Can A Video Game Be Art?

Sword and Sorcery is a prime example for an 'artistic' piece of game design. Every designer ever is always trying to create an emotional piece of art, whether it be a torch to go on the wall, a hut in the background or a character. As a designer you are always trying to convey feelings and meanings.

 

That's like looking at a thread about Team Edward vs Team Jacob on a teen girl site and concluding "See, there is no academic foundation for literature at all." The "academic foundation" you're talking about is found in academic settings, like, say, academies. Not on teen magazine sites. Would you judge the academic content of photography by looking at 4chan? I'd hope not. Why don't you discuss the academic foundations that you continually keep pretending don't exist, like the video game exhibits at MOMA and the Lourve, or all of the game art classes at worldwide universtities, or all of the game art by modern artists of today being showcased around the world in museums? Instead you keep pretending that your neighbor's kid playing Halo is the only person talking about video games. Game art does not revolve around the same two or three themes, and if you're talking about how popular conversation is on a topic, then pretty much every "classic" form of fine art would be disqualified because comparatively speaking, almost no one gives a crap about fine art. Whether you are judging via the popularity of a topic of conversation or the art critic world, games still win out against most older forms of arts. They're both the major new medium of today's generation's entertainment, and (because of that) a focus of many artists and critics in the art world.

As I said in my later post, if you insist that any sort of goal that the player strives towards stops games from being art, then there's no way to actually make a "better" game. Having a goal is part of the definition of a "game". Saying that goals distract from the art of a game is like saying that sound distracts from the art of a song and that music should instead just focus on visuals.

My point is that what you claim to want games to be like is not a thing that can actually exist; you're setting up logically impossible definitions to try to "prove" that games can't be art. Like demanding deep interaction and multiple layers of exploration while simultaneously claiming that interaction and exploration disqualify it from being art because they are "distracting" from the surface visual presentation.

What quote? The thing I posted in quotes about physical interaction was a direct copy and paste from your post. And no, dancing does not necessarily burn more calories than playing Dance Dance Revolution or Wii Fit. Your original sentence, which was talking about looking at paintings or dance, especially doesn't make any sense. If you're talking about the amount of effort that the artist puts into a painting and judging it for how many calories he burns, then you'd have to compare it to the total number of calories burned for the development team that made the game, not a person playing it. And I'm pretty sure neither Goethe nor anyone else in the art world ever claimed that the number of calories burned determines what is or is not art.

If it can exist, give me an example. How do you have a game with the power to purposefully stop any observer from wanting to explore it beyond its surface presentation, while simultaneously rewarding those who explore deeper?

Because, as I said, you're working backwards from your goal of "proving" that you're right and the art world is wrong by trying to make up some definition that disqualifies games as art without accidentally disqualifying all other forms of art. That's why you keep changing your mind and why you keep saying that the things you define in each previous post are "not what you meant" and are "out of context". It's why you are taking a perfectly clear paragraph about you saying Goethe's definition means the observer disqualifies art because of his desire to possess or buy the art, and saying that actually you were talking about the artist's intent to make money, despite never having brought that up at all and it running absolutely contrary to everything you said.

And yet every time someone showed you a game that challenged the mind, you insisted that your mind was so advanced that the game was not a challenge (despite the fact that you clearly haven't played any of those games), and every time someone showed you different visual styles (in your other thread, people pointed out such examples as impressionist, minimalist, cel-shaded, shadowplay, and abstract), you refused to acknowledge all of them, saying they all count as "airbrush". Certainly you will now say that when you say "airbrush-stylized" it has nothing to do with airbrushes or being stylized, and that I'm just too stupid to understand the context, and that clearly when you say "airbrush-stylized" you're actually talking about how the game has points that you have to score. Either way, disliking airbrushing or points has nothing to do with attempting to construct a definition of art that says it must contain multiple choices for interaction at plot points without acknowledging that pretty much every other medium has no interactivity or multiple choice at all. You keep insisting that looking at the Mona Lisa is "deeply interactive" but simply saying that doesn't mean it is. The definition of interactive means you can change the object by interacting with it, and if you are using the word to mean something else, then I can't see how you can insist that looking at the Mona Lisa is interactive but looking at an 8-bit pixelized Mona Lisa is not.

 

What is ART?

 

Or in the games themselves, where I'm missing it and where it matters the most.

And yet many people still don't take them seriously. That they're already somewhat superior is just your usual mantra.

You still refuse to accept that a game doesn't need all these props to be a work of art in its own right, so I'll just recommend we wait until such a game comes out. I stand corrected if there won't be such games.

Well, I'm not sure what else to say to clarify my post, other than that the surface of a game doesn't have to be superficial. I see no contradiction there. Renaissance paintings have countless allusions as well, few of which we are still able to grasp.

This:

And again you're asking me so I can reply what you want to hear. That there isn't a pre-defined, trivial objective doesn't mean there's no purpose to explore the game at all, or no reward for exploring it. I for one find old paintings more interesting than anything Pixar ever did, although there's just "surface presentation". That you're so keen to ignore that just reinforces my argument, i've said this before. The current visual surface of games is uninteresting to me, yet I don't need games to be ultra-realistic like you suggested.

no it doesn't. It means art defines itself/is defined by the artist when it pleasures, yet causes no possessive interest. here, the art is active. it is not the observer's choice (ideally, one should love a work of art at first sight without feeling like having to masturbate anyway) and thus it's not contradicting what I said before that.

Game points?
Anyway, I just find these looks boring, predictable and repetitive, empty. Cel-Shading? Minimalist? Is that really all? You won't hear from me that you're stupid, I just think your respect for old art is underdeveloped. Maybe mine for current games is, too, but I doubt it. Where's the baroque, mannerist, new sobriety, surrealist, true avantgarde game?

