I have not once changed my views on life because of a videogame. I have not once carefully thought about what it means to be human from a videogame. I have not once felt myself in someone's else shoes and experiencing the world through their emotions, experiences, eyes in a videogame.
To me, videogames have failed in what I expect from Art.
edit:
to further clarify, when making a life decision or thinking about rough choices people make, I have never referenced, in my mind or in conversation, a videogame and what I saw, heard, or read.
So what art do you reference when making a life decision?
edit - that came off a bit snarkier than I meant. I always thought of Art as somethine designed to make me feel a particulary emotion / feeling. Under my definition video games are definitly Art.
I only reference guitar solos. Don't know how I would make any life decisions without them.
I had a professor that once defined the literary cannon not as important or even good literature, but merely those works which we continue to talk about and engage in a critical manner. I feel that video games fit within this definition. They are art because we talk about them like art. We can discuss characteristics like palettes, music direction, and narrative structures in the same way that we would approach any other art form.
As a hypothetical, lets say that an alien spaceship crashed here tomorrow. No aliens survive, but by some miracle we are able to recover all of the data from their onboard computers. While we can find no indication of paintings, music, sculpture, films or literature, we do find hundred's of thousands of video game analogs. Can we safely ignore the games and say conclusively that their culture is devoid of artistic enterprise?
Art may very well be only a human construct/thing.
See: the movie A.I.
But if AIs consider code segments to be works of art and think humans are incapable of understanding art, and they still can't understand our art, who is right?!
I had a professor that once defined the literary cannon not as important or even good literature, but merely those works which we continue to talk about and engage in a critical manner. I feel that video games fit within this definition. They are art because we talk about them like art. We can discuss characteristics like palettes, music direction, and narrative structures in the same way that we would approach any other art form.
As a hypothetical, lets say that an alien spaceship crashed here tomorrow. No aliens survive, but by some miracle we are able to recover all of the data from their onboard computers. While we can find no indication of paintings, music, sculpture, films or literature, we do find hundred's of thousands of video game analogs. Can we safely ignore the games and say conclusively that their culture is devoid of artistic enterprise?
Art may very well be only a human construct/thing.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
I think I agree with the eventual delineation they had back at Chud.com a few years back:
"A video game can be artful, but is not art."
I think the crux of that lies in the fact that "art" is static, and regardless of its myriad personal interpretations by patrons, is the product of a focused artistic intent that cannot be altered by external forces. Van Gogh's "Starry Night" or Scorsese's Taxi Driver are singular products that cannot be augmented by patronage and still retain their intent. I can't fold a Van Gogh into an origami hat and claim to be appreciating its intent, nor can I chop up Taxi Driver in an Avid machine and appreciate it as an intended work.
However, I can play a video game in a way that goes against stated intent. I can also just be bad at it and experience very little of it. Or I can be very efficient at it, completing it but skipping all the side-quests and fast-forwarding through cutscenes.
Now, understand that the difference between Art and Artful is not a condemnation of the latter or condoning of the former. It's merely a definition of function. And if an object's function cannot acheive "art," then "artful" is a wonderful and praiseworthy goal.
I think I agree with the eventual delineation they had back at Chud.com a few years back:
"A video game can be artful, but is not art."
I think the crux of that lies in the fact that "art" is static, and regardless of its myriad personal interpretations by patrons, is the product of a focused artistic intent that cannot be altered by external forces. Van Gogh's "Starry Night" or Scorsese's Taxi Driver are singular products that cannot be augmented by patronage and still retain their intent. I can't fold a Van Gogh into an origami hat and claim to be appreciating its intent, nor can I chop up Taxi Driver in an Avid machine and appreciate it as an intended work.
However, I can play a video game in a way that goes against stated intent. I can also just be bad at it and experience very little of it. Or I can be very efficient at it, completing it but skipping all the side-quests and fast-forwarding through cutscenes.
Now, understand that the difference between Art and Artful is not a condemnation of the latter or condoning of the former. It's merely a definition of function. And if an object's function cannot acheive "art," then "artful" is a wonderful and praiseworthy goal.
You could misread a great piece of literature, or fuck up Shakespeare by going with an Avatar theme. You could fail to pay attention to a movie, or not appreciate the referential nature of a baroque musical number.
