Ponderings in Relation to Art, Games and Why I Like Milo

[Asparagus Brown]

Inspired by several threads recently in relation to art (both related and unrelated to games), I've decided it would be a nice idea to express a few of my thoughts on the topic.

Before there can be an understanding of what gaming is in relation to art, there needs to be an understanding of what constitutes art. While I agree that the definition of art is very subjective, I think there needs to be a bit more of a clear line drawn between "art" and "artistic." For what is undoubtedly a controversially gross simplification, let's call "artistic" an aesthetic quality, and "art" a conceptual one. One of the main criticisms of modern art is that the "art" can become removed almost entirely from the "artistic"; traditional aesthetics and conventions are moved aside or radically changed to make room for an idea.

Now, bringing this idea to video games, it's fairly clear that games are artistic. A good game will have its own aesthetic visually based on the colour palette, character models and animations, aurally through its music and sound effects, and mechanically through how it feels to interact with the game. Does this make games art? Well, in my opinion, no.

Since Beethoven, "art music", for instance, has developed in complexity to cater for increasingly lofty ideals. It changed from court entertainment, to the soul of the bourgeois, to the academia, and over recent decades, to the study of sound. Each step along the way has slowly but surely challenged the common conception of "music" and its function.

While the analogy may not be completely accurate, since video games are a hybrid art, the general progression stands. To follow in these footsteps, video games need to break free of traditional game mechanics and challenge our concept of what games are and what function they serve. While there are certainly developers with this intention, the results are often quite lacklustre compared to more mature artistic media. Two main problems I think are focusing on narrative (read Hollywood) and sticking very firmly to traditional gameplay mechanics (read 2D platformer). The first places emphasis on what I feel is probably the weakest story element related to video games' benefits and drawbacks. The second, as in games such as Braid and Limbo, have simply refined traditions and coated them with "artistic" qualities.

Is there hope? Why, yes! I do believe there is. These are early days. We are only now reaching a time where developers are really beginning to get and handle on technology. And, in part due to that technology, we're beginning to create some stunningly interactive environments. Personally, I think this is the way forward artistically. It may sound ridiculous, but this is why Project Milo gives me hope. Through Natal, the player is offered a new way to interact with games. Unlike the majority of the games on display, however, Milo offers the opportunity to interact as part of a small, detailed environment with a detailed character. I'm not saying that Milo will deliver on these things if it is ever released, but what it offers is a concept. The concept changes the basic mechanics of a game; the concept moves the emphasis away from narrative and places it on character; the concept offers interactivity as the primary focus. This is the progression in which concept can thrive, and where concept thrives, art is thriving also.

 

[TiefBlau]

I don't think of art in terms of aesthetics. For me, what determines artistic value is profundity. Good art has to be "deep". It has to change your perspective of the world, or at least on certain topics. It's not enough to simply "touch" your emotions; it has to "move" them.

Is video gaming as capable of doing this as other media? Yes! The reason is the same reason neophobic activists and anal-retentive mothers denounce video gaming: interactivity operates on a whole new level of understanding. When you think of the gaming aspect of a game to be not simply "puzzles" or "toys" but "problems" and "choices", you begin to see how the form of progression that games create can make an experience unique to itself. Without a doubt, this can create new art that operates on the same level of profundity as other media.

We've seen glimpses of this. In the all-too-famous death scene in the original Modern Warfare, in Aerith's death for some gamers, in Braid's ending, and in many other games. Games have the potential to move.

I think of art as medicine, or at least, vitamin supplements. The shit's good for you. And entertainment would be the delicious beverage that washes an otherwise unlikeable substance down the gullet. Too much art is bitter and pretentious. Too little of it is stupid and uncultured. And while both are well and good, it is the delicious Pepto-Bismol (well I think it tastes good) mixture that becomes truly potent and recognized.

Fitting video games into this metaphor, they're still relatively young, and still struggling to move past their composition of "beer" and "snake-oil", either ridiculously stupid for the sake of fun or artsy and still not very profound, respectively. We have to take this video game thing seriously if we hope to someday call video games art with a straight face.

 

[Thaius]

To follow in these footsteps, video games need to break free of traditional game mechanics and challenge our concept of what games are and what function they serve.

But haven't they already done that? After all, they have "game" in the title, implying that they are about winning, about accomplishing a goal. That was their intent, their definition, way back when. But as technology improved, games very quickly became something else: an experience. An undeniably artistic and potentially moving experience, where the goal is not the end, but the journey to it. Wouldn't you say that video "games" have already challenged our ideas of what they are and what function they serve?

 

[Dr.Sean]

I hate it when subjectivists pollute art with "the definition is subjective". Art is not subjective.

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments. Man's profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it [makes concrete] man's fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important.

Video games can do this. Video games can be a small recreation reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments.

It could be argued, however, that artists have different metaphysical value judgments, and this might be where the illusion of subjectivity comes in. Art at it's core, however, is the expression of the artist's values.

