Editorial: Why Games are Repressed as an Art Form
Why don’t games hold the same credibility as books and movies? Why, when placed in a room with scholars of art, music, and literature does the scholar of video games look like a fool? Do they tell less important stories? Are their artists by some coincidence less skillful or creative? Are the orchestras that perform their scores less dynamic, less moving? Are their engineers and designers less intelligent?
As our world’s culture moves ahead, every generation is endowed with new tools, new ways to express their thoughts and ideas. Because of this they are granted a unique power to create completely new art in vastly new ways. I can’t think of any other medium in our generation that has grown more significantly than interactive media and videos games. But no matter how large this form of expression gets, it seems to be looked down upon by the cultural masses, as if it cheapens the person who is enamored by a video game’s charm. There are many debates floating around as to whether games, despite its content, can ever be considered art at all. I think it’s been proven time and time again that yes they can. So why is the debate still present? While there are many factors for this, I find no other more important to being with than lineage.
Before we had language, before books could be written, there were stories to tell. Our literary world is the culmination of centuries of extraordinary works from Aristotle, Aristophanes, Shakespeare…an immeasurable number of writers all leading up to today. The same goes for art, music, theatre, winery, culinary arts, engineering, architecture, just to name a few. These crafts are all bigger than any individual who has, or ever will live. They are larger than we can imagine, yet every generation instinctively attempts to outdo the last.
Digital technology and digital art is relatively infantile when compared to the centuries of artists past, over the countless kingdoms and religions for which the art was created. We do not have the ability to draw on the last generation’s inspiration in the same way. We are creating things anew with every step, working off each other to move forward. Because of this it’s difficult to pin point its proper place in the artistic spectrum.
Roger Ebert has gone on record numerous times stating that “Video Games Can Never Be Art.” He frequently poses the argument that “No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets. To which I could have added painters, composers, and so on.” [Update] In a recent article, Ebert even recognizes that his lack of contact with video games makes his judgement of them unfair, yet stands behind his opinion of the medium anyway. “I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn’t seen. Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so.” Why would a person so well versed in the concepts and requirements needed to accurately critique something remain grounded in an opinion he cannot substantiate?
I believe one of the reasons, among others explored below, for this brand of assured ignorance stems from this lack of lineage in interactive media, the fact that many of the pioneers of the industry are still alive, still making games and still improving upon their methods. It’s almost unfair to make this comparison because interactive media is so new, without the creative minds of centuries past to build upon. Kellee Santiago of thatgamecompany, during a speech at USC, touched on the fact that all art forms need to evolve over time, including games, and I agree with this completely.
Ingorant or not, Ebert’s claim is also difficult to back up because great poetry or great filmmaking is so subjective. He describes the prose of “Braid”, a game themed around mistakes, the power one gains from hindsight and the realization that sometimes self is the real enemy, as “prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie.” I personally found myself quite moved and intrigued by the prose in conjunction with the game’s content. He described the game Flower in a way that clearly indicates he’s never spent time with the game; “Nothing [KelleeSantiago] shows from this game seemed of more than decorative interest on the level of a greeting card.” Though I have not completed Flower myself, there is a segment I recently played that stands out in my mind: The flower dreams it is tending to an urban garden, nurturing it and weeding it of excess rebar and girders until it is beautiful and able to co-exist with the nature around it. I find this juxtaposition between the roles of urbanization and nature very poetic. Then again, it’s all subjective.
“Citizen Kane” isn’t everyone’s favorite film despite how critically praised it is. I’ve also heard many discussions trying to identify what the “Citizen Kane” of games is since it’s socially identified as the most important film in a medium with a considerably longer line of triumphs and flops. IGN seems to think this “Citizen Kane” of gaming is Metroid Prime. Personally I believe it’s closer to Final Fantasy 7.
Let’s level the scope of this comparison a bit and only compare media and art created since 1972, since Pong. Let’s ask a new question: Do any of the more recent creations of film, poetry, art, novels and so on live up to the quality of the centuries that have passed? I’d be willing to say no. “Harry Potter” is the biggest novel series in our recent history, but does it compare to “Animal Farm”, ‘The Great Gatsby”, “Hamlet” or “1984”? Is it supposed to?
How about only comparing the work in the last few decades to each other? I’d venture to say the story through line of the “Metal Gear Solid” series is more symbolic, moving and intricate than most fictionalized war movies released in the last few decades. I was more shocked and afraid playing “Modern Warfare 2” than watching most any war film of late. I believe “Saving Private Ryan” did a better job at telling its root story, though again, filmmaking is a more refined art, more trial and error has occurred over time to make it the medium it is today. I believethat games are constantly going through that same process of trial and error, figuring out the appropriate balance between active storytelling and player interaction, or gameplay; a restraint in design which movies and novels, passive storytelling, do not have to worry about.
Gameplay is another major aspect that would naturally elude firmly planted non-gamers like Mr. Ebert; the art of interaction, movement and flow. I notice that he does not include dance in his list of great art. The player’s interaction with the game has many similarities to dance, being a delicate balance between movement, precision and timing. In balancing these elements, the movement of its lines and objects become harmonious, become beautiful and graceful; no longer figuratively, but quite literally a dance. When the player does everything correctly it provides a unique feeling of unity and connection. Below are a few examples of games where this movement and parry between player and game are clearly evident:
Geometry Wars:
Everyday Shooter:
Aside from the grace of movement in Geometry Wars and Everyday Shooter, these types of games have almost a cellular aesthetic, like observing micro-organisms under a microscope. I find that “art imitating life” aspect of these games quite beautiful. They are some of my favorite games to date.
Even something like Mirror’s Edge has a dance quality to it. The stage, your partner, leads you from mark to mark. The choreography is determined by the geometric shapes and set pieces throughout the stage, their placement acting as cues to what steps you should perform in your attempt to complete the routine.
Mirror’s Edge:
And come on, if these don’t represent a wonderful blend of interactive art and movement, I don’t know what else to show you. Line Rider:
(Note: the background music for these videos isn’t a part of the game, but rather music added by the video editors)
For those unfamiliar with the idea of Line Rider, the player is given a blank canvas. The player draws a series of lines that affect the character’s trajectory and thus create an interesting art/movement piece. Digital art like this doesn’t seem to have found its place in the broad artistic outlets, or its place in the conscious collective, but rather just in the online circles such as Deviant Art.
Does digital art belong in galleries or museums? What is its ideal avenue? If there is no ink or canvas is it suddenly less than art? “I am 8-bit” has hosted several galleries which combine digital art concepts with classic gallery presentation, but these types of galleries are few and far between. It will find its avenue eventually, but due to its ease of reproduction, I don’t believe digital art could ever be as mysterious or elusive as a rare Picasso or Monet.
Most of those who are able to find a nostalgic fondness in video game culture, for the type of artistic pieces at an “I am 8-Bit” gallery, were teens and children when games started to saturate the main stream. We grew up playing and learned how to play naturally well. Older generations however aren’t as naturally comfortable with playing video games. That is until the Wii came along and attempted to simplify the modern game. Either way, this leads us to another reason for the repression of games as art; accessibility.
