video Games as Art

[s.ketch]

I don't know if it's been discussed here but I know it has been in other forums. I would like to know what our opinions might be despite having a lot of game-career oriented art and artists here.

Personally I think video games are simply interactive dynamic collages. There are many disciplines that go into game development. Writing, fine art, story boarding, animation, sculpture, illustration, virtual filming, composition, music just to name quite a few.

I haven't heard any reasoning behind why people don't consider video games as art. I'm curious to what those people might say.

[ZenzybaR]

Shadow of the Colossus. Anyone who doesn't think games can be art should play that game. Frikkin beautiful. Simple but deep.

[Psychotime]

I don't think you'll get a member here that wouldn't see video games as art.

However, I do remember reading an article that Hideo Kojima himself doesn't consider what he does as art in a certain sense. Gimme a second to find it.

[Psychotime]

Bah, the actual article's dead.

http://kotaku.com/150043/kojima-says-games-are-not-art

But here's a quote.

"The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

[Serpian]

I think that if we accept that painting, sculpture, music, literature and theater are art, we need to accept that movies are art. It's like theater plus technology. And I think that if we accept movies as art, it's not far away to consider (at least some) video games art. Like movies plus interactivity.

I wouldn't call all video games art, in the same way I would call a landscape by Jacob Collins art. There's certainly art IN games, pictures, music etc. But not all games give me an 'art experience'. But then again, neither do all things that are generally considered art...

But I also think that if we draw the line between art and non-art between games and film, then I need a good reason as to why film, and ultimately painting should be considered art.

Video games are certainly as much a 'piece of culture' as any piece of literature or painting is. I don't know if we need to define art very much more than that, and I don't know if the word 'art' has to mean that something is necessarily some kind of elevated, transcendental piece of culture.

Some games that come to mind as being artsy and deep (not that that is a necessary criterion of something being art, but still) are Braid and Passage. Seriously, buy Braid. It's the price of an expensive lunch. Just the game-play mechanisms in that game are masterful, but the story is a literary piece of art, no doubt about it.

[Psychotime]

I don't know if the word 'art' has to mean that something is necessarily some kind of elevated, transcendental piece of culture.

This is what makes these types of discussions happen. If this had no part of the discussion, I doubt there'd even be one.

Also,

Every child is an artist. The problem is how to remain an artist once we grow up.

I use that to clarify how I look at the word. But I know it's a lazy way to get a solution.

[Raoul Duke]

I think art has a pretty loose definition. Cooking is an art form. I'll say videogames are art like rap is poetry or stand up comedy is philosophy. I do have to say videogames are not a good storytelling platform and that's where critics get it twisted. Sure great stories have been told, but they all anchor around shooting fools in the dick, because it's not about story, it's about the experience. If you experience a good story, that's a big plus. But in the end the gamer is just playing with toys. If you think toys are not art, then you can't say videogames are art.

[hippl5]

I think art has a pretty loose definition. Cooking is an art form. I'll say videogames are art like rap is poetry or stand up comedy is philosophy. I do have to say videogames are not a good storytelling platform and that's where critics get it twisted. Sure great stories have been told, but they all anchor around shooting fools in the dick, because it's not about story, it's about the experience. If you experience a good story, that's a big plus. But in the end the gamer is just playing with toys. If you think toys are not art, then you can't say videogames are art.

Good points. I see all art as entertainment to some extent. You go to a museum and stare at some pretty pictures, even if some pieces provoke thoughts or emotions, are you still not amused? Art is as much of a luxury as a car or the internet, you can live without it. That said, I consider video games to be art.

[Chris Bennett]

If you can demonstrate that a computer game contains metaphor at its heart and in its purpose then I would call that game art. Otherwise it is not.

A game may be pretty and it may be awe inspiring in its excitement and rendering, but then so is a well designed roller-coaster ride at sunset, and that will be many things, but being a piece of art is not one of them for the reason just given.

[Raoul Duke]

If you can demonstrate that a computer game contains metaphor at its heart and in its purpose then I would call that game art. Otherwise it is not.

A game may be pretty and it may be awe inspiring in its excitement and rendering, but then so is a well designed roller-coaster ride at sunset, and that will be many things, but being a piece of art is not one of them for the reason just given.