 

[Glamorgan]

You have a very good point, but the fact remains. I'm sorry, but Creepy Milo scares the hell out of me.

 

[Asparagus Brown]

To follow in these footsteps, video games need to break free of traditional game mechanics and challenge our concept of what games are and what function they serve.

But haven't they already done that? After all, they have "game" in the title, implying that they are about winning, about accomplishing a goal. That was their intent, their definition, way back when. But as technology improved, games very quickly became something else: an experience. An undeniably artistic and potentially moving experience, where the goal is not the end, but the journey to it. Wouldn't you say that video "games" have already challenged our ideas of what they are and what function they serve?

They have changed, yes. Baby steps. 2D to 3D presented some huge mechanical changes. But it hasn't changed the base of the gaming experience. Think of the differences between GTA II and III. Big change in how its played and presented, but it's built on the same foundation. I think part of the problem at the moment, though, is that most of the games today are refinements of those first earlier game concepts. Stories and characters have been drawn on top, and those stories and characters been given more refinement through voice acting and motion captured animations and things like that, but the underlying experience generally seems to boil down to killing things.

I agree that they're "potentially moving." I don't, however, think being emotionally moving makes them art, and their function is still primarily entertainment. A more mature entertainment, certainly, but largely still entertainment.

 

[Thaius]

To follow in these footsteps, video games need to break free of traditional game mechanics and challenge our concept of what games are and what function they serve.

But haven't they already done that? After all, they have "game" in the title, implying that they are about winning, about accomplishing a goal. That was their intent, their definition, way back when. But as technology improved, games very quickly became something else: an experience. An undeniably artistic and potentially moving experience, where the goal is not the end, but the journey to it. Wouldn't you say that video "games" have already challenged our ideas of what they are and what function they serve?

They have changed, yes. Baby steps. 2D to 3D presented some huge mechanical changes. But it hasn't changed the base of the gaming experience. Think of the differences between GTA II and III. Big change in how its played and presented, but it's built on the same foundation. I think part of the problem at the moment, though, is that most of the games today are refinements of those first earlier game concepts. Stories and characters have been drawn on top, and those stories and characters been given more refinement through voice acting and motion captured animations and things like that, but the underlying experience generally seems to boil down to killing things.

I agree that they're "potentially moving." I don't, however, think being emotionally moving makes them art, and their function is still primarily entertainment. A more mature entertainment, certainly, but largely still entertainment.

I'm not simply saying they've changed, I'm saying that transformation you talked about happened years ago.

Take movies, for instance: when they were first made, they were short little clips of... well, moving pictures (thus the term "movie"). One could argue that they were art, but they were so simple, with no plot, message, or progression, that it would be a real stretch. However, once The Great Train Robbery was made, the first film ever to actually tell a story, film began to change. It was no longer simply a "motion picture," it was a storytelling device containing multiple facets that only grew as technology and artistic understanding of the medium developed over time. If you ask me, that was when film became art. Sure, it had plenty of room to develop, but you can't say something is only art once it's reached the absolute peak of its abilities. Once film found a purpose, became more than simply its basic premise, it became a fledgling art form.

When video games were first made, they were amazingly simple. They were simply a matter of a human interacting with a computer on a basic level, either to meet a certain goal, solve a certain puzzle, or sometimes to play with another person in a competition. This was the absolute basic level of the interaction that is the base of what video games are, and, like movies, their name (through the word "game") reflects the simple nature of their beginnings. However, since that basic level of human interaction, video games have grown to tell stories and communicate ideas. Sure, it doesn't happen in all of them, and some of the stories and/or ideas are rather simple or downright stupid, but that is the same in every artistic medium (need I remind you of Sturgeon's Law?). The point is, video games used to be simple games played on a video screen: that was their definition, just as movies are simply moving pictures and literature is simply "the written word." These things are still built on the same base as when they were invented, but these all became art when they transcended their definitions to deliver a much different experience than their original, base purpose. Video games have absolutely done this; like every other artistic medium, they are still built on the same base, but through expansion and discovery of their potential, that base is no longer their main purpose. Games are no longer about winning, they are about experiencing. This transformation is exactly what you are talking about: they have "broken free of traditional game mechanics and challenged our concept of what games are and what function they serve." (excerpt edited to match tense)

 

[Thaius]

I hate it when subjectivists pollute art with "the definition is subjective". Art is not subjective.

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments. Man's profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it [makes concrete] man's fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important.

Video games can do this. Video games can be a small recreation reality according to an artist's metaphysical value judgments.

It could be argued, however, that artists have different metaphysical value judgments, and this might be where the illusion of subjectivity comes in. Art at it's core, however, is the expression of the artist's values.

Had to agree with you there. I do agree with people that art is subjective in that one person can love a work of art and another person can hate it, and both opinions are valid. But the definition of art is not at all a subjective thing. Hard to define, sure, but calling it subjective is just a cop-out. Good show, sir.