Siskel was cool, I could often agree with him. They were like good cop, bad cop (movie cops that is). Or guy with taste, and Howard the Duck in person. Off TV? Oh well, mine has ben off for years
I tend to agree with him, so what is your opinion?
Play ICO or Katamari Damacy on the PS2 and tell me games can't be art.
Of course they can.
QFT
I didn't read the entire thread but, yes games can be art. Art comes in many forms from movies and books, to physical or vocal interpretations like ballet or tai chi.
Personally, and I'm not alone here, I feel that BioShock was one of the most striking and poignant works of gaming art, everywhere from the style and story, to the voice acting and immersion.
Siskel was cool, I could often agree with him. They were like good cop, bad cop (movie cops that is). Or guy with taste, and Howard the Duck in person. Off TV? Oh well, mine has ben off for years
I actually like his reviews of movies.
The problem I see here is a man who has a long career of reviewing movies and looking at things a certain way. But down the pike comes a new medium and he just isn't set up "right" to appreciate it.
And this has always happened in art. Old school looking at the new upstarts and questioning that they know what they are doing. Part of that is that sometimes it seemingly invalidates what they stand for when in reality it is just adding to the lexicon of human creation.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Aercus I pretty much got the vocal disagreements that I expected, but my knowledge of art and classifactory disputes is fairly limited and I put faith in what an actual art expert contends. The follow up questions I'll pose though are: Why is it so important that games are classified as art? Does it really matter if games can't be classified as art?
If you expected vocal disagreements, it implies that you already know, somewhere in you, that games are art.
It is important to me for this to happen, because I want the global culture to progress with interactive storytelling as a form of art. If this cultural shift does not occur (read: people in general accepting that games and other interactive stories are art), then eventually the trend will dissipate and die, as it will retain no social significance. However, I think the odds of this happening are about zero. Eventually, games will be universally accepted as art, as they are by perhaps 20 percent of the population now. (Number made up.)
that is why it is important that this happens. But it is inevitable, so the argument is moot. It happens to emergent arts forms all the time (all the time when looking at history from a larger view).
I just love the discussion you others were having about our perception of art, and Ansel Adams. I love his work; I think he was the greatest artist of his generation.
It is very interesting to think of how the brain forms patterns and find meaning in things that objectively have none. I play the violin myself, and I have often found the methods and patterns interesting.
As we have mostly been saying, art is a subjective concept, and the thing here is that Ebert just does not get it. He never will. He is so entrenched, as Sovrath said, in his own medium and his own perception of things, that he cannot see a new medium as art. Many if not most art critics behave the same way. He may also feel threatened by a new medium that he does not understand. If people begin to think games are art, he may become less relevant. Of course, as I think someone else said, I almost never agree with his reviews, so there is that. Of course, most art critics tout shit as wonderful. (see below).
Many art critics denounce other mediums as lesser form of art, or as not art at all. It does not make them right. Now wordy, ridiculous post that fails to make a cogent point by any objective measure should sway anyone. You should not trust art critics, Aercus. They are almost invariably wrong.
What people say is "classic" is often ridiculous are just plain bad. People like to read too much into all forms of art, visual, storytelling, or musical. It is how they make a living, regardless of if it makes sense. This is how someone famous can sell terrible pieces of visual art for gobs of money, when someone with really beautiful art is ignored. It happens all the time. It is a measure of people functioning with a herd mentality, and art critics help guide that herd. Do not trust them. Make up your own mind. In the end, with art, that is the only one that will ever matter.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Here in indianapolis there used to be a statue of a male deer fucking a female deer on the outside lawn of a museum. It sat there for a couple years balls deep in missionary position before it was finally taken down for the next displays of new artwork. Truth be told you can really put a turd in a dress and call it art. Or you can make a lifelike model of 2 deers having sex missionary position and have it displayed outside of an art museum while people drive by and say things like holy shit.
What people say is "classic" is often ridiculous are just plain bad. People like to read too much into all forms of art, visual, storytelling, or musical. It is how they make a living, regardless of if it makes sense. This is how someone famous can sell terrible pieces of visual art for gobs of money, when someone with really beautiful art is ignored. It happens all the time. It is a measure of people functioning with a herd mentality, and art critics help guide that herd. Do not trust them. Make up your own mind. In the end, with art, that is the only one that will ever matter.
