Gaming as an art form

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OmniGear
So what if Shakespeare went and told everyone that his work wasn't art?

---

Eh...well, see that can lead to a real catch-22. It seems an agreeable point, but a problem sorta arises for me. If we say that, yes Rez is art. Then it's creator is, by declaration, an artist. As an artist he is able to set precise definitions and meanings to his 'representation'. Now if he says 'it ain't art' then it's sorta a paradox.

People can apply thier own meaning to art. You can look at a photo and see something and that's a valid point for you. But I'm quite sure if it was the exact opposite of what the artist intended he would be less than cool with it (a good example was the Piss Christ).

The Art of War has wonderful applications in many different fields. It is, none the less, a book about confrontation and combat. The fact that it can be extrapolated into a 'guide to business' doesn't mean that was Sun Tzu's intention and if he says it isn't something, then who are we to correct him?

So it's like, ah, a point that's hard to argue either way, you know?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OmniGear
My point is, the developers of Rez probably just said that it wasn't art for the sake of being modest, but many other people would probably consider it art. It's not up to whoever made something to call it art or not, it's up to the public.

---

No he was very specific and certain and did not even like the concept of the game being art. Sorry I can't be more specific but I can't remember what issue of GD it was in and I'm not that worried about digging it up.

As far as who declares it's art or not, as an artist I certainly pray that's not the case. That's almost a scary thought. "You can draw that, that is not art". Although I'm sure that's by no means your point.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OmniGear
If the parts that go into something are art, why isn't the finished product?

---

At the risk of over-simplifying something to the point of dodging; Seven is a prime number. So is three. Seven and three make ten. Ten isn't prime.

The sum doesn't always share the properties of it's parts.

Typography is an art. The actual act of making type and fonts is a very difficult and powerful art. So it's my old 'DMV manual' situation again. If an artist made the font that it's printed in, wouldn't it be art too?

What I don't understand is I thought we were in disagreement. Initially I thought you meant that all games are art. If you say "I'll accept that, but in this case, like I said, games as a whole can never be viewed as art. Only a game here and a game there." then you're saying the same thing as I am. So if you agree to that point, shouldn't you also agree that 'art in doesn't mean art out'? Otherwise all games would be art because they automatically retain the 'art' characteristic from thier respective pieces.

What about the music that somebody had to write, the storyline the someone had to think up, the battle system and control scheme that someone had to design, the engine that somebody had to write?

These things aren't art? These things aren't "creative" ideas coming from people's heads?

Sure, some games do it better than others and are more deserving of the title, but there are bad movies too. Is a crappy low budget horror flick still art?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OmniGear
These things aren't art? These things aren't "creative" ideas coming from people's heads?

---

So you're saying all games are art now?

Where are you coming from? First you say:

Quote:

---

For all of you don't think video games are art right now, what makes a video game not art, and what's gonna happen in the future that's magically going to make it art?

---

Which is you saying games are art.

You reinforce it by admonishing me that the labeling of certain games will prevent all games from being viewed as art...which makes it seem like you believe they are, then you say:

Quote:

---

I'll accept that, but in this case, like I said, games as a whole can never be viewed as art. Only a game here and a game there.

---

Which is saying in no uncertain terms that all games are not art, only certain games.

But then twice again by saying since games are comprised of art they are therefore art. Meaning all games, are again, art.

Not to be rude or off topic but you are doing a bit of back and forth.

If your stance is all games are art because they are made of art, it is again my point that Art In does not automatically mean Art Out. The typography example is perfect. The act of creating type is an artform. Not all uses for type is automatically art. The act of creating a song is an artform. Not every use of a song is art. A Blockbuster is not a museum.

If you agree that 'Only a game here and a game there' is art, then the question you're asking is contradicting what you're saying and there's not a lot I can tell ya.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
That's the point - all 'art' sold is just heartless churned-out merchandise by tools of the capitalist pi...

er, yeah

</sarcasm>

---

Cause The Jungle Book 2 is just Disney's way of furthering Rudyard Kipling's vision.

Of course art can be sold. Buy a ticket to the symphony, buy a copy of The Holy Mountain, buy a frickin Van Goh if you have the cash.

But saying that people don't do things JUST for the cash is sorta naive. Cause Nascar 2003 just represents man's struggle to escape from the confines of modern life, depicted here as a circular track, while contending with his Id, played by the clutch. No, it's just a game made to make money. It's not saying anything the way art does. It has as much artistic merrit as a Bart Simpson punching bag. And that's FINE. That's what it's supposed to be. There's nothing wrong with that. The pedestal ain't big enough for the whole of the video game universe. I hate to be the one to say it, but that's the truth.

When I said "I'll accept that" I didn't mean "I agree with that." I was just saying that it's a viable way to look at the situation.

To tell you the truth though, I agree now. There's an "art of making games," just like there's an "art of designing computer chips," but a computer chip isn't a piece of art, just like not all games are pieces of art.

I see your point. :)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OmniGear
There's an "art of making games," just like there's an "art of designing computer chips," but a computer chip isn't a piece of art, just like not all games are pieces of art.

---

Hey, that is a much better way of putting it. Prime numbers? Yeah that was a dumb example. I like the new view of the situation.