I think a game version of Mice and Men crafted to make sure that Lenny always dies, no matter what you do, would be art.
Some games are art, and some are not. Some music is art, some isn't. Some films are art, some are not.
It's nearly impossible to actually define 'art', and to clearly divide what is from what isn't, but there are examples in all of these mediums of specific works that clearly are and some that clearly aren't.
My favourite example to use for this kind of discussion is An Oak Tree.
It's a glass of water, on a shelf. It's not, in itself, anything worthy of note. What makes it worth thinking about is the thought process behind it and the fact that it's the emblem of a thought experiment.
Anything that provokes thought can be art. I had a discussion with a games writer a few months ago in which he said that games couldn't be art. His reasoning was that if anything requires significant input from the viewer to the point where the creator's intent is lost, then it can't be art because the meaning can't be expressed; essentially, Atomic Ross' viewpoint above if I'm reading him right. I think that the opposite is true.
One of the most powerful pieces of art I've ever seen was only recently - Balka's How It Is. It relies entirely on the viewers' (or, I suppose, participants') experiences to function, and what I got from it is, I imagine, entirely different to anyone else who has enjoyed it. The same thing is true of games - the sheer variety of experience that can be had can fuel the thought processes from that. Shadow of the Colossus is a great example; a game that, really, reveals more about the player than the characters.
There's a reason that everyone goes back to the same examples, though. There's just not that many developers who want to provoke thought. Those that do succeed have a rich interactive canvas that they've put to use, but just like any other medium there are people who'll use it for other means.
Willeth on
@vgreminders - Don't miss out on timed events in gaming! @gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
You could misread a great piece of literature, or fuck up Shakespeare by going with an Avatar theme. You could fail to pay attention to a movie, or not appreciate the referential nature of a baroque musical number.
Sure. One could. But the fault would lie at the feet of the patron, not the product. I could read the first chapter of Huck Finn and close the book, knowing that Huck and Jim will be friends forever, rafting the Mississippi. That would be an erroneous interpretation.
A video game allows for different actions and consequences. Your character might die. Your character might choose to ally theirself with good or evil factions. Your character might take a side-quest that has no import to the story at hand. Your character might jump over what seems to be the last pipe, only to find a series of hidden pipes that let you warp straight to Level 5.
There's no intent; there is only directive.
I think a game version of Mice and Men crafted to make sure that Lenny always dies, no matter what you do, would be art.
To me what separates art from non-art is mostly intent.
Not Art
brick apartment building
Art
Musem building (designed by architect)
I'm confused... who or what designed the brick apartment building then?
I think there are still a lot of people confusing "fine art" with "art". I'd argue that yes video games are art, bad art far more often than not, but still art much like film or books. What video games aren't is "fine art". Personally I view that as a good thing but then I'm not a huge fan of most fine art.
You could misread a great piece of literature, or fuck up Shakespeare by going with an Avatar theme. You could fail to pay attention to a movie, or not appreciate the referential nature of a baroque musical number.
Sure. One could. But the fault would lie at the feet of the patron, not the product. I could read the first chapter of Huck Finn and close the book, knowing that Huck and Jim will be friends forever, rafting the Mississippi. That would be an erroneous interpretation.
A video game allows for different actions and consequences. Your character might die. Your character might choose to ally theirself with good or evil factions. Your character might take a side-quest that has no import to the story at hand. Your character might jump over what seems to be the last pipe, only to find a series of hidden pipes that let you warp straight to Level 5.
There's no intent; there is only directive.
You seem to be assuming that you can do whatever you want in a game, regardless of design. I would love to see you trying to play FFX in an alternate way. A skilled game creator can use external events to force the narrative, and make your choices the subject of the art.
It's just that they haven't been doing a very good job of approaching fine art, for a variety of reasons, the biggest being that they are primarily commercial software projects more than a mode of human self expression.
So is something only fine art if it is not made with commercial intentions?
the issue is the primary focus, and the extent to which it informs the creative process.
So what's your take on patronage in the renaissance?
the best renaissance artists were only ever given loose guidelines. No one told Michaelangelo how exactly they wanted the sistine chapel painted beyond requesting appropriate subject matter.
I really hope you aren't comparing the kind of market research that goes into games to renaissance artists taking commissions or merely being supported financially by nobles.
It's also an irrelevant comparison because fine art today has been transformed by the art for art's sake movement.
