jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
Hey now, this is something I heard being debated on a podcast but really I've been thinking about it for some time. Do you consider videogames to be an art form? why/why not? I think it really depends on how you look at it. I would agree on a large scale that videogames are an art, even taking into consideration the subjective nature of art. If you pay attention to the details of some videogames (just like you would a painting, a piece of poetry or music) then you can pick out the things that make games so artistic. Things like great storytelling/scripting, a good use of special effects (i'm not talking about just adding a bloom filter like many games do now), high levels of interactivity, and/or an overall just mind-blowing experience. On the other hand though, I think that there is a disturbingly large quantity of games that are like bad sequels or some get rich quick scheme. I'm talking about games that are simply clones with new skins/textures (some are ok), poorly made movie games (most are), or anything by EA games (hehe (also, if you're from EA games reading this, please don't hate me. I was just joking ------------------ |
samw3 Member Posts: 542 From: Toccoa, GA, USA Registered: 08-15-2006 |
Instead of saying video games are art. I would say some video games are artistic. At the very core of a video game, is a game. Games are not art. (i.e. chess and baseball are not art). However, as you've said, some video games are very artistic. They are more like interactive fiction (in the non-zork sense)-- the player interacts with fiction. In these cases I think video games can be considered art in the same way a movie or a good book is art. But, I don't think you can apply the term widely to all video games. My $0.02 God Bless! ------------------ |
|
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
Sam: You've grouped games together with films and literature now. So does that mean that you consider art to be visual and audio forms only? (paintings/compositions). Just curious as to your stance, i'd like to know the full grounds of your opinion if you don't mind  . If that IS the case then do you consider all paintings art? Some people are very much against modern/surreal/impressionistic art. Are you saying that you think traditional art is art or just that games or more of a toy then a piece of art? Sorry for pestering you with questions ------------------ |
Ereon Member Posts: 1018 From: Ohio, United States Registered: 04-12-2005 |
Well, the problem is Sam that alot of people DO view baseball and chess as art (especially chess, hardcore chess people are nuts, so I assume that qualifies them as artists  ). I personally think that whether or not a game is "art" is determined both by the mindset that the creator of the game and the player approach it. For instance, if you take Vincent van Gogh as an example, his art wasn't appreciated during his time, people didn't view it as art. From his standpoint, what he was making WAS art, but the audience didn't view it that way, so it wasn't. From a different angle you can also look at commerical art, art for advertisements and such. Many commerical artists aren't really looking to create "art", they're looking to create something that will sell a product. All this is an example of how games as art work. Some people approach their games as either just made for fun, or for the purpose of selling, and so they lack an artistic mindset. For that reason, to their minds what they create is not art. Similarly if someone creates a game with an artistic mindset, with the goal of creating not just a game, but a work of art, but the audience viewing it sees it as "just a game" then it's still art, but it's not publically recognized as such. So whether a game qualifies as "art" widely depends on whether the creator made it as art, and also whether its audience views it as art. That said, I think the main reason some people don't think games are art is because it's still not publically considered an art form. Ask any parent or person over the age of 30-35 and a vast majority will tell you that games are not art. As such, I suppose that games don't qualify as art in a publically accepted sense, but I certainly think they can be crafted and created in such a way as to become art in the eye of the creator, and possibly even be accepted by a small number of people as art (Myst as one possible example). When it all boils down to it I suppose art is in the eye of the beholder, who knows, maybe some day fine computer games will be placed in the same category as fine cinema, but regardless I also think you're going to always have alot of commercially focused garbage floating around. P.S. I also found out there's something called interactive art. It meshes computers and a combination of 2D and 3D art with virtual reality technology to create an artwork you can move around in, interact with, and even change in real time. Not quite a game in the traditional sense, but I thought it was pretty cool. ------------------ [This message has been edited by Ereon (edited August 07, 2007).] |
