Games as Art

StingRay

I'm working on a paper for English 122. The subject is going to be loosely based on the debate over whether games can be considered "art." More accurately, though, I'm interested in trying to explore the deeper implications and possibilities of gaming in all its forms. What can we get out of gaming? What can we learn about each other, about ourselves, about the world? How can gaming affect our lives and the world around us? Those kind of questions, though, seem to be easier to frame within the context of an "Are games art?" debate.

To that end, I'm interested in getting opinions on the subject from as many people as possible. I have put together a list of questions that I think will be useful as I write the paper, and I'm posting them in various places I frequent (actively or as a lurker). If you have some time over the next couple of weeks (the paper is due August 8), I'd love to see any and all responses to this idea. Even past the point where the paper is done, I think it's an interesting conversation, but who knows if the thread will survive that long. :-)

Anyway, on to the questions.

I should probably note here that whenever I mention "gaming," I'm referring to all types of games; board games, video games, roleplaying games, whatever.

What is your history with games in general? RPGs, board games, video games, how did you get started in the hobby and how has the hobby impacted your life?

What do you feel are the positive aspects of gaming?

What are the negative aspects?

Video games have reached such a level of acceptance that they are giving Hollywood a run for its money, literally. Do you think hobby board games or roleplaying games will ever reach that same level of acceptance? Should it?

What is your personal definition of art, if you have one?

Do you feel video games, as a whole, can be considered art? Board games? RPGs?

If games can't be art, what keeps them from reaching that point?

Are there any specific games that you feel qualify as art? I'm referring to games that have the total package.

I'm not entirely sure how to phrase this next question, so I apologize for the lead up to it. Roger Ebert has said that video games can be art, but not "high art." He didn't really explain what "high art" is. In my mind, a classic novel, or an inspiring film, or a Shakespearean play is art. Whether any of those count as "high art," I don't know, but if they do, I have a hard time seeing how games might not one day rise to that same level. Does that, though, dilute the idea of what "art" is? Can "art" be diluted? Is that a bad thing? Do "artistic" games need their own name, like "artistic" stories are called literature? I hope that's even remotely intelligible.

Who are the potential masters of gaming? The Warhol or Bach or Hemingway of gaming? Has the hobby produced such a person?

Is there anything else I should have asked? Any thoughts you have that I didn't address?

Thank you for your time! I'm looking forward to your thoughts!

Daedalus

I can't find the relevant Tycho quote, but it's something along the lines of "Games combine visual, musical, and storytelling assets. How can games not be art? How are we even having this conversation again? Is it fucking Groundhog Day?"

Seol

Daedalus wrote: »

I can't find the relevant Tycho quote, but it's something along the lines of "Games combine visual, musical, and storytelling assets. How can games not be art? How are we even having this conversation again? Is it fucking Groundhog Day?"

Here's my perspective:

Game visuals can be art. Game music can be art. Game storytelling can be art. But that's not talking about games being art, it's about game assets being art.

I'm of the opinion that the game itself - the abstracted mechanics - can be art. There's art in PacMan, or a roguelike. There's art in a phalla. Treating art in games as the application of arts from other disciplines to a game is missing a huge form of expressionism here - possibly not the most easily communicable form of the art, but easily the most relevant.

Qingu

How are you defining "art" for your paper?

skyknyt

Seol wrote: »

Here's my perspective:

Game visuals can be art. Game music can be art. Game storytelling can be art. But that's not talking about games being art, it's about game assets being art.

I'm of the opinion that the game itself - the abstracted mechanics - can be art. There's art in PacMan, or a roguelike. There's art in a phalla. Treating art in games as the application of arts from other disciplines to a game is missing a huge form of expressionism here - possibly not the most easily communicable form of the art, but easily the most relevant.

I think that a truly artful game combines its assets and its mechanics in such a way that it communicates something to its audience in a meaningful way that couldn't be done without the whole package. So a game that totally divorces its storytelling from its gameplay wouldn't really qualify. Most games try their best to integrate gameplay into their story, but few games use their mechanics as part of their symbolism.

I think the most recent game that did this was Persona 3/FES, though the NWN2 expansion did a pretty decent job as well. MGS4 really tried - especially with things like the effects of the psyche bar and stress meter, and the integration of musical cues with the action in act 4. However, they tied up too much of their storyline into static cutscenes. (IMO)

RPGs (both varieties) tend to have it easier because so much of their gameplay is already abstracted, using that abstraction as symbolism isn't that much more of a step. It's a little harder for action games, as they have more of a burden to use that action as more than just the goal.. GTA4 does a pretty good job on this front, though, providing storyline choices within that action, as well as using the violence in the larger context to communicate to us about the world within the game. (nevermind the integration of real world icons and satire into the game's art assets)

moniker

Do your own homework?

And of course games are art. But then, the label 'art' is so broad and all encompassing as to be effectively meaningless. Now, are games good art is a more difficult question, and depends entirely on the game.

Podly

There are multiple definitions of art. The most all encompassing one, being the most popular definition today, is art is anything that you create. This, more often then not, ends up being a completely meaningless definition when we want to talk about the Art with a capital a that most people mean when they say art. (Which, by the way, is used in the title of this thread.) I am more inclined to define art as anything which is created with the purpose of bringing to attention that which is beyond its own horizons and places in front of itself and between me my own being. By this, I mean that Art, or rather, High Art, is that which has as its coherent being the ability having caught the audiences attention to divert their attention through its being-there, engrossed in the art, to the very being of the audience members themselves.