To that point, the pre-raphaelites were once considered avant garde and radical. they had a hard time getting recognition and their saving grace was that they had befriended a critic who championed their work. I think it was he who convinced a major public showing to include their work. Because no one took them seriously and most critics hated them.
However, if one were to view their work today one would not only see very "pretty" paintings but also one might see some of their work adopted by ultra romantics.
So something like this:
was considered avant garde.
Just goes to show you how things change over time.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I would say it's safe to say anything can be considered art in some sense by someone, but true art stands the test of time and is admired by many in the art community. I disagree with some of the definitions here, claiming art has to evoke emotion and affect the senses. Often people consider creative craftsman to be an artist, or some consider perfection an art. Again, it is a very broad term. So...from a community standpoint, yes you can say videogames are art. From a personal standpoint, I would say they are not as they don't stand the test of time visually, musically are mostly subpar, and scriptually are generally a poor-man's novel.
With that being said, I don't think Ebert has any experience in games and shouldn't comment on what he doesn't know. He isn't stupid, however, and knows comments like that will attract attention.
Siskel was cool, I could often agree with him. They were like good cop, bad cop (movie cops that is). Or guy with taste, and Howard the Duck in person. Off TV? Oh well, mine has ben off for years
I actually like his reviews of movies.
The problem I see here is a man who has a long career of reviewing movies and looking at things a certain way. But down the pike comes a new medium and he just isn't set up "right" to appreciate it.
And this has always happened in art. Old school looking at the new upstarts and questioning that they know what they are doing. Part of that is that sometimes it seemingly invalidates what they stand for when in reality it is just adding to the lexicon of human creation.
I don't think it's this. When he's saying things like "you win, therefor it isn't art"... It shows he has fell for his own myth, He seems to actually consider himself an authority on "what is" rather than a critic paid by news oganizations to review movies. It wouldn't be much different for someone who writes reviews for ign spouting off about what art is. They may not have the same name reconognition Ebert has, however their opinions and rambllings would be ridiculous to the same degree.
He's a scenster more or less, they specialize in saying ridiculous things.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Of course video games are art. Just consider the different elements that make them up.
Graphic design - 3D models, textures, drawings, level design, etc. All forms of art.
Soundtrack - Music = art. Voice acting = art.
Storyline = Script writing just like you would find in any movie. If books and movie scripts and other forms of written storytelling are art, so is the storytelling in video games.
In all the same ways that movies can be considered art, so too can video games.
Just pointing out none of these elemets have anything to do with the actual *game*. That's like saying "movies are art because they feature music and music is art."
Also, when Ebert says "art", he obviously means high art, not art in its most basic form (every bad hollywood flick is art in its most basic form). So, to be recognized as a real medium of art, a game would have to use the strengths of its medium to create a relevant statement/response/whatever in a way that's not possible with any other medium - something that truly expands what we already have. If a game has artsy music or not makes little difference in that regard.
My opinion is that games are not art, and its due to the fact that its a mass merchandise product with only focus creating profit for a corporation. I find games to be like a Hollywood blockbuster or Dan Brown novel - the main focus is not maximizing the artistic values but profits. It cannot possibly be art, though it may be kitsch.
The question I ask myself when faced with situation where something may or may not be art is: Would the creator sacrifice profits to increase the art value of the product? If he wouldn't, then it's not art.
As for why many gamers so desperately want games to be considered art I believe it is to make them feel better about their past time. At least I feel like a better person after having read The Process instead of a crime novel, but the latter is a lot more fun to do
A lot of people here keep praising games as art because of graphics; this is not entirely founded.
While graphics are an integral part of video games, they are precisely what give basis to people's arguments that games can never be art, because graphics are a response to the ever-changing culture/technology of the time. Since every few years new standards are defined, there is nothing timeless in this and so many people say that video games are not art. Graphics are the field of computer animation, whereas games themselves should be thought of as something different entirely.
It's confusing because games incorporate so many other art forms. Since you are building everything from scratch, a beautiful area or location in a game might be said to define the game as a work of art when really this is a work of great architecture, albeit digital architecture. It is good architecture, not necessarily games as art. Great character models or graphics are likewise good computer animation, again not games as art.