Sam on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
My favourite example to use for this kind of discussion is An Oak Tree.
It's a glass of water, on a shelf. It's not, in itself, anything worthy of note. What makes it worth thinking about is the thought process behind it and the fact that it's the emblem of a thought experiment.
Anything that provokes thought can be art. I had a discussion with a games writer a few months ago in which he said that games couldn't be art. His reasoning was that if anything requires significant input from the viewer to the point where the creator's intent is lost, then it can't be art because the meaning can't be expressed; essentially, Atomic Ross' viewpoint above if I'm reading him right. I think that the opposite is true.
One of the most powerful pieces of art I've ever seen was only recently - Balka's How It Is. It relies entirely on the viewers' (or, I suppose, participants') experiences to function, and what I got from it is, I imagine, entirely different to anyone else who has enjoyed it. The same thing is true of games - the sheer variety of experience that can be had can fuel the thought processes from that. Shadow of the Colossus is a great example; a game that, really, reveals more about the player than the characters.
There's a reason that everyone goes back to the same examples, though. There's just not that many developers who want to provoke thought. Those that do succeed have a rich interactive canvas that they've put to use, but just like any other medium there are people who'll use it for other means.
Television commercials are thought-provoking. Are they art?
And I would argue strongly that "art" that explicitly has no auteuristic intent (such as Balka's) is, at best, experimental art. A category that I think even game developers would deny their product as being amongst.
Television commercials are thought-provoking. Are they art?
Yes.
So are Jeffe's socks. This is why discussions of whether or not something is art is stupid, everything is art. The far more interesting question is whether or not it is is good art.
Television commercials are thought-provoking. Are they art?
Yes.
So are Jeffe's socks. This is why discussions of whether or not something is art is stupid, everything is art. The far more interesting question is whether or not it is is good art.
There was a text based game I saw a while back, where everything caused a flashback to risotto in Italy or something.
You seem to be assuming that you can do whatever you want in a game, regardless of design.
In increasingly many games, you can. I could play GTA for hours and get nothing accomplished in the narrative, just wandering around. I could play God of War and leave Kratos stranded on a boat for hours, if I chose. I could be really bad at Call of Duty and never get past the first stage.
Those things drive the narrative, yet are utterly dependent on my interaction. I, as a player, can redirect the narrative at any time I want. Maybe not a highly-developed state, but it still is my choice.
I can't redirect the narrative of Huck Finn or Taxi Driver or "Starry Night." I can only choose to engage or not to engage. If I stop reading or watching, the narrative still exists.
I would love to see you trying to play FFX in an alternate way. A skilled game creator can use external events to force the narrative, and make your choices the subject of the art.
I have no clue what you could possibly mean by this.
I think I agree with the eventual delineation they had back at Chud.com a few years back:
"A video game can be artful, but is not art."
I think the crux of that lies in the fact that "art" is static, and regardless of its myriad personal interpretations by patrons, is the product of a focused artistic intent that cannot be altered by external forces. Van Gogh's "Starry Night" or Scorsese's Taxi Driver are singular products that cannot be augmented by patronage and still retain their intent. I can't fold a Van Gogh into an origami hat and claim to be appreciating its intent, nor can I chop up Taxi Driver in an Avid machine and appreciate it as an intended work.
However, I can play a video game in a way that goes against stated intent. I can also just be bad at it and experience very little of it. Or I can be very efficient at it, completing it but skipping all the side-quests and fast-forwarding through cutscenes.
Now, understand that the difference between Art and Artful is not a condemnation of the latter or condoning of the former. It's merely a definition of function. And if an object's function cannot acheive "art," then "artful" is a wonderful and praiseworthy goal.
Sorry, but I have quite a few problems with this theory. First of all, we're seven pages in without a single agreed upon universal definition of "art," yet you insist in creating a distinction between in at and "artful," a second even more arbitrary distinction? I don't think you could split a hair thinner than that. Can you even come up with a valid definition for "artful," let alone one that is not just wholly an invention of this debate? Because from my perspective you might as well be saying that video games are not "floozle," though they are "zippyzippybong."