When we read Ulysses, we are COMPLETELY engrossed in one mans thoughts, yet we are really seeing through the art and understanding our own horizons, our own being, and that with which WE are concerned. Video games are pure entertainment - you are absorbed in the game. This is not to say that you cannot have intelligent games - MGS is always a good example of a game that tries to use philosophy (terribly, but at least they tried) - but a video game is meant to be PLAYED, and thus cannot be engrossed.

Daedalus

Podly wrote: »

When we read Ulysses, we are COMPLETELY engrossed in one mans thoughts, yet we are really seeing through the art and understanding our own horizons, our own being, and that with which WE are concerned. Video games are pure entertainment - you are absorbed in the game. This is not to say that you cannot have intelligent games - MGS is always a good example of a game that tries to use philosophy (terribly, but at least they tried) - but a video game is meant to be PLAYED, and thus cannot be engrossed.

I really have to disagree here: the interactive factor in games can make them more engrossing, not less.

Gnome-Interruptus

moniker wrote: »

Do your own homework?

And of course games are art. But then, the label 'art' is so broad and all encompassing as to be effectively meaningless. Now, are games good art is a more difficult question, and depends entirely on the game.

Pretty much, you cant define an entire medium as being art.

Photography can be art, but it can also be your crappy vacation photo's.

Videogames can be art, but they can also be Madden NFL '08.

Daedalus

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

moniker wrote: »

Do your own homework?

And of course games are art. But then, the label 'art' is so broad and all encompassing as to be effectively meaningless. Now, are games good art is a more difficult question, and depends entirely on the game.

Pretty much, you cant define an entire medium as being art.

Photography can be art, but it can also be your crappy vacation photo's.

Videogames can be art, but they can also be Madden NFL '08.

there's a difference between "not art" and "shitty art".

Photography is art. Your crappy vacation photos are bad art.

Podly

Daedalus wrote: »

Podly wrote: »

When we read Ulysses, we are COMPLETELY engrossed in one mans thoughts, yet we are really seeing through the art and understanding our own horizons, our own being, and that with which WE are concerned. Video games are pure entertainment - you are absorbed in the game. This is not to say that you cannot have intelligent games - MGS is always a good example of a game that tries to use philosophy (terribly, but at least they tried) - but a video game is meant to be PLAYED, and thus cannot be engrossed.

I really have to disagree here: the interactive factor in games can make them more engrossing, not less.

Heidegger differentiates between being-absorbed-with and being-engrossed-in. Engrossed is a subject-object relation in which one places their horizon behind something, i.e., art, and intends in a noetic relationship with it. By this, he loosely means "empathizing." A video game does not do this. He would define this as being absorbed in. Your being is sucked into a completely closed system of being. It is, in a word, inauthentic. Art is mimetic. (not art, but Art.) A video game does not represent something; rather, it is something virtual all on its own. It is its own reality which you get gripped into unquestionably. If you question being gripped by a video game, it probably isn't very entertaining.

ElJeffe

moniker wrote: »

Do your own homework.

If you want perspective on this, do a search. We've had discussions on this in the past that will probably provide you with ample fodder for your paper. But we're not your trained lab animals, and we don't spout thoughtful viewpoints on command.

subedii

Daedalus wrote: »

Podly wrote: »

When we read Ulysses, we are COMPLETELY engrossed in one mans thoughts, yet we are really seeing through the art and understanding our own horizons, our own being, and that with which WE are concerned. Video games are pure entertainment - you are absorbed in the game. This is not to say that you cannot have intelligent games - MGS is always a good example of a game that tries to use philosophy (terribly, but at least they tried) - but a video game is meant to be PLAYED, and thus cannot be engrossed.

I really have to disagree here: the interactive factor in games can make them more engrossing, not less.

I'm just going to go ahead and quote Chris Avellone on this again (Lead design on Planescape: Torment, and currently one of the heads of Obsidian software, who made Knights of the Old Republic II and are working on Alpha Protocol and an upcoming "Aliens" based RPG)

Gamespot: What would you say to someone who told you that games have universally terrible stories?

Chris Avellone: I'd say game stories can be a little formulaic at times and a little unpolished, but then I would point up at the sky and say, "Holy s***, look at that!" And when they do, I would punch them in the gut, and while they were gasping for breath, I would lean down and go, "You are wrong. There are several games with compelling stories, stories that achieve greater strength because it's a story you can interact with. Thus, the experience is even more personal than reading a novel, where you are basically watching the characters go about their adventures without any participation from you except flicking your eyes across the page." At this point, the person would be about to get up, so I would kick them in the shins and then run.

I will also say that people tended to denounce comics and graphic novels for quite some time, but I think some of the best stories I've ever read have come from graphic novels--DC's Vertigo line comes to mind, which really put Neil Gaiman, Garth Ennis, and Grant Morrison into the limelight. Graphic novels are a lot like games in some respects, considering it's a fusion of art and story without the interactive element that technology provides.

I'll also agree that in whatever field, some stuff can be considered "art" (well, assuming a standard and fixed definition of "art" in the first place), others can't. There's no blanket cover all here.

Podly

Gnome-Interruptus wrote: »

Videogames can be art, but they can also be Madden NFL '08.

This is not a good example. Madden NFL '08 recreates a life experience better than most games I've ever seen. How can this not be art, if you are defining it as such?