Comment by taybinator

11/13/2006 @ 9:19 pm

I think that what many commentators are missing is the distinction between low-art and high-art. Low art is art that is also craftsmanship. Like the paintings on one of those old greek water vases. Nice to look at, but there isn’t a higher meaning and the primary purpose is for it to be a water vase.

I like to think of games as low art. Their primary purpose is to be fun. I think what people are referring to as art is merely their craftsmanship.

I don’t think that should demean the status of games. But I think that a lot of the people who want to elevate games to high art have hidden agendas relating to their sense of self-worth.

Comment by Dodongo

11/14/2006 @ 1:34 am

Did you see the exhibit at the EMP in Seattle where they hang seemingly different works of art next to each other? Your pic reminded me of it.

http://www.doubletakeexhibit.org/

Comment by mouseion

11/14/2006 @ 1:42 am

It’s definitely worth noting that art is by no means defined by either a passive audience or a single creator.

Personally, I don’t see how anyone can claim that a game like Max Payne is anything less than an interactive film. We are seeing an increasing number of games of this kind. I think the only reason games like this aren’t given a status similar to film is because games are still widely dismissed as northing more than toys.

Art can be fun, art can have a sense of humor, art can entertain. There really is no objective criteria that can be used to say that video games are intrinsically less of an art form than film. However, popular definitions of art are heavily dependent on cultural norms, and I think that’s more at play here than anything else.

All that said, just as there is a vast canyon of difference in quality between Shrek or Pearl Harbor and Mulholland Dr or Brazil, not all video games can be considered great, artistic games just because they have good graphics/special effects. Maybe those aspects of the game or film are of higher quality or creative expression, and can therefore be considered works of art independent of the overall film/game, but it can also be argued that their roles in the overall works makes them more of a craft.

IMO, I’d say games like Max Payne, Bully, the GTA series and the upcoming Alan Wake game are good examples of video games as interactive films. However, I certainly don’t think that video games need to resemble films to be artistic. If I was making a art video game list, I’d definitely add the katamari games for their creativity and a bunch of the older culturally significant games. But Counterstrike or Rainbow Six? Entertaining, yes, but not culturally significant, no engaging story and not particularly innovative or creative.

Comment by Tritone

11/14/2006 @ 2:39 am

I should clarify that while I posted the comments from the EGM letter because I thought they were great discussion starters (and they sure have been, what interesting responses!) I don’t necessarily agree with them. My definition of Art is much broader and I also think that all Art is participatory at some level–after all, the artist must participate in the creation of the work and will be its first consumer; and some Art happily exists without ANY audience beyond that of the creator (note small c, please)

I think that games have the potential to be as fulfilling as interactive movies but as many critics have noted, while the advances in technology and presentation continue unchecked, the storytelling techniques, plots, characterisations, and often acting
are still mired in cliches. For instance, I thought the writing and story in Final Fantasy XII was excellent “for a game,” but I did take note that my point of comparison was other RPGS and games, and not works of literature or even good contemporary fantasy. When the day arrives when these aspects of a game reach the sophistication of the graphics and art direction, we will be able to call the form mature.

Also, game authors need to create games in which the story is truly mature and compelling and pwns the visuals. There is a huge backstory to WoW, but really, how many players truly care about it? And does it matter? Not much.

Comment by Scrimpnut

11/14/2006 @ 5:01 pm

I think it is foolish to say that any form of visual expression is any less valid than another. A great video game is NO less important in value than a great movie, book, or song. To me, a beautiful scene in a video game like the forests in Ashenvale in World of Warcraft is no more or less powerful or grand than the Mona Lisa or Venus de Milo. To me, the value of art should derive a strong percentage from the intent of the artist. Because art is 100% subjective (there I go with those percentages again), the vigor, care, thoughtfulness and desire by which the artist creates his or her work carries a lot of weight in terms of the validity of artwork. It is the personal relationship betwen the consumer and the artist that determines the worth. Any comparisons are really a waste of time. That’s why I’ve never understood why awards for art (i.e. Grammys, Oscars, Addy’s, and any other visual arts awards) even exist. I may think that the crate in the corner of Ghost Recon is the most beautiful thing I’ve ever seen and nobody has any sort of legitimate argumentative ground to dispute that - no matter how silly the premise may sound.

In conclusion, mesh-backed baseball hats with rubber poo on the bill and “Shit-head” embroidered on the front are the finest example of true art.

Comment by Tritone

11/15/2006 @ 2:39 am

Hold up…you’re saying there are no standards of quality in the Arts? That’s just crazy talk…besides which, you contradict your point by referring to a “great video game.” Well, last I checked, “great” was an adjective that denotes superiority, which derives from an recognition of relative quality.

