Video games as an art form, my doubts over the great debate...

[Thomas Talbot]

Let me just start by saying that I am first and foremost a writer. Literature has always been my medium for creative expression and thus I've never doubted that what I was doing could at least be considered some form of art. The other great aspect of my life, since I was 10 and my father bought me a second-hand Sega Master System, has been gaming. When I was a kid I never stopped to consider whether or not what I was experiencing was art, just "WOW Sonic runs faaaaast!". But now that I've gotten older and ( I like to think) more mature, I find myself criticising the writing as I would a novel, the imagery as I would a film or painting, etc. I stop and think "Yes. This is art surely, for I can be touched by it like I would a film or a book". Then I read Roger Ebert's journal, it got me to really examine my opinion:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

After reading it I will admit my first reaction was one of annoyance, I doubt he's ever played much of any game enough to make a complete argument on it but a lot of his arguments are undoubtedly valid. I think the greatest obstacle standing in the way of video games becoming art is the fact that we still consider them "games". It's so difficult to argue that a medium should equal the works of Picasso or Monet when it is still technically in the same grouping as 'Monopoly' or 'Tag'.

I tend to agree somewhat with Ebert that the composite nature of video games makes it difficult to ascribe an "artist". For in it's creation it seems like the culmination of a large number of different people, not all of them artists. Santiago, I think, lets the cause down when she lists the components of video game future as development, finance, publishing, marketing, education and executive management. There seems no room for the artist in her scheme and with that I completely disagree. Ebert ends by stating his confusion, that gamers "are so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art". It is a tough one to answer truthfully and it is one that I myself haven't answered for myself.

I know that this has been a bit of a long post and for that I do apologise. I love gaming and video games, I hope I always will but I don't know if they are worthy of being called art. For me there is something really primal about art, something that just seems to occur naturally and it's hard to find that side of games. Anyway. Your thoughts and opinions would be greatly appreciated, just don't use it as a venting-ground.

Thanks for your time.

 

[Hal10k]

They aren't art in the same way that films are art, though they do share some common features. They have more in common with architecture- a work of art that's focused primarily on how people will move around and interact with it. That's my opinion, at least.

And in the interest of relieving the monotony of these threads, I'd just like to say fleedily-fo deedily.

 

[MisterDyslexo]

In before twenty people get banned for calling you a big stupid doo-doo head.

Anyways, I think the problem is that he fails to recognize that the relationship with the person is different. Your relationship with Holden Caulfield is different to your relationship with Michael Corleone as it is different with your relationship of "x game protagonist here". The person interacts with the medium in a different way than film or literature. In fact, its because you're literally interacting with it. Videogames actually let you physically interact with the artists piece of work, whereas a film or book the artist its directed towards you. The difference is almost like that a movie is you getting yelled at about something, where a game is you get yelled at as you do something and for how you do it. And videogames are actually able to take the best out of each medium and integrate it into one solid product. Videogames can take

Games in general are different from videogames.

Videogames are different from movies.

Movies are different from books.

Books are different from paintings.

But in the end, a videogame takes from everything, and is able to apply it via your interaction with it. Its a simulated experience of what the best life has to offer. If thats not art, then I'll be a monkey's uncle.

 

[Heartcafe]

I know this long D: But I'm very interested in this topic! I think this debate is fascinating for both sides.

I think the greatest obstacle standing in the way of video games becoming art is the fact that we still consider them "games". It's so difficult to argue that a medium should equal the works of Picasso or Monet when it is still technically in the same grouping as 'Monopoly' or 'Tag'.

That is one of the main things holding video games back as a respected medium. Just referring to "gaming" and "games" in general would immediately cause the majority to think of children toys and playthings. Of course, those who played Shadow of the Colossus, Bioshock or even Assassin's Creed think that games are not children's playthings, but for the rest of the world, a video game is basically Mario or Tetris (Which could be considered art as well.) I personally think we need to create a new term for video games if we are going to break this stereotype.

I tend to agree somewhat with Ebert that the composite nature of video games makes it difficult to ascribe an "artist". For in it's creation it seems like the culmination of a large number of different people, not all of them artists.

Do you need to be a high class artist to create art? Do you need to be a hollywood director to create a film? Anyone can pick up a paint brush or camera and create a masterpiece if they worked at it. Youtube is proof of this. Many amateur films are posted there by people who try.

Can you have more then one person work on an art piece? The "artist" for a video game and movies is the development team. Final Fantasy BY Square Enix. Dues Ex: Human Revolution BY Eidos Montreal. Up BY Pixar. Lion King by Disney. At times, the directors/writers are more famous and credited then the development team, but this is also the case for video games. Whether it's David Gaider or Steven Spielburg, they are all artists that contribute to movies and video games. To make and publish a movie: you have the writers, actors, directors etc that are all part of the creative process. To make a video game: you have the writers, animators, programmers, publishers, composers etc.