Second, you definition is little more than tautology. You say for a fact, which it isn't, that art is static. By isolationg the sole difference between video games and other art forms, you might as well be saying "video games aren't art because video games aren't art." Certainly this is a difference between video games and other art forms. But this is a difference to be celebrated! Otherwise it would simply be the same general art form as movies and television. If all art required that new artistic methods perfectly replicated old ones, we would never have new art mediums. But movies became distinct because of their differences from theater and all other artistic expressions, and theater the same with its distinctions from literature, and so on. This is the basis of art history itself.
Finally, the example you use of artistic intent is wholly off. People can easy see, for example, movies from different impressions. They could see it at home versus a noisy theater, they can see it in wide-screen or full-screen. They could leave for the bathroom halfway through or miss the entire last act. Or take sculpture. Much of it is ENTIRELY based on the viewer's experience. Take the usual "urinal" example. The only difference between it and what's you pee in is the presentation and the viewer's willingness to accept it. As for video games and the way the player controls the experience, that might be an argument simply against the quality of video games in art, not the existence in the first place. But I would argue that's the point. The freedom, immersion, and impression of control (and the imperfect nature of that inherent in any video game) is what guides the artistic message of the product. Losing it would blunt the message.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
You seem to be assuming that you can do whatever you want in a game, regardless of design.
In increasingly many games, you can. I could play GTA for hours and get nothing accomplished in the narrative, just wandering around. I could play God of War and leave Kratos stranded on a boat for hours, if I chose. I could be really bad at Call of Duty and never get past the first stage.
Those things drive the narrative, yet are utterly dependent on my interaction. I, as a player, can redirect the narrative at any time I want. Maybe not a highly-developed state, but it still is my choice.
I can't redirect the narrative of Huck Finn or Taxi Driver or "Starry Night." I can only choose to engage or not to engage. If I stop reading or watching, the narrative still exists.
I would love to see you trying to play FFX in an alternate way. A skilled game creator can use external events to force the narrative, and make your choices the subject of the art.
I have no clue what you could possibly mean by this.
Putting you in an impossible situation, or choosing which character to save.
As for the rest, that doesn't really matter unless you have terrible taste and are terrible at the game. Even then, it could be art by forcing you to interact with a provocative world. Might as well argue that everything visible doesn't count as art because you can walk around with your eyes closed.
Television commercials are thought-provoking. Are they art?
Yes.
So are Jeffe's socks. This is why discussions of whether or not something is art is stupid, everything is art. The far more interesting question is whether or not it is is good art.
That's a bit of a dodge, isn't it?
A sock has only functionality in mind. It isn't trying to suggest, invoke, or beguile. It's a structure of function whose definition is only met when used in that function. A sock, not being used, but without outside artistic context, has no function or definition. A sock in theory has the same metaphysical value of a practical sock.
Now, art? It's semantic value is far different and far higher than the rote sum of a can of celluloid or a collection of oil smears on canvas.
Television commercials are thought-provoking. Are they art?
Yes.
So are Jeffe's socks. This is why discussions of whether or not something is art is stupid, everything is art. The far more interesting question is whether or not it is is good art.
That's a bit of a dodge, isn't it?
No, it isn't.
A sock has only functionality in mind. It isn't trying to suggest, invoke, or beguile. It's a structure of function whose definition is only met when used in that function. A sock, not being used, but without outside artistic context, has no function or definition. A sock in theory has the same metaphysical value of a practical sock.
It's still art.
Now, art? It's semantic value is far different and far higher than the rote sum of a can of celluloid or a collection of oil smears on canvas.
A sock has only functionality in mind. It isn't trying to suggest, invoke, or beguile. It's a structure of function whose definition is only met when used in that function. A sock, not being used, but without outside artistic context, has no function or definition. A sock in theory has the same metaphysical value of a practical sock.
Those are socks created with the intent of beguiling and invoking feelings from people. The fact that they have a function outside of that does not suddenly make them cease to be art.
Quid on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
As for the rest, that doesn't really matter unless you have terrible taste and are terrible at the game. Might as well argue that everything visible doesn't count as art because you can walk around with your eyes closed.
That's still patron-end consumption you're talking about.
Art is meaningless without auteuristic intent and structure to define its context.
The intent of a novel only changes if I refuse to read the novel. The intent of a video game changes vastly depending on player skill, player preferences, player intent, game settings, and structure of the game itself.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
A sock has only functionality in mind. It isn't trying to suggest, invoke, or beguile. It's a structure of function whose definition is only met when used in that function. A sock, not being used, but without outside artistic context, has no function or definition. A sock in theory has the same metaphysical value of a practical sock.