|
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
@Ereon: i would totally agree with that point i was going to bring it up too. Impressionist were very much hated at the time, and the group of 7 (+1) were the targets of many jokes. but now their work is hugely appreciated. Van Gogh's work didn't actually sell until he was dead. So would you say that games could be considered art on a more widespread view in 10-20 years? Also, I think your point about the eye of the beholder is very correct. For example, normally people hate war and view it as something gruesome, however take a look at Sun Tzu's "Art of War". ------------------ |
HanClinto Administrator Posts: 1828 From: Indiana Registered: 10-11-2004 |
So much of art seems to be where the artist is trying to invoke a feeling or reaction or thought in the audience. If it's a painting, the artist tries to convey emotion or a reaction out of the viewer -- the same if it is music. So much of art seems to be with the artist communicating to, and interacting with the audience. Interactive mediums such as computer software have the potential to do that, and so much more. When the audience interacts with the art piece, in a way, they become part of it. As a game designer, I have the ability to think ahead of the player, to invoke reactions and emotions and excitement and whatnot. In the simplest sense, one example might be of hiding secret areas in a game -- daring the player to dream, to push the limits of the world that you've set before him, and when he does, you reward him with the satisfaction of recognized accomplishment. Or with the coordination of boss fights -- few things are more disheartening than to beat a boss character, only to find him immediately resurrect in a stronger form. This is an emotional roller-coaster for the player, and it's part of what gives games the potential to be art. In a way, I think that interactive art is a high form of art -- it's hard enough to create static art, but there is a whole new level of complexity when you add a human element to it, such as with the player. As anti-social as computer programmers stereotypically are, to design good software requires an understanding of human interaction. You are creating something to mesh with a biological entity -- biotech if you will. So in so far as art communicates and interacts with people, I think that it most certainly can be found in games and other software. Now we just need to make it good. --clint |
|
samw3 Member Posts: 542 From: Toccoa, GA, USA Registered: 08-15-2006 |
My viewpoint (which may be not be held generally) is that art is designed to stir the emotions, soul, and senses of mankind. Movies and literature were just an example not all encompassing. There, of course, is sculpture, performance, etc., even cuisine could be considered art. I would include all paintings as art... except like painting the side of your house (unless you did it artistically). There is good art and there is really bad art. But even bad art is not all the same. There is bad art that is morally decrepit and bad art that hangs on the refrigerator. Its still art by my definition. Even if the emotion it stirs in you causes you to vomit. Games (I mean all inclusively) have a different goal. They challenge, bring structure, and social interaction (even if that is with a computerized opponent) and hence enjoyment. Both fulfill different human needs. The very best video games attempt to bring these two distinct realms together. Much in the same way as table or chair, crafted to perfection, has both a functional side and an artistic side. But I would not call a table art, unless it was simply a display piece and never used as a table. That's my angle. EDIT: I type too slow.. Its true many people have different definitions of art. Generally, I tend to accept more objective definitions for nouns and keep my comparative adjectives subjective(no offense). ------------------ Check out my CCN SpeedGame 2 Blog [This message has been edited by samw3 (edited August 07, 2007).] |
MastaLlama Member Posts: 671 From: Houston, TX USA Registered: 08-10-2005 |
I don't think of video games as art. I think they contain art in many forms (music, visuals, etc...) but deep down it's code. It's possible for a video game to invoke an emotional response but it's not the code that's doing it, it's the story, music, visuals...it's the art in the game. With that said, it's just my opinion |
|
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
@sam: I actually consider some furniture to be art I have an interest in that actually; its really interesting, but i won't get into that now. I would totally agree with that point that art is something that stirs the emotions, even if it is in a negative way. However that kind of says that if a videogame can provoke enough emotional response then it can be considered art. Here's an example, god of war. It was a very violent game, but the game itself was designed to stir angry emotional reponses. The designer actually intended on it and the dev team went through a lot to try to convey that in the game. But i think i'm trying to draw this out a bit too far (i like friendly debate, and this topic is something i'm passionate about), I think we're in agreement that while some games could be considered an art piece, some others don't deserve that title. @clint: hehe, i like the term "biotech" ------------------ |