This is a thin line I'm walking, I know, because the way that a medium incorporates other art forms is indeed an art itself. Look at films and film scores/use of sound, music and their album covers, even photography and the bleaching/dying of film strips or editing in Photoshop. These are all examples of different art forms combining to create one concisive thing.
This is why in order to consider games as art we have to take away every other art form that games comprise; remove the graphics, remove the sound, remove the storytelling, and the one element we are left with that exists only in video games are the game mechanics themselves, and how well they seamlessly convince you of a different reality. What tricks is this game pulling to make you forget that you're holding a controller, to make you push all the mechanics to the back of your head and be able to react instinctively rather than in a planned out and coordinated fashion? Taking yourself out of the game world to assess yourself as a player, and what buttons you are about to push, are breaks in the immersion. Like a bad cut in film, or a missed note in music, this takes the viewer out of the moment and derails what the intention should be.
All of this is to create an experience for the viewer/player that is able to convince them of this world and its perils enough to impact them emotionally. While aspects such as good graphics and sound certainly help this along greatly, video games would not be able to achieve this without evolving what is inherent to the medium -- the game mechanics. You need to break down the wall between the player and the experience you are trying to convey, and make the methods of interaction between the game and the player as seamless as possible. This is where video games become art.
My opinion is that games are not art, and its due to the fact that its a mass merchandise product with only focus creating profit for a corporation. I find games to be like a Hollywood blockbuster or Dan Brown novel - the main focus is not maximizing the artistic values but profits. It cannot possibly be art, though it may be kitsch.
The question I ask myself when faced with situation where something may or may not be art is: Would the creator sacrifice profits to increase the art value of the product? If he wouldn't, then it's not art.
As for why many gamers so desperately want games to be considered art I believe it is to make them feel better about their past time. At least I feel like a better person after having read The Process instead of a crime novel, but the latter is a lot more fun to do
So you're saying that if something is made for mass merchandise is not art? That makes no sense.
Saying that there is no art in games today is offensive to thousand of great artists that work on this field.
Originally posted by Shiperzz Anyone who is under the impression that video games can't be art just hasn't played AoC. Seriously, play it in high quality and check out some of the armour and scenery. It really is a work of art.
I don't think they are talking about artwork when they say video games can't be art.
You can hang a picasso on a shack, that doesn't make the shack art.
Anyone who is under the impression that video games can't be art just hasn't played AoC. Seriously, play it in high quality and check out some of the armour and scenery. It really is a work of art.
I don't think they are talking about artwork when they say video games can't be art.
You can hang a picasso on a shack, that doesn't make the shack art.
So the creativity and imagination to create a painting is far more artsy than to create a scenery in 3d? Why a painting in the wall is called art but a landscape in 3d is not considered so?
Anyone who is under the impression that video games can't be art just hasn't played AoC. Seriously, play it in high quality and check out some of the armour and scenery. It really is a work of art.
I don't think they are talking about artwork when they say video games can't be art.
You can hang a picasso on a shack, that doesn't make the shack art.
So the creativity and imagination to create a painting is far more artsy than to create a scenery in 3d? Why a painting in the wall is called art but a landscape in 3d is not considered so?
Now this is a very, very good question actually. As each is very much art, yet two very distinctive styles of it. World creation in the 3D sense is as much a form of art as sculpting something from clay. As without an artistic vision you're not going to come up with much, you may have a basic shape or even a perfect human figure. The problem is it will be stiff and lifeless the expressionism is lost meaning the artform is lost.
It takes an artistic eye to create a visual representation of an object. Without an eye for it, there will be zero expression, without understanding what expressionism is you will not be creating pieces of art.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Anyone who is under the impression that video games can't be art just hasn't played AoC. Seriously, play it in high quality and check out some of the armour and scenery. It really is a work of art.
I don't think they are talking about artwork when they say video games can't be art.
You can hang a picasso on a shack, that doesn't make the shack art.
So the creativity and imagination to create a painting is far more artsy than to create a scenery in 3d? Why a painting in the wall is called art but a landscape in 3d is not considered so?