Those are socks created with the intent of beguiling and invoking feelings from people. The fact that they have a function outside of that does not suddenly make them cease to be art.
That's an extremely loose and cynical definition of art.
A sock has only functionality in mind. It isn't trying to suggest, invoke, or beguile. It's a structure of function whose definition is only met when used in that function. A sock, not being used, but without outside artistic context, has no function or definition. A sock in theory has the same metaphysical value of a practical sock.
Those are socks created with the intent of beguiling and invoking feelings from people. The fact that they have a function outside of that does not suddenly make them cease to be art.
That's an extremely loose and cynical definition of art.
Cynical? Someone spent a shitload of time making pretty socks.
Why would that not be art?
Why is a tight definition a beneficial definition?
A sock has only functionality in mind. It isn't trying to suggest, invoke, or beguile. It's a structure of function whose definition is only met when used in that function. A sock, not being used, but without outside artistic context, has no function or definition. A sock in theory has the same metaphysical value of a practical sock.
Those are socks created with the intent of beguiling and invoking feelings from people. The fact that they have a function outside of that does not suddenly make them cease to be art.
That's an extremely loose and cynical definition of art.
As opposed to pretending that there are varying grades of object and only a few people get to define where something falls on the scale? Or, even worse, believing the bullshit that there is such a thing as 'high' art.
A sock has only functionality in mind. It isn't trying to suggest, invoke, or beguile. It's a structure of function whose definition is only met when used in that function. A sock, not being used, but without outside artistic context, has no function or definition. A sock in theory has the same metaphysical value of a practical sock.
Those are socks created with the intent of beguiling and invoking feelings from people. The fact that they have a function outside of that does not suddenly make them cease to be art.
That's an extremely loose and cynical definition of art.
And they are still art. The fact that they can also keep feet warm does not keep them from being art. That would be ridiculous.
As for the rest, that doesn't really matter unless you have terrible taste and are terrible at the game. Might as well argue that everything visible doesn't count as art because you can walk around with your eyes closed.
That's still patron-end consumption you're talking about.
Art is meaningless without auteuristic intent and structure to define its context.
The intent of a novel only changes if I refuse to read the novel. The intent of a video game changes vastly depending on player skill, player preferences, player intent, game settings, and structure of the game itself.
And Shakespeare? How many interpretations of Macbeth are there at this point?
As opposed to pretending that there are varying grades of object and only a few people get to define where something falls on the scale? Or, even worse, believing the bullshit that there is such a thing as 'high' art.
Why exactly are you in this thread? This isn't the "debate the validity of the concept of art" thread. I'm sorry, but I don't see what you have to offer here but obfuscation and threadshitting.
Atomika on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
As opposed to pretending that there are varying grades of object and only a few people get to define where something falls on the scale? Or, even worse, believing the bullshit that there is such a thing as 'high' art.
Why exactly are you in this thread? This isn't the "debate the validity of the concept of art" thread. I'm sorry, but I don't see what you have to offer here but obfuscation and threadshitting.
Defining the concept of art is necessary to determine whether or not something is art. I did. Then I poked holes at your inadequate 'definition' of art. Sorry if you don't approve.
As opposed to pretending that there are varying grades of object and only a few people get to define where something falls on the scale? Or, even worse, believing the bullshit that there is such a thing as 'high' art.
Why exactly are you in this thread? This isn't the "debate the validity of the concept of art" thread. I'm sorry, but I don't see what you have to offer here but obfuscation and threadshitting.
but it is the "define the concept of art" thread, at least to the point where we have a benchmark to determine if games count. I don't see how moniker is failing to argue in this spirit.
EmperorSeth on
You know what? Nanowrimo's cancelled on account of the world is stupid.
Why is a tight definition a beneficial definition?
Because when everything is special, nothing is?
Applying classification schema is not making value judgments. Art is not special, it is art. Good art is special, but that's simply because good art is rare.
A sock has only functionality in mind. It isn't trying to suggest, invoke, or beguile. It's a structure of function whose definition is only met when used in that function. A sock, not being used, but without outside artistic context, has no function or definition. A sock in theory has the same metaphysical value of a practical sock.
