Video Games as Art(A Final Discussion)

[Sinister]

I wish to discuss art and video games as a media for art. I fear that this is an inappropriate milieu for this discussion as no one here, myself included, has an acceptable non-biased opinion, so this little essay and debate starter of mine will most likely be "preaching to the choir". I mean that not as a put-down, but a necessary concern and important to note.

The term art is defined in fear when the proposition of video games as art is broached. Artists and art critics act defensively to make the term exclusionary so as to keep art definable. Their logic, I predict, is that if video games can be considered art, then nothing bars other entries in this category. But any society that slings art around in half-measured phrase templates such as "X is an artist with a Y" but balks at video games is fickle. For what did Marcel Duchamp accomplish with his "Fountain" but to cement the term as an object or concept put on a pedestal by society. A further insult is the consideration of murder as art.

If there is a doubt in my mind as to video games rightful place as contenders for art, then it is the collaborative effort required to produce them. But as films have the Auteur theory as their exception, then I would claim it for Video Games' sake.

Roger Ebert and many others claim that video games' soul purpose being that of commercialism denies them access. This is a feeble and hypocritical claim. I denounce it. Even artists in the traditional media have plied their "art" in the hopes of acclaim and monetary gain. With indie games, this claim is weakened even further.

Famous Quotes from Eberts such as this:

"To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

are pitiable inexperienced attempts made out of fear to stymie what he must've viewed as a weakening of the word "Art". Critics have pried at this no-doubt horrifying concept with lame and identifiable slander, labeling video games as "camp" and "kitsch" or even "low art"(which I would beg them to better define for the sake of my own amusement).

Even our own Hideo Kojima denies video games as art. But how would a man who has cannibalized thousands of B action films into his dubious canvases have a claim at art?

There are those who protest that video games operate as constructs within a system of rules that one must abide in order to participate. Chess, they claim is a game, and not considered art, but requires a skill. Do they doubly deny that art is not a participatory undertaking on the part of the viewer? Who looks at an abstract painting and does not see designs from his own mind arise from the chaos? No. Participation is necessary in every work of art. Do they also deny that skill is essential in deciphering or critiquing art? No. Artworks are puzzles to be unlocked by study and interpretation. What are puzzles but games?

If I denied that video games were art, it would only be to posit that they are much more. They require more. They offer more. They give opportunities to learn, to enhance, to inform and alert, to please, to terrify and even to sadden and most certainly enrage. They do this on a level that has never been seen before. They actually tear at reality itself and create realities of their own. What do people consider proper mediums for art? Media like, drawings, media like music, writing/dialogue, symbols, emotions? These are all merely components of video games. So I would posit that video games offer multiple opportunities for art.

It is unfortunate that far in the future quotes like Eberts will most likely be remembered in a mocking subtext. But then, I can't help but feel that was the spirit of his quote when it was made. He claimed that video games might be artistic but never art. I challenge any one man to decide for society what art isn't.

"I think I shall never see a poem lovely as a tree."

-Sin


(EDIT: This was to be a blog post, but I really invite discussion on this topic and would rather have it in a forum)

[Pete]

I would disagree that videogames aren't art. You can make an argument that even filmmakers make movies for commercial appeal. Sure, most movies are made to make money, this is obvious if you see some of the blatant sequels as cash grab attempts. And I'm sure that every video game company WANTS to make money. That's simple business and economics. If you're paying people to create something, you're going to have to do something in order to pay these people, or else why would they work for you?

Sure, you may have an incredible story to tell, but nothing in this world comes free. Hell, I would think that movies and videogames have a very similar manner of being created. Obviously you start with a script, and build from there. In films you have people who scout locations, design characters and directors who make sure that each shot is perfect. Videogames do all of the same, and I would argue it's even more meticulous, since everything is being created by humans and computers, so in theory, perfection in the directors eye can truly be achieved.

Now, that being said, there are several games and movies that can both work as art pieces and are very sellable. Take Shadow of the Colosus as an example. That game was a piece of art. The visuals were stunning and the creatures themselves were beautiful in their own right. To argue that the game wasn't art, evoking feelings of wonder and astonishment is simply wrong.

The act of playing a game, however doesn't make something art. Just because you can push buttons and make things happen does not make something art. Think about watching a movie. You watch a movie for the experience and for the visuals and the story and the escapism of it all. Don't games do the same thing? Didn't you feel the emotion of when Sephiroth ran Aeris through? Hell, don't you feel stunned when you finish Bioshock Infinite and learn the truth about everything? Hell, even when you play Heavy Rain and you can feel the desperation of Ethan trying to find his son, or even when his first son dies. You can feel the panic and terror. I would argue that those feelings come through the art of storytelling.

