Video games can never be art.

edit: ^lump Well said, I pretty much agree with you on this topic

i totally disagree with Ebert, but i will say that voice acting and the cinematic movements of characters in most videogames is very hard to take seriously. I find just actually playing the game and being immersed in the atmosphere extremely pleasurable, but as soon as i hear cheesy voice acting it's like a jarring experience that kind of pulls me out of everything. Writing and acting as good as we see in Kubrick movies to be in videogames? i haven't seen it yet personally.

If we're speaking purely atmosphere i think videogames are in a lot of ways more effective than movies.

edit: i haven't played system shock 2 but i think for me personally i would enjoy new FPS next gen graphic games if there was just no talking. Voice acting in modern videogames is very hit or miss, and for me it's mostly miss.

edit2: i know they hire relatively big actors now to do voice acting, but i guess coming from a sound engineer background there is rarely care taken by the person implementing these sounds into the game to make them sound realistically placed in the environment. Most times a character talks in a game it sounds acoustically unaffected as if the person is omnipotent and talking like a narrator, i honestly cannot handle that.

  On 4/20/2010 at 12:59 PM, lumpenprol said:

first you should know I think Guernica is a bit overrated, I've seen it in person and was moved but...also you didn't specify which Kubrick film ;-) 2001 is difficult to beat. That said...

 

I found System Shock 2 to be as engaging and frightening as the Shining. I found Deus Ex, Thief, Ico, Shadow of the Colosssus and a handful of other games had moments as powerful as the better moments in a Kubrick film. There are several moments in Deus Ex that I'd argue match the philosphical issues raised in 2001. Guernica is a bit of a tough one as most of its power comes from knowing about the real events that inspired it. It's like saying "what games is as artistically powerful as the Holocaust?" Well, really there isn't one, and nor is there a movie or painting that can compare to the real event, either. You could make a game that took place in a concentration camp, or involved being a mother digging your dead child from the rubble of a bombed out building, but I'm glad they haven't tried...In any case, if you pretend you don't know anything about the Spanish Civil War, I think you could make a comparison between Guernica and the nightmare sequences in the first Max Payne, for example, in terms of how disturbing they are. I actually don't find this a laughable comparison.

 

I think most people just have trouble seeing past the limitations of polygons. Somehow seeing Jack Nicholson emote in the flesh is more convincing and therefore more artistically viable than the confrontation with Shodan in System Shock 2, yet there's no reason why it should be. I think it's just that people's minds have trouble bridging the gap between the clearer mirror of reality that film provides, vs. the simulated reality of games. It's the same issue faced by comic books.

 

Overall I find it funny how certain canonical works have become semi-untouchable. Sometimes this is merited due to historical importance, but really, if you could somehow strip away the historical context of Guernica, what are you left with? A bunch of cartoony charactes and animals in distress. I'm more hard pressed to compare, say, a painting by Francis Bacon with something I find in a game.

funnily enough, i almost brought up fancis bacon instead of picasso.. dont get hung up on the specific examples that i sighted. im just saying i question the potential for video games to deal with real issues. people look to games for entertainment. you talk of moments in games that stirred you, but a moment is leaps and bounds away from a fully formed work of art meant to affect the viewer in a profound way.

im not saying that games as art is an impossibility, but i dont see it happening anytime soon.

i see game makers as master craftsmen, not artists.

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:11 PM, Z_B_Z said:

 

 

funnily enough, i almost brought up fancis bacon instead of picasso.. dont get hung up on the specific examples that i sighted. im just saying i question the potential for video games to deal with real issues. people look to games for entertainment. you talk of moments in games that stirred you, but a moment is leaps and bounds away from a fully formed work of art meant to affect the viewer in a profound way.

 

im not saying that games as art is an impossibility, but i dont see it happening anytime soon.

I hear what you're saying but that's why I brought up the separation between art and entertainment in an earlier post. Are movies that are primarily meant to entertain not art? Incidentally, I talk about moments because it's hard to compare a painting or 2 hr movie with a multi-day game. There's naturally more room for "error" in orchestrating a multi-day "performance piece." I'll fully concede that most games don't reach the level of high-art, and I agree the medium is still in its infancy (though I wouldn't be as self-deprecating as the chick quoted in Ebert's interview saying they are like cave paintings). But again, I think your definition of art may be too limited. Are you saying that all other paintings that don't reach the level (however defined) of Guernica aren't art? Also, to get back to my other point, if a game artist creates a painting as stimulating as a Picasso or Bacon, but then puts it on the wall in a game, does it suddently become "not art"? For me art is about some harmonious, stimulating blend between form and content delivered to my brain through the senses (though I'm not saying this is a complete definition as to be honest I haven't given it that much thought). On that level, i can unequivocally say I have found games as stimulating as any other form of art I have experienced, and not just in a knee-jerk, visceral way. I certainly thought more about Deus Ex afterwards than I ever thought about Guernica. It'd be interesting to take the conversations your character has with the supercomputers in Deus Ex and run them side by side with the conversations with Hal in 2001.