|
HanClinto Administrator Posts: 1828 From: Indiana Registered: 10-11-2004 |
quote: Please allow me to present an alternative view to this. In developing into an engineer, I have grown to appreciate function over form. In this way, I find much of Ikea to be inspiring. If simplicity and functionality is something to be desired as much as visual appeal, then I think that the Ikea Jerker Desk certainly fits the bill of "art". Sure, it's utilitarian in one sense, but there is an art to thinking outside the box, to minimalistic use of materials, to expandability, etc. In this way, I find the HMMWV to be beautiful -- the way in which everything on them is comprehensively designed for a specific purpose is wonderful to me. I have appreciation for such a feat of engineering, and I find it beautiful. So when is a table just a table, and when does it approach art? For me, I would say that when a table is everything that it should be, and it is done well, then I say that it is art (and particularly so if it bucks the trends of traditionalism, and tries to be better than its predecessors). In this sense, I feel that good engineering (whether mechanical, civil, or software) is most certainly a form of art. To me, the artistic side is the functional side -- I would not want to necessarily distinguish them, but rather see them as inseparably married. Though perhaps I'm being too utilitarian about it. --clint [This message has been edited by HanClinto (edited August 07, 2007).] |
|
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
@clint: so you're saying that anything that has the ability to be perfected could be considered an art? or just furthering the point that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and art is personal? ------------------ |
|
samw3 Member Posts: 542 From: Toccoa, GA, USA Registered: 08-15-2006 |
quote: Ahh... What you are talking about is what the Japanese call Shibui. A personal favorite of mine as well. However, what you are describing as a whole in your post is an aesthetic judgment. Maybe that's why its so hard to nail down what "art" really means. Perhaps a good definition might be "something which invokes a positive aesthetic judgment from the one who experiences it." ------------------ |
|
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
quote: I wouldn't say it has to be positive though. As you stated before you group "all" paintings as art. I'm sure i can name a few paintings you wouldn't think positively about, but you can still consider them art. Sorry if i'm taking control of the thread. It's an interesting conversation ------------------ |
|
samw3 Member Posts: 542 From: Toccoa, GA, USA Registered: 08-15-2006 |
Hey, its your thread  I personally have held the definition that it applies to all emotions, but when a person exclaims "Wow! That is really a work of art!" They generally don't mean that it's making them wretch, or depressed or angry. I was thinking more along the lines of what everyone else above seemed to define art as. Perhaps the person who says "Wow! That is really a work of art!" really means "Wow! I find that aesthetically pleasing!" ------------------ |
CPUFreak91 Member Posts: 2337 From: Registered: 02-01-2005 |
quote: I believe coding to be both an art and a science. Sure a non-programmer might just look at the code and see letters, but the true coders see grace, talent, and experience underneath those letters. It's like music. Some people abhor heavy metal, and like jazz. Not everyone considers heavy metal to be music (and thus an art). ------------------ "Oh, bother," said the Borg. "We've assimilated Pooh." "Socialism works great... if there are no people involved." -- Pastor David Ginter, Union Church of Guatemala. |
|
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
@CPU: maybe that's what art could be considered; something that one or more people see as grace, talent, and/or an experience in. Like you said, it's subject enough that some people can dislike a form to the point of stating that it isn't art. @sam: I still think it's a bit more then aesthetic pleasure though. I'd factor in something along the lines of what CPU said about seeing the talent and skill in something. I've seen beauty in code before but it was more the high level of skill, intricacy and elegance of it. ------------------ |
|
HanClinto Administrator Posts: 1828 From: Indiana Registered: 10-11-2004 |
quote: So cool! I'd never heard of Shibui before, but wow -- that's definitely a great description of what I consider to be the difference between a simple practitioner of a craft, and when I consider that person to be an "artist".
