Pixelation
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Froli on December 29, 2006, 08:34:56 pm
-
Don't get me wrong, I love the games this guy made specially metal gear series. but I was surprised and a bit disappointed when he said this words in an interview...Somehow I wonder if becoming a huge/legendary game developer makes you spout nonesense. Have I misunderstood his words? or is he speaking in a different context.
-
Did he mean playing a video game or making one?
-
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2098≈Itemid=2 <-- here is the article
-
I mean.. video games are a weird category. They're definitely an active medium for contemporary commercial art, but they're also stuck in this almost permanent state of camp (or kitsch, depending on how you see it). Game genres are a bizarre thing, because while they give people a definite anchor point, an entry point, they also prevent the games from being anything that's truly avant-garde. I think games like Katamari Damancy are about as close as gaming gets to breaking that mold.
Since it's commercial art, there's less room for any sorts of strong political or social messages. "Fun" also has to take an active role in the medium, which is new. You have games like Shadow of the Colossus, which look at the medium of the video game as a really unique sort of art, that doesn't have a message or principle, but has a more hypnotic and visceral impact through the mood and direction.
I think video games are bizarre because they're a sort of midway point between fine art, commercial art/design, and contemporary music. It's definitely something that deserves a good conversation.. I'm curious to see what the other replies to this post are. I still haven't figured out exactly how I feel about any of it.
-
You cant really compare Dali, Rembrant, Van Gogh and others to some metal gear solid screenshots. I totally understand whats hes saying. Game-art has a purpose, physical artworks are merely forms of expression.
-
I don't really see how you could argue they aren't art anymore.. maybe games like madden etc don't qualify, but doesn't anything with a story count as some form of art?
-
I think that's complete nonsense. Even if you go by what he says:
"I don't think they're art either, videogames," he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art.
It's just not true. Of course, it does not apply to a whole lot of the more popular games out there, but those are usually made by huge faceless companies that bring in little, if any, personality or self-expression. It simply depends on who makes a game with what intention, just like with anything else. It's hard to believe that this (what is given in the article) is his whole point, and if it is he is either rather ignorant or didn't think much about what he said.
-
When he talks about the cars in the second or third paragraph, he gives a little insight as to what he is saying. Paraphrasing - 'ordinary cars are not art because they are functional, and everyone uses them.'
However, ancient ceramic vases and pots are on display in museums. Aren't they also functional? weren't they at one point used by the common man? yes.
It really just depends on what your definition of 'art' is. His is a little narrower than most.
-
Right so, if i'm in a room with 100 people, and i walk up to and slap one of them across the face... does that make that slap art? Because it was only meant to captivate that one person, and the others just ignored it because they didn't want to get involved.. :P
-
You could make a mold of the imprint on their face and sell it for millions.
-
http://www.autofish.net/clysm/art/writing/essays/2002s_videogamesasart.html
Pretty interesting article on the subject.
-
personally, I think it is all relative to the individual. A person who doesn't look for the art in something will not see it, but those who do, will percieve it. It's easier to see art in things which intend to pull you towards it and make you think "why?"..
-
An artist who influences me a lot once said that all art is theft. I feel one would have to be pretty ignorant not to see how much video games steal from movies...therefore videogames are art :P...... :lol:
In all seriousness though, I think video games CAN be art, it's just the fact that almost all of them aren't. Art is usually made by one person, and pretty much every commercial video game is made by groups of at least 5, ranging to the hundreds. This is why Feron was right; you can't compare Grand Theft Auto III to the Sistine Chapel, as one took hundreds of people, and the other, only one single person.
There still are games made by 1-2 people, and some of these games tend to be near art...anybody who has heard of Kenta Cho knows exactly what I'm talking about... Games that double as art DO exist, its just very hard to find examples of it commercially, and I think the same holds true for most movies, too. If you want some sound examples, look into some freeware games a bit: they're there.
-
personally, I think it is all relative to the individual. A person who doesn't look for the art in something will not see it, but those who do, will percieve it. It's easier to see art in things which intend to pull you towards it and make you think "why?"..
Art is absolutely relative.. the difference here is that contemporary fine art (and for that matter, most forms of commercial art) is considered by - and presented to - the public as something which should be seen and appreciated as "art." Whereas video games are still absolutely seen by the public as a form of mindless entertainment. And that's one of the things that's preventing video games from growing - if the artists responsible are conscious of the fact that their work will not be seen as the art they intend it to be, and especially if they don't believe that the public is willing to accept any strong move in a new direction, they're limited in the worst way.
-
Art is whatproclaims itself to be art.
-
Art is whatproclaims itself to be art.
What would you call a person who perceives a piece of non-art to be art, then?
-
A dadaist.
-
A dadaist.
Dadaists considered themselves artists at the highest level.. the "anti-artist" mentality was just a rebellion against the sort of contemporary art that was going on in the early 20th century. Which is really ironic, considering that the Dadaists knowingly (and later, towards the death of the movement, admittedly) imitated and were heavily influenced by other artists that were working during/before 1916 - the Futurists, especially.