Zombies are a metaphor. GTA is loaded with metaphors. MGS is overkill with metaphors. Hell most metaphors are pulled out of a hat anyways. Pac Man can be a metaphor if you'd like.

[Chris Bennett]

A zombie is a zombie, just as a table is a table - they happen to be the furniture of the game and are not metaphors in their own right. A metaphor is an active association of something with something else for artistic purpose. I see a table in a movie, but it is not a metaphor until I am deliberately persuaded by the director to think of it as, say, a flying carpet that has been tied to earth by a strut at each corner and thus, say, to the domestication and servility of what once was a fabulous tree waving in the winds.

[Psychotime]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/b1/Porte-Fenetre_a_Collioure_1914.jpg

Porte-Fenetre a Collioure, by Henri Matisse


Also, what does that make Still Lifes?

[Raoul Duke]

Zombies have so many separate metaphors it's ridiculous. The most common metaphor is a contagious destruction of human will. It can be a metaphor for slavery, political will, greed, lynch mob mentality or even germaphobia to be more specific.

Aliens can be a metaphor for an Iraqi's perspective on the US invasion. Murderous robots can be a metaphor for revolution. Just because a metaphor isn't obvious doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Chris Bennett]

The primary metaphor in painting is between the surface and its physical paint marks and how they 'become' apples on plates, windows or people nailed to crosses.

Its not what it is a picture of but how it is a picture of.

That's why two people can paint the same apple and one version is full of life and poetry while the other is just a listless indication that it is an apple we are supposed to be looking at.

[Chris Bennett]

Zombies have so many separate metaphors it's ridiculous. The most common metaphor is a contagious destruction of human will. It can be a metaphor for slavery, political will, greed, lynch mob mentality or even germaphobia to be more specific.

Aliens can be a metaphor for an Iraqi's perspective on the US invasion. Murderous robots can be a metaphor for revolution. Just because a metaphor isn't obvious doesn't mean it didn't happen.

I agree.
But my point is that the use of them must be deliberate, whether subtle or not.

[Raoul Duke]

Chris your statement just reinforced the principal of execution in videogames, movies, reality tv shows or automotive design for that matter. Execution and metaphor are different beasts that may feed each other, but are still different beasts.

[Psychotime]

The primary metaphor in painting is between the surface and its physical paint marks and how they 'become' apples on plates, windows or people nailed to crosses.

Its not what it is a picture of but how it is a picture of.

This went over my head. Are you saying that technique is what decides if there's a meaning, or not?

That's why two people can paint the same apple and one version is full of life and poetry while the other is just a listless indication that it is an apple we are supposed to be looking at.

No offense, but that sounds suspiciously similar to this kind of thinking.

http://art.penny-arcade.com/photos/759954321_E7mFJ-L.jpg

(I guess it's also appropriate for this thread.)

[Meloncov]

The primary metaphor in painting is between the surface and its physical paint marks and how they 'become' apples on plates, windows or people nailed to crosses.


How is this fundamentally different from little glowing lights on a computer screen as a metaphor for apples on plates in a game?

[Chris Bennett]

Because, like the photograph, they are not a metaphor, they are simply indicating that you read that area as 'apple'.

[Chris Bennett]

This went over my head. Are you saying that technique is what decides if there's a meaning, or not?


In a way yes, but I'm not talking about the rendering aspect of technique (verisimilitude) but rather the the handling of the medium in the way that it is at the service and gives evidence of the way we see the 'design' within things. This is the 'how' in my statement "It is not the what a picture is of, but the how the picture is of.

And to reply to the second part of your post, whether we like the 'how' of a picture or not is not the issue - it is the fact that a temperamental 'how' it is taking place that distinguishes it from a process that inertly suggests an appearance unshaped by subjective comment.

[Chris Bennett]

Chris your statement just reinforced the principal of execution in videogames, movies, reality tv shows or automotive design for that matter. Execution and metaphor are different beasts that may feed each other, but are still different beasts.

You are confusing my statements I have made to two diffent things Raoul:

Execution is the primary vessel for manifesting metaphor in hand made images like, for instance, painting.