Art isn't all about visuals and interactivity. Books are art, well certain ones for sure, and they evoke emotions and make you think. I would argue that art is more about evoking emotion and making one think than just looking pretty. It can also be a masterfully shot scene or an adaptation of real life events to fit a movie screen.

[SOLDIER #819]

Art is a term people like Ebert use to elevate media formats familiar to them above others so that they can feel more "cultured, civilized and empathetic". One century ago, film wasn't considered an art form; most films just adapted other works with a greater artistic cachet into moving pictures for entertainment. Cut forward to the present and those same films are seen as art. Shakespeare's plays, written to sell to a general audience (with **** jokes abound), are the height of culture today. That the work was meant to make money ("commercialized") is no object: Da Vinci painted the Mona Lisa because he paid to, and Beethoven was paid for the 9th Symphony. Nobody seems to care now.

If there is an unchanging and eternal definition by which we can know what is and is not art, nobody knows what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if one century from now Call of Duty: Ghosts is seen an inspired work detailing the tragedy and waste of war, and true virtual reality simulations as a debauched and low mimicry of the real seeking to corrupt the youth of the day.

[Pete]

Well couldn't that be what the mark of art is?

I totally agree with everything you're saying, S, but think about what you just said. Isn't art technically creation plus perspective, whether it be the lens of time or a discerning eye of someone who went to school and studied semiotics (God, I thought I would never use that word again. Damn you Art History classes). Doesn't that help discern what determines art from crap? If X game holds up over time, not even as a landmark achievement, but rather is discussed as a piece of art, doesn't that make it art? Even if it wasn't for graphics, but perhaps a message or a story. Hell, I remember the stories of some games better than some books.

And yes, 99% of artists are commissioned to do something. Painters are paid to paint, sculptors are paid to sculpt and actors are paid to act. If you knew you were damn good at something, you'd want money for your gift/ skill as well. You don't make a major platform videogame either unless you're getting paid.

I think the problem with videogames is that they're constantly evolving and changing at such a rapid pace compared to the mediums of sculpture, painting, photography, writing and acting (I won't say movies as a whole, due to CGI and whatnot). Videogames are purely a technological endeavor, where the best graphics are still yet to be seen, and in theory, won't be seen in this lifetime.

With the more traditional art forms, of painting, sculpture, etc, you're limited to your medium, whether it be paint, a block of stone, or the stage. You're limited to your tools and your creativity. Would it be considered cheating to use something like lasers to shear off marble to get a more perfect shape that one's hand cannot achieve? Or to use computers to to add the minute details that the hand can't to a painting?

Hell, singers use autotune all the time and make millions. They're called artists, but the computers are doing the work.

I think the problem with calling videogames art is that there are so many aspects to look at, and the way things are done is constantly evolving and becoming more interactive and more personal. A videogame is essentially a scripted movie, with interactive elements, created by graphic artists.

You commission someone to write a script, which is an art in itself, storytelling.
You commission someone to design the look of the characters and scenery, drawing/ painting.
You commission someone to voice the characters to sound believable and convey proper emotion, acting.
Then, you commission someone to put everything together using computerized graphics, incorporating everything in their own vision, and limited to the capabilities of the technology provided to them.

To get something truly great, you need all of these things to be as perfect as can be. You can imagine how many games fall short on this.

[SOLDIER #819]

What I think you're trying to is say that people are able to discern what is or isn't art through lots of study. I don't know if you mean to say that they are able to discern if something's "essence" is somehow inherently artful, or if they are able to apply a socially constructed label (like Zagat for restaurants ). Basically, if they're finding something or labeling something. I'm not personally concerned with the epistemology behind it, personally, but it's a legitimate question I suppose.

Rather than worry about how they go about defining art, what should be taken issue with is how they ascertain what is NOT art. A professor who focused on Shakespeare may be able to claim that X play is art, but why do I care if the guy goes onto say, "Oh, but Nirvana's music is trash." (I don't listen to Nirvana, so...) This is basically what Ebert was doing. He knows nothing about the medium, so I find his opinion on video games to be worth about as much. It's also hypocritical, given that his medium of choice went through similar scrutiny and is still scrutinized ("the book is better").

If we follow your line of thinking and say that you can only know if something is art by doing in-depth study with it, then how can they possibly know whether x video game (or all video games) is art or not? They've never studied them, nor can they lay claim to having an all-encompassing knowledge to what is art.