Those are socks created with the intent of beguiling and invoking feelings from people. The fact that they have a function outside of that does not suddenly make them cease to be art.
That's an extremely loose and cynical definition of art.
And they are still art. The fact that they can also keep feet warm does not keep them from being art. That would be ridiculous.
Dude, he offered a definition then insulted said definition the second someone was able to use it against him. Of course he's ridiculous. How else can you describe someone trying to define art as something pretentious or accepted by authorities without actually saying so?
Why is a tight definition a beneficial definition?
Because when everything is special, nothing is?
Applying classification schema is not making value judgments. Art is not special, it is art. Good art is special, but that's simply because good art is rare.
Yeah that is super odd.
"No. Wendy's is not food."
"But why?"
"To call that dross food is to bring down all the higher forms of eating, like a finely roasted Cornish Game Hen!"
I mean it's a category. The fact that both pomeranians and rottweilers are dogs does not make the rottweiler any less fucking awesome.
Why is a tight definition a beneficial definition?
Because when everything is special, nothing is?
Applying classification schema is not making value judgments. Art is not special, it is art. Good art is special, but that's simply because good art is rare.
Yes, but everything created is not art.
Art is intent and context. If we want to classify cynical tacky socks as art, so be it, but at least acknowledge at that point "intent" is expanded to a definition so wide as to become meaningless.
Which puts us right back where we are, at all things being art.
Why is a tight definition a beneficial definition?
Because when everything is special, nothing is?
Applying classification schema is not making value judgments. Art is not special, it is art. Good art is special, but that's simply because good art is rare.
Yes, but everything created is not art.
Art is intent and context. If we want to classify cynical tacky socks as art, so be it, but at least acknowledge at that point "intent" is expanded to a definition so wide as to become meaningless.
Which puts us right back where we are, at all things being art.
Intent has an incredibly expansive meaning, and all things are art so...
Why is a tight definition a beneficial definition?
Because when everything is special, nothing is?
Applying classification schema is not making value judgments. Art is not special, it is art. Good art is special, but that's simply because good art is rare.
Yeah that is super odd.
"No. Wendy's is not food."
"But why?"
"To call that dross food is to bring down all the higher forms of eating, like a finely roasted Cornish Game Hen!"
I mean it's a category. The fact that both pomeranians and rottweilers are dogs does not make the rottweiler any less fucking awesome.
He insisted 2012 wasn't a movie.
I would love to hear what he thinks of typography, architecture, and fashion.
Posts
I only reference guitar solos. Don't know how I would make any life decisions without them.
But if AIs consider code segments to be works of art and think humans are incapable of understanding art, and they still can't understand our art, who is right?!
sweet deflection! 5 points!
"A video game can be artful, but is not art."
I think the crux of that lies in the fact that "art" is static, and regardless of its myriad personal interpretations by patrons, is the product of a focused artistic intent that cannot be altered by external forces. Van Gogh's "Starry Night" or Scorsese's Taxi Driver are singular products that cannot be augmented by patronage and still retain their intent. I can't fold a Van Gogh into an origami hat and claim to be appreciating its intent, nor can I chop up Taxi Driver in an Avid machine and appreciate it as an intended work.
However, I can play a video game in a way that goes against stated intent. I can also just be bad at it and experience very little of it. Or I can be very efficient at it, completing it but skipping all the side-quests and fast-forwarding through cutscenes.
Now, understand that the difference between Art and Artful is not a condemnation of the latter or condoning of the former. It's merely a definition of function. And if an object's function cannot acheive "art," then "artful" is a wonderful and praiseworthy goal.
You could misread a great piece of literature, or fuck up Shakespeare by going with an Avatar theme. You could fail to pay attention to a movie, or not appreciate the referential nature of a baroque musical number.
I think a game version of Mice and Men crafted to make sure that Lenny always dies, no matter what you do, would be art.
It's nearly impossible to actually define 'art', and to clearly divide what is from what isn't, but there are examples in all of these mediums of specific works that clearly are and some that clearly aren't.
It's a glass of water, on a shelf. It's not, in itself, anything worthy of note. What makes it worth thinking about is the thought process behind it and the fact that it's the emblem of a thought experiment.