-
You cant really compare Dali, Rembrant, Van Gogh and others to some metal gear solid screenshots. I totally understand whats hes saying. Game-art has a purpose, physical artworks are merely forms of expression.
That's a bit of a generalization. There are games out there that are absolutely a form of expression, with the purpose of expression first and foremost (if not the only concern of the artist). And there is 'art' that is created for an audience, to elicit a specific reaction of even produce a profit. Games are a medium, and mediums can't be defined by concepts as narrowing as audience or intent. You can make the assertion that 'most games' are this way, and 'most art' is this way, but it's not absolute regarding the medium. The same way cartoons aren't just for children, comics aren't just for adolescents, etc.
What would you call a person who perceives a piece of non-art to be art, then?
Why is it defined as non-art? You seem to imply that art is only art if the original artist considers it such, and I don't consider that to be the case. So I guess my own response to your question is that there is nothing that is, with absolute certainty, 'non-art'.
To be fair, Kojima is somewhat misconstruing Ebert's quote. Ebert was making the point that games shouldn't be considered art because there is choice and control on the part of the viewer/gamer - it is not a wholely, pre-decided medium. I don't personally believe that makes it non-art, in the same way that art installations are not invalidated by presenting the participant(s) with options. And bear in mind, Ebert was probably thinking Pac-Man when he said this, not Shadow of the Colossus, and might sing a different tune were he to actually invest some time into modern games. But he wasn't broadly putting the artform down in his original quote. He was just saying that since audience can influence the end product, he doesn't personally consider it art anymore.
Kojima too isn't discussing quality, but just motivation. He stresses the idea that people creating games are doing such to turn a profit, in order to please an audience and not create a personal labor of love. This is a pretty assumptive point of view (as I know plenty of game makers, specifically in the hobby community, who are making games for themselves with no public anticipation whatsoever). In fact, I just did preliminary design on a DS game that, if it happens, is a huge departure from what the licensor would expect, and fans of the license would expect, simply because I felt like taking this particular license in this particular direction, audience be damned. Does that make it art? I dunno. It's still licensed content and that really undercuts the artistry to me right there.
It's all pretty complex. I guess my stance is that broad generalizations on the subject usually stem from ignorance about games (Ebert) or cynicism/realism (Kojima). If someone working on a game considers what they're doing to be art, it is. If someone plays a game and they see art in it, there is. And the two are not mutually-dependant.
- Adam
-
Art is usually made by one person
Yeah, like that is true...I know a lot of great artists who do collaborations all the time and that doesn't mean they stopped making art when they joined. There are people who do most of their work along with someone else!
I'm not going to say anything about this now, for my opinion is not yet totally defined. I'll see where this goes to and maybe speak later...
-
Why is it defined as non-art? You seem to imply that art is only art if the original artist considers it such, and I don't consider that to be the case. So I guess my own response to your question is that there is nothing that is, with absolute certainty, 'non-art'.
I completely agree with you. I think our views on this are pretty much identical:
If someone working on a game considers what they're doing to be art, it is. If someone plays a game and they see art in it, there is. And the two are not mutually-dependant.
I'd been responding to Helm's post above mine - my interpretation of his comment was "art is defined by the artist," whereas I don't believe that to be true.
Ebert was making the point that games shouldn't be considered art because there is choice and control on the part of the viewer/gamer - it is not a wholely, pre-decided medium. I don't personally believe that makes it non-art, in the same way that art installations are not invalidated by presenting the participant(s) with options.
I think Ebert's reasoning is bizarre, if for no other reason than the fact that he himself is a film critic/buff. Film and music (especially since the dawn of rock n' roll) are both (at their best) forms of "high," non-commercial art, but they demand a deeper connection from their viewer. Personally - although I have yet to see a game that really makes use of the medium to its fullest - I feel the medium of the video game takes that concept a step further. Demanding interaction from the audience in order to even experience the art is.. incredibly powerful. The limitation is that video games are a medium used solely for commercial art, but like other good commercial art they have the ability to leave a lasting impact on their audience.
I mean, shit.. anyone who's played the Final Fantasy series past IV or so has been trained to fear the idea of superpowers/supergovernments because of the dangers that a corrupt superpower presents. People who play MMORPGs, especially those who play excessively, are living their lives in a pseudo-anarchaic political and social environment. Even games like Katamari or Loco Roco have lasting impressions on (at the very least) the subconscious.
-
I mean, shit.. anyone who's played the Final Fantasy series past IV or so has been trained to fear the idea of superpowers/supergovernments because of the dangers that a corrupt superpower presents.
I agree. There is a certain art to brain washing and manipulation.
There are many different types of art, some appeal to your ears, others to your eyes, some to your touch...throw them all together and add a bit of viewer-interaction, and you have yourself a video game. I say it's art, argueably not an accepted form of high art, as say painting, or composing, but indeed art.
-
I have no doubt that video games are art.
