Are Videogames Art?

Game Politics, as always, has some meaty thoughts on offer. Today they're revisiting the perpetual question, 'Can videogames be considered art?'. They touch on the words of Roger Ebert, and discuss a recent piece on the subject in the Sydney Herald. From the article: "Brendan McNamara, game director for Team Bondi, makers of the upcoming film noir PS3 game L.A. Noire, has no doubt his team is creating art. With a project plan that includes 170 pages describing cinematic moments, and 1,200 pages detailing interactive events, the game has a Hollywood-like budget of more than $30 million. '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?' McNamara wonders if video games are stigmatized because they are a mostly commercial venture. At the same time, he believes that being driven by sales is a good thing." What is the Slashdot opinion? Are games too different from other form of expression to be considered art? Is Shadow of the Colossus comparable to Leaves of Grass or Citizen Kane?

Comments

Art vs commerce

[payndz]

McNamara wonders if video games are stigmatized because they are a mostly commercial venture.

Because movies, of course, are made for no more reason than pure artistic expression...

There's no such thing as art

[FhnuZoag]

Let's be controversial here.

I think the deeper message that we can draw out here is that there is no such thing as art. In other words, there is no unbreachable division between what is art and what is not, and there is no magical quintessence that makes something automatically artistic. Art, I propose, is just a label applied by self-appointed judges regarding their own arbitary tastes. The proper response is not to endlessly try to justify electronic entertainment as 'art' in the eyes of pretentious old men, but to note that their opinion does not actually matter. The next generation, no doubt, will have their own idea of art, and their own view of what will be culturally significant, and the scorn of today's judges have no meaning in this respect.

Re:There's no such thing as art

[oggiejnr]

Given the current crop of so-called "modern art", I think is safe to say that the only definition of art that can be uniformly applied is that it is art if someone is willing to pay money for it on the basis of it being art.

Re:There's no such thing as art

[Al Dimond]

Y'ever study John Cage? You've hit the nail precisely on the head! John Cage wrote a piece of music called 4'33", consisting of four minutes and thirty-three seconds of silence divided into 3 movements. Because it was performed as a work of music and accepted by its audience as a work of music, it was music. It has also been discussed ever since by musicians and by people that study music, adding weight to its status as a musical composition (it becomes music itself when it is performed and listened to). Meanwhile, consider the music that's pumped through speakers into stores. There is no performance, there is no attentive and active audience, and nobody cares about it. It's being played to present an atmosphere that will subtly convince consumers to buy more things. Even if what's being played is one of Beethoven's great symphonies, something with sound, with notes, with all kinds of recognizable musical elements, it's not being used as music (there is a composition, but only questionably a performance or audience); therefore its status as "music" is in question.

So your definition, as cynically as you offered it, is pretty much right on. Art requires artist and audience (these roles may overlap, or, as in much music, be separated further by tradition). That is all.

Re:There's no such thing as art

[monoqlith]

I think it has everything to do with the "what is art?" question - that's exactly the question begged by your interpretation of the piece.

This is called reflexivity - the art work interrogating itself or its medium or its exhibition, precisely to ask the question "why is this art?" You can't answer that question without first answering the question "what is art?"

Are these coughs art? Are the conversations art? If so, why? Where does the art stop and everything else begin?

Personally I don't think that's good art. I find it pretentious. It doesn't do anything for me. It doesn't require any technical skill. It asks obvious questions. But anything that is interpreted as a piece of art work can be considered art even if it isn't good art.

As soon as you say something is art it becomes art. The question is then "why do we say that this is art?" since there is no objective definition of "art."

The art crowd has fooled us into thinking that there is something that is objectively art or objectively "good" art. That is absurd. Art is based entirely on how its interpreted and perceived - how can it be anything before it touches your eyes or mouth? There are no concepts communicated by the art piece as an object *in itself*, just like there is nothing communicated by regular objects just in virtue of themselves. Everything we say it communicates is actually an imposition of our minds. Things outside of us have no semantic meaning by themselves, without observers.

When it encounters an audience - be it the artist him/herself or people in a crowd - it becomes art. This is radically subjective definition of art, that some people find offensive. I don't. I think it is everything art is supposed to be - human. It depends on the humans participating in the viewing and the making of it.

Number of pages? Budget?

[niceone]

Well, I think they probably are, but bringing up the budget and number of pages they wrote is kind of missing the point.