This article should be in the "That word you keep using doesn't mean you think it does" department.
Art doesn't have to emotionally effect EVERYONE, people are different, some 'stuff' people define as art has no emotional effect the vast majority of people. Is clip art not art? Are war/action movies not art" Is rock music not art? Is anything that some pin head deams to be "not art" actually not art? -or- Has the concept of what is and is not art drifted so far from reality that the word no longer has the same meaning?
Let see, define art... Well maybe Google can define art for us or maybe Wikipedia can define art for us. Well Google isn't very specific, never is. But, Wikipedia is supposed to be by the people for the people kind of system and they say "Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both."
So, are video games an expression of creativity and/or imagination? I, for one, think, generally speaking, the answer is yes. *check*
I don't have a corncob up my ass so I can't speak for art critics but I think that word they keep using doesn't mean what they think it does. Now, while I'm not willing to shove a corncob up my ass or start publically proclaiming my own personal views as hardened facts -but- I am willing to see it from what seems to be their point of view.
'They' like the more emotional aspect of art. So, do video games invoke an emotional responce? For me, personally, I have had an emotional reaction while playing some games, I know some of my friends have as well. *check*
'They' like the "life changing" or "thought invoking" aspect of art. So, do video games invoke a life changing/altering or thought invoke/provoking experience? Given the state of the nation I think so, that brings to mind Deus Ex. Call of Duty had roughly the same effect on me as Saving Private Ryan, which is widely considered a work of art among war movies. Both have changed my life, both motivated me to learn more about the state of our world and our recent history without those I might be more ignorant and in a different place in life. (if that makes sense) *check*
In a reply to another article (forget which or I'd link to it) I tried to argue anything intended to entertain people is art. I stand by that notion but I don't think I need to bring it up again.
Games are art. They can try to change the meaning of the word art as much as they like but like any other information medium you will find art on the interactive multimedia information medium. And to be clear, game design or the crafting of the intended experience of the player, can be art. 'Our' happy medium can present art from many (if not all) other information mediums but in the general sense that bit of art is just more information moving along the medium to the player, if its presented in or allows the player to interact with it in a creative, emotion invoking, thought invoking/provoking, or other manor that reflects on an aspect of human nature then... *check* IT'S ART!
Right, the game itself is art and at the same time it can contain individual works of art. The same can be said of movies in that respect. The dynamics of it is interesting but I guess thats true of all information mediums.
I think if people want to argue over what is or is not art and at the same time defend games as a form of art, then some attention should be paid to your literature example. The term game is being applied to things ranging from training programs to educational tools to general object/setting simulation. All things that are not really intended to entertain viewers but certainly can contain individual works of art. As a form of art in of itself games must actually contain a game, with a defined (or at least definable) design.
By viewer I mean player in the context of games within this medium but viewer also applies to anything else within the medium too. It's probably a carry over from video/movies and also goes to show the game design books I've read are probably too heavily rooted in other art mediums. Since all video games are programs they could also be called users. Yet another oddity.
A Babylon 5 game would be great. I've been playing B5 themed total conversion mods for a while and given their popularity I doubt they'll have problems finding players for a full blown game. Something to keep an eye on...
-Burn
Different view on the article's main 'points'
on
But Is It Art?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why is it that articles like this always seem to come out of gaming industry media outlets? This one in particular annoys me for a whole host of reasons, beyond just spending way too much time discussing the lack of cultural acceptance for comic books (or graphic novels).
First off (not counting the comic books), video games or rather interactive multimedia computer simulations are just a content medium, a channel for presenting information to a viewer. This channel includes anything that passes through it just like any other medium. How people categorize this content varies but I think its safe to say anything intended specifically to entertain the viewer can safely be called art. Again, the same goes for entertainment on any other content medium, like movies, music, and yes, even comic books.
Anyone who argues otherwise siting specific titles as being "NOT ART" is expressing a personal preference generally based on whether or not they are entertained by a particular title. Those same people then usually try to force this personal preference on everyone else as some form of fact. From there is gets complicated and increasingly more annoying. For example an extreme but sadly common example is pornography, some may say a picture of a simple nude statue is art while at the same time a PlayBoy centerfold poster is not art (personally I would even argue the human body is a work of art and should freely be displayed as such, and indeed I would include everything from flashing breasts to modeling). Same is true of violence, if a character in a movie kills in the heat of passion (and its moves the viewer) its art while some would say a movie that depicts people killing for fun to be "NOT ART".
So yes, it is art.
Second, cost is a minor factor. The movie theater analogy was extremely poor. People seeking to pay per play in a theater type arrangement go to an arcade, they don't run out an dump $500 on a gaming system and a few games. Games are reasonably priced for the volume of content you pay for (that says nothing of quality) and at least for consoles you can get more functionality out of the few $100 you had to drop on equipment to watch movies at home.
Third, play time in context to introducing people to video games is a problem for most titles. This says nothing of game demos, independent games (including "interactive fiction"), and the huge range of non-3D games (most of which are short). Web based games on portal sites are also becoming more popular.
Finally (before I get replies just telling me to shutup), the game industry is broken but I think 'natural' industry changes and market pressure will slowly resolve most of the problems. This will also result in an ever widening range of game content becoming available. The main problem with content today is only small independent developers and hobbyists are willing to risk their time and resources on anything but a sure bet product. A large part of the solution will be advances in development technologies such as new versions of 3D Game Studio for small developers, open sources development resources for hobbyists, and procedurally created content generation for the big developers. It goes well beyond just engines, development tools, and the range of content but thats a subject for another article (by someone who can describe it far better than I can).
I'd also like to note that I'm back, I have posted a comment on here in years but now I'll be contributing my two cents a little more often, at least for a while.
Note: Sorry if this is redundent with any other replies, took me a while to write this.
Slashdot Mirror
This article should be in the "That word you keep using doesn't mean you think it does" department.
Art doesn't have to emotionally effect EVERYONE, people are different, some 'stuff' people define as art has no emotional effect the vast majority of people. Is clip art not art? Are war/action movies not art" Is rock music not art? Is anything that some pin head deams to be "not art" actually not art?
-or-
Has the concept of what is and is not art drifted so far from reality that the word no longer has the same meaning?
Let see, define art...
Well maybe Google can define art for us or maybe Wikipedia can define art for us. Well Google isn't very specific, never is. But, Wikipedia is supposed to be by the people for the people kind of system and they say "Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both."
So, are video games an expression of creativity and/or imagination? I, for one, think, generally speaking, the answer is yes. *check*
I don't have a corncob up my ass so I can't speak for art critics but I think that word they keep using doesn't mean what they think it does. Now, while I'm not willing to shove a corncob up my ass or start publically proclaiming my own personal views as hardened facts -but- I am willing to see it from what seems to be their point of view.
'They' like the more emotional aspect of art. So, do video games invoke an emotional responce? For me, personally, I have had an emotional reaction while playing some games, I know some of my friends have as well. *check*
'They' like the "life changing" or "thought invoking" aspect of art. So, do video games invoke a life changing/altering or thought invoke/provoking experience? Given the state of the nation I think so, that brings to mind Deus Ex. Call of Duty had roughly the same effect on me as Saving Private Ryan, which is widely considered a work of art among war movies. Both have changed my life, both motivated me to learn more about the state of our world and our recent history without those I might be more ignorant and in a different place in life. (if that makes sense) *check*
In a reply to another article (forget which or I'd link to it) I tried to argue anything intended to entertain people is art. I stand by that notion but I don't think I need to bring it up again.