Games is the mixture of every "traditional" art type with the ability to controll it and experience it. In some aspects you could argue that games are still considered a tool, or simple entertainment. I feel this can't be entirely true as classical music were made for specific functions, but now are highly regarded works of art. Same with ancient pottery (as mentioned.) The notion that it has been made by more than one person can't be right, as most of todays greatest monuments were made by hundreds, maybe thousands of people. Think of the great pyramids, Sagrada Familia (and still in progress). Even in the case where there was one man/woman giving orders and presenting his/her vision, isn't that what a director does? A combined piece is still something on it's own.
I reckon this is split into two questions. What you regard as art, and what the art-institutions regard as art. In many cases the general public will change it's view on art once it becomes official, when an institution comes to the conclusion that a certain method of expression is to be regarded as something fantastic on it's own. I doubt everyone in the world knows why Mona Lisa is to be regarded so highly, regardless if it should or not.
When it comes to games, it's common to only compare the medium to certain games, putting everything in the same box. Paintings have sub-categories, do games? Is Pac man the same as Fifa 2006, Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft or Solitaire? In most RPG's you have a story to tell, music and aesthetics that could in some ways send a message like a painting. What about freeroaming games with no ending or goal? They don't have a story, but have messages and an altered reality of yourself that do create an emotion or trail of thought. But what about the really small internett or board games? Can everything be regarded as the same thing?
-
A video game is not a piece of art to me. Aspects of it may be. The gameplay may be so balanced and masterfully designed, it's an art compared to everything else. The graphics are obviously artistish. Music and sometimes sound direction is audial art. Storytelling is an art. But the game itself is just a game. Interactive entertainment. A collection of aspects that may or may not be considered art, formed into a final product that ISN'T art. Yeh.
-
I visit gamesareart.com a lot so I personally got fed up with this argument and dont really care anymore.
its pointless, there's no point to realizing wether it's art or not.
it is what it is, calling it art would only serve to give us status quo.
What kojima meant was the game as itself he doesnt see as art, he sees it as a place for art to live. *shrugs* whatever suits him.
-
My definition of Art: Something that isn't useful and rich people will pay alot for to show off their 'taste'. So games aren't 'art'. They are
a great way to spend your time, and they can be made by very talented people, but I don't think they should be called art. If you include everything that takes skill and expresses something as art, you might as well say that the dubbing of 'funniest home videos' was art, which
would be silly wouldn't it?
-
It sure is art; have you ever played Final Fantasy 7, 8, 9, 10? Or ironically, Metal Gear Solid (1)?
-
I think games are art. If you make a piece with your heart, it's art. Only money-spinners are not art. If, say, Helm, made a video game cutscene pixel and printed it on canvas, I would buy it as art. Art is the passion and sweat of the artist. Therefore, if a game is made by a person or persons working from the heart, it's art. Art is in the eye of the viewer.
-
If, say, Helm, made a video game cutscene pixel and printed it on canvas, I would buy it as art. Art is the passion and sweat of the artist.
If you read the article, Hideo Kojima says that there is no doubt that there is art in video games. What he is saying is that he does not consider the actual production as a piece of artwork. As he said, he considers himself as a owner of a 'museum' in which the art is showcased, however, the museum itself is not a piece of art (don't bring up architecture, it has nothing to with the analogy.), mearly a shell.
-
Metal Gear Solid? What does that have to do with anything? It's a masterpiece of a game with a brilliant story and execution and easy to grasp game mechanics. But that's it, isn't it? It's a freaking good game. There's nothing artsy about it. Oh, in fact, let's see what Dictionary.com's definition of the word is!
1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.
2.
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
2. The study of these activities.
3. The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.
3. High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
4. A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
5. A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.
6.
1. A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
2. A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.
7.
1. Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
2. Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).
8.
1. arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
2. Artful contrivance; cunning.
9. Printing. Illustrative material.
Yeah... In my definition, since a long time back, everything that requires doing or making, can be considered an art (for a year, I wrote down a slogan, "Living Is An Art" on all my school books), but the creations themselves shouldn't be considered pieces of art, in my opinion. So, I'd say games still aren't art.
Or maybe... my definition lies rather in the mindset of the creator... Some sorts of music are art, but not all. Nothing that's on national radio nowdays can be considered art. But Beethoven sure made art. And I guess Jazz is some sort of abstract stuff. Because it's just barely music. Eh, complicated stuff.
-
I'm not trying to be a shit, here, but if you trust a short Dictionary description of what does and does not constitute art, then you're starting at the wrong place.
Also, wanted to respond to this:
My definition of Art: Something that isn't useful and rich people will pay alot for to show off their 'taste'.
If that's meant as a broad statement on the sad state of contemporary art in Western culture, then it's a little too broad. But I get the impression that it's just an opinion based on ignorance of art history and art theory - i.e. "I don't understand it so it must be worthless."
-
How is video game art, not art? :huh:
I mean, the artist drew it.
That makes it art.
Regardless of the medium.
Just because all the art is put into a real time activity doesn't stop the fact that what you're looking at is art.
-
I agree, but to take it further.. Art doesn't need to exist on paper or screen. Art isn't necessarily a physical thing, and it's never what's on the surface. Art is a method of expressing philosophy, ideology, a method of exploring and experimenting, through any means. Art is born out of discontent as a means to right a wrong, or to fix something that's broken. It's the apex of that which makes us human and a curiousity beyond that which we already know.