 

Is art, art? What is art? these are merely words...

 

This doesn't make sense... where is the academic foundation "within" a painting or dance? If you can look at a painting and accept that its "academic foundation" is there because you've been told that the artist had academic training or because academic circles discuss the painting, then why can you not accept that a game has an "academic foundation" because the artist behind it has academic training and the game is discussed in academic circles? Do you mean that you would require all games to be self-referential and include meta-level academic treatises on themselves within themselves? That seems incredibly limiting, and forcing a work of art to include volumes of text explaining itself would defy almost every definition of art. Critique and discussion should exist outside of the piece of art, not embedded inside of it. Would the Mona Lisa really be better if Da Vinci had written all over the front of it explaining why he had used certain brush strokes and shading techniques?

Many people don't take anything seriously. The number of people who "don't take seriously" the works of someone like Jason Pollock vastly outnumber the number of people who don't take the visuals of, say, Assassin's Creed seriously. Abstract art like Pollock is such a joke to the majority that it's cliche; people constantly say things like that their dog could spray some paint on a piece of paper and call it art. People rarely say that their dog could make the artwork of Assassin's Creed. Yet I imagine you'd say that Pollock and expressionism in general is still "art" even though the vast popular opinion is that it's a joke. Is vast popularity among non-artists really a defining characteristic of art for you? If so, how do you justify calling obscure renaissance paintings sitting in a dusty museum "art"?

When "all of these props" is "a way to succeed or fail at some task" then yes, it's inherent in the definition of "game". I could put a rock in front of you and you'd be unable to "win" it, and I could say it's a game, but that would be twisting the definition. A game with no interactivity is not a game, just like a painting with no paint is not a painting. It might be a symphony or a dance, which is art, but it's not a painting. We don't need to "wait" for art that has no game-like properties to come out; it's all around us. But it is literally impossible for you to explain a "game" that purposefully avoids anything in your definition of the word "game". It's a logical and linguistic paradox.

The visual surface of an untouched game screen might not be "superficial" but it is, by definition, non-interactive. Having "an allusion" is not the same thing as being interactive. What would the difference be between a "film" and a "game" that does not let a player interact with it?

You had said that a controller can not be a part of art, that it is only a way to access the art, which stands in the way of the art. In the whole "tape a controller to a painting" post.

There is a vast difference between saying "Art can not have a trivial objective" and saying "Art can not have an objective". The second one is the one you were arguing for. If your only concern is "trivial" objectives, then I'd take issue with you claiming that games which offer hundreds of hours of differing objectives are "trivial". I could equally say that the Mona Lisa has a "trivial" amount of paint on it, or that Frost's poems have a "trivial" amount of words in them. What would you describe as a non-trivial objective? What is it that makes it non-trivial?

I'm not ignoring surface presentation; I'm saying that if you insist that something only have surface presentation, then it can't be a game. It would be a painting or a film. Games, be definition, have to be interactive, and that means that they can not just be paintings. If you say that anything other than surface visual presentation is "distracting" and stops a piece from being art, then you're saying that a game can only be art if it's a noninteractive painting.

Yes, it is contradicting it, but let's ignore that and go with this new definition then. You are saying that if an artist creates a work with the intention of imparting pleasure, then it's art, but if the artist creates a work with the intention of selling it, it is not art. If we go with that, then there are plenty of games that were designed without any intention of profit (look at all the freeware out there), and there are vast amounts of paintings and books that now would be disqualified. Artists throughout the centuries working with any medium usually sell their art; it's often a necessity depending on the economy one lives in. It's almost impossible to be a prolific artist without some kind of outside funding today. So there is nothing in this definition that makes games any different from any other medium.

No, as I said, you were shown several examples, none of which had any airbrushing, and none of which were hyper-realist. There are as many visual styles in games as there are in paint.

Wouldn't you just say that baroque and mannerist are "hyper-realistic" and the rest are "airbrush-stylized" though? The game "9: The Last Resort" is painted by Mark Ryden, a famous surrealist. Surely that makes it "truly" surrealist? If not, why not? Why is his work surrealist when it's on paper but "airbrush-stylized" when on screen? Games like Unfinished Swan and Okami seem pretty surrealist to me. Shadow of the Colossus's use of light and shadow is similar to many baroque paintings. Echo Chrome is based on Escher's work. As for "true avant-garde", the Duchamp toilet I mentioned earlier is often used as a prime example of the avant-garde movement, yet it would fail pretty much every definition you've tried to set up for what makes something art. I think there are plenty of games that capture the idea of avant-garde, but if you're trying to bolt "art" down to a pigeonholed definition that only allows renaissance painting and discards everything else as too distracting, then you're not leaving any room for the avant-garde.

 

I agree, and that's what I meant. From my experience your Da Vinci example is just what games tend to be like. Where are the games that say something new and profound about our society or about a field of science? It just surprises me a little that there's no polymath game developer yet. Academic foundation as I see it means that you can see the artist knows enough about a certain subject to let it play an essential role in his game, and I don't simply mean some Disneyland-understanding of architecture but something truly profound. Even when games are lacking this, where is the game that expresses the developer's feelings, similar to a Kafka story?

This isn't what I implied. Games simply aren't superior. You just claim that so you can feel comfortable. Have you, has any game designer ever painted something like the Last Supper or Nighthawks at the Diner (since you think I only favor Renaissance art)? Probably not. I know, you'll say you didn't like that painting anyway.

By "surface" I mean what you can see on the screen. I haven't denied anywhere that there should be no interaction at all. You still don't get it.