Anything that provokes thought can be art. I had a discussion with a games writer a few months ago in which he said that games couldn't be art. His reasoning was that if anything requires significant input from the viewer to the point where the creator's intent is lost, then it can't be art because the meaning can't be expressed; essentially, Atomic Ross' viewpoint above if I'm reading him right. I think that the opposite is true.
One of the most powerful pieces of art I've ever seen was only recently - Balka's How It Is. It relies entirely on the viewers' (or, I suppose, participants') experiences to function, and what I got from it is, I imagine, entirely different to anyone else who has enjoyed it. The same thing is true of games - the sheer variety of experience that can be had can fuel the thought processes from that. Shadow of the Colossus is a great example; a game that, really, reveals more about the player than the characters.
There's a reason that everyone goes back to the same examples, though. There's just not that many developers who want to provoke thought. Those that do succeed have a rich interactive canvas that they've put to use, but just like any other medium there are people who'll use it for other means.
@gamefacts - Totally and utterly true gaming facts on the regular!
Sure. One could. But the fault would lie at the feet of the patron, not the product. I could read the first chapter of Huck Finn and close the book, knowing that Huck and Jim will be friends forever, rafting the Mississippi. That would be an erroneous interpretation.
A video game allows for different actions and consequences. Your character might die. Your character might choose to ally theirself with good or evil factions. Your character might take a side-quest that has no import to the story at hand. Your character might jump over what seems to be the last pipe, only to find a series of hidden pipes that let you warp straight to Level 5.
There's no intent; there is only directive.
This is borderline retarded.
I'm confused... who or what designed the brick apartment building then?
I think there are still a lot of people confusing "fine art" with "art". I'd argue that yes video games are art, bad art far more often than not, but still art much like film or books. What video games aren't is "fine art". Personally I view that as a good thing but then I'm not a huge fan of most fine art.
You seem to be assuming that you can do whatever you want in a game, regardless of design. I would love to see you trying to play FFX in an alternate way. A skilled game creator can use external events to force the narrative, and make your choices the subject of the art.
the best renaissance artists were only ever given loose guidelines. No one told Michaelangelo how exactly they wanted the sistine chapel painted beyond requesting appropriate subject matter.
I really hope you aren't comparing the kind of market research that goes into games to renaissance artists taking commissions or merely being supported financially by nobles.
It's also an irrelevant comparison because fine art today has been transformed by the art for art's sake movement.
Television commercials are thought-provoking. Are they art?
And I would argue strongly that "art" that explicitly has no auteuristic intent (such as Balka's) is, at best, experimental art. A category that I think even game developers would deny their product as being amongst.
Yes.
So are Jeffe's socks. This is why discussions of whether or not something is art is stupid, everything is art. The far more interesting question is whether or not it is is good art.
There was a text based game I saw a while back, where everything caused a flashback to risotto in Italy or something.
In increasingly many games, you can. I could play GTA for hours and get nothing accomplished in the narrative, just wandering around. I could play God of War and leave Kratos stranded on a boat for hours, if I chose. I could be really bad at Call of Duty and never get past the first stage.
Those things drive the narrative, yet are utterly dependent on my interaction. I, as a player, can redirect the narrative at any time I want. Maybe not a highly-developed state, but it still is my choice.
I can't redirect the narrative of Huck Finn or Taxi Driver or "Starry Night." I can only choose to engage or not to engage. If I stop reading or watching, the narrative still exists.
I have no clue what you could possibly mean by this.
Sorry, but I have quite a few problems with this theory. First of all, we're seven pages in without a single agreed upon universal definition of "art," yet you insist in creating a distinction between in at and "artful," a second even more arbitrary distinction? I don't think you could split a hair thinner than that. Can you even come up with a valid definition for "artful," let alone one that is not just wholly an invention of this debate? Because from my perspective you might as well be saying that video games are not "floozle," though they are "zippyzippybong."
Second, you definition is little more than tautology. You say for a fact, which it isn't, that art is static. By isolationg the sole difference between video games and other art forms, you might as well be saying "video games aren't art because video games aren't art." Certainly this is a difference between video games and other art forms. But this is a difference to be celebrated! Otherwise it would simply be the same general art form as movies and television. If all art required that new artistic methods perfectly replicated old ones, we would never have new art mediums. But movies became distinct because of their differences from theater and all other artistic expressions, and theater the same with its distinctions from literature, and so on. This is the basis of art history itself.
