Video games can never be art.

  On 4/20/2010 at 3:47 PM, Squee said:

  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?

i just find that it takes more to make me cry than to make me laugh/angered/scared. but i see your point.

  On 4/20/2010 at 3:47 PM, Squee said:

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?

This is what I was trying to bring out in my post: Those art forms each have a characteristic way of producing their effect in the audience, in part made up by the conventions we follow when experiencing that art. So for instance, a painting is still, on a wall, and you stand before it and enter into the 'world' of the image. A movie is shown in a dark room on a big screen, played loud and projected continuously while you sit in the seat and get absorbed into the 'world' of the movie. A video game does not have the same conventions of 'entering its world' (if there is such a thing) as these other art forms. So even if it resembles those other art forms in some respects -- there are moving images on the t.v. screen and music is playing -- that doesn't automatically mean that the aesthetic experience of the moving images and music in a game are the same, have the same effect, as the experience of music at a concert or a movie in a theater. And for me, how you experience the work is essential to its counting as the kind of art that it is. Thus, movies cannot count as 'art' in the same way as music or movies can, even if there are moving images and musical sounds in the game.

That doesn't mean that games can't have their own mode of experience by which you enter into their world, but it does mean that simply noting the resemblance to other art forms is not enough to automatically qualify games themselves as art in the way that movies and music are art.

there's a lot of what is in my opinion schlock out there that can make people laugh or cry. harlequin romance novels for example.

i don't think whether something has a plot that is emotionally moving or not necessarily makes it art. it can be part of the picture, but it isn't a requirement.

a synesthesic game like eufloria or osmose or fl0w would function very well as installation art. they're more about submerging the user in an aesthetic experience and exploring the senses.. playing with time and crossmodal experience much like a lot of modern interactive art does

i can think of a lot of games that used plot devices that have made players cry. Like some of the old final fantasy games where characters died after you became very attached to them. when i think of those games reaching at being art it has more to do with their social themes, exploring loss, identity, issues of terrorism vs freedom fighting, raping and pillaging the resources of the planet, clashes of belief systems, moral ambiguity. final fantasy xii from what i've seen of it is a very subtle underhanded satire about western colonialism packaged as an rpg for teens. i won't argue that it is great art (especially with the otaku references) but it is definitely exploring and experimenting

since there is no clear line dividing art and it is pretty much up to the one appreciating it, one could say he's both right and wrong. it may never be art for him, but for a lot of people (myself included) it can be. there's so much thought and passion put into some videogames, a videogame can tell a story in ways that neither a book or movie can, there's also of course the visual and sound design which are considered art separetly so it incorporates things that are art.

good example: braid.

So clearly he's never played Riven

good thread watmm! Reminds me of how smart you guys are! Good points from everyone, even Paulie!

Has Roger Ebert lost the ability to fart?

Final Fartasy!

  On 4/20/2010 at 4:15 PM, Velazquez said:

Has Roger Ebert lost the ability to fart?

His brainfarting seems to work just fine

For me video games are essentially art. They combine different aspects of human understanding into a more or less coherent form. The user of a video game is in interaction with it in a visually - musically - mentally - emotional way. At least in great video games this happens on a master level. So if we can say that some movies are art, then we should say that (at least)some video games are art too. Tetris for example may be a good subject to compare with minimalism. It's all about understanding some basic elements that are able to form complex structures. It depends on the viewer (or game player) how he will understand and develop the context, he's been introduced to.

Then there's MDK, Braid...

Fuck Roger Ebert and his Jawless face.

But i agree , Video Games are not art (Manly because developers always seem to be in a rush and never achieve to do a proper game)

  On 4/20/2010 at 12:11 PM, Z_B_Z said:

lol

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PnHzD1gPak

 

i didnt read it but maybe he has a point in saying that... i mean, how would it be possible to have a video game equivalent of say, picassos guernica? or a beethoven symphony? or a kubrick film?

evander holyfield's real deal boxing! great game. the graphics were very impressive for the time.

only played it with a normal controller, though.

pointless discussion without deciding on a clear definition of art first.

Roger Ebert has his head so far up his ass , i reckon his missing jaw is somewhere in the upper colon.

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:35 PM, Boxing Day said:

Roger Ebert has his head so far up his ass , i reckon his missing jaw is somewhere in the upper colon.

did he diss your favourite disney movie or something?

