The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Videogames as Art (And Nintendo)
Sheep
Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
Registered User, __BANNED USERS regular
So, I'm sure a good chunk of the PA userbase has read this delicately titled opinion over at IGN.
The Wii is a Piece of Shit
Let's ignore the baseless whining at the beginning of the article, and focus on "It's not clear to me that Nintendo gives a s*** about games as an art form,". Suddenly, in one sentence, Hecker instantly defines "art" and "games as art" to his seemingly very strict set of standards.
This bothers me (a former Art Major) for a few reasons. Mainly, Hecker doesn't think he is capable of art unless he has the specific tools at his disposal. So, him being a developer (graphics artist?) does that mean that someone who would rather spend their time with a pencil and pad instead of a 3500$ gaming rig are suddenly not artists?
Hecker even dismisses past consoles. Because the Genesis was underpowered compared to the SNES (in terms of graphical ability), does that mean that art isn't capable on the machine?
When I was your typical college slacker in your typical college slacker art courses, we were often challenged to create something with limited supplies or set rules. Only collages/no pastels/10"x10". So, because I preferred to work in acrylic was I no longer an artist when I was "forced" to use a medium that I generally didn't care for?
Who cares that the Wii is only capable of displaying a third of the wonder that the 360 and the PS3 can. It's still capable of being a platform of your art. Quit bein a snob! Silent and Black and White films 8MM films are no less art than the latest full color, surround sound, digital masterpiece!
Something else caught my eye.
To illustrate his point, he searched for references to games as art on all three console manufacturers web sites. While he found numerous such references on both the official PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 sites, Wii.com had none at all. He then shared quotes from executives at Sony and Microsoft talking about games as a serious artistic medium, and then a quote from a Nintendo executive saying the company only wanted to make "fun" games.
Defining a "medium" as an outlet for artistic merit based on pure PR bullshit[/i] is incredibly thick headed. I hate it when car manufacturers attempt to sell their latest death machine with arty buzzwords (Our new Bling 2008 with artful curves and an exquisitely tasteful interior!), I dislike it when housing realtors and furniture companies attempt to hock their interests on me by playing up the "discerning, artful consumer". Hecker seems to think that these marketing people actually care about art.
Art isn't defined by the medium or the people who display it and sell it. Art is a product of the creator. If you're unhappy with having to work with something you'd rather not, fine. But don't insult the very thing you are attempting to defend. Don't pander to the smallest aspect or the niche that you work in. No one liked it when Roger Ebert condemned games because they were interactive. No one should like it when Hecker proclaims that games can only be art when it's 1080p, light bloom, high definition, and when the console manufacturer "says it is."
Wouldn't you agree?
EDIT
Interesting link provided by Bruin. Brings up the idea that gameplay itself can be defined as art.
Games Theory: Games as Art
The Wii is a Piece of Shit
Let's ignore the baseless whining at the beginning of the article, and focus on "It's not clear to me that Nintendo gives a s*** about games as an art form,". Suddenly, in one sentence, Hecker instantly defines "art" and "games as art" to his seemingly very strict set of standards.
This bothers me (a former Art Major) for a few reasons. Mainly, Hecker doesn't think he is capable of art unless he has the specific tools at his disposal. So, him being a developer (graphics artist?) does that mean that someone who would rather spend their time with a pencil and pad instead of a 3500$ gaming rig are suddenly not artists?
Hecker even dismisses past consoles. Because the Genesis was underpowered compared to the SNES (in terms of graphical ability), does that mean that art isn't capable on the machine?
When I was your typical college slacker in your typical college slacker art courses, we were often challenged to create something with limited supplies or set rules. Only collages/no pastels/10"x10". So, because I preferred to work in acrylic was I no longer an artist when I was "forced" to use a medium that I generally didn't care for?
Who cares that the Wii is only capable of displaying a third of the wonder that the 360 and the PS3 can. It's still capable of being a platform of your art. Quit bein a snob! Silent and Black and White films 8MM films are no less art than the latest full color, surround sound, digital masterpiece!
Something else caught my eye.