As an aside to anyone who may be interested, there is a good example as a 'game as art', not just in a sorta in a it's a game AND it's art, but it was created soley as a piece of art:

SAM by Palle Torsson. It's a mod for Half Life. You play a 5 year old girl. The only reports I've read about it, both players took the game in the same direction, that is killing her parents her neighbors and evenutally making thier way to her school. I can't find it on the internet, I'd love to try it, but from what I understand it's really disturbing because it really mirrors life. Things like this happen, even though it's a comical idea...things like that happen. I'd love to know what the artist really intended it to be.

So if you're interested in that sorta jive remember the names in case you ever come across it in your travels.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Briscobold
Gaming needs to induce some sort of mainstream paradigm shift. If we all (not just gamers) are made to think differently because of one influential game, then the industry might have a shot at the "art" category.

---

Yeah I'm pompous.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Blaine
Hey, that is a much better way of putting it. Prime numbers? Yeah that was a dumb example. I like the new view of the situation.

---

Ah, I actually missed that post. :sweat:

Makes sense though.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Morpheus
What I mean was more along the lines of social commentary, .... For something to be considered art I think it has to have a degree of depth, on either a personal or social/political level, that's a bit more what I had in mind.

---

Metal
Gear
frikin
Solid

and they all lived happily ever after. The end.

Let me further explain for those who dont know....thre was so much involved in that game philisopicaly and politicaly (Ban teh nukes message for example) that you cant shoot someone without there being some message behind it. At least I hope that those on this message board would agree with me.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero
Games should not aspire to be like movies. Movies will always do what games try to do, and will do a betterjob of it. What games have that no other form of media has is the 'gameplay' aspect. You cannot interact with a movie or a book the same way you do a game. Pen-and-paper RPGs will always offer more 'open-endedness' and traditional games will always have more of a 'human' touch to them (those games get really close on that).

However, gameplay is one thing games do that no other 'artform' can, and if you would really want games seen as an art, I'd hope you'd want it seen for the best reasons, not because a game 'redefines the way we think' or has an 'engaging storyline.' I'd rather have games as art because they have gameplay that be appreciated on that deep, artistic level.

Where ever that 'deep' level is.

---

Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Storytelling and gameplay run at fundamentally perpendicular ends to each other - strong stories have strong narrative presences, and you can't have a strong narrative presence when the player is supposed to be interacting (playing) the game...it just doesn't work.

So, the art of video games is in their pure gameplay - what the games would be like if there was no uniting story, if the graphics and sound were purely functional, and so on.

Relevant cliche (from Pope of all people), (and read the word "poetry" as art): "poetry is what oft was thought, but n'er so well expressed".

Art's an expression of something most people think or do - good art just happens to be particularly insightful, it opens your eyes to an idea or some potentiality inside man, a tree, the universe, whatever. Shakespeare opens us up to the depths and heights of human nature, Vermeer reminds us of how great women look, whatever.

So, if gameplay is where the "art" of videogames will be found, and we want art to express something to us that we wouldn't have seen otherwise, then how will a videogame's gameplay teach us anything?

I think gameplay can teach us something about ourselves through the way it presents conflict. That's all gameplay is, right, conflict? And then, artistic gameplay would be conflict "n'er so well expressed".

So, if a game can present either man-vs-machine or man-vs-man conflict through its gameplay in a way that tells us something about ourselves or about how people conflict with each other in general, then I think that game could be properly artistic.

Maybe the way you play Sagat's shown you how you react to problems, given you an idea about what your knee-jerk response is when someone starts pressuring you, I don't know. That's the sort of development I think we'll have to see games inspire for them to become actually artistic.

Some sort of game that is intellectually, physically, maybe even emotionally (?, built-in psychiatry AI, I don't know) challenging, is where we need to look if we want games to start exploring their potential for art.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by OmniGearI don't believe that to be the case. You don't think there's an art to getting a perfect run in Ikaruga, or any shooter for that matter?

---

At this point this seems to be one of the closest examples that traditional gaming has to artistry, but I do have to say I disagree. There is a limit to Ikaruga and, as Burgundy said so precisely, a perfect run is rather meaningless outside of Ikaruga itself. I have to agree most with Captain Vegetable as art being something that cannot be reproduced and is tied to the soul of the artist, where Ikaruga can have a perfect run, I beleive it's even had a value placed on it.
I must say though, most interesting of all is Stones recent post. Stone, if all art were judged by the quote you provided, then perhaps that post was poetry. I think if games are to reach a level of art then they must challenge far more than the reflexes of the gamer, and in deeper manners.
It seems to me, however, that a deterrent to such progress lies in the fact that modern console games, at least the majority of what manages to get stateside, rely largely on reflexive training, pattern recognition, and moderatley difficult puzzle solving. For gaming to become an art in itself, the game would need to be a game that draws on the personality of the gamer and creates something that cannot be reproduced. Perhaps something along the lines of Orson Scott Card's game in Ender's Game (if you've read the book, the game with the giant and such that relied on the psyche of the student.)
With that I have to pose some new questions: What is the medium of the art of the game? Is it visual, musical, theatre, literature, a combination? Or is it something new, such as working in the medium of the reactions attained from playing the game? Can you think of any way that any modern day games could be "tweaked" to add an element of artistry given what we've discussed thus far?