But in other fields, literature for instance or movies, it is not. Books have to be written and films produced, i.e. executed, yes - but the execution process is not what inately carries the metaphor as it does in the plastic arts. (That's why they are called 'plastic' as in 'material')

[crossmirage]

For me it depends on the game and what it sets out to accomplish, really.

A game's primary purpose is to provide an entertainment experience. It's essentially a very fancy toy, therefore it's not exactly 'art' in itself. But there are games that aren't primarily intended to be played with, but more like a platform for a given narrative. Examples of this include .flow (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ8JuBHTaxk), LSD (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUajr_brs38), Vinnie Vole's Existential Nightmare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0I7aGuOdtHo), and Au Sable (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZyhhOMFEmFg).

[Psychotime]

Because, like the photograph, they are not a metaphor, they are simply indicating that you read that area as 'apple'.

Photography isn't art? That's new to me.

In a way yes, but I'm not talking about the rendering aspect of technique (verisimilitude) but rather the the handling of the medium in the way that it is at the service and gives evidence of the way we see the 'design' within things. This is the 'how' in my statement "It is not the what a picture is of, but the how the picture is of.

So realism isn't art? I still don't get what you're saying.

[Chris Bennett]

Realism per se is not art but can only be an aspect of it. Realism is not a salient property of art, just as fur is not a salient property of dogs.

[Psychotime]

Well, can you please explain the deliberate and clear metaphor for the Matisse I posted earlier?

Or maybe his "Still Life with Geraniums"?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4f/Matisse518.jpg

Pinakothek der Moderne has it in their possession for a reason, right?

[Chris Bennett]

Your request shows that you haven't read closely what I have been saying, otherwise you would not be asking me, in the way that you are, to explain the Matisse to you.

[Psychotime]

Clearly. I'll be back in a half hour so I can reread what you wrote.

[Psychotime]

I still don't get what you're saying.

This, basically.

Can anyone else explain what he's saying? (I assume "he" because of the Chris.)

All I'm getting from it is that style gives something meaning, but I guess that's not what he's saying.

But from my first post, I kinda already said that I don't think art itself is defined as work that has some hidden meaning, deliberate or not. I think meaning in art is like a hot tub in a backyard. It's nice to have (if you like hot tubs), but it isn't necessary.

Maybe that's what causing my own confusion?

[s.ketch]

I get what Hideo Kojima is saying about his games. It makes sense. He makes games to appeal to a wide audience and therefore doesn't express a narrow meaning to his product. It would be the same as if I painted a picture so that everyone on CA would like it and it's implications. I wouldn't be making a statement or expressing anything in particular, just using artistic techniques to service the tastes of a large group of people. Though I think that kind of stuff could fall somewhere under Po-mo.

I think some games have a "how" to them though. Using Kojima as an example; the way the dialogue, character design, voices and animations come together to present an outside perspective of US military. Also the use of science fiction to show how technology makes war easier and more deadly.

In the same way a painter brings together elements to tell a story and represent abstract ideas, the team has done the same thing. The only difference is that one is made look at and one is made to play with by as many people possible.

[Psychotime]

So Kojima believes that art is intended for X group, as opposed to everyone? Or, wait. Does he mean it has a personal quality to it, instead of being something made for the sake of pleasing everyone?

I guess I can understand that. There isn't too much room for being creative when you want to make sure it's something EVERYONE loves. But what does that say about anything that accomplishes something like that, whether it was the intent or not?

[Schnookiefoo]

I think anyone who doesn't think video games are art is either bonkers or a narrow-minded old-timer.

Perfect example of this is Roger Ebert who recently said once again Video games can never be art (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html)

Whole thing just makes me /facepalm.

[Psychotime]

Oh, so that's what this is all about.

[Goog]

If you can demonstrate that a computer game contains metaphor at its heart and in its purpose then I would call that game art. Otherwise it is not.


So, unless the game's mechanics revolve around the concept of metaphor, it can't be considered art? It seems you have a very limited definition of what art is...

What about Suprematism? What about Telematics? What about De Stijl? In all of these movements, the art was the literal (i.e. not metaphorical) manifestation of the individual artist's thoughts and ideals. And these are just a few movements to boot...