Now this is a very, very good question actually. As each is very much art, yet two very distinctive styles of it. World creation in the 3D sense is as much a form of art as sculpting something from clay. As without an artistic vision you're not going to come up with much, you may have a basic shape or even a perfect human figure. The problem is it will be stiff and lifeless the expressionism is lost meaning the artform is lost.
It takes an artistic eye to create a visual representation of an object. Without an eye for it, there will be zero expression, without understanding what expressionism is you will not be creating pieces of art.
...and without all that a game cannot be good enough to sell. So games today have no other way but to be artistic.
It is important to me for this to happen, because I want the global culture to progress with interactive storytelling as a form of art. If this cultural shift does not occur (read: people in general accepting that games and other interactive stories are art), then eventually the trend will dissipate and die, as it will retain no social significance. However, I think the odds of this happening are about zero. Eventually, games will be universally accepted as art, as they are by perhaps 20 percent of the population now. (Number made up.)
Hmm, I'm starting to suspect that I've missed out on some essential titles. What would be a good sample of interactive storytelling that qualifies as art (preferrably on the PC)?
Anyone who is under the impression that video games can't be art just hasn't played AoC. Seriously, play it in high quality and check out some of the armour and scenery. It really is a work of art.
I don't think they are talking about artwork when they say video games can't be art.
You can hang a picasso on a shack, that doesn't make the shack art.
So the creativity and imagination to create a painting is far more artsy than to create a scenery in 3d? Why a painting in the wall is called art but a landscape in 3d is not considered so?
Now this is a very, very good question actually. As each is very much art, yet two very distinctive styles of it. World creation in the 3D sense is as much a form of art as sculpting something from clay. As without an artistic vision you're not going to come up with much, you may have a basic shape or even a perfect human figure. The problem is it will be stiff and lifeless the expressionism is lost meaning the artform is lost.
It takes an artistic eye to create a visual representation of an object. Without an eye for it, there will be zero expression, without understanding what expressionism is you will not be creating pieces of art.
Though I do think people are getting caught up in the whole idea of being able to create renderings and textures and therefore it takes skill and therefore it is art.
Art is more about perception than anything else.
A few years ago at the Museum of Fine Arts here in boston there was a showing of classic cars.
Now there is art to their design but I'm not sure the makers were thinking "oh we are creating art". maybe they were, who knows.
But if you take a painting from Mondrian's later period, one might look at it and say "hey, it takes far more "artistic ability" to create a game world or a game avatar than that painting.
And as far as ability, sure! It takes much more ability to create a game world than to probably recreate one of Mondrian's later paintings. But Art is more than just the object. It is also the perception of the object. Piet Mondrian is considered a major 20th century painter. An Artist. So again it takes far more skill to create a game world, to render a realistic item than it would take to create this. But this is not about art of ability so much as art as an idea:
So is all game media art?
It seems that it's far more complex. I believe there is art and artistry in games. But one can also create such a thing and offer it as is without attaching the moniker of art.
Or, one can paint a square on a white canvas and say "it's art". So it seems to me that there might be some sort of unspoken collaboration in the event, in the offering of the work of art, when one considers wthether it is art.
If I make a chair and add some nice touches I might not consider it art. But someone else might look at it and say "heck, it's art!".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Dubhlaith It is important to me for this to happen, because I want the global culture to progress with interactive storytelling as a form of art. If this cultural shift does not occur (read: people in general accepting that games and other interactive stories are art), then eventually the trend will dissipate and die, as it will retain no social significance. However, I think the odds of this happening are about zero. Eventually, games will be universally accepted as art, as they are by perhaps 20 percent of the population now. (Number made up.)
Hmm, I'm starting to suspect that I've missed out on some essential titles. What would be a good sample of interactive storytelling that qualifies as art (preferrably on the PC)?
