Slashdot Mirror
Videogames as Art
Philip Kollar writes "AllRPG has just posted Games As Art, Part 2.
In this article, I attempt to create a viable list of things that come together to make a videogame art, rather than just entertainment. I also explore how these three concepts (writing, design, and interactivity) have been used in other forms of media and how they're being further explored in the world of gaming."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
About the only art I get out of games is trying to write my name on walls with bullets....
If the storyline in a videogame can truly create memories, then there has to be more behind the games than simple entertainment.
Yea.. the emotions.. I almost.. cried everytime one of my ninja turtles got killed when I was a child. I'll never forget. *tear*
(\_/)
(O.o) This is Bunny. (> <)
When i was forced into a computer art class, I sat around coding opengl demos while the others were in photoshop. the teacher accepted it and gave me a better grade :)
I wouldn't define interactive art as a videogame. A videogame is primarily for entertainment and an art piece is not (a different kind of entertainment at least).
So it's either a game or interactive art, not both... If it's an artsy game it's still a game
The Sierra adventure games
The Lucas Arts adventure games
Also Under a Killing Moon and The Pandora Directive.
But I digress, adventure games pretty much NEED a good plot to work, I suppose.
Is it me, or music in every new games suck ?
I think almost every old game that had great succes had great music. Think of Final Fantasy I, II and III, Dragon Warrior (main theme inspired from Debussy's Passepied frome "Suite Bergamasque #1"), the original Metroid, etc.
And even older games, with very few audio capacities, had cool themes (often Johann-Sebastien Bach inventions, stuff like that).
It seems that the less they had technical possibilities, the more they had to rely on art (great melodies) in order to make games attractive. Or maybe it's about the old paradox that limitations stimulate creativity ; such as Beethoven being deaf and composing great symphonies.
I wrote about this over on my blog a while back. Basically, whenever this question coes up I have to ask, "Why should we care?" Why does it matter if it is art or not? What do we get out of that? The people who say it isn't, will never say it is. The people who say it is, already say it is. What does calling it art do for the form?
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
if movies are considered an artform then indeed, why not games?..well, some games at least- but some movies, spy kids, not really artsy.
.
there are many parallels
Ahh. The old "videogames as artform" conversation. Ive had this one with many people. Usually the younger individuals say, yes, videogames are art, just like movies.
Its the elder generation that hasnt grasped that a game can be artistic as well.
Then I put in the game "Rez."
Rez is the best argument Ive ever seen for videogames as an artform. It is unique, beautifully stylistic, and incredibly interactive. You could say that this is just another rail shooter, but that doesnt integrate the way sound, vibration, and visual effects all tie in together. This concept of interactive musical and visual integrated together was originally concieved by Kandinsky, which he referred to as "Synestasia."
Please read this review.
Even my parents found the game to be incredibly artistic and beautiful. I cannot reccomend it enough.
no
Usualy when I see the words Videogame and Art together, someone is talking about art that is inspired by video games (like the Paper Rad comics or the Brick Attack fashion stuff). So its nice to see art being attributed to the source.
There was a magazine in Japan years back that was basicly applying art and film theory to video games. Does anyone know what this was called?
we're just marketing. marketing our bad attitudes.
Art is very hard to define clearly (much like humor) because it depends on the reaction of the audience as much as the creativity of the originator. However, a dictionary definition is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". Certainly there is a conscious use of skill and creative imagination in video games. Some games have even felt like more attention was put on the aesthetics than on the gameplay -- putting these even closer to the definition of art while losing out as games.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
Consider the case of Role Playing Games: what is the difference between Literature as Art and RPGs as art? Not much, insofar as they both tell a story. Consider the plots from various Final Fantasy games (I think 7 specifically, as it's the one I played the most): they are not necessarily simple stories made only to provide a backbone for the game.
But that can't be all there is to it, right? Literature is a craft of writing, whereas RPGs do not involve the same amount of writing. So you can generalize and say that the 1) story and 2) presentation of the story make something 'artful'. The presentation in a novel is in the writing style, whereas the presentation in a game is more visual.
