Making Statements With Video Games

You may have heard about the recent controversy at the Leipzig Games Conference over a modification of Space Invaders in which the invaders are slowly demolishing the World Trade Center. The creator intended it as an artistic expression, but has since removed the game, saying, "it was never created to merely provoke controversy for controversy's sake." Kotaku took this occasion to ask whether "statements" can and should be made via video games, and how it affects the ongoing question of whether video games should be considered art. "The entire issue begs comparisons to Danny Ledonne's Super Colombine Massacre RPG!, an unsettling and involved title that tasks players on the most basic level with acting out the 1999 Littleton, Colorado school shooting in the role of killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Ledonne told the Washington Post that his intention with the title was never to glorify the tragedy, but to 'confront their actions and the consequences those actions had.' Like Stanley's Invaders!, Ledonne and his title stopped short of providing a direct interpretation - neither artist has been especially specific about 'what it means,' or in instructing players on how they should interpret their work or what 'message' should be taken away."

Comments

Oblig. Southpark

[halsver]

Too soon?

Re:Oblig. Southpark

[grantek]

South Park takes the proverbial piss out of this stuff pretty well. So does the Simpsons - the statue of David never came with an instruction manual directing people how to interpret it, but somehow people called it art instead of porn until the conservative extremists got some media bandwith to play with.

Re:Oblig. Southpark

[Ethanol-fueled]

Last night on Family Guy Peter Griffin shot his daughter at point-blank range with a handgun.

Across the universe a million Jedi padawan cried out in laughter and were quickly elated by having their first play of GTA4 and 2.45 percent of those were arrested for committing copycat crimes within the hour.

Elsewhere, some guy creates a bunch of pixellated blips which make other blips make noise. It is too "controversial" to be released into the wild.

Re:Oblig. Southpark

[OhioJoe]

What we geeks don't fully grasp is that no one, and I mean NO ONE, other than us even knows about this supposed "controvery". More people know about the death rate of Sudanese bisexuals than this.

Re:Oblig. Southpark

[Anonymous Coward]

the statue of David never came with an instruction manual directing people how to interpret it, but somehow people called it art instead of porn until the conservative extremists got some media bandwith to play with.

Not entirely accurate. The statue of David has gone through many "ups and downs" regarding its offensiveness or lack of offensiveness as "art". There is a "leaf" attachment that was created to cover the offensive part with. I can't remember what year this would have been (we're talking 18th century most likely, and at the behest of some queen...) Point is, it's been censored, uncensored, etc... for centuries.

Re:Oblig. Southpark

[Fizzl]

Flame bait? WTF? Some mod out there thinks all the sudanese bisexuals on slashdot are going to get offended or something?
Read the god damn moderation guidelines before hitting the button you dolts.
(Correct moderation for this post is offtopic btw.)

Re:Oblig. Southpark

[nacho_dh]

Too soon?

Definitely too soon. Also is understandable that terrorism isn't a very popular genre at the time of making videogames, especially if the player plays the role of the ones attacking the US (and the game is thought to be played there). But why is OK to shoot germans in Call of Duty and Medal of Honor but i don't see so many games about the Vietnam war? Does somebody see a pattern in here?

there is no question

[Surt]

Video games are art. It is long settled. No one of consequence is disputing this.

Re:there is no question

[HappySmileMan]

From the summary:

Kotaku took this occasion to ask whether "statements" can and should be made via video games, and how it affects the ongoing question of whether video games should be considered art.

From parent:

Video games are art. It is long settled. No one of consequence is disputing this.

From the mod:

(Score:1, Offtopic)

This is why I love slashdot.

Re:there is no question

[n dot l]

Yes video games are art (see Braid). Yes, you can make artistic statements in video games. You can make all sorts of statements in games. No, all video games are not good art (the same applies to paintings, books, and movies). And no, you do not have any sort of right to a warm reception whatsoever for your work. Just like with paintings books and movies (fancy that). If your "statement" makes your game unfun or offensive then, well, suck it up, you broke your own shit. It's not our fault for "not understanding" your well-obfuscated intent.

That out of the way, I have to agree with the parent that it's stupid debating the whole "games as art" thing in the first place. We don't question whether movies are art when someone makes a film denying the Holocaust. What the hell is it with all these "controversies" we get lately (here, in blogs, in political discourse, in the MSM)? Are we really trying so hard to be "nuanced" that we have to dump illogical statements into every other sentence just to be interesting?

Although, this gives me another item for my list of "things to do if I suddenly become a god": have my prophet spout subtle logical fallacies and then laugh it up as the idiot humans get upset, and waste a bunch of time or do damage to themselves, and then finally figure it out and say, "hey, wait a minute, that doesn't even make sense!"

Re:there is no question

[moteyalpha]

From the summary:

Kotaku took this occasion to ask whether "statements" can and should be made via video games, and how it affects the ongoing question of whether video games should be considered art.

From parent:

Surt

Video games are art. It is long settled. No one of consequence is disputing this.

From the mod:

(Score:1, Offtopic)

HapppySmileMan

This is why I love slashdot.

By doing such a silly thing, somebody has served the opposite purpose. And this why I like slashdot. As far as categories go, art and other things can be merged and it is not always possible to determine where the water ends and the alcohol begins in a drink.

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

I wish there was a "+1 Topic locked" moderation. You said all that needs to be said. The End.

Re:there is no question

[dreamchaser]

Video games *can be* art. That doesn't make all video games works of art.

Re:there is no question

[kestasjk]

I'm going to make a bold prediction that somewhere in this discussion there will be a debate over the meaning of "art".

Re:there is no question

[Surt]

Wow ... I have to agree ... the offtopic moderation is ridiculous.

Re:there is no question

[Surt]

Video games are art. They may be terrible, terrible art, but they are art.

Re:there is no question

[serviscope_minor]

Video games are art.

Are you reslly sure?

Re:there is no question

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

Video games are art.

But should that art be censored?

The fact remains; most people associate video games with children and young people. While this remains the dominant view of the medium it will be subjected to a level of scrutiny and censorship unseen by any medium that has come before it. There are movies rated PG-13 that, as a game, would never be certified with anything less than an M or 18s rating. We've all played GTA. What, if anything, in the entire series compares with the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan?

Is there a higher level of censorship because the player is "committing the action's themselves!". No. That is only a rationalisation. The real reason is because Joe Public and John Politician think games are for "kids", and should have a level of "decency" befitting that role. Mention drugs or prostitution in a video game, hint at violence, or make even innocuous remarks about sexuality, or heaven forbid use even very mild "language" and you'll be rated akin to a James Bond title.

Ratchet and Clank as a series, has been continuously rated "Teen" by the ESRB. The ESRB, touted as a serious rating agency, is telling me with a straight face that Ratchet and Clank is unsuitable for 9-12 year olds? This is the status quo in the video game industry. In an environment like that, just how much risk do you think artists, or their patrons, will really be willing to take with their work?

Re:there is no question

[westlake]

Video games are art. It is long settled. No one of consequence is disputing this.
.

That I very much doubt.

The London stage was considered popular entertainment is Shakespeare's day.

If you wanted recognition as a writer you wrote and published poetry - or perhaps a book of essays, like Sir Francis Bacon.

It is a long way from the tintypes of 1860 to the landscape photography of Ansel Adams.

MoMa didn't begin collecting photographs until 1930, motion pictures until 1935. That is forty years of the American film - Porter's The Life of an American Fireman to Little Caesar and King Kong.

Re:there is no question

[FLEB]

You sound so sure. Why not? Past example does not necessarily negate future possibility.

Re:there is no question

[stephanruby]

The fact remains; most people associate video games with children and young people.

Art also gets censored all the time. It's just that most people do not realize that some famous paintings they know were covered up with clothes later on, often decades later when some new pope came on the scene. It's just that most people do not realize that countless works of arts were burned or destroyed because they didn't fit a particular racial, religious, and/or political dogma of a particular day. It's just that most people do not realize that Blockbuster (a Mormon institution) censors every video it rents out (and a judge declared that this was ok, since they do have a misleading bullshit notice that says "formatted to fit your television screen"). And it's just that most people do not realize that most of what we see on TV has been censored/vetted/filtered by editors, commercial advertisers, right-wing and left-wing politicians, and various pressure groups of all walks of life.

Re:there is no question

[grahamd0]

it is not always possible to determine where the water ends and the alcohol begins in a drink.

I like the cut of your jib, Slashdotter.

Re:there is no question

[rochi]

Really? So no one has made art in the last century? In fact according to your list, no one's made art on 6 of the seven continents; that's some great art appreciation there.

Re:there is no question

[grahamd0]

Although, this gives me another item for my list of "things to do if I suddenly become a god": have my prophet spout subtle logical fallacies and then laugh it up as the idiot humans get upset, and waste a bunch of time or do damage to themselves, and then finally figure it out and say, "hey, wait a minute, that doesn't even make sense!"

I've been waiting so long for you to show yourself, Lord!

Re:there is no question

[Your.Master]

That's a fun game.

Name one painting, song, sculpture, poem, or play that has the intellectual depth of a sophisticated and intellectual video game.

If you don't define "intellectual depth", then there's no way to ever argue the point with you. If you do define it, then you must define it specifically to exclude video games, and comic books, and trashy romantic comedy movies. Otherwise you will inevitably find a counterexample if you look hard enough & wait long enough (note also that paintings and literature have a far longer history than video games from which to produce classics).

It's legitimate to define a term to exclude these things, mind you. We normally define pursuits "appropriate for children" to exclude, for instance, fantasy rape pornography. That's fine. But it doesn't mean anything when you do that. If fantasy rape pornography isn't art, it's not because it's inappropriate for children.

Re:there is no question

[pcolaman]

Super Mario Bros. There, owned!

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

And this is the problem with blanket statements like that. There's always a counterexample somewhere.

Re:there is no question

[pcolaman]

I'll see your Big Rigs and raise you Toddler Art

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, three from that list were in the last century.

Re:there is no question

[nomadic]

Video games are art. It is long settled. No one of consequence is disputing this.

Every slashdotter who responds to "can videogames cause violence" stories with a rant about how games are purely for fun and can never induce anyone to do anything disputes it.

Re:there is no question

[pcolaman]

I'm going to make a bold prediction that somewhere in this discussion there will be a debate over the meaning of the word "is."

Re:there is no question

[daninspokane]

Name one video game that has the intellectual depth of a fine art painting or literature. Just like comic books and manga, video games occupy the same intellectual ground as pulp fiction novels and trash romantic comedy movies. There has never been nor will there ever be a video game that can compare with great art and literature like Rafael, Picasso, van Gogh, James Joyce, Yeats, or Shakespeare.

I am sorry but Bioshock had the story (literature) and the soundtrack (music) to define it as "art" in my book... and I don't think I am alone. It would of made an excellent novel.

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

It would of made an excellent novel.

It already did - Atlas Shrugged. Unless you were being sarcastic, then I'll accept my "woosh" and be on my way.

Re:there is no question

[Das Modell]

Name one video game that has the intellectual depth of a fine art painting or literature.

No. Instead, why don't you explain how video games, as a medium, are incapable of being art?

Just like comic books and manga, video games occupy the same intellectual ground as pulp fiction novels and trash romantic comedy movies.

This is a ridiculous blanket statement. You might as well say all films are stupid trash and can never compare to literature.

There has never been nor will there ever be a video game that can compare with great art and literature like Rafael, Picasso, van Gogh, James Joyce, Yeats, or Shakespeare.

Impossible. Anything that can be done in literature, film, music and paintings can be done in video games.

Re:there is no question

[n dot l]

The Myst series: Some of the most fantastic and beautifully rendered worlds in any game. Themes of family bonds and betrayal. Ridiculously good music that while not as technically complex as a classical symphony can and does evoke strong emotion just the same, especially when paired with the strange loneliness of the worlds within those games.

Braid: Fantastic visual art. A deeply human story about a search for the unattainable, scattered throughout in bits of excellent prose. Puzzles that leave you with a sense of awe at the raw ingenuity of the thing.

God of War (I and II, haven't played the PSP one): Again, beautifully rendered worlds. Gameplay, imagery, and a story that explore brutality, insanity, anger, the thirst for revenge, all set within the framework of a quest for glorious redemption.

Yes, many games are just there for the raw entertainment value. But then again a lot of visual art is just advertising, and a lot of "literature" is just cheap supermarket trash (as you yourself have pointed out). How does that make entire medium non-art, while the existence of trashy fiction doesn't do the same to all novels, for instance?

And yes, many of the people that play games are in it just for the entertainment of shooting a few bad guys and bragging about their high score. I'd even go on to say that in those cases where a game is really art, most of its players will fail to take the time to appreciate, really appreciate what it is that they're looking at. But then again most of the people I saw at the Louvre were just there to take pictures that they could brag about to their friends (particularly the clusterfuck of idiots in front of the Mona Lisa), and I ended up being one of a very few people who moved through slowly, looking at everything, stopping occasionally to stare at something particularly striking.

The fact that you've never looked carefully at what makes up a video game (if you've looked at one at all, that is), and then sat back and taken it in as a whole doesn't even begin to mean that no game anywhere has ever had any significant artistic merit at all.

Re:there is no question

[n dot l]

I like the cut of your jib, Slashdotter.

Say that again, but with cars instead.

Re:there is no question

[Das Modell]

You completely missed the point. Video games, as a medium (this is important), are unquestionably capable of being art. Whether or not anyone has yet made a video game that can be considered art is an entirely separate issue.

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

i think he meant "I'd like to grease your axle"

Re:there is no question

[crispytwo]

Yes video games are art (see Braid). Yes, you can make artistic statements in video games. You can make all sorts of statements in games.

Further, like all good art, it requires an observer. Since those observers can be (read: probably are) young and malleable, some other domineering people don't like those statements not being filtered through their hands.

Re:there is no question

[jannone]

I'm going to make a bold prediction that, somewhere in this discussion, there will be a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler. Just give it enough time.

Re:there is no question

[PatDev]

Jeez, can we please stop pretending that the word "art" has an objective meaning and that impartial, objective, rational decisions can be made regarding what does and doesn't fall under the category of "art". "Art" is, and always has been, given a different definition by each observer.

Re:there is no question

[Fluffeh]

We've all played GTA. What, if anything, in the entire series compares with the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan?

Well, there is a significant difference you see. Sure the opening scene of Private Ryan is gruesome and vivid. Yet the message behind it is the pointlessness and futility of the whole thing. Most violence in GTA is trivial in comparison but instills that VIOLENCE HAS REWARDS. That is a very significant difference.

Re:there is no question

[neumayr]

There are very few games that have some appeal as a work of art, but they do exist. ICO and Shadow of the Colossus come to mind.

Re:there is no question

[neumayr]

Nice story, but those paintings are pretty good. No toddler I know could have made them. I'm not surprised people were fooled.

Re:there is no question

[h4rm0ny]

I am going to make the bold prediction that you will both be right.

Re:there is no question

[Psychochild]

Great, let's take Shakespeare. From the moment he set pen to page, he was considered an artistic genius, right?

Not quite. As other people pointed out, playwriting during Shakespeare's time was what second-rate writers did to pass the time. Real artists wrote poetry or essays, not common entertainment for the masses. It was only years later that anyone started to appreciate Shakespeare as anything more than the equivalent of today's TV.

There's also the problem that interactive entertainment, such as games, are more limited in audience. Just as Opera isn't for everyone, games aren't going to be grasped by everyone. People that aren't used to the medium (read: older people who didn't grow up with the medium) are going to have a much harder time understand it and why it has the potential for art.

So, we need some time before we can state this case unequivocally in one way or the other. Being a game developer and not interested in just producing mass entertainment, I'll politely disagree with you for now. ;)

Have fun,

Re:there is no question

[Psychochild]

Art can influence people, but it's rare that it induces people to a particular action unless they suffer from specific conditions. A painting I like to use as an example in this case is Goya's Tres de Mayo . This image shows more blood than you'll see in a typical computer game screenshot. Yet, I learned about this painting in my Spanish classes in school.

Take a look at the painting. Does it fill you with emotion? It does for me. Even if you don't know the history behind the image, the image quite obviously shows a lot of anguish and fear and death. It's not a comfortable painting to look at for a long time, for most people. But, does it induce you to an action? Do you want to support Napoleon's invasion of Spain? Shoot some Spanish rebels? Wear a bright white shirt to your own execution? Probably not.

If you're worried that the interactive nature of games is more harmful than other media, go ahead and read the majority of the peer-reviewed studies out there. For most people, this is not an issue.

Re:there is no question

[Flambergius]

Yet the message behind [Saving Private Ryan] is the pointlessness and futility of the whole thing. Most violence in GTA is trivial in comparison but instills that VIOLENCE HAS REWARDS. That is a very significant difference.

Now you have engaged in picking a winner between two works of art. Fine for a private person to do, but not fine for the government or for any entity that serves the whole public (like de facto offical ratings agency like ESRB).

Re:there is no question

[severn2j]

We've all played GTA. What, if anything, in the entire series compares with the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan?

Interestingly, Medal Of Honour: Allied Assault actually recreates the opening scene of Saving Private Ryan (along with some other scenes from the film), yet was rated "Teen" by the ESRB..

The inconsistency of censorship is one of my biggest concerns with it..

Re:there is no question

[Clovis42]

It's just that most people do not realize that Blockbuster (a Mormon institution)...

