Video Games=Art? Join the Debate! |
Ó
The debate rages on regarding the question of whether or not video games can be considered art. Following the bloom of the gaming industry, along with the new technology that successfully delivers stunning visuals and graphics, one would have to admit that it does blur the thin line between the object itself becoming art, and the object just being the medium for relaying the art.Sydney Morning Herald journalists Alexa Moses and Elicia Murray closely examined this issue recently. What they found was that those who weren't in favor of video games being tagged as art is basing their argument on the premise that the way video games are structured is essentially what hinders it from being able to jump aboard the "art ship", along with literature and film.
Movie critic Roger Ebert is one such member of the negative side of this debate. According to him, "There is a structural reason for that: video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control." Therefore, by the mere fact that video games allow for interaction between the story and the player, authorship is practically abolished, hence removing that primordial element of art. Steve Stamatiadis, co-founder of Brisbane studio Krome, agrees with Ebert, believing that while games do have the potential to become recognized as an art form in the future, they're not there yet.
While their argument may be deemed to be logically sound, it is not without loopholes. If one is to examine exactly how these story games go, it shows that an active interaction between game and player is necessary. However, the authorial control that Ebert claims to be lacking need not necessarily be missing in action. For while the players do get to choose their fate, it is not totally without the foresight of the developers.
Players are given choices in the game. They don't just make them on a whim. These choices are there as planted and as stipulated by the creative teams. The people behind the game know what will happen if player A chooses to go behind hallway X, or if character B ends up killing C instead of D. They know all these, because they themselves orchestrated it. While the illusion is there that the players are the masters of their own fate, even that illusion falls well within the so-called authorial control of the developers.
John de Margheriti, founder of Australian development studio Micro Forte, a considered leader of the video game industry in Australia, has this to say, "The author of the game has written some grand plot line, has created the races, the pretext of the stories...He's constrained you in a series of quests you must do, missions you must complete, objects you have to collect. There is a structure, but it's a structure that's interactive."
Game director for the upcoming film noir PS3 game L.A. Noire Brendan McNamara shares the same thought, saying that "We control the delivery of the information...We give players a setting and a framework, we control what they see and do. So how are we not authors?"
Indeed, this debate still has a long way to go before it can be fully settled. So feel free to share your thoughts on the matter, as you gamers are the most knowledgeable about this issue. Which side are you on?
35 Jumps PSP homebrew - MHUSPEED v3
25 Jumps Sony helping fix Bayonetta for PS3?
21 Jumps PSP homebrew - MacroFire v3.0.12
Contact Us:
The QJ.net Network |
 |
| Site | Feed |
| QJ.NET | RSS |
| Nintendo DS | RSS |
| PlayStation 3 | RSS |
| PSP Updates | RSS |
| Wii | RSS |
| Xbox 360 | RSS |
| MMORPG | RSS |
| Personal Computer Games | RSS |
| iPhone - iPod Touch | RSS |
| QJ.NET Forums | RSS |
Add QJ.NET
User Favorites - December
User Favorites - December
Categories
Archives
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
Comments [refresh]
one word: Shenmue
Let's take a painting, the tools of a artist are his pencil, etc. With these tools he makes something, most of the time, beautifull. So what do we have? Somebody with tools that makes something that other people think it's beautifull. How beautifull it is depends on how good the artist knows his tools.
Also the meaning of art at a painting is the outcome of his work, his painting. With a game it is just the same, the experience(outc ome) of the game is the art.
How good the experience (Sounds/Graphics/Gameplay/Interaction Design/Level Design/ etc) is, depends on how the artist (the developers, and that means the whole team) knows their tools.
So in my opinion are videogames Art.
I understand that games wernt origionally created as an art form yet nowadays games can have everything other artforms have and add to it,
theres visual beauty as well as a story, not only that but the game puts you in the protagonists,
i think in this sence game go beyond, yet they may also loose some artistic quality in practice
how can game like Metal Gear Solid and Ico not be considered as art, when the story can submerge you like a novel or movie, or when the artistic design can speek like artwork?