But how can the presentation of the story of an RPG qualify as 'artful' ?
For me, the real issue it comes down to, when discussing the Art-worthiness of a work is: does it move you?
I think the question is not "Are games art?" but "What happens when critical thought is applied to games?"
For instance, Hemmingway's The Sun Also Rises makes critical statements and assesments about values. Hemmingway's writing, however, really doesn't get past "He did this. Then he got drunk. The table wobbled. He left the bar and walked. He went to sleep." Poetic, flowing prose just doesn't happen. The themes that can pulled out of this are worth discussing and dissecting, for their sake.
I get the feeling that games will end up being like popular music: on the fringe for the most part and worth their plot summary/dialogue but the music (and perhaps graphics) will not be used. Games have elements worth discussing critically. For instance, I have used songs in papers for their lyrical content only. Game graphics could be discussed abstractly, as there is a certain "This has more than a literal meaning" element based on cultural and symbolic meaning.
Certainly something to think about and play around with especially considering even popular fiction has elements worth discussing.
IAAEM (I Am An English Major)
That's the real question.
I like to think that art is the expression of ideas and concepts in a manner that evokes something above and beyond the sheerly practical.
In other words, if you make a sandwich because you're hungry, it's not art. If you make a sandwich in a way that seems aethetically pleasing, or incorporating particular ingredients that remind you of something, or you refrain from making a sandwich to make a point about world hunger, it's art.
I'm not a huge modern art buff. I much prefer Constable, Turner and Monet to Pollock, at least as far as painting is concerned. I like things that look like things. But I don't dispute that things which may not be appealing to me aren't art.
Personally, when I really think about what I do for a living, I'm something of an artist. When I write programs, I try to make the code beautiful, clean, functional, and even visually organized, because that is artistic to me.
If you go with my definition, videogames certainly qualify.
--- Where's my car, and why are these grass stains on my pants?
Video games = art
every bit as much as paintings or scultures.
Art exists to express ideas or emotions without words. Maybe not all games live up to this defintion but niether does a painting of a bowl of fruit.
Most of the final fantasies reached this level, as they managed to evoke emotion in the player.
Myst convied a cold sense of the unknown.
Anything that attempts speaks to the soul should be considered art, those that succed should be considered good art, and those that midlessly blow things up should be placed next the picture of the bowl of fruit.
This guy clearly doesn't know his Art from his Elbow. He claims that videogames combine design with interactivity and that that has never been done before. Of course it's been done before, in absolutely every user interface ever created. Plus the quality of the article is dreadful, the writing is haphazard and, while the guy has a point, he has executed it extremely badly. Video games are a collage of art; art is in every texture, every mesh, in the plot and writing, in the music and sound, in the concept art, even in the code, but it's how all the parts come together that define the piece.
:) all we own as consumers is a copy.
I believe that some games are more art than entertainment; games like Myst and Syberia were both extremely artistic graphically and musically. Some games are too artistic; the original Unreal FPS didn't satisfy a lot of people because it was simply too art-driven, it was beautiful but slow with long periods of not enough stuff to shoot. Does that mean it's art in the videogame genre, or does entertainment factor into whether the game is art or not?
The point of the above is that there is a difference between interactive art and video games. It is intensely difficult to class video games artistically, most people see only as deep as the graphics. I don't think art necessarilly has anything to do with entertainment, which is what the interactivity provides. Art is possibly the antithesis of entertainment.
Basically my definition of art is anything that inspires one or ignites emotions. I've actually shed tears after finishing some video games (not because it was "so beautiful" but because it's often such a relief). So I guess that if a video game can be appreciated and provokes emotion in the observer (good or bad) then it can be classed as artistic.
However, I'm opposed to classifying video games as works of art, because if they do get to that distinction then they'll cost $3,000 a piece. Come to think of it, the source code probably costs more than that to license
People seem to be claiming that video games are art simply because some of them have plots with twists and the ability to tug on some players' heart strings. Some people see nothing wrong with this, but I would imagine that such people would consider black and white (with regard to characters) movies like Terminator 3 to also be art.