Blockbuster is a publicly traded company. It, like Pepsi, is not a "Mormon institution". About the only "Mormon institution", besides the church itself, is Deseret Industries. I guess this rumor was created because it would be hypocritical for the church to own Blockbuster, who rents R and NR DVDs, and rated M games, which Mormons are not supposed to watch. Just like owning Pepsi would be hypocritical because Mormons aren't allowed to drink caffeinated drinks. What's extra funny is that both of those restrictions aren't even true. Try googling before spouting this nonsense.

The rest of your statement is true, except that I don't think Blockbuster does the censoring themselves; the movie studios are glad to do that. Here's a funny story about censoring. For some reason, when John Waters finished A Dirty Shame, he actually got it rated, and it got an NC-17. So, Blockbuster, and every other major store in the US, would not carry it. So, he had to create a rated-R version, which, for a John Waters film, is retarded. At least at the time, Blockbuster would rent NR films. So, if he had released the cut rated-R version, he then could have sold the rated-NR version, which should be NC-17, in Blockbuster. The ban on NC-17 makes no sense. Just put the rated-R version of any film on a shelf next to the NR version and see which sells faster.

Of course, the situation is worse for video games. Nobody will sell an unrated video game, or an AO game. Video games can definitely be art, but due to the cost of making them, and the need to recoup those costs, the ban on AO games is, in essence, censorship.

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

To boldly predict what no man has predicted before!

Re:there is no question

[KDR_11k]

It would of made an excellent novel.

I think that sentence right there shows that Bioshock isn't a game that is art but a game that contains art. If you can strip the game part without significantly impacting the art then it's not using the medium it chose properly. The game medium has its own unique traits and an artist should only choose the medium if he wants these traits in his work (sure, the market is a trait too but don't movies make more money still?). Many seem to be fighting the traits of their chosen medium, writing a static story and forcing the player to play through it (basically giving him a work sheet to complete between the story scenes) rather than using the interactivity of the game as a central component of their work. When you don't want to make a game perhaps you really shouldn't make one. Think about the traits you need for your work and then choose the medium, don't make a movie out of a painting, a book out of a play or a game out of a story.

To be recognized as a medium for art games must find their own strengths instead of merely copying other media. Show the critics something that makes them say "this could only be expressed in a videogame!".

Re:there is no question

[Dekker3D]

on the topic of the videogame as a medium, i feel like i have to mention this:

the most popular definition of "art" is that it evokes emotion and thought. now, while music is a powerful medium on it's own, and the same thing goes for paintings and sculptures, video games really beat them all in terms of possibility. while almost all video games nowadays are made to sell, not to impress, the genre still combines the means of virtually every other art form we've got. storytelling, it's there. emotions, it's there. thought-provoking situations, they're all in there.

you're just upset because there's a new medium out there, and you won't accept it.

Re:there is no question

[Thiez]

> Most violence in GTA is trivial in comparison but instills that VIOLENCE HAS REWARDS. That is a very significant difference.

But it's true, right? IF you are willing to hurt/kill people and IF you don't get caught (by either the police or others like yourself), then a life of crime and violence can make you a very rich man, and it's stupid to deny that. You don't need to play GTA to realize this truth, just watch the news. Read the papers.

GTA doesn't teach people that violence has rewards, everyone past the age of 10 knows that. GTA just lets you enjoy the violence without the consequences.

Re:there is no question

[KDR_11k]

Yes, many games are just there for the raw entertainment value.

Perhaps that's where we need to ask the question what the purpose of art is. Isn't art created for enjoyment? What is the purpose of a painting? Is it to be interesting to look at? Is it to tell a deeper story? Or is it just to have a status symbol to hang on your wall to look like you're educated? My money's on the last option, modern art has reduced the concept to its foundations by cheaply making something that the buyer can feel good about owning, possibly revelling in the knowledge that noone but him knows the deeper meaning of the picture (though he just read it off the label).

Can art not be pure enjoyment? Must it always critique something? Is it valid to call something like Lord of the Rings, the Foundation series or even Un Chien Andalou art when they don't have a deeper meaning (Tolkien was opposed to interpretation, Asimov just didn't seem to care and Bunuel/Dali specifically wanted to make something that could not be interpreted)?

In closing, why is Pong not art?

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

> it is not always possible to determine where the
> water ends and the alcohol begins in a drink

One of the most interesting metaphors I've seen in a while.

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow ... I have to agree ... the offtopic moderation is ridiculous.

Yeah! Like the time I went to Shelbyville, I had an onion on my belt, which was the fashion at the time...

Re:there is no question

[analog_line]

Uh, no. While I may agree that video games are art, plenty of people of "consequence" dispute it. Perhaps no one you know, or that writes articles for magazines or websites you read disagrees with the notion that video games are art, but there are PLENTY of people who would beg to differ on "games as art" as a settled matter.

My fiancee is finishing her doctorate in composition, and one of her fields of interest is video game music/audio. Despite that, and that she's working on a book about it while she finishes her thesis, she doesn't think video games are art. She has plenty of company out there, and not just from people who don't play games. In my personal experience, the people who act like it's "settled" are those who feel some need to justify their video game playing to their peers/family/self by getting it labeled as "art" and therefore "important", and not a waste of time. I think games can be art (or more accurately, become art when played and stop being art afterward) but it's not a black and white thing.

"Art" doesn't even have a real definition. Ask 10 people what "art" is, and you'll get 15 answers. You can make (and I've heard plenty) damn convincing arguments that painting, music, and writing aren't art either, or that some are and some aren't. How can anything be "settled" when there's nothing to settle on?

Re:there is no question

[halcyon1234]

Name one painting, song, sculpture, poem, or play that has the intellectual depth of a sophisticated and intellectual video game.

Painting: There isn't a game on this planet that's broken my brain as much as Relativity.

Sculpture:After seeing some of Joe Fafard's work this weekend, I'm still waiting for some of his sculptures to follow me home and stare at me.

Photo: You didn't request the name of a photo, but I'll still provide one, because Man vs. Tank sure says a hell of a lot

Poem: Following the theme, I dare you to try to look at a poppy in the same way after reading In Flanders Field

Play: Oh, dear frog, where to even begin with this one. Hell, I'll just plug one of my sister's plays for this one, Bigger Than Jesus, if for no reasons other than even as someone who isn't religious, I found it enlightening-- and because the end of the airplane scene still haunts me.

Song:Rather than point out yet another example, I'll simple refer to the massive cross-pollination of video games and music. Chopin's Prelude in D Flat Major, aka Raindrops, used in conjunction with a certain video game trailer

Re:there is no question

[Shotgun]

Name one video game that has the intellectual depth of a fine art painting or literature.

Space Quest.

Re:there is no question

[vaz01]

I'd like to grease your axle.

Re:there is no question

[geminidomino]

To boldly split infinitives that too many men have split before!

(Before the /. pedants come out to point out the school of thought that does not condemn the practice: Don't bother. I'm perfectly willing to glibly split infinitives already)

Re:there is no question

[Endo13]

What's funny though is the extreme irony in this thread. Video games can't be as "intellectually deep" as other art? Really? That's odd, considering you can build a video game that includes every one of those other pieces of art, in full detail, in 100% 3D.

Re:there is no question

[kabocox]

If you don't define "intellectual depth", then there's no way to ever argue the point with you. If you do define it, then you must define it specifically to exclude video games, and comic books, and trashy romantic comedy movies. Otherwise you will inevitably find a counterexample if you look hard enough & wait long enough (note also that paintings and literature have a far longer history than video games from which to produce classics).

Just wait another 50 years and see what current games are still around and being played with little adaption. There would be your classic video game. Tetris is about the only really classic video game that we currently have. I guess the real test is wait 500-1000 years to see what current video games survive. Then you'd see "classics." Heck, it's liable not to be even Tetris or Mario, but something folks have bootlegged over the years and we might have considered third rate. Just cause it survives doesn't mean its the best that this generation produced. It just means some one some where thought it was worth preserving. Stone statues that grand dad paid an arm and leg for are generally thought to be worth preserving. ;) You know it'll be a real challenge even having true classic video games because there wouldn't be easy platforms to play them with even 20 years down the line. Try digging up an Atari video game console and all the games. We'd agree some of the games like Frogger and PacMan were classics, but they've been rewritten for our current systems and not really preserved in their original forms so we don't know if the originals were better. Actually one thing that you could say to their benefit was that you could pick up/in theory stop any game at any time and it was all skill based. There wasn't such a thing as pause or save or sometimes more than one life. ;) I'm not really surprised that those games have disappeared today.

Re:there is no question

[Tetsujin]

I like the cut of your jib, Slashdotter.

Say that again, but with cars instead.

How about Gary Numan style...

"I like the cut of your jib...
...in cars..."

Re:there is no question

[kabocox]

Not quite. As other people pointed out, playwriting during Shakespeare's time was what second-rate writers did to pass the time. Real artists wrote poetry or essays, not common entertainment for the masses. It was only years later that anyone started to appreciate Shakespeare as anything more than the equivalent of today's TV.

There's also the problem that interactive entertainment, such as games, are more limited in audience.

I'd disagree with the limited audience bit. Why? What is the min. audience for a mildly successful game? (Pick what ever profitable number that you choose.) Now compare that with the average readers of poetry/essays or even theater/Opera audiences. Jewel Quest has massively larger audience than most modern poetry/essays will ever get unless its something that is read during a swearing in of a president. Now lets compare Jewel Quest, Shakespeare, Sherlock Homes books, and Dilbert/Sluggy and the cultural value of each. ;)

Will B5, Cheers, Charmed, Friends, Smallville, Star Trek, Star Wars, or Buffy be considered this last set of decades classics in the future? There is a part of me that thinking audience says and future audience size in the face of a changing culture determines if what is now entertainment will one day be required for kids to learn about as being a classic example of something from this age. ;)

Re:there is no question

[kabocox]

Well, there is a significant difference you see. Sure the opening scene of Private Ryan is gruesome and vivid. Yet the message behind it is the pointlessness and futility of the whole thing. Most violence in GTA is trivial in comparison but instills that VIOLENCE HAS REWARDS. That is a very significant difference.

I'm confused, but violence does have rewards in war. Maybe its that the creators of that movie want to portray all war as pointless and therefore in an inept manner try to prevent future wars?

Re:there is no question

[pcolaman]

If you think that was good art, I have some bridges in the Alaska wilderness I want to sell you.

Re:there is no question

[BaronHethorSamedi]

Name one video game that has the intellectual depth of a fine art painting or literature.

OK, at the risk of feeding a troll...Silent Hill 2.

Funny story. I did part of my undergraduate work in French literature. One of the last papers I had to write dealt with the interplay between love and death in the western tradition. The assignment was to apply the analyses learned during the course to a work of modern fiction. I've always regretted that I didn't start playing Silent Hill 2 until just after I'd turned in the paper. It would have made for a fascinating analysis. (As it was, I wrote on *shudder* Meet Joe Black, a markedly inferior piece of art that happened to correspond to the theme of the course.)

There has never been nor will there ever be a video game that can compare with great art and literature like Rafael, Picasso, van Gogh, James Joyce, Yeats, or Shakespeare.

I think it's pretty telling that all the blokes you hold up as the "standard of greatness" are dead. People are still writing and painting, you know. You might want to look into that.

Re:there is no question

[imgod2u]

Well, there is a significant difference you see. Sure the opening scene of Private Ryan is gruesome and vivid. Yet the message behind it is the pointlessness and futility of the whole thing. Most violence in GTA is trivial in comparison but instills that VIOLENCE HAS REWARDS. That is a very significant difference.

Yes, there is a difference. Yes, one may have a more amiable interpretation *for you* than the other. But you know what? That's just you.

Every GTA up until GTA 4 is a satire. That's right, it isn't meant to be taken seriously. It's irony at its best from the little details like the overly stereotypical hood-speak to the comical theme of "gotta be a gangsta".

It's fun and entertaining and doesn't take itself too seriously. It paints such an absurd world that it is quite clear that it is a fantasy. And that's the point of it. Whether that is somehow less "insightful" than "oh god, war is terrible" is up to the individual. If I had kids, I'd rather teach them irony and skepticism rather than sensationalism and melodrama.

Re:there is no question

[somersault]

WTF? Ghost in the Shell presents some much more interesting ideas than some of the simple retelling of well known stories that Shakespeare has done. As well as interesting plots, it also has good graphics and music. Which are both counted as 'art'. I haven't read the mangas yet so I can't comment on if they are as good as the movies and series, but as they are the original inspiration, I don't see why not. Just like you can get trashy romance novels or atrocious paintings, you can get good and bad manga. Being in a certain category does not automatically make something good art or bad art - unless of course the categories are in fact 'good art' and 'bad art'.

Re:there is no question

[Surt]

Yes, that is art. Horrible, horrible art.

Re:there is no question

[Surt]

Art and fun are not orthogonal. In many cases they are in fact tightly joined.

In any case, I said no one of consequence.

Re:there is no question

[somersault]

I'd just like to point out that you can probably get an Atari emulator and a Pacman ROM if you think the older versions may have been 'better'. Atari are still around as well, and release 'classics' packs occasionally. I doubt that future video game systems will ever be unable to simulate an Atari experience, unless perhaps they are 'sound only' or something. Any 3D system should be able to simulate a 2D system acceptably. Systems like the Wii come with emulators built in (you can play old NES and even Mega Drive games on them), and that trend will hopefully continue in future.

IMO the main difference between 'classic' paintings, statues, cars etc and computer games is that the computer games can be easily copied so they don't retain value in the same way as real items which tend to become more and more fragile or scarce over time.. the only real way to see if a game is a classic is probably to see if the game keeps getting remade for each console? As long as the gameplay stays the same - the original Mario games bare little resemblance to Mario 64 for example so I'm not sure if that counts.

Re:there is no question

[Surt]

Just to help, here's the relevant merriam-webster definition of art:

4 a: the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced b

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

Although Bioshock mostly failed in the art department (it was pretty but with very little emotions), the final scene of Fort Frolic, when realize that killing can be "artistic", was a superb example of art best done with a video game, at least for people who are open minded enough. I would happily compare that scene with a Rembrandt painting (and I specifically mean Rembrandt, I don't say this name for no reason).

The problem with video game as art, is that video games depend a lot upon the player to become art. It's not art without him and it's not art with a player who do not understand art. The Fort Frolic scene, played by someone with no rhythm and no abilities to let go and strictly follow his emotions, would never become art.

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

Art is more than just representation. Looking at a picture representing a piece of art is really not the same as looking at that piece of art itself. You don't feel awe with a book about art, but you do in font of art (at least, if you are able to understand it).

Re:there is no question

[Anonymous Coward]

WHY, ffs, can't people just play the damn game and enjoy it? WHY do you have to HAVE a damn message behind it?

Forget all the crap and just PLAY! It's supposed to be FUN, dipshits!

Re:there is no question

[KDR_11k]

Well, videogames can use their interactivity to show causality and express their own message.

Somewhat OT but one idea I had for a game that was designed just to be a message is a game where you are the leader of a church or sect or whatever and your goal is to please the god (if one exists, that's decided randomly, if none exists the goal is to get as much money as possible) but you are never directly told the truth about the god or his demands. All you see is prophets that could be real, misguided or malicious, events that could be divine or natural, etc and you'd have to form a doctrine based on what you think the happenings mean (e.g. does the god hate gays or promote homosexuality? Does he support the rich or the poor? Does he want war or peace?). At the end you're judged based on how many people you saved or doomed with your doctrine and preachings. The message would be that we cannot know whether a god exists or if he does, what he wants since all we see can just as well be random as it can be the will of the god.

Re:there is no question

[rtechie]

Name one video game that has the intellectual depth of a fine art painting or literature.

Space Invaders. Really.

Much of "fine art" is often just old pornography, regardless of what you may think. Portraits, stills, etc. usually have no intellectual content whatsoever. The Mona Lisa is just a woman's portrait. Michaelangelo's David is porn. Picasso often tried to put messages in his art, but really he's at the level of graffiti artists in this regard. There ARE artists that try to do real social commentary in their art, and they're usually reviled by "fine art" aficionados.

Now literature is a different story. I can't think of any video game that has the intellectual depth of, say, Sun Tsu's "Art of War" or Plato's "Republic". But that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about cheesy romance novels like "Gone With the Wind". And in that regard, there are plenty of video games with deeper stories, mostly RPGs. Final Fantasy comes to mind as a franchise.

Re:there is no question

[rtechie]

Sure the opening scene of Private Ryan is gruesome and vivid. Yet the message behind it is the pointlessness and futility of the whole thing.

No it is not. How many war resisters and pacifists appeared in Saving Private Ryan? At what point in the film do the soldiers mutiny and refuse to fight?

The message is: "Americans are awesome and the Nazis suck ass!", the same message as every WWII movie. Violence is consistently portrayed as good, even "the greatest good", as long as it's Americans using the violence. The soldiers are reverently portrayed and being noble and heroic and honoring their "sacrifice". Hell, the whole movie is about how the American soldiers are selfless, "going into danger to save one of their own". Did you miss the weepy scenes at the beginning and end of the film?

I'd argue that the message of the film is the exact opposite of what you claim. The message of the film is that it is a moral good to use violence to fight evil, even if that results in massive loss of life.

Re:there is no question

[Arterion]

If anything, I would say that a video game's quality of "committing the acting yourself" makes it more of a catharsis than any other form of art.

It is my understanding that the whole basis for violence in art (or indeed, art itself) is the idea of catharsis. People have been arguing over this since Aristotle and Plato, and probably before.

Simply put, violence and sex in video games lets you get it out of your system. If you can kill people in a video game, you're going to feel less like you need to do it in real life. It's especially true when the characters you are killing in a video game are being controlled by another human player, and you even idiomatically describe it as killing them.

