Slashdot Mirror
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."
Video games are art. It is long settled. No one of consequence is disputing this.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
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.
A learning experience is one of those things that say, 'You know that thing you just did? Don't do that.' - D. Adams
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.
>>"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.
In His Likeness - A sarcastic webcomic about God & the Devil.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
Can we moderate -1, Psychotic?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Let's take this statement...
Maybe I'm just slow, but I can't understand the difference between the three.
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.
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.)
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
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.