that has gained acceptance according to this video does not sufficiently support the phrase or word as a basis of discussion. As you mentioned, inadvertently, a context; that is, it already MUST EXIST in which to be REFLECTED BACK ON.

That's assuming that all art games are beyond reproach. There are bad art games and good art games. In the movie world, there are horror movies that are good movies but aren't scary in the least (something like Nightmare on Elm Street 3.), and there are bad horror MOVIES that succeed because they manage to scare you. In ther "art game" genre, there are bad art GAMES (The path and several others) and bad ART games (I can't think of a specific example. I don't play many art games, honestly)

The word "******" is in the dictionary. That does not mean I feel obliged to use it however I see fit, then argue "it's in the dictionary" as supporting "why" I said it. It requires context, and that context and it's understanding falls onto the speaker, NOT THE AUDIENCE.

I'm not touching this one.

And the term is not about giving one game an advantage over another, like you magic card thing implies. It's about tailoring the game to correct audience.

How does art which is subjective target an audience? This implies that an artist creates to the taste of it's audience, which is true in the sense that an artist may be contracted to work up something by request... but a general audience? This defies reason, someone creates and if someone else likes said creation I suppose it is art to them, if not, then it's not. To intentionally set out to "make great art" is the kiss of death philosophically as it destroys an audience participation, else the art is made for it's own sake by the artist for the artist, in which case any statement about it's intent is redundant.

It is what it is.

It requires no exclusive category such as the "art game", before the game is even made. There is nothing to reference back on and no information about "what it is about".

Journey may in fact "be" art. In no way shape or form does that elevate it's status one iota, this way or that as to it's merits as art, or a game. To suggest that because it falls into some category of exclusivity as being an "art game", someone attempts to justify it as being beyond reproach, is silly in debate it is broken because it does not give us anywhere to go in a discussion.

The MTG allegory holds true, as playing a "protection from color" card also breaks the game (in this case linguistic) as functionally there is no further argument to be had. It's an "I win" button, and just like mentioning Gears of War and it's artistic elements using the "I win" button, it gets called on as being "bullshit", because it is bullshit; all the way around.

To justify exclusivity as art there must be a case made reflecting on the art. This is why this shit is debated over and over and over again.

It's not about art.

That's right. It isn't

It's about setting out to create art as an artist, calling the creation art, making the creation and setting the artist outside of critical analysis, simply because "art" as a term is loaded with subjective loopholes; this MAKES it broken.

Art isn't broken, that much is true. Art as an adjective is broken because it is often times abused as a dodge as to the merit of the work of the artist, who hides behind the tall shadow of "intent".

Don't blame the victim, Blame all the people raising the "art" banner to defend their crap.

Shrug... maybe artsy folk are just sensitive and need lazy I win buttons and broken MTG cards...

You might be an artist if your "Decks" are loaded with CoP and RoP...

Circle of protection isn't banned in any format of magic. And "his argument is cheap and unfair" doesn't prove yours.

"art game" works as a term.

 

[SoopaSte123]

Thank god for you, Jim. I officially pronounce the Jimquisition my favorite show on the Escapist... it's a title long overdue. Well done.

 

[mjc0961]

Ironic that Flower enters the discussion just as he starts talking about not all art games being boring experiences anymore. Flower is one of the prime examples of what art games should not try to be. Flower is boring as fuck.

But yeah, saying that art game doesn't work as a term... You have to be pretty dumb to say that.

 

[Fappy]

I'm glad I'm not the only guy out there who jokes about boning my guy friends in the ass... >.>

 

[Aardvaarkman]

So, what is your definition of intelligence, Jim? You state that:

"AI is the ability of a machine to perceive its surroundings and take actions based upon it"

But that's a highly inadequate idea of intelligence. By this definition, my camera is intelligent. It is able to sense light levels and adjust exposure based on those light levels. It is able to sense the distance to objects, and thereby focus on them.

So, is my camera intelligent? Or is your definition of intelligence faulty?

 

[zelda2fanboy]

The weird thing about all the Ebert stuff is I'm a huge fan of him and I don't care at all. I don't agree with him about every movie, I don't go to his site for video game reviews, and I don't care what he has to say on that subject at all. I bought his book about Martin Scorsese films, but I did not buy his cookbook of crock pot recipes. One thing is more relevant and enjoyable to me than the other. He's written a few positive things about games over the years if you dig deep enough, but his opinion on a pc game from 20 years ago or Ninja Turtles for the NES matter about as much to me as Adam Sessler's opinion of Apocalypse Now (look it up, he has one).

Everyone knows an art game is in black and white, Swedish, and has copious amounts of nudity.

 

[DioWallachia]

Art games arent fun? You didnt play The Binding of Isaac, do you Jim?

 

[Jubbert]

Sorry Jim, I didn't hear the last 3 or so minutes of the video because I was laughing too hard at the random commercial with that purple monster that gets the tongue tattoos.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Let me clear this up for everyone.

Definition of an Art Game: Mario Paint, UDraw, and Colors 3D.

You all are welcome.

You forgot the seminal work Color a Dinosaur [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_a_Dinosaur]. Philistine.