I think I mentioned two big ones in this thread, The Longest Journey and Dreamfall. Both amazing examples. Myst and company, of course. Braid is a more recent one that you can even get on Steam if you are so inclined. For the Xbox360 the top example right now might be Eternal Sonata, for me. Most of the Final Fantasy games are artistic in places, but fall short of the measure I would use to call them really artistic in sum. Bioware does a god job with their games. The campaigns they made for Neverwinter Nights might qualify. Both Portal and Half Life 1 and 2, though those last two have a great deal of real nitty-gritty gameplay amongst artistic elements, which I think only enhances the experience. Perhaps the first Black & White, though it was remarkably silly for my tastes in places, I think there is certainly an artistic element to it. Fable, perhaps, in some way. The Thief games do a great job with light and shadow (a common exploration in high art), and their explorations of morality are also interesting. Prince of Persia, the Sands of Time, certainly, in many ways. Maybe the Civilization games, for their elegance of balance and design.
But what I think is the best example of what I think the highest form of art for a game can be, the construction of a real and believable artificial world (as an aside, these are the books, I like the most, mostly high fantasy, that endeavour to create a vibrant world that feels real), is Bethesda Softworks' Morrowind (to a lesser degree, though in some ways this is debatable, Oblivion). It creates not only an interesting world to explore, it creates a rich and engrossing story as a backdrop for your character, and the story itself is as good as many novels. It has a musical score that on its own would be regarded as art. For the technology used to create it, the art is magnificent. Beyond that, the art direction makes "graphics" a useless term, as even now, I can load the game and believe that world, and it is still a beautiful place to me. It has a rich and full mythology, with a history to compliment it.
That is what I think "High Art" for games will become in the next decades. The entire package transports me to a different world, and it is a world I can believe in. In this case, it is single player, and I am a legendary hero meant to save the world, but I believe that MMOs will, after the current doldrums we are seeing now, will go in this direction. We will see full and rich worlds complete with histories and mythologies, with music that transports you. We will see worlds that really take you to another place.
At least, that is what I hope.
Nevertheless, you it couldn't hurt to check any of those games out. If nothing else, Morrowind, The Longest Journey, Oblivion, Portal, Dreamfall, Myst (and sequels), Braid, Eternal Sonata, Neverwinter Nights, and Half Life (and 2) are absolute must-plays for anyone who is contemplating the content of this thread seriously. The games in this paragraph are listed in order of my estimation of them as an artform, and not necessarily in the order of how much I enjoy playing them. Though it seems to be close. Maybe that says something.
Edit:
I wanted to add the Pkmn (Pokemon?) Knight, makes a very important point, I think. Regardless of the things I may have said, if the game is not fun to play in itself, I doubt it should be called art. And it should make you feel. It needs to pull at your heartstrings, as I think any good art should.
As Knight said, it is about "having to think, having to feel something." I think you put it more succinctly than any of us. That is what all art should do. Make you think, make you feel.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
Comments
Siskel was cool, I could often agree with him. They were like good cop, bad cop (movie cops that is). Or guy with taste, and Howard the Duck in person. Off TV? Oh well, mine has ben off for years
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.
QFT
I didn't read the entire thread but, yes games can be art. Art comes in many forms from movies and books, to physical or vocal interpretations like ballet or tai chi.
Personally, and I'm not alone here, I feel that BioShock was one of the most striking and poignant works of gaming art, everywhere from the style and story, to the voice acting and immersion.
Ive seen valley of the dolls .....
well some of it ....
it wasn't exactly what i'd call entertaining, and I've watched a lot of films over my 44 years.
The world will be a better place when he's gone, may it happen soon.
I actually like his reviews of movies.
The problem I see here is a man who has a long career of reviewing movies and looking at things a certain way. But down the pike comes a new medium and he just isn't set up "right" to appreciate it.
And this has always happened in art. Old school looking at the new upstarts and questioning that they know what they are doing. Part of that is that sometimes it seemingly invalidates what they stand for when in reality it is just adding to the lexicon of human creation.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Next time he's giving a thumbs up he can shove it up his ass.
If you expected vocal disagreements, it implies that you already know, somewhere in you, that games are art.
It is important to me for this to happen, because I want the global culture to progress with interactive storytelling as a form of art. If this cultural shift does not occur (read: people in general accepting that games and other interactive stories are art), then eventually the trend will dissipate and die, as it will retain no social significance. However, I think the odds of this happening are about zero. Eventually, games will be universally accepted as art, as they are by perhaps 20 percent of the population now. (Number made up.)
that is why it is important that this happens. But it is inevitable, so the argument is moot. It happens to emergent arts forms all the time (all the time when looking at history from a larger view).