I prefer John Dewey and other pragmatists when it comes to understanding the nature of art (or at least, a quality of it):
"Art is the living and concrete proof that man is capable of restoring consciously, and thus on the plane of meaning, the union of sense, need, impulse, and action characteristic of the live creature." - John Dewey in Art as Experience

And as far as I am concerned, all interactive mediums (movies, books, paintings, etc) can actualize this concept with ease. The ones that can model systems which require input from a "live creature" in order to be complete have the potential to become the most important and influential artistic mediums, simply because they create a more dynamic possibility space for specific and punctual experiences to be had.

To put it simply, art has traditionally dealt with expressing experiences, while gameplay is creating them. Just as a disclaimer, games are not the only artistic medium to do this, I have met and seen many fine artists who focus on interactivity and the creation of experience as the central concept (again, Roy Ascott and Telematics comes to mind immediately).

However, I have yet to play a game which capitalizes on this concept...So I can understand why Ebert has failed to understand this concept.

[Burhtun]

I don't think I've ever referred to a video game as a work of art. No matter how good of a game it was. Or how awesome the models and textures and sound and music were. Or how brilliant it's lighting engine looked even while running on mediocre hardware. I can acknowledge the high level of skill of artists involved in its creation, but calling a video game a piece of art feels weird. I don't even know what art is though. I've never been able to figure out a definition for that word. I tend to just avoid it. I could certainly say some video games are more artful than others. And that would not necessarily be based just on how pretty the game is, but whether or not all the parts came together in service of a feeling that the team was going for? Maybe? I dunno. All I know is some games and some moments in some games are pretty friggen rad. Many are completely bland and uninteresting no matter how high their technical achievements.

'Alien' is more artful than 'Aliens'. Why? I dunno, just is man. Is 'Alien' a work of art? Uhhhh errrmmmm ehhhhhh.... if you want it to be, sure. I dunno. :shrug:

[Psychotime]

Anyone else feel really sorry for Roger right now?

I obviously disagree with the guy, but just imagine the tons of disgusting hate mail he's getting now from the mindless fanboys that make up nearly the entire internet.

[Meloncov]

Because, like the photograph, they are not a metaphor, they are simply indicating that you read that area as 'apple'.

You're not explaining why it's not a metaphor, just saying it's not again and adding an unsupported claim that photography isn't art either.

[Serpian]

Hmm.. a lot of interesting points in this thread..

I sort of agree with what Chris says in post #21, to a certain degree at least. I mean, if I look at a painting I like, I might go "oh yesss look at them brush strokesss, hurrrr", even though I'm perfectly aware of the fact that it's not just the skillful use of brush strokes that makes this particular painting so great, it's the Image the brush strokes make up, and the Story or Metaphor the Image tells, whether it be poetic, narrative, allegory or something else.

But I wouldn't pick up a copy of Lord of The Rings or a modern printed manuscript of a Shakespeare play and say "ohhh, get a load of this typeface, aahhh it's so masterful". (Unless, of course, the typeface is masterful, but in that case the piece of literature might as well be the Manifesto of Crap or whatever).

So where the "art" lies differs from field to field. The "art of painting", I think, lies in the application of paint, which is the most basic definition of what you're doing when you're painting. But it lies also in the way you compose, make up your Image, and ultimately, in the way you make your painting communicates what you want it to.

If we look at literature, the art doesn't lie in the typeface or the cover illustration, but in the way you use language, the way you build up a story, and ultimately, in the way you convey or communicate what you want to. The words or sentences are your brush strokes.

Seen this way, then no, video games are not art just because they have art in them (visuals, music etc), but in my opinion, that doesn't necessarily make it impossible for a video game to be art. Even if a movie isn't art just because it has nice matte paintings and an original score written for it, doesn't mean it can't be art for what it is, as a whole.

And yes, video games are, in general, glorified toys. But then again, some movies are little more than glorified ways of giving you thrills or killing time. In the end, in my opinion, the only real thing that separates modern video games from movies or theater or literature, is the interactivity. And I don't think that's enough to shove it out completely from the realm of art.

[Chris Bennett]

Hey Serpian, that's exactly what I'm getting at and thank you for taking the trouble to think carefully about what I am trying to say.
I've kept things deliberately concise yet as accurate as I can in order that people can choose to consider a point of view in all its implications. I've given a definition of art to support a qualified statement and some expansion of that to well put questions asked by some of the guys. The fact that one or two (and it is only one or two) are uncomfortable with an idea and find release in personal insult is their problem and not something I can, or have the responsibility to do anything about.