quote: Quite a lot of art does that. Conversely though, I can think of many artists who aren't trying to invoke a positive feeling or aesthetic -- forms of art that seem to try and communicate more about philosophical worldview than to appear attractive (Mondrian is one that comes to mind). So in that sense, there is a whole world of "art" that seems to classify the artists as the modern-day thinkers and philosophers that influence how we view the world. I think that it is for this reason that Francis Schaeffer focuses so much on art to study the philosophy of the age (such as in his book "The God Who is There"). --clint |
|
samw3 Member Posts: 542 From: Toccoa, GA, USA Registered: 08-15-2006 |
yes, true, so have I. I guess "pleasure" wasn't a good word there, but it is a positive aesthetic experience. While I really enjoy looking at beautiful code (elegant, efficient, self-documenting, etc.) I also can smell bad code from a mile away. Would you call "bad code" art? If not, then why is "good code" art? Is there really a threshold where something becomes art if it evokes enough positive aesthetics for someone? or is that simply a misnomer for art? Perhaps we are using "art" in this sense as a metaphor. Where do you draw the line between what is art and what is not art since many things stir our emotions. Sorry, to wax philosophical. But I believe if one can nail down the definition of art then it will answer your question about video games and art. This conversation reminds me of a article Roger Ebert wrote effectively saying that video games were not art. I can't find the original article, but here's a quote in response to a critic:
quote: I'm not saying I agree with this. As clint stated above I believe that this "limitation" has a potential to grow beyond the experience of traditional art. ------------------ |
|
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
@sam: that code argument is a good one. i'll have to ponder that for a while also, i never really thought about user interaction as taking away from the status of games as art... I guess the experience DOES change depending on the player, which takes away from the individuality of the piece. However, even traditional art is subject to user perception (both input and processing). Can user interaction be filed in the same category as individual art perception? (did i make sense?) ------------------ |
InsanePoet Member Posts: 638 From: Vermont, USA Registered: 03-12-2003 |
"art" - from the Latin "Artem" meaning "great skill" This definition is by no means obsolete. We say today that something "is an art" to mean that is requires great skill. If something is artfully done it is done with great skill. Before we go into arguing whether or not something is art. Logic would dictate that we must first define what art is. I would argue that something is art if it is done artfully regardless if it has other purposes besides aesthetics. ------------------ |
|
samw3 Member Posts: 542 From: Toccoa, GA, USA Registered: 08-15-2006 |
I'm not sure if they are the same. User perception is different from interaction in that the interaction changes the state of the art. Hmm... ------------------ |
|
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
Aside from user created avatars, etc. the user hasn't actually changed the game itself (aside from modding of course). The game is still the game; the user just defines what part of it they experience. Say a player skips all the secret levels, the game hasn't changed at all, the user's experience is just different. I don't know though, that's just a suggestion. Someone listening to music can change the volume and receive a different experience from that. Is that type of input different? EDIT: i think i'd agree with IP. Also, I like that definition of art. [This message has been edited by jestermax (edited August 07, 2007).] |
|
CPUFreak91 Member Posts: 2337 From: Registered: 02-01-2005 |
quote: I think all coding is an art form. Just like some paintings by amateurs are terrible looking, so can a novice programmer's code be terrible.