I just love the discussion you others were having about our perception of art, and Ansel Adams. I love his work; I think he was the greatest artist of his generation.
It is very interesting to think of how the brain forms patterns and find meaning in things that objectively have none. I play the violin myself, and I have often found the methods and patterns interesting.
As we have mostly been saying, art is a subjective concept, and the thing here is that Ebert just does not get it. He never will. He is so entrenched, as Sovrath said, in his own medium and his own perception of things, that he cannot see a new medium as art. Many if not most art critics behave the same way. He may also feel threatened by a new medium that he does not understand. If people begin to think games are art, he may become less relevant. Of course, as I think someone else said, I almost never agree with his reviews, so there is that. Of course, most art critics tout shit as wonderful. (see below).
Many art critics denounce other mediums as lesser form of art, or as not art at all. It does not make them right. Now wordy, ridiculous post that fails to make a cogent point by any objective measure should sway anyone. You should not trust art critics, Aercus. They are almost invariably wrong.
What people say is "classic" is often ridiculous are just plain bad. People like to read too much into all forms of art, visual, storytelling, or musical. It is how they make a living, regardless of if it makes sense. This is how someone famous can sell terrible pieces of visual art for gobs of money, when someone with really beautiful art is ignored. It happens all the time. It is a measure of people functioning with a herd mentality, and art critics help guide that herd. Do not trust them. Make up your own mind. In the end, with art, that is the only one that will ever matter.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
Here in indianapolis there used to be a statue of a male deer fucking a female deer on the outside lawn of a museum. It sat there for a couple years balls deep in missionary position before it was finally taken down for the next displays of new artwork. Truth be told you can really put a turd in a dress and call it art. Or you can make a lifelike model of 2 deers having sex missionary position and have it displayed outside of an art museum while people drive by and say things like holy shit.
To that point, the pre-raphaelites were once considered avant garde and radical. they had a hard time getting recognition and their saving grace was that they had befriended a critic who championed their work. I think it was he who convinced a major public showing to include their work. Because no one took them seriously and most critics hated them.
However, if one were to view their work today one would not only see very "pretty" paintings but also one might see some of their work adopted by ultra romantics.
So something like this:
was considered avant garde.
Just goes to show you how things change over time.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I would say it's safe to say anything can be considered art in some sense by someone, but true art stands the test of time and is admired by many in the art community. I disagree with some of the definitions here, claiming art has to evoke emotion and affect the senses. Often people consider creative craftsman to be an artist, or some consider perfection an art. Again, it is a very broad term. So...from a community standpoint, yes you can say videogames are art. From a personal standpoint, I would say they are not as they don't stand the test of time visually, musically are mostly subpar, and scriptually are generally a poor-man's novel.
With that being said, I don't think Ebert has any experience in games and shouldn't comment on what he doesn't know. He isn't stupid, however, and knows comments like that will attract attention.
I don't think it's this. When he's saying things like "you win, therefor it isn't art"... It shows he has fell for his own myth, He seems to actually consider himself an authority on "what is" rather than a critic paid by news oganizations to review movies. It wouldn't be much different for someone who writes reviews for ign spouting off about what art is. They may not have the same name reconognition Ebert has, however their opinions and rambllings would be ridiculous to the same degree.
He's a scenster more or less, they specialize in saying ridiculous things.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Just pointing out none of these elemets have anything to do with the actual *game*. That's like saying "movies are art because they feature music and music is art."
Also, when Ebert says "art", he obviously means high art, not art in its most basic form (every bad hollywood flick is art in its most basic form). So, to be recognized as a real medium of art, a game would have to use the strengths of its medium to create a relevant statement/response/whatever in a way that's not possible with any other medium - something that truly expands what we already have. If a game has artsy music or not makes little difference in that regard.
Hype train -> Reality
My opinion is that games are not art, and its due to the fact that its a mass merchandise product with only focus creating profit for a corporation. I find games to be like a Hollywood blockbuster or Dan Brown novel - the main focus is not maximizing the artistic values but profits. It cannot possibly be art, though it may be kitsch.
The question I ask myself when faced with situation where something may or may not be art is: Would the creator sacrifice profits to increase the art value of the product? If he wouldn't, then it's not art.