To illustrate his point, he searched for references to games as art on all three console manufacturers web sites. While he found numerous such references on both the official PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 sites, Wii.com had none at all. He then shared quotes from executives at Sony and Microsoft talking about games as a serious artistic medium, and then a quote from a Nintendo executive saying the company only wanted to make "fun" games.
Defining a "medium" as an outlet for artistic merit based on pure PR bullshit[/i] is incredibly thick headed. I hate it when car manufacturers attempt to sell their latest death machine with arty buzzwords (Our new Bling 2008 with artful curves and an exquisitely tasteful interior!), I dislike it when housing realtors and furniture companies attempt to hock their interests on me by playing up the "discerning, artful consumer". Hecker seems to think that these marketing people actually care about art.
Art isn't defined by the medium or the people who display it and sell it. Art is a product of the creator. If you're unhappy with having to work with something you'd rather not, fine. But don't insult the very thing you are attempting to defend. Don't pander to the smallest aspect or the niche that you work in. No one liked it when Roger Ebert condemned games because they were interactive. No one should like it when Hecker proclaims that games can only be art when it's 1080p, light bloom, high definition, and when the console manufacturer "says it is."
Wouldn't you agree?
EDIT
Interesting link provided by Bruin. Brings up the idea that gameplay itself can be defined as art.
Games Theory: Games as Art
Sheep on
0
This discussion has been closed.
Posts
And also some people don't give a shit.
Yeah, I know I'm not a great writer, but I think it's pretty good.
And the other two were locked.
The summary: opinions opinions lol.
Sorry.
I glanced a few pages back and didn't see it. Though, this isn't specifically about Hecker, his rant just lit the fire under me buttocks.
A Pile of Miserable Secrets?
It's fairly obvious that the power of the console is one of his main points. The article itself reinforces Hecker's position by mentioning the consoles ability.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/artgames.php -- wherein Gabe compares innovation in game design to the Impressionist movement. And:
I, uh, think that's a little over the top, personally.
Haha! You're kidding right? Unless you mean strictly in the sense of this article.
Yeah, and the power of a console can dictate how sophisticated the AI can be. I'm not saying I agree with the guy, but it's a part of his argument.
Whether or not a game is considered art is FUCKING IRRELEVANT. Either a game is fun, or it isn't, and the fact that one person thinks it's art and another doesn't has absolutely no effect on the game itself. I can understand worrying about AI constrictions, etc, but every time I hear the words "game" and "art" in the same sentence it makes my brain hurt.
I don't need Roger Ebert to tell me that my games are OK to play.
Even so: is it impossible to create art with "inferior" tools? Nope. This guy's on crack.
I couldn't disagree more. I don't play games just because they're fun. I want new experiences, new stories, something different. Using fun as the sole criteria for games is irresponsible and simple. Games will have a hard time evolving if fun is the only target.
You're missing my point. I mean to say that we're arguing about semantics and labels. Just because games aren't classified as 'art' by someone, it isn't going to affect my enjoyment of the game. New experiences, new stories, something different, these are all things associated with 'fun'. If you were playing the same game over and over again, it wouldn't be very 'fun'. If Zelda: TP doesn't make it into the Louvre, it isn't going to make the game any less 'fun'.
If you are classifying new experiences, new stories, and something different as 'art', then the Wii is the artiest system there is.
...I have to admit, that if games evolve past having "fun" being their primary component, my interest will wane drastically. I can see how games can be art, though I haven't played any I consider to be successful attempts at such (Killer7 came the closest, or at least tried the hardest), but I don't necessarily want them to be art. I'd just like to have some fun to relax after doing work all day. I don't think it's irresponsible or simple if we're perfectly happy with games that aim for fun.
Impossible, art is subjective. Which just enforces my point that this argument is irrelevant.
Good point. However, I tend to find art in most games I play. Even port-trash weekday afternoon anime games on the DS, as wretched and generic they are, are still a product of an artist.
Even the original Mario Bros. A definite artistic style, in presentation from graphics to the awesomely jazzy music.
My post isn't so much chastizing him for saying this or that about videogames, but attempting to define the very word Art because he doesn't like the Wii. Seems like a lame excuse. IMHO.