Re:there is no question

[Fluffeh]

Every GTA up until GTA 4 is a satire. That's right, it isn't meant to be taken seriously.

I totally have no problem with it as a game. But never underestimate the stupidity of people. I bet that for every person that sees it for the satire that it is, there is another that misses the joke.

Also, much more importantly, behavioral learning in humans shows us that if we perform the same action over and over for some form of reward, we will gradually accept this behaviour as good - whether it was meant as a satirical look at our society or not.

Lastly, the violence is "acceptable" as it is a "bit of fun" it's "just a game" and "no-one takes it seriously", yet every time you play games like this, you lose that little bit more sensitivity to violence. It is gradually eating away. Over time, more and more violence towards other less "acceptable" targets begins to seem more okay.

Don't believe me about it steadily increasing? Look at the average level of violence in TV drama over the past twenty years. We have gone from accepting a very small bit of violence from the "bad guys" to the good guys - cause they are the bad guys after all - to the current shows where the "good guys" use torture and other extreme violence to the "bad guys" to "get the plans" or to "save the population" and so on. Still not convinced? Watch a few episodes of "24". Bust out an episode of "Lost".

Re:there is no question

[Fluffeh]

Not to rain on your parade, but if this is your interpretation of the opening sequence and the movie in general, I think you missed the point of it. I agree that it shows how brave the soldiers are. It shows the sacrifice. It shows how selfless they are.

It then shows just how many people died to claim a beach. And for what purpose really?

Maybe you could point out the "selflessness" and "moral good" in the current wars raging on in Africa? Shed some insight into the conflicts in the middle east? What "good" and "noble purpose" are they serving?

War is BAD. It's that simple.

Re:there is no question

[Endo13]

Let's see... Video game, picture. Nope, not the same thing.

You might want to try actually reading entire posts before you respond to them.

Re:there is no question

[Zirnike]

"There has never been nor will there ever be a video game that can compare with great art and literature like Rafael, Picasso, van Gogh, James Joyce, Yeats, or Shakespeare."

This is a pretty weird statement just by itself.  Why is it that in cars, electricity, and hundreds of other things that make the world better are positive, but somehow Shakespeare is still some sort of god when it comes to literature dispite HUNDREDS of years of progress in how literature is formed?  Neil Stephenson is _way_ better.  Are there things based on Shakespeare?  Sure.  That doesn't make it some sort of perfect work of literature.  It's a building block to better things, just like Newton's Laws.

Re:there is no question

[Talgrath]

1. Take a look at a hell of a lot of movies from the 70's, 80's and 90's that were just as violent, if not more so, than our current crop of movies that received the same rating. Scarface easily stacks up to todays movies in terms of violent activity (not to mention drugs and sex).

2. The idea that continuous observation of violence desensitizes people to violence has not been proven; there has not been one conclusive studies that shows, over time, that people who view violence become more violence. Note that some actually claim that viewing violence makes people less violent as it releases stress; but this again has not been proven.

3. Perhaps 24 is just a representation of the fact that some Americans have decided that torture is okay as long as it is a "bad guy". Art imitates life, this is generally not the other way around; artists are inspired by the times they live in.

Re:there is no question

[Das Modell]

Maybe you should have read a little further:

If you don't define "intellectual depth", then there's no way to ever argue the point with you. If you do define it, then you must define it specifically to exclude video games, and comic books, and trashy romantic comedy movies. Otherwise you will inevitably find a counterexample if you look hard enough & wait long enough (note also that paintings and literature have a far longer history than video games from which to produce classics).

Re:there is no question

[Das Modell]

I'm sure completely arbitrary restrictions and rules are really going to help push video games to the next level as an art form. Do you think films would have gotten where they are now if someone would have announced that there's a "proper" way to do things, and everyone would have gone along with it?

A story isn't going to magically become less artistic because it involves the player moving around and doing things. There is no valid reason whatsoever why you can't make a traditional adventure game that plays out like an interactive film and not be able to call it art (if it's good enough to be called art). Even if the game would be linear, it would still allow some things that films do not, such as different dialogue options (maybe you want to find out more about some subject, maybe you don't) and the ability to examine and explore the environment. A game also has the benefit of not having to care about length so much. A film is usually two hours long with three being the practical limit. A game can spend a much longer time exploring its subject matter.

Re:there is no question

[Das Modell]

I think anyone who uses "it's supposed to be fun" as an argument should be launched into space.

Re:there is no question

[Das Modell]

By your own logic film and literature cannot be art because there exist books and films that are utter dogshit. There also exist shitty statues, bad photographs and lousy music.

Re:there is no question

[Psychochild]

I'd disagree with the limited audience bit.

I was a bit unclear there. It's not simply the fact that less people play video games than watch TV or movies, but consider the core reasons why that is true. The vast majority of people can watch TV or a move just fine; it takes a significant disability to prevent someone from seeing a story in one of these media. Now, enjoying that movie (or TV show) is another issue entirely. But, if someone doesn't have fast enough reflexes, or doesn't have clever enough puzzle solving skills, he or she may not be able to play a particular game. These types of faults aren't something that generally hinders you in the rest of your life.

So, since game require some outside skill beyond basic visual and listening comprehension, it will necessarily have a smaller audience than other media. That means less people fighting to get it considered to be "art", compared to the people that will fight for film and even TV. (Although, we do tend to be pretty persistent, at least online. ;)

Re:there is no question

[Philip K Dickhead]

Anything can be "Art" provided it is created by someone with artistic intention. It is long settled. No video games were harmed in the making of this statement.

Re:there is no question

[neumayr]

Please note how I did not use the word 'art'.
Concerning those bridges, go on, please tell me more.

Re:there is no question

[rtechie]

It then shows just how many people died to claim a beach. And for what purpose really?

To end the Nazi occupation of France. Regardless of how you feel about the Normandy invasion, it wasn't POINTLESS. There was a clear military/political objective.

I mean seriously, have you WATCHED this movie? Yes, the opening scene is bloody and realistic, but that's just pageantry. 'Saving Private Ryan' is really just human sacrifice on film. It's 'Passion of the Christ' with bombs. It's a rah-rah flick for the US military. It is certainly NOT an antiwar film. Go watch 'Grave of the Fireflies', 'All Quiet on the Western Front',
'Three Kings', or even 'Dr. Strangelove' to find out what an antiwar movie is.

Maybe you could point out the "selflessness" and "moral good" in the current wars raging on in Africa?

I didn't say that war in general is good. What I said is that 'Saving Private Ryan' is a jingoistic war movie that portrays fighting WWII as a moral good, and that American warmaking is good in general.

Abe's Oddysey.. vegetarian?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe that I read once that Oddworld, Abe's Oddesey drew its themes from vegetarian ideas? Is that true?

Re:Abe's Oddysey.. vegetarian?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is true that you believe you read once that Oddworld drew its themes from vegetarian ideas.

That said, Oddworld in fact did not draw its themes from vegetarian ideas.

I have never played Oddworld, nor have I ever eaten a vegetable.

Re:Abe's Oddysey.. vegetarian?

[KGIII]

I have never played Oddworld, nor have I ever eaten a vegetable.

Of course you haven't, they're a pain in the ass to get out of the wheelchair.

Anybody capable of programming a game...

[Joce640k]

...should on no account be allowed to make "statements".

Re:Anybody capable of programming a game...

[Anonymous Coward]

...should on no account be allowed to make "statements".

Elaborate, oh wise one.

Re:Anybody capable of programming a game...

[WK2]

Statements and expressions are requirements in most programmings languages.

Re:Anybody capable of programming a game...

[CaptainPatent]

...should on no account be allowed to make "statements".

printf(%s, "Why no... whoops"); //well if we can't make a statement, we should just leave a comment instead.

Re:Anybody capable of programming a game...

[neumayr]

Funny how those that bothered to reply to your post (and at this point, the mods) pretty much confirmed your point.

Re:Anybody capable of programming a game...

[Tetsujin]

I guess he's suggesting that programmers, as a rule, are generally too nerdy (or at least pragmatic) to be able to do effective PR.

Of course, I can't say I agree. Some people have combinations of skills that defy such cliches... And, additionally, in the case of this story, I'd point out that first, there's really no reason for people to get all up in arms about this "invaders" thing. They should just get a grip, relax, no need to go mental just 'cause someone used a picture of the WTC for something. Second, when the artist decided that the piece wasn't having the intended effect, he pulled it. That's a legitimate creative decision, too...

Re:Anybody capable of programming a game...

[neumayr]

Well, what he was referring to was game programmers - programming games is supposed to require even more time and effort than, say, programming your standard device driver. Thus, only the nerdiest of the nerdy excel at sort of work, and as their work takes up so much of themselves, their world view tends to be more limited than other people's. Specialization sucks that way.
So, my guess is that he's saying that people with limited perspective shouldn't be making statements.

I don't really agree either, because those people do have a differently view on the world than the rest of us, making it at least thinkable they could make a valid observation of the world only possible from just that perspective.

meh

[thermian]

Ever since I discovered the joy of hunting down and killing innocent civilian transports in Elite I've been looking for ways to be a completely evil bugger in the games I play.

I'm not alone either, people like to do that sort of thing. Why else would you be able to sit on top of buildings taking out hookers with a sniper rifle in a car driving game? There is of course a big difference between doing that in a game and doing it in real life, but quite obviously it is something people find amusing, at least in a fantasy sense.

I can't say I'd like replaying real world modern atrocities, but I know from accounts of elderly relatives just how bloody and horrific the second world war was (in unfortunately graphic detail, given how young I was when I listened to the stories), yet we happily recreate that in game after game.

recreation of nasty events is going to happen, there's no way to avoid it, and good luck trying to set a time limit on how much time must pass before an event becomes a suitable topic for a game.

Re:meh

[QuantumG]

I think it would be fun to have an augmented reality sniper rifle. You climb up on a tall building, sight up some people and then blast them.. the scope in the sniper rifle gives you a realistic account of the blood splatter and how they would fall to the ground, etc. You could wear headphones to simulate the sound of the rifle firing. Of course, when you take your eyes away from the scope the person is still alive and walking around.. I'm not suggesting we need VR goggles here.

Unfortunately, if someone spotted you up there on the roof pretending to shoot people, they'd send the police to kill you.

Re:meh

[Fulcrum of Evil]

That's kind of insane - you're basically conditioning yourself to snipe random people in a real setting, which is highly divorced from sitting in an arcade messing with a game (or at home). Basically, it's one step removed from senseless slaughter, and yes, you'd probably get shot for your stupidity. Hell, I get nervous contemplating stuff like this

Re:meh

[Awptimus Prime]

I agree with you. Those crazy people who think people will act out video games should get ready for me to dress up in a pirate outfit and go around stabbing people in the back with a 3 foot long dagger, /dancing and /giggling the whole time.

(World of Warcraft PVP, world ganking people 50 levels lower than myself for fun)

Re:meh

[spire3661]

So it ok in virtual setting (video game), but not a real one. Ok what about if he was in a holo-deck is it sick then? It seems to me you are arguing the ethics of this action by its graphical fidelity.

Re:meh

[mattack2]

Well, on TNG, they were definitely dismayed at Broccoli [sic] putting the other crew members into his holodeck fantasies.

Re:meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Some "Fulcrum_of_Evil" you turned out to be.

Re:meh

[EdIII]

There is of course a big difference between doing that in a game and doing it in real life, but quite obviously it is something people find amusing, at least in a fantasy sense.

This is not about video games and their relation to violence at all. With all due respect to both sides of that argument, "Blah Blah Blah Fucking-Blah". That issue is being brought up to provide cover to the real issue here, and unfortunately there will be a lot of posters arguing back and forth. I am sure there will be some pretty insightful and compelling arguments on both sides, but all of you just fell into a trap.

This artist is a narcissistic asshole. He claims that it was not controversy for controversy's sake, a statement that I highly doubt is true. Instead of confronting the issue he tries to throw two questions up in the air and escape out the back door while the rest of us are arguing. Knowing that the argument would turn into a heated debate about video games and their relation to violence, just shows that he chose the topics wisely.

The question about whether or not video games can make "artistic statements", and if indeed video games could be considered a form of art, is also irrelevant. Obviously it is a form of art. From programming, to graphics and music, video games are full of art. Can art make statements that are moving, profound, and controversial? Ummm, well what else was it for in the first place? Duh.

recreation of nasty events is going to happen, there's no way to avoid it, and good luck trying to set a time limit on how much time must pass before an event becomes a suitable topic for a game.

This is the real question. It is about boundaries that should be obvious to most people, but are not. Linking Space Invaders with the tragedy of 9/11 was just in poor taste and lacked any artistic value. It was created to purely shock people, and nothing else. Games about World War II, and others like them are recreating the experience of war, which is different than what this artist was doing. How does Space Invaders recreating the experience of 9/11 have any value?

Anytime art involves horrific tragedy it is treading on dangerous ground. An artist does need to be careful with the statement that he/she is trying to make. Plenty of artists have tried to make art with genocide, the holocaust, and horrible natural disasters. Some have succeeded and some have failed. You run a big risk doing it. Your better be able to explain your statement and it should be a good one at that. Pretty simple.

This gentleman failed spectacularly . It is possible that he was just stupid. I don't think so, but it is possible. He could of said, "I tried making a statement. You don't understand it or appreciate it. I apologize to all offended". Instead he did not explain anything, but created a cluster fuck of a smoke screen and walked away.

Everybody on /. should not let him get away with it by participating and instead just send him a healthy heaping of "Fuck YOU".

Re:meh

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference for me is that in a war game you are 'killing' soldiers, this is what they and you are paid to do. A generalisation of course but you expect combat troops to be targeted.

I can no more kill an innocent person in a game than in real life though I recognise that just because some people can it does not necessarily make them more predisposed to real violence. A game or movie might give someone a creative idea of how to inflict violence but I don't think it makes someone violent who isn't already bent that way.

Note here I talk of a person, a pretend 'someone' in a civilian freighter doesn't have that 'human' aspect (like in real life too I suppose) so it is easier to shoot them up however I prefer not to shoot them up unless I have to.

Live and let live is my motto.

Steven.

Re:meh

[pcolaman]

Well, on TNG, they were definitely dismayed at Barclay putting the other crew members into his holodeck fantasies.

There, fixed it for you. And no, don't mod me funny, I really did fix it for him.

Re:meh

[Mr. Slippery]

Linking Space Invaders with the tragedy of 9/11 was just in poor taste and lacked any artistic value. It was created to purely shock people, and nothing else.

The artistic statement is pretty clear to me: the "war on terror" works as well as the "war on Space Invaders", in that there's an unlimited number of them and you're going to eventually get blown up. As the Convention write-up put it "the players must prevent the catastrophe by controlling the well- known cannon at the lower screen border with their bodies and firing it using arm movements. Like the original, this trial is ultimately unsuccessful, thus creating an articulated and critical commentary about the current war strategy."

This review says it "may be unsettling, with its blending of archaic gameplay and modern day catastrophe, but it's also an impressive accomplishment in that it delivers complex messages via simple means. Despite its perceived insensitivity, Stanley's ability to use video games as a medium of artistic expression will likely be an important step in the form being taken seriously (by people who take things seriously)."

You might not like that statement, you may disagree with it, you may find the way it's expressed to be in poor taste. But to claim that it has no artistic value, only shock value, is off the mark.

He could of said, "I tried making a statement. You don't understand it or appreciate it. I apologize to all offended". Instead he did not explain anything, but created a cluster fuck of a smoke screen and walked away.

("Could have said" or "could've said", not "could of said". Sorry, pet peeve, and I will now be fated to introduce at least one grammatical error into this post.)

An artist's job is to make art, not to explain it or apologize for it.

Re:meh

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, on TNG, they were definitely dismayed at Broccoli [sic] putting the other crew members into his holodeck fantasies.

To be fair, the writers were pointing out the irrational reaction that people have when they see themselves in somebody else's fantasy. Troi was explaining to Riker how it was a perfectly natural and harmless fantasy on the part of Barclay's right up until she saw herself as the love goddess.

Re:meh

[gary gunrack]

22.3 years. Sorry-- southpark again.

Re:meh

[soulfury]

Instead of a rifle, we can use PDAs/Smartphones and use their built-in cameras to sight up some people. We can also let two or more PDAs communicate via Bluetooth/WiFi/whatever to let people virtually kill each other.

Re:meh

[Fulcrum of Evil]

Or, rather, what people appear to be doing because how would they really know? I dunno how my comment is flamebait, though - hanging out on a rooftop with a rifle is just asking to be shot, especially when you start aiming at people.

Re:meh

[QuantumG]

"just asking to be shot" sounds like you're talking about the reality of the crazy world we live in.. and if that's the case, of course I completely agree with you. That's really not the world I want to live in though. People should receive due process, no matter what they appear to be doing.

Re:meh

[bit01]

People should receive due process, no matter what they appear to be doing.

Problem is, we live in an imperfect world. The police aren't mind readers, they have to believe what they see and make reasonable decisions based on what they see and currently if they see a "shooter" on a rooftop the balance of probabilities is that they're dangerous and need to be controlled before an innocent gets hurt (including themselves if they're mentally ill). Like many real world situations there's no time for due process but making an incomplete decision on incomplete information in limited time is better than making no decision at all and possibly allowing an innocent getting hurt. If your game ever became popular then the balance of probabilities would change and maybe what the police would do would change too.

However, there's also the added problem that police are only human and some are in dangerous situations every day. That means if they personally want survive for any length of time statistically they have to assume the worst every day. Even though they will be wrong more often than not, they will be right when it matters to them, when they really are personally in danger.

