Slashdot Mirror
Are Videogames Art?
Angry Black Man asks: "The San Fransisco Museum of Modern Art is currently debating whether or not videogames can be considered a type of art. They are currently holding a symposium entitled "ArtCade: Exploring the Relationship Between Video Games and Art." What do you guys think about this? Also, if videogames are considered art than what stops other computer programs from also being considered art? Censoring videogames because of violence or even programs because of DMCA-type laws may be considered censoring art - something that many Americans have traditionally been very opposed to?" When Slashdot covered computer graphics as fine art, many of you agreed that it was. When asked about beautiful code, many thought so and gave their reasons as to why. Now comes a question about the combination of the two. Are computer games not considered art simply because of its nature as an entertainment medium, or can video games be considered art precisely because they can be thought of as combinations of graphics and code?
Other types of computer games, such as platform and first-person shooters might be considered art by a different group of people. I don't see quite as much of what I consider art in Quake III as I do in Baldur's Gate.
Do we consider Magic (the card game) to be art? The cards certainly have as much artwork as many computer games. Do we consider baseball art? Why would a computer simulation of baseball be considered different from real-life baseball? Both are entertainment for sure, but are hitting and pitching Art any more than The Art of Computer Programming?
Shoemaking is an art, though it's aesthetic is not the same as Impressionist painting, and thus I wouldn't put some Johnston & Murphy wingtips on display in the same place as a painting by Monet.
I think the SFMoMA should consider them art since computer games do require some artistic aesthetic in order to be more appealing than their competitors in much the same way movies, paintings, novels, and sculptures do.
end of line
First, let me say that I'm a games developer, so perhaps I'm a little biased here..
:)
Now, the way I see it is this, SOME games are art, some are simply entertainment. Ok, 'thats obvious' you might be thinking, however, WHERE the line is may not be.
The way I see it, a baseball/other-sport simulations is simply entertainment. It might have artistic elements (presentation issues usually), but overall it is entertainment.
Games such as RPGs, RTS, etc are obviously art, since a storyline is often involved, and I'm pretty sure that most people will agree that story telling is an artform.
As for games such as Quake, UT, etc. Yes, they are art, IMO, and heres why... These games are not based around existing concepts from real life, oh sure combat exists, but the environments, the character/monster design and other such issues all require a form of story telling. The story may not be a linear form of plotline, but there is still some story telling involved in designing 'scary monsters', or an alien landscape.
These elements require someone to put thought into telling the story, whether its via a plotline, or through the environment and creatures inhabiting it.
Anyway, thats the way I see things on this topic
Having recently finished ICO on the PS2, I'd have to insist that anyone considering this question play this game to completion. As pure visual and emotional art, it is more complete than more works I've ever experienced.
On the literary side, I'd also have to insist anyone considering this subject thoroughly explore the game Planescape: Torment. The way this game reacts to actions, expectations, and self-reflection is quite amazing. If you read any review of this game, you can appreciate how difficult it is to put in a few words how
Both of these games tell a story that would be _Impossible_ to tell without the freedom to explore the story, and the strength of the choices given to one exploring it. These games fundamentally connect to many core aspects of the human state in both the same ways 'traditional' art does, and in many ways impossible to do so before - they are fundamentally art in my eyes.
Ryan Fenton
"if you draw a single line on a paper and call it an art, so it is". Oh c'mon... That's way too much...
I'm not so sure about that being way too much... The Canadian Art Museum (or whatever it's called) bought the Voice of Fire... (three lines drawn on a canvas, for the uninitiated...)
MIKE
Beware the JabberOrk.
Tim ODonnell (trying to be the most
Well I am glad that you mentioned you were "small time". As for your comment... It's so easy to throw around the "lazy" comment. It's so much harder to understand exactly how much work goes into making a good game. You will learn this as you progress in the industry.
Good luck...
you completely misunderstood the concept of art! the act of creation is art. what the audience thinks means shit.
keep it simple.
Animated cartoons didn't used to be "art". Then came "collectable animation cels". Then came serial numbered copies of animation cels. Now, there are serially numbered copies of hand-painted imitations of frames from computer-generated movies offered for sale.
Games are moving in that direction, as the visuals get better. "The Art of Myst" showed at SFMOMA last summer. There's a Myst coffee-table book. We're getting close.
Assuming art is beauty just watch the sunset from Hyrule Field during Legend of Zelda:Ocarina of Time
This is the worst sig ever.