Anyone can listen to Beethoven, to Jack Benny, anyone can go see “Citizen Kane”, or read a Dickens Novel, but not everyone can play a video game. Anyone can have access to one, but it requires a certain amount of coordination and understanding to be able to use it, to participate. The same goes for many things though, right? It is far more difficult to become a musician than a gamer. The difference is that we all have a good understanding of what the results of learning to play an instrument is. There is no concrete benefit to learning to play a game; the raw purpose is simply to entertain. This goes for anything from Chess to Civilization. Because of this learning curve, it’s natural for anyone outside the bubble to completely disregard it as childish, pointless and not worth the time. Over time, everyone develops a sense of what they find relaxing and they revert to those things when they need that escapism entertainment. For many in the older generations, games simply aren’t one of them.
Then again, to truly appreciate great works of art, of literature, it takes a level of understanding and desire that not everyone has been bestowed. Art is, by nature, supposed to inspire the individual in different ways, even to those who don’t fully understand it initially (there is great benefit in even a partial understand of art). It is then up to the person to take the initiative and learn more about the piece if they choose. If non-gamers chose to take that same initiative, they could learn to play and break the barrier of entry. Only then will they see where the benefit of the game lies. Chess is a mental test of strategy and planning, Civilization a test of strategy, organization, and balance. Let’s be fair though, there’s a lot of crap out there with no recognizable merit in every form of media, but even the most mind bending puzzlers, the most moving interactive stories get no real cultural and social appreciation; at least, not in the same open way.
I have rarely heard heralds and praise for the achievements in the interactive arts in any non-technology related forum. There is no games column in the New York Times, no best seller list, no game reviews on Fox News. Occasionally there are studies about how games can help increase coordination, peripheral vision, general IQ and so on, but more often than not the focus seems to be about the presence of sex and violence in games, how they are marketed to our youth, and how they are desensitizing us to violence in the world around us. Because games as a medium are young, they are treated as childish and in turn as children’s toys. The older generations saw the majority of us as children playing these things and assume nothing has changed. Thus we have another reason for the repression of games as art: Mass Media.
Now, I don’t blame media completely for this child to video game connection. 
Even to this day most any game can be bought at Toys R Us despite the fact some are rated M (for 18+ year old players). No one seems to remember that at the onset Pong was placed in bars for adults to play. Atari had pornographic games because there was no standardization to decide what was appropriate. In 1982 “Custer’s Revenge” was released on the Atari, an erotica game where you raped a Native American woman while dodging arrows. Nothing like this is even remotely tolerated on modern home consoles.
Those who listen to these mass media news sources fill a very wide variety of ages. Those who are informed understand what is true and what is exaggerated or sensationalized, their view of gaming culture remains unchanged due to their first hand knowledge. Those who are uninformed however are left no choice but to assume the information they receive is true.
To be fair, let’s respond to their claims. Are some games violent? Hell yes. Do some games deal with sexual content? Yes, some do. This doesn’t mean things are as bad as they say. A perfect illustration of this is the Fox News debate between “psychology specialist” Cooper Lawrence and game journalist Geoff Keighley. Cooper was brought onto Fox News to debate the appropriateness of the sex scene in the Xbox 360 title “Mass Effect”. The problem was that when briefed about the in game content, Fox News told her that the sex scene was “like pornography” rather than showing her a clip of the scene in question. She was never given the chance to draw her own conclusions, though research should have been her responsibility either way…
Fox News didn’t tell her this because they wanted to defame the credibility of the content by calling it pornographic. They did it because, if true, it would create the type of controversy that people tune in to watch. The viewer becomes audience to a slander that will never be proven false to them, slander against something that is, as far as they are concerned, inaccessible to them. They are left to assume that any sex scene in any game would be just as pornographic as it was claimed to be in this case.
After some time had passed and numerous angry fans of “Mass Effect” trashed one of Cooper’s books, the book she went on Fox to cross promote, through consumer reviews and ratings on Amazon.com, accusing her of being unfair and uninformed, she finally decided to look at the content in question. Her opinion of the game took a 180 degree turn.
“I really regret saying that, and now that I’ve seen the game and seen the sex scenes it’s kind of a joke…it’s not like pornography. I’ve seen episodes of ‘Lost’ that are more sexually explicit.”
Video Game consoles are not yet seen in main stream media for what they are; media players. There are some discs that are appropriate for children, some that are not. Games are intended to be age appropriate, not appropriate for every age. Too many people are willing to discount all games because some are inappropriate. Some go so far as to say games are the spawn of Satan. This shows a great and harmful ignorance for the media, and due to this ignorance, fear and distrust. Comparatively, when a bookstore agrees to sell smut, it is unfair and untrue to assume that every book in stock is smut.
I want to re-establish the point that games aren’t just for kids. Children should be discouraged from freely playing violent video games unsupervised, they shouldn’t. Children should be taught to respect life, to be kind, to not objectify others, to no abuse others. I also believe that these lessons could be conceivably taught within the context of the very games being condemned, teaching children the difference between acceptable behaviors in a virtual role-playing world versus the real world. In a virtual world, the player assumes the identity of a character in a story’s context. They are by nature not making the same decisions as they would in a real world scenario because the relationships and backgrounds of the in-game characters are not that of their own, you are playing a role, similar to an actor. The fact is, sometimes it’s fun to play the bad guy so long as you realize it isn’t real.
- These are not typical gamers.
What I can’t agree with is the thought that the violent games are, specifically, causing a child’s decline, causing dangerous behavior in people like Devin Moore, Daniel Petric, and Cody Posey. The proponents who constantly claim that games “cause violence” are out of touch with the subject matter. Like Cooper Lawrence, the experts frequently interviewed are not gamers, frequently they are politicians pandering to non-gamer parents hoping for re-election, yet they pose as experts, experts who ultimately cause more damage to children than the violent games they protest because they are teaching children deniabilityrather than accountability. We are all accountable for our actions, so are Devin, Daniel and Cody. Even children understand this. Parents would much rather hear that games caused their child to become destructive rather than their failures in parenting. Blindly blaming the parents, however, is just as short sighted as blaming the video games. Sometimes, unless the parent is a world class psychiatrist, or owns a psych ward, there’s nothing even they can do to help these mentally deranged individuals.
Some people have violent tendencies. Some are capable of truly horrific remorseless violence while others are not. There are many links on this page, but I urge you to read the next two most especially. First we have a CNN news article, one we’ve seen time and time again, about kids who’ve murdered and blamed it on “video games”. The second link is Gabe’s post at Penny-Arcade.com, scroll down to the italicized section. It is a letter from the “step mother” of one of the kids involved in the murder. She describes what it was like living with the teen, attempting to discipline him. Sometimes there’s little anyone can do for them. Those who are capable of true malevolent violence do not need any source material; they will eventually find violence on their own. No one should blame the match because the bomb went off. What we need to do is figure out how the bomb was ever built to begin with.
Excerpt from Penny-Arcade:
We tried absolutely everything we could think of to get him to behave like a normal human being… we tried groundings, negative reinforcement / punishment, positive reinforcement, counseling, and anything and everything the counselors suggested. We tried to get him interested and involved in extracurricular activities, like hockey, drama, music, art, anything, but he got himself kicked out of every group he was in with his “make me” attitude. When we would ground him, we took away everything. No TV, no computer, no phone, no leaving the house, no snacks or junk food…. Everything. When he was grounded, he was only allowed to sit in his room and read or draw. He was actually a pretty good artist, and we tried to encourage him to spend his time working with his talent. He would just sit there and take it… the groundings had absolutely no affect on him at all. Most of the time, he didn’t even remember why he was being grounded. At the end of it, we would ask him if it was worth it to have everything taken away in exchange for what he did… he usually just shrugged. He could be grounded for weeks, or a month at a time, and then the very next day would do something to get back in trouble again. Most kids get grounded or punished a couple of times, and then they want to avoid having to go through it again… not this kid, nothing seemed to phase him.