A bit like the distinction between type I and type II errors in statistics. Not sure what can be done about it other than giving police non-lethal options and protecting them as much as possible so they don't feel the need to assume/do the worst all the time.

---

Insisting on absolute safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world.

-- Mary Shafer, risks researcher, NASA

Re:meh

[QuantumG]

And that's the problem with a society that empowers police to "protect". There's no time for due process when you're so afraid that someone might get hurt. Cop shoots kid in an alley with a ray gun. That's the cliche we're talking about here. Do you really want police who shoot first and ask questions later?

Re:meh

[Fulcrum of Evil]

are you kidding? If some kid pulled what looked like a gun, I'd shoot him too.

Re:meh

[fprintf]

Always when I run out of my 15 mod points I come across posts like this. I would have modded you funny just for fun, but then again I just spent the last 30 minutes modding everyone down who said some version of "moderators, don't mod this down". :-)

Re:meh

[KDR_11k]

When there's a sniper on a rooftop that usually means people will die and the longer he stays there the more will die. Going up to arrest him not only takes time but also could end with him shooting police officers. In this case the police will try to prevent innocent and officer deaths first before protecting the life of the sniper. You can't go around threatening people and expecting no response, people think you're serious and when it looks like you're going to kill them they'd rather kill you first.

Re:meh

[R2.0]

There's a scene in "The Professional" where Leon is teaching Mathilda how to kill someone with a sniper rifle. It's very shocking when she pulls the trigger, and then it shows it's a dart gun. No one was hurt, and Mathilda exclaims "Can we kill someone else?" while Leon is hustling her off the roof because he knows others will not see it as a game.

Children don't recognize that play is training for work; adults recognize that play can have real consequences, just like work. I think we can pretty much tell which side of that developmental divide you are on.

Re:meh

[vaz01]

Wanna know why I invariably beat the shit out of old ladies and shoot up strip clubs when I play GTA?

Because it's the only kind of behaviour that ANYTHING in the environment is programmed to actually react interestingly to.

Honestly, throw a fucking cup of soda at some woman on the street and she'll start screaming and running like you just shot her.

As far as being able to do ridiculous and uninhibited things in an enormous city with zero consequences goes, there are an awful lot of things that would be way more fun to do than punching old people. The game is designed to make it fun to drive and/or kill people, that's it.

Re:meh

[kabocox]

I can't say I'd like replaying real world modern atrocities, but I know from accounts of elderly relatives just how bloody and horrific the second world war was (in unfortunately graphic detail, given how young I was when I listened to the stories), yet we happily recreate that in game after game.

recreation of nasty events is going to happen, there's no way to avoid it, and good luck trying to set a time limit on how much time must pass before an event becomes a suitable topic for a game.

I'd say the suitable time frame is when those that were in said event are now mostly grandparents or mostly dead is about the right time. Of course somethings are different. I bet while the wars were going on that you had kids on both sides playing to be solider against whoever was their country's enemy. Think of cops and robbers or cow boys and Indians. That doesn't mean that the toy companies of the time pushed it more than usual or that certain percentage of mothers weren't horrified that their darlings were playing solider. Its that loud vocal group that are trying to get everyone else from playing modern solider or cops and robbers games.

Re:meh

[mattack2]

No, you didn't fix it for me. You don't understand the meaning of "[sic]", which I put in the original post.

(That is what other crewmembers called him.)

The message

[Robert1]

"neither artist has been especially specific about 'what it means,' or in instructing players on how they should interpret their work or what 'message' should be taken away."

That's because saying "to intentionally be controversial to garner attention for myself" doesn't go over well when you're trying to maintain a facade of artistic merit.

Re:The message

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmmmm... I don't like people that "tell me what it means" or tell me "how I should interpret their work" or tell me what message I better be hearing.

All of that, and what I think, belong to me and me alone. I don't know what's worse - terrorists or people that seek to control my thoughts.

Re:The message

[Anonymous Coward]

trying to maintain a facade of artistic merit.

Did I lose the instruction book that came with the Mona Lisa, or was da Vinci just trying to maintain a facade of artistic merit?

Re:The message

[Televiper2000]

I think this is the crux of the issue. This is where the artists fail to make their case that they are making an artistic statement, and not simply hiding behind the label. Telling people what your message is doesn't necessarily mean telling what to take home from the piece. It means giving some statement of where you're coming from, and the significance of each of the elements. Art isn't poker, you're not supposed to hide your cards. In the case of these two pieces we're left to come up with our own interpretation, as long at that interpretation is arty goodness, and not smelly garbageness, because you know it's art.

Re:The message

[grahamd0]

In the case of these two pieces we're left to come up with our own interpretation, as long at that interpretation is arty goodness, and not smelly garbageness, because you know it's art.

On the contrary, I doubt that either person has the ability to limit your interpretation, which could easily include it being smelly garbageness.

That's the beauty of art.

Re:The message

[KGIII]

Every time you argue the merits of your thoughts with another it is an attempt to control their thoughts. Else you'd just let them think what they want.

I see you doing that a lot here on /. Mr. Anonymous Coward.

Re:The message

[Televiper2000]

To criticize the piece the artist will be forced to form their own interpretation of the piece.
The artist can arbitrarily dismiss the criticism by saying, "that's not what I meant."
When the artist doesn't attach their own interpretation to a piece, and they respond to criticism with "it's art, why all the negativity" they are, IMHO, begging for a polite interpretation. The 'artists' here are basically saying, I'm not going to tell you what I mean, but I'm appalled at being misinterpreted.

You can make whatever statements you want.

[sycodon]

But others will always have the right to tell you you are a dumb ass.

At least no one put out a Fatwa on him.

Re:You can make whatever statements you want.

[abigor]

Or just the opposite of a fatwa, whatever that is (WARNING: this is guaranteed to offend, and yes, this game does exist):

http://it.youtube.com/watch?v=vUY-ciT-mu4

I don't know what's worse, the game or the commentary.

Re:You can make whatever statements you want.

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI a Fatwa is just a generic religious ruling by a Sharia judge, it's not a death threat. However a Fatwa to kill someone is a ruling to kill someone, but you need the "to kill someone" bit for it mean what you're implying.

ps. Sharia Courts are bullshit: "In instances of rape some interpretations of Sharia law require for an allegation to be validated, victims must have four witnesses to the crime or else the victims risk being charged with fornication or adultery making a rejected allegation a potential death sentence for the victim. In Yemen Sharia law required compensation to be paid to the husband in the case of a 10 year old child bride who requested a divorce after rape and abuse (the age of sexual consent under Sharia law is 9)"

Re:You can make whatever statements you want.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sharia Law cannot be a perfectly valid system for judging rape, for the reasons I have outlined, and you cannot change Sharia law because they think their sky god is telling them to do this. Modern western prisons are designed against blind-spots that cloak prison rape and violence. At least in America there isn't institutionalized rape, Unlike in Sharia law you're not allowed to execute a virgin, but you're allowed to rape a virgin and then kill them:

"Mina Mohammadian was executed on February 29, 1987, on political charges. She was held in solitary confinement for eleven months prior to her execution. During that period, she went through forty interrogation sessions, during which she was subjected to the most horrendous tortures. She was repeatedly raped by the regime's Guards. She was 22 at the time of her execution."

Western courts take too long and aren't accessible to the common man, whereas Sharia is quick and efficient but is a mess of religious dogma. In practice Sharia can be mostly done better by small claims court. I'm not an American btw.

Re:You can make whatever statements you want.

[pcolaman]

What I find most offensive is, with all of the FPS games available on the market, why is his marksmanship so poor?

Free country

[Anonymous Coward]

PRETTY SIMPLE...

If you don't like it, don't play it.

Otherwise STFU or move to somewhere you can use the gov't or others to control people you don't like.

Re:Free country

[ksd1337]

I don't see why this is modded Flamebait. The poster brings up a valuable point.

I think he's fibbing...

[RevVoice]

>>"it was never created to merely provoke controversy for controversy's sake." Then what message was it intended to provoke? Did the creator actually suspect people would look and go, "Oh! How artistic?" and not lash out against it? He has every right to create, but I can't imagine what kind of dipstick wouldn't realize that it was going to piss people off.

Re:I think he's fibbing...

[ral8158]

I considered it artistic. It's viscious commentary, but it still has all the traits of postmodern art (it is indistinguishable from parody of itself)

A simple, two second interpretation: The World Trade Center represents capitalism, and the invaders, by slowly destroying the world trade center, are slowly stripping away our accomplishments and even some of our failures to produce a fair society. These invaders are both setting us back and giving us a chance to start over. In multiple ways, they are charicatures of our actual enemies; they're slow moving, giving us the opportunity to stop them if we deem our successes worth protecting, and they're part of a video game. In a twist that even the most hardened postmodern critic would have to love, he is actually commenting on how people won't take the video game as a serious work of art.

There. I could probably whip up a few more paragraphs, pages, or books if I had the time or motivation. But a reasonably intelligent person would realize that if he wanted to be offensive about 9/11, he could do it in way better ways than this.

Re:I think he's fibbing...

[HappySmileMan]

Maybe he just didn't care that a few assholes would limit his freedom of expression, he doesn't have to explain why he did it to you or anyone else, he is allowed by law.

Re:I think he's fibbing...

[Maestro485]

Maybe he didn't intend to have a message. Maybe he made a game that was somewhat tasteless for the hell of it. Maybe he wasn't analyzing it like some holier-than-thou English lit major.

Re:I think he's fibbing...

[timmarhy]

wait he made a game depecting an event in which lots of peoples family memebers were murdered, and THEY are the assholes?

while i agree freedom of expression is important, it doesn't make it ok for this prick to exploit a tragic event for his own gain (which is clearly all this is).

Re:I think he's fibbing...

[Anonymous Coward]

I considered it artistic. It's viscious commentary, but it still has all the traits of postmodern art (it is indistinguishable from parody of itself)

Viscous commentary? is that like a oil painting?

Would that then be artistic?

Re:I think he's fibbing...

[CowboyBob500]

It happened 8 years ago, get over it already - the world moves on. In terms of human history 9/11 is a mere blip. I guarantee you that more people have been killed on America's roads since then than were killed in the WTC, but does that stop you playing road racing games? Many more innocent people were killed in WWII than in the WTC, but does that stop you playing Call of Duty or similar games? The over-sensitivity and over-the-top sentimentalism over that one event is getting ridiculous.

Bob

Re:I think he's fibbing...

[KDR_11k]

Which is different from games about any war, how?

What about the JFK game where you are Oswald?

[Joe The Dragon]

What about the JFK game where you are Oswald? That was big when it came out.

Video lames

[binaryseraph]

Yes, videogames can be deemed art. But not all of them are. Madden '08 is hardly experession, but just the NFL marketing tool of choice to subvert our young into becoming whores to the industry.

Re:Video lames

[Koiu Lpoi]

but just the NFL marketing tool of choice to subvert our young into becoming whores to the industry.

And, in that respect, it is a masterpiece; the entire series, in that respect, is a pure work of art, through and through. Controlling human populations is most certainly an art.

You can troll with them = you can make statements

[philspear]

It's unfortunate that the examples were all statements of "Lookit me! I'm an insensitive asshole!" But the answer is yes, they can express that.

The real question is if games can make statements that aren't

-I want money
-I want attention
-I hate (insert group of people here)
-I'm a jerk

The answer is yes, but we haven't been able to do it very sophisticated like yet.

One GOOD exmaple I'm thinking of is the guy who made "the emo game" You can find his works here
http://www.emogame.com/

Emo game 1 basically is making fun of emo music. A worthy goal. One of the sequels is an extremely not-subtle condemnation of conservatives, republicans, Bush, Paris hilton, the anti-stem cell movement, and shooting various other fishes in barrels. They're free and sometimes funny. Again, not subtle. Try them. A lot of the message relies on you playing through not very good gaming portions and then coming to a word document with the message inserted. It doesn't flow seamlessly with the game.

There are also games that are clearly environmental, and they range from bludgeoning you over the head with it to so subtle that you could miss it.

Bioshock I'm told has some moral questions for you to ponder. As I haven't played it yet I can't comment on that. I suspect though it's largely using movie techniques between game sequences.

Videogames as statements are clearly in their infancy, so it's to be expected that the examples we have are fairly crude. Props to the emogame guy for being a pioneer of sorts though, and of course for making a statement with his soapbox. But it definitely is possible and with time they'll develop mechanisms to make it actually part of the game as opposed to gaming between statements.

Define "art"

[ZosX]

I believe you are asking a rhetorical question.

Statement?

[Xevantus]

I don't see how either of the examples sited can be said to be a "statement." People are just used to games being unrealistic. In 2000, no one made a fuss about the fact that the creators of "Deus Ex" decided to destroy both the WTC and the Statue of Liberty in terrorist attacks for their storyline. Why? Because it was unrealistic. Every gamer has done quite a few things in games that are just "unacceptable." You know, killing civilians in every FPS ever made, sniping the Sarge at Boot Camp in HL: OF, killing marines in Halo. You know, the stuff out mothers warned us not to do...So what's wrong with DEFENDING the twin towers? Sure, if you fail, they're destroyed...Until you start a new game. I see no statement being made. I only see the reality we embrace in out television and movies bleeding over into video games. What's wrong with that?

Anything Can Be Art

[gacl]

If urinals, piss, and elephant shit can be art, then, why not a video game?

Previous to the 20th century defining art was easy. Nowdays, not so much.

Re:Anything Can Be Art

[Koiu Lpoi]

Some would say because "a videogame is designed to make money, and thus is not art." Takashi Murakami would reply

Japanese people accept that art and commerce will be blended; and in fact, they are surprised by the rigid and pretentious Western hierarchy of 'high art.'

And I, for one, am seeing the Western art world change to fit this same idea. In fact, under this idea, the Final Fantasy series (with their beautifully rendered cutscenes) are already art.

Why are movies ok?

[bigbigbison]

I have said this elsewhere but I might as well post it here too. At lest this guy didn't make a movie dramatizing events from 9/11 and charge people $8+ to see it.

Re:Why are movies ok?

[westlake]

At lest this guy didn't make a movie dramatizing events from 9/11 and charge people $8+ to see it.
.

Trying to comprehend an event like 9/11 does not imply using a Wii controller to slit the throat of a stewardess in a video game.

two comments.

[Toonol]

The quick answer is, of course. Like any other form of creative endeavor, videogames can and should be used to explore themes and illustrate principles, artistically.

The second point, though, is that I don't like these two games being held up as examples of video-game art. Both the mentioned games seem to me a bit like the crucifix dipped in urine; it's making a crass, simplistic, unsubtle, and probably unintended statement. Artists seem to feel that they are free to make ridiculous and shoddily-executed statements, purely for shock, and that nobody should criticise them for it. It's 'art'.

Play Planescape:Torment to find a game rich with true art, that says something about humanity. The aforementioned two games are art, in the same sense hanging condoms from a Christmas tree painted red is.

Re:two comments.

[amirulbahr]

Going for shock value is perhaps a symptom of the times. How else do you get your message to "cut-through" in this age? Admittedly, you need to have a message to begin with.

There's a difference between a statement...

[Legion_SB]

... and merely doing something that you know people will find offensive.

Let's see someone actually do something thought-provoking with games, not simply "hey, what's the most offensive thing we can do, let's do that and call it 'artistic'!"

If you turned your "artistic statement" into a Slashdot comment and it would get modded down as "Troll", it's not a particularly good statement. Keep thinking.

Re:There's a difference between a statement...

[Awptimus Prime]

If you turned your "artistic statement" into a Slashdot comment and it would get modded down as "Troll", it's not a particularly good statement. Keep thinking.

I would not consider things which are mod-worthy on slasdot being of much value anywhere except slashdot. Most of the +5 Insightful writings on here would get you laughed out of any sort of face to face debate in the majority of settings.

Re:There's a difference between a statement...

[Jedi Alec]

If you turned your "artistic statement" into a Slashdot comment and it would get modded down as "Troll", it's not a particularly good statement. Keep thinking.

Funny you say that. I personally define art, especially in the context of videogames, as an expression of an artist's vision capable of provoking a genuine emotional response(and no, throwing up in disgust doesn't count). Some games make me go "wow". Seeing Final Fantasy VIII's cutscenes did so. Some parts of various' games storylines made me sit back and ponder things.

To get back to your troll comment, a really proper troll can enrage people. Art is in the eye of the beholder I guess ;-)

Not a good place for artistic expression

[Kenoli]

Whatever "message" the game may have had was completely lost, and for an obvious reason.
Not because it was in a video game, but simply because it involved the WTC towers. Their destruction is one of the most controversial topics I can think of.
What sort of reaction was the artist honestly expecting to get?

Video games are not art

[incognito84]

I remember reading an article written by Hideo Kojima (of MGS fame) about whether he thought video games were art, and he said no.

He essentially said that he didn't believe video games were art as they offered an open ended experience where players can immerse themselves in order to form unique experiences.

As a whole, that's just what they are: packaged, bought and sold "worlds" or "realities" for us to play in, which can contain all sorts and varieties of artistic elements, but yet as a whole can not be considered art. A player's experience rewound and played forward as a non-interactive product of the player's volition (like a film) can be art, but the act of playing a video game is not by itself art.

This is not to subtract from the idea of video games as I'm an avid video gamer myself. Video games provide us with experiences we could not or would not replicate in real life, and our interaction with these games creates an individually tailored experience which can be chalked full of artistic things, yet not artistic as a whole because it is what you make of it.