In any case, I still think games are something entirely new. By their very nature, they change a person's perception of reality. If you could plug in like in the matrix, then the game you were playing would be your life. And at that point, it's impossible to argue that it's less meaningful than a work of art, because how can *a life* be less meaningful than a work of art? This all gets very Synechdoche NY, but it will happen, and soon.

Edit: funny thought, Ebert dies, but his mind is simulated in every last detail inside the computer, so that he can be immortal. I bet he'd still be complaining about some piece of art he saw on the wall in this virtual world.

It's still a game. I don't see what the big deal is, why would you want it to be art anyway?

And if we accept the videogame as an artform what makes some games art and other not?

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:31 PM, Velazquez said:

It's still a game. I don't see what the big deal is, why would you want it to be art anyway?

I actually don't care what is called art, but it pisses me off if people who call some things are refuse to acknowledge video games as art. Here is the thought experiment I pose to Ebert or any other person who claims video games aren't art:

If you create a room in a game containing a 3D photoreal model of Michealangelo's David, a reproduction of Guernica on the wall, and Mozart playing in the background, is the sum total somehow now "not art"? How can the individual elements be art but the sum total not art? Is the fact that it's a "reproduction" somehow to blame? Is a forgery of the Mona Lisa art? Is a photo on Flickr of a Monet art? Do millions of CDs and books somehow cheapen the value of the art contained on them?

Also I'm really curious if Ebert would consider a Japanese garden to be art. Is an installation piece that you can walk through art? Is Myst without the puzzles art?

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:31 PM, Velazquez said:

And if we accept the videogame as an artform what makes some games art and other not?

this is the same question that can be applied to any other medium.

  On 4/20/2010 at 11:31 AM, lumpenprol said:

I haven't thought up my response, but I think the gist of it would be that video games are something not seen before on this planet, so they simply need a whole new form of categorization. For example, I'd be curious if Ebert would consider a youtube play-through of a game "art", because it would essentially be a film? If the answer is yes, then he clearly needs to reconsider his reasoning, as he's admitting that by removing depth and dimensions from something it gains value, which is rather weird.

Very interesting point :)

I started on this post a couple of hours ago but since I'm at work it has taken me forever to write this post and some of my points might already have been discussed by now.

First of all, I don't really care if games can be considered art or not. I mean, what does it mean anyway? Such a categorization doesn't really make the game better in any way. The "artists" don't really benefit from labelling their product as "art".

Also, why on Earth is Roger Ebert talking about video games? He's obviously out of his league here. I love his reviews, even though I don't always agree with him (i.e. his review of Kick Ass), but it doesn't seem as if he's able to fully understand the world of gaming.

"Obviously, I'm hopelessly handicapped because of my love of cinema, but Melies seems to me vastly more advanced than her three modern video games. He has limited technical resources, but superior artistry and imagination."

I'm not a game developer or anything, so I guess lumpenprol has a lot more to say about this, but I'd think that most developers are limited by their technical resources just like Melies was and they therefore have to rely on their imagination and artistry as well.

Also, Ebert says, "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome." I haven't really read his article from top to bottom, but I from what I've read he doesn't really talk about whether or not movies are art or not, but my guess is that he'd say that they are, but aren't movies bound by the exact same rules?

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:43 PM, lumpenprol said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:31 PM, Velazquez said:

It's still a game. I don't see what the big deal is, why would you want it to be art anyway?

 

I actually don't care what is called art, but it pisses me off if people who call some things are refuse to acknowledge video games as art. Here is the thought experiment I pose to Ebert or any other person who claims video games aren't art:

 

If you create a room in a game containing a 3D photoreal model of Michealangelo's David, a reproduction of Guernica on the wall, and Mozart playing in the background, is the sum total somehow now "not art"? How can the individual elements be art but the sum total not art? Is the fact that it's a "reproduction" somehow to blame? Is a forgery of the Mona Lisa art? Is a photo on Flickr of a Monet art? Do millions of CDs and books somehow cheapen the value of the art contained on them?