And we’re not talking the usual teenager stuff, like coming home late, or refusing to do the dishes. We’re talking stealing cars, setting fires, drinking, getting picked up for drugs, beating up handicapped kids at school (yes, really) stealing things out of our house… all with this “I’ll do whatever the fuck I want” attitude.
A video game deathmatchto a healthy mind is equivalent to a competitive paintball match. The goal is to get the highest score without being eliminated yourself. The unhealthy player is actually wishing they could cause harm to the other players. This sort of mental derailment, this mental illness, has nothing to do with software and needs to be treated by professionals rather than be pardoned by these “experts”.
Some children enjoy playing video games, but some also like TV and movies. I can’t believe the amount of flak that video games get when only 6% of games released in 2009 were rated M. 60% of games were rated appropriate for ages 10 and under by the ESRB, 76% were rated appropriate for ages 10 and over. Yet approximately 44% of movies released in 2009 were rated R according to Rottentomatos.com. It seems like there’s a very unbalanced shift in our focus.
Games are not something we need to fear. Games can even be used for good, for educating children in ways that other methods cannot. I say this because children will always learn best when studying under their own discipline, voluntarily. There is a school called Quest to Lean where children learn through games as part of their core curriculum. Interactive media, art and technology is certainly the future of our culture and should be embraced as such.
Games have a very unique ability to transport the player through music, story, and art to places both fascinating and scary. A great example of this to me is “Modern Warfare 2”, another great title that got slandered in the news for having scenes where the player performs acts of terrorism. Understand this, the claim is true. The player is placed in a scenario where they have infiltrated the ranks of a terrorist cell, a scene that fits into the storyline and its themes of sacrifice for the greater good. It is a turning point in the story for the events that follow.
The player is purposely placed in unnerving, horrific positions which are by no means taken lightly within the context and canon of the story. This is why the game is so emotionally effective in ways that many critics of interactive media don’t believe are possible in video games. I remember playing a sequence where a full scale attack occurred on American soil, in a town that looked quite close to my own. I can’t remember a gaming experience where I felt more genuinely afraid, horrified at the thought of a war inside my country, inside my home town.
Why do we voluntarily go to see movies with horrific content such as war? Why is a movie like “Saving Private Ryan” entertaining and so effective? I’d go so far as to say it isn’t entertaining, but rather a reminder of what terrors those who fight in war must face, reminding us we should never wish to see those horrors, reminding us to appreciate that which we have taken for granted. I’ve heard stories of veterans fainting during the opening battle sequence in “Saving Private Ryan”, yet the film received praise for accomplishing such realism whereas “Modern Warfare 2” is looked down on and chastised for being realistic. Games get the full brunt of the judgmental masses when it comes to this kind of content, but when terrorists attack on American soil in a film, or in a Tom Clancy novel, there’s barely a ripple in the pond.
This brings me to another reason why games aren’t treated with the same respect as books or movies with similar content. “Games”, by definition are for amusement, yet video games don’t necessarily have to be fun. Video Games can be educational, reflective and yes, in some cases horrific. Once the term video “game” begins to lose its connection with empty, shallow amusement, it will finally start to be treated with the respect it deserves.
The general public view of video games is, simply put, wrong. Video games can be thoughtful, they can be artful and they can inspire and excite as well as any other medium in existence. I will gladly put the soundtrack to Lair against Lord of the Rings or the soundtrack of Uncharted 2 up against Indiana Jones, despite people like Roger Ebert claiming that its inclusion in a game suddenly destroys its credibility as a musical score. You may have your preference, but the quality is incredibly similar.
I would call the presentation of Braid, or Today I Die sheer poetry in motion. I would also put Final Fantasy 7 as one of the best, thought provoking storylines I’ve ever witnessed. The recent Urgent Evoke is attempting to use gameplay, albeit simplistic gameplay, as a means to create awareness and reaction to global tragedy.
Games are undeniably artistic. I couldn’t be more proud to be pursuing and writing about an art form which combines more artistic elements than any single medium since film. Film brought together storytelling, music, cinematography, and acting. On top of all those things, games have included the dance of interaction. Games have the ability to surpass an audience’s relatability to a character and, instead, make the player the character, to make the story, interactions, and context all directly personal.
Once our generation has paved the way for games as art, we can watch the next generation build upon it and create interactive media that we today cannot even begin to imagine. Then there will be recognized artistry in sleek, elegant coding and open pride returned to where it belongs. I don’t believe there’s much that any individual can do for the cause right now. What I do believe is that over time the gamer’s passion, fan created artistic visions and original concepts will become so strong, so apparent in our society that there will be no possible way to deny it. They will find their natural place in the social and cultural arts and therefore be properly appreciated for the skill and creativity it takes to conjure them. But for now the game’s artistic social worth is in another castle, and we are on our way.
I think It’s just because its a niche medium.
Everyone views movies, pictures and hears music. Only gamers actually play games.
That’s true, accessibility is one aspect of the topic, but even if something is “inaccessible” to a person, shouldn’t that person be able to objectively acknowledge the artistic value of the work, at least visually if not for story or music? A person shouldn’t have to be able to play a game to be able to identify the presence of some artistic value. I may not like Jackson Pollack, but I can still accept his work as art.
Bearing in mind a lot of what is considered ‘art’ is in the intent of the creator. Should a video game be created to be played in a gallery context it would naturally be classified and regarded as art, and their are several galleries devoted to artistic output that is generally regarded by most people as ‘not art’ (Art of a Biotech Era for example). ‘Artistic value’ and ‘art’ are not necessarily the same thing. A book may be considered a literary masterpiece or classic, but will generally not be featured in a gallery unless it has extensive decorate value and cultural significance (leaving aside the sub-genre of artists made books!).
Also there is a marked difference between art produced pre-1950s and art produced now. Pre-1950s art had a different function. A painted art masterpiece was defined by the technical standard and how well a student replicated the technique and style of the master. In the 1960s there was a revolution in art and the emphasis changed from product to concept to the extent that having an end product was no longer needed (for example. Hamish Fulton’s practice involves the process of walking which is not usually documented, the intrinsic value is in the process rather than the displayable product).
Essentially a classification of ‘art’ nowadays relies on context and intent.
Games can be and are art, but Ebert is justified in his view that few games today can be readily classified as great or even ok art. Almost all of the games mentioned, the best examples from the medium, are more quality entertainment than art. There is nothing wrong with entertainment, but I cannot help but wish for something more.
The problem we have, and probably have ALWAYS had, (without fully understanding it and recognising it for what it is), is that we do not fully understand ANYTHING we do, or ANYTHING that happens to us fully for what humanity has already decided they are, either in themselves, or in relation to each other – (what the words art, games, puzzles etc. actually represent, and how they’re related).
This is the foundation of ALL the problems with games/art etc. we have today.
I’ve just finished writing a paper about the real fundamental problem lying at the bottom of all this, and a suitable solution. I’m hoping to get it published on gamasutra.com – (either as a featured article or on my own blog there – (which I’ve yet to start)) – and then use a blog there to build upon the foundation my paper has laid. (I’m waiting to hear suggestions from Christian Nutt about it atm).
