Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Video Game Screenshots As Art

Posted by samzenpus on from the where's-the-burnout-gallery? dept.

bbretterson writes "A community writer on Bitmob recently stumbled across a website filled with hundreds of images that blur the line between video game screenshots and legitimate photography. Using screen capture software, Dead End Thrills frames shots in PC games that could hang on the wall of any SoHo gallery."

16 comments

  1. Probably not without any editting... by TheSambassador · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Are still frames from a movie (that someone else made) art? I'd probably argue not so much... it's the creation of somebody else. Now if you were able to edit those pictures in a way that communicates something, then maybe we can start talking.

    I'd say that taking a "cool looking" screenshot can't really be art in the sense that this article wants it to be. Sure, with video games you have a bit more freedom of where to "take your picture" from than you would with a film, but it's the same idea. That scene from Bioshock was created by the developers, and it's THEIR art, not somebody who's just found a cool place to take a shot. The developers set up the lighting, made the textures and models, and provided the entire atmosphere.

    Of course, once you get into modding and/or things like Gary's Mod, where you can actually create some really cool things, maybe those "screenshots" would be a bit closer to "art." But simply taking a cool screenshot of a game doesn't (IMO) constitute "art."

    1. Re:Probably not without any editting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      That's the same argument used against photography being art. You're capturing someone else's art, so your photograph isn't art.

      Yes, the game artists created the meshes, the light sources, the particle effects. The programmers built the game engine that puts those together. However, the game player actually gets a lot of say in the "still" image created just like a real-world photographer. Do I stand here or there to grab that image? Should I squat or stand on a garbage can or move something here I can stand on or use a cheat to turn off gravity and stand someplace impossible? Do I frame that mech with that rebar over there, or juxtapose it with a nearby tree? If I'm in an outdoor engine, do I wait for the right lighting and weather? Should I toss a grenade to get some smoke effects? Should I drag that dead body over there to get an emotional impact?

      If photography can be art, then I don't see why game screenshots can't be art. Just because someone else built the Eiffel Tower doesn't mean you can't create art with it. And just because the developers provided the virtual world doesn't mean you can't use them to create art. However, just as a snapshot of your cat fluffy isn't art, your screengrab of that teabagger isn't art either.

    2. Re:Probably not without any editting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At any rate, discounting the idea that the player can't create art doesn't debunk the idea that the video game designers aren't able to create an artistic experience for players. This would seem to form a strong attack against Roger Ebert's now retracted claim that video-games can't be art.

      If the image is of artistic value, then there's an artist at work. I think, to return to the Eiffel Tower example, that the artwork benefits from the intrinsically artistic design of the Eiffel Tower, which provides symbolism and poignancy, both from the cultural significance to Parisians (as well as French citizens etc.) and the architectural significance as a free-standing man-made metal structure.

    3. Re:Probably not without any editting... by yoyhed · · Score: 1

      Good points, and being a photographer I do support photography as art obviously, but hitting PrintScreen in a game is not quite as artful as photography. There's so many more things to be considered when taking a real photograph - ISO, exposure length (and thus motion blur or lack thereof, and over- or under-exposure for artful purposes), aperture (influencing depth of field), choice of lens (influencing perspective and framing).

      Taking screenshots is akin to walking around with a point-and-shoot camera on Auto. You might come out with some good snaps once in a while, but you're not putting any artful thought into it other than framing the shot.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    4. Re:Probably not without any editting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good points, and being a photographer I do support photography as art obviously, but hitting PrintScreen in a game is not quite as artful as photography. There's so many more things to be considered when taking a real photograph - ISO, exposure length (and thus motion blur or lack thereof, and over- or under-exposure for artful purposes), aperture (influencing depth of field), choice of lens (influencing perspective and framing).

      Taking screenshots is akin to walking around with a point-and-shoot camera on Auto. You might come out with some good snaps once in a while, but you're not putting any artful thought into it other than framing the shot.

      That's both arrogant and ignorant. There are quite a few games with photo modes that offer almost all the settings you mention. Just because you as "a photographer" have only heard of PrintScreen in pc games doesn't mean that's all there's to it. Take a look at Forza Motorsport 3's photo mode for example (and the galleries of best pictures). By your own definition those pictures are art. And I agree.