So, like I said before - video games may be commercial art, and because of their nature most of them are doomed to camp, but they're art. If you look at a great game and you don't see the art in it, then you're looking at the wrong things.
-
Art is a method of expressing philosophy, ideology, a method of exploring and experimenting, through any means. Art is born out of discontent as a means to right a wrong, or to fix something that's broken. It's the apex of that which makes us human and a curiousity beyond that which we already know.
I was just thinking that the nazis experimenting on people in concentration camps fits into this definition of art. They were expressing
their philosophy and idealology, that certain people were worthless and exploring (eg. limits humans can survive in low pressure) and experimenting, and they were willing to kill so its 'by any means'. Nazis were discontent people i would think, i think mein kampf or whatever is a big old bitch, and they believed the german society with jews was broken. So youre wishywashy definition is sh*t becuase it can include anything.
My definition is simple and clear cut. Think about it, the really good artists like Leonardo da Vinci and Vermeer all had patrons. My definition
excludes things like cars and buildings which makes it simpler. Also I never said anything about abstract pieces in my definition. And yes,
abstract art is sh*t because it doesn't look like anything, so i guess i am ignorant.
-
I was just thinking that the nazis experimenting on people in concentration camps fits into this definition of art. They were expressing
their philosophy and idealology, that certain people were worthless and exploring (eg. limits humans can survive in low pressure) and experimenting, and they were willing to kill so its 'by any means'. Nazis were discontent people i would think, i think mein kampf or whatever is a big old bitch, and they believed the german society with jews was broken. So youre wishywashy definition is sh*t becuase it can include anything.
My definition is simple and clear cut. Think about it, the really good artists like Leonardo da Vinci and Vermeer all had patrons. My definition
excludes things like cars and buildings which makes it simpler. Also I never said anything about abstract pieces in my definition. And yes,
abstract art is sh*t because it doesn't look like anything, so i guess i am ignorant.
I'm a broken record, here, but your "simple, clear-cut definition" of art is born out of ignorance of history and theory. You're making broad generalizations and assumptions about something that you know very very little about. The fact that you dismiss all abstract art as "shit" because it "doesn't look like anything" is evidence of that - what's worse is that you're knowingly ignorant and stubborn about it.
The attitude of "what I already know is good enough" is ridiculous. You know that there's more to modern art than what you're seeing, but instead of exploring that and learning about it and growing from it, you automatically dismiss it, taking no time to attempt to understand it.
If you want to do that? If you want to remain willfully ignorant? Then it's your choice, and I'm not going to take any more time trying to convince you otherwise. But don't expect any of your opinions on the subject to be taken seriously if you have nothing to back them up with and you're acknowledging them as broad, uninformed opinions. That's just trolling, straight up.
- - - - -
Also, you're spelling Shakespeare wrong in your sig.
-
You're the one who brought up abstract art. The definition I gave actually didn't exclude it. I figured a simple definition is a good one.
For example, if you pick a ming vase, will rich people pay alot of money for it? yes. Does it show off their taste? Yes. Is it useful? No.
So its art. If you take computer games, people don't buy them to show off their 'taste' so they are not art.
-
I've done a little re-reading of a text that impacted me a while ago and I've come back with a personal definition for what makes a medium expression an art medium, which I belive is more relevant in this discussion than a definition of art. Anything can be art, so that makes the definition meaningless, so you have to look at it from the perspective of what role art has in society.
belive an art medium is a medium of expression which has achieved a substatial change in the accepted universal truths of its society. As such, I do not belive videogames have yet achieved that status.
however, I belive it is a matter of oportunity and with time they may come to achieve this, in my opinion it's the lack of a stronger independent (non-comercial) movement is what holds it back.
-
Art is whatproclaims itself to be art.
What would you call a person who perceives a piece of non-art to be art, then?
A person with an opinion.
I'd been responding to Helm's post above mine - my interpretation of his comment was "art is defined by the artist," whereas I don't believe that to be true.
Not only. Anything anyone says is art is art, be it artist, bystander or theoretical third party. I do not have the... epistemological fortitude to even consider the possibility that when two different people say "art" they might mean the same thing. So it`s just a word, and I won`t get my extremely masculine panties in a bunch when someone basically says "what you consider x, I don`t consider y" where x and y deceptively both share the same sound effect.
On a less personal note, it is a benefit to the video game to have a widely accepted artistic merit, however nebulous it may be, yes.
I find myself echoing much of what Camus\Conceit is saying in this thread.
How is video game art, not art?
I mean, the artist drew it.
It might be of interest to you to draw the parallel to advertisements you see on TV. They certainly use stuff we consider arty, like music and digital or real media drawings, cinematography, whatnot, but are they THE ADS art themselves? Kojima makes a very old and tired question, is the container of art art because it contains art, and is it art regardless of wanting to be art or not?
It`s a tired question, but it`s still open.
Some people consider football an art form. Some consider sleep an art form. Some consider solitude an art form. a lot of people impact a lot of social significance to what they consider important by connecting it to a word which carries universal connotations of goodness and importance.