 

[orangeapples]

man, I have a very weak definition. "Art" is something created or crafted with intent which elicits and emotional or cognitive response from another.

so according to that, all video games are "art" in that they may cause the player joy, rage, anger, sadness.

Then you get to a sticky point in which they are divided into "high art" and "low art"

"high art" is that which an elite group consider "art" and "low art" is what any other subsect of society consider "art".

Timbaland and Mozart are both involved in the creation of music. Mozart is considered an artist and the things he created musically are considered art by societal elite. Timbaland is considered an artist by people who listen to hip-hop/R&B. Other people would consider that which Timbaland creates to be just noise.

The problem with this division is that the social elite should not be able to consider what they enjoy to be high art, because those people are downright crazy.
http://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/levitated-mass/

The Los Angeles County Museum of Art has a big rock on exhibit...

The only way I can see to fairly judge whether something is to be considered "art" is to let time see. Some movies were considered garbage in their era, but have now become classics.

But in order to do that, you lost the temporal aspect of the "moment". Some things only have significance for that time, and some would argue that those moments are also art, but to that I say they are not. they are inspiring and beautiful and can elicit all sorts of emotions, but I cannot say they are art for the simple fact that they were not crafted.

If I were to eat a burger on a bench in a park, it would elicit an emotion from me and it would be a joyous occasion. That doesn't make it art... or does it? that gives me an idea... If the elite enjoy that rock thing, then just maybe...

 

[Jennacide]

My only issue with the art game discussion has little to do with what Jim is saying, as I mostly agree with him. No, my issue is simplier, the assertion that all games are art. No, that's like saying all films or books are art. We all know this to be untrue. All games have the CAPACITY to be art, but are not inherently.

Nobody would classify trash romance novels as art, or generic blockbusters like Battleship. Those aren't art, they're just media. And most games are the same way. There are tons of games that have artists merit without being implicity art, like Bioshock or Jet Set Radio. This is where the distinction of art games comes in. Art games were made from the get go to be art, like Journey or Limbo. Games like Bioshock were made to be storytelling devices and entertainment, and just happen to have artistic merit to them due to great atmosphere and art direction.

 

[FallenMessiah88]

I agree Jim. All games are art, but not all games are "good art" or "high art". However, most games are first and foremost a product, while others are first and foremost art. Those are art games.

 

[The Funslinger]

I read a quote online that went like this:

"The other word I really hate seeing around is "art" and if games are that. That discussion gets very ugly very fast, and no one wins after having it."

I decided to test this claim. I started a thread at another forum and the second reply to the thread, among other things, had this in it:

"And of course all Final Fantasy series. I mean, look at Ultimecias castle. There is an Art Gallery."

Ugh, I can totally see why Jim would have never wanted to do such an episode. People just dont get it.

I see what you mean.

My point is just the aesthetic value qualifies games as a form of art in general.

A (possibly psychopathic) example of the point Jim drives at would be radiation. Everything has a certain amount of background radiation, but in nuclear materials, the radiation is a more major point to be considered. Just like that, Gears of War, Final Fantasy, etc have a degree of background artistry to them. That doesn't mean the artistic sense or value can't play a more prominent role in a game's value.

Hell, while they're not all necessarily "art games", I think any game that prioritizes story equally to or above gameplay by default has more artistic design than something like Call of Duty. Call of Duty still counts as art due to its background art elements like its level design, aesthetic, music score and what story it does have.

 

[Toilet]

You cant prove a point by using a double negative. Nice try though.​

If you really want to find a proper definition of art-game you could just reword the wiki for art-film for your own designs and it will hold up just as well. The whole debate of whether video games are art is moot considering if you compare video games to movies people will say the same thing. You wouldn't call Transformers 2 an art-film the same way you wouldn't call Call Of Duty an art-game.

 

[CardinalPiggles]

So to summarise: Everyone is stupid?

Oh and I had the same dilemma with Portal as well. I don't generally like puzzle games, but if someone had just told me Portal was a puzzle game, I would have stayed away from it, and having played it and loved it, I'm glad I did give it a try.

 

[Daveman]

Totally take the point. All drawings are art but there's a difference between something admittedly well drawn and something arty. Gears of War may have been created in an artistic medium but that doesn't make it art.

Furthermore, everyone knows what "art game" means so fuck off. Oh wait, you agree? FUCK OFF ANYWAY!

 

[Doclector]

People were making that argument? Really? Are people that argumentative? I hate the internet sometimes.

Did anyone else think he was gonna do this at the beginning?

 

[Itsthefuzz]

Huge Snip

There are a ton of games I know that sold by the bucket load and are art games. I also just asked all of my friends on Skype if they are turned off by an art game, a surprising 18/19 said "No", while one said "I don't care."

AKA I think everything you said is wrong.

 

[Conn1496]

Art: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.
Therefore, games are art, but games can specialise in art, just as they can specialise in Shooting, or Platforming and therefore can be "art games". Art games is a legit term.
Thank god for me. Oh wait, that's Jim's line... Uhhh... Thank... Reproduction for me? Oh, stuff it... Thank god for Jim.