Video game is not art - Hideo Kojima

[Froli]

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.

[9_6]

Did he mean playing a video game or making one?

[Froli]

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2098&ap;Itemid=2  <-- here is the article

[Akzidenz]

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.

[Feron]

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.

[.TakaM]

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?

[miascugh]

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.

[Stwelin]

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.

[Larwick]

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..  

[Stwelin]

You could make a mold of the imprint on their face and sell it for millions.