-
A person with an opinion.
Do believe they're wrong, then? Do you believe that what they perceive as art is something other than art? Is it just an experience worthy of inspiration? Where do you draw the line between art and non-art? I'm curious to hear your definition (not to say that it's a definable thing).
Some of this sounds unforgivably cheesy, on account of me being drunk right now. But try to take the questions as seriously as you can. Maybe I'll revise later.
-
Sitting here trying to define what is and is not art is pretty dumb, I think.
A lot of people don't see some things as art, while another does. I think there is art, and mainstream art. The art I define for myself, and the art everyone else seems to have the same idea on.
But what really matters is what you consider art, not anyone else. What's it matter if this guy doesn't consider video games art? Why does it anger you so much? It's his opinion, and I'm pretty sure all art is opinion. If he doesn't, then fine. But if you do, then keep on believing it is. I probably look at a lot of stuff and think of it as pure beauty and art, that many others don't. Art is what you see it as, and it's too broad, and subjective a catagory to ever try to narrow it down to one set of things, or views. If that were to happen, you'd kill what art really is, perspective, and thought of your own.
A person with an opinion.
Do believe they're wrong, then? Do you believe that what they perceive as art is something other than art? Is it just an experience worthy of inspiration? Where do you draw the line between art and non-art? I'm curious to hear your definition (not to say that it's a definable thing).
Some of this sounds unforgivably cheesy, on account of me being drunk right now. But try to take the questions as seriously as you can. Maybe I'll revise later.
There is no wrong when it comes to opinions, only fact. With opinion, there are only clashes of opinions.
-
A person with an opinion.
Do believe they're wrong, then? Do you believe that what they perceive as art is something other than art? Is it just an experience worthy of inspiration? Where do you draw the line between art and non-art? I'm curious to hear your definition (not to say that it's a definable thing).
Some of this sounds unforgivably cheesy, on account of me being drunk right now. But try to take the questions as seriously as you can. Maybe I'll revise later.
I don`t believe anyone is wrong or right, that sort of terminology doesn`t suit my point of view. I am very close to a solipsist but not one, I don`t have any trust for language, nor any axioms that lean towards objective self-importance. I like discussion because it`s fun (I am all about having fun. Watch me dance.) not because it strives to approach some objective truth.
On a less personal note, it is probably for everyone`s best to leave culture to advance rather than stagnate, so if the art signifier must be attached to video games for most people to accept them more fully into their lives, then so be it. When I was ensnared by video games at a young age it wasn`t because I thought Shadow of the Beast was ART. It was because I enjoyed it on a much more bare level. Same with listening to Fates Warning or watching -the movie- Rollerball. It was simply GOOD STUFF, for me.
Dusty: good post.
And sorry about not defining what art is, I don`t think my personal definition would be very interesting or ground-breaking, and my social definition even less so.
-
my "definition" of art would be something to express emotion and feeling. with a video game art the artists have been told what to draw/create. while yes the graphics may looks aesthetically pleasing, it does not mean its a form of art. Its merely a product of money and time.
-
So if an artist is being paid and told what to draw, the outcome isn't art? Just a product of time and money?
Great artists have been paid and told what to do. Some of those pictures are highly regarded as art nowadays.
Then again I don't think the term 'art' is easy to define.
Actually I don't think you can clearly define it at all. If you think it's art then so be it.
It's just the same thing as with the term 'reality', everyone has his/her own version of it.
-
People seem to mix their choices between their own perseption of art and the that of institutions, or the official definition. IMO, you can call anything that's been done, made or created "an art". Games contain art. However, they are not regarded by art-institutions as "fine art". I'm not very fond of the idea personally. Games are tools for entertainment at the moment, but I'm certain that they will sometime in the future be regarded as artworks, just as old tools from older civilizations have become in the past.
I also know for a fact that there has been made pure artistic games in recent years. (It was demonstrated at a convention last year, so I don't have anything to show of it sadly.) It was a game where you searched for pubic hair for Barbie. Looked like a collage of some kind. It was made by a feminist as far as I remember.
Just to correct what I said in my last post, I feel you can call making a game an art. Games themselves are not "officially" art though, but I reckon it's not long before art-games catches on, as it's certainly being tested.
-
The the question is 'Can a collection of art be considered art itself?' I'm definitely of the mind to say yes, since that's exactly what interactive art installations are, and art institutions certainly consider those art. Just as the viewer walks through an installation and encounters elements at their own pace, and often in their own order, the same occurs in videogames. Consider also that art is contextual, and placing two individual pieces of art together (such as say music and animation) creates a product much different than merely the sum of its parts. There is artistry in how these aspects interact.
Take the music composer of 'Shadow of the Colossus' by Ko Otani. As a work itself, it is beautiful and no one would fail to consider it art. But its artistry is only fully realized when it's played in context with the battles it was composed for. There is new artistry unveiled at the combination of this music with these visuals, this story, etc. I think that new contextual artistry is what makes the collection art iself, and not just a collection.
And no one can define what is and isn't art for everyone else in the world. Art is anything that anyone, anywhere considers to be art - institutions, books and experts be damned.