[TASmith]

Rollercoasters are a metaphor for sex. That's why it's most popular with couples.

[bhanu]

Rollercoasters are a metaphor for sex. That's why it's most popular with couples.
dohh, so thats where I was going wrong.heh.

[Psychotime]

The fact that one or two (and it is only one or two) are uncomfortable with an idea and find release in personal insult is their problem and not something I can, or have the responsibility to do anything about.

When did that ever happen? From ANYONE in this thread?

[dpaint]

Every age decides their art.

I think video games, television shows, comic books and movies all have the potential to be considered art. What one age considers art, the next age might reject; this has been going on since humans have been making art. We can only decide for ourselves what we consider art. There is no defacto stamp that gets placed on something as art and is never removed.

[bhanu]

@dpaint- word!

[s.ketch]

Hate to bump an old thread but I had some thoughts recently. Plus my perspective has changed a bit since this thread was originally posted.

For a game to be considered art it must meet the criteria of art. Or some precedent must set a comparable set of criteria specific to the video game medium. But the entire game isn't the medium. What separates games from movies, music and visual art is it's interactivity. A player has some to all control over the game. So interactivity is the medium. Everything else in the game dresses up the mechanics. They provide visual or audio feedback. Sometimes causal feedback. Use fine art as an analogy, it would be like having a painting that the viewer can manipulate in real time. Which I'm sure defeats the purpose of a painting. But I don't think interactivity precludes something from being art.

In every other medium, art has required the viewer to be passive. But with games that doesn't have to be the case. Interactivity requires viewer participation. The viewer can become engage the aesthetics. But still, there must be some kind of criteria, some definition, otherwise the game art would have no meaning.

1) It has to communicate with the player on a subliminal/unconscious level. Just like film, music, and visual art, it has to say something. Except instead of paint, instruments, or photography, you must use interactivity.

2) It must be aesthetically pleasing. If not, the message fails and you have a regular game.

3) It must be of quality and skilled craftsmanship

4) It can't rely on other mediums. It can't rely on graphics, the soundtrack, or anything else. Otherwise it's just a moving painting, or music video. Ideally all other aspects outside of interactivity would be kept to a minimum. Visual or auditory feedback, while necessary, must be used only when necessary.

5) It can't be a service or product. It's not for mass consumption or sale. It's expression, it's sublime communication.

That's what I got so far.

[kev ferrara]

Aesthetic distance during gameplay is the issue. It is an intrinsic problem of the form.

[s.ketch]

Aesthetic distance during gameplay is the issue. It is an intrinsic problem of the form.

You're saying it's harder to stick with aesthetics when the player is in control?

[Mute]

Hey CaW,

This is always an interesting discussion to have. I'm having a hard time deciphering your thoughts:


For a game to be considered art it must meet the criteria of art. Or some precedent must set a comparable set of criteria specific to the video game medium. But the entire game isn't the medium. What separates games from movies, music and visual art is it's interactivity. A player has some to all control over the game. So interactivity is the medium. Everything else in the game dresses up the mechanics. They provide visual or audio feedback. Sometimes causal feedback. Use fine art as an analogy, it would be like having a painting that the viewer can manipulate in real time. Which I'm sure defeats the purpose of a painting. But I don't think interactivity precludes something from being art.

In every other medium, art has required the viewer to be passive. But with games that doesn't have to be the case. Interactivity requires viewer participation. The viewer can become engage the aesthetics. But still, there must be some kind of criteria, some definition, otherwise the game art would have no meaning.



Are you saying that video games need to be appraised differently than other forms of art because they are interactive and not passive? If that is the case wouldn't that make video games NOT art, being that they have to be judged in a separate category?

Art, in the terms i think you are meaning, is an experience. How that experience is manufactured is going to differ from art form to art form, but an intended experience is the common factor. The impact and potency of that experience is what sparks discussions/comparison between these art forms.
Video games are capable of delivering this as well as books, movies, paintings, theater shows...any art form. Thusly, it can be judged just the same I would say.

[Meloncov]

Perfect example of this is Roger Ebert who recently said once again Video games can never be art (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html)

Whole thing just makes me /facepalm.