For me there is something really primal about art, something that just seems to occur naturally and it's hard to find that side of games.

What is art? It's a question philosophers have been trying to answer for ages.
A majority of people think art is just something that looks pretty, but even 'ugly' paintings are considered art.
To me, art is when something that's not alive (someone created it) that creates an experience for the viewer.
Did you cry when Simba's dad died? Did you feel scared for Harry when he in trouble during the Potter books? Does Botticelli's Birth of Venus make you think of beauty and grace? Do you get angry at the Templars when they killed Ezio's family? Did you feel close with your companions in Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Persona etc?
The artist(s) were able to create an experience for you.

(GOSH, THIS IS SO LONG :/ I should just go and write a book about it >.<)

 

[Something Amyss]

I tend to agree somewhat with Ebert that the composite nature of video games makes it difficult to ascribe an "artist". For in it's creation it seems like the culmination of a large number of different people, not all of them artists.

Just like films, and to some extent music.

Look, I get that this is probably a new and profound way of looking at things to you, but it's old hat here. The points you're trying to make have been done before, and this ain't my first barbeque.

Do you or Roger believe film is not art? Because the above point would seem to apply. I'm not sure why a single "artist" is really considered necessary, when it doesn't apply to film. I'm pretty sure Roger believes film is art, and I'm betting you do, too.

Ebert ends by stating his confusion, that gamers "are so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art". It is a tough one to answer truthfully and it is one that I myself haven't answered for myself.

Ebert has been outright HOSTILE when defending films as art. I'd say he's a bit of a hypocrite there.

Though personally, I'm not all that concerned. I think people got their noses a little bent out of shape by Ebert's words. Doesn't make it any less hypocritical.

For me there is something really primal about art, something that just seems to occur naturally and it's hard to find that side of games.

Which could be readily said about movies, music, literature....You get the point.

 

[Stall]

Just like films, and to some extent music.

Look, I get that this is probably a new and profound way of looking at things to you, but it's old hat here. The points you're trying to make have been done before, and this ain't my first barbeque.

I think you missed the point. There are many people involved in creating a movie and music, yes, BUT there is a very real person you can call an artist behind each one. For film, it's more often than not the director. For music, it's the composer (and to a lesser extent the conductor).

But whom is the artist behind video games? There isn't that position in a video game. There isn't an artist behind a video game like there is an artist behind film or music. Video games generally are collective efforts, while film and music have one "visionary" heading it all.

As far as I'm concerned, video games aren't art because they aren't timeless. Great art is timeless. The compositions of Bach are just as compelling and unfathomably complex today as they were 250 years ago, and will be just as complex in the year 2260. This I am certain about. Film hasn't been around that long, but it has so far proven to be timeless: the great classics of cinema hold up today as well as ever. I'm willing to bet that they're going to continue to hold up, so long as film remains relevant.

But video games? No. They are very subject to the test of time. You can count on one hand the number of games that aged as well as films of the same age. Games are EXTENSIVELY tied to technology, SIGNIFICANTLY more so than any other medium out there. This puts them at an inherit disadvantage, simply because they cannot age gracefully. If games that came out 15 years ago are already "old"... what is that going to mean when there are games that are 50 years old? 100 years old?

 

[teisjm]

Well, as for all the people working on games, who doesn't work on the art-part, the same is true for films, and architecture

...she lists the components of video game future as development, finance, publishing, marketing, education and executive management. There seems no room for the a ...

Those components exist as mentioned above in film making, but also in music, and at least partly in litterature and graphical art as well.

Video-games consist of tons of different kinds of art, stringed together by through player interaction.

You got movies/cutscenes, which themselves consists of imagery, writing, (voice)acting, music etc.
You got pictures
You got writing
You got music
You got architectural design in many games as well, although they probably miss out, on a lot of what a real life architectural building had to have, since it doesn't need to withstand real lifes nature and fullfill real peoples LR needs etc.

Is litterature art? assuming you say yes, as most people will, what about an illustrated collection of short stories, is that art, or a collection of art?
What about comics? they mix writing and imagery as well?

I consider games art, but then again, i have a hard time defining the word art, and consider the word itself more or less useless, since theres no real definition. If i talk about art to 5 different people, they're probably gonna have quite different ideas about what i talk about, whereas if i talk about say beauty, we're all on the same page. They may very well consider 5 different things beautifull, but they can probably all agree, that beautifull describes something aestethic and pleasing to look at.

 

[Something Amyss]

I think you missed the point. There are many people involved in creating a movie and music, yes, BUT there is a very real person you can call an artist behind each one. For film, it's more often than not the director. For music, it's the composer (and to a lesser extent the conductor).