-
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
OK. Seriously. This sums it all up. In a game, the graphic style affects the style of the music, or, in some cases, the instruments on which the piece is played. The style of the game defines the sounds of the music. In a cut scene, certain music is played to set the mood, affecting the players sense of the movie. A movie could be called an artwork, a cut scene is a movie within a game. Whats the difference?
Alright. What the game is affects the style of the game. If the game is light hearted, its not gonna have high res., high powered graphics. It's gonna have simple graphics. And vice versa. The movements of the graphics would be stylized so to fit. All this is made by a conscious thought, so by definition, a game is an artwork where the art is a continuously changing flow of possibilities, to put in slightly immature terms, artsy-fartsy way. If the player moves, the animation is an artwork. If there is a battle, and the music changes, there is art in that. It's all just different art forms coming together with interaction.
I apologize for the unorganized ramble that is the above post.
-
Personally, I still think a game itself is not art, but every single aspect within it can be, and are in many cases. I'd still say the final judgement whether a product is art or not lies in the mindset of the creator. If someone decides to create a game in order to win popularity and TEH CA$H (look at anything with an EA Sports tag on it), I wouldn't want to call it art. If someone creates something out of an awesome surge of ingenious creativity, that comes off with the sole purpose of being playable (Tetris, Pac Man, Asteroids?), then that's just entertainment also. But some games exist to tell a deep story or to affect the player in various ways. If the goal is to affect emotionally, then it's possibly art. I'm thinking of things like Silent Hill, Halo (yes, Halo, you heard me), Jet Set Radio (obviously art), and such things.
I guess I chose those examples because, way back in the day, there was no way to produce art in the form of a game. It had to be entertainment, or for the sake of money. But nowdays computers are powerful enough to allow expressing yourself through interactive media. Hm, this is a complex topic... I could sit around and write down thoughts on this for hours, I suspect...
I think my opinion boils down to my interpretation of the game, and what I believe was the aim of the designers... Or, wait, what am I saying?! I don't think games are art! Period!
-
This entire conversation is inconclusive, I do, however find that whether a game is or isn't art isn't really that important. What I think a game has the most of is the ability to inspire art. Perhaps this asset is what drew me to video games in the first place. At any rate, games differ from traditional art in that they are to be experienced in real time and allow the player to immerse him/herself far deeper into the game. Like art, games often deliver or evoke a message or theme- they just do it in a way that isn't as traditional as we might hope.
my 2 cents
-
1. The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.
OK. Seriously. This sums it all up.
It would suit you better I propose, to not be so fast to reach conclusions such as these. What is 'conscious'? What are the limits of consciousness? Is art a completely conscious procedure? Is red being my favourite color, and therefore a color you'll find in my artwork a lot because I chose red to be my favourite color consciously? I'd say making graphic art is much more the product of the inner workings of the human mechanism which you cannot scrutinize, rather the result of the relatively simpler and shallower debugger that we call 'consciousness'.
What is an 'arrangement'? How much is enough? Is a blue painting enough? are these three dots ... enough?
What are those other 'elements'. Do emotions count as elements? Is me being sad an art-form?
And finally, what the hell is beauty, I'd like you to tell me since this sums it all up, because there's been a rich history of 4,000 of culture or more and nobody has come to an Aesthetic Formula that encaptures all that people might consider beautiful.
-
OK Helm. Conscious, as I was thinking while writing that, is when the choices made are because of forethought into how something is done. If I choose to make something bright, it's because I want it to seem light hearted.
The limits of consciousness is how much you know. If you don't know much about colour theory, then it is harder to make colour choices which work well together.
Art is not a completely conscious procedure. The choices we make when doing things is based on our tastes, and therefore how it turns out will be different from person to person.
It depends on how you came to use red. If you decided that the work needed more red, as without it didn't quite appeal to you,then that is conscious. If you were selecting a pallette and came to use red, then that could be interpreted as either. Yuo could have chosen because you wanted, or just from habit.
To me, an arrangement, in the way I was using it, is where things are placed together through some sort of sentient thought.
How much is enough depends on what you were trying to achieve.
If something is enough it depends on the context.
An ellipsis can have a strong effect on a sentence. It can change the mood of the sentence quite a bit.
Other elements could be subject matter, lighting, background, number of forms, texture, and how rough or smooth the shading is.
Emotions... I personally think that they are just something we feel because of events, and they can be affected by art, so I guess they aren't elements of art.
No.
Beauty is where something appeals to us because we find it pleasing. Examples of beauty differ from person to person according to opinion.
EDIT: I do agree that beauty is impossible to define in a way that everyone agrees with, but for the sake of having something there... :\
-
I am sorry, it doesn't seem you're understanding me. I didn't look for your subjective answers to my questions. They were there to show how fundamentaly unanswerable they are objectively. That was my point.
-
I'll probably just say what someone else said over again, but I jujst felt a need to voice myself in the discussion! :D
Firstly, I agree totally that it's individual and also that what claims to be art, is art. Just the fact that this;
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f6/Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg/437px-Duchamp_Fountaine.jpg)
, is considered high/fine/whatever- art proves that point nicely.