quote: According to Wikipedia: quote: Coding does not stimulates human senses but it does the mind. I suppose you could say that typing and reading code stimulates the senses, but I'm moving into a gray area here. Coding is an action and an object. The action is what it causes the computer to do, and the object is the code in a file. Because coding only stimulates the mind and does not really stimulate the senses, it could be classified as contemporary art. This leads to games: quote: That's because not enough people have compared them. I shall. I consider the Half Life series (both 1 and 2, but especially 2) similar to the novel, Brave New World. This could be partly because the game itself was most likely inspired somewhat by BNW. The game has similar themes. There is one man, Dr. Breen (similar to Mustafa Mond), who has control over much of the world. He however is controlled by the Combine, similar to the way Mond is controlled by his books, traditions, and Freud's beliefs about society. Gordon Freeman resembles the Savage. He is one man different from most of the rest. He and his friends (and most of the earth's population) do not like the society under Dr. Breen and the Combine. Although they wish to overthrow it and the Savage wishes to distance himself from the BNW society, they both share the same dislike for what their society has become. Although I could go more in-depth there really isn't a need. If Half Life were a book, it might be possible to consider it a sequel to BNW. I believe that coding is an art, or at least a contemporary art. In a sense, a derivative of art should partly inherit the title "art". Totally ignoring the code, Half Life can be considered an art because it can make us more civilized and empathetic. Just like Brave New World, it serves as a warning. If we were to make contact with alien life, it will change our society drastically and possibly in a bad way. Similarly BNW, warns the reader that beliefs such as Freud's, and the lack of morals, can make the world a worse place than it is already. ------------------ "Oh, bother," said the Borg. "We've assimilated Pooh." "Socialism works great... if there are no people involved." -- Pastor David Ginter, Union Church of Guatemala. My Programming and Hacker/Geek related Blog [This message has been edited by CPUFreak91 (edited August 07, 2007).] |
steveth45 Member Posts: 536 From: Eugene, OR, USA Registered: 08-10-2005 |
quote: This is actually a fairly traditional definition of art, and I see video games fitting more of these criteria than most other accepted forms of art. Could there be any doubt? ------------------ |
|
InsanePoet Member Posts: 638 From: Vermont, USA Registered: 03-12-2003 |
Wikipedia is by no means an authority on the definition of "art". In fact, Wikipedia is hardly an authority of anything. I maintain we look at the etymology of the word to derive a concise meaning. I think that the definition "stimulates the human mind" is not only subjective but inaccurate. Say if we were defining art by the level of stimulation then who's standards are we judging? Our own? Surely this is not a concise definition. One piece of art, regardless of the media, may stimulate one person more than another. At the same time one person may be completely uninterested. Some people may call something unstimulating and therefore it may be deemed as unartful. We may also try to define art by aesthetic appeal. But is this not subjective too? As one person's interest varies from another, so will one art appeal to one and disgust another. I think a clearer standard is the skill that is involved. Let's take the example of two musicians. One musician has only been playing for 2 years, the other, 20 years. The musicians plays his tune in the form of a crude bashing of chords to attempt to produce a desired sound. The more experienced musician plays with skill and precision. I would argue that the more experienced musician is more "artistic" or artful. This says *nothing* about aesthetic appeal, because people flock to the type of music which consists of crude bashing of chords. Many people find this, I would say, inferior type of music, to be more aesthetically pleasing than the latter more artful music. The standard of skill is not subjective to aesthetic appeal or how many people relate to it or how well it's expressed. Now this is an entire clinical view on "art" as in something that is done with skill. I will say that there are "creative arts" and "scientific arts" and in creative arts there is the element of how creative something is that works into the equation. However when simply defining "art" (which is neutral to creative or scientific) we must be careful to you clear and unsubjective standards. ------------------ |
|
jestermax Member Posts: 1064 From: Ontario, Canada Registered: 06-21-2006 |
although i DO like that argument (well done ) there seems like there's something missing from it. It's kind of like trying to describe indescribable qualities . I don't like the idea of art being left to the artists. Unskilled artists can still created art, whether or not they meant to or not. Or did you mean the static level of skill it would have taken to achieve the end results? ------------------ |
|
InsanePoet Member Posts: 638 From: Vermont, USA Registered: 03-12-2003 |
I was describing the definition of art in a purely clinical way. I was also defining art in a way that is neutral to creative and scientific aspects. Being skillful doesn't mean you're the master at your skill. You can have a relatively low level of skill and still produce art. Now creative art has other elements such as expression and creativity and the trade of a skillful creative artist is to express him/herself in a artful and skillful way. In terms of music this may be en elegant piece of a crude bashing of chords. Both pieces, however, are still art. We could say that scientific art is the ability to do and creative art is the ability to create. So with music, the scientific art is the physical ability to play instruments and the creative art is the ability to write a song.