As to a ‘proper’ consistent definition of art – I can give you one in three words, and it would cover EVERY form or aspect ever considered to be art, but whether or not you’ll fully understand it for what it is without my paper, I couldn’t say. I could also give you a definition of games in four words, and it would be obvious as to how art and toys are then related. But that most definitely requires my paper to be read first…
Doh – ‘and it would be obvious as to how art and GAMES are then related’ (I HATE typo’s :p ).
On one hand, I agree certain games cannot be classified as art to me, but I also believe that some of the examples above are art. Keep in mind, art to me may not be art to you. If you haven’t already, play “Today I Die” linked in the article above. It’s a direct expression of sub textual thoughts and emotional connections, emotional opposites told through the interchanging of words and contexts, all presented through a low resolution visual style. Some will understand the meaning of the piece as the artist intended, some will create their own meaning. Ultimately, all art is measured purely on the personal subjective level.
I know there are many definitions of “art” and like Jade W says, the nature of art ultimately boils down to the intent of the creator. Art, to me, is the use of one’s craft, whether talented or not, to express an emotion, be it logical or ineffable. Art doesn’t need a point, or a goal. Art doesn’t need to make sense because uncertainty and confusion are themselves emotions which an artist can use towards their end. When an artist is finished, if they feel their expressive intent is perceivable within the piece, then I believe it can be considered art. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have to be good to be art. The quality and measure of the art is determined on an individual basis, determined by how influential and significant it is to the viewer or participant.
The question I feel that keeps coming back with “games as art” is the validity of the craft of programming itself. I believe that is what is generally on trial here.
So, yes mrpiddly, there’s validity in someone like Ebert saying “this is not art to me” because the intent of the artist did not translate, but to say it isn’t art to me and therefore never will be art to anyone is too presumptuous for me to agree with. On a strictly visual assessment, the paintings of Piet Mondrian aren’t very significant to me, therefore it’s not really art to me, but for whatever reason I feel some resonance with Jackson Pollack and because of that it’s more credible as an artistic work to me. I do not know off hand what either’s intent was, all I know is the effect it had on me as an audience.
Darren, when you get that paper posted, be sure to include a link here. I’d like to see it.
Will do – to be honest I do have a wordpress blog going empty atm – I could always stick it up there?
In response to your last-but-one posting…
Games can use art and puzzles in what they do, but they are defined as games completely independently of either, since the aim of a games is literally on the opposite side of the coin to those. The only ingredient games can use that DO define them are the objects/media, (such as toys etc. – i.e. ball/dice games). Games and toys are literally two opposite sides of the coin – art is defined by the types of (creative) stories that are told and the media used to do so. Games… Well – if you can work it out, and you’ll have a good idea of what my paper is about…
Art doesn’t necessarily tell “stories” though, emotional journeys, yes, but not always stories. But I agree with you about calling video games “games”. It’s really interactive media. I’d define a game as an invented means of pursuing a set goal under pre-determined rules for the sake of amusement. Most video games meet the majority of this definition, but when I play the story mode in “Modern Warfare 2″ or “Dead Space” I wouldn’t say that amusement was my main goal, I’d say it was to be thrilled, scared or awed. We can still called them video “games” if we understand that it’s not really a “game” in the traditional sense of the word. For illustration: no one plays “games” in Vegas, they “gamble”. The purpose of the game changes its label.
Hmm, up to 24h before gamasutra accepts it. Still, it’s on my wordpress blog too:
http://darrentomlyn.wordpress.com/2010/05/05/relating-everything-we-do-with-everything-that-happens-to-us-in-an-objective-manner-re-defining-the-word-story-in-a-manner-consistent-with-its-use-in-the-english-language/
See what you think to that
(I know it can probably be written better, but I have no academic background :-/ ).
(Doh- I’m getting games/art and toys mixed up in my head atm :p Games and ART are two opposite sides of the same coin
).
It is not possible to know which contemporary art works will compare to the classics of the past because time is one of the important indicators. It’s pretty safe to say that Shakespeare’s plays will still be relevant in 2011, but Citizen Kane and Animal Farm are Questionable. Shakespeare has stood the test of a great deal of time. How timeless video games can be is very questionable considering that games owe so much to the technical expertise that exists at any particular time. The designer of games, no matter how artistic and creative, works within the technical constrains of the medium. Isn’t PONG merely a nostalgic throwback to the birth of video games? How will today’s games compare to those that will be created 30 years from now? Will they seem timeless or quaint? I don’t know, but it’s something to consider.
I have seen videos or “artists” spray painting and puncturing holes into other works of art in Art Museums. There was this section were it was all videos.
I don’t think that’s art, but it is still shown in museums.
There are people that don’t see movies as art either.
Which brings me to my next point, you don’t see that many film enthusiasts defending their “art” anymore. They simply do it.
The reason why I think gamers are still rilled up for their games to be considered art, is because Ebert is right.
There isn’t a “Citizen Kane” yet. There are good games that have great stories. But if you analyze every bit of them, they are still very rough. Too commercial.
There hasn’t been a game yet, that every aspect of it is so well developed from start to finish that just couldn’t be done anywhere else.
Just like Movies have a hard time beating Books as a medium to present the best idea or story. Games are even having a hard time beating movies.
I can guarantee you that the best games in your mind would work better in another medium.
That is why gaming doesn’t come to mind as art. Marquis De Sade would have had a blast making video games, I just haven’t seen games with the balls yet to replicate something that he would do.
At least Pasolini did for film.
Nice comment. I agree that any linear story game can conceivable be done better in another medium because more consideration can be taken to its through-line, however games will always be superior when presenting a complicated web of decisions ala RPGs. Final Fantasy 7 will remain superior as an interactive piece because of this. MMOs as well.
Now in claiming that Ebert is right is denying the individual their ability to decide what is artistic for themselves, which is why Ebert can never be right, but will also always be right. Games will never be art to Ebert specifically, but games already are art to gamers who are able to think more deeply into the symbolism and meaning of the content. Play “Today I Die” and you’ll get an idea of this. I don’t believe “Today I Die” to be the “Citizen Kane” of games, but it is undeniable artistic.
Also, all main stream films are commercial, and “Citizen Kane” was no exception. I keep trying to create an exception in my mind that something made solely for profit cannot be art, but there are too many passionate creatives out there that are able to make a living through their craft that I cannot deny them the right to call what they do art. Hitchcock is a perfect example of this. He really had an artistic mastery of suspense. I think a piece like “The Birds”, which really had the capability of scaring a lot of people, can be in ways considered art because of the piece’s ability to elicit the emotional impact that the artist intended. Art, to me, is a created work which is supposed to elicit an emotional response through logical or symbolic means. The quality of the work is therefore determined by reception of the individual. Ultimately it boils down to what your definition of art, and the raw purpose of art, is. Regardless, no one has the right to define art for any other individual.
By the dictionary, “Fine Art” is “a visual art considered to have been created primarily for aesthetic purposes and judged for its beauty and meaningfulness, specifically, painting, sculpture, drawing, watercolor, graphics, and architecture”. I believe games contain all the elements which can be judged or observed as beautiful, 3-D sculpture and architecture, etc. The question that remains is its meaningfulness. The fact is the individual defines how meaningful it is on their own. I find certain things more meaningful than others, but it’s mine to decide for myself.
I don’t see Final Fantasy as “superior” because it’s interactive. Kind of reminds me those old RPG books were you threw a dice and skip to a certain page according to a decision you made. That didn’t make it a superior book.
In fact it goes to show how really not very interactive it is on the ground it matters, your mind. Books for example engage you in such a way that even though they are static. They can be open ended enough to be interpreted in various ways.