Is riding the subway to work art? No. Is seeing a painting on the wall art? The painting itself is, yes, but not the act of seeing it or your choice to go and see it. Is listening to music art? Not the act of listening, but the music itself is art... and you see my point.

Video games offer us a passage to artistic things, but are wholly not art in themselves.

Hope that made sense.

Re:Video games are not art

[Anonymous Coward]

I cannot see how the crafting of an ersatz environment and its physics can be considered less of an art than merely reproducing an image of such a place. Certainly, such artifacts should not be disqualified simply because video games involve an art form that can be experienced in a variety of different ways.

By your example:

Is listening to music art? Not the act of listening, but the music itself is art.

Is operating a video game on a computer art? Not the act of pressing buttons, but the game which responds to your interaction.

Re:Video games are not art

[Chuck Chunder]

Video games are not art

Ceci n'est pas une pipe

Re:Video games are not art

[Haoie]

The game is the art.

But the gamer isn't the artist.

Re:Video games are not art

[Anonymous Coward]

Ironic that Kojima would say that. Not because I think his games are artistic, but because they have so many cutscenes it is hard to consider them interactive.

On a more serious note, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Your analogies are absurdly flawed: seeing a painting or listening to music is equivalent to playing a game, not to the game itself. No one here (or at least very few) are claiming that playing a game is art. The game itself is art.

Re:Video games are not art

[Hatta]

He essentially said that he didn't believe video games were art as they offered an open ended experience where players can immerse themselves in order to form unique experiences.

Hasn't the experience one takes from a work of art always been open ended? Every person is unique, and so is their experience. Nothing changes when its a game.

Re:Video games are not art

[incognito84]

Yes, but video games aren't static. They're different everytime you play them. Is the act of playing Monopoly art? The game board has artistic elements, sure, but would you label the game "Monopoly" as art? No, you would call it a game. That's what video games are: games. Games can have artistic attributes or they can not, but it doesn't change the fact that they are games.

Re:Video games are not art

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is two-fold here. First, you keep (intentionally?) confusing the issue by talking about how playing the game isn't art. No one is debating this point, so stop bringing it up. As your earlier post said, watching a movie isn't art, listening to music isn't art, seeing a painting isn't art, etc. But movies, music, and paintings are art. The fact that playing a video game isn't art does not somehow magically make the game itself not art.

Second, with regards to monopoly, why do you believe it is your right to decide what others think about monopoly? I think that it is indeed art. It's certainly simplistic popular art, like a poster or generic pop music, but it is art nonetheless. And I'm not referring to the obviously artistic attributes such as the graphic design of the board, but rather to the gameplay and the game as a whole.

If I were to cut away all of the unnecessary aspects of your argument, it seems to boil down to the idea that video games are not art because they are not static. The problem is you're acting as though this is some sort of axiom of art, when it is in fact painfully obvious to the rest of us that anyone who believes video games are (or can be) art will not agree with this idea.

Re:Video games are not art

[incognito84]

On a more serious note, it doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Your analogies are absurdly flawed: seeing a painting or listening to music is equivalent to playing a game, not to the game itself. No one here (or at least very few) are claiming that playing a game is art. The game itself is art.

You misunderstood. I said:

As a whole, that's just what they are: packaged, bought and sold "worlds" or "realities" for us to play in, which can contain all sorts and varieties of artistic elements, but yet as a whole can not be considered art.

I didn't mean to imply that playing a game was art. I mean to say that the act of playing a game isn't art, nor is the game itself, nor is the act of listening to music. You can have artistic impressions of a game, but a game is not inherently art (the game itself).

What I meant to say (and sorry if this wasn't clear), is that art (music, a painting) is inherently classifiable as art where a video game is inherently not classifiable as art. While their may be artistic attributes to games, like graphics art, the plot, the background score and even the voice acting, the game as a whole is not art. The game itself is not art but there are things in it which are.

Pink Floyd's "The Wall" is wholly art. "Doom" is not.

Re:Video games are not art

[Anonymous Coward]

Is riding the subway to work art? No. Is seeing a painting on the wall art? The painting itself is, yes, but not the act of seeing it or your choice to go and see it. Is listening to music art? Not the act of listening, but the music itself is art... and you see my point.

So playing the game is not art, but the game itself is... wait, no, playing is art but... no hold on...

No, sorry, you lost me.

Re:Video games are not art

[Burning1]

I don't see how allowing a player to immerse themselves by having their own unique experiences within an alternate world invalidates the idea that games are art. If anything, I feel like it promotes the idea.

To me, art provides an alternative way of expressing and exploring thoughts that people may be uncomfortable approaching directly. Sometimes the art is designed to shock, other times it's designed to break through barriers of faith, tradition, or social normality. One of the great things about art is it allows the viewer to find their own meaning in the work it's self. To see the authors ideas, and to combine it with their own experience in order to understand something about themselves.

I think in that regard, open ended games like GTA (while not horribly creative) or Fallout might be quite artistic in their own way.

Re:Video games are not art

[aeoo]

Funny, that coming from Hideo Kojima, whose games are the most deep in terms of their artistic value and explorations of morality, power and other concerns.

Compared to MGS, every other game is infantile and single-dimensional.

Sometimes I wish Hideo Kojima did an RPG. It would be interesting, I think.

Art, through, is not something that's easy to define. Why is painting an art and wall paint isn't? Or maybe it is, if it's done by an artist? Etc. To me, what art is and isn't is defined by the observer.

Taking a train ride is not art until you make it art, and then it is art. Anything and everything can be art if we allow it. But then you can examine a statue of David and fail to see any art there. Anything is possible. Whether the games are art or not depends on the motivations of gamers and game-making teams.

Re:Video games are not art

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't mean to imply that playing a game was art. I mean to say that the act of playing a game isn't art, nor is the game itself, nor is the act of listening to music. You can have artistic impressions of a game, but a game is not inherently art (the game itself).

I didn't say you implied that playing a game is art; I said that your argument hinged on disproving that idea and then magically leapt to the conclusion that video games themselves are not art.

What I meant to say (and sorry if this wasn't clear), is that art (music, a painting) is inherently classifiable as art where a video game is inherently not classifiable as art.

This is meaningless. All you've done is change the topic of the argument semantically from "are video games art?" to "are video games inherently classifiable as art?". You seem to answer this without any sort of logical argument, choosing instead to just pretend that it is obvious that the answer is no.

While their may be artistic attributes to games, like graphics art, the plot, the background score and even the voice acting, the game as a whole is not art. The game itself is not art but there are things in it which are.

Are movies "inherently classifiable as art"?

Re:Video games are not art

[nomadic]

Compared to MGS, every other game is infantile and single-dimensional.

Alright, that is ridiculous. There aren't many games that qualify as art, but the idea that MGS is the only one is just wrong. Try Planescape:Torment, to use a game that was mentioned a few replies up, and tell me that's "infantile" and "single-dimensional."

Re:Video games are not art

[blackicye]

I remember reading an article written by Hideo Kojima (of MGS fame) about whether he thought video games were art, and he said no.

He essentially said that he didn't believe video games were art as they offered an open ended experience where players can immerse themselves in order to form unique experiences.

And thus suddenly the reason every MGS game I've ever played seems to have an idiotic storyline has become apparent.

Re:Video games are not art

[Das Modell]

I remember reading an article written by Hideo Kojima (of MGS fame) about whether he thought video games were art, and he said no.
He essentially said that he didn't believe video games were art as they offered an open ended experience where players can immerse themselves in order to form unique experiences.

He's full of shit. It's up to the developer to decide how much freedom to give to the player. A completely linear adventure game like Grim Fandango is not going to give the player much room for an "open ended experience" where players can "form unique experiences." Any choice the player can make is a choice that has been predetermined by the developer. Using a video game to tell an emotional story, to make a powerful statement or to provoke deep thoughts is not rendered impossible just because the player can decide in what order he solves two puzzles.

Kojima is also being short-sighted. Interactivity and freedom of choice can be harnessed for artistic purposes. For an established and experienced video game developer he sure sounds clueless. It's not like your only choice as a developer is to build a sandbox and drop the player in the middle of it.

As a whole, that's just what they are: packaged, bought and sold "worlds" or "realities" for us to play in, which can contain all sorts and varieties of artistic elements, but yet as a whole can not be considered art. A player's experience rewound and played forward as a non-interactive product of the player's volition (like a film) can be art, but the act of playing a video game is not by itself art. ...

Is riding the subway to work art? No. Is seeing a painting on the wall art? The painting itself is, yes, but not the act of seeing it or your choice to go and see it. Is listening to music art? Not the act of listening, but the music itself is art... and you see my point.

But by your own logic video games can be art. The act of playing them isn't art (obviously!), but the games themselves can be. Just like listening to music isn't art but the music itself is. I don't even understand what your point is. Surely everyone understands that the act of viewing or experiencing art is not art itself.

Re:Video games are not art

[Das Modell]

Yes, but video games aren't static. They're different everytime you play them.

Grim Fandango isn't different every time you play it. The events are set in stone by the developer.

Is the act of playing Monopoly art?

Has anyone ever suggested that the act of playing the game is art? As far as I can see you're the only one who's saying that.

That's what video games are: games. Games can have artistic attributes or they can not, but it doesn't change the fact that they are games.

This is a meaningless statement. You could replace "game" with "film" and it wouldn't make any difference. Of course games are games. Of course films are films. So?

Re:Video games are not art

[Das Modell]

Compared to MGS, every other game is infantile and single-dimensional.

Please tell me I'm on drugs and I didn't actually read that. MGS not infantile? Every other game one-dimensional?

Re:Video games are not art

[Das Modell]

Let's take this statement...

What I meant to say (and sorry if this wasn't clear), is that art (music, a painting) is inherently classifiable as art where a video game is inherently not classifiable as art. While their may be artistic attributes to games, like graphics art, the plot, the background score and even the voice acting, the game as a whole is not art. The game itself is not art but there are things in it which are.

... and change it:

What I meant to say (and sorry if this wasn't clear), is that art (music, a painting) is inherently classifiable as art where a film is inherently not classifiable as art. While their may be artistic attributes to films, like cinematography, the plot, the background score and even the acting, the film as a whole is not art. The film itself is not art but there are things in it which are.

What I meant to say (and sorry if this wasn't clear), is that art (films, a painting) is inherently classifiable as art where a song is inherently not classifiable as art. While their may be artistic attributes to a song, like the melody and the lyrics, the song as a whole is not art. The song itself is not art but there are things in it which are.

Maybe I'm just slow, but I can't understand the difference between the three.

Re:Video games are not art

[Myrcutio]

I would heartily disagree with the idea that video games are not art because they are interactive. I have seen more than one art gallery where the main exhibit is a blank canvas with spotlights cunningly placed so as to project the viewers shadow onto the canvas. The result is that the viewer is involved in completing the piece. The shadow itself isn't the art here, the idea behind the shadow is. A players immersion in a game is very necessary, even if you hate the idea. The art comes in how the developer presents his ideas. Take for example Portal, a game i personally find beautiful. The plotline isn't really important, and neither are the characters, but the gameplay has an incredible effect on the player. It makes him rethink how you move in three dimensions. Its subtle when playing the game, and most people don't notice when they change how they look at a room. By the end of the game, a player views his surroundings very differently as a result of the game design. This is intentional, and could never be done in film, paint, or music. I refuse to believe this isn't art.

Re:Video games are not art

[n dot l]

What I meant to say (and sorry if this wasn't clear), is that art (music, a painting) is inherently classifiable as art where a video game is inherently not classifiable as art.

What now? Music is always art? What about advertising jingles? Elevator music? Same goes for painting. Some of it is art, and some pieces are on the same level as my vacation photos (probably because they were made for the same purpose). Try digital painting - are the file and folder icons art? How about the Windows Logo? And if digital painting is not art then there's probably a host of people over on deviantart.com and cgsociety.com that want to have a word with you...

Re:Video games are not art

[lowsinon]

Beauty (and art) are better left to the eye of the beholder. Video games are more than capable of being art. The proof: (The short list) Bioshock and Mass Effect. If you can make the same statement after a few hours of both these games, then I will eat a sock. Also your analogy to subways, paintings, and music is very flawed. All art is about making someone else have an experience which guides them to a thought you have designed, provokes their own creative feelings, or share some kind of feeling. A painting is art, but seeing a painting itself is not, but the experience of seeing is what gives the art its value. Likewise, a game is art, and simply playing a game may not be art, but the experience it evokes can be more vivid and thought provoking than any mere painting.

Re:Video games are not art

[nEoN nOoDlE]

Video games offer us a passage to artistic things, but are wholly not art in themselves.

In all of your examples, you're separating the experience from the piece of art, but in video games you're referring to them as the experience. By your own definition, a video game is art in the same way a painting is art. Looking at the painting is not art, just as playing the game is not art, but the medium itself, the painting and the video game, are art.

A video game is a combination of sound, music, painting, movies, storytelling, and activities. Each of those except the last one is considered an art form. Why does adding an activity to it negate the fact that all the other things are there? To me, the whole argument seems completely silly, as there's not much difference from movies and video games but one is irrevocably considered an art form and the other isn't.

Every video game has intent of the designer. "How do I get the player to feel a certain feeling in the best possible way?" This comes across in story, level design, gameplay mechanics, art, and everything else that goes into a game. Just this fact alone should completely close the topic on whether a video game is a piece of art. This was not always the case, however.

Re:Video games are not art

[lowsinon]

Mod parent up for its insightful breakdown of the OP point.

Re:Video games are not art

[Anonymous Coward]

I remember reading an article written by Hideo Kojima (of MGS fame) about whether he thought video games were art, and he said no.

He essentially said that he didn't believe video games were art as they offered an open ended experience where players can immerse themselves in order to form unique experiences.

This is not to subtract from the idea of video games as I'm an avid video gamer myself. Video games provide us with experiences we could not or would not replicate in real life, and our interaction with these games creates an individually tailored experience which can be chalked full of artistic things, yet not artistic as a whole because it is what you make of it.

You seem to be saying that something is not art because it can be subjectively experienced. Since all of reality is subjective (philosophically speaking), we wind up with the inevitable conclusion:

In order to be art, something must not be experienced.

That would explain art museums, actually. Does anyone know if people ever go into those places? If not, my hypothesis would hold.

I suggest we send in a robotic probe to check if anyone's in there. I'd go to one myself, but I don't want to be the one to screw up a bunch of priceless pieces of art by accidentally observing it.

On another note, I wonder if Hideo would consider an enclosure with paintings totally covering all the walls (with someone inside) art. After all, that would be able to immerse someone in another world. It could even be open ended, too. The person inside could do all sorts of things. Yell at you for putting them in the box, try to lift up an edge, hit the walls. The possibilities are endless. We could even put some water in there too to keep the individual immersed, provided there was enough of it.

Re:Video games are not art

[Tim C]

He essentially said that he didn't believe video games were art as they offered an open ended experience where players can immerse themselves in order to form unique experiences.

And there I was thinking that forming unique experiences was part of the whole art thing...

Is riding the subway to work art? No. Is seeing a painting on the wall art? The painting itself is, yes, but not the act of seeing it or your choice to go and see it. Is listening to music art? Not the act of listening, but the music itself is art... and you see my point.

I think I do see your point - the game itself is art, but the act of playing it is not.

Re:Video games are not art

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I believe that interactivity itself can be considered creative.

Your example of choosing to see a painting makes sense, but consider a different scenario:
An artist has painted a number of paintings, and they are spread along the walls of a corridor. By traversing the corridor in one direction, the paintings tell a particular story (perhaps a positive one). But if we move down the corridor in the opposite direction, the story is told in reverse and we see something more sinister.

In this example, you're still choosing to see the paintings, but now your interaction affects what you see in a creative way.

I would certainly consider the forced interaction in such a piece to be part of the art itself. And a games do the exact same thing! Only instead of a single corridor, there is a huge network of possibilities.

Re:Video games are not art

[SlashJoel]

I think you're taking a very narrow view of what art is. That's ok. A lot of people wouldn't define abstract art as "art" because to them it's just a couple of coloured lines on a solid background. Some people don't think of architecture as art, and you don't think of video games as art. The problem is that there can be no objective definition of art, because art is in the eye of the beholder. Doom isn't art to you, but I have no idea where you get the arrogance to say that it isn't art period.

That being said, I don't understand your objection to video games as art. Sure, video games can be open-ended, but so are the interpretations of paintings, literature, and film. It seems strange to me that you concede that graphics, game plot, and background score are all art individually, but when combined together they somehow cease being art? If I play Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon with the Wizard of Oz, is that also not art? Could the trailer for a video game be art? What about the video capture from a game? Could you consider playing a game akin to playing an instrument, whereby the end result is art, even if (like an improvised sax solo) it is open-ended and would be different each time you play?

Re:Video games are not art

[kabocox]

Is riding the subway to work art? No. Is seeing a painting on the wall art? The painting itself is, yes, but not the act of seeing it or your choice to go and see it. Is listening to music art? Not the act of listening, but the music itself is art... and you see my point.

Video games offer us a passage to artistic things, but are wholly not art in themselves.

You just defeated your entire argument. That's like saying any art form that you have to experience in order to perceive that its art isn't art. I'd take the complete opposite POV. All "art" without a viewer is just an empty chunk of matter. It is the viewer/audience and their experiences that the piece evoke that determines if a piece is trash, art, entertainment, should be censored/banned, or not even interesting enough to be bothered with.

It's like if I invented a clicky pen that would give the person clicking it an orgasm every time. The device would just be a chuck of matter. It's the viewer(s) and their experience(s) with it that are important.