[This message has been edited by InsanePoet (edited August 07, 2007).] |
|
samw3 Member Posts: 542 From: Toccoa, GA, USA Registered: 08-15-2006 |
Consider the phrase "It's more of an art than a science" This seems to denote that art is a creative expression that doesn't follow a strict, reproducible process. Personally I'm experiencing that in my SpeedGame entry. Writing games (at least for me) is more of an art than a science. Food for thought. ------------------ |
|
InsanePoet Member Posts: 638 From: Vermont, USA Registered: 03-12-2003 |
I would suggest that everyone take a read of "How shall we then live" by the late Francis Schaefer. A great Christian philosopher. ------------------ |
|
CPUFreak91 Member Posts: 2337 From: Registered: 02-01-2005 |
quote: Very good argument InsanePoet.
quote: But the collective knowledge of all who edit it does give it some credibility. Those who do edit it usually know what they're talking about. ------------------ "Oh, bother," said the Borg. "We've assimilated Pooh." "Socialism works great... if there are no people involved." -- Pastor David Ginter, Union Church of Guatemala. |
|
InsanePoet Member Posts: 638 From: Vermont, USA Registered: 03-12-2003 |
quote: Keyword "usually" - I would be hesitant to blindly follow the ideas of the masses. Wide is the path to destruction and many are those who find it. ------------------ |
Xian_Lee Member Posts: 345 From: Registered: 03-15-2006 |
quote: +300 to that. Schaeffer is amazing; I like him more than Lewis, but they don't exactly do the same thing. Anyway, I thought I was late to the party, but I see this thread started this morning. Is it alright if I just post my $0.02 response to JesterMax's original post? I'll read the rest of the thread later. I consider video games to be an art form. At the core, I think of art as revolving around creation. An art form, by extension, would be a set of patterns and expectations surrounding creation. The haiku is a strict art form, and has many expectations and rules surrounding creation, but creation is still the focus. Video games, like film, are an art form. The issue with when it is not considered an art form, is most often when it is compared to other art forms like film and literature. Film, literature, music, these all have their own rules and expectations, but these forms don't carry over into each other as a general rule, so the rules and expectations of these forms should not be applied to video games. Uhm. That was a nice side point, but that doesn't answer the core question. Video games are an art form because game development allows for creation to take place. It is still a budding art form for the most part because the rules and expectations for game development aren't as solidified as they are for literature and music. This is a blessing and a curse to game developers. On the one hand, artistic expression is not as restricted as it could be if the expectations were stronger. On the other hand, without a strong common expectation of what does and doesn't make a game artistic, developers may put out something that is deep, original, moving, and significant, but the general populace (and even the critics) may not realize the genius of the work if the work doesn't meet personal conceptions of what makes good video game art. With video games more than any other art form, beauty really is in the eye of the beholder since there is not yet a strong set of rules and expectations for quality art that is held by the general population (or a targeted group). Still, video games are creative works (usually), and, by extension, they are an art. At the same time, while it does seem to be an art form, the expectations of the art form are fairly fluid in nature, and this does make it hard for an unenlightened population to see the art as it should be seen. ------------------ |
Cohort X Member Posts: 126 From: The Great Pacific Northwest Registered: 09-16-2006 |
I don't know that I'd stick art in the box that it has to involve creation. How would this encompass skill based art forms like dancing, juggling, knife throwing, lock-picking, debating, musicians, pick-pocketing, comedians, contortionists, politicians, and of course the art of war. I would define art as the realization of human intent. This is intentionally broad because almost any act or lack of act can be seen as artistry to someone. I think much of art has to do with intent. If your goal is to create a beautiful image and it looks horrible then I would call that a failed attempt at art. If your goal is to create a tasty sandwich and it is indeed tasty then you have succeeded as a sandwich artist. [This message has been edited by cohort x (edited August 08, 2007).] |
|
steveth45 Member Posts: 536 From: Eugene, OR, USA Registered: 08-10-2005 |
quote: Then there are many poseurs at the local Subway, who claim this very title, yet are unable to produce a tasty sandwich, providing, as it were, the wrong meat, or perhaps too much sauce, if such a thing could occur, which most certainly can in the case of the ill-named honey-mustard, a sauce that contains only small portions of either honey or mustard. Artists? I think not. ------------------ |