As for why many gamers so desperately want games to be considered art I believe it is to make them feel better about their past time. At least I feel like a better person after having read The Process instead of a crime novel, but the latter is a lot more fun to do
I just saw this thread on the homepage so dived in. Haven't read the whole thread.
My two cents: Some games can be considered art. Most can not.
Now-a-days comercial studios just churn out bad games aimed at a mass market of easy to satisfy 12yo Halo fan bois.
http://www.demruth.com/hazard.htm
http://thatgamecompany.com/games/flower/
A lot of people here keep praising games as art because of graphics; this is not entirely founded.
While graphics are an integral part of video games, they are precisely what give basis to people's arguments that games can never be art, because graphics are a response to the ever-changing culture/technology of the time. Since every few years new standards are defined, there is nothing timeless in this and so many people say that video games are not art. Graphics are the field of computer animation, whereas games themselves should be thought of as something different entirely.
It's confusing because games incorporate so many other art forms. Since you are building everything from scratch, a beautiful area or location in a game might be said to define the game as a work of art when really this is a work of great architecture, albeit digital architecture. It is good architecture, not necessarily games as art. Great character models or graphics are likewise good computer animation, again not games as art.
This is a thin line I'm walking, I know, because the way that a medium incorporates other art forms is indeed an art itself. Look at films and film scores/use of sound, music and their album covers, even photography and the bleaching/dying of film strips or editing in Photoshop. These are all examples of different art forms combining to create one concisive thing.
This is why in order to consider games as art we have to take away every other art form that games comprise; remove the graphics, remove the sound, remove the storytelling, and the one element we are left with that exists only in video games are the game mechanics themselves, and how well they seamlessly convince you of a different reality. What tricks is this game pulling to make you forget that you're holding a controller, to make you push all the mechanics to the back of your head and be able to react instinctively rather than in a planned out and coordinated fashion? Taking yourself out of the game world to assess yourself as a player, and what buttons you are about to push, are breaks in the immersion. Like a bad cut in film, or a missed note in music, this takes the viewer out of the moment and derails what the intention should be.
All of this is to create an experience for the viewer/player that is able to convince them of this world and its perils enough to impact them emotionally. While aspects such as good graphics and sound certainly help this along greatly, video games would not be able to achieve this without evolving what is inherent to the medium -- the game mechanics. You need to break down the wall between the player and the experience you are trying to convey, and make the methods of interaction between the game and the player as seamless as possible. This is where video games become art.
Does it really make a difference wether we call our games "art" or not?
They are fun anyways...
So you're saying that if something is made for mass merchandise is not art? That makes no sense.
Saying that there is no art in games today is offensive to thousand of great artists that work on this field.
I don't think they are talking about artwork when they say video games can't be art.
You can hang a picasso on a shack, that doesn't make the shack art.
Well shave my back and call me an elf! -- Oghren
So the creativity and imagination to create a painting is far more artsy than to create a scenery in 3d? Why a painting in the wall is called art but a landscape in 3d is not considered so?
Play the game Shadow of the Colossus and tell me video games can't be art.
Now this is a very, very good question actually. As each is very much art, yet two very distinctive styles of it. World creation in the 3D sense is as much a form of art as sculpting something from clay. As without an artistic vision you're not going to come up with much, you may have a basic shape or even a perfect human figure. The problem is it will be stiff and lifeless the expressionism is lost meaning the artform is lost.
It takes an artistic eye to create a visual representation of an object. Without an eye for it, there will be zero expression, without understanding what expressionism is you will not be creating pieces of art.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
...and without all that a game cannot be good enough to sell. So games today have no other way but to be artistic.
Hmm, I'm starting to suspect that I've missed out on some essential titles. What would be a good sample of interactive storytelling that qualifies as art (preferrably on the PC)?
Though I do think people are getting caught up in the whole idea of being able to create renderings and textures and therefore it takes skill and therefore it is art.
Art is more about perception than anything else.
A few years ago at the Museum of Fine Arts here in boston there was a showing of classic cars.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8IzjN50ZkM&NR=1
Now there is art to their design but I'm not sure the makers were thinking "oh we are creating art". maybe they were, who knows.
