Shigeru Miyamoto views games as products, not art

[Woodsey]

Games can be artistic. Games are not art.

 

[Chemical Alia]

this confuses things when you consider that most art is a product as well

I think this cuts to the core of the issue. Most of the things we consider to be the great works of art were either A) religious/civic in nature, or B) a product of some sort. I think a problem with what Miyamoto is saying is that it assumes that art and consumerism are mutually exclusive.

Yeah, it's strange to me how prevalent the idealized misconception is that art (even high art) is meant to exist purely for art's sake. If that were the case, there would be a lot less of it throughout history, since no one would be making a living from it. Art is a business, just like selling any other product.

 

[Mister Benoit]

I just saw someone mention this article:

http://gamez.itmedia.co.jp/games/articles/0910/27/news082_3.html

Since it's in Japanese I can't tell for sure, but the guy who brought it up pointed out one quote from the article:

"What we have created are not an art but products. For us, the most important are the customers and not games themselves. I always tell staff to call Nintendo games products, not an art."

Anyone who can read Japanese want to double-check?

I choose not to trust the translation that google offers me.

The header for the article translates to:

"Aims to have only the best fuckable now"

 

[Shameless]

Yes, Nintendo's Games are products, not art, however some people take games as art, and there are games that I consider art (i.e Shadow of the Colossus and ICO).

 

[newwiseman]

It's the same as some producer caring more about the audience than the movie. Neither side is really incorrect, they just have different motivations for the same goal (to sell games).

Do you focus on making a great game, so everyone will buy it, or do you focus on making something everyone will buy? Either motivation can make an awesome masterpiece or some designed by committee monstrosity.

 

[EBsessed]

Well, games are all art by definition.

I heavily disagree. I think something should have some sort of heart and soul, be beautiful, have some way to change you and make you think and teach you new ways of viewing the world in order to be considered art. M&M's Racing and Imagine: Babyz and Carnival Games and a ton of other such games fall nowhere near that category.

Art, by the formal definition, is deliberately arranging something in the world so that it affects or can be observed by an outside observer. So all games are by definition, art. Whether a particular game is good art, on the other hand, is up to debate.

The key part of that definition is "so that it affects." To affect, it must have depth and weight and be thought-provoking. Many games don't affect, they mildly entertain as a card game does. I would not consider card games art any more than I'd consider Link's Crossbow Training art.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, games are all art by definition.

I heavily disagree. I think something should have some sort of heart and soul, be beautiful, have some way to change you and make you think and teach you new ways of viewing the world in order to be considered art. M&M's Racing and Imagine: Babyz and Carnival Games and a ton of other such games fall nowhere near that category.

Art, by the formal definition, is deliberately arranging something in the world so that it affects or can be observed by an outside observer. So all games are by definition, art. Whether a particular game is good art, on the other hand, is up to debate.

The key part of that definition is "so that it affects." To affect, it must have depth and weight and be thought-provoking. Many games don't affect, they mildly entertain as a card game does. I would not consider card games art any more than I'd consider Link's Crossbow Training art.

Key word "or." A cave painting or a pattern on a fragment of ancient greek pottery might very well do nothing for your average modern viewer. That does not make it something other than art. It's enough that they were intentionally created by a person to be perceived by other people.

 

[EBsessed]

Well, games are all art by definition.

I heavily disagree. I think something should have some sort of heart and soul, be beautiful, have some way to change you and make you think and teach you new ways of viewing the world in order to be considered art. M&M's Racing and Imagine: Babyz and Carnival Games and a ton of other such games fall nowhere near that category.

Art, by the formal definition, is deliberately arranging something in the world so that it affects or can be observed by an outside observer. So all games are by definition, art. Whether a particular game is good art, on the other hand, is up to debate.

The key part of that definition is "so that it affects." To affect, it must have depth and weight and be thought-provoking. Many games don't affect, they mildly entertain as a card game does. I would not consider card games art any more than I'd consider Link's Crossbow Training art.

Key word "or." A cave painting or a pattern on a fragment of ancient greek pottery might very well do nothing for your average modern viewer. That does not make it something other than art. It's enough that they were intentionally created by a person to be perceived by other people.

Then really, there are two different kinds of art with differing definitions. One kind affects, and the other kind is merely for observation. So it's not a question of whether games are or not art, it's a question of what kind of art a game is.

 

[Kahunaburger]

Well, games are all art by definition.

I heavily disagree. I think something should have some sort of heart and soul, be beautiful, have some way to change you and make you think and teach you new ways of viewing the world in order to be considered art. M&M's Racing and Imagine: Babyz and Carnival Games and a ton of other such games fall nowhere near that category.

Art, by the formal definition, is deliberately arranging something in the world so that it affects or can be observed by an outside observer. So all games are by definition, art. Whether a particular game is good art, on the other hand, is up to debate.

The key part of that definition is "so that it affects." To affect, it must have depth and weight and be thought-provoking. Many games don't affect, they mildly entertain as a card game does. I would not consider card games art any more than I'd consider Link's Crossbow Training art.

