Next Generation magazine returning.

[sethsez]

I agree that many games exhibit artistic qualities.

On what basis?

Incidentally, "art" is not a measure of quality. Things don't go "shite, awful, bad, mediocre, good, great, amazing, ART". Saying something is art doesn't inherantly imply that it's good.

But once again, this is all assuming that we're working from a common definition of art. Which we aren't.

[The_Meach]

Videogames have plenty to say about mankind's competitive nature and our neverending struggle to acheive complete mastery of our surroundings.

So, is high school football an art? Of course it is not.

there are those who think "art" is defined by the creator, and those who think it's defined by the observer. There are those who think it's defined by the form (in visual art, this would be the actual colors, shapes, etc) and those who think it's defined by what the form conveys.

Define what art actually is, in a manner that everyone agrees with, and then we'll talk. Until then, it's just arguing in circles about something that we don't even define similarly.

Ah, so until we all see eye-to-eye, why bother? What are the chances we'll ever decide on anything if we never discuss anything?

I think reasonable people can agree that art comments on the human condition AND is accepted as art by society. A hammer is not art. Neither is Hungry Hungry Hippos.

Interesting that Master of 7s posted a screenshot of a next-gen game. Next-gen will (hopefully) bring us games that take gaming in the direction of art.

Incidentally, "art" is not a measure of quality. Things don't go "shite, awful, bad, mediocre, good, great, amazing, ART". Saying something is art doesn't inherantly imply that it's good.

Of course we agree on this.

[sethsez]

Ah, so until we all see eye-to-eye, why bother? What are the chances we'll ever decide on anything if we never discuss anything?

How can you have a discussion about whether something is art if there's a fundamental disagreement on what art actually is? Without that, there's not a single common element for the conversation to be grounded in and both parties just spin their wheels. It's like arguing about whether the sky is blue without first defining "blue."

I think reasonable people can agree that art comments on the human condition AND is accepted as art by society.

Actually, we (and many other people who have devoted lifetimes to this very discussion) do not agree on this.

[piku]

This art debate is stupid. I don't know why people try to judge if a game is art or not based on how it looks or its style. Games are the only medium that is interactive and is meant to be played so shouldn't that be factored into its art? Who fucking cars if a scene in a game looks pretty that is what movies are for. A Street Fighter 3 fight is art. 4 player Virtua Tennis is art. Doom is art. Tetris is art.

I believe that they valued innovation and bold game design more than anything else. Thats why Neo Geo games never got over 4 stars, because every game on the platform was either a generic 2D fighter (lets face it, it was) or a generic 2D shooter. Different levels of competence, perhaps, but again, thats not what NG valued. They purposely awarded games that moved game design forward. I just pulled a random old NG off my shelf and saw that they gave Nanotek Warrior and Rocket Jockey 4 stars, for example, and neither of those games were top-shelf production value type stuff.

This very well sums up how they operated and why they kicked ass.

[The_Meach]

How can you have a discussion about whether something is art if there's a fundamental disagreement on what art actually is? Without that, there's not a single common element for the conversation to be grounded in and both parties just spin their wheels. It's like arguing about whether the sky is blue without first defining "blue."

Actually, we (and many other people who have devoted lifetimes to this very discussion) do not agree on this.

I'm curious who, of those who have 'devoted lifetimes to this very discussion', would argue that art is NOT defined by commenting on the human condition and that art is NOT defined by society.

Because I can't think of anyone, outside of the poet-laureates on TNL, that seriously believe those two aspects are NOT a part of how art is defined. I should clarify that statement by saying that I cannot think of anyone, aside from the most radical of post-modernists (who would argue from the perspective that definitions are meaningless), who would agree with you.

I am not saying my criteria is SUFFICIENT. I'm just saying my criteria is NECESSARY. And I'm (very) open to hearing convincing arguments that show why my conditions are not necessary. Or why there ought to be other considerations taken into account.

[gamevet]

That Kelly Flock interview really was the absolute best thing I have ever--EVER--read in video game journalism.

Sam Tramiel's interview was pretty damn funny as well. He was comparing videogame consoles, to VCR's.

[The_Meach]

Games are the only medium that is interactive and is meant to be played so shouldn't that be factored into its art? Who fucking cars if a scene in a game looks pretty that is what movies are for. A Street Fighter 3 fight is art. 4 player Virtua Tennis is art. Doom is art. Tetris is art.

Is Hungry Hungry Hippos art? Is Risk? Monopoly? Tiddlywinks? Interactivity =/= art.

Videogames have the potential to be the most powerful artform ever. They just aren't there yet.

[Tracer]

That Kelly Flock interview really was the absolute best thing I have ever--EVER--read in video game journalism.

I read that one. Great stuff. I liked their Peter Moore interview too, but it was no where near the SOE one.

Video games I've played recently that have artistic qualities:

ICO, Rez

I trimmed your listed appropriately. I will add Panzer Dragoon Zwei, Saga and Orta.

[AaronChance]

The Mona Lisa was a commissioned painting of some merchant's wife. You're going to have to stretch reasoning so thin you couldn't use it as a condom to get that to apply to the human condition, yet countless people call it art without even thinking twice on the matter.

By it's very nature art isn't something you can quantify and break down into a simple to follow formula that allows you to judge whether something qualifies for its exhalted title or not. Art is all about it's effect on the viewer/listener in a way that moves them beyond the pure entertainment derived from the piece. Since not everyone is effected the same way, there can never be a clear cut definition.

[Tracer]

Is interpretive dance art?