You can read it years later and come up with an entirely different meaning to an ending.
That just doesn’t happen with games, IMO at all. You go from point A to B, and you get an ending.
How many games have we played in reverse? I can’t think of any one. Something like Memento for example.
Now don’t get me wrong there are artistic elements in these games. Art directions that if it were in movies it would work. Music, stories, etc.
However to me there hasn’t been one that has completely become a masterpiece that can be compared to any other medium, regardless of era.
Some games have good stories, but boring mechanics and interactions, etc.
If it were by your definition, you could indeed come up with a program that would randomly generate certain chords from Popular songs and release it as art. Or a graphics generator of landscapes, which reminds me on of those Graphics programs that generated skylines or something that were freaking gorgeous? I can’t remember the name. Then there you would have it. Art.
Shit, a photoshop filter can be considered one of the greatest artist of our generation considering how many times it is used to have an emotional impact on people. Like a Pizza Hut commercial when you are hungry.
It is a cop-out the whole “subjective” thing. I mean who can tell you that you are not an artist by selecting specific kind of foods to create a different color on your shit, and then photograph it. Under that rule, no one. Art can be shit, and shit can be art.
and then we go into this whole existentialist relativity subjective BS how we are all doctors, engineers, even astronauts if we look at things a certain way.
Fuck that. The bottom line is there hasn’t been a single game that has delivered the complete package in the last 40 years that can out match other mediums in the same time frame.
I mean are we that jaded that we think our hobby is really that artistic? Especially when all the artistic merits of all the sequels are going downhill instead of getting better?
Shit if FF7 is the Kurt Cobain of our generation then why the hell didn’t he commit suicide a long time ago?
But seriously. The number one reason why I don’t see video games as art, is that basically their primary aim is to be entertained and be played again.
There hasn’t been a single game that has had the same impact of books and movies were it challenges you so much that after you see/read them it changes you, and is not something that you can easily dive into because of the emotional impact they have. Even photography.
Yet Video Games is so trivial, there’s just not much to it. Is basically like watching ESPN for all the Highlights. Something fun for brief periods of time.
But hey, there’s people out there that think Twilight is the most artistic movie of the decade.
I’ll change my mind when they deliver something that challenges you. Something like American Beauty, Fight Club, A Clockwork Orange, Old Boy, Audition, etc. Something really “Mature”, not just violent enough that kids can’t play it. Something that you would understand with age. That could possibly change you.
But until then all I know is that, Half-Life 2, GTAIV, LOZ: OOT, Metroid Prime, Halo, or FF7, aren’t it. They are just really good games (not necessarily really good art).
I mean sure at least right now, the highest game of a console isn’t a skateboard game (like the PSone), so it shows we are definitely moving away from being too trivial and commercial, but there is a long long way to go.
Unfortunately shit can be art. This is the problem with being able to label art at all. Here’s an example of an individual who created a painting of the Virgin Mary partly in elephant feces:
http://www.mtholyoke.edu/offices/comm/csj/991008/madonna.html
I don’t believe this to really be art, it doesn’t speak to me at all. It is however a very powerful statement. The question at had is does the statement have any merit? The same question is constantly posed with games. Do they hold any merit? While identifying “art” as subjective is conceptually a “cop-out”, it doesn’t make it less true. If it weren’t, then this feces picture would have to be art to everyone.
I see that you (xk3zofrenik) don’t seem to find any merit in any of the games you’ve played, but to take Ebert’s stand is to say that no one has, that I haven’t, and I can safely say that I have. It’s clear you haven’t, but you also clearly take a different stand on why you play and what you play. When I read a book, or play a game, I have to emotionally invest a portion of myself into the characters in order to really get anything out of it. Sometimes it doesn’t pay off though, and hence you have a bad movie, book, game, etc. It sounds like, and you can correct me if I’m wrong, you take a much more passive position when you read, watch or play, allowing the content to take control over you.
If you want to see un-conventional games, “Memento” type games, contact Brian in the About Us section and he should be able to help you find some indie games which challenge the conventions. The fact is main stream movies are easier to greenlight than mainstream games. It generally takes a longer development time and is more risky because often a developer puts their eggs in one basket. These developers are typically only large enough to work on one project at a time. Companies can get shut down because one title going under, whereas movie production houses of similar size can more easily have numerous projects in motion to take the edge off a flop. This is the reason why we find the same stuff, or a barrage of sequels hitting the stores, because their concepts are easier to prove and that’s all the commercial stock holders are interested in. Therefore it’s rare when something like Mirror’s Edge comes out that breaks at least some of the conventions, though Mirror’s Edge was of varying success. (To be fair to movie studios, oscar winning pictures don’t typically bring in “Fast and the Furious” type money either).
I’ve stated this before, but movies don’t have to deal with the challenge of the interactive element which, as you stated, is definitely a challenge which ultimately hinders the storytelling process if nothing innovative is done to incorporate those interactive elements into the overall presentation. GTA IV did the best job I’ve seen of really making the world feel real and your actions a factor in the way it changes, but I personally couldn’t care less about the characters and plot, so it’s a fail as far as I’m concerned.
I like where you’re going with landscapes and photoshop filters though. These things aren’t art because they are not created with the intention of portraying something. Filters are tools with which art can be made, and landscapes are just beautiful. A photographer however can capture a landscape and present it in a way which can be considered art. It’s an odd double standard. It’s all in how you define art to be.
Well let’s look far ahead into the future taking Avatar for example. Who is to say that if you capture all our greatest actors on film. Capture every move, every tone in their voice, every gesture. Throw it in a blender, and then put it digitalized and can attach any face to them. Any setting, etc.
That you can also put every story arc, every plot, every ending, and just formulate something.
Can’t it be called art then?
Intention is just another category, and that too can be copied. Heck we copy of each other all the time. No one goes into a dark room from birth to adulthood and then creates something.
In fact most of the major artist just simply blend other styles or come up with their own version of someone else’s art.
My point is: There hasn’t been one work on video games that stands on it’s own compared to other mediums.
and rightly because of the current state of the industry. I really doubt this will change soon.
I can go to a video store or a library and look for stories that will change me. Can’t do that with video games yet. Even the indie games, mostly are just clever ideas, cleverer than their mainstream counterparts but not in the same league as other mediums. I would happily be wrong on this one, but I haven’t found a single one.
Art will always be copied because by definition art is supposed to inspire or influence in some way. When you create something that truly represents a piece of yourself, it will naturally reflect that which inspires you as well. The examples of music above, Lair and Uncharted, can be easily compared as inspired by Lord of the Rings and Indiana Jones respectively, but so can John Williams scores be compared to Gustav Holst’s “The Planets” as a source of inspiration. I was simply pointing these scores out as being of the same quality as film’s scores.
As for this blender approach to creation you’ve depicted, yes, it can be art so long as the mismatch of content is a part of your symbolism and theme (see Picasso). If I blend fruit to make a smoothy, it’s not art. If I blend fruit and put it on display for you to ponder its nature, it becomes art. Just take a look at Marcel Duchamp’s “The Fountain”. In this Dada art movement, Duchamp put a urinal on display and called it art:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/4059997.stm
I personally don’t see the artistic worth in this, but many have and it has officially been declaired art (if there is such a thing as to officially declair something as art) in artistic circles. Which would you rather call art, this urinal, or Brandon Brizzi’s “Before the Law”?
http://www.theoddmanout.net/games/beforeTheLaw.html
I’m going to go with “Before the Law”, but feel free to have your own opinion on this one.