    5. Re:Probably not without any editting... by yoyhed · · Score: 1

      It's not arrogant - I didn't say I was a good photographer _NOR_ did I say these screens weren't art. I only pointed out that there aren't as many artful considerations to an in-game photographer (even in a dedicated photo mode like Forza 3's.)

      One of the most important things about photography to me is that there's infinite ways to capture a seemingly infinite number of subjects. In a game like Forza, you've got what, hundreds of cars? Tens of tracks? You're not going to come up with much original material once the community has used the photo mode for a while. The cars will be the same, and the tracks will never change or have small details to emphasize - they'll be on the upper end of bland game levels. Have you ever seen a racing game with really great, non-repetitive details all around the tracks? No, it's all major scenery and repeated crowds.

      Another thing is that photography captures a moment - but it's special because it's a moment that will never be again. In a game, you can sit there for hours and nothing will change - it's not really a moment in time you're capturing, it's a state of a computer program.

      By the way, what kind of light simulation is there in that game? Does light absorb on the in-game sensor in subtly different ways at different apertures? Does the game have a 24-hour day/night cycle wherein the angle of light (and thus shadows) changes, along with the light color (and not just the color of the sky at the horizon?) Does light reflect off every surface accurately, allowing for creative ways to use it? Can you change the bokeh characteristics by changing your background and/or lenses, or is it just a computer-generated uniform blur? Is there lens flare? Does it require good technique to frame a shot and have it come out perfect?

      I haven't dicked around enough in the few games that have "true" photo modes to know of them - so I'll admit to ignorance. I've been playing games since 1986, and I'd consider myself relatively hardcore. I mean come on, I've got a mid-6-digit Slashdot ID and I'm posting comments on a non-front-page story in the Games section. I don't think it was that unreasonable to assume that these shots were basically screenshots of PC games - particularly because the games I know in TFA are BioShock and Half-Life 2, neither of which HAVE a photo mode and both of which are on PC.

      Just so we're clear, I'm not in the Roger Ebert camp here. Games have made me feel, and thus they're art. I suppose some in-game photography could be considered art, although I don't know that a screenshot could ever inspire an emotion in me - I haven't seen one yet that does, yet photos do all the time. The reason games have the ability to be art that other mediums don't have is immersion. When you're on Tallon IV in Metroid Prime, you really feel like it's you that's there exploring ancient Chozo ruins. I don't think in-game photography captures that feeling.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    6. Re:Probably not without any editting... by Rayonic · · Score: 1

      There's so many more things to be considered when taking a real photograph - ISO, exposure length (and thus motion blur or lack thereof, and over- or under-exposure for artful purposes), aperture (influencing depth of field), choice of lens (influencing perspective and framing).

      In PC games at least, there are a lot of things you can tweak or hack. Either with the game or with your display drivers. It's a different skillset, and probably easier overall, but here's a few real-life examples off the top of my head:

      • Increasing foliage density - this is often just a slider that can be turned up or overridden
      • Turning on or off light bloom, motion blur, etc.
      • View distance (how far you can see)
      • Alternate rendering styles (cel-shaded, watercolor, etc.)
      • Filters like film-grainyness or sepia, though I suppose these could be added in post-processing
      • Finer shadows, brighter lights, more realistic darkness (many games add a minimum amount of "lighting" to characters or environments, regardless of how many lights actually exist in the virtual space)

      And this is all without altering the game itself on a basic level. Honestly it seems interesting now that I think about it.

      --
      [PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
  2. Similar, but not the same by gravos · · Score: 1

    No doubt there are similarities between real world photography and carefully-arranged game "screenshots," but I think you haven't seen much fine art photography if you really think these are in the same category.

    --
    This game will waste your life. Don't clicky!
  3. Art it is, but whose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've often thought about how much certain game screenshots resemble photography in a sense. However, since it's videogames and not real life we're talking about, the artist here may be the one who worked on the game itself rather than the person who took the screenshot. After all, it IS their art that you're admiring when looking at a shiny screen.

    1. Re:Art it is, but whose? by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      A video game is a model, a simulation. Its not much different then a sculpture. The same rules you would apply to whether photographs of the statue are art you would apply to video games screenshots.

      --
      Good-bye
  4. Artistic, perhaps. But art? No. by Pink_Ranger · · Score: 1

    It is 98% someone else's work, 2% you posing what amounts to dolls.