Re:Video games are not art

[Anonymous Coward]

So if I look at a painting it's art but if I step into the painting and somehow immerse myself in it, it stops being art?

I know a few million Greatful Dead and Phish fans who might argue with that ;)

All music is a finite but open-ended experience that people immerse themselves in to form unique experiences. And it's undoubtedly art.

I respect Kojima-san and his opinion, but I think he's a bit off on this one.

Re:Video games are not art

[BigCow]

One analogy I've heard is to whether architecture is art. Unlike music, movies, or books you don't control the order in which the viewer experiences it, and you're not crafting the precise experience they'll get exploring it or seeing everything in some order. You're designing something that's in a sense meant to be practical, but also lend itself to artistic appreciation in a number of ways.

I don't think something has to be a controlled linear experience to be considered art. There's clearly artistry in the design and artistic experiences to be had from it, and I'd discourage any definition of art that doesn't recognize that.

Re:Video games are not art

[aeoo]

Bah, I should have qualified that to only include action oriented games that involve shooting.

There had been many significantly deep RPGs, I admit. I love RPGs and I agree with you on your general point, although I haven't played Planescape in particular.

But considering how worthless every other shooter's and "sneaker's" plot lines and characters are, I think I made a pretty good statement if we narrow it down to action games.

In particular I loathe Gears of War, Halo and Splinter Cell, which I think are pure garbage in terms of the story, feeling, depth, immersion, etc. I defecate on Gears of War in particular. I curse the day I purchased a copy of that crap. What pisses me of greatly is when people compare games like MGS to other shooters or sneakers as if they were playing on an equal playing field. It's not the same plane of gaming excellence. Hideo Kojima and his team are all alone in their domain.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[jps25]

Pray tell, why is it a worthy goal to belittle emo music?
Aren't you just an insensitive asshole?
Why do you even praise this game after claiming that the answer is yes to the real question if games can make statements that aren't: -I want attention -I hate (insert group of people here) -I'm a jerk ?

"Hypocrisy in anything whatever may deceive the cleverest and most penetrating man, but the least wide-awake of children recognizes it, and is revolted by it, however ingeniously it may be disguised" - Tolstoy

art is crap

[geekd]

Art is crap and art that makes a statement is double crap.

Are the games fun? Then I will play them. Not fun? Then I won't.

Recently, literal art crap got loose and took down some power lines. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1047578/Giant-inflatable-dog-mess-breaks-free-moorings-brings-power-line.html

Re:art is crap

[Bragador]

Yes but some people like to be challenged. It's like for tv shows really. Some people will watch America's funniest home videos because it's fun and they say the rest is crap. Others will watch philosophical scifi movies and, even though they will not have "fun" as much as you, they will think about what could happen and about where the human race could end up.

Gutless wonder this guy

[iminplaya]

So afraid to offend. You make me want to puke. Games are games. Who cares if they leave exploding dog doo on your front porch?

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[TheRealMindChild]

I am a jerk, you insensitive clod!

Just like a book

[atmtarzy]

I don't really see much of an argument against considering video games as art. The longer ones, with stories and what-not are very similar to written books. Both have different methods of engaging the player or reader, but both do provide a fully-fledged story, complete with morals, themes, and a message that can change a player's or reader's opinion on a matter. The shorter games, like in the mentioned Space Invaders controversy, are very similar to paintings. There isn't much of a story to them, but they still are fully capable of affecting a player or viewer.

In general, I'd say that something is art if it's capable of affecting its 'experiencer' in some sort of opinion- or emotially-related way. The fact that 2+2 is 4 isn't art (written on paper, it might be, but not the simple fact itself), while little aliens blowing up the WTC is.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[spire3661]

Mass Effect has some really great moral choices.

Games are for kids.

[Bragador]

See, as long as most people think video games are solely for kids then it will shock. Not because these games make a statement, but because people think they were meant for kids.

Also, remember that for now, games rated "A" can't be sold in retail stores so for now the idea that games are for kids is going nowhere. It's the same thing with cartoons outside of Japan.

Why are we talking about a stupid "controversy"?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

This seems to be less about whether video games can be art, and more about the dimwitted reactionary troglodytes who seem to think that their emotional reactions, so long as they are strong enough, should dictate what other people get to see, say, and do.

This vice is not a new one(The Romans were bitching about the decadence of Greek art not long after they became familiar with it), nor is it confined to whining about games(as the previous anecdote suggests), nor is it confined to any particular political persuasion(Fascists attacked "decadent" art, Communists attacked "bourgeois" art, religious fundamentalists attack pretty much anything that doesn't bow and scrape to their wretched little gods, hardline bleeding-hearts attack art that threatens "the children" which is one of their few areas of agreement with the fundies.) Video games are the target of choice because, unlike other media which have a long and respectable history to (partially) shield them from attack, it is still common "knowledge" that video games are just homicide simulators for pimply geeks.

The only "controversy" here consists of people who think that their right to never have their feelings hurt is more important than anybody else's right to speak whining, as they always do. Pathetic.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[philspear]

It never fails to suprise me that emo fans actually get upset and defensive when you insult emo. Or, if you don't claim to be an emo fan, it never fails to suprise me when people object to mocking of emo. This time I was expecting more whining over the republican bashing.

It's a worthy goal to make fun of emo music because 1. its funny 2. Emo, like many other things worthy of parody, is a little ridiculous when you get down to it 3. Emo fans need to grow a thicker skin. I'm praising the game because making fun of emo is not an asshole thing to do, in other words. And if you had read the author's website, you'll note that he is actually a fan of emo music.

Anyway, chill out. Why get your undies in a knot over it?

Replace "Video game" with....

[solune]

Movies...or books...or...well, you get the idea.

And, like all previous mediums, is bound to be fertile ground for all kinds statements, from serious to the ridiculous.

My question is, when will we see the Jack Thompson Lawsuit Shootout Jamboree?

Re:Replace "Video game" with....

[KGIII]

Well...

http://whathostingshould.be/ignore/game/

That's the best I could cobble together from stolen and hacked parts in the short amount of time I had.

(Appologies for the bad taste and to all the people who's images and code I had to borrow.)

Re:Replace "Video game" with....

[KGIII]

LOL People are actually *playing* it? You are really bored and have no taste either it would seem. Anyhow, I should add - left mouse button to shoot.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[ksd1337]

Doom doesn't have any objectionable content, except for a few hidden swastikas scattered about. Well, there was Imp Encounter, so...

Meaning is subjective.

[grahamd0]

Like Stanley's Invaders!, Ledonne and his title stopped short of providing a direct interpretation - neither artist has been especially specific about 'what it means,' or in instructing players on how they should interpret their work or what 'message' should be taken away.

Nor should they. The meaning of art is subjective.

Any good artist is far too emotionally connected to their work to objectively critique it. Explaining the meaning of their work is simply being pretentious. Who are they to tell us how to feel?

Re:Meaning is subjective.

[KingKiki217]

This idea has always bothered me: "Who is the person trying to talk to me to tell me what they're trying to say? I should be able to put the words that I want to hear into their mouth."
It seems to me that no one is better qualified to interpret a work of art than the artist himself. Maybe the art evokes some childhood memory for the artist, or one of a million other things that could muddle the meaning by externalizing it.
To think that all meaning is in the person observing the art is just as pretentious as thinking that all the meaning is in the artist, but the artist is the creator of the piece; it's a reflection of the artist, at the very least. There would be no meaning there to discuss if the artist hadn't created it.

Re:Meaning is subjective.

[grahamd0]

"Who is the person trying to talk to me to tell me what they're trying to say? I should be able to put the words that I want to hear into their mouth."

That's nothing like what I said at all.

To continue the communication as art line: I can't imagine words in your mouth, but I can interpret my own meaning from the words that you choose to use and way you choose use them.

Perhaps you say something that I believe crosses some line of good taste and I'm offended. Are you suggesting that because you said it sarcastically that I don't have the right to be offended?

Or say a joke offends you, do I not have the right to laugh?

It seems to me that no one is better qualified to interpret a work of art than the artist himself. Maybe the art evokes some childhood memory for the artist, or one of a million other things that could muddle the meaning by externalizing it.

What if I don't care? Are you saying the meaning I get from the piece isn't valid? If you care about artist's childhoods that's fine with me, but I don't happen to think "This painting is about how my dad used to beat me." is very interesting. If a piece of art invokes fear, helplessness and loneliness then it speaks for itself. Contrariwise if it evokes no emotion for me, what would I care what it means to the artist?

To think that all meaning is in the person observing the art is just as pretentious as thinking that all the meaning is in the artist, but the artist is the creator of the piece; it's a reflection of the artist, at the very least. There would be no meaning there to discuss if the artist hadn't created it.

Yeah, it is a reflection of the artist. And their quality as an artist is defined by their ability to express meaning through their art, rather than about it.

Re:Meaning is subjective.

[Oligonicella]

"Any good artist is far too emotionally connected to their work to objectively critique it."

Then you need to read some interviews with a 'good artist' or two, like say, Dali, Rockwell, Picasso -- there are many more available. Your point not only is simply your opinion, many very good artists in history appear to disagree.

"Who are they to tell us how to feel?"

Who are you to tell them what to critique?

Re:Meaning is subjective.

[grahamd0]

Artists can tell whomever they want what their art means, I certainly won't stop them.

Whether or not I like or feel an emotional connection to a piece of art has nothing to do with what the artist tells me it means.

Re:Meaning is subjective.

[KingKiki217]

You're allowed to react to the meaning however you like, but the only meaning that's in the painting that belongs there is the meaning that the artist put there. Everything else is imagined meaning.
People study the lives of authors to better understand what things mean in the context of their works. I've seen people get very worked up about whether or not Shakespeare had been to Venice or met Jews before writing his plays. I think that that's a bit extreme, but I've gained some better understanding of the plays that I read in school because of the context that was there as a backdrop to the piece of art itself.

Re:Meaning is subjective.

[grahamd0]

You're allowed to react to the meaning however you like, but the only meaning that's in the painting that belongs there is the meaning that the artist put there. Everything else is imagined meaning.

Yes, the meaning is imagined. The meaning I imagine is formed from my feeling and memories, not the artists. People don't conjure up "imaginings" for no reason. Thoughts about art are reactions to that art. The meaning you accepted from the artist is just as imagined as the one I created on my own.

People study the lives of authors to better understand what things mean in the context of their works. ... I've gained some better understanding of the plays that I read in school because of the context that was there as a backdrop to the piece of art itself.

Yes, they do. I'm glad to hear that you enjoy learning, and I hope you don't think I'm trying to discourage your enjoyment of those things.

I do however, think it's naive to think that that's the only way to glean meaning from art.

When you watch a movie, who's meaning is the "correct" one? The director's? The actor's? The writer's?

Re:Meaning is subjective.

[Anonymous Coward]

That line from the summary bothered me also. You don't see a preface by the author of a classic novel explaining in detail what you should be taking away from their book. Not that I'm comparing these games to classic novels, but part of the appeal to me is trying to figure out what the meaning is or if there even was one.

Re:Meaning is subjective.

[Backward Z]

"Artists can no more speak about their work, than plants can speak about horticulture." Jean Cocteau

Re:Meaning is subjective.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're really looking for a message, go to a youth center and listen to bad poetry.

Re:Meaning is subjective.

[grahamd0]

Bravo.

"It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors. Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital."

-Oscar Wilde

Art

[BeardedClone]

Art refers a range of human creations, and expressions that are appealing to other people. I believe when we include music and literature, we should automatically include games because they include both elements. Games also include visual arts and sculptures (3D). We can sit here and discuss aesthetics all day, or agree that it's something better left to the philosophers. Ars est celare artem.

Re:Art

[Anonymous Coward]

I think this is where a lot of people get artist and artisan mixed up (probably because artisan isn't often used any more). I hear so many people these days say x, y or z is "really an art". I've heard people say it about programming of all things, even Donald Trump said that writing good business contracts was his art.

Interestingly enough, I've never heard these things from someone who has gone through the torturously difficult and soul destroying exercise of becoming a good, classically trained fine artist. They usually just smile a sort of 'yes, sure it is' smile.

I think before anyone calls anything an 'art' (and this goes particularly for anything that comes with a built in 'undo' function) they should go pick up a 2d pencil and a piece of paper and try to draw someone they know.

Re:Art

[glwtta]

I think this is where a lot of people get artist and artisan mixed up (probably because artisan isn't often used any more).

It's not quite that black-and-white: both 'artist' and 'artisan' derive from the Latin ars, which can mean both 'art' (as you are describing) and 'skill' (or 'craft'). In Greek, as well, the word techne, 'skill' (hence 'technical', 'technology', etc), was primarily used to describe things we call 'art' (and is often mistranslated as such).

So, the word 'art' has had these two distinct (though related) meanings from the very beginning, and neither one is more "legitimate" than the other.

I've heard people say it about programming of all things, even Donald Trump said that writing good business contracts was his art.

I think it's generally understood that when people say this they mean 'art' in the sense of "highly refined skill", rather than "tortured self-expression"; nobody is trying to elevate their activity to something it isn't. Then again, people do tend to see beauty, of the "artistic" kind, in the most refined examples of their craft (but that's more of a subjective opinion).

I think before anyone calls anything an 'art' (and this goes particularly for anything that comes with a built in 'undo' function) they should go pick up a 2d pencil and a piece of paper and try to draw someone they know.

Since we seem to be back to the definition of 'art' as "skill as the result of practice", I would argue that learning to draw is no more difficult than learning to program. I might as well say that anyone who doesn't consider programming to be 'art' should grab a C compiler and whip me up an Ethernet controller driver - what's the point?

(Not that I want to take sides in the whole "video games/comics/etc are/aren't art" debate - that's just a banal waste of time)

That's just wrong

[clarkkent09]

a modification of Space Invaders in which the invaders are slowly demolishing the World Trade Center

I can see why people were upset. That's not how it happened!!! A mod of MS Flight Simulator, now that would be more realistic.

Oh no!

[robo_mojo]

Look out, there's controversy! RUN!!

But he said "World Trade Center"!!!

[Joce640k]

Everybody knows that the FBI appears if you say "World Trade Center" three times in front of a mirror.

Re:But he said "World Trade Center"!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong!

9/11 = 0.82

Re:But he said "World Trade Center"!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

nope, doesn't work.

!em pleH

Re:But he said "World Trade Center"!!!

[halcyon1234]

Nah, man, that's Bloody Mary armed with a Department of Homeland Security badge. Just don't say Bloody Mary's name three times, though. 'cause then she'll appear WITHOUT the badge. And then you get your ass whooped, because Bloody Mary is a )@*&#$*()U#J

Re:But he said "World Trade Center"!!!

[Tetsujin]

Wrong!

9/11 = 0.82

.81 repeated, actually - and only if you use floating point arithmetic. If you use integer math, you get zero... So you want "9.0/11"

Re:But he said "World Trade Center"!!!

[Quiet_Desperation]

Well, that has potential. After they appear, are they my thralls?

Re:But he said "World Trade Center"!!!

[somersault]

That's right, Gary.. only this time, it'll be 9.0/11 times one million!

The fastest way score in Elite is to shoot Police

[Joce640k]

Everybody knows that. An infinite supply of ships flying towards you and none of that tedious mucking about in hyperspace.

A Good Analogy

[Anonymous Coward]

A producer I once worked with said it best:
"Video games are art like movies and comic books are art!"

Uhmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Can we moderate -1, Psychotic?

Re:Uhmm

[pcolaman]

Isn't that just the same as -1, Troll? Oh, your trolls aren't psychotic? You apparently haven't played Elder Scrolls 4: Oblivion. Of course, they are also a tad suicidal and prone to depression.

Re:Uhmm

[Anonymous Coward]

Having grown up in the time of Reagan, there's been cold war, then hot war after hot war. My father served in Vietnam and taught me to snipe at a very young age (to keep crows out of the garden). Now my government (USA) has been exposed as a generally backstabbing organization, terrorizing its people with wars on drugs and terror, stupid no-fly lists that affect toddlers, and on and on. There was the Kennedy thing (maybe we did it, maybe Cuba did it, who knows or cares anymore), the Unabomber, that one Federal building that blew up, the Twin Towers, the Pentagon, on and on. People are dieing, the world seems pretty damn out of control from where I sit, and yes, I have served in the Military and feel I have some sense of world experience to draw on.

What you call psychotic, a lot of people call life. You may not have been homeless, jobless, orphaned, or just plain had evil parents that warped you, but most of the world (the not-so-pretty world, that is, not the generally sanitized /.) has had to deal with some vicious emotional hurt at one point or another.

Saying people need therapy for psychosis just emphasises (sp?) the fact that many people use GTA and games like it as a form of therapy, allowing them to get out their negative emotions in a positive (or at least neutral) manner.

It's the real nuts (or idiots) that do so and then think that sniping hookers would be just as fun IRL (just as the Hot Coffee mod never tempted me to get a RL hooker.. diseases kept me away before, and will continue to lol).

Re:Uhmm

[Draek]

No, but feel free to mod him down -1, Troll, it's the standard way of saying "I'm modding you down because I don't like your opinion" around here.

no thanks

[schnikies79]

Sometimes I just want to be entertained without having to hear/see "your statement." I don't always care about what you think, nor do I always want to know.

Re:no thanks

[schnikies79]

My comment wasn't in reference to this space invaders game specifically. That I couldn't care less about. It's just a general statement.

Can't agree with you on the nuke statement though.