This part is off the art topic debate, but whenever you say that there is no one work of games that compares to other meduims, it’s the same as saying the worst of all other meduims is still better than the best game ever made. If you believe this, then games really aren’t your thing to begin with. I can list my favorite movie, book or game, and anyone can comment that my favorite movie, book or game sucks. That’s not a debate, that’s just a discussion of taste, which isn’t the point of this article.
I’m sorry you haven’t been able to find any games that you like yet, but it seems like games serve a very different role to you. Some watch a cutscene only to make sure they get all the mission information, some watch it because they genuinely care about the characters and themes in the story, while others skip cutscenes entirely. The former and the latter are types who just want to occupy their time and have fun for as long as they choose to play. Those who really pay attention and dig under the subtext to find the true meanings in the story are those who can really appreciate the games on deeper levels (just look at the length of discussion there’s been on the plot themes of the Metal Gear Solid series on the Metal Gear Wiki. It’s insane the amount of subtext and critique there is on the wars and violence in the real world).
I have no problem with people who buy consoles only to play Madden, or Guitar Hero or Multiplayer Call of Duty, but these are not the same people who play games for their emotional impact or symbolic influences (well maybe Guitar Hero/Rock Band, but that’s really just about the music, not the games).
We talked about this earlier, but I wanted to revisit a device that games can do better than passive stories; analyzing the inner workings of the subject matter. In a game, a player can shift a piece and see how it effects the grand scheme, to see what fine tuning is required to make the biggest impact. Movies and Books can explore these themes in the same subject matter, but passive learning and active learning will always play different roles in understanding. I can tell you how to drive, but it’s not the same as doing.
Returning to the art debate, if any one game can be identified as art, not necessarily good or great art, but art, then games can be art. I’ve covered where I stand on this, as well as a number of games I believe to be art.
If you do get a chance to comment again, I’m interested to hear what your definition of art is. You seem to believe that there is no subjective taste to art, that everyone is able to acknowledge unanimously what is and isn’t art. What really makes art art?
Don’t make fun of the urinal! Seriously, its strength lies in its LACK of interactivity. If you start to interact with it (i.e., piss in it), it’s not really art anymore. And you’ll probably get in a lot of trouble.
Jealous? Take an old console, play some game until you hit a “game over” screen, then stick it (with TV/monitor/controller) in a gallery, inside a clear plastic box, just begging to be played. That’s art, just like the urinal. Arguably terrible, but art.
As for “Before the Law” – the interactivity that you might say makes it a game is actually more akin to that of a book. Is a book a “game” merely because the user has to flip the pages? Does a book become a game when it’s read on a Kindle? I think not.
I love that you pointed out how “Before the Law” really is closer to a book than to a game. You’re right, it’s interactive media. One of the issues I’ve been trying to address that our only widely know term for interactive media is “Video Game” which doesn’t really capture all interactive media in the best of terms. “Before the Law” really is a concise representation of the short story, but Brandon daringly added a new level to the original work by creating a fitting realization of what the “Law” actually could have been and I love what it represents. Feel free to take a look a the original work:
http://www.herzogbr.net/kafka/beforethelaw.htm
I actually like the concept of the Game Over screen. I think it’s better than the fountain because of its perpetual failure, the definitive end to something you cannot complete or fix, despite its accessibility. I’d say maybe break the controller so you could try to press “Continue” but never succeed. I see that concept as being just as worthy of the label “art” as the urinal.
And if you were trying to interact with the urinal, then you clearly missed the men’s room. Everything has its place.
I agree with some of your statements.
I guess we have been running around two themes:
What is art?
Are video games considered in the same relevance as art like in other mediums?
I think my stance and Ebert’s stance is simply the classification of art as something that can be compared to other mediums. I guess what I meant to say is that I don’t think it’s “Good enough” Art, or masterpieces.
I am going to concede that video games can be seen as art. After all you do need artists in several fields in order to create it.
However can any of them be truly called a masterpiece? Like I said before. I don’t think so. Each of them have inherent flaws in their design, that obviously would give them a pass as good or great games, but don’t necessarily translate all that well into good art.
My main gripe with most of them is Combat. Take your beloved FF7. Everything else besides that point it does fairly well for it’s time, etc. Until you get the combat, which is mainly uninspired number crunching.
I mean obviously when you stare at the screen you aren’t thinking about it, which reveals something out of what’s in our mind when we are playing, but if you were to put it on a big screen for an audience. Do you really think anyone would stare at hours upon hours of RPG combat?
I mean sure, some would for arguments sake, but is not something that would last against certain audiences. I even doubt many wives would.
Or take for instance our highest rated game of this generation: GTA IV. It has the perfect premise of presenting a video game as an interactive movie that also posses Movie quality narratives and styles. Unlike many shooters like MW2, etc. This is the type of game that offers a wider margin of interaction of it’s environment, which previous installments helped define a genre.
Yet it is again on the combat that you would fail to create something that would transcend mediums. I disagree with the characters, the characters are over the top enough that they would fit on other films while standing on it’s own. I suspect you haven’t played the expansions, which also bring a rare delivery of a bigger story arc, divided in three perspectives. There’s simply no other game ever made that has attempted this.
However there are little things in this game (like the weeping little sisters in Bioshock) that do add to what make games unique. Like for example when you walk the streets and you see people smoking cigarettes, or bums laying on the sidewalk. If you point a gun at them, and they quickly change their stance and run away. It is little details like that, that are often overlooked. After all can you in a movie get on a computer and book a date?
and who can forget how they apply satire in every corner of the game?
But still this level of interactivity won’t compensate for everything, and like I said, there are large chunks of these games that couldn’t stand on their own. For me as a gamer, most of the times I play the mundane missions just so I can get to the cutscene. Which pretty much sums up many sentiments while we play these games. Many times we simply plow through the motions just for the payoffs. Which to me happens more often on video games than in other mediums.
Even some lengthy books, that aren’t considered masterful by any means. I can find joy in every little sentence and can appreciate the hard work for it.
I mean what better example to this than what we are writing on, a comment box of mainly a Reviews and Commentary Site of Video Games, which time and time again prove that many many games aren’t worth your investment for entertainment purposes alone, much less as art.
Now Rob can give testament of this. I have played my fair share of games. In fact I have spent years of my life with games. I can give testament of some of their therapeutic values, as well as their addiction. When I say years, I mean waking up just to game, somehow managing to keep a family and not going bankrupt in between.
In fact the xbox 360′s ability for social interaction killed pretty much all my interest in other mediums as a means of entertainment. Which really echoes how blogs like these have developed because of it, you know video games only. Which I think is great.
But at the same time I find it a little bit insulting to other arts, the pretentiousness of seeing this one in the same league as others.
Especially right now that I have seen how emotionally vacant and uninspired most of these games are. Looks pretty much like a Recycle Bin, more than a medium that’s waiting to explode with new content.
I mean sure call it Art. Let’s call it a day on that.
However I think we all agree that is just not good as some of the masterpieces from other mediums.
I think games need something like “House of Leaves”. Something that completely breaks the schemes of things. I don’t think it’s entirely the industry fault for things like that not happening.
If I were to blame anyone. It’s the zombies fault. There’s too damn many of them right now (Both on-screen and holding the controllers). : )
Most of this comment is off the art debate:
You are completely entitled to say that no game has reached masterpiece standard, but there will always be others who will debate you who believe there are gaming masterpieces. Taste is all personal, as crazy as people may sound to you.