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:49 PM, triachus said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:35 PM, Boxing Day said:

Roger Ebert has his head so far up his ass , i reckon his missing jaw is somewhere in the upper colon.

 

did he diss your favourite disney movie or something?

still pissed about Chocolate Bunny review.

Jesus, I don't even know where to start. The amount of effort creating textures and 3d models and integrating them in to a fully interactive environment is an art in itself. To say that games like Crysis and Far Cry are not art (or not the type Ebert is used to) is ridiculous.

An interactive painting is not art? wtf?

Of course video games can be art. Denying video games the art status just reeks of Romantic elitest bullshit. As Thatcher was saying earlier, this is kind of similar to how film was initially rejected by the majority art critics an art form(Russians excluded). That violent rejection was primarily motivated by fear for the dissolution of art elite and the concept of the genius itself. It's too convenient for a critic to deny a new medium, in which they has no expertise, art status, because it would almost invalidate them as critics if they were to acknowledge that medium. It's the lazy way out.

Walter Benjamin's position on film in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction can be applied to video games. I think one of the biggest reasons why people have trouble accepting video games as art is because the escapist quality of gaming while art is conventionally mentally rigorous. Also because video games are easily accessible and can be enjoyed at home whereas art is supposed to be in finite supply and one has to travel to a designated art space to enjoy it.

Anyway, here is the definitive "video games can be art" proof:

  Quote

Desert Bus is the best known trick minigame in the package, and was a featured part of Electronic Gaming Monthly's preview. The objective of the game is to drive a bus from Tucson, Arizona to Las Vegas, Nevada in real time at a maximum speed of 45mph. The feat requires 8 hours of continuous play to complete, since the game cannot be paused.

 

The bus contains no passengers, and there is no scenery or other traffic on the road. The road between Tucson and Las Vegas is without exception completely straight. The bus veers to the right slightly; as a result, it is impossible to tape down a button to go do something else and have the game end properly. If the bus veers off the road it will stall and be towed back to Tucson, also in real time. If the player makes it to Las Vegas, they will score exactly one point. The player then gets the option to make the return trip to Tucson—for another point (a decision they must make in a few seconds or the game ends). Players may continue to make trips and score points as long as their endurance holds out. Some players who have completed the trip have also noted that, although the scenery never changes, a bug splats on the windscreen about five hours through the first trip, and on the return trip the light does fade, with differences at dusk, and later a pitch black road where the player is guided only with headlights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penn_&_Teller%27s_Smoke_and_Mirrors#Desert_Bus

If our concept of art was such that video games were definitely in or out, it wouldn't make a big difference. It's like asking "Are you playing a game when you look at a painting?" I don't think there is a definite yes or no answer. It's just a question that sounds silly to ask.

This is probably why I've never spent any time wondering about whether video games are art.

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:01 PM, Yegg said:

Of course video games can be art. Denying video games the art status just reeks of Romantic elitest bullshit. As Thatcher was saying earlier, this is kind of similar to how film was initially rejected by the majority art critics an art form(Russians excluded). That violent rejection was primarily motivated by fear for the dissolution of art elite and the concept of the genius itself. It's too convenient for a critic to deny a new medium, in which they has no expertise, art status, because it would almost invalidate them as critics if they were to acknowledge that medium. It's the lazy way out.

Walter Benjamin's position on film in The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction can be applied to video games. I think one of the biggest reasons why people have trouble accepting video games as art is because the escapist quality of gaming while art is conventionally mentally rigorous. Also because video games are easily accessible and can be enjoyed at home whereas art is supposed to be in finite supply and one has to travel to a designated art space to enjoy it.

im assuming you might think of this as a trite question, but how would you define art?

Out of the 16 definitions on dictionary.com, I like 'skill in conducting any human activity'.

Obviously he's never played a video game.

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:33 PM, PWSTEAL said:

Obviously he's never played a video game.

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:21 PM, chaosmachine said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 12:11 PM, Z_B_Z said:

lol

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PnHzD1gPak

 

i didnt read it but maybe he has a point in saying that... i mean, how would it be possible to have a video game equivalent of say, picassos guernica? or a beethoven symphony? or a kubrick film?

 

evander holyfield's real deal boxing! great game. the graphics were very impressive for the time.

 

only played it with a normal controller, though.

Dungeons and Dragons is real art!

sissies!

games are games and art is art

Not sure if a 'game' can be art but you can certainly put a lot of art into games

Dante's Inferno for example