Key word "or." A cave painting or a pattern on a fragment of ancient greek pottery might very well do nothing for your average modern viewer. That does not make it something other than art. It's enough that they were intentionally created by a person to be perceived by other people.

Then really, there are two different kinds of art with differing definitions. One kind affects, and the other kind is merely for observation. So it's not a question of whether games are or not art, it's a question of what kind of art a game is.

Well, cave paintings almost certainly affected people in the cro-magnon societies that painted them. Art is so subjective that the best definition for it is a very broad one, IMO.

 

[Tdc2182]

I'm inclined to agree with him.

People are taking this art thing art of proportion. They are trying to use it as an excuse to justify their gaming habits. And if they are trying to find a way to justify their gaming, they need to stop spending so much time gaming.

When i saw the title i was hoping to see a douche saying how he must be a casual gamer then lol.

The way i see it is Games are a product. If they were truly art they would want to bring you something beautiful and soul touching. If any game designer says what they do is art then have them give it away for free. Cause art should be free.

Am I the douche then?

That would make me a tad bit sad.

 

[AyaReiko]

They're art in a legal sense so that we in the States can tell moral guardians to piss off.

Otherwise, someone in Miyamoto's position should see them as a product to be sold. Else he would likely be out of a job by now.

 

[AyreonMaiden]

I can't wait for us to grow out of this 'games are art man' phase and just get back to enjoying a fun hobby. I don't hear book readers preaching out about how artistically tuned they are, same with film watchers or music listeners. Sure they are all art, but they don't proudly wave their arms around shouting "Look at me! I'm better than you!"

Oh man, me too. It really is like an adolescent stage, where gamers think everything they do is so serious. Man, I swear the way I've seen a lot of "games as art" people talk whenever anything against gaming comes up, it's no different from some 15 year old screaming "I REALLY LOVE HER, MOM, WE'LL BE TOGETHER FOREVER!" about his first girlfriend. Or "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ME, DAD!" about why he wasn't allowed to go on an unchaperoned trip to Disneyland or something.

Also, book readers, film watchers and movie listeners have grown out of that phase, and their more pretentious twits have shrunk into a little niche. The same thing will happen with gaming if we give it the same amount of time that books/film/music have had.

It's not that we think everything we do is serious, it's about being equal to other forms of entertainment, at the moment games can be criticized for everything that films and music can get away with, if a film was to depict rape in a way as to get an emotional response out of a reader people would be gushing over how hard hitting that scene was, if a video game was to do the same thing the game would be crucified for depicting rape. It's not about thinking we are superior it's about respect, and to stop the media from using video games as a scapegoat.

I completely understand that. But what I'm also beginning to understand is that it takes a maddening amount of time for something as big as changing the minds of all those people to happen. So much so that it's almost as if it'd be easier to just let the older generation - those who simply don't get it, don't wanna get it, and will never get it - move on and die, and make room for we who do see the art in games.

I totally think games are a form of artistic expression. The reason I get so frustrated whenever I read about "legitimacy" and "being taken seriously" and "moving things forward" is because I really think it's just a matter of time and that we should stop bitching about things that frankly will never have any bearing on the legitimacy of the medium.

For example, no one dares call the artistic integrity of film into question just because movies like How High and Van Wilder exist. Something like Duke Nukem Forever being crass and immature won't do anything in the long run either. Whether or not games are considered art, developers will do what they do. Icos and Halos and Marios and Big Rigs will come out, as if nothing's changed.

 

[Danceofmasks]

What the hell, people?

If a painting is crap, you can call it art.
If a painting is good, you can call it art. You can also call it a good product.
Painting a house well is also a good product, but only occasionally is it considered art.

There are two sets of things here, product and art, and there's some sidways overlap, but at the end of the day, you don't aim for something that can't be qualified.

 

[Delock]

I'm inclined to agree with him.

People are taking this art thing art of proportion. They are trying to use it as an excuse to justify their gaming habits. And if they are trying to find a way to justify their gaming, they need to stop spending so much time gaming.

That, or some people find it a tad insulting that a 2-4 hour movie can be considered art, while something that they spent 15-40 hours (JRPs are where you see the higher figures) completing that had a similar or greater impact on them not be considered in the same category due to the fact that it's an immature medium.

Of course, one thing needs to be said here: not all games are "fine" art, just like not all movies are really something you'd associate with art after viewing.

To go back into a previous example I've used on these forums when asked if games were really are or just toys: Toys are just fun sculptures.

What I'm trying to say is that like with all mediums, you have the possibility of it producing art or just entertainment.

As for Shigeru Miyamoto, I'm not surprised. Let's face it, his games focus on gameplay over story, and while he has stumbled into a minimalist style in terms of storytelling that can almost be considered an art form, it seems more of just his natural style than something he works for (I get that sort of feeling from Team Ico's stuff). I can't really condemn him for it, because he does happen to atleast view products as things that should be taken care to made rather than cranked out ad nauseum for the sake of a quick buck, or maybe he just keeps his pace in order to keep the profits in the long term, in which case at least he's dedicated to keeping his consumer base with him.