I agree with you that the combat of most RPGs is number crunching, the trick is that they do what they can to make it varied and adaptable. Chess is always the same, though the strategy isn’t. All games, video or not, are based on systems. I think the materia system in FF7 did a great job at allowing you to come up with linked function combinations of spells and combos that, while the combat was all the same, how you chose to enter combat could be rather dynamic. But, that’s part of the limitation of coding for and creating a 30+ hour experience. Ultimately you have to create a construct that will branch out on its own, otherwise it would take a restrictive amount of time to make the game. Everyone is always trying to find a better way to do it to, that’s part of the game’s evolution. It’s come pretty far though, even by FF7 standards. The fact is, the best games find ways of incorporating these systems into the story-telling (see Half-Life 2).
Incidentally, my wife has watched every hour of my FF6 play through thus far. Sometimes you luck out.
No, I haven’t played the GTA IV expansions, nor do I have any intention. I didn’t necessarily mean that the characters in the game were flat either. They had great personalities and depth. What I was saying was that they didn’t appeal to me for whatever reason. Maybe the subject matter, maybe their motivations just seemed repetitious and shallow, either way they’re just not my kind of people. And I hated the combat in GTA IV too. It just felt really cumbersome. I’ve noted before though that GTA IV has the most realistic and immersive city setting I’ve ever seen, a presentation that cannot be done in a passive entertainment medium. Still, it’s not a game I’m interested in re-visiting.
It seems that your disgust in calling games as good as other meduims stems from the presence of flaws within otherwise good games. Sure, not every second of every game is a jam-packed thrill ride, but in plot based games, unless it’s on-rails, the pacing isn’t decided by the designers, it’s decided by the player. You could almost say that the player is the one who breaks the pacing of the events that pass. I will frequently play a game a second time without tangent exploration for the sake of the natural pacing of how I feel the story should pass. Either way it’s up to the player. Still, I wish designers rewarded keeping the flow going more rather than the “look in every corner” approach most games have.
I don’t find the same annoyance when there’s a certain mission that isn’t as good as the last because if I’m engrossed in the world the game has provided, I can accept the events as the canon of the fiction. Many will call “Star Wars” a masterpiece even though it is certainly flawed. Does that stop people from enjoying it? Part of the appeal in games is the use exploration and discovery to tell a story.
It’s very rare to have any piece of work in any medium where every scene the best you’ve ever seen or read. You say you can appreciate “every little sentence”, which suggests you are more partial to books to begin with. I find it pretentious that you find writing sentences to be more skillful than writing code. Code is harder to write, hands down. Opera is one of the hardest performing arts to train for, and is the most under appreciated. That doesn’t mean the actors suck though. All stories are told through a series of highs and lows. Somehow to you, the lows in games are magnified… That’s ok because it’s based on your personal taste, just understand it’s not universally felt.
I can appreciate the architecture and modeling, sound design and atmosphere of a game in between the set pieces because that’s part of what I play the game to explore, a new fictitious world. I see nothing wrong in being able to appreciate those elements when the story is running a little slow for the moment. I think BioShock is a perfect example of that. I didn’t love every element of that game, but there were always elements present at all times that I did love. It’s still not my favorite FPS. When I go to Disney World, sometimes I stand on lines. Doesn’t mean I won’t go back or let it sour my day, nor does it make everything else about the place any less a spectacle.
You say that sometimes we go through the motions to get payoffs. I don’t see this as the case in all games, in poor games yes, but I don’t think that’s what’s up for debate. I’ve never played through the motions in any Metal Gear Solid game, I’ve always been engaged and interested in the tension of the infiltration. This is not a sentence that everyone will agree with.
I don’t think we all agree that all games aren’t as good as some masterpieces because you fail to account for taste. If there’s one thing I’ve learned, “we all” never agree on anything. And uninspired creation is available in all mediums, so let’s get things back into perspective. Books and Movies are just as big businesses as Games. There are some winners, a whole lot of losers. As time goes, people try new things in gaming, but it’s rarely good business to do that, hence the market. You can thank the zombies for this. Damn zombies.
Again, I want to try to avoid debates on our taste in games because it’s an unending, unanswerable debate, as it should be. I simply wanted to point out and analyze the elements which prevent people from seeing games as creative expressions where frequently they see games as worthless banes on our society. I want to give credit back to the innovative designers who pour their souls into their work and make artistic, expressive, symbolic interactive experiences. They exist whether you think you’ve met them or not.
Have you ever seen a movie or read a book and asked yourself….that could of been done better. In the near future a person may have the opportunity to do just that, changes things. Let’s face it, video games and even great literature have become movies and movies have become video games. As technology advances this transition between one and the other will become more seamless. One can envision that a video game or video art can continue where the movie left off but in this media it will be up to the controller to change the direction of the story(similar to a movie director) with alternate endings and cast of characters. This art form can be truly creative and liberating.
I feel like that trend started with Indigo Prophecy or Heavy Rain. Neither game is perfect, but they illustrate the potential of storytelling beyond traditional gameplay. Developers are constantly experimenting on what the medium is capable of delivering to the player on significant emotional levels, to allow the player to really feel they are a part of the world as it exist in the game. It’s fun to watch the innovation as it develops.
Since it hasn’t been mentioned, and I’ve argued for and against the video game as art thing more times than I care to recall, I just wanted to bring this article by Tim Rogers to your attention.
It’s titled “I <3 stupid games" and highlights a very interesting opposing argument to yours, Dave. It was posted on Kotaku earlier in the week.
http://tinyurl.com/22qttqu
Well, he’s right. As long as it’s entertaining, it doesn’t need any other qualities. And perhaps fun is one of the emotions that art can elicit (debatable, but plausible). I personally enjoy when a game like Uncharted breaks up the shooting with some puzzles because if it were non-stop pointless shooting, it would get very dull for me. It helps with the highs and lows of narrative progression.
We’ve talked about this before on podcasts, but in order for me to be willing to commit acts of violence in a game world, I want to have some sort of motivation to do it. If I were Nathan Drake and just shooting random guys in the forest, it would not be fun to me.
Doom is a lot of fun and has the tact to never make its puzzles feel like it’s breaking up the action. The motivation here however never needs to be explained. I assume I’m in hell, I must fight my way out. Ok, done.
Generally I feel that game designers need to take more time to ask themselves “why is this story interactive” and allow that to help dictate innovative gameplay concepts. I agree with Tim when he says “Games aren’t films. Films aren’t games”. If you’re just telling a story and it happens to be interactive, that’s not really enough to me. Be proud to be making a game, please.
I don’t have the time to discuss this at length, but I don’t think it’s come up here yet: Great art tends to work wonders with the limitations inherent in its medium. Literature is constrained by text, painting by stillness, etc. Indeed, some art forms are built upon intentionally imposed limitations: pantomime and opera, for instance. Thus, games that show off technological capabilities rather than transcending inherent limitations are less apt to be called “art.”
This is just an idea, and I realize that as an overall definition, it would be both overinclusive and underinclusive. Soccer would be “art,” while much modern art, which sometimes highlights rather than transcends these limitations, would not…
If I weren’t so busy, I’d explore this more fully, but instead, I’ll just throw it out there for y’all to discuss. For my own personal entertainment.
These limitations aren’t embraced enough. The creative aspect of most art is really making the most profound impact with the purist simplicity.