That is very largely untrue, and if it were to hold for films and music, we'd STILL have our Hideo Kojimas.

I didn't miss the point; asserting that art must have a readily identifiable artist is absurd and counter to other media.

 

[Stew Coard]

to be honest I don't believe that video games contain the same capacity for art as movies due to their action focused nature. Despite this, video games capacity for art is not nonexistent. Video games give both a visual medium, and a narrative medium. But because gameplay must come before narrative or visuals it can't afford to achieve the same level as most good movies.

 

[Thomas Talbot]

In before twenty people get banned for calling you a big stupid doo-doo head.

Yeah I'm kind of expecting quite a few of those. Surprised there hasn't been any already...

The person interacts with the medium in a different way than film or literature. In fact, its because you're literally interacting with it.

You interact with literature do you not? You physically read it, reading, though not the most mobile of actions is still an action. The fact that each person can react to a book or poem differently is testament to your own emotional interactivity.

I know this long D: But I'm very interested in this topic! I think this debate is fascinating for both sides.

The lengthier the better(Pun unintentional), it's how I've always done my posts. Yes, I completely agree, a new terminology when discussing video-games as an art form is essential. Debates get too grounded in the idea of games as a whole. But then again... Video games are games. For a lot of people that in itself is sufficient enough to deny them the status of art.
I agree with your sentiments when you say "Do you need to be a high class artist to create art". Of course you don't but you do still need to "pick up a paintbrush" as you say. The majority of what goes in to making games is programming work and that, for me, is the equivalent of saying the canvas-maker or paint manufacturer is just as much the artist as the painter. It is wont for creative input, unfortunately.
As for my little emotional outburst about art being primal. It wasn't posed as a serious observation, just my own feelings. I actually subscribe to the Russian Formalist view of what art is.

 

[Thomas Talbot]

Look, I get that this is probably a new and profound way of looking at things to you, but it's old hat here. The points you're trying to make have been done before, and this ain't my first barbeque.

I know that the points I am making have probably already been "done before" but they haven't been made as a collective by me. The point of this post is to share my opinion and hear others' opinions based on the arguments already out there. Most of what I said was referencing Ebert. Anyway, I agree with Stall when he says:

I think you missed the point. There are many people involved in creating a movie and music, yes, BUT there is a very real person you can call an artist behind each one. For film, it's more often than not the director. For music, it's the composer (and to a lesser extent the conductor).

There is just too much process in making games, too much commercialism. My heart sank when Santiago mentioned "Marketing" as one of the key components to video games.

@Heartcafe: I don't think you can say that Square-Enix or Eidos Montreal are the artist when they are also such a market oriented business.

Video games do touch us emotionally yes but that isn't the only prerequisite for art. I think art should be interpreted differently by everyone. Art should say everything. It should leave gaps for us to fill in. Games don't do that. Not that I see.

@Stall: I agree that games lose their effectiveness over time. Being so technologically dependent is the main reason I tend not to think of them as art.

@Stew Coard: Exactly precedence is placed on game play. Game. Play

Games to me are a collection of art forms, not a new art form.

 

[TheGreatAndPowerfulZOG]

For me there is something really primal about art, something that just seems to occur naturally and it's hard to find that side of games

Were you the only kid that never played make-believe? Or, hell, board games that simulate battles have been around for thousands of years. I know the games I used to play with my Legos bore more than a passing resemblance to some modern video games. If you asked me which I feel the most naturally connected with: storytelling, drawing, making music, or make-believe, the answer is easily the latter. "Games" that you see today are mostly dumb, simple, gun fantasies for teen boys, but there are people (shameless namedrops) like Miyamoto, Fumito Ueda, Jonathan Blow, Jenova Chen, and Tim Schafer who are tapping into some of the real potential.

 

[orangeban]

Heh, funny, just got done writing something about cultural snobbery in terms of art. It was talking about whether beauty pageants counted as art, but I think it applies here. It really is snobbery for us to look down on things and arbitrarilly assign them as either art or not art. Art is such a nebulous concept, it cannot be defined. A garden is art, a book is art, a painting is art, a shadow puppet theater is art, tatoos are art. None of those things are really at all connected (there are tenous links between paintings and tatoos, and perhaps books and theater but still) but they all get called art. So yeah, videogames are art.

 

[Dark Prophet]

Let me ask you, what are the components of a painting, paint, but who made the paint, who collected/made/manufactured the components of said paint, who manufactured/mixed it who sold it. Who made the tools for painting, who collected/made the parts, who put them together/manufactured the tools. The surface on which the picture is painted, is it paper, cloth, plank of wood or a wall or ceiling of a building. Without those things there would not be a painting, there would not be art, and while some of those things may be made by artist most of those most certainly are not and despite that the end result is art. How is that?