The main difference between art and commercial art is that each piece (eg, a sprite, a song etc) is supposed to invoke a particular emotion, whereas art mostly (but not always) aims to prove a point, portray a string of thought from the artist or critisize society. Not meaning that this cannot be done in games, but mostly not in the games actual art then. As art, games are actually very versatile, since they consist of various different forms of art (2D art, 3D art, Cinematography, Music, Storytelling, Acting etc) It's kinda funny, of the four really big commercial artforms (movies, music, books & games) movies are absolutely the most stagnant one of them all.
Here in sweden there's a debate going on, where an ideal organization (I think they called themsleves Fair Play or something) wants games to be recognized as culture.
I myself consider games as an artform (to me, the artform alongside to comics ;D). There's still alot of unexplored territory in games. Amusingly enough, those territories 'almost' belong to the indie-scene, since the 'big' companies doesn't have the guts to make something weird! We need a game version of (and I quote Moe from the Simpsons) "Weird, for the sake of weird."
Let us all delve into the vast ocean of weirdness! :crazy:
-
Yeah, art is pretty much undefinable.
But in my view, everything is art, except that which is deconstructive/destructive to the world or environment. So, despite the clichè of "the art of war," war is infact, in my mind, not at all artful.
But with that said, as with every art, there is both high quality and low quality art, as well as good art and bad art. I think that pretty much all art falls somewhere in two of these four categories, and each to it's own varying extent, but only completely relative to the individual who percieves it. High quality means it's got...well, high quality. Good art is more of an objective thing containing things like the art's content, and whether it's done in good or bad taste. High quality art can be done in bad taste, as well as low quality art having good intentions behind it.
But of course there are exceptions to everything.
Back to the conversation of games.
Games fall into the same categories, methinks, with games like Starfox (64) having high quality but are terrible for being represented as art. On the other hand, Final Fantasy 7 would be an excellent example of art as games (note, not in games), but I personally hated it and think its execution as a game (completely ignoring the artistic aspects and focusing on the gameplay) was low quality.
But then again, the gameplay is pretty much the biggest part of art in games, so I guess FF7 would be bad art as far as that goes.
I have thusly concluded that my theory is incorrect and therefore the entirety of this post is null and void.
Carry on. I never said this.
-
I don't know, Xion, it seems to me that your decision to exclude destructive things from art seems arbitrary to me, only based on the idea that destruction is bad and art is good. Would things contributing to the destruction of an oppressive environment be, then, not art? And things contributing to the construction of the same oppresive evironment be art?
On the subject of video games, here are some questions I'd like to raise, I don't know the answers myself:
Is game of Chess art? How about the act of playing chess?
If you replace one opponent with a computer, does it change anything?
How about if you then add a storyline about your king trying to defeat the other king, and adding an ending or what have you, is that art?
-
My opinion on the chess one is no. Chess is a game of perfect information; it's processing power and time that affects the outcome of the game and the benefit of each move, not someone's emotions and feelings (usually the basis of art). If you're playing chess and trying to get something to happen, such as the opponent to move his knight to E5, it might be art, but that depends on if you're playing against a perfect opponent or not. If you're playing against a perfect opponent such as a computer (not a current one but one that has enough processing power to BE perfect) then you can always tell what move they'll make. Also, as in any game of perfect information, the first player wins if they don't make any mistakes. So it would be pointless to play against a perfect opponent if you're playing as black.
Reference/resource: www.gameai.com (also has hilarious "You know your game is in trouble when..." and "You might be a game developer if..." sections)
If you do the thing about the kings and ending, I would say it is art, as that's a form of storytelling.
-
I think any game is art. Any game is a statement on a human's hopes, multiplayer ones on interaction...and they do mark the time they're made in.
-
I don't know, Xion, it seems to me that your decision to exclude destructive things from art seems arbitrary to me, only based on the idea that destruction is bad and art is good. Would things contributing to the destruction of an oppressive environment be, then, not art? And things contributing to the construction of the same oppresive evironment be art?
Is the glass half full or half empty?
Would you be destroying an oppressive environment or making way for a more free one?
Is game of Chess art? How about the act of playing chess?
Yes, and yes.
If you replace one opponent with a computer, does it change anything?
Yessss. The human element is removed, which is the element that provides the foundation for everything awesome. Chess would still be art, but it would go from being great art to terrible art. It's also not the same playing with someone online. The player-to-player bond is broken.
How about if you then add a storyline about your king trying to defeat the other king, and adding an ending or what have you, is that art?
Merely pointless embellishments. It would still be art, and as long as the game played the same, then there wouldn't be much difference, but by making one king good and another evil or some kind of bias like that the minds of the players may be affected to unconsciously conform to a more rigid game until they manage to cast off the presumptions and focus solely on the game at hand, like the best players do.
-
My idea of art is anything that try consciously or not, to represent nature itself or/and it's aspects, and that includes subjective things of it like war, love, mind.
If when you look at something through the "frames" of your eyes, you end wondering about, it probably is art. :P
-
Here's a question I'd like to hear the opinion on:
Are fractals (picturally represented) art?