He later apologized for making broad statements about something he knew little about.

[s.ketch]

Hey CaW,

This is always an interesting discussion to have. I'm having a hard time deciphering your thoughts:


Are you saying that video games need to be appraised differently than other forms of art because they are interactive and not passive? If that is the case wouldn't that make video games NOT art, being that they have to be judged in a separate category?

Art, in the terms i think you are meaning, is an experience. How that experience is manufactured is going to differ from art form to art form, but an intended experience is the common factor. The impact and potency of that experience is what sparks discussions/comparison between these art forms.
Video games are capable of delivering this as well as books, movies, paintings, theater shows...any art form. Thusly, it can be judged just the same I would say.

My over-all point was that in order for a video game to be art...it must have certain properties. A video game that is art wouldn't be like a video game you could go buy at Gamestop.

A sub-point was that we can't judge games exactly like a painting. Like the difference between music and fine art. Aesthetics transcend categories and mediums but a beautiful painting won't have the same properties as a beautiful song. So would a beautiful game have different properties.

I was just trying to figure out those properties, the things that a game would have to be in order to be considered art.

[Mute]

Hey CaW,

I think i now understand what you are saying.

I think pin-pointing the properties that make anything art is difficult if not impossible. The line between "art" and "not art" is a blurry and subjective one. I suppose this gets at what Dpaint was saying.
Adding to the difficulty is the fact that video games are more faceted than some other art forms. Painting and music, to use your examples, are pure, singular experiences, visual and auditory. The highest example of art in painting is going to be a purely visual experience. The highest example of art in music is going to be a pure auditory experience. The highest example of art in a Video games could be visual, auditory and interactive all at the same time. This is not to say the experience will be automatically better, just more complex, making it that much more difficult to identify and recreate.
A good comparison might be the effect adding sound tracks had in enhancing a cinema experience, movies being originally a purely visual medium. I think in reality though this point, though interesting, is irrelevant since "art" implies something being more than merely the sum of its parts.

I'm still not sure why artistic games wouldn't be available at Gamestop though. :teeth:

Rock on!

[s.ketch]

I'm still not sure why artistic games wouldn't be available at Gamestop though. :teeth:

Not to get into a whole new discussion, but most wide-released games are services. They're made to be purchased and to appeal to a demographic. For the most part. A game made for it's artistic merrits probably wouldn't be picked up by a big publisher and be avialable on the retail shelf. Though it could be distributed through Steam.

The difference, as I see it, between regular games and an alleged art game would be like the difference between a Michael Bay movie and a Kubrick movie. Both are indeed movies but one is a service, the other is art. 2001 exmplifies the art of film while Transformers is just enterainment. While you can purchasse 2001, It's not raking in cash at the box office. It's made for a different purpose. It communicates ideas using aestheics pertaining to film.

Adding to the difficulty is the fact that video games are more faceted than some other art forms. Painting and music, to use your examples, are pure, singular experiences, visual and auditory. The highest example of art in painting is going to be a purely visual experience. The highest example of art in music is going to be a pure auditory experience. The highest example of art in a Video games could be visual, auditory and interactive all at the same time.

True. To expand my previous statements, I think games can be reduced to a purely interactive experience. The problem is that would be unlike any other game. That would probably be a turn off to most gamers. And though it seems like a bit of a mind-bend to think about how a game could be purely interactive, there are different types of interaction. There's how the player interacts with the game. Through mechanical periphrials, VR, AR. How the player's input interacts with the virtual world. This is where the gameplay, level design, and all that stuff comes in. Then how the output or feedback interacts with the player. Is it visually? Auditory? Some kind of tactile feedback? I don't honestly know how it would be pulled off. Perhaps some new technology or way of presenting gameplay.

I guess where I lose it is that paintings are visual. They're physical. Music is physical. It's radiation and vibrating gas. Interactivity isn't physical. It's a concept, an idea. It's not somethign that you experience, it is the experience.

[Vari]

Caw, can you give us an example of a game that you consider to be art? Since you've really put a lot of thought on the subject i was wondering about your personal opinion. Is there such game?

[Goog]

CaW:

You are getting close to the core of the experience of the video game by focusing on interactivity, but you are not all the way there.