1 : skill acquired by experience, study, or observation the art of making friends
2 a : a branch of learning: (1) : one of the humanities (2) plural : LIBERAL ARTS b archaic : LEARNING, SCHOLARSHIP
3 : an occupation requiring knowledge or skill the art of organ building
4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b (1) : FINE ARTS (2) : one of the fine arts (3) : a graphic art
5 a archaic : a skillful plan b : the quality or state of being artful
6 : decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter
gaming is overqualify as art.
in literature, a movement called "dada" once surfaced, this movement said that art is nothing special and they created "stupid" arts to make fun of the regime in place. ex: they putted a toilet on a pedestral and said it was art because it was on a pedestral, lol ( it's in a montreal museum even now, but now it's to show the revolt by the dadaists ). They painted randomly, and they wrote a lot of poems without sense, and this was art. I mean, art is not closed to new things and special or out of the ordinary things. Art is everything, there is no debate other then who is in favor to say video games are art or not. Nobody should care, the video games are art, that's all. ( anyway if you compared stupid teen movie to the environment and story in final fantasy 10 or 12 you'll see pretty fast that movie developpers say video games aren't art only to protect their little market slowing getting pused back by the video game market who is getting really big )
it's like arguing the world is plane... I suppose some people have some problems admitting they were wrong... ( copernic had to wait "just before" he died to publish his notes, if not they would have killed him. And gallileo, after he say the world was plane, had to say he was wrond in public, or he would have died... at least when he moved out of the court, he said: but it's moving! ( about the earth ). The differance is that we are not alone in our thinking, so we should not care about the stupids who think they know something more than us. and remember this: the only thing I know, is that I know nothing. lol.
From the back of my Civ 4 manual I count:
Artests: 16
Animators: 4
Lead Animator: 1
Art Group: 3
Lead Artest: 1
Writers: 4
Composers: 3
Art Director: 1
I guess these guys wern't making are, maybe they were making toast or something.
One definition of art is the use of skill and creative imagination to create something.
In my opinion, games that are unique and/or created without just adding on to a previous game or porting it, orr games that are transformed to such a degree that they are not really the same game, are art. Games that are identical to other games or offer nothing different or original are not art.
One definition of art is the use of skill and creative imagination to create something.
In my opinion, games that are unique and/or created without just adding on to a previous game or porting it, orr games that are transformed to such a degree that they are not really the same game, are art. Games that are identical to other games or offer nothing different or original are not art.
When it comes to console systems, one can say the systems themselves are art. They are designed to be aesthetically pleasing while still functional and a lot of creativity goes into designing the hardware and outer shell of each system.
Games are an expression of their creator/s therefore they are protected as art.
End of story.
Video games are not art because a work of art does not rely upon being as inclusive as possible to succeed. As a matter of fact, a great work of art can have no audience and still be, by every aesthetic measure, great art.
However, a video game by proxy of what it is, depends upon the broadest amount of participation by people or it has utterly failed in it's own design. A video game demands that it be as appealing as possible..as user friendly as it were. A work of art falls under no such constraint.
As amazing as they can be, videogames are entertainment...Not art. And there is no shame in that.
Darwinia = 100% art
HHere in Melbourne, Austrlia
@ a place called federation square, there is whole section on video games as art ect.
u can call anything art, half life 2 springs to mind, not just cos of the gameplay, but the storyline and originality
ICO
SotC
End debate
'11. » Not Art
Video games are not art because a work of art does not rely upon being as inclusive as possible to succeed. As a matter of fact, a great work of art can have no audience and still be, by every aesthetic measure, great art.
However, a video game by proxy of what it is, depends upon the broadest amount of participation by people or it has utterly failed in it's own design. A video game demands that it be as appealing as possible..as user friendly as it were. A work of art falls under no such constraint.
As amazing as they can be, videogames are entertainment...Not art. And there is no shame in that. '
total hogwash :) if a painting is not seen it is not art, only when its seen does it become art because only then is it able to be interpreted by its audience.
If a painting is not seen it is in the same limbo as a video game not being played, only when you interact with each in the way you the artist intended for you to do they become art.
the only difference is the medium in which the two travel. for the painting it is through vision and in the videogame it is through reaction and input from the player.
Most art tries to capture a wide an audience as possible. nobody accuses a book or a movie of not being art because they try to capture as wide an audience as possible.
Its a new art and it will be recognised as art and not just as art but as a superior form of art that surpassess all other that exist today. but thats just my opinion.
I agree with CSFFlame and consider Shadow of the Colossus for definitely a piece of art, and so does the reviewer at IGN. I don't think ALL games are art, but certain ones that are created to provide a unique sense of emotion can be considered art.
Shadow of the Colossus
Silent Hill 2
Final Fantasy Series
To me, art is either something visually fantastic, or a great story or concept; like a painting by Francis Bacon, a movie like Citizen Kane, or a classic novel like 'Paradise Lost' or 'Moby *****'.
Games have elevated themselves as interactive mediums of art, so Roger Ebert (aka "Games Are Not Art") can go f*ck his mother and die.