That controllers grant access to games doesn't say whether the game is art or not. It's the same if you wear 3d glasses while watching a movie. You again made up the opposite claim. I haven't said art mustn't require interaction. Still, interaction isn't a sufficient reason to say something is art or not. The Mona Lisa doesn't need a controller attached to it.

Anything that isn't profound.

And again you're lost in that dichotom way of thinking. You keep concluding that if one definition was valid, it would rule out anything else, like still being interested in selling it, and therefore be absurd. It's not that simple.

No.

Thanks, now this is an interesting one.

Dichotomy again.

 

Might I suggest google? Or perhaps actually looking at that wikipedia link I gave you? Wouldn't you think it would be stupid if you met someone who said "I've seen almost twenty photographs, and I can tell you now that photography is nothing but pictures of cats. Where are the photographs of something meaningful?" That's kind of what you sound like, as someone passing judgment on an entire medium without even having spent an iota of time trying to look for the things you claim to be looking for.

Superior to what? I don't think I've said they're superior to paintings; I think they are both good at different things. The same way I wouldn't say that poetry is superior to dance. They're different mediums.

Have they literally painted a painting like that? Yes, a few famous painters have also been game designers or game artists. See the links I gave you earlier. If you mean are there games with the same artistic merit as famous paintings, then I would say certainly. But you will never find them if you refuse to look, or if you automatically give up as soon as you see a "goal" or an "object" within the game. Complaining about those is like complaining that there are no good paintings because all paintings use paint, which is just cliche and predictable. Where are the painters who are able to produce a painting like Beethoven's 5th symphony?

You've said that the player can not be allowed to pick up objects and that he can not perform actions where he can succeed or fail. That really limits exactly how much interaction you can have, and, as I said, is basically a meaningless attempt to disqualify games simply for being games.

Well, now you're swinging back the other way. If you're agreeing that games don't need to have any interaction to be art, then you can't claim that you are disqualifying games from being art because they don't have enough interaction. That's my whole point; you can't argue both ways at the same time.

Way to dodge the question. So, any non-profound objective is automatically a non-trivial objective? Jumping on a mushroom isn't particularly profound, so does that qualify as a non-trivial objective?

That's rather my point. So, you are agreeing with me then, that all of your attempts to define art and disqualify games are absurd? You're agreeing with me that your presentation of these dichotomies in an attempt to show that painting is art and games are not because of various arbitrary rules and opinions are all absurd and meaningless? That perhaps games are "not that simple" and your previous posts where you try and label them as non-art are absurd? If so, then we're in agreement.

 

So explain to me, why aren't games considered their own artform in their own medium?

Or can art only be a solid frozen representation of something?

I would consider models art? Would you not? And Texturing and GUI elements are also not art?

I see games as a combination of artforms. Am I wrong?

May I also add the very DEFINITION of art?

Noun
1.The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture,...: "the art of the Renaissance"

Does game creation not take creative skill? Yes it does say typically a painting or sculpture, but do games no posses the same creative prowess? (Dependent on the game)

2.Works produced by such skill and imagination.

Ditto.

But then again this post will most likely be ignored, this is a 2 man show

 

Video games are very clearly a nonobjective form of art that can be comprised any number of more specific artforms, including both objective and nonobjective variations. Due to this nature, games can convey impactful meanings inspired by both past and present trends including post-postmodernism, thus revealing games as a form of metamodernism.

Some may argue that the "art" in games is clearly "art", but the gameplay is not. This argument is absolutely wrong if only for the fact that gameplay is simply another method of enhancing nonobjectivity - by not only making players feel involved in the creations, but by also intentionally enhancing their experiences and the interpretations they later share with other people.

Even tic-tac-toe can be considered art - you think they chose X's and O's by sheer chance? Every game in existence includes some aspect that is intended to make it appealing or appalling, thereby making it art. Russian roulette could easily be considered on of the most emotionally intense games in the world - but the mechanics are really just an unbalanced set of odds for determining the game over condition (don't play this game by the way).

 

but this is a difference between a simple game and art.

The bottom line remains that there are no such games.

Because there aren't any other things a player can do aside from suceeding and failing, is that what you're thinking?

What sentence led you to think that?

Because it's a dumb one you can easily answer yourself. And it distracts from the subject of the thread. You know what trivial means. Jumping on mushrooms is trivial, unless there's a deeper meaning to it. It depends on the respective context.

That arrogance, get rid of it. I know what your point is and I thought I ripped it apart fairly well. You don't accept that multiple arguments for art being art (or games being no art) can coexist without ruling similarities out.

 

I like this distinction, Hippo. It is clear and easy to understand. And, by that definition, Journey would not qualify as art. But, then again, neither would the Sistine Chapel and thousands of other things I think of as art. I wonder, if the distinction is not that one person created it, per say, but that one person held the entire vision of the product.

And when I think of Journey, I remember Chen's singular vision:

And then, I remember how I reacted when I played it:

And that feels like art. To me.

Gigi

 

To be art, a game can't let you pick up objects in the world? There are games like that. Pong comes to mind. So Pong is art?

There are a ton of games like that. Pong, space invaders, and asteroids all have worlds where you can not pick up objects. In fact, most older games had very limited interactivity and didn't allow you to pick up or move objects, so almost everything from the early 80's and before might therefore be high art. If you really want to abide by such a terrible definition of art, you could even look at Conway's Game of Life, which sounds like your ideal game: you can not interact with it at all once the game starts; you just watch it. This sounds like it would be the best possible game for your tastes. As I said, you have to actually go out there and look.