    In any other medium, this would not be considered art.

    If anything, a really good screen cap gallery should show how important atmosphere is to a game, especially one that is supposed to have any emotional depth. It should not serve to show off the shot-taker's (I loath to use the term "photographer") artistic sensibilities.

  5. SF4 Screenshots by frission · · Score: 1

    Here are some pretty cool ones that someone made from Street Fighter 4, took a lot of timing/coordination to get correct. http://sonichurricane.com/?cat=7&paged=3

  6. Re:Artistic, perhaps. But art? No. by SleazyRidr · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, arranging dolls artistically could be considered art.

    The example shown above is basically just showing what a great job the game designers did, rather than adding anything of value.

    I see the artistic value in the old skool approach, we've had "Hey look, if you do this it looks like these two guys are doing it!" for as long as we've had screenshots.

    --
    Is 1563649 a prime number?
  7. Re:Artistic, perhaps. But art? No. by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well now - this is where the discrepancies come in. I agree, what we've seen isn't exactly art, but that's not to say that if someone actually did pose something, that it couldn't be art?

    I mean, it's not like the artist invented a new colour or a new shape, he just put them together on a canvas to create art. It's not like the photographer crafted the bowl or the fruits, but when decoratively posed it can be understood as art. So where do we draw the line?

    There are artists who work just in a digital environment, making 3d models and working with lighting and textures to pull off some amazing stuff. Now some of those people work in the games industry. Suppose I took their work and posed it in something like Gary's Mod and took a well lined up screenshot. Is that not like putting a physical object somewhere and taking a picture?

    It's really difficult to define what would and wouldn't be art about it. I mean, if I were able to replicate the Mona Lisa, would my piece be considered art, despite the fact that none of it is of my own creativity? Does somethings originality determine its artistic value? Would 2 identical paintings on created opposite sides of the world not consider both to be artistic?

    This is not as clear cut as it seems.

  8. Article missing the point by Vagueism · · Score: 1

    Artists has already for quite some time been using videogames to make art. For example, Miltos Manetas (manetas.com) is a wellknown artist using videogames (and technology) as tools and subjects for prints and videos, etc. The question isn't whether games can produce "pretty" (as Daniel Sims puts it) images but what those images can say about our lives. And video games are a vital part of many people's lives.

  9. Not quite so black and white. by djhDET · · Score: 1

    Missed the boat on this one but better late than never. The problem with some of the arguments here and elsewhere is that they have very rigid notions of what photography should be, and often what modern videogames are. Comparing screenshots to still frames from a movie assumes that games are just cutscenes rather than virtual worlds, and that the shot-maker has no influence on the subject or its treatment. This is obviously wrong. Going on to say that just because the textures, models, environments and atmosphere pre-exist somehow removes any artistic licence is equally naive. Muhammed Ali pre-exists: his face, body and the arena around him, not to mention the atmosphere of fight night, aren't the work of a photographer. Does that strip sports photographers of any artistic credentials? Of course not. Photography can many things. It can be capturing the drama of a scene in a new or unexpected way, or creating the scene by choosing what should and shouldn't be included the frame. When it comes to the games in question, nothing in that remit is beyond the power of today's PC players. They have to find the action, freeze it at dramatic point, then find a powerful angle. They have to light it, if not by creating the light or waiting for the right time of day, then by luring the subject into just the right place, and looking for a pose that catches the light provided by the developer. They have to adjust the camera's FOV to perfect the composition, using examples from real world photography to choose the right balance of foreground and background, the prominence of the subject and the peripheral detail. They can apply depth of field to, in some cases, differing degrees, together with things like exposure and colour balance. They can apply a vignette, create or exaggerate noise, and must avoid technical pitfalls like aliasing and visual artefacts. Then, thanks to the openness of many game engines, they can control the environment itself in ways a real photographer often can't. Put simply, the ingredients and requirements of a great, artful photograph are certainly available to a gamer. Not always, of course, and not the extreme degrees that separate 'high art' from most other kinds. But given that photography does, in its broadest and most popular sense, boil down to angles, compositions, movements and moments, it's simply obtuse to exclude a virtual camera and its user from the club. To put it another way, so long as it's possible for one screenshot of a scene to be markedly different and more captivating than another, videogame photography has its place. And where the fuck are my line breaks going?