That's not really how I look at games. Every game I play that has some sort of plot or storyline, I attempt to critique and pick apart like I would a movie. I'm only 22, but I don't think games have grown up with me. There's such a lack of maturity. Forget about blood, boobs, and guns, I'm talking about thought-provoking games, whether it's in the form of a good plot or otherwise. I think games really do need to strive to be something other than fun. I applaud games that try to frustrate the player, or make him feel like shit.
But I do understand where you're coming from. Sometimes you just want to get the high score or shoot some things.
Here~
Art: A production that stands out as successfully delivering the emotional and/or intellectual intent of the creator to a participant within the confines of the artist's chosen medium. An item capable of providing relatively more visceral impact upon the experiencee than other items developed within similar prerequisites/media.
Enjoy.
Notice that's a PS2 and not a GC. BECAUSE NINTENDO DOESN'T THINK VIDEO GAMES ARE ART.:P
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
I think the fact that it was Nintendo that was criticsed has something to do with this whole outburst.
Art is something you can appreciate about games, but to paraphrase the definition of game, they are supposed to be 'fun diversions'. I enjoyed playing Sorry back in the day, but found no disappointment that the pieces weren't sculpted by Michaelangelo.
Basically I find the whole "Games are art/Games aren't art" argument to be pretentious and futile.
EDIT: For the record, I think that games qualify as 'art'. Also, for the record, I don't think that it matters at all.
Look at anything that heavily qualifies as art over the past couple centuries.
Music, for example.
Back in the day, Music was for the classy. It was art. What happened to it? People found out you can make money without having your composer die. Then Music turned into an entertainment industry. So nowadays, you are more likely to find some girl who happen to have a decent voice sing a song wrote for her, in a video directed for her, than you are to see someone make it on their own.
Television/Motion Picture is the same way. In the early 1900s peope went to see Motion Pictures as a form of Art, same thing happened here. Eventually people found out it could be highly profitable, and defiled it, and turned it into yet another entertainment industry.
Every form of art that has ever graced the knowledge of a human being will eventually be defiled and turned into some form of profit margin for some brand new CEO.
Video Games on the other hand, started off as entertainment. They haven't been defiled and corrupted (atleast, no where near as much) like the others. Which in a sense makes them pure. They are a pure form of entertainment, and I like them like that.
Can a game be beautiful? sure
Can a game be recognized for the tremendous effort put forth? sure
Will a game provide some form of entertainment? always.
Note: these are just my opinions and are in no way an attempt to spread my belief onto others.
Pokemon Safari - Sneasel, Pawniard, ????
Applying art to video games is tough, so I'll just go on my own definition: art is creation with a purpose. Vague, I know, but it gets the point across. Nintendo designs games to coax a reaction from us, and goddamn succeeds. When I play Super Mario World, I am enjoying myself- and the relationship between myself and the game is their art.
If Hecker doesn't like the style of Nintendo games, that's cool, I can understand it. I don't like The Lord of the Rings. Whatever. But I'm not about to go out and call Peter Jackson a hack (he isn't) and say that the films were not art (they were).
"Affection" and "respect" are different things, and I gotta say that Chris Hecker's inability to distinguish between the two is disappointing. His passion elevates it to offensive.
Sounds about right.
I can agree with that, in general. For me I could care less about what some guy said about Nintendo, I'm just sick of hearing "Are games (not) art?". It's pretentious and pointless, and an attempt at validating a hobby that I find no need to validate.
Now there's something every ounce of me can agree with. While it's a legitimate debate, I always have to wonder about its necessity. If we all came to the conclusion that they weren't art, how many of us would just stop playing?
I don't think so, film never started as art, most early films are really short and were only made to show people pictures in motion which was amazing at the time, in other words, it was just entertainment, a showcase of new technology. Music is similar, it has been with humanity since we lived in caves, before we even invented the concept of currency, and yes, it was mainly used for entertainment, dancing, chanting, etc. The only type art I can think of that didn't start as entertainment is painting.
If you don't consider games art, your definition of art is far too narrow.
edit: Anything created with some thought I mean. Otherwise poopie = art. :O