In a similar way that there is nothing you can put on a painting but paint, and that there's nothing you can write prose with but words. Having a game in a game is inherent to the definition of a game. It's not a limitation; it's the definition of the medium. There are a few "games" without any game aspect if that's really what you want, just like there are some "paintings" that are just blank canvases attempting to make a statement. But saying that a game can only be art if there is no game is as stupid and arrogant as saying that a painting can't be art unless there is no paint.

I can not answer it myself, as I'm asking your opinion of what is non-trivial. To me, any task that takes hundreds of hours of practice and dedication to master is non-trivial, but you said that every current game on the planet is a mere moment's distraction for your towering intellect, so I need some kind of example of what a genius at your level would consider a non-trivial goal.

Personally, I don't see how profundity makes something more trivial. I'm thinking maybe your grammar was just confused and you meant to say that profundity makes something less trivial, which at least kind of makes sense.

My arrogance? Oh sorry, I thought I was talking to someone who claimed that he was a superior judge of art to all of the greatest curators and museums of our time, and who disqualified an entire medium and thousands of prolific artists with pithy attempts at redefining art over and over again. The only thing you're "ripping apart" are your own previous posts, which is sort of funny, since you have to keep saying "I didn't mean what I said" every time I point one out. Now you seem to be saying that I'm the one who said the things in your previous posts which is confusing to say the least. I completely agree that trying to create a definition of art that purposefully excludes one medium by coming up with a list of silly rules is arrogant, but I'm not the one who did it.

 

Anyway, I think I'm done with this thread. I will close with some advice: before you judge and make sweeping derogatory statements about a group of people, do some research. Not just when speaking about artists, but when speaking of any group of people. Yes, even Justin Bieber fans.

 

Look! Art!

 

I agree. Ask my Quake 3 pro player if he considers the gameplay to be an artform. They will most certainty say it is at pro levels.

 

makeshiftwings has pointed out everything the I believe in the whole "Are games art?" debate better than I could. So often it comes down to people saying that games aren't art because they are comparing it to other art forms too closely. It comes down to such ridiculous points like (noting of course makeshiftwings used this to point out the ridiculous nature of this thinking):

I am sure that in the infancy of every new art form, there were people that didn't want to think of that new art form as art and so compared it too much to previous art forms. Movies can only look and sound like music. Music can only look and sound like paintings. etc etc etc.

Sure, each art form can learn things from other art forms but to restrict new art forms to only the kind of art that has come before only serves to stifle innovation and the advancement of all art forms.

 

Sculptors and painters weren't considered artists in ancient greece, it was only until later that their work was categorized as art. They really only appreciated language and it's uses artistic (it took them time to realize how difficult it actually is and the level of dedication and skill required).

Thinking that only Renaissance paintings are art, is narrow minded to say the least. To think that they alluded to some deeper meaning is also hypocritical, you don't know what the artist was trying to achieve. From what I have seen the main goal was realism, technique, use of light etc. Post one Renaissance painting, then explain what you see, let's see if it makes sense. Simply stating you see a deeper meaning is crap.

Pollock I agree I think I could do what he did, the idea though, that's a different story, I wouldn't. I respect that. Van Gogh was never a good painter, I love Starry Night though as much as the next person. I can see that his training wasn't what led to this painting, yet it is beautiful, should I dismiss it?
Picasso and Dahli, you can see some of their work and say, yeah right, he can't really draw people. It's only after you see that they could do normal things at the age of 7 that you understand that the work in front of you was done on purpose, to create the reaction it created. Should I think they are better than Renaissance painters?

Photography is capturing nature, some times enhancing it, should I not consider it art. Go to 1x.com and tell me this is not art.

Same goes for film.

Word you are simply trying to argue something by making up arbitrary rules, when it is shown that those rules would exclude a vast majority of what is considered art today you simply make up another rule. Finally you say: "it's not as simple as that" and this is why I guess makeshiftwings opinion is sounder, you see it's based on rational thought and in the end is clearer. If you can't understand what you think is art to you, why do you think you have the right to classify stuff as art in the first place? Simply alluding to some deeper meaning or understanding is not enough, you have to be able to defend an opinion with at least a hint of reason in order for it to be taken seriously.

 

Pong's sole objective is still to win. Same for your following answers.

Well, to me anything that serves a higher purpose is non-trivial. Games in their current form mostly serve to kill time.

Yeah, sorry about that.

The thread was solely my opinion although I didn't explicitly state so, it wasn't a claim by a 'superior judge'. Maybe you get that feeling so it was at least able to hit a nerve.

Wrong, think of Praxiteles and Phidias (I study archaeology, so yeah...). Art itself however, had usually other purposes. You'd be right about classic painters who used to work for the church until Dürer.

Which I am not doing, see the tons of other examples and names used here and in the other thread (Hopper, McCay, Goethe, Magritte...).

That won't help anything, since your definition of Renaissance is already hopelessly flawed. I could talk about a random Holbein painting, but you would just google it and find same stuff online, probably articulated better. Why don't you instead search Renaissane paintings and see if you can find a deeper meaning and if they fit your rather awkward, simplistic definition? There have been entire books written about paintings like The Ambassadors or Raphael's Transfiguration. I don't have to prove that they're deep, you have to prove that they aren't.

To make it easier for you, no, it's harmony and, according to the name, the rebirth of the antique spirit (by imititating or using the discoveries of greek artists for example), observing nature and idealizing it, NOT realism.

That's doubtful to say the least.

Firstly, he's named Dalí, secondly - again, I have made no such claim. In fact I've cited his friend Magritte as an influence who could very well inspire a game.

Well, maybe I make the mistake of assuming that all I know about paintings is common knowledge or already on the internet for you to access, so you don't need my help to prevent mistakes such as the ones above on your own, neither now nor when you're making a game.

 

All may be objective from the universes point of view but not from the critters that inhabit it, they have all kinds of biases that hinder that same POV. Science and religion have always shun the subjective, actually it's kind of taboo, as it opens up to an universal interface which doesn't mesh with the simplistic theories the establishment so far have constructed.

I like G.I. Gurdjieffs take on art:

So by that measure the objective artist would know the whys, hows and wherefores of himself, the user and the artworks purpose, representing something true about the universe and envoking precisely that impression in an objective way, even though the recipient may not be able to comprehend the intended depth of the artwork, the 'frequency' of the representation is still accurate.

I think Jonathan Blow with his 'Video Games and the Human Condition' talk and 'IndieCade 2011: Jonathan Blow Marc Ten Bosch' have some interesting perspectives on games and their artists approaching objective art, or creating orthogonal to truth as he says .

 

Just dropped in to say

On a more serious note.....

Can we not accept the fact that there are varying opinions on the matter, I see this thread going absolutely nowhere because overall, human stubbornness trumps everything

 

@Word: It doesn't work that way, just because you say you see a deeper meaning or you point to other people seeing a purpose doesn't make it so. You don't have an artist that says I was trying to convey a deeper meaning. Also technique, use of light and realism (painting old men isn't idealism) were the tools used to achieve what you call harmony.

Just because the painters decided to do research, embed symbols and tell a story which the user/viewer could try to recognize or interpret doesn't mean they are trying to make a profound statement.

It actually clashes with your problem with games.

If this was the actual intention of the painter - to make the viewer recognize, interpret and come to a realization - it makes it closer to a game than a painting.

In games - and other forms of art like film, music, photography etc.- the artist always tries to do things that maybe only his peers will understand or that an observant viewer will find out with multiple viewings or a listener will connect with other songs, films or media in general. This is not the artist focusing on making a profound statement - though it happens and it is a sign of megalomania - it's usually a "wink", a high five to the initiated audience member and peer.

Are you actually an artist?

Do you know what goes through the mind of a person writing a script or making a film?

I can tell you.

I can tell you what happens when you make a painting and when you sculpt as well.

All these hidden meanings you see, yep, they are the artist patting himself on the back, making himself feel smart about fitting puzzle pieces into his work, he isn't trying to be profound in a philosophical way, he is so comfortable with his abilities, it is a game to him .

The game or objective is to fit what the client or the artist wants to express into a single painting for example: How can i fit the circle of life in the painting while also, representing hell, earth and heaven. Just because you figured out his puzzle, doesn't make it profound.

Take the 'Creation of Adam' for example:
http://scienceblogs.com/bioephemera...954abf5fe1ae31ef7866873835-paluzzisistine.jpg
is this a deeper meaning or is it a shout-out, was it intentional, does it even make sense? If it does, is this now 'more art' or 'less art'. Does writing a book on this make it more legitimate?

Does the game you have in your signature allude to a previous work (Tron), is it a problem because it is obvious or if it was more subtle would it be a cue to your peers, a deeper meaning?

Let's say you have an element on a character in the game that pays homage in a subtle way to the original Tron movie, is that a deeper meaning? Now let's say the visor of the helmet when viewed from a certain angle turns into the polycount logo and a symbol on his chest can be seen as a ying-yang symbol or the characters are black/white with one element of the opposite color on them is that subtle enough, is the duality of good and evil art enough for you? Does the 'symbolism' make it more art? If it was simply a ying-yang symbol would it have more meaning or less?
Do you think that game designers, concept artist, modelers and texture artists don't think of these things? Does it lose meaning if it is cliche?

If you see the game as 'survival of the fittest', the 'arena' is 'life's stage' etc, is that a profound statement? You can chose to say so, but that doesn't mean that was the intention, nor is it truly profound. It's just your mind connecting things to produce a meaning, an ability that is largely responsible for our success as a species. You say I have a simplistic view on what you call a 'deeper meaning', I might, but this is only because I have been in the position to think about these things while actually doing art, I'm not guessing. Your deeper meaning sounds like you can 'see god' or something metaphysical in a painting. I'll let you in on a little secret: there is no such thing, it's just fiction and thus it falls into the category of referencing fiction.

Heaven, hell, god etc is just the fiction of the bible. The circle of life is observable. Math is usable. There is nothing profound or important or a higher meaning when you see these references.

If you want you can hold on to the opinion that what you consider art is some higher form of expression, that changes your life or whatever, that's what people say about god - I can't really describe my connection to god, I know he's there, he gives my life meaning, he changed my life around. This is all just the person's brain doing the work.

The reality of the matter is this: games are mostly a collection of what I know to be called applied art, not fine art.

The reason for this is simple: the goal is to make a game. The rest is supporting this goal.

In a game most elements have to support a function (this has to do with tech, money and time-frame too, idealism and harmony are goals, just not the main one).

Now you could make a game that would only focus on aesthetics, but that isn't the kind of art you are trying to achieve here. Aesthetics isn't the goal, game-play is, of course as in any other form of art (or expression as I like to call it) other forms of art are important and that's why we have the 'game-play vs graphics' debate.

You are saying that games aren't doing painting. Yes, films aren't doing dance, theater isn't doing photography and music isn't doing painting either.

Theater can be supported by music and dance, it can use photography to be promoted and lighting techniques to achieve a 'better result', but the art is theater. And so on and so forth.

Anyway after 'Journey' I see people that don't see the art in games as 'homophobes' or against 'interracial marriage': on the wrong side of HISTORY.

 

Best analogy ever

 

Really? I happen to think that certain video games are art, but to compare the debate of whether or not they qualify as art with two very important civil right struggles is a bit of a stretch.

 

Yeah, it is, but sometimes to make a point... anyway I think you get what I'm saying, it isn't profound or deep.

 

They even went so far that they idealized the wrinkles, so you're wrong there too, and the postures, face expressions and clothing drapes are structured as well. The whole composition and depiction follows a system regardless if the depicted person is old or not. It's idealism, period. Realism belongs in a different time.

Maybe that's the case for the post-80s generation of artists, but I'd strongly disagree you can speak for anyone else here. Take the skull anamorphosis from "The ambassadors" (see previous post). Would you really call that just a 'high five to the audience' instead of what it is, first and foremost a some kind of reminder of the spectator's and the portrayed people's perishability? Which leads us to your next thesis:

And again that's just a simplistic assumption, at it's core anti-intellectual since it's insulting to an artist who actually thinks about what he's doing, what message he wants to convey, and has no basis, and stands in stark contrast to most statements artists have ever made about the intention behind their works. Any Jacques Louis David painting of Napoleon is politically charged, so is every painting of Goya depicting the cruel sides of the spanish war. To ignore that and call it just a game is to consider these artists impotent.

I know there is something like easter eggs, but they're almost all self-referential or have no further aim aside from the discovery itself. "Oh, a Ying Yang symbol!" - now has it anything to do with the game if there is one? I dare say no. This is true for most real easter eggs, too, think of Arkham City ("oh look, there's Harvey Dent's old election office!"). The only interesting part is the scenario itself, a big mega-jail whose inmates are scheduled to be killed - and yet while you're playing it, you probably don't think of Nazi concentration camps or have thoughts like "civilized societies do also define themselves by how they deal with their criminals", you just want to get further and see Joker and the other villains. You don't really see any of the misery you'd see in a war. The Batman movies and comics, on the other hand, are loaded with symbolism and are very political, whether you like it or not (they aren't perfect either, but since I've used the example...). It doesn't provoke any new thoughts even if you take its biggest theme seriously.

 

You seem to arrogantly think all game developers are just brain dead, frat boys, masturbating to shiny new tech. An odd perception coming from someone who, himself, has developed a game...

Philosophers, idealists and deep thinkers are no less prevalent today than they were 500 years ago. I have studied countless religions, mythologies and philosophies. I'm fascinated by foreign cultures, and analyze connections between science and philosophy as a hobby. I also try to instill a great deal of these thoughts and images into all of my work (be it writing, art or game design), and I'm certain that I'm not the only one.

Our flagship title that we're currently working on, X-Shift, is a cyber noir MMO. You would most likely think that I saw Blade Runner once, emptied my drool cup, then proclaimed "I g'na make game!!"

In reality, there are countless messages being infused into the game. The music (even the titles of the tracks), building names, even the title of the game itself all have deeper meaning. The setting is a dystopian message about our world, and the centerpiece of the city is a building I'm designing as a monument to my mother, who was killed just weeks before my company was funded (which will act to raise awareness of distracted driving, as that is how she died).

So why don't you conclude that YOU do not make artistic games, but by no means have any authority to speak to the art of anyone else.

 

The purpose of my thread wasn't to put games or devs down but to improve them. I don't see game devs as brain dead, they just seem to lack a genuine interest in doing something else aside from reproducing their own work (yeah, you can condemn that, but I guess we've discussed this long enough now so it's a waste of time).

Um, ok, so I can't voice my opinion because it hurts your feelings...stubborn again.

 

That is precisely why its the best. The Internet personified.

 

Oh my god! I have no words. It's a reminder of people's "perishability"? That's all? So you think there is this guy there painting and he says:

"wow I have a brilliant and profound statement I want to make about the fact that we are all going to die, I'll put a skull here and that will communicate this in such a deep way"

Please. Is every skull a statement or is it just this one?

You are making all the assumptions, thinking there is something more, when there is no real evidence of this more. Of course when people live in certain times their works will be affected. Don't you think this happens today? When you are depicting war directly you aren't making a deeper more profound statement about war, you are depicting war ( Edit: Play Spec Ops: The line or at least read a review. This is on Goya).

Just because an image made you cry or 'hit you right in the feels' as they say today, doesn't mean it's somehow a higher form of art. I've seen serious movies and cried, I've seen animation and cried. I have heard songs that make me feel different feelings. I don't consider these re-actions profound or deep and I don't consider a picture that made me emotional a higher form of art. Because every medium has this potential, yes even games.

When I played the leader of a 4 man squad in a game and I couldn't save one of my team mates, by game design, I was emotionally charged, I tried 15 different times to change the outcome until I came to the realization that it was inevitable, that in order for us to continue he had to to sacrifice himself.
This is simply a fact of the game, all the emotion and 'meaning' I saw was most likely the intention of the designer (writer etc), but it doesn't mean it's profound or deep, it hits the right buttons by design, this doesn't make it any less though. I have felt awe, frustration, accomplishment, shock, fear and more through a game. Does this classify them as art in your eyes?

As artists this is something we strive for - some sort of re-action - but it's also up to the audience. If a painting hits your buttons, it doesn't make it 'more art', it might be higher in your eyes, the same goes for games, just because you can't appreciate, connect or live the experience in the same way you do a painting doesn't make it 'lesser art', it's just lower in your eyes.

I have two points - which are basically the same:

1) I don't consider triggering feelings or connections or any other form of re-action profound or deep. Shock is a re-action, strapping a dildo on fetus can be shocking. It's not profound. Showing war, death or whatever directly isn't subtle so I can't see how it could be deep. Basically I don't think art has to 'say anything' neither deep nor profound to be considered art. Triggering a re-action, emotion or connection also isn't essential, it helps, but it only adds value if you the audience get it. So dismissing on personal re-action isn't enough.

2) Just because you don't get it, doesn't mean it isn't art. That's what you will say if I say I don't get Pollock or some weird guy pouring milk on a woman or idealism in wrinkles. I might prefer hyper-realism, should I say that everything else is not art? It might be less of an art to you, but that doesn't mean it's not art in general.

I accept that there are forms of art I don't get, I don't classify them as non-art and I don't say they shouldn't be considered art in general, it's not up to me. Maybe you should do the same.

'human expression' is the broader term - I guess you can classify something as art based on your own views, but trying to define art for others is a bit patronizing, especially since all your personal definitions of art exclude many works of art.

So either you get it or you don't it's not up to a person to define art for others, this usually happens after years of friction with the new medium, after which the popular opinion is formed and is regarded as standard. As it happened with photography and film though, the likely path is that some day the status will be the same.

Saying that a whole category of human expression, which incorporates all other forms of art , is not art, well I think that's arrogant.

You calling thousands of matte painters, modelers, texture artists, sculptors, musicians, actors, technical artists, writers, game designers - even coders trying to pump out elegant solutions to complicated problems using Vectors in creative ways - impotent just because you think art is all about a deeper meaning is unjustified, since all the deeper meaning is unverifiable and mostly in your head. You call me out when I say that what you see as depth is not really deep and at the same time you dismiss all these attempts by game creators.


If you want to state something is true for everybody you need more than flimsy 'deeper meanings that only you understand' or 'profound statements about life and death that are actually you projecting'.

I'm not trying to force you to see games as art, but claiming the opposite sounds ridiculous to me and none of your claims has done anything to persuade me.

 

Also since you didn't address this at all in your post:

When making games, you are making games, game creation is the art. Script, graphics, music etc are all there to support your creation: the game.

In the same way you develop a movie or a play, the other forms of art are used to create a final movie or play.
In cinema photography isn't the art, that is an art on it's own.

Finally on the one person argument:

saying that art is created by one person excludes thousands upon thousands of what you consider traditional art. If you can live with that ok.

All throughout history artists had students who helped and did the the bulk of the work, in a sense the named artist was the director and the work of art was a team effort. Phidias didn't build huge statues and a whole temple full of reliefs on his own.
In games there is usually a person that drives the vision of the game, but as it's a bit arrogant to call him the artist, we might call him the director, in the same exact way a play or a film is made. Also it was common for artists to partner up, when they had chemistry.
When a programmer and an artist come together, that doesn't make it less of an art.

Anyway it's just too narrow minded, do we need to limit art by how many people were involved? Why?

 

Spec Ops: The line

Comments on youtube ( usually low quality ) but check this out:

"This game gave me shell-shock. I feel like a terrible person. "

"This game was amazing in my opinion. The ending not only usurps the character you play as, but yourself as well. I can't play a game the same way again without questioning how much I own up to and how much I can reasonably pin on the villain. And this goes beyond the game, for as this game teaches us, what is a villain but a psychological justification for one's actions? Without the villain, you own up, and break down. "

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spec_Ops:_The_Line

"The game was generally well received by critics. Multiple commentators observed similarities to Apocalypse Now, a Vietnam War-era adaptation of Heart of Darkness, in the game's feel and expression of inglorious war."

http://www.insidegamingdaily.com/2012/06/26/spec-ops-the-line-review/

" Some parts of the game seriously disturbed me, to the point that I had to put down the controller and walk away for a bit. I haven’t felt something like that since playing BioShock."

 

A skull put next to two rich men showing their wealth is (same for the cross hidden in the background), if it's addressed at a Christian, yet rich audience. Have you ever seen an interview with Warren Buffet or Donald Trump that was recorded while someone was fired and kept crying in the background? I don't know about you, but I think this is a rather sophisticated way of the artist to express his views.

What are you talking about now? That one can be emotionally charged? One can also be emotionally charged by getting married, becoming father etc., yet I don't rule out that one doesn't have to be emotionally charged by art, although it's not just art's job to do so. I'd go with Aristotle and say that to behave well, you already have to be a good person. Games should be setting free emotions, but they should also make the players reflect on themselves and other things, other people, in a rational way. And they always seem to achieve only one of the two, never both.

which is again omitting that I think games can become art one day, but aren't there yet.

No, just the final product isn't a work of art to me, even if artists were involved. If I was a well known artist and made a game with all the things I'm criticizing, I'd say that too.

Never claimed otherwise - that's why I didn't address it, that was Hippocoder. And didn't you say in Ancient Greece they didn't even have real self-confident artists? Nevermind. What I said was, games are usually a compromise, old art wasn't, even if done by a collective. Phidias didn't depend on operating systems or console specifications, just on his material, his tools and his talent. When he was unhappy with something, he could change it within the limits of material, his tools and his talent. He didn't have to ask his boss for permission and his students strictly followed his instructions. He did not have a marketing team that dictated him what would look good and what wouldn't, what pleases the Greeks the most etc. He did not have beta-testers or any PR, just himself. He had no pressure to sell his statues because there wasn't a corrupt art market or mass media that favor a certain kind of artists, neither was it easy to simply pirate or copy his work, people had to travel there. I know many of these things have advantages as well as disadvantages and I can't turn the wheel of time, but some simply do have a negative impact on the work itself - that's all I'm trying to make you comprehend here.

 

You say that Goya depicts war and that with my comment I was saying that he wasn't trying to convey something and thus I was insulting him. First Goya depicts war directly or the devastation directly, so it's not deep and second just because you saw it and you felt something doesn't mean that this should be the definition of art.

Now even if it was the definition for you, I'm informing you that games can and have done the same. So if you consider emotion a basic characteristic of art, you would have to see this is a sign I guess. Yet again though, even though the qualities you associate with what you consider art can be found in games you disregard them. Aristotle has nothing to do with this.

As for your new 'guide to games becoming art':

I point to 'Journey' and 'Spec Ops: The line'.

Do you want every game to make you reflect on your actions in order for it to be considered art? Does a painting of two rich guys make you reflect on anything? You pointed out a cross and Christianity in that painting and the other painting you linked to was religious, are you religious?

I don't want to derail the thread. but if you are religious I will end this here. I can explain why if you want to.

Yep this comment wasn't towards you. That's why I responded to it separately.

I didn't say they didn't have self-confident artists, what I said and this is true: is that initially sculptors and painters weren't considered artists, they were considered artisans. The main objection was that they had to use their hands, obviously at some point they realized it's not lesser art because you have to use tools and manual labor. It is expression of the mind and the tool is irrelevant.

Edit: to expand on your 'Napoleon paintings were politically charged', do you think that Call of Duty modern warfare isn't politically charged?

 

oh look... yet another redefinition of what would make them art.

<facepalm>

Note: koyima just posted several quotes of people stating that the games they've played did exactly this.

 

I have a GDD on a similar game, single player though.

 

And again it's not that simple, I was using Goya as an example for politically charged imagery, I didn't interprete one of his paintings to death. That I don't interprete every single painting now to prove just for you whether it's deep or not doesn't mean it's as dumb as you want it to be. For example, The Third May of 1808.

It's more than a painting of two rich guys. the artist mocks them, yet somehow admires them, and warns them. Yeah, it does make me reflect on quite a lot of things (class warfare, greed, personal freedom vs 'greater good'...), but this has nothing to do with the question whether I'm religious or not - I said before that I'm Catholic (and not the fanatic kind). Now what are you going to do, just ignore the Christian symbolism because you're an atheist? That'd just be unscientific. That the paintings I linked to happen to carry religious implications is due to the fact that we were talking about Renaissance paintings, it's hard to find something without it there.

I don't see how shooting zombies as Kennedy or Castro is making a political comment, or how simulating a situation that enables you to shoot Kennedy is more than a psychological experiment. It's certainly interesting, but all the conspiracy stuff seems to politically discharge it and make it harmless, just like Crysis is politically neutral (out of an earth-centristic view, if you will) once the aliens appear, there's a common enemy and that's all there is, and even if the lines between good and bad are blurred, it still has nothing to say about the real world situation because that of the game is different. At best it says something about how the developers think a country's soldiers behaved during a specific time, but little else.

 

The question about religion was to see if you are prone in looking for something more in general.

The painting you linked is just that a painting, you are the one who is attaching meaning to it beyond the image. Technically it isn't impressive. The theme is not something others haven't tackled before and after and yes, I have seen this imagery in games and better executed. I don't want to put down what you like, but to me it isn't as impressive as it is to you (or at least as you are making it out to be).

The same is true on the second painting: you are attaching meaning. The same issues you 'see' in this painting can be seen in Deus Ex: Human Revolution (as an example of recent high quality games tackling the issue). Actually the issues are tackled in a much more meaningful and fulfilling way than in the painting. You actually have a choice in affecting how the world will be shaped based on what you find out, what your current beliefs are and who you think it affects. The scenario presented in the game is realistically plausible for the near future and the ethics are actually questioned, not just alluded to in a metaphorical sense.

You are not talking about the same game. You are talking about the zombie mini-game. How then would you know that the game is about dominance, military superiority and current situations in the middle east, russia etc It shows how the world views America, how America acts and it shows the player first hand what people might do trying to turn the tables in a situation like this. It might not be done in a tasteful manner, it might be crude or simplified, it might even lack realism, but guess what: in reality this is pretty close. War isn't tasteful and it is certainly crude and from what we have seen in the past 13 years I think you will agree that realism (or at least making decisions grounded in reality) isn't really where we are.

Crysis is tackling another issue which is mainly graphics . Their idea is that a game has to be rendered in a realistic manner in order for the game to be high end. It is not a small task, it is also admirable and it pushes the boundaries of game graphics. So instead of focusing on a compelling story or choice or ethical issues, they instead chose to support the game via graphics. It is still a wise choice and the should stick to it, I don't judge them for it. I don't classify them as 'not art'. Each game is doing their part in promoting the medium, some do a better job, some try, some fail. Also making games isn't about making games recognized as an art form.

Now here comes the value of the 'religion comment'. Religious people believe in the divine. Seeking purpose and higher meaning is embedded in their life if they chose to believe, so they naturally seek it. Now why is this relevant: I can't convince you that something isn't there, since a large part of your life is based around the belief in something without evidence, this belief is part of your life. How can I convince you in a game development forum thread?

 

Actually after this thread I have even more respect for games. You see when they are judged they are compared to some ideal game which doesn't exist, critics say things like: the issue wasn't fully explored, the choices weren't meaningful enough, even though it raised valid point the ai was crap, the graphics were awesome, but the story was disjointed etc.

Films and theater are closer to games than painting, which from this thread we can see can't compare in meaning and narrative. Films and theater also lack choice, though engagement can reach similar levels, the feeling of being more than audience is greater in games.

It's obvious that people seek more than being passive, they dress up, write fan fiction, buy the apparel etc all in an attempt to be more than an audience, that's why people find theater more personal, closer to them, the actors are close to them, the performance is almost close enough to touch. If we weren't polite and respectful towards actors, people would be screaming to the actors as some people do in the movie theater or at home (don't go in there, it's him, get him, not him the good guy and on and on).

Saying that games are lesser art is simply not true and it's getting less true by the minute.

 

@thread tl:dr

Screw this, I'm going to go make "art".

 

Is art, art?