But if you take a painting from Mondrian's later period, one might look at it and say "hey, it takes far more "artistic ability" to create a game world or a game avatar than that painting.
And as far as ability, sure! It takes much more ability to create a game world than to probably recreate one of Mondrian's later paintings. But Art is more than just the object. It is also the perception of the object. Piet Mondrian is considered a major 20th century painter. An Artist. So again it takes far more skill to create a game world, to render a realistic item than it would take to create this. But this is not about art of ability so much as art as an idea:
So is all game media art?
It seems that it's far more complex. I believe there is art and artistry in games. But one can also create such a thing and offer it as is without attaching the moniker of art.
Or, one can paint a square on a white canvas and say "it's art". So it seems to me that there might be some sort of unspoken collaboration in the event, in the offering of the work of art, when one considers wthether it is art.
If I make a chair and add some nice touches I might not consider it art. But someone else might look at it and say "heck, it's art!".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I consider Portal and Hazard: The Journey Of Completion Video Game art.
They may not have the best graphics, music or whatever.
But I think the interactivity is art. Having to think, having to feel something.
Having to burn your companion. How did that make you feel? And then Hazard which isn't out yet but sports no combat, just creativity and knowledge
Video Game art is when a video game may not look or sound the best, but the gameplay is classic and makes you feel.
In My Opinion of course.
I think I mentioned two big ones in this thread, The Longest Journey and Dreamfall. Both amazing examples. Myst and company, of course. Braid is a more recent one that you can even get on Steam if you are so inclined. For the Xbox360 the top example right now might be Eternal Sonata, for me. Most of the Final Fantasy games are artistic in places, but fall short of the measure I would use to call them really artistic in sum. Bioware does a god job with their games. The campaigns they made for Neverwinter Nights might qualify. Both Portal and Half Life 1 and 2, though those last two have a great deal of real nitty-gritty gameplay amongst artistic elements, which I think only enhances the experience. Perhaps the first Black & White, though it was remarkably silly for my tastes in places, I think there is certainly an artistic element to it. Fable, perhaps, in some way. The Thief games do a great job with light and shadow (a common exploration in high art), and their explorations of morality are also interesting. Prince of Persia, the Sands of Time, certainly, in many ways. Maybe the Civilization games, for their elegance of balance and design.
But what I think is the best example of what I think the highest form of art for a game can be, the construction of a real and believable artificial world (as an aside, these are the books, I like the most, mostly high fantasy, that endeavour to create a vibrant world that feels real), is Bethesda Softworks' Morrowind (to a lesser degree, though in some ways this is debatable, Oblivion). It creates not only an interesting world to explore, it creates a rich and engrossing story as a backdrop for your character, and the story itself is as good as many novels. It has a musical score that on its own would be regarded as art. For the technology used to create it, the art is magnificent. Beyond that, the art direction makes "graphics" a useless term, as even now, I can load the game and believe that world, and it is still a beautiful place to me. It has a rich and full mythology, with a history to compliment it.
That is what I think "High Art" for games will become in the next decades. The entire package transports me to a different world, and it is a world I can believe in. In this case, it is single player, and I am a legendary hero meant to save the world, but I believe that MMOs will, after the current doldrums we are seeing now, will go in this direction. We will see full and rich worlds complete with histories and mythologies, with music that transports you. We will see worlds that really take you to another place.
At least, that is what I hope.
Nevertheless, you it couldn't hurt to check any of those games out. If nothing else, Morrowind, The Longest Journey, Oblivion, Portal, Dreamfall, Myst (and sequels), Braid, Eternal Sonata, Neverwinter Nights, and Half Life (and 2) are absolute must-plays for anyone who is contemplating the content of this thread seriously. The games in this paragraph are listed in order of my estimation of them as an artform, and not necessarily in the order of how much I enjoy playing them. Though it seems to be close. Maybe that says something.
Edit:
I wanted to add the Pkmn (Pokemon?) Knight, makes a very important point, I think. Regardless of the things I may have said, if the game is not fun to play in itself, I doubt it should be called art. And it should make you feel. It needs to pull at your heartstrings, as I think any good art should.
As Knight said, it is about "having to think, having to feel something." I think you put it more succinctly than any of us. That is what all art should do. Make you think, make you feel.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?