I probably wouldn’t define soccer or sports in general as art just because the intent isn’t to perform or convey any meaningful message. It’s entertaining, and sports can definitely be utilized within art, but on their own they’re just games. Baseball wasn’t created to make a symbolic gesture about the nature of man’s need to hit things, it was made because they wanted to play some baseball (I don’t actually know the baseball origin story).
Art is frequently the appreciation of that which is beautiful (the contradiction though is that beauty can sometimes be found in disgusting ugly places depending on the artist). This begs the question though, is the emotion of “fun” beautiful? Is “fun” an emotion at all? If it is, then perhaps there is something to be said about soccer being artful in some way.
In walks the guy who adapted Before the Law (after reading quite a lot of discussion).
So many things have been touched here that I can’t really comment on every little thing I’ve read. Instead I’ll just hit some broad points.
Ebert and the people who are reacting to him are suffering from a severe case of misunderstanding. Ebert misunderstands several aspects of video games, and we misunderstand some aspects of Ebert. Ebert falls into the trap of taking the moniker ‘Video Game’ to literally. It is clear from his most recent article on the subject that he does not properly understand what we mean when we say video game. He sees it as something akin to chess, or a sport. A literal game. Then we have the people reacting who don’t understand what Ebert means by art, and assume that he is informed as to what a video game is. When Ebert says art, he means fine art or high art. Which for him is strictly something he would give 4 or 5 stars to. When talking about this subject I always call this definition of art ‘Ebert Art’ because it carries it’s own set of connotations that people might not otherwise understand if I just said ‘art’. Ebert says ‘art’ and we misunderstand him. We say ‘video game’ and he misunderstands us.
You guys have touched on how the term ‘video game’ doesn’t really fit the medium anymore. I’m sure that in the future we’ll have more than just the term ‘video games’ to call them, just as we have ‘film’, ‘cinema’,and ‘movies’. Interactive fiction seems to be on the rise.
Then there’s the art debate. What IS art? Well, at this point you can pretty much throw your hands up and say everything. For many reasons. Debating what art is is really a lost cause. Instead, I like to think of it in terms of good art and bad art. Which, some might like to point out is entirely subjective. To which I say: not really. We can quantify what makes a piece of art good and bad. I don’t think anyone is going to tell me that the Mona Lisa is a worse piece of art than the White Painting. What we need to ask is why that is. What makes the Mona Lisa better? Well, for one there was actual effort put into it. A lot of effort. We can immediately tell that the artist who painted the Mona Lisa is a far more skilled artist than the artist who painted the White Painting. And I think that’s what it boils down to: how much skill is demonstrated in the piece. How hard was it for the artist to make this?
There are several things that can factor into this. An uncomplicated factor that’s easy to convey is how ORIGINAL the piece is. If something has been done before, it’s easy to analyze it and duplicate it. It’s far more challenging to come up with something original. This is not to say that everything needs to be original to be good. Again, this is just one aspect. Another would be COMMUNICATION. How effectively does the piece communicate anything that it’s trying to communicate? This can be applied to messages both complex and simple. The Mona Lisa communicates quite easily that it is a picture of a woman. Nothing more, nothing less. It does this by having a meticulously detailed painting, and an aptly descriptive title. Nothing about this says that there is some type of message to be derived, and that’s probably exactly what the artist wanted. He effectively communicates what he wants to communicate, and that is an achievement. But how large an achievement this communication is hinges on how large the message is. Obviously it’s harder to communicate more complex messages, which is why we may hold things like the works of Franz Kafka up high. They communicate to us clearly a message that is more than just ‘ah look, a beautiful person’, and that is something that is harder to accomplish.
Then there is the final aspect, which is quite intertwined with the previous two, but still something else entirely. And that would be HOW HARD IT WAS TO CRAFT THE TANGIBLE PIECE. The reason one might say that the Mona Lisa is a greater piece than a couple of outlines is because it takes far more effort and time to craft something of that magnitude, and that reflects a lot upon the skill of the artist.
So lets take this back to the Mona Lisa and the White Painting to sum this up. The Mona Lisa is an astounding achievement mostly because it is obvious how hard it was to make it. It doesn’t really have much message to communicate, but it doesn’t mess up the communication part so there isn’t much to fault it for. The Mona Lisa, at the time of creation, could also be considered fairly original. An immensely detailed and realistic painting at the time still held some meaning and was treading on untread ground. With the White Painting, the only thing it really has going for it is originality. We can’t deny that slapping a bunch of white on canvas and presenting it seriously is an original endeavor. But it falls short in the other important aspects. Because of the manner it is presented to us in, we are lead to believe that it could have some meaning. It doesn’t make much sense, so lets try and make some sense out of it. But unfortunately, a single message, or even limited range of messages can’t be found. You can perceive ANY message from a one colored canvas with that name. Which might as well be saying it has no message. And that may be the goal of the artist, for us to conclude that. But there isn’t any way for us to tell. And that is a failing of communication.
I believe my point in all of this was that whether something is good or bad is not subjective. Whether something is good or bad as art can most certainly be measured, and we attempt to do it all the time. We look for something that is comprehendible and skillfully crafted. The trouble arises when we don’t properly understand all the aspects of why something is hard to make. The subjective part in all of this is your opinion, which is limited to your experiences. Just as you cannot expect someone to get video games after playing one or two of them, you cannot expect someone to properly evaluate art until they’ve stopped to comprehend it all.
And before someone walks in and says ‘but opinions can’t be wrong, they’re opinions’. Yes, they can be wrong. What happens when someone holds the opinion that 1 + 1 = 3?
And I think that covers about all I have to say on the topic. That’s the first time I’ve ever put that all into writing, so if something wasn’t clear, please do let me know.
Oh, and thanks for appreciating my game.
Thanks for making your game. It’s easier for me to make games as art arguments with people like you in the mix.
On the flip side though, there’s an element of fact verses opinion that transcends reason. It used to be minority opinion that the world was round. The joy of art and the observation of art is that you don’t have to defend it to anyone else. Art’s reception is supposed to be personal and therefore subjective. People are entitled to their wrong opinions, especially if it makes them appreciate the art more for it. If you think that 1 + 1 = 3, just make sure you don’t write a book about it. Other than that there’s no real harm in it. But to take away someone’s right to enjoy a piece of work because their opinion isn’t popular I will never see as being valid.
I think on one hand you’re right, no one will say that the White Painting is more skillfully made than the Mona Lisa, but for whatever reason, I’m sure there are people who find the White Painting more relatable. This is where taste is a factor. I don’t agree with it, but I don’t want to take away anyone’s right to disagree with me either.
With that said, popularity changes with social circles. Games are popular among gamers, art among artists, etc. Each group will see their art as superior. It’s just crass when the groups turn on each other and have the gall to describe each other as “not artful”. Expression of self doesn’t have to be popular either, just personal. This is why when a scholar of their art like Ebert gets up and claims that games cannot be art, gamers like us must stand up and say that yes, they are.
I’ve heard the argument that “why do we care what others say?” We care because skilled designers have put in the thought and effort, have crafted artistic interactive adventures that have earned the right to be considered art. It’s disrespectful to call it anything else. I could call you ugly or stupid and say “why do you care what I think?” That doesn’t make me any less the asshole. We don’t have something to prove, we just choose to correct you. Ultimately, measure art for what it’s worth to you and leave me to measure it for what it’s worth to me. Saying something like “games aren’t art” is ultimately pandering to the undecided in an attempt to grow the numbers of people in agreement with you. Without a counter point, you might as well be “Big Brother”.