 

Also I'm really curious if Ebert would consider a Japanese garden to be art. Is an installation piece that you can walk through art? Is Myst without the puzzles art?

 

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:31 PM, Velazquez said:

And if we accept the videogame as an artform what makes some games art and other not?

 

this is the same question that can be applied to any other medium.

I agree with everything you just said. Let's make love.

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:00 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 12:55 PM, Bramsworth said:

Really anything that humans make, it's a form of art.

 

anything? really?

 

are there youtube vids or something of this moon game? id be interested in learning more about it.

No too good videos on youtube that I can find. It's a very unique game though. The art style is very cool, all characters in game speak in various languages samples that are chopped up randomly, giving a very disoriented feel to them. No music plays in the game, you collect what's called Moon Discs and play them on a record player, so you can choose the music as you play. Has a whole variety that in itself makes the game feel very artsy :P For a simple sample, check out these tracks:

If you're interested in trying it I think links here still work to DL it so you can play on an emulator. http://snesorama.us/board/showthread.php?t=3589

This game is practically the reason I learned Japanese, as dumb as it may sound. Not understanding a thing going on is part of the experience at first I think :D

  On 4/20/2010 at 2:05 PM, Squee said:

 

I agree with everything you just said. Let's make love.

hard to resist the musky appeal of Paulie Walnuts

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:29 PM, lumpenprol said:

Are movies that are primarily meant to entertain not art?

 

yes.

 

I think your definition of art may be too limited.

 

ill admit that it might be limited, but i guess i dont have a problem with that.

 

Are you saying that all other paintings that don't reach the level (however defined) of Guernica aren't art?

 

im not sure how well i can answer this. maybe? other works go for different emotions.. i dont know, if the emotion is strong enough in me, ill call it art.

 

Also, to get back to my other point, if a game artist creates a painting as stimulating as a Picasso or Bacon, but then puts it on the wall in a game, does it suddently become "not art"?

 

but if its as good (stimulating) as a bacon or a picasso, then whats it doing in the background of a videogame? i suppose that something of that caliber could have been created by accident, but that would be amazing...

 

In any case, I still think games are something entirely new. By their very nature, they change a person's perception of reality.

 

and a painting or a film cant?

I will only think video games can be art if they can achieve their characteristic aesthetic effect -- that is, if they can move or affect you in the way that only video games can -- without just piggybacking on the characteristic effects of other media, particularly movies.

A lot of people argue that video games with cutscenes are just as deserving to be called 'art' as movies, but video games are not movies -- you don't just sit and watch them, you play them and try to win them. The experience is not the same, as the absorption in the video game's 'movie-like world' gets interrupted by strategizing, throwing the controller, reading manuals, looking up FAQs on the internet, whatever. The only reason I think people want to make this comparison is because video games borrow a lot of the conventions of movies in the way they present the story, but the experience of watching a cutscene in the middle of playing a game is significantly distinct from that of watching a movie from start to finish in a theater or home theater.

So again: I don't know if video games can never be art, but I don't believe they currently have a widely-recognized, characteristic aesthetic effect of their own.

thank you lumpenprol for bringing up deus ex. now there's a game that couldn't possibly have been more socially relevant and eerily prophetic considering the premise, and that it came out what, just over a year before 9/11? What's really cool about that game is that it wouldn't function nearly as effectively in any other medium. You can't have a movie with that degree of length and content that changes depending on the ethical choices you are presented with, or that has alternate endings, none of which are a win/win scenario. i'd argue that much like 'the watchmen' it takes full advantage of the medium and the genre in which it sits to touch on human nature and human experience, and that is exactly what good art does.

why does it matter to some people that games can be considered art?

well.. you know.. it may just have something to do with when you pour your creative energy into making a meaningful experience, or are deeply moved or even enhanced by an experience, you don't really appreciate having it belittled, especially by people who aren't even really interested in the discussions that are going on. the term 'art' is frequently a guise to say 'i like something' or 'i dislike something' in the passive with a false air of authenticity

also, i find the whole 'you can WIN a game' and 'it has rules' to be a complete red herring. whether something has rules or not, or is winnable or not, is IRRELEVANT as to whether or not it can touch on human experience. it's arguing mechanics. besides, all films and books have rules in the reality that the characters are situated in, the characters have objectives, and quite frequently, the characters 'win' at the end of the plots. it's the content that matters and what it touches on, not the mechanics.

  On 4/20/2010 at 2:21 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:29 PM, lumpenprol said:

Are movies that are primarily meant to entertain not art?

 

yes.

 

I think your definition of art may be too limited.

 

ill admit that it might be limited, but i guess i dont have a problem with that.

 

Are you saying that all other paintings that don't reach the level (however defined) of Guernica aren't art?

 

im not sure how well i can answer this. maybe? other works go for different emotions.. i dont know, if the emotion is strong enough in me, ill call it art.

 

Also, to get back to my other point, if a game artist creates a painting as stimulating as a Picasso or Bacon, but then puts it on the wall in a game, does it suddently become "not art"?

 

but if its as good (stimulating) as a bacon or a picasso, then whats it doing in the background of a videogame? i suppose that something of that caliber could have been created by accident, but that would be amazing...

 

In any case, I still think games are something entirely new. By their very nature, they change a person's perception of reality.

 

and a painting or a film cant?

hey, you cherry-picked my comments, especially by cutting short the last bit.

Basically I think of games as "Art +" They combine sculpture, painting, music, and then add the extra dimension, which is interactivity/participatory narrative. Calling them games is too short sighted, because traditional games are essentially puzzles, and puzzles tend to make up a very small part of what takes place in video games.

Part of the "game" in video games is just the pure joy of simulation, which as I was saying has profound implications by its very nature. Let's take the issue of killing in video games. A critic looks at it and says "it's a shallow orgy of violence, it's just reflexive finger twitching, desensitizes people and trains them to be killers, etc." I actually think there's some point to this, but hold on a sec. "Desensitizing" and "training to be killers" are pretty damn powerful psychological responses to a meaningless form of entertainment. The truth is I can still remember the first time I killed a kid in Fallout, or shot off the top of someone's head in Kingpin. And the more realistic this simulation becomes, the stronger the response of the participant. In this way, video games can be seen as a test bed allowing people to test out fantasies, anti-social responses, and this can be educational both for that individual and for an observer. Expanding from this, the best RPGs know how to set up moral dilemmas/zero sum game scenarios quite brilliantly, where you have to sacrifice the needs of some for your own needs, or the needs of another. And this is something no other medium of "art" can do. I would argue the interactive experience can be exploited to create new opportunities for meaning and depth that are not available in any other medium. Was the Milgram Obedience experiment a "game", or something more? It may not be art, but calling it a game seems a bit shallow when you think of the social implications.

  On 4/20/2010 at 2:21 PM, Z_B_Z said:

but if its as good (stimulating) as a bacon or a picasso, then whats it doing in the background of a videogame? i suppose that something of that caliber could have been created by accident, but that would be amazing...

I thought a bit more about one of my earlier posts, and the point is it's really impossible to tear a work of art away from its historical context. Could a "scary" Bacon-like painting be created for a video game? Absolutely. But the point of the Bacon painting was to draw some uncomfortable thoughts in the viewer's mind about the impermanence of flesh, comparisons of bodies to meat, etc (I'm sure there's more to it as well, just taking what leaps to mind). The analogue I would think of to Bacon in the film world would be Cronenberg. So the question is, is there a video game equivalent yet? I'm not sure there has been. Clive Barker's Jericho (a vastly underrated game imo) gets close, though, in terms of nightmarish imagery. But maybe there hasn't quite been the video-game version of Bacon or Cronenberg, yet.

Edit: I was writing up my reply while TwiddleBot posted. Yes that's exactly it, I agree with what you said about "ethical choices"

  On 4/20/2010 at 11:46 AM, margaret thatcher said:

if you look at warhol's ridiculously long movies where nothing happens, somehow because it's not entertainment, it must be art. this seems to be a running theme in art videos. i don't see why any film couldn't be described as art anyway. same applies to video games.

i'm sure bohemian-looking students have discussed "what is art?" over and over again anyway. not a discussion i find interesting.

It's really difficult to discuss what art is, but I see it as creation with purpose beyond the functional.

I think it's wrong to say that something that is entertaining is merely functional.. Art often incorporates an aesthetic indulging of the senses, and entertainment can be part of that.

I also think ebert is wrong on so many levels. There are games that are art, and even if you wouldn't readily acknowledge that, the industry is still young.

Also, I think there's another very simple approach to the question: ask a game artist if what they do is art. As an artist myself, I think games are the most exciting art form I've ever been exposed to. They combine everything present in traditional forms of art, and then take it to the next level by allowing you to enter and live within the art and interact with it, for a period of time. Fuck yeah.

  On 4/20/2010 at 2:50 PM, lumpenprol said:

 

 

hey, you cherry-picked my comments, especially by cutting short the last bit.

 

 

i was just trying to get at what i thought your main points/questions were. apologies if i misrepresented your original post.

i just dont think its possible for us to see eye to eye on this.. at the end of the day, video games dont move me.

  On 4/20/2010 at 2:50 PM, chimera slot mom said:

I think it's wrong to say that something that is entertaining is merely functional.. Art often incorporates an aesthetic indulging of the senses, and entertainment can be part of that.

So much of what we consider 'art' today was actually base entertainment in it's time. Shakespeare for example. A lot of his work is violent, sexually explicit and filled with sex jokes, some of it is full-on political propaganda (Richard III for example). But it also touched on human nature, expanded and added so much color to the English language and has stood the test of time.

  On 4/20/2010 at 2:58 PM, lumpenprol said:

Also, I think there's another very simple approach to the question: ask a game artist if what they do is art.

Good question.. you'll discover that some people take what they are doing far more seriously than others. Not surprisingly, it shows in the depth of their work.

Also, I don't think you can have this discussion with people who play games just casually. It's like some people who argue that cartoons can never be art, but they will refuse to watch Watership Down or Miyazaki.

if a game designer is good he can make the player feel certain emotions... to me this makes a game designer an artist... but it also makes video games an art-form that is adaptable and can achieve dramatically different results depending on the perspective of the player. The game designer does not have complete control on the composition of a boss fight or the timing in which the battles persists... but the player still feels an emotion (if they are into it, just like anything)... so the end result is the same I think. You can play a game like Splinter Cell Conviction and have a dramatic philosophical revelation on the global structure of government or be playing bloody fifa 2006 and realize the skill and artistry that goes into football. A person can make conclusions based on a lot of things and certainly given the vast amount of artistic elements, energy, and emotions that go into game production, the end product, a creation... is therefore art. Its not the same as anything else, but is Must Love Dogs the same as Cock/Ver10?

isn't anything art if you can derive meaning from it beyond what it technically is?

a really moving film can make you cry. could a game move you to the point of tears? (not saying this is an impossibility)

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:43 PM, lumpenprol said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:31 PM, Velazquez said:

It's still a game. I don't see what the big deal is, why would you want it to be art anyway?

 

I actually don't care what is called art, but it pisses me off if people who call some things are refuse to acknowledge video games as art. Here is the thought experiment I pose to Ebert or any other person who claims video games aren't art:

 

If you create a room in a game containing a 3D photoreal model of Michealangelo's David, a reproduction of Guernica on the wall, and Mozart playing in the background, is the sum total somehow now "not art"? How can the individual elements be art but the sum total not art? Is the fact that it's a "reproduction" somehow to blame? Is a forgery of the Mona Lisa art? Is a photo on Flickr of a Monet art? Do millions of CDs and books somehow cheapen the value of the art contained on them?

 

Also I'm really curious if Ebert would consider a Japanese garden to be art. Is an installation piece that you can walk through art? Is Myst without the puzzles art?

 

  On 4/20/2010 at 1:31 PM, Velazquez said:

And if we accept the videogame as an artform what makes some games art and other not?

 

this is the same question that can be applied to any other medium.

maybe that is art, you'd have ask yegg:)...

I'd rather stick to comparing an art form I know more about, painting.

I think we all accept painting as an art form. what makes video games an art form and not a game? I don't see it... you have a certain objective and a set of rules...

  On 4/20/2010 at 3:19 PM, Z_B_Z said:

a really moving film can make you cry. could a game move you to the point of tears? (not saying this is an impossibility)

It's weird how we always talk about whether or not things can make us cry instead of saying, 'can a video game make you laugh/make you angry/scare you' and so on.

But if a game can move you to the point of tears then the next question is, 'what is it that makes you cry?'. Is it the story? Is it the unhappy characters or could it be the music? Personally, I think the theme from Max Payne 2 is a very moving theme. It's full of sadness and it fits the universe of the Max Payne chronicles.

This is in line of what lumpenprol has said, but if games are the a combination of imagery, music and so on (which is considered to be art by most people) then why aren't games?