http://tech.uk.msn.com/features/article.aspx?cp-documentid=7602102 Full article But is it Art? Asked to name a ‘piece of art’, most of us would suggest a painting. Some would come up with a piece of music – probably classical. Others might pick out a sculpture or a film. Asked to identify a piece of ‘modern art’, we would probably cynically point to that pickled shark or that unmade bed. But how many of us would put forward a video game? Half Life? Halo? Can a video game be a work of art? Art critics are divided on the issue, the old school largely (though not all) coming down on the ‘no’ side of the debate. Gamers, on the other hand, come out in strength to defend the artistic merit of games – their favourite games in particular. Should games be considered an art form in their own right? Have your say on our forums. I understand how the debate becomes as heated as it does. Art critics are defensive; they aren’t sure if they want to cheapen the art world by admitting games into an exclusive club of accepted formats. Gamers are defensive too; they want the games they love to be taken seriously. Such gamers want gaming to be seen as a legitimate interest rather than juvenile time-wasting. If you follow the arguments, you do get the impression that there are critics who are not merely saying games are ‘not art’, but also equating ‘not art’ with ‘not good’, frivolous or low-brow. Other gamers couldn’t care less, adopting the line: “I don’t know much about art, but I know what I like.†And what they like, of course, are the games that entertain them, pure and simple. Fair enough for them but the question is still a pertinent one. Not only a pertinent question - a tough one too. To categorically say whether something is or is not art, you need to be working from a categorical definition of art itself: a definition which, frankly, I don’t pretend to have. Still, we might start by considering the things that we can agree are indeed bona fide art forms: painting, music, sculpture, dance, literature, film, and so on. They are a mixed bag indeed. It is hard to extract the thing, or things, that make these legitimate art forms Even once we call them ‘legitimate art forms’, we have to contend with the fact that not all literature is art. Not all film is art. For every Wuthering Heights there are a hundred trash novels; for every Seventh Seal there are a hundred Scary Movies. Not all music is art. That stupid Crazy Frog song was categorically not art, can we agree? With such evidence in hand – the diversity of accepted art forms, the appearance of ‘high art’ and ‘non-art’ within each – the video game begin to look more and more feasible as, at least theoretically, art. Historically, emerging art forms tend to have a tough time in their younger years. Film had its share of detractors back in the day. Let’s not forgot that the video game really is the new kid on the block here; less than forty years ago we were still playing Pong. When likened to any particular art medium, games tend to be compared to films. It is easy to see why, for some games at least. It is easy to think of Halo as an interactive sci-fi action flick, Max Payne as an interactive film noir (or a noir-themed graphic novel), Silent Hill as a horror movie. The number of recent films based on games are testament to the apparent interchangeability of the two formats. As consoles and computers have gotten more powerful, and graphics have gotten closer to true visual ‘realism’, games have seemed to be progressing towards playable movies. But maybe games, as the newest kid on the block, feel restricted to mimic the conventions of a more accepted, more mature art form – namely film. It is just a thought, but maybe as the game grows up it will become something different to film entirely, an original art form in its own right. Already some games are nothing like films, focusing on elements other than narrative. Other games, it is worth mentioning, make an ‘artist’ of the gamer: Electroplankton, to take one example, makes the player a composer of sorts, invited to arrange their own piece of ambient electronica. For art purists, the sticking point might be the sheer commerSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMSPAMm of games. Admittedly next-gen console games costs millions to make, and rake in millions in sales, but it’s not clear why great art can’t be a commercial success to boot. I suppose the idea is that a profit-driven endeavour isn’t going to have artistic integrity – which is to underestimate, I think, visionary game developers. And with technology leading the way into an era of user-created content, there will be plenty more space for not-for-profit games led by an individual’s particular vision. Arthouse games, if you will. The inescapable truth is that games - a lot of them - contain art in many forms. Their virtual worlds contain buildings (architecture), character designs (portraiture, costume), and beautifully rendered landscapes to rival those of oil paintings. Games are soundtracked with music; the Halo score is a work of art, if you ask me. Games have scripts and storylines. That’s screenwriting and literature, isn’t it? How can games contain so much artistry, and still not be considered art? Comments...........