Games are art. They can try to change the meaning of the word art as much as they like but like any other information medium you will find art on the interactive multimedia information medium. And to be clear, game design or the crafting of the intended experience of the player, can be art. 'Our' happy medium can present art from many (if not all) other information mediums but in the general sense that bit of art is just more information moving along the medium to the player, if its presented in or allows the player to interact with it in a creative, emotion invoking, thought invoking/provoking, or other manor that reflects on an aspect of human nature then... *check* IT'S ART!
-Burn
Right, the game itself is art and at the same time it can contain individual works of art. The same can be said of movies in that respect. The dynamics of it is interesting but I guess thats true of all information mediums.
I think if people want to argue over what is or is not art and at the same time defend games as a form of art, then some attention should be paid to your literature example. The term game is being applied to things ranging from training programs to educational tools to general object/setting simulation. All things that are not really intended to entertain viewers but certainly can contain individual works of art. As a form of art in of itself games must actually contain a game, with a defined (or at least definable) design.
By viewer I mean player in the context of games within this medium but viewer also applies to anything else within the medium too. It's probably a carry over from video/movies and also goes to show the game design books I've read are probably too heavily rooted in other art mediums. Since all video games are programs they could also be called users. Yet another oddity.
-Burn
A Babylon 5 game would be great. I've been playing B5 themed total conversion mods for a while and given their popularity I doubt they'll have problems finding players for a full blown game. Something to keep an eye on...
-Burn
Why is it that articles like this always seem to come out of gaming industry media outlets? This one in particular annoys me for a whole host of reasons, beyond just spending way too much time discussing the lack of cultural acceptance for comic books (or graphic novels).
First off (not counting the comic books), video games or rather interactive multimedia computer simulations are just a content medium, a channel for presenting information to a viewer. This channel includes anything that passes through it just like any other medium. How people categorize this content varies but I think its safe to say anything intended specifically to entertain the viewer can safely be called art. Again, the same goes for entertainment on any other content medium, like movies, music, and yes, even comic books.
Anyone who argues otherwise siting specific titles as being "NOT ART" is expressing a personal preference generally based on whether or not they are entertained by a particular title. Those same people then usually try to force this personal preference on everyone else as some form of fact. From there is gets complicated and increasingly more annoying. For example an extreme but sadly common example is pornography, some may say a picture of a simple nude statue is art while at the same time a PlayBoy centerfold poster is not art (personally I would even argue the human body is a work of art and should freely be displayed as such, and indeed I would include everything from flashing breasts to modeling). Same is true of violence, if a character in a movie kills in the heat of passion (and its moves the viewer) its art while some would say a movie that depicts people killing for fun to be "NOT ART".
So yes, it is art.
Second, cost is a minor factor. The movie theater analogy was extremely poor. People seeking to pay per play in a theater type arrangement go to an arcade, they don't run out an dump $500 on a gaming system and a few games. Games are reasonably priced for the volume of content you pay for (that says nothing of quality) and at least for consoles you can get more functionality out of the few $100 you had to drop on equipment to watch movies at home.
Third, play time in context to introducing people to video games is a problem for most titles. This says nothing of game demos, independent games (including "interactive fiction"), and the huge range of non-3D games (most of which are short). Web based games on portal sites are also becoming more popular.
Finally (before I get replies just telling me to shutup), the game industry is broken but I think 'natural' industry changes and market pressure will slowly resolve most of the problems. This will also result in an ever widening range of game content becoming available. The main problem with content today is only small independent developers and hobbyists are willing to risk their time and resources on anything but a sure bet product. A large part of the solution will be advances in development technologies such as new versions of 3D Game Studio for small developers, open sources development resources for hobbyists, and procedurally created content generation for the big developers. It goes well beyond just engines, development tools, and the range of content but thats a subject for another article (by someone who can describe it far better than I can).
I'd also like to note that I'm back, I have posted a comment on here in years but now I'll be contributing my two cents a little more often, at least for a while.
Note: Sorry if this is redundent with any other replies, took me a while to write this.
-MegaBurn