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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.