I like to play games because they are fun. SOTC might be considered "Art" but some of the elements that many say make it art are what make it less of a fun game, imho. Mainly the lack of overworld enemies for one. However, I can just roam around the world and take in the scenery and admire it for how good it looks, and how much time was spent on minute details. More Colossi wouldn't hurt though. I don't like the "less is more" approach that much, but whatever. As for Halo...I don't think I'd call it art. I mean, its got some really nice locales and some nice scenery at times, but for the most part you are just shooting aliens in corridors or don't have time to appreciate the scenery, because of hectic battles. The soundtrack is good, but usually during battles, I've noticed the orchestrated music stops and techno-ish music plays, and Electric guitar, etc. Not to mention the fact that guys in the future fighting Aliens isn't really anything unique, so it may be hard to call it art to begin with. Some might argue that fighting gigantic creatures isn't unique like in SOTC, but I have yet to see similar gameplay mechanics in many other games. I think games can be art, it depends on how unique the game is, though. I remember hearing an art critic say before "If you are the first to do something, what you just made is art". Of course that means any old thing could be art, like some guy making a painting of some dude crapping a rainbow out of his ass and called it "Art", that would mean Mortal Kombat, Boogerman, etc, are art. Of course better examples of Unique games would be SOTC or maybe a game that is like a moving painting, like Odin Sphere for instance.
Games are art. Any created means is art. If a film about shooting aliens is considered art. an a CD with some dude talking about shooting cops over a synthesized bass line is considered art. Then a game aobut shooting aliens over a synthesized bass line is considered art. Now, SOTC or Zelda are more "artistic" than Halo. But Halo is art. It's only art if it's unique? The mona lisa is just some chick with a half smile. Statues are just dudes. I rest my case
agreeing to the most, but: when you say that "Games are art. Any created means is art." i would add that any created means, that amplify or create new threads of conceptions and brings them to a whole new level is art. anyway VGs are obvioulsy art. the problem is that in some cases not all the game is art. for a VG to be "art" it must be a masterpieces in all the MANY different aspects of it. i mean a painting can be beautiful. right? if it is, that's an art piece. well for a game to be "art" you have to melt togheter ALL THE OTHER ARTS, and even TECHNICAL REALIZATION. It's the most difficult artistic task. michelangelo's piety is a scultur masterpiece. it doesn't have color, music, interactivity. well for a game to be art it has to have great gorgeous graphics (i don't mean photorealistic! it can be just be 2D sprite based game!), beautiful music and sound effects, a great story, interesting gameplay, to last long. and an interesting way to play (controls). making examples, FFVI's soundtrack, is a work of art, even being so low quality in its samples. locoroco's and okami's graphics and design too can be considered art. the wii's controls in some games can too be considered art. wipeout 3 on psx can be considered art beside of the design, but for the great controls and the incredible technical feats. and so on. it's difficult is to find a game that can be called "art" because it have to exceed in too many things, as i stated. -visuals -music and SE -Story -gameplay -controls -interactivity -longevity and ONLY VGs are a form of art requiring this much of an effort. so somehow they are the greatest of all arts, because they need to have all of the other ones inside, to make a great work. here is an example of classic arts/arts in games painting -> 3d modelling, design sculpture -> 3d modelling music -> music and SE literature -> the game's story and dialogues recitation -> character's movement expressions etc etc so the main reasons for VGs not being considered art IMHO are: -critics are old people -critics don't play so they can't tell -critics when they try to get informed just check the games with most sales, and usually sale=/=quality -VGs are the really first widespread and non elitist form of art -EA licensed games karsten
I agree with Henners. The question is not whether it can be considered art, because there are virtually no limits to what is art. A better question is whether or not it is good art. The thing that makes videogames somewhat questionable as an art form is that creative expression is usually secondary to being "fun" to play. Therefore, a truly artistic videogame would probably not be fun to play. In other words, they are limited in what they are capable of expressing by the market. That said, there are still some cases like ICO and Katamari Damacy where they manage to work within these constraints. The important thing to remember is that videogames are only a medium, and thus they are only as good as the people who make them. They have no inherent limitations, but certain aspects of our society and our economy place limitations on them.
If that CD is considered art This game is art if this film is considered art So is this game If this is art So is this
There are artists, musicians, computer scientists and actors working together to create something. How is that not art?
