posted
It's a relatively simple question, yet so many people I know would dispose videogames as merely childish entertainment.
It's nearly irrefutable that videogames have artistic components in them. If this is the case, however, why is it that no one honors them as such. Videogames often take years to complete, and aside from yearly award events that are held strictly within the gaming community, no one else ever recognizes the producers for their achievements.
Take a game like Okami for example. Quite a stray from your shoot-em-up GTA style games that often clutter the newspaper's editorial section. But It's an unbelievably riveting game....in large part because the art is so great. Why is the media so focused on portraying the videogame market as brutal and graphic, when there are games with respectable aspects as well?
Posts: 213 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually wrote a ten page term paper on this subject, as I believe that video games can be considered art. Whether any video game has hit the point of high art is debatable, but I think they are all art. Just like there can be crappy paintings or sculptures, there are crappy games.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Resistance for the PS3 on my friends brand new 63 inch HDTV was art. *drools*
I do, however, separate art that is "absolute", meaning it has no other purpose than to be art. Art in movies and video games is secondary to the gameplay/plot, so I don't compare it to art that is "pure" or "absolute". That doesn't mean I think less of it, I just don't put it in the same category. I feel the same way about movie music/incidental music and absolute music.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if we are just talking about the art (i.e. graphics and design) in video games, I will agree its inferior to real works of art by a large degree.
My whole thing was arguing that video games on the whole are an art form. Sort of like film, it adapts elements from the other art forms while adding to it.
Euripides is probably right though. Given enough time, maybe people will start accepting video games as art. We'll see. Until then, I'll be off enjoying my games.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: Well if we are just talking about the art (i.e. graphics and design) in video games, I will agree its inferior to real works of art by a large degree.
Really? I wouldn't. There are so many artistic elements that must be thought out before entering a game, as opposed to a finite amount in a painting. In a painting, you need to think about light sources, material, and composition. Video games do this on such a grand scale that it's difficult to even comprehend. Every single item in Shadow of the Collosus, for example, needs to (and does) fit a particular style. There are hundreds of objects in that videogme, and that, I think, is remarkable.
Posts: 213 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
More effort goes into making the people in Call Of Duty 2 look real than most "real art" these days. It evokes more emotion, which is the purpose of art after all.
Posts: 883 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I just haven't played the right game yet. While I have played some beautiful games with some great art styles, I have yet to encounter one that sort of supercedes some of my favorite pieces of art. Also to me, it's not the amount of work that goes into a piece that makes it better or worse; it's how the overall finished product works. Then again I'm in the category of people who think many games feature characters that look too plastic-like (i.e. lower poly counts with bump-mapping or some such). That may just be me though.
As for the real art these days comment, don't take my comments to mean I like a lot of the art that's being produce now more than the art in video games. I'm not a big fan of the post-modern type of art (or whatever it is called) that seems popular now. When I'm comparing the art in games to art, I'm thinking of classic masterpieces and such. Could such a masterpiece of art be pulled off in a game? Certainly, and I'm sure it probably will at some point. I just haven't seen it yet.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Just play 'The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time'. The music is incredible.
Not only that, and I believe OSC talked about this once in his 'Orson reviews everything', but a lot of really great composers are starting to write music for games, as well as movies. With Orchestral scores and everything... That was my Only quibble with 'Ocarina'... I kept thinking 'If only there was an orchestra playing this'.
But yes, video games can be considered art. Orisinal games are very artistic... It's a good thing too since they are really boring.
And, consider the fact that there are so many computer graphics in movies today... Does that not count as art?
I noticed my favorite adventure games all have very good storylines (Considering the medium)... I mean, it's like actually being in the story. I do think that the art is definently still developing, and has not come close to peaking.
A good video game will incorperate storyling, visual art, music, and even voice acting in some cases, into a piece of art that you can really experience.
quote:Originally posted by aragorn64: Personally, I don't get the mind set that makes people think that games CAN'T be art. It's all elitist crap, I think.
I imagine that a lot of these are people who pretty much topped out at Mario or pac man, and even thought they know intellectually that the medium has moved forward, they still don't really grasp that fact. Same with the people who only play Sports games, CounterStrikeish games, puzzle games, etc. They have a firm notion of what games are, and it don't care to look for evidence that things are otherwise.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, Roger Ebert doesn't believe games are art. (I can send a link if you'd like.)
However. Regardless of what my favorite movie critic says, I do believe, no, I know video games are art.
In probably the same way as movies are art. Now, they're certianly a very different form of art, with a very different feel and a different purpose. Movies are different than plays and novels, and subsume music within themselves. Video games can subsume music and movie-esque natures within itself but are still distinct and something new.
Shadow of the Colossus is a game that's as arty as I've ever seen. But it's not the only one.
Video games have the capacity to make you care even more than movies do. Because, say, if you're watching Battlestar Galactica and feel a bit of grief seeing their starships blow up and a small portion of the remnant of humanity failing, you'd feel even more of that emotion if you were playing a game version, and through your mistake lost a few of those ships through your own actions.
Video games are different, but have the same kind of power. Metal Gear Solid 3, for example, is better than a movie. Because you're playing AS Snake, and the great scenes come from what you do. Watching someone play a game and then do something amazing, hard to do, is even more impressive than watching a movie character do them, because it's you doing it, not some storyteller saying the person did it. I think that kind of interactivity is something important and new, and won't replace movies or books but will sit aside them, with a different feel.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jumbo- the main premise of this thread, that video games are not given their due proper as artistic expression, is a little odd. Video games make hundreds of millions of dollars a year- there have been dozens of games that grabbed the attention of the public and were honored as great achievements. You can go on saying they aren't recognized "outside the gaming community," but the "gaming community" is a huge swath of the population, and video games ARE recognized outside of that. Honestly, what about video games has been recently neglected?
Edit: If you are writing to people who think that video games are still "Mortal Combat" and the super mario bros, then you are talking about a misinformed public, not a public indisposed to considering video games art. If you exposed any reasonable person to some of the finely crafted games available, they would recognize the artistry.
What you're really asking is: is there something about the nature of a game that makes it less artistic than, say, a novel? But that's a different question; you're asking why video games don't get recognition, when in my eyes (as a non gamer) they really do.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a medium populated with a lot of junk food titles, certainly, but no more than anything else.
I think if people can consider comic books to be art along with film and music and such then there's no reason why video games shouldn't be.
And not just by being arty farty. There's some games that can tell a story like no other medium can because, as 0Megabyte mentioned, it's involving in a way that books and movies can't be, because YOUR the protagonist. Like Planescape: Torment. It may look like some silly fantasy thing, but man is it an RPG that hooks you in and makes you P the R, because the R becomes U.
And that's the thing, unlike those other mediums and a lot of other games where it's giving you a protagonist or cast of characters with pre-developed personalities pulling you along a story, there are the titles that basically let you be you - just in a new skin and setting (fantastic or not). Whatever task, quest, or adventure that moves the plot along becomes YOURS not just because it's something you have to do to beat the game, but because it's something your driven to do as much as your character, it gets in your blood. These are the ones that can leave an immense emotional impact and I think should be considered true art.
Posts: 299 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
Same with the people who only play Sports games, CounterStrikeish games, puzzle games, etc.
I think Counter Strike level design can be photorealistic art.
Aesthetics doesn't have to be the primary function of something for it to be considered art. At least, according to my definition of it; I also consider architecture to be a branch of art (and at the same time a field of its own, which includes aspects of civil engineering).
One interesting question would be: can the mechanics of the game, or the game itself as a whole, be considered art? Half Life 2 for example is a pseudo-cinematic interactive narrative. That seems to qualify, in my opinion.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
I think it is not only art, but incorporates several arts into one contemporary art. This is much like how cinema incorporates set design, photography, make-up, costumes, composition etc. all into the film.