Movies can, why not games

[margretli]

Movies, books, oral narrative, it's all about story telling. Most games these days have a brilliant story line behind it. If the more "traditional" ways of story telling are being considered art, I don't see why a video game would not be considered art. Video games are a distinct medium, and if somebody makes art with it, then by definition it's art.

you would be right

[circletimessquare]

were the artist/ designer not purposely picking something designed to bait the troglodyte you are talking about

in other words, troglodytes attacking something of their own initiative (which happens all the time, which should be condemned), is one thing

but publicity seekers purposely designing "art" or videogames that are designed to piss off troglodytes is another thing entirely

notice i'm not realy attacking the publicity seekers. i'm simply completely unimpressed with them. i'm simply saying they get what they deserve, because what they get is what they were seeking in the first place

i mean a lot of what is called "art" like this is such vapid shallow purposely political bullshit nowadays

i mean this guy said he didn't want controversy for controversy's sake

oh really?

space invaders with the world trade centers tower? really? it's as if someone asked you to design something controversial, this is what you would come up with. and the guy is shocked its controversial. RIIIGHT

i, as you, despise the troglodytes. but i'm not very impressed with "artists" who exist it seems to do little more than bait the troglodytes

i know such "artists", as many do, by a more descriptive moniker: attention whores. it's all about me, me, me. the spotlight must tweak my ego, by any means possible. and the means they come up with, to seek attention, is often this purposefully politically charged nonsense. it serves no real artist function. the only function it serves is to attract the negative attention of troglodytes. they are the pheklps

so the attention whores and the troglodytes deserve each other as far as i am concerned

both are drama queens, inflating each other's pathetic need for drama and attention

to hell with the troglodytes and the attention whore "artists"

Histrionic Americans, or humans?

[macraig]

Are all you humans this histrionic and emotionally narcissistic, or is it only the subclass of the species that lives in the United States? If it's the latter, what is it about your food supply or environment that makes you deserving of one of Bill Engvall's signs? Perhaps you should stop fluoridating your water?

"Emotionally narcissistic" is the best term I can conceive to describe the irrational stupidity of people who would overreact to iconoclastic art... or games.

Re:Histrionic Americans, or humans?

[Eli Gottlieb]

Why do you address humans as though you aren't one?

Re:Histrionic Americans, or humans?

[Anonymous Coward]

on the internet, no one can tell you are a . . .

Re:Histrionic Americans, or humans?

[macraig]

Because I'm not... I'm just a tourist from Vulcan. I'll be leaving to go home just as soon as I can find where I've misplaced my return ticket.

Re:Histrionic Americans, or humans?

[Anonymous Coward]

The world seems to forget sometimes that the United States is populated by the religious jerks Britain didn't want.

Getting mad at Americans for being self-centered moralistic snobs is like getting mad at Australians for being drunk and rowdy.

As a non-christian American, I agree completely with your sentiments, but for us to be disgusted (outwardly) with all the self-righteous intolerant people would be like hating half the population, including our parents and most everyone over 30. Unless of course we live in California.

Re:Histrionic Americans, or humans?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or maybe, just maybe, people are weary of talentless little assholes exploiting tragedies for their own masturbatory activities.

Planescape: Torment

[circletimessquare]

undiscovered genius

barely made a blip on the horizon when it was released, yet now, many years later, i keep encountering people who refer to it. i myself think about it now and then and think "what exactly made me think of that game right now, i haven't played it in years"

because, exactly as you said, that was one hell of a gorgeous, unique, creatively engrossing game. nothing like it's story arc or it's character. it makes an impression

like rocky horror picture show, you will hear more and more of Planescape: Torment over time. i think this game will actually grow in popularity in coming years

the definition of a cult classic videogame

Re:Planescape: Torment

[Anonymous Coward]

The only other game that compares with Planescape: Torment is Grim Fandango. But unlike Planescape: Torment, Grim Fandango will never grow in popularity as a cult classic because its gameplay system is too difficult to use, while Planescape: Torment's game system has smoothly adapted with time. If there were only a point and click patch for Grim Fandango, many people would come to appreciate its brilliance.

Now that I think of it, there is probably a third game that compares: The Longest Journey. Odd that they were all released in a two year period. I don't think I'm biased because I remember all of the older classics like Sam & Max, the Day of the Tentacle, the Monkey Island games, the Gold Box games, and even The Bard's Tale. I think it was because developers weren't bogged down with 3-D games and could much more easily focus on game art than game mechanics. Case in point: the atrocity of Myst V (full 3-D) compared with Myst IV (fully drawn).

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Anonymous Coward]

"Videogames as statements are clearly in their infancy"

Having just started playing Dues Ex, released in 2001, I disagree. It's on Steam if you want to try it.

Also in the news!

[Drakonik]

Our expert analysts determine whether paintings, novels, or sculptures can be used to make political or social commentary. Details at 11.

Seriously though. What the FUCK? Yes, some video games are simply money-makers (Madden 1998-2XXX, anyone?), but others are used to really say something. There's one game called "Harpooned" that is a satire protesting Japanese "research" on whales. A video game is simply a digital canvas. Instead of crushed rocks and plants, we paint with pixels and code. If a video game isn't a piece of art in its own right, then nothing created by anyone is.

Anyone who thinks that ANY medium is not proper for expressing ideas and beliefs is simply trying to restrict your ability to express YOUR ideas.

JFK: Reloaded

[westlake]

What about the JFK game where you are Oswald? That was big when it came out.
.

Because it offered cash rewards?

On February 22, 2005, Stephane Krupa, a user living in France, named "Major_Koenig" (named after Erwin König, a famous sniper) won the competition prize of $10,712 with a score of 782 out of 1000. Second and third place went to the users "Flux" (779) and "ArrogantB" (777) respectively JFK: Reloaded

Why is it that ...

[StateOfTheArt]

...the names of murderers/criminals are usually displayed in Newspapers, Web News and Wikipedia. Am I the only one who thinks that this only makes those people more rememberable and supports the glorification of these people? "Colorado school shooting in the role of killers XY and ZW." It's a slap in the face of victims.

Re:Why is it that ...

[fmoliveira]

And when a corporation does something wrong, there is a lot of newspapers that hide their name if it's not already out for the public, wich I find a lot worse.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[jps25]

I'm far from being an emo-fan, that isn't the point.
You're simply a hypocrite.

It's not a worthy goal because it's funny, that is an asinine reason, just like needing to grow a thicker skin.
To some 9/11 or Columbine is funny. Doesn't change the fact that the Super Columbine Massacre RPG was an asshole thing to do, just like this Space Invader mod.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[philspear]

You're definitely right that the emo game did not invent making a statement with videogames, but videogames as a whole is an art form in it's infancy. 7 years, or even the 20 years or so that gaming has been around is just not enough time to develop sophisticated techniques, especially with a media form as diverse and challenging as games. No other art form really has the interactivity component to work with.

How many songs do you listen to from the first thousand years after music was invented? I guess that's unfair, since recording was not developed in that time.

Better example: how many movies from the early 1900s do you listen to? By that time, according to the wiki page on film, motion picture projectors had been around 20 years.

Of course you don't watch any of those really really old movies because film has evolved to a point now where those have only historical relevance. The technical quality of the film has undergone revolutions (getting sound so the action isn't interrupted with text was a big one, color too) and they've invented better techniques to tell the story. Those early films wouldn't have won any oscars if they had been made today. They're crap by our standards.

The same thing is likely going to happen with games is my point. Games can definitely make statements, but to really see what the form is capable of, you're going to have to wait for videogame making to evolve.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course you don't watch any of those really really old movies because film has evolved to a point now where those have only historical relevance. The technical quality of the film has undergone revolutions (getting sound so the action isn't interrupted with text was a big one, color too) and they've invented better techniques to tell the story. Those early films wouldn't have won any oscars if they had been made today. They're crap by our standards.

There was a time, long, long ago, when the plot of a movie and the acting was important instead of CGI and special effects.
I'm glad I don't have your standards.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Disseminated]

Pfft! Everyone around here is a jerk! You... me... this jerk...

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[vain gloria]

"Videogames as statements are clearly in their infancy"

Having just started playing Dues Ex, released in 2001, I disagree. It's on Steam if you want to try it.

Having played Missile Command released in 1980, I'm inclined to disagree with GP too.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Anonymous Coward]

A big problem I have is when someone seems to be saying "your music is ridiculous, mine is not" - which is what the vast majority of people who rip on "emo" music are saying, although they may not consciously be aware of it. Every genre is a little ridiculous - whether the best artists in it admit to it or not - and every genre has poor quality music in it.

The Stones, Mozart, Radiohead, Bowie, Aphex Twin, The Smiths, Outkast, Joy Division, Madonna, Tool, and on and on and on, all require an ability to ignore or indulge in the ridiculousness of the artists - whether because they're intentionally humorous or their form of expression relies on a certain pretentiousness. The Stones without their put-on of a swagger would be almost as bad as Palahniuk replacing some of his main characters with people resembling himself.

Making fun of a genre is similar to making fun of a nationality - it's almost always broad and vague and hackneyed. If you want anything other than some stupid elementary school humor, you need pointed observations and specifics.

Admach, Sick

[shock1970]

Back in my C-64 days I acquired a copy of a game called "Admach, sick" or something very close to that effect. It was a simple game. About 10 foreigners stood side by side in a line, and you controlled a machine gun with your cursor/joystick. The objective was simple... mow them all down. After you killed them all you got another screen of 10 people. And I hate to say it, but it seemed fun the first time or two... but after about 5 or 6 screens... it became a little disturbing. And it occurred to me that wasting a bunch of people for no reason was insane. I feel I learned something from that game.

Re:Admach, Sick

[robo_mojo]

I feel I learned something from that game.

Games requiring no skill are boring?

It's funnier when it's done by gamers.

[alex4point0]

Prior art: http://wtctetris.ytmnd.com/ or is it http://tetriswtc.ytmnd.com/

BG: There was a version of Tetris (anyone?) that allowed 'omg bullshit' combinations of rotate and joystick L or R to slot blocks into 'unreachable' positions - http://epictetris2.ytmnd.com/ When 'omg bullshit' conspiracy theories about 9/11 started to spread, it was inevitable that the two memes would trainwreck sooner or later.

There's a wii version around for the benefit of Gen.s Z and Y as well ...

Re:Why are we talking about a stupid "controversy"

[westlake]

The Romans were bitching about the decadence of Greek art not long after they became familiar with it
.

The Romans were serious collectors of Greek art - it is not decadence but the idealism of Greek art which distinguishes it from the Romans.

We know instantly what a Roman - or a Romulan - should look like. He will be a warrior born, competent, dangerous, utterly human and showing every scar and blemish of his age.

Video games are the target of choice because, unlike other media which have a long and respectable history to shield them from attack, it is still common "knowledge" that video games are just homicide simulators for pimply geeks.

This simplifies too much.

There is both physical and psychological distance between the audience and the film - and no matter how engaging the story you are only part of it for two hours.

Role-playing is not without risk.

Gene Wolfe explored this territory in an early short story "When I Was Ming The Merciless." There is a difference between Deux Ex and Manhunt 2 and it is a difference which matters.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Das Modell]

From Slashdot's post:

... the ongoing question of whether video games should be considered art.

There is no such question. The only question that should be asked is this: has anyone yet made a video game that can be considered art? As a medium, video games are unquestionably capable of being art, even in ways that's impossible with other mediums.

From your post:

Props to the emogame guy for being a pioneer of sorts though, and of course for making a statement with his soapbox.

Trinity was released in 1986. I think emogame guy is a little late to the party. There have been many games that have had something to say, but not all of them have made a big deal about it. That is, they haven't been singleminded "message games" that are out to make some kind of "statement."

Re:Why are we talking about a stupid "controversy"

[Anonymous Coward]

And for others that seem to think they should be able to see and do anything they like and stuff the rest of the human race.

Hmmm. A game where I can see and recreate the shooting of my children in all it's glory and maybe see if I can do better! Please add me to the 'dimwitted reactionary troglodytes' as I certainly don't want to be in your 'enlightened' camp.

Steven.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[jackbird]

The real question is if games can make statements that aren't -I want money -I want attention -I hate (insert group of people here) -I'm a jerk The answer is yes, but we haven't been able to do it very sophisticated like yet.

I refer you to the works of one Jason Rohrer, especially Passage and Gravitation. Both games are free, and will take you only a few minutes, but the statements they make are likely to stick with you.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Das Modell]

The same thing is likely going to happen with games is my point. Games can definitely make statements, but to really see what the form is capable of, you're going to have to wait for videogame making to evolve.

We already have all the technology we need. Graphics quality has reached a very comfortable level. If you use an art style like Eternal Sonata's, then you're already on the level of animated films, which can be just as serious and "artistic" as live action ones (see Spirited Away for example). Motion capturing, voice acting and realistic facial expressions allow for very convincing cutscenes and such.

The technology is there and the medium is ready, but the developers are lagging behind. I'm not feeling very optimistic about their ability to pull off anything that intelligent and knowledgeable non-gamers would be comparing to established cinematic works of art. And on the other hand, do gamers really care? Is anyone going to buy an adventure game in this day and age? Or would they rather just play Halo and Madden?

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Das Modell]

I believe he is referring to very, very early films.

There's still an endless supply of quality films available, if you just step outside (Western) mainstream cinema. I pretty much just watch Asian films these days, and there are a lot of great films that don't rely on special effects. For example, a few days ago I watched this.

Complaints of special effects taking over story are much ado about nothing, really. You've also got films like Dark Knight which are big budget action spectacles but still very mature and intelligent with an emphasis on story and characters.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[FLEB]

Personally, I found SCMRPG to be a decent attempt. It faltered a bit once the actual "massacre" started, but the lead-up provided both an instructive exploration and an interesting perspective ("first person", quite literally) into the Columbine killers. Although it might not have inspired sympathy, it did provide information and unique immersion that allowed the player to slow down and think about the event.

However, once the "massacre" actually started, the game got rather tedious and pointless-- a button-mashing kill-fest that dragged on far too long. In fact, I ended up dropping the game after the "massacre" dragged on for a while. My thoughts at the time were both respectful and disappointed-- I had some respect for the developer in that he opened (or at least shed light upon) this method of overtly using gaming as social reflection, but disappointed that the debut and, as such, the standard-bearer of this emerging genre ended up suffering from a falloff of playability and relevance, and, unfortunately, left many holes for its critics to decry it by.

Although I may be making quick judgement of the work, having not played it, this game (Invaders) seems to be a lukewarm rendition of a well-worn topic on the futility of particular types of war-- a topic better represented from Missile Command all the way through that Flash game--whose name escapes me-- where you try to keep people from turning to terrorists, but all you have are bombs. Anyhow, without an innovative, insightful angle into either gameplay or message, the crass subject matter has no redeeming reason to exist, and just ends up pulling the needle further toward the failure-side. CSMRPG had a fresh message and redeeming value, even if the execution was a bit flawed... this appears not to.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[FLEB]

Yeah, but there was a time even before that when "Wow! Lookit' that! It moves!" worked quite well as a pinnacle of quality.

BS

[oGMo]

Typical bullshit from a pretender or non-artist. Art is the expression of the artist; the form of expression may be completely abstract, as with abstract visual art or most forms of music. It may be representational or allegorical or symbolic or many things, but it has specific meaning the artist is trying to convey. Art is communication between the artist and the observer: an artist without something to say isn't an artist.

As with any communication, of course, the meaning is subject to interpretation, which can be right on or completely off. This does not however mean that meaning is entirely in the eye of the beholder---only that the beholder can be completely wrong. Art is also subject to analysis by third parties, which lends insight and detail to the work. Analysis, however, is also not meaning.

Quality of art is in its excellence of form and its depth. A poorly-scrawled stick figure is crap; a well-drawn stick figure that conveys multiple well-thought-out references may be pretty good art. (I'm sure you can come up with a few references to xkcd here.)

Art, like every other craft, is not magic. It is not a magically-talented person: contrary to popular opinion, most Mozart is very formulaic and not very good. It's not someone wielding incomprehensible forces: artists tend to know their craft very well and be able to explain their work in detail. And it's not anything goes: slinging paint at a canvas doesn't automatically make you an insightful abstract painter. Like any other craft, only non-craftsmen and those pretending the craft believe these things.

Re:BS

[grahamd0]

Typical bullshit from a pretender or non-artist.

I don't claim to be an artist. I use to be, in the sense that I used to enjoy producing art, never tried to make a career of it. I don't think that's relevant.

Art is the expression of the artist; the form of expression may be completely abstract, as with abstract visual art or most forms of music. It may be representational or allegorical or symbolic or many things, but it has specific meaning the artist is trying to convey. Art is communication between the artist and the observer: an artist without something to say isn't an artist.

An art without an observer is masturbation.

As with any communication, of course, the meaning is subject to interpretation, which can be right on or completely off. This does not however mean that meaning is entirely in the eye of the beholder---only that the beholder can be completely wrong. Art is also subject to analysis by third parties, which lends insight and detail to the work. Analysis, however, is also not meaning.

Analysis isn't meaning. Agreed.

Of course art means something to the artist, and of course you're right any good artist should be trying to say something. Your fallacy is in assuming that the artist's meaning is the "correct" one for everyone else. Your piece of art means to me whatever I think it means.

Quality of art is in its excellence of form and its depth. A poorly-scrawled stick figure is crap; a well-drawn stick figure that conveys multiple well-thought-out references may be pretty good art. (I'm sure you can come up with a few references to xkcd here.)

I'm going to have go ahead and totally disagree with you on that one. Excellence of form, while one judge of a work's quality, does not inherently make that work innovative, inspirational or compelling.