What about function graphs?
Human-created art that follows a specific formula without variation?
-
Is the glass half full or half empty?
Would you be destroying an oppressive environment or making way for a more free one?
Exactly, so how can you easily label something as destructive? If its all relative, then how can you say something is destruction and not art or constructive and art when both contain elements of each other? For example, what about the simultaneous destruction of wildlife through construction of a city, or destruction of a city through the reintroduction of wildlife? I don't see how you can label either act as simply destructive or constructive, and so I do not thing that is a good basis to judge art on.
Merely pointless embellishments. It would still be art, and as long as the game played the same, then there wouldn't be much difference, but by making one king good and another evil or some kind of bias like that the minds of the players may be affected to unconsciously conform to a more rigid game until they manage to cast off the presumptions and focus solely on the game at hand, like the best players do.
I think you are missing my point here, I think I should have clarified. Adding a storyline essentially turns chess into a conventional videogame, most directly similar to FFT or some other tactics game, but the analogy can pretty much extend to any other genre.
So do you consider the storyline in a video game to be a pointless embellishment with no additive artistic value? Is the art of video games solely in the gameplay?
-
hey, a booger can be art it just depends on what you do with it. this is getting kinda pointless C_C
-
hey, a booger can be art it just depends on what you do with it. this is getting kinda pointless C_C
If i agreed with you any more... i'd be sitting on you.
-
Exactly, so how can you easily label something as destructive? If its all relative, then how can you say something is destruction and not art or constructive and art when both contain elements of each other? For example, what about the simultaneous destruction of wildlife through construction of a city, or destruction of a city through the reintroduction of wildlife? I don't see how you can label either act as simply destructive or constructive, and so I do not thing that is a good basis to judge art on.
Yeah, I see what you mean, but like anything, the idea of destruction varies from person to person. I still don't think war is an art, no matter what the reasons or results. Nor is the destruction of a forest to make room for a city. (I hate cities.) Though the befores and afters of each situation may contain their own art, the actual action of destroying one for another is not art.
At least not to me. If anyone disagrees, then that's fine by me, and I respect that everyone's entitled to their opinion. After all, it's kind of fun scrolling through this topic and seeing how many different views of this subject there are. Now where would the fun be if everyone agreed on a single definition of art?
I think you are missing my point here, I think I should have clarified. Adding a storyline essentially turns chess into a conventional videogame, most directly similar to FFT or some other tactics game, but the analogy can pretty much extend to any other genre.
So do you consider the storyline in a video game to be a pointless embellishment with no additive artistic value? Is the art of video games solely in the gameplay?
Ah. Well, in a way yes, the story is a part of the art in a game, but also no, if the story is just like one of those things added for the sake of it. If the story in fact changes or impacts the gameplay experience (not necessarily the gameplay itself), then it will hardly be pointless. When you said adding a story I was thinking along the lines of one of those slideshows that show in the beginning of shoot 'em ups, which are pretty pointless. Sure, they're still art, but they don't add much to the artisticity of the game. ("All your base are belong to us!') I mean, players can get the same experience from those games whether they know the story or not. But in games like FFT or Zelda or Mario, or even those shoot 'em ups where there actually is a story between levels, when the story directly impacts the gameplay and the players' experience, then yes, the story is a major part of the art in and as the game.
-
If games themselves are not art, then what about the concept art created for them? Is the term "concept art" misleading because it isn't really art? And if it is, what's lost in the translation to realizing it in game form?
-
If games themselves are not art, then what about the concept art created for them? Is the term "concept art" misleading because it isn't really art? And if it is, what's lost in the translation to realizing it in game form?
As previously mentioned, Hideo Kojima does NOT deny that there is art IN video games. He is saying that the wholescale production is not a piece of 'artwork.'
(how many people here have actually read the article this entire discussion is about, anyway? ::))
EDIT: also, 'concept art not art'? yeah, go tell that to www.conceptart.org
-
I don't know if this topic is still on-topic enough to require knowledge of the article.
That's a no.
-
No one man can decide what art it.
-
No one man can decide what art it.
Any person can decide what is/isn't art. But just for him/herself.
-
Art is vauge, but I personally quantify it by being any form of non-direct expression that can be understood by at least one other person.
-
hey
Sorry, didn't read everyones messages...
Anyhows...
I think art is freedom... thus, when freedom is denied, so to is art denied :).
cyas
-
... um... yeah?
Uh... okay, yeah, I can't figure out what that's supposed to mean at all. I mean, I understand the sentence, but I can't seem to apply it to any context at all.
But it does mesh nicely with the philisophy of graffiti.
-
I think art is freedom... thus, when freedom is denied, so to is art denied :).
so when your living in a dictorship society, or in prison you can't create art?? bollocks.
-
Maybe it's not freedom of action but freedom of thought. So a free-minded prisoner can make art, but a brainwashed citizen cannot?
-
hey
Why do you define freedom by action, or thought? I say to you these are not freedom, but freedom are these.
cyas
-
hahahaha :lol: that doesnt even make any sense :crazy:, are you tryin to be the new Mr.H or somethingl? : p