Video games incorporate (to various degrees) animation, world design, story-telling, music, and any number of other forms of art, so it's my opinion that games constitute artwork, though to various degrees of professionalism.
I had something else to say, too, but it's too early in the morning and I've forgotten. I'll post again later if I remember what I was going to say.
Posts: 1099 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have had several team members in the past that have used what they've done for our game in their school curriculum. One of them even used the 3D characters he modeled for us as part of his master's thesis.
As a programmer for said games, I sometimes consider it "art" in my own way, but nobody else seems to. It bothers me sometimes that the art of programming is hardly considered because a game is usually only judged by how pretty it is or how fun it is, and the fun-ness of it is never attributed for the programmer. In that regard, I'm the "man behind the curtain," but I guess I'm use to that.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, of course they're art. Are they good art? is a more interesting question. I'd say that depends on the game.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: As a programmer for said games, I sometimes consider it "art" in my own way, but nobody else seems to. It bothers me sometimes that the art of programming is hardly considered because a game is usually only judged by how pretty it is or how fun it is, and the fun-ness of it is never attributed for the programmer. In that regard, I'm the "man behind the curtain," but I guess I'm use to that.
Yeah, I'm always sad to see the programming get neglected, particularly since I have some decent notions of how difficult and complex that can be. I did some basic 2D game programming stuff back in the day, and that doesn't even incorporate the super crazy physics engines of these days. There's just so much there that the programmers have a hand in. Of course maybe this view is what makes me choose the more fun game over the prettier game. I mean I'd rather have a game that plays really well and is enjoyable than a game that is gorgeous but plays terrible.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm actually doing an independant study this summer looking at artistic and historical archival methods for games. There are many academics and forward-thinking museums, galleries, and archives that view video games a legitimate art, but tend to lack the proper framework to exhibit or catalog them as such.
Posts: 353 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conundrum for genteel men and womenfolk of the creative classes: Can the Niépce image-capture 'photo-tography' prints be considered true art? Many discerning gentlemen say it can not!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro- Perhaps they do recieve recognition, and I'm just to ignorant to see it, but I know there's no acadmey awards counter-part for videogames. There certainly aren't any videogame museums either.
But I think I was also asking that question as well: Why aren't videogames as respected as, say, traditional art? I don't believe I ever excluded that question.
Posts: 213 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Games are definitely an art form. The gameplay itself is the central part of the art, I think, with the visuals and music in a supporting role. The story is what matters, and you help make the story yourself, so it's potentially one of the more important forms of art there is.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Homeworld is art, from a storytelling standpoint.
quote:Just play 'The Legend of Zelda: The Ocarina of Time'. The music is incredible.
Haven't played that one, but I agree. Even if you're not a fan of video games, the musical scores of many modern games are very well-composed and cinematic in quality (e.g. the Latin choral piece "The Unsung War" by Keiki Kobayashi).
quote:Originally posted by JumboWumbo: I know there's no acadmey awards counter-part for videogames. There certainly aren't any videogame museums either.
Spike TV has held the Video Game awards since 2003 and I know there are museums out there devoted to coin-operated arcade games of the past.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JumboWumbo: I know there's no acadmey awards counter-part for videogames. There certainly aren't any videogame museums either.
Spike TV has held the Video Game awards since 2003 and I know there are museums out there devoted to coin-operated arcade games of the past.
Then I guess I'm just ignorant.
Posts: 213 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer to think of the AIAS (link) Awards as the real Academy Awards for video games. The Spike TV Video Game Awards thing to me seems like a joke catered to the lowest common denominator. The AIAS Awards are at least somewhat respectable.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Personally, I don't get the mind set that makes people think that games CAN'T be art. It's all elitist crap, I think.
I think it is unfair to call that attitude "elitist crap."
I am no art expert or historian, so I could be completely wrong, but my definition of art has always revolved around the individual.