Finally, the example you use of artistic intent is wholly off. People can easy see, for example, movies from different impressions. They could see it at home versus a noisy theater, they can see it in wide-screen or full-screen. They could leave for the bathroom halfway through or miss the entire last act. Or take sculpture. Much of it is ENTIRELY based on the viewer's experience. Take the usual "urinal" example. The only difference between it and what's you pee in is the presentation and the viewer's willingness to accept it. As for video games and the way the player controls the experience, that might be an argument simply against the quality of video games in art, not the existence in the first place. But I would argue that's the point. The freedom, immersion, and impression of control (and the imperfect nature of that inherent in any video game) is what guides the artistic message of the product. Losing it would blunt the message.
Putting you in an impossible situation, or choosing which character to save.
As for the rest, that doesn't really matter unless you have terrible taste and are terrible at the game. Even then, it could be art by forcing you to interact with a provocative world. Might as well argue that everything visible doesn't count as art because you can walk around with your eyes closed.
That's a bit of a dodge, isn't it?
A sock has only functionality in mind. It isn't trying to suggest, invoke, or beguile. It's a structure of function whose definition is only met when used in that function. A sock, not being used, but without outside artistic context, has no function or definition. A sock in theory has the same metaphysical value of a practical sock.
Now, art? It's semantic value is far different and far higher than the rote sum of a can of celluloid or a collection of oil smears on canvas.
No, it isn't.
It's still art.
No it isn't.
http://www.socksmith.com/sockshop/
Those are socks created with the intent of beguiling and invoking feelings from people. The fact that they have a function outside of that does not suddenly make them cease to be art.
That's still patron-end consumption you're talking about.
Art is meaningless without auteuristic intent and structure to define its context.
The intent of a novel only changes if I refuse to read the novel. The intent of a video game changes vastly depending on player skill, player preferences, player intent, game settings, and structure of the game itself.
That's an extremely loose and cynical definition of art.
Cynical? Someone spent a shitload of time making pretty socks.
Why would that not be art?
Why is a tight definition a beneficial definition?
As opposed to pretending that there are varying grades of object and only a few people get to define where something falls on the scale? Or, even worse, believing the bullshit that there is such a thing as 'high' art.
And they are still art. The fact that they can also keep feet warm does not keep them from being art. That would be ridiculous.
And Shakespeare? How many interpretations of Macbeth are there at this point?
Why exactly are you in this thread? This isn't the "debate the validity of the concept of art" thread. I'm sorry, but I don't see what you have to offer here but obfuscation and threadshitting.
Yes they did.
Because without some serious context, an appeal to consumerism isn't the same thing as auteuristic intent.
Because when everything is special, nothing is?
Defining the concept of art is necessary to determine whether or not something is art. I did. Then I poked holes at your inadequate 'definition' of art. Sorry if you don't approve.
but it is the "define the concept of art" thread, at least to the point where we have a benchmark to determine if games count. I don't see how moniker is failing to argue in this spirit.
Applying classification schema is not making value judgments. Art is not special, it is art. Good art is special, but that's simply because good art is rare.
Dude, he offered a definition then insulted said definition the second someone was able to use it against him. Of course he's ridiculous. How else can you describe someone trying to define art as something pretentious or accepted by authorities without actually saying so?
Yeah that is super odd.
"No. Wendy's is not food."
"But why?"
"To call that dross food is to bring down all the higher forms of eating, like a finely roasted Cornish Game Hen!"
I mean it's a category. The fact that both pomeranians and rottweilers are dogs does not make the rottweiler any less fucking awesome.
Yes, but everything created is not art.
Art is intent and context. If we want to classify cynical tacky socks as art, so be it, but at least acknowledge at that point "intent" is expanded to a definition so wide as to become meaningless.
Which puts us right back where we are, at all things being art.
Which is pretty much true. And that's okay. The world moves on and both good and bad art continue to be created.
Intent has an incredibly expansive meaning, and all things are art so...
He insisted 2012 wasn't a movie.
I would love to hear what he thinks of typography, architecture, and fashion.
That analogy would only work if "Wendy's" was replaced with something edible, yet not intended for human consumption, like lichen.
Or more aptly, it's the argument between "sustinence" and "cuisine." Either way, you're incorrect.
Where does a sock fit in that spectrum, then?
But those socks were intended to be art.