I was going to say the exact same thing. Here in Brazil, most people consider games as kids toys. But things are turning for good (people's brains are evolving i guess). As for it being art, i think it is. It's just something "new". Gaming is something new compared to the rest, and only in the last ten years it became a true entertainment for everybody. First it was directed to kids, then to teenagers, and now everybody has something to like.
I had a woman come into work with her son and he wanted to looka t something else while she ordered coffee, she told him to leave his "toy" (a psp) with her. he is like 7 and said "it's not a toy mom, it's a psp" she said "same thing" and I said "that's like calling a book or a DVD player a toy."
In a word, yes! I feel that like early posters such as Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec's, gaming art will eventually be seen for what it is. Some forms of art take a long time to be given the recognition and status they deserve. Art in general in the UK (and elsewhere) is going through a turbulent period with the likes of Tracy Emin http://www.tracey-emin.co.uk/tracey-emin-home.html applauded for her work 'My Bed' which consisted of an un-made, stained bed, used condoms and god knows what else, or perhaps Banksy http://www.banksy.co.uk/outdoors/horizontal_1.htm the graffiti artist who actually has a very interesting take on things but would have been considered a vandal not so long ago. (I actually like his take on things tbh) I believe that everyone has a talent, however like the World constantly blogging en masse "Just because it happened to you, doesn't make it interesting" and I feel that a lot of art these days is very much like that. It reflects the society we live in which demands instant attention, gratification and then thrown away. Even the comments are throw away...just like mine! Fewer people are taking the time to appreciate the finer things in life (attendance of galleries is constantly dropping). It's kind of hard to hang a screenshot on a wall and say "This is art" but in context it would be interesting. Perhaps someone should approach a gallery with the view to having a compiled "The art of gaming art" collection. You never know, this time next year you might have won and award! Emin did for just getting up one morning and plonking her bed in a gallery. One thing of note was one of her exhibition pieces in the Tate Modern was actually swept up and thrown away by the cleaning staff one night because they thought a tramp was squatting in the gallery! Now THAT is art critique! Ask an audience to actually take time to appreciate art and the majority of those attending the art gallery would simply move on!
Art is an abstract idea in itself. It all depends on the perspective of the person making the classification. Are games toys? Absolutely. The problem is that for some people 'toy' has a juvenile meaning only.
The only thing that pretends games from being widely accepted as art is that most older people who are the ones who chose what is good and what not (regarding art) are not familiar with video games at all. So they are not taken seriously as art as other formats like music or films. I believe in a few years people will think different about it.
I think like all media there are some things which are art, and some are purely for money & entertainment. Some films are created to make money, some are created to make a point and of course some aim to do both. You could say 2001: a space odyssey is art (like Van Gough etc it dived at the time, made no money, but is now considered art), Shrek 3 is pure entertainment to make money, while some are kind of between (say Toy Story, which kind of kick started a genre). Same with music, literature and games. I'd say Rez is art, a game which was probably not created with monetary ambitions but is still vastly appreciated by few - maybe it will be more so with time? However I'd say Pro Evo 2008 is purely a money spinner - no one could argue there, right? Again, some are caught in the middle - Half-Life was created with money in mind, but is something of an artform as it revitalised a genre, no?
technically, anything that can be done better by someone, and has a methodology is art. even gutting goats! - you still an audience to apreciate it subjectively though.
What's funny is i was going through old EGMs today and in the issue of Oct 2001 there's a blurb on ... San Francisco Media Arts Council holds Arcade: Exploring the Relationship Between Video Games and Art Panelists Nolan Bushnell Will Wright Lev Manovich (art dude) Brenda Laurel (art dudette) Had no idea this has been going on for SEVEN years !
Art has been "cheap" since abstract painting became the norm. Thanks to those idiots now any douche can get $10k and up for something that looks like vomit. For art on games, well it depends of what they mean. Gaming and gameplay could be considered art, since if you do it wrong it shows, just like bad directing does in film. If they mean what is called "concept art" then you can bet you ass thats art. One game that in my opinion is pure art is Homeworld2. From any angle it is art: the backgrounds, the ship's design, even the cutscenes have their own style thats very different from what you get in most games. I think that what limits games the most (as art) is the fact that 99% of all releases are meant for mass market, which pretty much says how artsy or edgy a game can be, and therefore determinates how far developers can go.
The snobs who grant themselves the power to decide what is and isn't art probably don't play games anyway, so fuck 'em. :fresh:
