PDA

View Full Version : Hideo Kojima (Metal Gear Solid) Says Games Aren't Art


RobertoOrtiz
01-23-2006, 06:43 PM
Oh boy... take cover.


Quote:
"In the February 2006 issue of the Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine, Metal Gear creator Hideo Kojima touches on everything from being a latch-key kid to how games aren't art. "

>>LINK<< (http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2098&Itemid=2)

-R

PhilWesson
01-23-2006, 06:49 PM
I have to say that i'm surprised that he would take that approach.

And as much as I respect the man, I'm going to have to disagree. I mean, look at certain games that the creaters knew would not appeal to everyone (Shadow of the Colossus and Ico come to mind).
I would consider these works of art, even if they appeal to more than one type of person.

If you look at games in regards to storytelling, (and I believe storytelling to be an art,) then how could they not be?

JMcWilliams
01-23-2006, 06:50 PM
:shrug: I can see his point actually. But as we know art is a personal thing so we will never all agree on this kind of topic.
Oh well, the world still spins regardless :D

heavyness
01-23-2006, 06:58 PM
i see his point to, but his definition would also make movies not pieces of art.

anyways, just 1 person's opinion.

EpShot
01-23-2006, 07:23 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=art

art1 http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/AHD4/JPG/pron.jpg (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fsearch%3Fq%3Dart) ( P ) Pronunciation Key (http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html) (ärt)
n.
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

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.
The study of these activities.
The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.
A field or category of art, such as music, ballet, or literature.
A nonscientific branch of learning; one of the liberal arts.

A system of principles and methods employed in the performance of a set of activities: the art of building.
A trade or craft that applies such a system of principles and methods: the art of the lexicographer.


Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art.
Skill arising from the exercise of intuitive faculties: “Self-criticism is an art not many are qualified to practice” (Joyce Carol Oates).


arts Artful devices, stratagems, and tricks.
Artful contrivance; cunning.

Printing. Illustrative material.

kiaran
01-23-2006, 07:38 PM
Let me be the first to say what everyone is thinking: "This is complete BS"

Videogames are not only art, they are the highest form of art. By every definition, art is something that communicates ideas and feeling while providing expression for the artist. Every peice of art has two things, the creator and the observer. The fact that videogames have hundreds of creators and millions of observers doesn't make them any less of an artistic peice, as Hideo would have you believe.

In fact, by every definition of 'good' art, it makes them superior in almost every way to a statue or a painting. Don't kid yourselves, videogames are the highest form of art humans have ever created. Don't let elitist luddites tell you otherwise.

JeroenDStout
01-23-2006, 07:47 PM
I think only one person is right to comment on this, and that is The Dude:

"Well... that's like... your opinion, man."

kiaran
01-23-2006, 07:55 PM
I think only one person is right to comment on this, and that is The Dude:

"Well... that's like... your opinion, man."

I don't mean to be rude, but why is it that everytime someone gives their opinion on a public forum, somebody has to come by and say "But that's just your opinion!". As though if they didn't remind themselves of that fact they might forget that intelligent debate is founded on opinions. Of course it's an opinion!

Now that we've got that out of the way... does anybody have an opinion of their own?

Rudity
01-23-2006, 08:26 PM
I don't mean to be rude, but why is it that everytime someone gives their opinion on a public forum, somebody has to come by and say "But that's just your opinion!". As though if they didn't remind themselves of that fact they might forget that intelligent debate is founded on opinions. Of course it's an opinion!

Now that we've got that out of the way... does anybody have an opinion of their own?

Because everyone's favorite movie is the big lebowski. Well it should be anyways.
(The parrot was making a joke)

On topic. This article was an interesting read. Thats all I have to say about it.

Darren

pogonip
01-23-2006, 08:36 PM
I totally agree with Hiedo. Games are no more art then Monopoly or Jenga is ART . Would someone consider PONG or Pacman art ? They are games more likend to toys . Just because they have fancy graphics these days games are just games and still just PONG in a prettier package . I mean when I play half life 2 I am amazed by the graphics but when it comes down to it , it's just a game and when the power goes off it does'nt exsist unlike say artwork hanging in a meuseum .

PhilWesson
01-23-2006, 08:46 PM
And a symphony by Mozart is just a song, and the colliseum is just a bunch of bricks...

Riiight

OneSharpMarble
01-23-2006, 08:55 PM
If Paintings, sculptures, music, landscapes and acting can all be considered art then how come when you combine them it instantly is no longer art?

This is ridiculous.

JeroenDStout
01-23-2006, 08:58 PM
I don't mean to be rude, but why is it that everytime someone gives their opinion on a public forum, somebody has to come by and say "But that's just your opinion!". As though if they didn't remind themselves of that fact they might forget that intelligent debate is founded on opinions. Of course it's an opinion!

Now that we've got that out of the way... does anybody have an opinion of their own?
I said that because I find it an extremely annoying and uninteresting position to take. Yes, everything is an opinion, but I quote The Dude if things are in my eyes a silly opinion.

It's just a thoughtless opinion, seriously. Just like every game has to be liked by everybody and just like every piece of art can only be liked by two. Hell, Beyond Good & Evil was art in my eyes and it even didn't sell well so it holds up to his whole idea of 'art has to be personal'.
His car argument is another silly thing to say; cars are an object you 'need' to get from A to B. A game starts at A and just tours around a bit. If I'd need a car to get from A to B I'd indeed pick the one that can do all. If I just want a car to drive a circle in it occasionally I'd buy one of the special cars only so-many people like.

I really dislike the opinion, it annoys me. It's a bit materialistic and simplistic thinking about something as emotionally charged as art.

polywrangler
01-23-2006, 08:59 PM
Videogames are not only art, they are the highest form of art. By every definition...Don't let elitist luddites tell you otherwise.

LOL, How exactly is Hideo a Luddite, being after all one of the world's most bleeding edge games technologists?

kiaran
01-23-2006, 09:07 PM
I totally agree with Hiedo. Games are no more art then Monopoly or Jenga is ART . Would someone consider PONG or Pacman art ? They are games more likend to toys . Just because they have fancy graphics these days games are just games and still just PONG in a prettier package . I mean when I play half life 2 I am amazed by the graphics but when it comes down to it , it's just a game and when the power goes off it does'nt exsist unlike say artwork hanging in a meuseum .

I'm glad you picked Half-Life 2 because it's a prime example of how a game can be a truly magnificient peice of art. It combines all forms of traditional art, let's count them:

1. Sculpture - The character models, props, environments. All beautifully sculpted to reflect the real world and make a statment about it.
2. Architecture - Wonderfully constructed european styled building contrast against the stark, bleak, Orwellian backdrop of the Combine technology. This creates a beautiful juxtaposition that speaks volumes about how be percieve our cities.
3. Acting - The character emote and interact, nuff said.
4. Painting - The texture work, compositions of the level design and general layout show a deep understanding of the concepts dear to traditional painters.
5. Story - I don't want to spoil it, but clearly Half life is no slump here.

I could go on, but I digress. Clearly, it is only a glorified version of tic-tac-toe...

poly-phobic
01-23-2006, 09:07 PM
besides the metal gear series, what else has kojima worked on?

kiaran
01-23-2006, 09:16 PM
LOL, How exactly is Hideo a Luddite, being after all one of the world's most bleeding edge games technologists?

I knew someone would ask... I don't know Hideo well enough to call him a luddite and my comment was meant to be general. I was referring to a lot of crusty old art teacher types who refuse to give comic books or videogames the proper respect. And just because Hideo is a game maker doesn't necessarily excuse him from the label of a luddite. I know many confused game designers who abore their medium because they were taught traditional art. They only do it 'for the money' or provide some other half baked excuse to justify why their amazing talents aren't being put to better use. Fact is, there is no better use for artist talent.

But it's a moot point really because regardless of what anyone thinks, the consumer dollar dictates what has 'true' value, and clearly they are on my side. Most people would rather play a game than go to an 'art gallery'.

:)

OneSharpMarble
01-23-2006, 09:16 PM
His reasoning behind the difference doesn't make sense, since Games appeal to lots of people they aren't art, well guess what there is plenty of art that appeals to every person on earth.

Take the Sistine Chapel for example, possibly one of the most famous works of art in creation. I don't think it would be possible to see it and not be overwhelmed.


I totally agree with Hiedo. Games are no more art then Monopoly or Jenga is ART . Would someone consider PONG or Pacman art ? They are games more likend to toys . Just because they have fancy graphics these days games are just games and still just PONG in a prettier package . I mean when I play half life 2 I am amazed by the graphics but when it comes down to it , it's just a game and when the power goes off it does'nt exsist unlike say artwork hanging in a meuseum .


Would you consider the first sculpture ever created art? Pong is like that, remember that videogames as a medium have been around for an incredibly short amount of time compared to say carving or painting. So what if the power goes off and the game goes away? Lots of beautiful things in the real world last for an incredibly short amount of time, even paintings fade.

heavyness
01-23-2006, 09:17 PM
http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=299702

this has been argued already...

JeroenDStout
01-23-2006, 09:18 PM
But it's a moot point really because regardless of what anyone thinks, the consumer dollar dictates what has 'true' value, and clearly they are on my side. Most people would rather play a game than go to an 'art gallery'.

:)
Hmm, the consumers dictate what is made.. they say very little about my 'true values'. I'm not fond the 'power of the mass' approach to determen what has value and what not.

Cig74
01-23-2006, 09:35 PM
What's up, everyone? This will be my first post in the CGTalk forums. Glad to be here.
Other than working on the Metal Gear titles Kojima has created old scool games Snatcher and Policenauts. He produced the Zone of Enders games and created the solar powered Boktai games for the Gameboy Advance. While he is a talented game designer his storytelling could be a bit ridiculous. I don't agree with his statement about video games not being an art form but that's just my opinion. If a game's soundtrack, visuals, and story can affect someone then that is art. I guess I could understand where Kojima is coming from because he is the gaming world's equivalent of Bruckhiemer. I wasn't exactly moved when Otakon confessed his Oedipus complex to Snake as I was when sat there and took in the aural majesty of Ico when he and Yorda rested on a bench during a save. Kojima aims to excite and keep the adrenaline pumping.

malcolmTG
01-23-2006, 09:38 PM
i agree with his point, but i dont think i see his point the same way as everyone else. the overall creation of a game is shifted and changed to accomodate the masses as opposed to making the best peiece possible thus taking away from its connection to the artist. i would argue that some of the more independent companies out there create art because they put their heart and souls into the creation of a final product that is something they love. but thats a far cry from the likes of for example sake, the madden series. i think his broad strokes for all of games discount the games that are made to truly be an experience of their own like shadow of the colossus. but he himself even says that the game is made up of alot of art on the piece by piece level, its just that the casing of it (in this case the game) loses its quality of being art by its own commercialization.

kiaran
01-23-2006, 09:40 PM
Hmm, the consumers dictate what is made.. they say very little about my 'true values'. I'm not fond the 'power of the mass' approach to determen what has value and what not.

I used the word 'true' in quotation marks for that very reason. Indeed, history shows that you are correct. It used to be widely accepted that the earth was flat, of course that doesn't make it true. The same argument can be applied to value. Just because lots of people buy something, doesn't make it necessarily valuable in the deepest sense of the word.

But it does show where peoples interests lie, and that is clearly not in traditional forms of art. So 'true' value, that is, the only kind that matters in business, is dictated by consumer choices. Currently, those forces are showing a growing interest in this new form of art.

pogonip
01-23-2006, 09:48 PM
I could go on, but I digress. Clearly, it is only a glorified version of tic-tac-toe...

That's exactly right ...it is . It's a game or wait lets not play it lets hang a monitor on the wall and look at it ! Yeah good idea ! I have seen masterfully crafted chess boards and pieces and they really beutiful and took great craftsmanship to create but in the end it's still just a game of chess though to some it may seem like a work of art is that it's purpose ?

JeroenDStout
01-23-2006, 09:52 PM
That's exactly right ...it is . It's a game or wait lets not play it lets hang a monitor on the wall and look at it ! Yeah good idea ! I have seen masterfully crafted chess boards and pieces and they really beutiful and took great craftsmanship to create but in the end it's still just a game of chess though to some it may seem like a work of art is that it's purpose ?
So movies aren't art because you can't put them on walls? Art is more than something static you can look at, theatre can be art as well. Video games are ideal, they can take advantage of you being the one taking the actions, you getting emotional. Seeing art as something for in a museum with white walls is terribly materialistic.

tibes
01-23-2006, 09:56 PM
That's exactly right ...it is . It's a game or wait lets not play it lets hang a monitor on the wall and look at it ! Yeah good idea ! I have seen masterfully crafted chess boards and pieces and they really beutiful and took great craftsmanship to create but in the end it's still just a game of chess though to some it may seem like a work of art is that it's purpose ?

That's a good analogy. Games (of all kinds, think of WH40k etc as well) may contain art, but that doesn't make the game itself art. With the emphasis on cinematics and graphics in games in the last 10 years, people forget the GAME part is a set of rules designed to challenge and entertain the player. The elements that go into the game to complete the experience may be art, but I'm not sure I believe that games are art in the traditional sense. And given the lack of innovation in recent years in the gameplay area of games, I'm with Hideo on this one :shrug:

forevernameless
01-23-2006, 10:00 PM
besides the metal gear series, what else has kojima worked on?

Boktai series
Boktai: Sabata's Counterattack (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boktai:_Sabata%27s_Counterattack&action=edit) (2005 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005)) - producer
Boktai 2: Solar Boy Django (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boktai_2:_Solar_Boy_Django) (2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004)) - producer
Boktai: The Sun Is in Your Hand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boktai:_The_Sun_Is_in_Your_Hand) (2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003)) - producer

Zone of Enders
Zone of the Enders: The 2nd Runner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_the_Enders:_The_2nd_Runner) (2003 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003)) - producer
Zone of the Enders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zone_of_the_Enders) (2001 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001)) - producer

Tokimeki Memorial volumes
Tokimeki Memorial Drama Series Vol. 3: Tabidachi no Uta (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokimeki_Memorial) (1999 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999)) - executive director
Tokimeki Memorial Drama Series Vol. 2: Irodori no Love Song (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokimeki_Memorial) (1998 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998)) - planner/producer
Tokimeki Memorial Drama Series Vol. 1: Nijiiro no Seishun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokimeki_Memorial) (1997 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1997)) - planner/producer/drama director

Other Games
Policenauts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Policenauts) (1994 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994)) - writer/director
Snatcher CD-ROMantic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatcher) (1992 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992)) - writer/director
SD Snatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatcher) (1990 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1990)) - original writer
Snatcher (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snatcher) (1988 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988)) - writer/director
Lost Warld (1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986), cancelled) - writer/director
Penguin Adventure (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_Adventure) (1986 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986)) - assistant director

Rook
01-23-2006, 10:03 PM
According to post modern art theory (at least how it was told to be in school) art is an experience. Anything can be art, which is why sometimes you see toilets, rotting meat and various other oddities in art galleries. All art, no matter what the medium, is subjective to the individual viewing it.
Art ends up being defined by the individual experiencing it. Trying to judge the value of art is like trying to argue who's favorite color is better. I believe you can put value judgements on skill and technique, but not art.
Video Games are Art depending on the person experiencing it.

tozz
01-23-2006, 10:24 PM
Games are produced to sell copies and earn a paycheck, what else is there to it?
Good games = a good product.
Just because a product is good, doesn't mean it's art. Then again everyone has their own idea about what art is.

womanonfire
01-23-2006, 10:27 PM
Seems to me what Hideo Kojima is saying is that games are more about good Design than about Art. I can agree with that. I think design is a vastly underestimated element of games. People pay attention to how a game looks or what technology it uses. I guess if a designer is doing her job well then players don't even notice the overall design of the game, they just know that it FEELS nice, that it operates well and the experience they are having is pleasurable. I guess this is what his car analogy is all about.

And anyway, with the way Art is today why would he want his games lumped in with that stuff? We cannot go back to the Renaissance, we can only look forward to a future where games as a medium might create something else. Some people might call that art. Kojima is calling it Design.

Bentagon
01-23-2006, 10:30 PM
I agree... to me, art is about personal expression and interpretation. A lot of different parts, like story, animation, modelling, texturing, designing, etc can all be considered art. But the game itself? I like the way he put it... the game is displaying the arts, but isn't an art by itself.

To me, it's just the interaction that removes the art part from games, really. Because the observer isn't just the observer anymore... he changes the work. But there's no real strict definition of art anyways, so it's a very fine line.

Oh, and maybe this goes a bit against to what I just said, but I think everyone's missing one thing here. He said that he thought videogames aren't art. He didn't say they couldn't be. There's a difference between craft and art. It's just that a lot of games are craft.

- Benjamin

karmamule
01-23-2006, 11:18 PM
I was at the Mass MOCA (Massachusetts Museum of Contemporary Art) about a year ago, and one of the major installations was a large room that, amongst other things, was filled with paper that was slowly being dropped over time from dispensers installed high up near the top of the ceiling. (The room was roughly the size and height of a typical gymnasium).

Part of the piece was how people interacted with the paper that had fallen. The trails they left in it, whether they carefully stepped over it or deliberately tromped all over it or crumpled up pieces of paper, etc etc.. You could see a sort of ever-changing 'history of interaction', and that was very much part of the whole effect of it.

My point is that art can very much involve interaction as part of its overall 'domain'. It isn't always a static thing.

IMHO you have to have a very restrictive view of art to not see videogames as such. Yes, they usually are created with the profit motive in mind, and that profit motive may lead to compromises in the design and 'art' of the game. But, hasn't the interaction of art and money been ever-present throughout the centuries? How many times have we heard how an artist's pursuit of success and money can lead to compromises in their career, but that doesn't mean all that they created with profit in mind is necessarily and immediately devoid of art simply because profit was considered.

In any case, I certainly consider gamemaking an art.

Cig74
01-23-2006, 11:35 PM
This is kind of lame but understandable. Due to me being a newbie my messages won't be posted until any interest in this topic has expires. Aside from my ealrier post I wanted to put up a link to what I believe is the perfect example of how video games can be classified as interactive art.

http://media.ps2.gamespy.com/media/678/678618/vids_1.html

Phrenzy84
01-24-2006, 12:03 AM
That's a good analogy. Games (of all kinds, think of WH40k etc as well) may contain art, but that doesn't make the game itself art. With the emphasis on cinematics and graphics in games in the last 10 years, people forget the GAME part is a set of rules designed to challenge and entertain the player. The elements that go into the game to complete the experience may be art, but I'm not sure I believe that games are art in the traditional sense. And given the lack of innovation in recent years in the gameplay area of games, I'm with Hideo on this one :shrug:


wow someone who read the article. (this is of course an assumption so dont take it so harshly, but i do get the feeling the title has clouded anything kojima said).

The title of the article and of the thread is just gonna evoke all kinds of crazy outburst without people finding out what context the comment was made in.

"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. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

Videogames are a product, a product that is reproduced on a massive scale, that its main objective of the company funding its creation is to get it into every home on the planet and make a damn good return on.
The elements that make up a game is what makes it artistic. Concept art, Character design, 3D sets/character and so on, but the final product is somenthing to make you feel satisfied.

If i were to create a game, i would want people to say "wow what damn good game". Its the same with movies, artistic license to create something entertaining. Though movies are a whole different ball game.

But this is just my opinion, let the next one present itself.

gunslingerblack
01-24-2006, 12:36 AM
i think kojima made a mistake in trying to define what art is,

whenever you try to define something you limit your view on that subject

i prefer to think of art in a more ethereal fashion

what feeling does it invoke or what feeling did you put into it when you created it are two examples of how it can be viewed but as i stated i do not like to put bounds on what art is.

now we have everyone here reacting to what he said, stating that by his definition this isn't art and that isn't art.

in the end it really does come down to the fact that it's his opinion and just because he's the "hideo kojima" doesn't mean his opinion is absolute law however, being that he placed a limit on what art could be he allows himself to be disproven very easily

but then again he can say whatever the eff he wants cuz he's hideo kojima, you have that same right, you just dont have awesome games to back you up

(having awesome games to back u up really has nothing to do with it, but it gives him clout to the people that care about what he has to say, "he sells lots of games he must be right")
XP

PhilWesson
01-24-2006, 12:37 AM
Ya know, in the end, it all depends on what your personal interpretation of art is.
While I respect mr Kojima, his view is his own, and my view is my own.

Based on what I believe to be art, I would find it hard for some (not all) video games to fall into that category).

And I think that everyone here knows that art doesnt have to mean done with the pencil, pen, brush or canvas.

Phrenzy84
01-24-2006, 12:44 AM
gotta say, i think thats the main reason why alot of people are blowing these statements out of wack. Interpretation of art.....


such a confusing thing :), but its a personal one that i guess no one can tell you what you are meant to feel and what you arent.

EpShot
01-24-2006, 02:26 AM
i thought i settled this alreaady..

look up a dictionary

"Skill that is attained by study, practice, or observation: the art of the baker; the blacksmith's art."

the gamers art.
ask yourself who makes gamese.. artists?


i think what you all mean to ask is..
is it "high art" or maybe. "timeless art"

gabe28
01-24-2006, 04:01 AM
I would say that video games themselves are not art, but that they do USE art to accomplish their function. Like a museum is not art itself but it houses art. Any music, character models, landscapes, etc that help make a game are all works of art. I suppose you could consider the sum total of all the artistic pieces that make up a game one big piece of art... but who cares as long as it's a blast to play.

gunslingerblack
01-24-2006, 04:32 AM
i think the misconception here about games being compared to museums is this

both of them have artistic works in them, however a museum is not composed of works of art, it serves to house those works

a game is composed of works of art, it utilizes those works of art to bring the gamer into the expierience of the game, making the game itself an implementation of art

PhilOsirus
01-24-2006, 04:37 AM
I agree with Kojima, when you make games you make a product that meets specific market-oriented requirements.

What I disagreed with recently was Roger Ebert's comment about games not being art compared to movies, but that IMO was a generalised statement since various movies are made with the sole goal of making money and try to satisfy the same market-oriented requirements games aim to satisfy. Games CAN be art, just like movies CAN be art, but most of the time they are not.

sinnic
01-24-2006, 04:45 AM
The guy makes great games. I don't care what the hell he thinks. He could believe that feces smell better than flowers, and I'd say sniff away! His mentality is working, his games are some of the best, and we all know MGS4 is going to be downright amazing. Art schmart, all I know is I love me some Metal Gear Solid!

Crazzy Legs
01-24-2006, 05:26 AM
This is about the earlier comment about "ideas being peoples opinions".

Somethings are facts or false statements, not opinions. Opinions are personal feelings about something that reflect an individuals taste of something. If someone says the sky is clear in reguards to clouds being between the sun and Earth, when you can clearly see there are a ton of clouds in the sky, thats not an opinion, its a statement of falsehood. Don't try to be nice by just saying "thats your opinion, I think there are a lot of clouds in the sky", let someone know they are wrong, stick up for the truth man.

garycrump
01-24-2006, 05:29 AM
Golf is not a sport and Video Games are not Art. When will people get this through there thick fanboy heads.

gunslingerblack
01-24-2006, 06:37 AM
Golf is not a sport and Video Games are not Art. When will people get this through there thick fanboy heads.

yes because i forgot that your word above all else was the absolute law of the universe.....

you are entitled to your opinion, tho mine i just cant get out of my ...fanboy head....

must stop....being....individual

EpShot
01-24-2006, 07:40 AM
I agree with Kojima, when you make games you make a product that meets specific market-oriented requirements.

What I disagreed with recently was Roger Ebert's comment about games not being art compared to movies, but that IMO was a generalised statement since various movies are made with the sole goal of making money and try to satisfy the same market-oriented requirements games aim to satisfy. Games CAN be art, just like movies CAN be art, but most of the time they are not.

what about commissioned works of arts, or advertising?

many famous old artist were just making a living. of course they had to meet a market and appeal to audiances, just like movies. Who knows, a century from now, "Stealth" might be considered a work of art:D

what about weapons, hold a finely tuned Katana blade and tell me its not a work of art, yet it is merely an instrument tuned for warfare. even the dictionary quotes mentions that blacksmithing can be and artform(and not just in making sculptures, just the practice itself) again, if you go by the strict definition. A game is a work of art.

at this point your jsut arguing on what the definition of "ART" really is. that needs to be settled before you debate wether or not a game can qualify as art.

Terrorismo
01-24-2006, 08:14 AM
Video games are all about design; you know, art meets application, etc, etc. I think that's what Kojima was trying to get at, and I agree.

parallax
01-24-2006, 09:13 AM
VideoGAMES are toys. End of story.

Toys who happened to be made by artists.

Next people are going to claim SuperSoakers are pieces of art.

mv
01-24-2006, 09:27 AM
His only arguments are that games are a product meant to be sold to a massive audience, so it's not art. He's not talking about the video game medium, but rather the commercial system. In this point of view, alternative games with a small target audience would be more likely to be called art than "blockbuster" games.

laureato di arte
01-24-2006, 10:41 AM
Ohhhh man this is confusing. Why? well I dont consider all video games to be art, although they incorporate art. However Hideo Kojima is one of the developers that made me believe that a game can be art. He is able to convey emotion through games that would normally have none, for example a simplistic game like Boktai on the GBA, is a solid family drama, Metal gear solid pushed the boundries of cinematic gaming even though it didnt use any fancy pre-rendered cutscenes. The last battle at the end of MGS3 could only have come from an artistic mind. This man is indeed an artist, he is just unaware of it.....

parallax
01-24-2006, 12:59 PM
So, wich one of these is art:

Is Fifa Soccer 200X art? Videopoker is art?

How about Tetris? Or Daikatana maybe?

JeroenDStout
01-24-2006, 01:18 PM
parallax, that is a silly argument. It's like asking 'is the stone I accidentally dropped yesterday art?' What's your definition of art? Something that is so terribly unlike video games it can't possibly be one?

And the whole notion of video games being musea is in itself ironic, as some more modern musea actually are build to be art by themselves, architectual art. I rarely go to musea, mostly because I don't like watching art without further action, but I went to one a short while ago for a lecture. I had the time to walk around the museum, which had stylish decoration, closely-placed light spots, a big glass 'cylinder' at the center through which light shined reflected by the water in the center. In a way, that museum on itself was art.

Art is not something that's placable, it's a type of thing. There is no medium that is exclusively used to make art and there is no definition of art that's as solid as 'what is a rock'. I think the problem here is that people just have a conservative outlook on art and refuse to see that art is the effect, not the medium.

I'd even go to extends of saying that perhaps making a phenomenal gameplay is a part of art. Why wouldn't it be? If I get a tantilizing rush of excitement at the mere thought of what's going on this game and how fantastic it is in every way it is to be fantastic, why, exactly, is that not art? Comparing it with tetris, some games are a mighty statue, Tetris is just the small cube that some sculptur using his bare hands created.

PhilWesson
01-24-2006, 01:43 PM
Ok, lets look at some hypothetical situations.

Lets say we take the interactive aspect of a game made in the past 5 years out of the game and what do we have?
Scene, characters, animation, maybe dialogue, lighting, sound...

Doesn't that sound a lot like the work that a lot of us aspire to? Short films, maybe?
Is that not art?

How about this:
I decide to make a short film.
Later on, I decide to make it for a profit, and I get a team of people with me working on it.
Afterwards, I decide that it can reach more people if I make it interactive and I sell it
At what point does it stop being art?
Is it because of the profit and because it's reaching millions of people and has not been produced by a single person?

gunslingerblack
01-24-2006, 02:26 PM
VideoGAMES are toys. End of story.

Toys who happened to be made by artists.

Next people are going to claim SuperSoakers are pieces of art.

another person who thinks thier word is the absolute law of the universe....

you and garycrump should have a godlike battle to decide the fate of the human race



ps supersoakers rule

Grim Beefer
01-24-2006, 02:36 PM
As is often useful with any philosophical subject, I think I should start my post by bringing attention to concept of skepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_scepticism). While I cannot refute that art is essentially indefinable; this line of thinking only terminates in questioning the validity of any knowledge. Finding the point to "draw the line" between valid and invalid information has no definitive position and is essentially impossible. I, however, am not a skeptic and refuse to let mere "impossibility" strip me of my ability to contemplate questions of art and value.

There seems to be some crucial differences of "function" when applied to video games. Are they art, products, both or neither?

There once was a husband and wife team named Charles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Eames) and Ray (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Eames) Eames, and they were perhaps the most influential people yet in the field of i (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design)ndustrial design (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_design). Their contributory aesthetics are noteworthy, and are applicable to this modern debate on videogames. They did not relinquish the importance of design in the face of "market constraints" but instead embraced such constraints willingly when it was desired. You will notice the more you study this couple, and fields such as design and architecture, that the question of "artistic merit" is either dispelled or ignored as being irrelevant. The goal of such disciplines is to deliver "function", creatively if necessary. This is echoed in the cathedrals, the towering beauty of a flying buttress or vaulted arch is consequential to the building constraints of the time (the same can be said now of skyscrapers).

But where do such constraints originate (this is the same as asking who or what decides what/why video games are made)? Several theories have been developed throughout time, but many of our modern academic conceptions have derived from Marx (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx) one way or another, so a basic understanding of his concepts is necessary (his philosophy of history not political i.e. socialism). His post Hegelian construct of historical materialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_materialism) creates a cause/effect paradigm, where technological advances will always predate cultural advances. This has plenty of common sense evidence; computers, the internet and the mp3 (infrastructure inventions) have created a video game, online and ipod culture respectively (superstructure advancements). Marx would tell you that your work of art is not an imitation of nature, but instead an ideological outlook determined by your inter-social status/relations. In other words, your possibilities for artistic expression are limited by the technological paradigm that has predated it. This view is extremely deterministic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism), as it is essentially stating that the social and economic makeup of the planet is what was responsible for Rock and Roll, not skill, drive, luck etc. History could be littered with people that were perfectly capable of such intensity, singing style, etc., but the setting (radio, phonograph, excess capital, moral laxness, etc.) had to be perfectly cooked just right to allow an "Elvis" to materialize. Similarly, "graffiti art" as a cultural phenomenon would be impossible without dense urban landscapes coupled with the technological innovation of the aerosol can, even if symbolic vandalism is as old as history. This argument does not invalidate genius, it just claims that there are countless geniuses waiting to fill hypothetical voids and gain notoriety, and very rarely does any one person dramatically change the course of history independently of their constraints and influences. The computer software world springs to mind here, as Marx would tell you that some loose form of "Windows" would exist right now, had Bill Gates decided to be a dentist instead. This seems to teleologicallly "place" art movements in the right time, and explains why Futurists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurists) or environmentalists never took hold in the Renaissance. It also does a great job of explaining propaganda, such as the suppression of Soviet Constructivism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constructivism_%28art%29) in favor of the state sponsored socialist realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_realism). Here the mode of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production) adapted to the methods of production, tragically eliminating a wonderfully creative art movement. A similar case today would be intellectual property schemes and anti-piracy laws (laws being a change to the mode of production) being enacted with the effect of possibly destroying a culture based upon easy reproduction of media and free software (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software) (method of production).

Some video games would seemingly defy such Marxist conventions, mainly because modern theorists have claimed that such a conception of cultural advancement did not anticipate the rising “middle class” and subsequent middle class consumption. Whereas Marxism polarized consumption into the “necessities barely possible” consumption/production of the proletariat and the “luxuries abound” of the bourgeoisie, it can not explain the mixed results that drive the middle class to achieve convenience above all else. Marxism offers little to explain why a person would prefer a “convenient” virtual pet to a real one, given that both are readily available for consumption, for example. The answer lies in "consumerism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumerism)", the new primary religion for most advanced nations. Consumerism has transformed into the social glue that we once had communities for - shopping malls have replaced town squares. Imagine a metaphor given by Jorge Luis Borges (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borges), concerning a map of incredible detail. Eventually we could add so much artificial detail to a map that it replaces the need we created the map for, despite the fact that the map is essentially made entirely of symbols. Using this metaphor we explain how television, which started as an idealized simulation of real life, has in turn superceded “the real world” as our touchstone of reality. This perception of reality relies heavily on semiotics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics), or the way that we as human interpret signs. When signs that are not weighed down to a stable reality (such as a police badge) outnumber those that are (such as a tree) reality has essentially been usurped. We find ourselves as humans concerned entirely with symbolic problems; essentially we become “virtual humans” where a McDonald’s replaces a garden and a trip to Wal-Mart (or browsing online) replaces territorial exploration. Furthermore, exchange has transmogrified into dealing only with symbols. So whereas the acquisition of nutrition may have once involved the exchange of stock for stock/symbol (currency), it now involves symbol (currency) for symbol through forced exposure (fast food brand, grocery store brand, etc.) Such replacements are well known and understood, which is why advertising and branding are so pervasive. But it works both ways, and anytime you purchase a video game you are simultaneously investing in advertisements for a particular brand and lifestyle, and you in turn use products to “sell” your own personality to others (children are hit by this the hardest, got to catch em all!). Or take sports video games, which are themselves “The simulation of something which never really existed” (Jean Baudrillard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Baudrillard)).This creates such paradoxes as the “conformist rebellion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformist_Rebellion)” a glaring example of hyperreality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperreality), or a feedback loop. How much of a stretch is it to apply this same mentality to Metal Gear Solid, a game simulating/advertising an idealized simulation/advertisement of a simulated/advertised mode of mechanized conflict….these trails will go pretty deep.

All of this talk of historical materialism and hyperreality has been an attempt to introduce what is really meant by “market forces”. It would seem then, that video games involve the simulation of symbolic meanings that are themselves mandated by the previously mentioned feedback loop of media/consumer (market forces). But could a video game ever escape such a feedback loop to transcend the status of a mere simulated product to that of an entity’s principled desire for expression, i.e. art? This is where the Eames’ come in. In this (http://eamesoffice.org/pages/design.php) article Phillip and Phylis Morrison are interviewed concerning their close relationship with Eames’ during their fertile work career. The question is raised as to how the Eames’ were “able to produce the singularly consistent and personal vision that is the work of the Eames Office”, mirroring the exact critique Ebert made of video games to disqualify them as art. Their response are a call to autonomy (get rid of the suits), an intimate love of all operations involved in the process of production, and a zealous enthusiasm for a guiding principle of design. I see no reason why video game productions cannot establish ateliers of such standards, even if this has yet to happen. Perhaps the dangling carrot offered by ever evolving computer technology will never allow video game designs to escape the treadmill of “shock and awe” that they seem so fixated upon. We must have artists willing to do more than entertain or fill a demand, but to expose their innermost cores for criticism. If Baudrillard is right, we are at the end of history as we know it, as symbolic exchange’s utter meaninglessness leaves us with no unique core to express anymore (everything is identical and for sale, we are all “computer generated”). This makes grim sense when you consider that such “back to nature” activities, such as camping, have been completely commercialized of course. But I think that video games are our only real artistic frontier, the only thing that our postmodern culture has going for it. We just have to wrestle it from the hands of mediocre simulation, sexist cliches, and status as mere entertainment.

gunslingerblack
01-24-2006, 02:47 PM
damn not to get off topic but i watch a show called eureka seven,

two of the characters in that show are a husband and wife team named charles and ray beams.....

i guess whoever wrote the show/manga likes architectural design.

laureato di arte
01-24-2006, 02:53 PM
So, wich one of these is art:

Is Fifa Soccer 200X art? Videopoker is art?

How about Tetris? Or Daikatana maybe?

Funny enuff i dont consider fifa to be art, or video poker, I heard something very interesting about tetris once, looking at a screen of tetris , is similar to loking at your past mistakes and trying to rectify them, hence some people are un able to stop playing tetris. thats deep man.


In all honesty, if people taking photos of blood and doo doo and mutilated sheep can call there work art, then video games can be called art. If looking at a single blue dot on a white paper is art, then yes video games can be described as art.

PhilWesson
01-24-2006, 02:59 PM
my head hurts now :sad:

laureato di arte
01-24-2006, 03:15 PM
http://img.gamespot.com/gamespot/images/screenshots/e3_2001/vg/ico/ico_screen001.jpg

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1590000/images/_1593524_sheep_300.jpg
art????

IMHO art is something that promotes emotion once viewed, not only do some (not all ) games promote emotion on viewing, but they use sound and interaction, which other artforms are not capable of doing.

PhilWesson
01-24-2006, 03:37 PM
Re: laureato di arte (member.php?u=179466)

Boo-Yah


(Read: I agree)

Teyon
01-24-2006, 04:01 PM
The impression I got from reading the magazine was that he felt games were more like an experience than an artistic statement. Primarily because the people behind the games are not (usually) trying to make a statment and sometimes aren't even trying to incite emotion. There are often no real thought provoking messages in a GTA. Pac-Man (possibly one of the most successfull games ever), won't make you cry...or laugh...or even get angry (frustration and anger aren't the same thing). Shakespeare can't be found in Madden '06. I don't think he felt that there wasn't art in games but that perhaps the game itself, as a whole, shouldn't be viewed as art but instead as an experience.

On some levels I do agree. On others I don't.

I think, as with most mediums where art assets are the crux, that it's an issue of opinion. One person's art is another person's trash in my opinion. However, as this has always been annoying to me, most of the public believes that until society as a whole has accepted a particular genre as an "art", it's not. I mean, I wouldn't be caught dead in half the fashions we see in fashion shows but fashion is an art. For every 3 movies I see, there's one that actually makes me feel something or walk away deep in thought, yet cinema is believed to be art. The same goes for books I read. Why is it that these mediums of expression (and is a video game a medium of expression?) are considered art when a video game isn't? Simple...it's not generally accepted by the public as art. Pure and simple. Regarldess of what my opinion or yours is, the fact of the matter is that until more non-industry people and govt types accept Videogames as art, it won't be.

Walk up to anyone on the street and ask their opinion (I mean anyone not in the games or 3D industry) and I'm sure you're going to get more than your share of instant no's...without even the need to think on it (which are the worst kinds of no).

parallax
01-24-2006, 05:18 PM
parallax, that is a silly argument. It's like asking 'is the stone I accidentally dropped yesterday art?' What's your definition of art? Something that is so terribly unlike video games it can't possibly be one?

And the whole notion of video games being musea is in itself ironic, as some more modern musea actually are build to be art by themselves, architectual art. I rarely go to musea, mostly because I don't like watching art without further action, but I went to one a short while ago for a lecture. I had the time to walk around the museum, which had stylish decoration, closely-placed light spots, a big glass 'cylinder' at the center through which light shined reflected by the water in the center. In a way, that museum on itself was art.

Art is not something that's placable, it's a type of thing. There is no medium that is exclusively used to make art and there is no definition of art that's as solid as 'what is a rock'. I think the problem here is that people just have a conservative outlook on art and refuse to see that art is the effect, not the medium.

I'd even go to extends of saying that perhaps making a phenomenal gameplay is a part of art. Why wouldn't it be? If I get a tantilizing rush of excitement at the mere thought of what's going on this game and how fantastic it is in every way it is to be fantastic, why, exactly, is that not art? Comparing it with tetris, some games are a mighty statue, Tetris is just the small cube that some sculptur using his bare hands created.


and @ gunslingerblack

No, it's not a silly argument. It is the most relevant argument you can make, because i wasn't defining art itself, but the arbitrary nature of the word art.
laureato di arte suggested that videogames being art might depend on the content and technique involved. This begs the question what the defining nature of that content and technique is, and what the fine line between art and consumer product actually is, as they are wildly varied across the board.
My example of Fifa Soccer part XYZ and Tetris, show that different games have different needs on both accounts. The art direction and design of these games are specified with a goal in mind namely, to enhance the real-life similarities of the game with it's source of inspiration. In the case of Fifa Soccer being ie. realistic movement, and a photographic likeness of each given player with it's real-life counterpart.
Tetris on the other hand can make due with a simple interface and design, because the main goal of the game is arranging a given number of geometric shapes in a spatially efficient and timely fashion.
As Teyon before me also stated, videogames are an experience, and the sole purpose of games is to entertain or even educate. Videogames are a consumer product wich has to be sold as many times as is possible and economically viable, and turn in a handsome profit. The fact that it happens to be made by people that might or might not be artists, is besides the point. Or in fact, IS the point.
Almost all products are made by people that could be considered artists, from iPod to a Porsche, and Philip Starck furniture to Jeans.
All this is commonly acknowledged as not being art. Where do we draw the line? Does a 4 unit Tetris block really have the same expression as a stroke on a Kandinsky? Is an Art Director on Fifa Soccer really that different from one leading Final Fantasy? They both went to the same school, and share the same skillset (for argument's sake)

You can not arbitrarily draw a line, and state game X is art, and game y isn't. I can agree on varying degrees of artistic expression in a number of games, but the purpose of each commercially available videogame is the same: selling entertainment.
This exact discussion can be had on a Industrial Design board, with exactly the same parameters. The iPod would probably be considered an amazing piece of art, skillfully crafted to perfection. A piece of art that was sold 100 million times. I buy these products in a shop, and consider them a product of technology and design, by a skilled designer.

100% different from a piece of art, that was made for art's sake.(or human expression if youwill)

Randomly exclaiming videogames are art and other products made by artists aren't, is an insult to every designer outside the game industry.

lovisx
01-24-2006, 05:36 PM
board games are an art. Alot of really good art has been done for patrons and industry. Individuals can create art and groups of people who don't necesarily share the same vision can make art. Art doesn't have to make a statement, though many times even if not intended, a statement is being made.

PhilWesson
01-24-2006, 05:54 PM
One question then,
does producing a large number of something and selling it make it not art?

is "art" not for entertainment in one way or another?
If I get a feeling from a game, and a feeling from a painting, is one 'more art' than the other?

My opinion is that anything (but not everything) can be art if it has brings forth an emotion, be that music, film, stills, paints, sculptures, compositions, or whathaveyou.

Just because its mass produced doesnt take that away.

OR, if you want to go the daring way, consider this:
What if something that was not created with the intent of being art still fits the description of art?
Is it not art because the creator didn't plan it that way?

CGmonkey
01-24-2006, 06:25 PM
and @ gunslingerblack

No, it's not a silly argument. It is the most relevant argument you can make, because i wasn't defining art itself, but the arbitrary nature of the word art.
laureato di arte suggested that videogames being art might depend on the content and technique involved. This begs the question what the defining nature of that content and technique is, and what the fine line between art and consumer product actually is, as they are wildly varied across the board.
My example of Fifa Soccer part XYZ and Tetris, show that different games have different needs on both accounts. The art direction and design of these games are specified with a goal in mind namely, to enhance the real-life similarities of the game with it's source of inspiration. In the case of Fifa Soccer being ie. realistic movement, and a photographic likeness of each given player with it's real-life counterpart.
Tetris on the other hand can make due with a simple interface and design, because the main goal of the game is arranging a given number of geometric shapes in a spatially efficient and timely fashion.
As Teyon before me also stated, videogames are an experience, and the sole purpose of games is to entertain or even educate. Videogames are a consumer product wich has to be sold as many times as is possible and economically viable, and turn in a handsome profit. The fact that it happens to be made by people that might or might not be artists, is besides the point. Or in fact, IS the point.
Almost all products are made by people that could be considered artists, from iPod to a Porsche, and Philip Starck furniture to Jeans.
All this is commonly acknowledged as not being art. Where do we draw the line? Does a 4 unit Tetris block really have the same expression as a stroke on a Kandinsky? Is an Art Director on Fifa Soccer really that different from one leading Final Fantasy? They both went to the same school, and share the same skillset (for argument's sake)

You can not arbitrarily draw a line, and state game X is art, and game y isn't. I can agree on varying degrees of artistic expression in a number of games, but the purpose of each commercially available videogame is the same: selling entertainment.
This exact discussion can be had on a Industrial Design board, with exactly the same parameters. The iPod would probably be considered an amazing piece of art, skillfully crafted to perfection. A piece of art that was sold 100 million times. I buy these products in a shop, and consider them a product of technology and design, by a skilled designer.

100% different from a piece of art, that was made for art's sake.(or human expression if youwill)

Randomly exclaiming videogames are art and other products made by artists aren't, is an insult to every designer outside the game industry.

If I paint a painting, print it up and then sell 10 million copies to Wallmart, then my painting wouldn't be art? Well you can't say "painting x" isn't art and "painting y" is.

Which leads me to say that you're so off the mark that you're not even seeing the target.

Game development is an artform.

JeroenDStout
01-24-2006, 06:59 PM
CgMonkey just said it :)

On a sidenote, I made a game (about a year ago) and I pretty much did that 'for art's sake' (even though I dislike calling my own work art).

And no, not every game is art. And not every sketch is art. And not every piece of carved stone is art. And not every glass-in-lead is art. That's the whole point of art, nothing is art and everything is art, it all depends on the way you look.
The issue here is that someone said that games are not art, and that's just silly. Games are a medium that can be used for art, as much as any other - and quite probably a lot more at that. "A Game" can be said is art or not and that's an opinion - if I were to disagree with someone on whether "A Game" is art or not, we can talk a little about it and that's all fun and games.
But in the end, "Games are not art" is a silly thing to say as you're saying that games actually cannot be art, ever. And of course, that is personal as well. Still, I have respect for the opinion that says "Beyond Good & Evil was not art". And then, I just find the opinion that states "Games as a whole are not art" silly.

Joblh
01-24-2006, 07:30 PM
yea right... 'too many people like your painting, it's not art!' :rolleyes:

parallax
01-24-2006, 07:33 PM
If I paint a painting, print it up and then sell 10 million copies to Wallmart, then my painting wouldn't be art? Well you can't say "painting x" isn't art and "painting y" is.

Which leads me to say that you're so off the mark that you're not even seeing the target.

Game development is an artform.

So bricks are also art. And jewel cases are art.

You obviously didn't get my point, or read my post properly, and your analogy is bad.
The walmart copies are reproductions, or do they sell them 500K a piece?

I'm not off, i hit the bullseye. Ask a random consumer if a videogame is art.


God, what a pretensious load of crap.

parallax
01-24-2006, 07:39 PM
CgMonkey just said it :)

And no, not every game is art. And not every sketch is art. And not every piece of carved stone is art. And not every glass-in-lead is art. That's the whole point of art, nothing is art and everything is art, it all depends on the way you look.

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.

Did you even read it before you posted it?

- And no, not every game is art.

- That's the whole point of art, nothing is art and everything is art, it all depends on the way you look.


Either every game is art, or no game is art. There is no middle ground, except for the assets maybe. And i don't consider reproductions art.
Ne c'est pas une pipe.


I ask you this simple question: are screws art? Is a car art? is a LCD screen art? You can't possibly be serious and tell me those things are art. Hence, there is definitely a property that defines if something is art or not.

tozz
01-24-2006, 08:13 PM
If I paint a painting, print it up and then sell 10 million copies to Wallmart, then my painting wouldn't be art? Well you can't say "painting x" isn't art and "painting y" is.

Which leads me to say that you're so off the mark that you're not even seeing the target.

Game development is an artform.
How can you even compare a original to a reprodction, do you seriously think they have the same value? (emotional, economical, etc)

The original Mona Lisa, art for some. A poster with Mona Lisa is a reproduction showing that art, not art in itself.
If I take a photo of something I consider art, it doesn't make that photograph art, it's just a image of it.

DiMENSiON
01-24-2006, 08:18 PM
Something that should be considered is the intent of a video game.

1. They're intent is to make money, just like a barbie doll.
2. They're intended to be fun, just like a barbie doll.
3. They're intent in most cases is to simulate, or to immitate, just like a barbie doll.

Video Games IMO (I better put that in this thread) Are toys. Why do I play Half-Life 2? Because it's fun. I do not begin to question things because of it, I am not touched by it, but it is pretty. But then again, so is a Barbie Doll.

JeroenDStout
01-24-2006, 08:18 PM
Either every game is art, or no game is art.
If you take that stance, good sir, then I'm going to have to ask you to step outside!

"Either every painting is art, or no painting is art."

Seriously!

parallax
01-24-2006, 08:32 PM
If you take that stance, good sir, then I'm going to have to ask you to step outside!

"Either every painting is art, or no painting is art."

Seriously!

I rest my case.

laureato di arte
01-24-2006, 08:37 PM
Either every game is art, or no game is art. There is no middle ground, except for the assets maybe. And i don't consider reproductions art.
Ne c'est pas une pipe.



Whilst i understand were you are coming from Paralax, I beg to differ on that point that there is no middle ground.

Below are two photographs, one is artistic, and the other one isnt... Does this mean because one of them isnt art, that all photograps aint art? Or because the other photograph is art that all photos, including pictures of mutilated humans, and dogs having intercourse, and dwarf pornography is art? The content doesnt always define the medium...



http://www.skobba.com/var/plain/storage/images/pictures/man_made/misc/toilet/548-1-eng-GB/toilet_xlarge.jpg

http://www.math.ualberta.ca/%7Ervmoody/rvmphoto/p21.jpg

Kai01W
01-24-2006, 08:40 PM
I'd say its easier to just skip the yes/no debate and ask the more important question (as applies for movies), considering games are art, is it good or bad art? And honestly, in 99.9999 percent I'd say its bad art... I recently read an interview with filmmaker Michael Haneke .He pointed out that the english language does not really have an equivalent to german "Zerstreuung" in the context of entertainment. The easy translation is "distraction". Fits for games I'd say. Thats what seperates it from (good) art.
I do enjoy games a lot. And I say it has potential and could develop into the most interesting artform of the century. However we are still very very far away, that is, if we reach the goal at all cause maybe the most fundamental problem of Artistic Vision vs. Interactivity will never be solved...

-k

Grim Beefer
01-24-2006, 08:41 PM
Marcel Duchamp's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duchamp) "fountain" was attacked by a man with a hammer very recently (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060106/lf_afp/afplifestylefranceart_060106144405), for the second time apparently, but why? Maybe the 77 year old man was angry that a simple urinal signed "R.Mutt" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29) was judged the single most important piece of artwork of the 20th century by the British art elite in 2004 (sorry Thomas Kinkade). Think about that for a second and you'll realize Duchamp had some pretty stiff competition (Picasso?). It is important that you understand that there was absolutely nothing noteworthy about this urinal outside of it's context; I mean it's supposedly not something you would really think about if seen on the side of the street or in a restroom. Still the "fountain" is worth an estimated U.S. $3.5 million (the signature is believed to be a German play on words for "poverty").

Once you learn a little about Duchamp, and then Dada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dada), you'll understand a lot more about our current foundations in art, and why you have sheep in glass cases. Duchamp was arguably the most influential artist of the 20th century, despite his rather anemic output "product" wise. You see, some artists were highly offended by the entire process of art, which at the time wasn't as readibly consumable as it is now. They saw art as doing more bad than good psychologically, with the huge propaganda movement necessary to promote WWI as their primary source of evidence. But it didn't just stop there, they were also tired of the restrictive process of "legitimization" necessary to be "recognized" as artists; a loathsome tribulation that required a silver tounge and high degrees of "buisness savvy". Art was considered a collectible status symbol, and the process of seperating art products from normal objects was left up to critics, art collectors, patrons, and museums. Dada sought to ecscape these canonical restrictions by becoming the dialectical opposite to everything that "art" then stood for (counter-culture gets it's modern start right here). So where "art" was all urbane and aesthetical mantle pieces, Dada was crude and bumptious and abouve all "self conscious".

It is in this vein that Duchamp created his "fountain", it is a brilliant Dada mockery of the art world, and thus his world. The Venus of Willendorf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_of_Willendorf), an ancient statue found in Austria around Duchamp's time, was being displayed as "culturally significant" despite the fact that no one knew exactly what it's significance was (past or present). This is similar to someone's proposed question regarding the importance of an attributable author to a potential artwork. The "fountain" is a scathing attack on such open ended reverence, by claiming that exactly what "object" is being displayed is technically irrelevant. In this way Duchamp predicted such odd cultural phenomena such as "antiques" - the reverence of objects simply for being old (or looking it), and mass media (your game CD can easily be swapped for another, or thanks to Steam eliminated entirely). Duchamp helped to underscore many of our "significant" interchangables, such as Christmas trees, flags, jewerly, etc. It is concievable that any of these objects could have been drastically different in original design physically, but with no difference in succeding reverence. The end result of the "fountain" and the rest of the readymades is to prove that whatever art is, it can not be proven to physically exist within any object, even if an object is necessary for it's existance.

Duchamp's project is essentially an experimental proof, much like Godel's theorem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_incompleteness_theorem). It proves that art is unprovable, thus forever invalidating art from the realm of the empirical. This is significant because it rescues art from the confines of a particualar group's agenda, and instead creates a mercurial entity that changes with the zeitgeist. Similarly art is rescued from the agnostics, because you can't condemn it's lack of certitude without sinking the rest of human knowledge with it (as Bertrand Russell tried to do unsuccessfully with the philosophy of history). Duchamp had created a monster, however, and the "art community" (much like today's corporate vampires of culture) were quick to embrace "anti-art" as just another spoke in the wheel, thus legitimizing that which refused to be legitimized. It is in protest of this irony that Duchamp convinced Dali to can and sell his own feces, a hollow reminder of "light without effulgence". This cat and mouse continues to this day, with more and more elaborate conventions trying to "break through" the "art system" (this has been a very loose summary mind you). These have included conceptual art, minimalism, even "punk rock", but time and time again the art community finds a way to assimilate it's pioneers and produce inferior clones (ever hear of the "Blue Man Group", check out pioneers Gilbert and George (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_%26_George) instead).

Using this pattern of history, the radical outsider will eventually be the stale textbook stub, having their power as "rebels" transmuted to their inevitable successors. It is a strange tautology, because the entire struggle is that for freedom of personal expression, but the struggle itself ensures that you will get entangled in the mess of celebrity and aura (until the cannibals turn on you and you are inevitably cliche). This is loop that has been in repeat ever since Duchamp, and with no logical way to go forward, artists have instead gone backwards, incorporating elements from all periods of art. It is this process of constant transferral of power laterally but not forwardly that is loosely reffered to as "postmodern (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodern_art)", a complementary example of Baudrillard's expressed "end of history" (everything's been done already). Duchamp forsaw this dilemma, and decided to quit art entirely and spend the rest of his life playing chess, which he did. But I would claim that it was a weak way out, the artistic equivalent of the existentalist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism) justification for "logical suicide" as proposed by the engineer Karilov in the Dostoyevsky's The Possessed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Possessed). The mere fact that life is absurd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absurdism) does not mean that you should give up.

Video games are stuck in this postmodern tarpit - the fact that they are not destroying canonical beliefs, but actually reinforcing them, being their primary criticism. They can barely be described without some reference to art that has already existed, such as film noir, surrealism, the epic, abstract expressionism, etc. I think it is in this way that video games are written off as being essentially "derivative" and inferior, again echoes of Ebert's criticism. This isn't inherent to the medium, however. Video games could be made on par with any medium that currently exists given enough autonomy and creative impetus, but the more you look at it this way the more it misses the point. Video games are currently not "radically different", but instead amalgamations of other forms of entertainment convienently packaged together. This would explain the appeal of the virtual pets and sports simulators better than anything. In order for video games to truly shake things up, they need to mature beyond derivation.

JA-forreal
01-24-2006, 08:41 PM
Computer Games are the kind of “art” that the masses are more inclined to care about. Computer games are a form of commercial art. They are marketed to us on TV, in the stores and on billboards.

Years ago PC computer games were more of an underground thing. Unlike your console and arcade games, the word of mouth method was used to spread this art form. Some the early PC computer games kinda reminds of the early days of Rap out in the wescost US. You only heard of certain now well know artist like Ice Cube, ect. from a shared cassette tape. Maybe someone will rebirth computer gaming like this later on down the line.

Hideo Kojima is right from the standpoint of computer game development. If you develop a game as a corporation you only think of it as a product. Your enduser considers it art because it was “designed” to have that kind of appeal. But in the end the games just another product on the shelve in a computer or toy store.

That's the goal of product design to make the consumer see past the products real basic intention and see only the marketed appeal.

Just a product-

the product appeal- “ “Organic” Moonbeam Orange Tea lifts you up beyond your daily troubles. It takes you off on a blissful journey of tropical fruit flavors and ancient “oriental” spices. And it has has “0” carbs.”

product reality -moonbeam orange tea ( black tea leave parts, dehydrated orange parts, and spices)


“Now where are my “hand sculpted” action figures?

JA-forreal
01-24-2006, 08:45 PM
Something that should be considered is the intent of a video game.

...............

Ahhh, the intent...............

parallax
01-24-2006, 08:55 PM
Whilst i understand were you are coming from Paralax, I beg to differ on that point that there is no middle ground.

Below are two photographs, one is artistic, and the other one isnt... Does this mean because one of them isnt art, that all photograps aint art? Or because the other photograph is art that all photos, including pictures of mutilated humans, and dogs having intercourse, and dwarf pornography is art? The content doesnt always define the medium...



I see your point.
I think it all boils down to intent, as stated before by Dimension. While in your example photography is the medium, the intent is different. In the painting analogy, the painting itself is both medium and intent. For example early work by Mondriaan could be regarded as a technical excercise, but the intent to make a individual piece is there. A study to reach new forms if you will, with no other goal then trying to expand and/or explore the abstraction/deconstruction of a tree in shape and color. Work by Monet has a totally different intent, but the work is a seperate entity existing solely because of the artist's expression/feelings/study/statement.

btw, both photo's you posted could be art as far as i'm concerned. I don't know anything about it's intent and source. On the other hand, you could put a toilet upside down and call it art (ready-mades) that also is art, but i can agree that it is of totally different scope.

EvilGnome
01-24-2006, 08:59 PM
I'm amazed this discussion takes place so often here.

Art makes a deliberate statement about us.

Craftsmanship is a work of skill and technique.

People seem to confuse craftsmanship with art and get insulted when someone says a work of high craftsmanship isn't art.

Any of the media we use can be either or both, or only one.(I've seen plenty of works of art which demonstrate a complete lack of craftsmanship)

Most games made for entertainment are works of fantastic and often inspired craftsmanship, not art.

People who work on these games shouldn't be insulted that they're not art, far from it. Craftsmanship and skill demand as much respect, and often require much more effort, than art.

parallax
01-24-2006, 09:01 PM
@ Grim Beefer

A very insightfull and stimulating post. I agree, and i do think games could be 'more art' if they would break free from it's bounderies, and look for new directions more.

CGmonkey
01-24-2006, 09:11 PM
okey parallax... let see if you can argue your way out of this: "is film art?"

Trenox
01-24-2006, 09:29 PM
Oh boy this is a tough discussion to get involved in.

Personally i have a very troublesome relationship with the word "art" itself, simply because it is so difficult to define. It seems that the "postmodern" approach offers a very wide definition, which i see as a huge problem. If the word is used too widespread it looses its meaning and value. The trend seems to be to try and stretch the term itself and provoke people with what is art and what isnt, instead of actually creating something worthwhile.
The word is often being used to add value where there is none.
If everything potentially can be art in the eye of the beholder, then the word has no meaning to me (how could it?). It would be redundant to refer to something as 'art'.
So where do we draw the line?

When it comes to computer games it becomes even more complicated: It seems to me that computer games can consist of traditional 'art': pictures, movie, narrative, music. Combine these things with "gamemechanics" and you have yourself a game! Its those "gamemechanics" that differentiates the game from other medias. And can that be art ? (if striped off the traditional elements). To me that is the essense in this discussion, and not so much the whole game itself.

But maybe we shouldnt discuss if the game itself can be art or not, but instead if the experience, enjoyed by the player, can be art ? Since games are interactive, no two playing sessions are identical, so if the player makes crappy choices then its maybe less art then if played by another player who makes excelent/'deep' choices ?

But when we have no fixed definition for "art" the whole discussion seems like getting nowhere..

parallax
01-24-2006, 09:33 PM
Film can be treated the same as photography in this case, i think it depends on intent.
It is a very difficult question, i'll give you that.
Film is considered art in general, but you would be suprised to hear that i don't consider 99.9% to be art. As far as i'm concerned, Triple X part 2, or Too fast Too Furious is not art, as the intent is to make money and entertain.
I mean, what kind of film do you mean? Avantgarde film? I absolutely despise that, but most scholars would say it's art. Then again, i wouldn't consider any of my all time favourite movies to be art.

laureato di arte
01-24-2006, 09:33 PM
@ Grim Beefer

A very insightfull and stimulating post. I agree, and i do think games could be 'more art' if they would break free from it's bounderies, and look for new directions more.

yes that is true also, more games would be artistic if the broke the mold a bit more, i think htis is the direction many have been trying to take the industry, For example, nintendo with Electroplankton, zelda, Mario paint, Sony with ICO, and, funny enuff the man himself Hideo Kojima, with mgs, and boktai.

EvilGnome
01-24-2006, 10:27 PM
okey parallax... let see if you can argue your way out of this: "is film art?"

People seem to be confusing the medium(painting/sculpture/film/media) with art.

Film *can* be art, as can games. It comes down to the intent of the maker and the "text" of the piece.(what does it say about us?)

Grim Beefer
01-24-2006, 10:31 PM
It seems that the "postmodern" approach offers a very wide definition, which i see as a huge problem. If the word is used too widespread it looses its meaning and value. The trend seems to be to try and stretch the term itself and provoke people with what is art and what isnt, instead of actually creating something worthwhile.
If everything potentially can be art in the eye of the beholder, then the word has no meaning to me (how could it?). It would be redundant to refer to something as 'art'.
So where do we draw the line?


While I find your post thought provoking, I think there are alternatives to a concrete definition. I don't personally find it the case that "everything can be art", because I don't think art resides inside an object. It's a similar concept to isolating a word's meaning in sound vibrations, or the pigment patterns on the paper it's printed on. Going up a metaphysical level, we also can't attribute the meaning of the word unto a phenomical "conception" of the word itself, because otherwise I could invent words all day long that you would immediately understand, just like a Babel Fish. Kant theorized the existence of the modern a priori (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_priori), or the mental "construction" that you associate with it's symbol (words in this case). He used a horse as his example, and stated that your internal "a priori image" of a horse is why you recognize equines no matter what angle you view them from, and even in abstract representations of their form (which is a tricky part of logic when you think about it). Thus, you have a concept of "horseness" that transends any dictionary definition of "horse" or even physical manisfestation (unicorns or dragons really bolster this argument). Art is no different, and defining your "a priori" definition of art would be about as difficult as defining your "a priori" definition of horse (or anything else) because these are structures that supercede launguage. This was later formulated into "structuralism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism)", and it's history is discernable from research if you're interested. Saying that language, or an art object is a "vehicle" is a dangerously misleading metaphor, and I'll tell you why. It's not exactly as though our launguage or art objects "carries" their meaning to another person. A better metaphor is constantly sending each other maps with driving directions, as the concept must be embedded in your own mind already to understand a symbol's directions. Learning a foreign launguage is equivalent to learning a new set of map legends, but the core "a priori" concepts remain immutable once solidified (according to structralism). Some art gets power from the fact that it can transcend launguage barriers, and for a long time this is why "music" and not "poetry" was held as the underappreciated supreme form of art. "Post-structuralists" reject this stable "a priori" core, but accept semiotics (sign exchange) as the basis for understanding. "Generative grammer" takes the idea one step further by saying that we have pre-made launguage organs in our brains to aid in the decyphering of symbol directions, and that such a process of decryption in not learned through our enviroment as previously accepted. All of this points to a case where art can be left perfectly "undefined" but felt though sign exchange, because it's not as though any really good definition would help you "percieve" art in any enhanced way. Some people may be better at the skill of drawing maps and directions than others, and these are the people we call great thinkers or artists. These people may enter into grand exchanges and feedback loops of signs, even with themselves though the objectification of one's own image (this is where meditation starts playing a big role). Another pitfall to avoid, though, is the case that all artistic experience is necessarily characterized as good/bad/boring; but instead to seek out that which is sublime, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublime_%28philosophy%29) to get that most exhilirating and irreplacable of experience that only great art can give us (the seeming rut that we are stuck in with postmodernism, which produces a lot of "great art" as a novelty, but no truly sublime work that is "not consumable", "updatable", or "derivative").

JeroenDStout
01-24-2006, 10:48 PM
People seem to be confusing the medium(painting/sculpture/film/media) with art.

Film *can* be art, as can games. It comes down to the intent of the maker and the "text" of the piece.(what does it say about us?)
This is what I've been trying to say :)

JA-forreal
01-25-2006, 04:33 AM
To me films and computer games that are more artistic portray the “original” ideas of the creator of the game. A film or game can be a proponent of the same basic concepts of another similar medium. As a media developer you can copy the success of another film or game concept due to the financial gains of that concept. You can use whatever ideas are in fashion for the time period. Or you be creative and artistic and think outside of the mainstream box and come up with your own ideas. The latter mentioned is normally called pure art the former is commercial art.

We saw this with films like the Matrix series. The first Matrix movie was purely artistic. The next two were merely artistic media products. I don't think that there is anything wrong with this pattern of film development. When a creator is more subtle at using this pattern of creation they can give us a very entertaining media product. I think that film and game developers in the past did this most of the time. But you have to do it with a fair amount of finesse. If you blatantly drop your film or game as a propaganda piece or a trendy media money model you lose much of the "real" art factor.

Movies like James Bond have always been subtle forms propaganda art media. There are games that have done this and it can work sometimes..........

As cg folks and fans I really doubt most of us would really care about the goals or intentions of cg based art. As long as it looks good, it's fun and is not too boring it works for us. I think that media developers know this about us.

CGTalk Moderation
01-25-2006, 04:33 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.