 

[Princess Rose]

I tend to agree somewhat with Ebert that the composite nature of video games makes it difficult to ascribe an "artist". For in it's creation it seems like the culmination of a large number of different people, not all of them artists.

See, I call bullshit on that line of reasoning.

By that logic, no movie could be considered Art (it is made by a ton of people, many of whom are not, strictly speaking, artists). Who's the artist? The writer(s)? The director? The actors? The answer is, of course, all of them. Does the guy holding the boom mike make a movie any less art? Of course not. And with modern special effects and CG, there are programmers making movies as much as video games.

Taken to another level, the Mona Lisa couldn't be considered art if Leonardo da Vinci asked a servant to mix his paints for him. Artists have always had helpers - video games have more helpers than most other media, but it doesn't change something intrinsic about the media.

Anyway. Your thoughts and opinions would be greatly appreciated, just don't use it as a venting-ground.

Thanks for your time.

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

All video games are art, because they all attempt to express something through an artistic media (video).

All games are art. Some are good art, some are bad art, but they are all art.

Just like Twilight is art. Awful, misogynistic art, but art nonetheless.

 

[Speakercone]

I could easily just ask you to define art and then tell me why certain categories of things do not fit your definition, but since this is about the oldest question humanity has, perhaps that's not useful to our current discussion.

First of all, it has to be said that if Damien Hirst can ruin a perfectly good side of beef and call that art, then surely we should be able to call Monopoly art. I'd argue that Monopoly communicates the potentially divisive effects of money and property very successfully indeed, and does so through only gameplay.

As for a piece of art needing an auteur, or single creative voice; wouldn't that invalidate collaborative works accomplished by teams of artists or writers? What of the case of architects who often work in teams to design beautiful buildings? Are the buildings non-art?

As to the business concerns where you see no space for the artist, it's worth considering that the old masters earned their livings from commissions and from their patrons. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel ceiling likely had to go through some design consultations with the Vatican officials before he started it. Does this mean that the Sistine Chapel ceiling is not art?

I see where you're coming from, but I disagree on the basis that for every objection you raise to the idea of games being art, I can find established pieces of art which should, by the standards of the objections raised, no longer be considered as art, but merely as design.

I hope that this was constructive. midnight is a harsh mistress.

 

[MisterDyslexo]

Oh yes, I thought I'd dump this here:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/3075-Videogames-Are-Not-Movies-Get-Over-It

But yeah, its apples and oranges really. I was trying to articulate a good way of saying it, but he just does it a lot better.

The person interacts with the medium in a different way than film or literature. In fact, its because you're literally interacting with it.

You interact with literature do you not? You physically read it, reading, though not the most mobile of actions is still an action. The fact that each person can react to a book or poem differently is testament to your own emotional interactivity.

But its still on a different plane. When I read Catcher in the Rye, I'm reading about Holden Caulfield. I don't control his actions. In first-person literature, you have zero control over the character in the book. Thats a big separation in terms of interaction. I mean, think about it. You can make choices that don't just affect the PC, you make choices that affect you, because you are the PC. Unless you're trying to play from a third-person perspective, meta-gaming (which requires you to know every single in-and-out about the game), you control the Commander Shepard's actions, because you are. You do more than just move the character around, you choose who the character is. You can play the Lone Wanderer in any Fallout game and be a totally unpredictable character. You could murder a child just for the sake of it, but then help a dying wastelander. Every character's fate in a book essentially has their fate pre-determined, and you're just along for the ride. When you play a game, in many of them, you are the ride.

 

[troyrich]

to be honest I don't believe that video games contain the same capacity for art as movies due to their action focused nature.

Ok This isn't so much based at you but the general public of Gamers and i may be reading the meaning of your use of the word "action" if so i apologise and this counts to you even less.

I believe Gaming as a meduim is an Artform. However.. I do not believe that means all games are art. Meaning if i drew a picture of stickman battle it's hardly going to be considered even by the most broad minded critics a peice of art.

To those who say Games do not show enough meaning or depth to Be an Art form and point at games being all Grey brown space marine shooters. I'll point youu towards non mainstream works Not just Indie but also full title releases that don't get publicity despite being as good in some cases better than AAA titles everyone flocks to. if you don't see Action based games as art.. play other games like Flower or Child of Eden.. (to the person i quoted if you ment action in another sence.. ignore me ^^ unless you ment action in the sence of player interacting with the game itself.. then i'd kindly point you towards installation artwork.)

This is going on a lot longer than i expected so i'll stop here and avoid a real wall of text.. ^^

 

[theheroofaction]

Well, you know how a landscape painting is art.

Well this one ups it by making an actual landscape.

As well, remember what the original essense of storytelling was: to entertain a bunch of drunks into buying you a drink. Try entertaining somebody with a painting, see what happens.