Also, while there are *elements* of the Arts which are subjective (such as emotional content, and meaning) there are also a number of elements that can be extrapolated, evaluated and described objectively (such as form, structure, color, tone, pitch, harmony, contrast, etc etc); and therefore they can evaluated–and even judged– without subjectivity. The guitar is in tune or it isn’t–there is no subjective element. Whether we consider an out of tune guitar pleasing or not is subjective and cultural.

While I do believe that games can be full of great artistry and aesthetic beauty (oftentimes outshining more traditional forms of art), they rarely acheive the status of art for the same reasons that pop music or television rarely acheives it: games are usually meant to be essentially disposable diversions which fundamentially exist to create a desire for the next game. On the other hand, true Art is created–or, at least once upon a time it was–from the desire of the artist to share an insight about the human condition or the solution to an intellectual/formal problem; the challenge has always been to balance this urge with the need to be successful in the marketplace.

Not to belabor this, but I think intention is a key point. If an artist says “I wish to make a chilling comment about the futility of nuclear war…how will I do this? Well, I could write a novel, or I could make a movie…or maybe I’ll make a game in which no one really wins…I’ll call it Defcon” then I think that game is Art, conveyed through a bunch of pixels and a rule set for interaction with it, but moving the audience to same chilling conclusion/insight. War is futile. If the developer says “MMOs are hot right now…I think I’ll make an MMO with a bunch of big-titted women warriors and call them Orcas, and I’ll make a million bucks,” then that game is not Art, even if the shaders make the water real enough to drink.

Comment by Denalan

11/15/2006 @ 12:30 pm

I believe art is defined by placing a frame around something (regardless of whether you’ve actually created it yourself, and regardless of the creator’s intent). For instance, the mess on my co-worker’s desk is not art–but if I put a “frame” around it, and call it art–then it is. It may not be good art, but the fact that I’ve defined boundaries around my subject at least makes it art at the most basic level.

So, I think you can have a video game be art (whether it be Defcon or a big-titted MMO), as long as there is a frame around the game that someone (anyone) has designated for it.

There are a couple of problems with defining video games as art though: one is that it’s difficult to put a frame around a game, where the interactive experience can vary greatly from person to person. Even for simple games this is difficult to do.

The other problem is that, up until recently, no one has really tried to place a frame around a game and call it art. The video game industry has been trying to redefine themselves recently, so that games aren’t called “games”, but “interactive entertainment”. I think they’re trying to make it sound like video games aren’t toys for kids, but at the same time they’re still not attempting to call their creations art, which is unfortunate.

Now, when some games are eventually considered to be forms of art, will they be good art or bad art? That’s another question altogether.

Comment by Dodongo

11/15/2006 @ 2:09 pm

I don’t think there’s any doubt that video games are an art form just like movies and books.

That said, a few thoughts:

- There is plenty of fine art that are products of a collective such as the works of Christo, Warhol’s factory, Mark Kostabi, and even the Body Worlds human sculptures of Gunther Von Hagens.

- The distinction between high art and low art shouldn’t be based on whether the piece seems like a “craft” but whether it inspires thought. Most TV is simply entertainment that tells the viewer what to think while a few shows encourage viewers to discuss and think for themselves which in my mind elevates them to high art status. Very few games manage to transcend being simple entertainment.

- Ashenvale in World of Warcraft is there just to be pretty while the Mona Lisa is much more than that. Keep in mind the myriad of things that make the Mona Lisa revolutionary in its time that we take for granted now like the 3/4 pose, sfumato, and background.

- Guitar tuning can be subjective (is 440 Hz an A?)

- I agree with Steve that all it takes for something to be art is a frame. However, video games have frames called “Play” and “Quit”. The experience within the game doesn’t vary anymore than an experience with art in a museum.

- Check some of these out:

http://www.iam8bit.net/gallery/gallery.htm

Comment by Scrimpnut

11/15/2006 @ 2:18 pm

I hate to go all post-modern on everyone but I must respectfully disagree with just about everything in the last two posts. There is no part of art which can be objectively quantified. In the case of an in-tune guitar, the question is what does an in-tune guitar mean? An in-tune guitar is simply the first standard by which a guitar’s conditioning was established. But to say that an in-tune guitar carries more artistic weight as an object itself or as a means to convey what is an artistic expression moreso than a guitar which is deemed out of tune by today’s standards is incorrect. Again, art is strictly the subjective relationship between the individual consumer and the individual item that the consumer deems to be art. For example. I HATE jazz and find no harmony or artistic satisfaction from any jazz music I have ever heard. However, it is not my place to classify that jazz is not a form of art because I realize that while my crazy cranium doesn’t appreciate it, others do.