The Catch-22 in this argument, I guess, is that people will inevitably find art in any medium if they continue to search for it; no one dedicates their life to a medium while admitting that it is inferior to all others. The same goes for the people making games and their constituent parts, which involve creative processes indistinguishable from other media deemed art. Kojima can say what he wants, but I doubt his staff who actually penned, programmed, orchestrated, and illustrated everything are going to say anything. Lucas said Star Wars was a movie for kids, but...

But what it really comes down to for me is what specifying something as art gets you. I personally haven't found any value in it. Even if people say something is art, and I may enjoy it, it's not inherently of any more or less value to me because of it. Not all of Shakespeare's plays are gold (even among fans), but they're still considered art. So if art is not necessarily a sign of quality, then what does it indicate? That if you partake of it, you fall into "cultured society"?

People paying paid isn't an issue for me, either way.

As for the rapid evolution of the video game industry in comparison to other media formats: I believe that virtually every form of media has benefitted from the change in technology. Still paintings and photography have both made a movement toward digital mediums, literature no longer requires an established publisher enabling an explosive proliferation of various forms (no editors to answer to), and music... That segues into the bit about changing tools and giving a greater advantage to newer artists.

Mozart and Beethoven both created famous pieces... and they used different instruments that have and continue to "improve" over time. Mozart used a harpsichord, which was relatively weak and tinny compared to the fortepiano that Beethoven used... which probably had catgut strings, which were replaced with steel eventually. Pianos have over the centuries been able to make bigger, richer sounds, but people still love Mozart at least as much as Beethoven. They even recreate the instruments he used to replicate the sound of the time, even though the contemporary orchestra is a completely different monster, bigger and capable of so much more.

In the same way, even as graphics get better and better, people purposely use older graphical styles. More traditional art doesn't necessarily aspire to be bigger or more real than before, and video games don't have to either (as I'm sure you agree with to some extent). It's completely different than, say, sports and steroids, where there is some record at stake.

Also autotune...fuu----

Finally, on video games being difficult to pin down as art because of its many parts: movies are also a collage of various media formats, right? But movies are a fairly established art form. Video games aren't any different, I would say.

Could you explain more about the CGI thing? Not that I think it's the greatest thing ever or anything, but is something like Toy Story not art?

[Pete]

See, to me, that's where the "line" in this conversation would be drawn, and I think that it's where the heart of the argument lies.

Ultimately art is in the eye of the beholder, and what constitutes "art" is something that people will never agree on.

What I was trying to get at with CGI was more along the lines of the actors behind the characters. Yes, the voice acting in Toy Story was phenomenal, and it really made the movie great. I'd would argue that there's something more powerful and more evocative to see the raw emotion on an actors face, as opposed to a perfected CGI characters.

I'm not saying that CGI isn't necessarily art, but rather that I feel it takes away from the art of acting. Look at stage actors, who go out every night and transform themselves into different characters, their job being to make you feel what their character feels.

I think that was more of the point I was going for, and not so much about if CGI was art.

[Odin1199]

Art is anything that is abstract or surreal, so games fall well into that category. You read a book, you're enjoying art, you listen to music, going to an art exhibition, same thing. You play games, you escape as well.

[FFnock80]

"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

That is the definition of art and after reading that how could one not say video games should not be considered as such? A game is as such a visual form that can produce beauty and emotion as I have felt with numerous games. I will use one game as an example to this as well. Probably one of the greatest games I have ever played and could easily be one of the best ever is The Last of Us. My first point of this will be how beautiful the game is. This game went away from what other games have been doing recently and that is using real people to make their game look more realistic. Yet in the Last of Us everything was drawn and yet the realism that came with it was breathtaking. As such when the very first seen came on screen and I literally jumped at the sight of how real the character looked although they were drawn by the artists of the game.

Now on to how emotional the game was and what I felt after completion of the game. Like the definition of art that pretty much says art can illicit powerful emotion from anyone enjoying it. This game alone had so many points in the game the player just wanted to throw their controller down and jump into the game just to cry with whoever needed comforting. For those who have played this game you understand this and if you don't I honestly can't see how you wouldn't want too. Not only did this game start with a gut wrenching turn of event, but it ended in perhaps the only way it could or really should have. Once I had completed the game I was forced to go look myself in the mirror and ask myself what I would be willing to do for those I want to protect.

In the end these may not be enough reasons to justify my claim but I do implore you to go try out this , game and feel, yes feel, the beauty and emotion this one game has to offer. I also ask you to always ask yourself, after completion of any game you hold dear to you, how you feel and why do you feel this way.