Agreed. SOTC, FF series....
Need I say Xenogears?
yup, games are art,
xcept for those sports and racing games tho
the thing is we can all say games are art, but there is still a massive argument raging about 'what is art?' due to the modern art movement....
i'd say most games are CRAFT, this is NOT art... if someone paints lame pictures all the time they are not making art, the problem is that some may think a certain painting is rubbish and is therefore not art... but i'm not going to get into that.
in my opinion (and you'll see why this counts) you can define art as something created purely for the sake of its own creation (ie it has no actual use) which evokes an emotion or reaction.... yes, in this sense someone pooing on my bed could be an artist, but my reaction would be sour none the less.
now, videogames as art, this is tricky as videogames inherently are made to be mass produced and sold - prints of an artist's work are not 'art' in themselves - and so my copy of a game is not a piece of art.
but then, there is the complete 'videogame' itself, not thinking of it as a disc, but a whole entity... the making of a videogame involves loads of people working in a very structured way in order to make money. but, an installation artist can have people build the installation from their plans... so still a game can be art...
i don't think saying 'videogames are made in order to make money' is a good reason to discount them either, as some games are created by inspired people who's medium is simply programming (it's just you have to sell it to get it to everyone and not go bankrupt in the process).
so, i reckon some games are art - when you think of them in the right way - sotc or ico, killer 7 or rez, even ff7 (and i'm sure others i'm not as well acquainted with) can qualify as art in my mind, due to their evoking emotional reactions and seemingly having been produced because of their maker simply wanting to make the game, just the business part needs to be done. (lets not forget artists sell their art too).
comedy's final thought: art is a very subjective experience, and so games can be art, due to those people who believe they are and those who believe they aren't - that's a good way to quantify art: as long as people disagree on it you know it's in some way ART.
lol, asshats should think about this one.
they consider movies an art.
what the *****, games have more art in it than any painting or *****ing piece of art in the world. some even have more time put into them. the effort alone should be considered a art. *****ing nob non-game players. get a life
No XBOX360 fanboy scraping the PS3 section.
Finally good time posting ;)
Are stories.
I personally consider stories to be a form of art, but that is another debate.
I played a little of Xenogears and didn't get very far before getting bored, so I can't say much there.
Also, soundtracks are a form of art. SotC, Zone of the Enders 1&2, alot of the FFs, and some of the Tales games had very well made soundtracks.
...it`s culture.
Its funny how recently I read in a 4 page article in PC Powerplay (magazine) on Video games as art.
Very instresting indeed...
One thing I have to say, particularly about the debate that Ebert upholds about "art" is that he believes that videogames aren't art because they lack authorial leadership.
Since when did art need "authorial" leadership?
Art is art because we DEEM it art. Marcel Duchamp, a celebrated artist, placed a urinal, A URINAL FOR GOD'S SAKES, on a podium, signed it, and it is today considered one of the most influential works of modern art. It's called "conceptual art".
Even traditional works of art require "interaction", just in a modest sense. When reading a book, looking at a painting, watching a movie, these things are NOTHING without an audience. But the moment they are viewed, they MEAN something to the viewer. This establishment of "meaning" can only be attained through a pact that both the author and the audience make, because the meaning for each piece of art is different for everybody.
Sounds like videogames, doesn't it?
Ebert said that 'art requires authorial leadership'??
Well, scratch most MOVIES, then...
Sure, they have a director, but you (meaning ANYBODY) can't say an entire $15-million movie is centralized on one person. Actors bring their own twists (Johnny Depp in 'Pirates'), multiple writers contribute to a script, not to mention the 'behind the scenes' guys who actually bring worlds to life.
Ebert is just clinging on to a dying industry, and he feels that his entire life's work is threatened by the growing gaming industry. Such bias is blatant in his review of the Silent Hill movie (yeah, some like it, some don't, be we won't go there). But in his review of the movie, ALL HE DOES is trounce gaming as being for the weak minded by throwing in a 'scientific reference' about how the brain doesn't 'light up with activity' on a machine when a person plays a game. WHAT THE H3LL?
Oh well, scr3w him. His reviews have never been worth a sh*t anyways... Except 'Pulp Fiction' and 'Citizen Kane'.
That made no sense. Good try though. Certain games are, certain games aren't. Same goes for movies.
If you haven't played Xenogears, and you consider yourself an RPG/FF1,2,4,6,7,9/chronotrigger/mana/etc. fan then you should take the time and sit through the ridiculously long dialogue sequences. It may be the greatest game you ever play. My fav games were FF4,6, but I don't know anymore...It was that good.