The individual is trying to express something that usually resonates with other people. Altho video games and movies resonate with us, I would not consider them great works of art. I would consider them collections/amalgamations of individual artists.
A director, write, or actor can be a great artists according to lem, but the movie itself has no expression from one particular point of view or heart. I would classify it at best as "secondary art."
I think game programming, or graphics, or story, or sound, or music or even the equivalent of a "director" can be just as artistic as anything we find in another medium, but the finished product feels too...much like a collection of individuals and teams working on a product.
Since no one can really claim to have the authority to classify as art, that is just my individual interpretation. Obviously my personal definition falls short since many people consider the pyramids to be great works of art, but it is the best I have.
Howard Roak is an artist. The architectural drawing for The Temple of the Human Spirit was a fictional great work of art. The building was an expression of various artists, but was not a single work of art.
Like I said, it is the best definition I have. It has many holes, but it could help explain why some people wouldn't consider video games great works of art.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
lem, I think I agree with you somewhat--I would say that collaborative art is still art, it's just not in the same category as art from an single auteur.
And thanks for the link to AIAS, pfresh--I agree that it looks more genuine than the Spike awards.
Didn't mean to sound harsh, jumbo.
Posts: 1314 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think computer games are an art form, but a very young one. I think until we have more politicians, judges, and CEOs who grew up with video games, they won't be taken very seriously. Art is often limited by those who finance, censor, and control it.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, for the record -- there are games out there that people develop almost entirely on their own. They're rare, and they're definitely not commercial-quality, but they are out there.
posted
I think programming is art. I heard this interesting idea that nothing is art, and everything in creative engineering.
Anyway, for example, programming as art can be judged by stability, compatibility and efficiency (use of system resources etc).
I know that when I use a program that is unstable, I get angry.
When Fallout II (a game released in 1999) was compatible with my new wide screen monitor, I felt bliss.
Even a novice can tell whether or not a program is good based on these three things, and good programming is very satisfying.
As a whole, this all depends on your definition of art. Programming requires a lot of technical knowledge, and is very close to engineering anything else.
It also evokes emotion.
And it's definitely subjective enough to judged for differing qualities.
I think eventually more people will come around to this point of view. It's even a friendly form of art, because you don't need any programming experience to appreciate good programming.
Good programming is also surprisingly rare, and people will pay a lot of money for someone that can make it.
Posts: 247 | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to consider a video game as art, you probably should consider the whole game, with its vast collection of obstacles that keep getting combined in surprising new ways as you progress through the game. The story and graphics should probably be considered only as they contribute to the overall obstacle-overcoming experience (though they may also be good in isolation). I read that you could judge a game as you would the architecture of a building.
Posts: 781 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Omega M.: If you want to consider a video game as art, you probably should consider the whole game, with its vast collection of obstacles that keep getting combined in surprising new ways as you progress through the game. The story and graphics should probably be considered only as they contribute to the overall obstacle-overcoming experience (though they may also be good in isolation). I read that you could judge a game as you would the architecture of a building.
My theory is that the better games-or shall we say, the more 'artistic'--tend to be more concerned with being a "game" than anything else. For instance, ever since the playstation came out in 1995 video games have been incorporating extraneous elements like story and character more and more in an attempt to create some sort of fusion between gaming and cinema. I think the result has been, with some notable exceptions, very disastrous for video games in general. The heart of a video game lies in the nature of the gameplay and nothing else. It's been god knows how long and I'm still playing "Super Mario Kart" and "Tetris." I don't even remember most of the playstation games I've played.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Videogames can be considered art...they just can't be considered as art worthy of any serious consideration.
Why?
I just meant that a lot of stuff humans make can be considered art. So in a way I kind of object to reserving the word "art" to mean 'high art'. And videogames are not high art because so long as you're pushing the buttons trying to make the character go this and that way you're never going to experience anything profound.
Posts: 722 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ill be honest, I think it's more difficult to define what video games are NOT art, then it is to argue that video games can be art at all.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