The most important element of the definition of the video game is the fact that it is a formal system, of which, the player is just a part.

So, when Mute opines that, "The highest example of art in a Video games could be visual, auditory and interactive all at the same time." - this is not necessarily true. Games are all about the player's understanding of his relationship with a system, of which visual elements may or may not play a part. The same goes for auditory, although interactivity is a different matter altogether.

So basically, if you are trying to discover the aesthetic of the video game, I would highly suggest looking a bit further past interactivity to the system itself. Don't get me wrong though, the possible methods of interaction do play an extremely important part in shaping the player's understanding of his relationship to a system. But they only play a part.

This also leads me to Kev's charge that the biggest issue facing games is 'aesthetic distance'. I don't think that when a player is playing a game he is necessarily immersed in a 'faux experience'. Rather, he is actively trying to learn about and perform in a constructed system. I think that games that are designed with 'immersion' in mind will only be able to grab an audience that is more able to (by virtue of biological ability) to immerse themselves in a constructed system. This would inherently lead to a problem of aesthetic distance. But there are, I think, alternative methods of design which circumvent this problem, namely those which focus on the player's understanding of his relationship to the system. (I say that last part a lot don't I :P.)

[s.ketch]

Caw, can you give us an example of a game that you consider to be art? Since you've really put a lot of thought on the subject i was wondering about your personal opinion. Is there such game?

There isn't one. There are very high-quality games, fun games, engrossing games. I certainly have a list of favorite games, but I don't consider them to truly be art.

One game that has made a step in the right direction towards art is Half-Life(2). Not so much for the story but because they removed cut scenes. I willing tolerate but don't prefer cut scenes because they're an unwitting attempt at emulating movies. I want to play a game, not feel like I'm watching a movie. So by removing cut scenes and having all events in the game happen in real time, is a nice advance.

Another push forward is games that teach their mechanics through level design instead of tool-tips. I think this is an undeveloped sign that messages and intent can indeed be communicated through the way the game unfolds. It would just be a really time consuming task to explore it further. How complex of a message could be depicted using how a character moves through the game. Could emotions be used?

What if you wanted to communicate how bored you are with daily life? So you create a level that begins in something that unconsciously resembles a bedroom. A normal sized room where the player stands on a raised platform in the middle. Maybe there are objects in this room that resemble pillows or teddy bears. Maybe the walls have a pattern like pajamas. Stuff like that. And then the game continues on, taking the player through your personal day BUT it's not overt. Your daily life converted into a story that's told through interaction. With the emotion of boredom layered in where possible.

But it's a fine line between attempted art and having a player walk through a series of clever set pieces. There has to be other properties to the game, some extra ingredient that makes it art.

[Chris Bennett]

Games and Art are different things. You might as well ask if it's possible for tennis to be music or if it's possible for music to be tennis.
However, the format in which computer games are played is certainly an area where art could happen. Take the 'game' bit out of the mix and then there opens up the possibility.
How?
The virtual environmental flux is the key area I would look at. Not in terms of making it pretty, but in terms of it being a 'shaping' experience aesthetically by virtue of moving through it.

[Understated]

Games and Art are different things. You might as well ask if it's possible for tennis to be music or if it's possible for music to be tennis.

I am actually in agreement with this sentiment, although I think you underestimate the intensity of the experiences that games can elicit. A game of tennis might possibly provide a similar experience as, say, a movie about a game of tennis. The two are not the same;one is art and the other is not. However, this does not negate the fact that games can create extremely profound and evocative experiences, which share an extremely similar resemblance to experiences that great artworks produce. I think the games as art issue devolves into semantics, at least in my mind.

edit: woops, this is Goog, I was logged in on a friends account.

[s.ketch]

The virtual environmental flux is the key area I would look at. Not in terms of making it pretty, but in terms of it being a 'shaping' experience aesthetically by virtue of moving through it.

That's pretty much my point. Whether game theory can still be implemented in this art experience, I don't know. Like I said, it doesn't exist and it would be a very different kind of game if it did.

Some video games aren't about point earning though. They're not about scores or accomplishment. Some just tell a story. Tennis may not be able to be art but story telling can and is. Literature, movies, music, and paintings all tell stories.