To me, the most artistic (for lack of a better word) movies are the ones that leave me thinking at the end; movies with characters whose motivations aren't as simple as pure revenge; movies with villains that are not soulless evil incarnate. I'm having some trouble coming up with examples, but things like the characters in movies like Princess Mononoke or Insomnia.
Making a story where you battle true evil is not art, it's mostly formulaic. Making a story that is unpredictable and unique is art.
(Note: I'm addressing only the plot of games as art. The actual 3D content and graphics classify as art and I don't think anyone could argue against this in many games)
True story.
Go to eBay and check the price of Radiant Silvergun, THEN tell me video game prices only depreciate. A big reason most games don't appreciate in value is the number of copies that are produced. Rarer games, especially good ones like Silvergun, are priced accordingly.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
is that art is relative to both the artist and the viewer.
Lesser games would be scattered across the US at regional musuems. In the Southwest, you'd only be able to see Deerhunter and Redneck Rampage.
Only a select few people would be wealthy enough to own games and actually play them on demand. Everyone else would own demos or screenshots. Full games would be limited to editions of a few dozen and distributed through galleries. They would be prohibitively expensive. To have good access to a variety of games, you'd have to move to New York. Fans of vintage games would be advised to move to Paris. Games would rarely be available at night or on Mondays.
Most people would experience games through expensive coffee table books filled with screen shots. Books on all the cool games would either be perpetually checked out from the library or stolen. Screen shots would not be available on the Internet, and game digital reproduction rights would be carefully controlled by Bill Gates or Mark Getty.
Video game developers would be ignored or considered outsiders unless they have a master's degree from Yale or UCLA. Most developers would have to move to New York or LA if they wanted to be taken seriously. When their most challenging work was attacked by policy-makers, they wouldn't have a billion-dollar industry to lobby for their rights or foot their legal bills. Only a handful of developers would ever make a steady income writing games, and even the best would be obscure until they're nearly dead. The biggest distributors would tacitly refuse to release their work until they're dead or so mentally disabled as to be considered dead. Developers would resort to providing cheap wine and triscuits to get people to play their games.
I have long thought of programming as art. Not just game programming, which I do as a hobby, but also to a certain extent the business/database programming that I do in my day job.
Of course, I have had a hard time rationalizing this out loud or explaining it to anyone. When I sit down and write a object-oriented wrapper to procedural database commands, or write my own login/session-key code, I *feel* the same way I do when I am doin art-- Art is a big part of my life. I write and draw and sculpt all the time. Everything I truly enjoy doing is art... except programming. Why then does it feel like art when I am doing it?
Most people define art in terms of art-appreciation. Nobody ever looks at or admires the scripts I write on the company mail server. So for the longest time I rejected the idea of actually calling programming art.
But lately I have been getting a better appreciation of minimalism. I used to hate abstract art, and minimalist art, until I actually started to do a little bit of it. To the non-artist, art is in the appreciation, but to the artist, art is in the creation. Recently, a teacher of mine, Jay Mccafferty was telling me about his favoured field of art, "Process Art". If you follow the link, you will see a couple of examples of his work-- he freely admits that they don't look like much, and that if you didn't frame them and put them up in a gallery, nobody but him would know they were art, but that isn't the point. The point is the process of creation. He spends a lot of time on his art, and puts a lot of thought and emotion into them. Most of this is invisible to the causal observer. "Artistic Entropy" if you will; lost data. But the end result is still kinda pretty, isn't it? I think so anyway.
So I applied that concept to the idea of programming-as-art, and it really fit well. Nobody at work who uses my inventory control web-app is going to see any of the parts of code that I am really proud of. Things that took me days of hard work are going to flicker into their browser in a few seconds-- But that isn't the important part to me. The part that matters to me, as the programmer/artist was the process of writing it. The experience.
Or something like that ;)