As for the video game vs. traditional art discussion, I don’t understand how anyone can make the argument that a Monet painting is any more valid than a screen cap from Ghost Recon if we are to apply the theory that art is the subjective relationship between item and consumer. Another example might be this: I do a lot of digital artwork. And while I definitely have my favorites, usually my friends tend to like other stuff I’ve done better. So does that make my favorite less valid? Of course not. Art’s qualification can only include one opinion. Otherwise, it is judged on two differing standards.

Here’s the deal. The only way to settle this is with Instagib.

Comment by Tritone

11/15/2006 @ 9:29 pm

I am impressed with the level of discourse this topic has generated. Civil, well-reasoned, and so far, no mention of boobies or bodily waste. Bravo!

I am still not convinced that games are a form of Art…at least not yet. They may be–and good ones most often are–very artistic in design and execution, and aesthetically pleasing certainly, but no more a work of Art than a GI Joe action figure (which functions the same way, in that it is an interactive object that is used in conjunction with the imagination). I own several McFarlane figures–incredibly cool sculpts but I wouldn’t call them art. Kitsch, maybe. Pop art, possibly. Maybe games could fall under the heading of “functional art” the same way as a beautifully designed toaster or piece of stereo equipment does.

I have been using the “frame around reality” definition of art with my students for years, in order to explain the intention behind Cage’s “4′33″ and other aleatoric works of music and abstract expressionism, Dada, and conceptual art. The problem, of course, is that if we can place a frame around ANYTHING and make it valid as art, then really what happens is a) the term Art ceases to have meaning at all and b) we start to justify the existence of a lot of bad, unsatisfying art. As a composer who experienced and participated in the rise of avant garde music in the 70s, I can tell you that the “frame around reality” definition gave rise to a LOT of bullshit art and music.

Consider this: I think OBLIVION is a beautiful and rich game, and I have often sat in the game and gazed at the changing light and sky and landscape. But what did I think about? Not Nature, or my place in it, or the slow progress of the seasons and life, but something along the lines of “Wow! That is a friggin lifelike sky; I wonder how they did that?” In other words the game made me think about the GAME; if I was actually out IN real nature, I might think about the fragility of life. From the interviews I’ve seen, the creators of OBLIVION were just trying to make a really cool game, not a work of art. They were using artistic means to do it.

Also–and I can’t really explain this–I think that Jeremy Soule’s music for the game IS art? Why? Because it exists within an established set of parameters we use to define the Art of music; if extrapolated from the game and listened to, it functions the exact same way any other musical work does–a series of tonal, melodic, and structural relationships that are carriers of emtional information.

I absolutely do think there are valid standards of evaluation and comparison in the Arts. I have spent nearly 30 years working with ensembles of various types, showing them how to use technique in service of reaching these standards, which are not about competition but about artistic effectiveness. I also teach that all standards are subjective, historical, and cultural. A=440 is partly a mathematical relationship, and partly a cultural agreement.

Comment by Dodongo

11/15/2006 @ 9:56 pm

First of all, congrats to Tritone for inspiring double digit comments for a post that doesn’t include Steve bitching about Best Buy or Microsoft. I think it’s a first!

Also, I think some McFarlane figures are genuine art.

Tell me this isn’t art:

http://www.spawn.com/toys/spawn/series28/mandarin2/images/series28_mandarin2_photo_06_dp.jpg

or this:

http://62.233.40.83/0/10/05/40/mandarin.jpg

Comment by Tritone

11/15/2006 @ 10:18 pm

Well, as I said, I think that many of the McFarlane figures are incredible. And, given that they are made to display and admire, I maybe could be persuaded as to their function as art.

Speaking of Best Buy, one of the smaller suburban Portland stores had around 75 overnight campers (as of 1 p.m.), waiting in the rain for their PS3s. Store personnel said they were anticipating 20 units.

Comment by Brixtone

11/16/2006 @ 1:01 am

First of all, congrats to Tim for making it through 2 posts without dragging Steve into it. I’m backing the opinion that art is whatever and wherever any one person wants it to be. Here try it in the form of a Mad Lib. ______________ is art. See?

The increasing amount of discussion on this topic both online and otherwise seems to inherently qualify games as art. How much discussion do you find on “Are donuts art?” Oh and before you start typing your wiseass answer, I’ve done the work for you.

Comment by Denalan

11/16/2006 @ 3:02 am

First of all, congrats to Tim for making it through 2 posts without dragging Steve into it.

Yeah, incredible! Looks like he couldn’t last longer than that, though. Better luck next time, and God bless.