Art, like every other craft, is not magic. ... And it's not anything goes: slinging paint at a canvas doesn't automatically make you an insightful abstract painter. Like any other craft, only non-craftsmen and those pretending the craft believe these things.

I wholeheartedly agree. I don't believe that's relevant to my point.

Re:BS

[oGMo]

Your piece of art means to me whatever I think it means.

Ah, the total relativist. Well, this statement clearly means that you're entirely and utterly wrong on all counts an explicitly saying so in those exact words...

The point is that it does not mean what you think it means. Code, for instance, can be a form of art; if anything has explicit and exact objective meaning, it's code. Writing is similar (though natural language becomes more ambiguous). What changes is not the author's intent or meaning; what changes is your perspective. This is often why history and culture are studied alongside art, so that the perspective of the artist at the time may be understood.

I'm going to have go ahead and totally disagree with you on that one. Excellence of form, while one judge of a work's quality, does not inherently make that work innovative, inspirational or compelling.

Right; excellence is one of two defining factors of art. The other is the depth, as mentioned. (Incidentally, "innovative" is next to meaningless, and "inspirational or compelling" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, but these things are not necessary for art. If you don't find a work "inspirational or compelling", that doesn't make it not-art. There is a difference between "what is art" and "what I appreciate".)

Re:BS

[grahamd0]

Code, for instance, can be a form of art;

Agreed.

if anything has explicit and exact objective meaning, it's code.

No, code defines an explicit and objective process, what that process (or the way it's specified) means is subjective. If you are correct then society has no need for art critics (a debatable point, but somebody keeps paying them), their jobs could easily be performed by machines.

Right; excellence is one of two defining factors of art. The other is the depth, as mentioned. (Incidentally, "innovative" is next to meaningless, and "inspirational or compelling" is entirely in the eye of the beholder, but these things are not necessary for art. If you don't find a work "inspirational or compelling", that doesn't make it not-art. There is a difference between "what is art" and "what I appreciate".)

Oddly, both of the criteria you've suggested as the only viable criteria for interpreting art actually have little or nothing to do with what it means, which makes it understandable that you need the artist explain it to you literally.

Re:BS

[oGMo]

Oddly, both of the criteria you've suggested as the only viable criteria for interpreting art actually have little or nothing to do with what it means, which makes it understandable that you need the artist explain it to you literally.

Aha! I have found our point of discontinuity. I'm talking about defining or classifying art, not interpreting it. Many times I find people who contend something like "art means whatever I think, therefore art is simply whatever I want". This is not the case; what is art and what is not art is pretty easy to define, at least along a scale of sorts, using the previously-stated criteria.

What art means is entirely different, of course. Interpretation, as I said, is definitely an observer-oriented role... and sure, you can interpret something however you want---but that doesn't mean you're "right", i.e., your interpretation may or may not be close to what the artist intended. With art you often have the luxury of this not mattering. (Sadly, many analysts/critics read their own viewpoints and interpretations into art and claim incorrectly that it's "what the artist meant".)

In any case, my contention is more about the classification of art rather than the interpretation. Some would use the subjectivity of the latter to imply the subjectivity of the former.

Re:BS

[grahamd0]

Ah. Well I'm pretty lenient with my definition of what is and isn't art, as well. I think if two people can honestly* debate it, it's probably art, but you're correct that I wasn't talking about that.

Re:Why are we talking about a stupid "controversy"

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

My, my. Normally I have to bother attaching footnotes myself. Your strawman is hyperbolic even by the standards of the genre, I commend you.

My Favourite Example of This

[Anonymous Coward]

In NetHack when you reach the the Astral level, you are met with three riders of the Apocalypse, Death, Pestilence and Famine.

But wait! Isn't there one missing? When the player character #chats with Death he responds:"Who do you think you are, War?"

The ambiguity of that response just makes it's more compelling.

Love ... Hate... I'm the one with an opinion.

[Digital_Mercenary]

It's art if you say it is. There is nothing to consider except do you like it or not. Something has been created. If you think it sucks, stinks or it's a piece of crap. then it's crappy art. If you think it's kewl, slick or just pretty then that's what it is.

It does not matter what you call it. Labels are just a way of describing a thing. It is has nothing to do with what that thing it is.

You might as well start a discussion on what is bueaty.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Tyrannicalposter]

No, the real question is if artists can make statements that aren't
-I want money
-I want attention
-I hate (insert group of people here)
-I'm a jerk
The answer is yes, but you never hear about them on TV or the interwebs.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[philspear]

I believe he is referring to very, very early films.

I believe the AC you were responding to was also. His favorite movie is that cup with slots in it that you spin and watch the horse run endlessly.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Jedi Alec]

As well as some really insensible ones.

The choices to be made in the main quests are pretty clear as far as I'm concerned, generally they boil down to taking a risk and letting someone/thing live, or playing it safe and killing them. Some of the sidequests have strange choices though, where doing the paragon thing means convincing someone using completely silly arguments, and doing the renegade thing sometimes shifts into downright psychopathic behaviour.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[phantomfive]

The real question is if games can make statements that aren't

-I want money
-I want attention
-I hate (insert group of people here)
-I'm a jerk

And how about we add the clause:

-I can make fun of someone.

Sure, it is easy enough to mock someone, but it is much better to show the world something new. Mocking emo people may be fun and all, but it's not particularly insightful.

a game as a statement on iPhone Mania

[naz404]

Hi all! Sorry for the shameless self-promotion, but we've been making games as statements these past few months too!

We made a game that's a statement on our puzzlement at iPhone 3G Mania and you can view, play and download the game from here:

http://playyoo.com/game.html?id=MqqZ

Our artistic statement is also on the same page.

Another game we made as a statement is on Global Warming about the plight of the drowning polar bears.

Play Polar Panic and read our statement here:

http://playyoo.com/game.html?id=MqMH

and off-topic, if you want a game with UFOs and redneck abductions + cattle mutilations, play UFO Catcher: Barnyard Abduction here:

http://playyoo.com/game.html?id=kMkQ

Regards, -Naz Zen Graffiti Studios

Interpretation

[YourExperiment]

Ledonne and his title stopped short of providing a direct interpretation - neither artist has been especially specific about 'what it means,' or in instructing players on how they should interpret their work or what 'message' should be taken away.

Ahem...

Should Smithereens! be banned?

[Anonymous Coward]

Smithereens! predated 9/11 by 20 years, and had twin towers.

Are you all retarded?

[Alex Belits]

Of course, games are art -- art is anything that is produced to express something, without some primary utilitarian purpose. Most of games aren't good art, but neither are most paintings or most movies.

As for the expression of ideas -- all games that simulate a behavior of a person in some kind of social situation depict some kind of society and reflect some system of values that in its turn is based on some kind of ideology. People only care about this when the ideology expressed conflicts with their own one, however this has nothing to do with the fact that expression is always there.

A receding art

[FornaxChemica]

It is true video games are art, what they lack is the recognition from outside the gaming industry and community. A lot of things can be considered art as someone else pointed out in the thread, but what matters is the masterworks that transcend the limits set by individual tastes and elevate art to global appreciation. And that's one thing that video games may be lacking. They are popular of course, but not for their artistical assets, just because they're fun to play; it has become some cheap form of entertainment, like TV.

Besides, by trying hard to look like films -which they will never be- by borrowing from them and emulating them, some contemporary games have just given up the uniqueness of video games. I think the artistic soul of video games can be more easily found in its past rather than in its present, because back then they had a personality, an identity that was truly unique; exactly what art needs to live up to its definition.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[a_real_bast...]

I refer you to Tycho's review of "Shadow Of The Colossus", wherein he starts feeling pretty creepy about genociding peaceful giants. As far as I can tell, that "um...what am I doing this for?" feeling is the point of the game.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say....

[dfenstrate]

That 99 out of 100 times, anyone who speaks of making a 'statement' with their 'art' falls into most of the following categories:

1. Leftist.
2. Repeating cliche, trite ideas dressed up with a college sophomore's verbiage.
3. Incompetent at creating aesthetically pleasing work.
4. Using the 'statement' angle to try to get an audience for their work even though item 3 applies.
5. The 'art' in question, as a consequence of all of the above, is ugly and absurdly abstract*.
6. If you point out that the 'artist' is juvenile and incompetent, and the art is ugly, the 'you don't get it' scam is applied.

This statement nonsense is a long standing pattern with 'modern' art. Actual art speaks for itself.

No one who creates quality work that stands on it's own needs to tie themselves up with nonsense about 'statements.'

Only hacks with no skill or talent ever speak of 'statement' and 'art' in the same breath.

*(Picasso and many other famous abstract artists were accomplished Classical painters before they turned abstract. This solid base of skill gave them the tools to create aesthetically pleasing abstract pieces.)

Uh... yeah...

[Larryish]

What was so shocking about it?

Did the videogame aliens crawl into the buildings and place cutter charges or something?

Not a lot of debate that I can see

[Anonymous Coward]

"whether "statements" can and should be made via video games,"

They can and all do whether or not most see them.

"and how it affects the ongoing question of whether video games should be considered art."

They are. Next question

Taking a Clue from Rock & Roll

[flyneye]

One should take a clue from the world around them.In the world of R&R music for example;a band called "The Clash" was the only band that mattered and the only band making political statements.They inspired a generation with political statements and their music.They were well thought out and avoided subjects that were merely cause du jour.
        Unfortunately that inspired generation weren't as well thought out and used politically based music for every single half baked opinion they could muster.This led to a competitive cacophony that only served to mis-educate and burn out the genre. Che Guevara t-shirts spring up on kids who have no clue about the embarrassment he caused the Cuban Communists and was sent to S.America more to occupy him afar than as a mission.The wealthy are idealized as evil rather than a necessity of a society that doesn't rely on the Government for every scrap.Criminals who kill old people for money are given heroic status because of their race,such as Leonard Peltier. The list could go on and does.
          Don't let videogames burn you out completely on politics and remember that musical genius or master coder is also capable of being a complete moron in the political field.

What it means

[Bob Uhl]

What it means is that these artists' parents never bothered to teach them discretion, taste or tact, and further that they seized on an opportunity for self-promotion. A week ago I had not heard either's name; today I have. Their stunt succeeded.

Like spree murderers, we shouldn't publish their names. We should ignore them.

Art Carney!

[Tetsujin]

Yes, many games are just there for the raw entertainment value.

Perhaps that's where we need to ask the question what the purpose of art is. Isn't art created for enjoyment? What is the purpose of a painting? Is it to be interesting to look at? Is it to tell a deeper story? Or is it just to have a status symbol to hang on your wall to look like you're educated? My money's on the last option, modern art has reduced the concept to its foundations by cheaply making something that the buyer can feel good about owning, possibly revelling in the knowledge that no one but him knows the deeper meaning of the picture (though he just read it off the label).

If you were to talk about somebody like Warhol, I'd say that's a pretty good assessment of the situation. But I think this whole cloud of intellectualism built up around art is largely a product of the community surrounding the art, not necessarily the artists themselves. A lot of art is just making things that are somehow interesting to the artist - it's the process of trying to share the mindset that produced the work that leads to things like the "artist's statement"... which depending on the artist could be a serious attempt to convey an idea, a koan-like scrambling process intended to make people think - or just a jumble of nonsense intended to make the artist look smart. And it's often very difficult to tell the difference between the three cases. :)

But I want to approach this question from the other direction, as well: suppose video games are art. So what? Do we place an unnecessarily high level of importance on that distinction?

Specifically, I think when we talk about whether video games are "art" we're really talking about a few separate issues: "Is it worthwhile?" - which is misleading, because lots of art isn't - "Is it a legitimate means of exercising free speech?" - which is also misleading, because that's not the exclusive domain of art... Basically, there's this artificial distinction in which things are only acknowledged as "art" if we have, to some extent, accepted them, and in which the designation "art" lends credibility to them...

Re:Art Carney!

[imgod2u]

I wish to the FSM I had mod points right now. Well said. In summary:

1. "Art" has been giving an artificial aura of intellectualism and elitism that it shouldn't be. It's whatever someone creates out of creativity. Whether a statement is involved is optional.

2. "Free speech" is not the exclusive right to art. Last I checked, it was the birthright of everyone. Whether you're writing a trashy novel, designing a mindless shoot-em-up game or making the next Jackass movie, you have the freedom to do it regardless of whether it's considered "art".

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[philspear]

I was actually referring more to non-technology issues. It's like how it took people years after the invention of the novel to realize it should really have rising action and a climax. Some of the earliest novels are, well, kind of boring. Jonathan Swift's "Gullivers Travels" I'm told doesn't really have much of a plot, it's just Gulliver meeting new and strange cultures. A disclaimer there, I've never read it.

The montage in movies, not really a technical issue, but it would have taken people a while to think of that as a way to represent a long process that the movie doesn't want to show.

Same thing with videogames. How do you make a statment in them which uses the interactive element and isn't just playing games between movie sequences? I don't know, and game-makers don't either yet, but they will.

"Retarded Niggers"is bad:use "mentally challenged"

[Tetsujin]

Tautology

Anything butt taut, I would say...

Warhol Fandango

[leedsj]

it's clear that we simply don't have much in the way of artistic games right now - so WHY don't you highly opinionated, talented lot stop blabbing on about it and discover the new Andy Warhol hiding amongst your ranks. Anyhow, Grim Fandango IS art

Re:Why are we talking about a stupid "controversy"

[Anonymous Coward]

Most football fans (and that's a *lot* of folks) would think of video games as Football Simulators (madden etc), most Nascar fans think of them as Racing Simulators, pilots see them as Flight Simulators.

Just because the most-targeted niche is the violent shooter, doesn't mean the whole non-gaming world sees them as Shooter Machines. The Wii and XboxLive offerings are also doing a lot to change non-traditional gamers perspective.

Movies had years to develop before they matured to their present form. Give games another 50 - 70 years, and I think a lot of the "popular misconceptions of gaming" will change *drastically*, and for the better.

Totally off-topic

[The End Of Days]

People that aren't used to the medium (read: older people who didn't grow up with the medium)

Does this writing style (read: not really a style at all) set anyone else's teeth on edge?

God I hate it so much.

Nethack is art

[Angvaw]

Nethack is art. It showed me that given enough time, random events can coincide in such a way that you feel like someone is conspiring against you.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[SoupGuru]

A little ridiculous? How about very ridiculous?

One of the big reasons that emo gets made fun of a lot is that it's an easy target. Low hanging fruit. I mean really, what redeeming qualities does emo have?

what's next...

[to_throw_shapes]

I cant' wait to get my hands on Super Holocaust 2: Zyklon B

Wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

No medium in principle is inherently art. Art emerges among particular instances of any medium that exhibit an interesting or masterful use of the unique attributes of their respective media. Just as no one would claim a movie cannot be art because it is not as still and soundless as a painting, no one can rightly claim that a video game cannot be art based on the criteria used to judge other media. The medium of video games has attributes that other media simply do not have. You cannot say video games are incapable of being art because of what these attributes take away from the attributes it shares with other media to which you are more accustomed. Video games are not art when they tell a story through extensive cinematics and minimal user interaction, or when their visuals mimic the style of impressionist paintings, they are art when they play to the strengths of their medium, when they make use of them in unexpected and masterful ways. This is as true of video games as it is true of movies as it is true of music and paintings and mathematical proofs and source code and buildings and anything else humans can get their hands on.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Das Modell]

I was actually referring more to non-technology issues. It's like how it took people years after the invention of the novel to realize it should really have rising action and a climax. Some of the earliest novels are, well, kind of boring. Jonathan Swift's "Gullivers Travels" I'm told doesn't really have much of a plot, it's just Gulliver meeting new and strange cultures. A disclaimer there, I've never read it.

Gulliver's Travels isn't one of the earliest novels, and it wasn't written the way it was written because that's all writers knew how to do at the time.

How do you make a statment in them which uses the interactive element and isn't just playing games between movie sequences?

That's an arbitrary restriction. Why can't you make a game that has movie sequences? You could make a traditional adventure game that would have very movie-like cutscenes that would be spliced together with the gameplay as seamlessly as possible. There's nothing preventing developers from doing that, and to my knowledge it has never been done. At least not properly.

What does this imply for...

[Anonymous Coward]

All those post-9/11 "Tower Defense" type minigames custom scripted to various RTS's? Does that mean that those are a bold artistic statement or just an expression of people who are insensitive clods?

Anyhow, regardless of the meaning or interpretation, some of those are still fun to play.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Das Modell]

Passage is shit, though. I played for several minutes, just wandering around, and then quit because nothing was happening and I had no idea what I was supposed to do. It was like playing Pacman without the ghosts, pills and fruits.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[jackbird]

The game is hard-limited to 5 minutes, so you can't have been playing that long. Also, there's a score counter that responds (or doesn't) to things you do, and the passage of real time has a very noticeable effect on both the playfield and your avatar. You might want to give it another shot.

Besides, we're talking about a game that makes a statement, not a game that's incredibly fun and absorbing. Once played through it twice (with and without the "powerup" right at the beginning), you've pretty much seen it.

Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen

[Das Modell]

I played for a few minutes without anything happening.

I have no idea what "statement" Passage is supposed to make, and it isn't really even much of a game considering it's not supposed to be fun. The value of a game is pretty much measured by how much fun it is.

[ot] ob:pedantry.

[wild_berry]

Pedantry: I disagree. We'll be arguing over the interpretation of the word 'is' instead.

I'm sorry that the Internet is Tubes all the way down.

Re:[ot] ob:pedantry.

[pcolaman]

Have you gotten your TiSP beta equipment yet?