[Goog]

Some video games aren't about point earning though. They're not about scores or accomplishment. Some just tell a story. Tennis may not be able to be art but story telling can and is. Literature, movies, music, and paintings all tell stories.

It is impossible for a game to "tell a story" in the same sense that lit., movies, music and paintings do.

Instead of 'splaining it, I'm just going to recommend you read the following article: http://www.gamestudies.org/0101/eskelinen/

as well as this book: http://www.bogost.com/books/unit_operations.shtml

You seem interested enough in the subject to slog through them :).

[Pigeonkill]

"The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

I don't really understand this. I'm baffled that art had some narrow quota to fulfill to even be considered "art." What if someone created a game with only one person in mind to share with and not 100 people? Would it be considered more artsy? But once that vision is to appeal and be shared with more people...suddenly it's not art? Can't art multitask?

Videogames are a unique experience, no two people really play a like nor do they view a painting with the exact same meaning. Video games have a visual narrative that gives the audience an option to participate in...and like books it's only limitations is by the author who created it.

I agree with dpaint, that every age decides their art. I like to think that game/movie industry help trigger a renaissance. Just look at here or cghub, it's all jam packed with artist all around the world with interest in those fields.

[squidmonk3j]

What if you wanted to communicate how bored you are with daily life? So you create a level that begins in something that unconsciously resembles a bedroom. A normal sized room where the player stands on a raised platform in the middle. Maybe there are objects in this room that resemble pillows or teddy bears. Maybe the walls have a pattern like pajamas. Stuff like that. And then the game continues on, taking the player through your personal day BUT it's not overt. Your daily life converted into a story that's told through interaction. With the emotion of boredom layered in where possible.

But it's a fine line between attempted art and having a player walk through a series of clever set pieces. There has to be other properties to the game, some extra ingredient that makes it art.

http://www.molleindustria.org/everydaythesamedream/everydaythesamedream.html

[Ninjerk]

If you can still get Deus Ex at Gamestop, you can get art at Gamestop.

[Pigeonkill]

Roger Ebert said Video games can never be art?

I wonder what Ebert would feel about series of blank canvas, pickled feces, and a hanging toilet. It just seems the standards for some are very open and lax where's for video games to be consider art are highly scrutinized and almost a double standard.

It also begs the question if video games aren't art. Why are artist needed to help create them?

"She begins by saying video games "already ARE art." Yet she concedes that I was correct when I wrote, "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, but my point is clear. -Ebert"

To be fair, game development is still in its infancy. It hasn't even be around for hundreds of years like music, literature, painting, and drawing.

I believe that was once a yahoo article that mention more people in the world recognize icons of Pacman and Mario than portraits of Jesus and the holy cross. Talk about great character development and design.


Just my two cents...

[Anid Maro]

Not saying either or because I'm unsure myself, however I have to ask:

Why is it that something having art in it means that it is art?

Magazines have art in them (e.g. Saturday Evening Post and Rockwell) but are not themselves art.

Similarly, a video game has art but I don't see how that makes the video game itself art.

[Pigeonkill]

Not saying either or because I'm unsure myself, however I have to ask:

Why is it that something having art in it means that it is art?

Magazines have art in them (e.g. Saturday Evening Post and Rockwell) but are not themselves art.

Similarly, a video game has art but I don't see how that makes the video game itself art.

I'm not too sure myself. A person can have the intention of creating art. Then viewers come along and not see it as such. A random object can be taken and suddenly be labeled art like the duchamp toilet.

I agree that I wouldn't categories magazines or video games as fine art simply because it had elements of paintings or photographs. Magazines would generally layout preexisting art(and just talk about it), where games would often times create unique art specifically for their narrative. There's a big difference. I think it would be more reasonable to say that magazines are graphic design and video games are along lines of multimedia...or keep things simple. "Game Art."

No biggie, its all just labels...

[s.ketch]

Not saying either or because I'm unsure myself, however I have to ask:

Why is it that something having art in it means that it is art?

Magazines have art in them (e.g. Saturday Evening Post and Rockwell) but are not themselves art.

Similarly, a video game has art but I don't see how that makes the video game itself art.

I don't know about anyone else but that definitely wasn't my argument. Actually, I would agree with that point entirely.