Well this may be one of those pointless questions that always gets asked but in the end has no real answer and is just an excuse to get in a good old fight over the Internet, or maybe get very angry at a film critic. So why am i making a post about it? Well silly old me went and decided to write a short paper on it for my university course. Now don't get me wrong it is an interesting topic and after sitting here for yet another hour staring at the beginning of a new paragraph i started to wonder what other peoples take on it is, specifically those people who are and will be designing games in the future.
So what's people's opinions?
Also as more of a side note what do you feel the role of art is in game design?
(Sorry if this is a regular topic or theres recent threads on it, for the life of me i couldn't find many, especially recent ones, that discuss this sort of topic.)
Its not just a game... Its art!
Art is a subjective personal experience. The question as to weather something can or can't be art simply doesn't make sense. It's like asking, "Can green be a favourite colour?"...
If I cut out dirty linoleum, frame it, hang it on my wall and call it art, then it doesn't matter if people think I'm a postmodern douche - their opinions can't change my own personal experience of the "work".
It's simply ridiculous to say someone's feelings are incorrect.
If I cut out dirty linoleum, frame it, hang it on my wall and call it art, then it doesn't matter if people think I'm a postmodern douche - their opinions can't change my own personal experience of the "work".
It's simply ridiculous to say someone's feelings are incorrect.
Although it's difficult to define art, if novels and movies are usually art the same should apply to video games.
There's no accepted definition of what counts as art, but here are my thoughts.
New artistic media present new dimensions for artistic expression, which cannot be assessed on the criteria of existing media. For example, literature requires effective use of language to convey emotions, ideas, settings, and so on. Film, on the other hand, requires effective blocking, acting, scenery, lighting, sound design, etc. You could judge a film on the text of its script alone, but in doing so you would be ignoring all of the dimensions for expression that film offers.
Ebert is judging games based on the criteria of previous media only. It's hard to deny that a game can be artistic in the same way as a book or movie; that is, the script can be fantastic and the visuals sumptuous. But for him to declare that the new dimension offered, player choice and engagement with the game, prevents games from being art is as fallacious as saying that because a film shows moving images it is less artistic than a piece of writing.
Ebert thinks that there's no video game comparable to the greatest works of writing, film, stage, and so on. In this I don't necessarily disagree. But video games have existed for forty years or so-- language and writing existed for a lot longer than that before anyone wrote anything considered to be "great literature". There were a lot of cave paintings before anyone painted a "great painting". The possibilities of the medium have only barely been explored which will eventually make video games great art in their own stead, rather than by the criteria of earlier media (which games have already equalled in many, if not all respects).
New artistic media present new dimensions for artistic expression, which cannot be assessed on the criteria of existing media. For example, literature requires effective use of language to convey emotions, ideas, settings, and so on. Film, on the other hand, requires effective blocking, acting, scenery, lighting, sound design, etc. You could judge a film on the text of its script alone, but in doing so you would be ignoring all of the dimensions for expression that film offers.
Ebert is judging games based on the criteria of previous media only. It's hard to deny that a game can be artistic in the same way as a book or movie; that is, the script can be fantastic and the visuals sumptuous. But for him to declare that the new dimension offered, player choice and engagement with the game, prevents games from being art is as fallacious as saying that because a film shows moving images it is less artistic than a piece of writing.
Ebert thinks that there's no video game comparable to the greatest works of writing, film, stage, and so on. In this I don't necessarily disagree. But video games have existed for forty years or so-- language and writing existed for a lot longer than that before anyone wrote anything considered to be "great literature". There were a lot of cave paintings before anyone painted a "great painting". The possibilities of the medium have only barely been explored which will eventually make video games great art in their own stead, rather than by the criteria of earlier media (which games have already equalled in many, if not all respects).
If you ask me, art for a game designer simply tells how the designer wants the characters the levels and the entire game to be according to his vision.Some game designers wouldn't care much of the art but more of the game play instead.Some may not be good artists but would hire an artist to make the art great in case the actual game isn't an original concept like Braid for instance.
If I can convert a mile or two of electric fence wire into something that became one of the most popular pieces in a local art gallery for a summer, then games Have to be considered art. Random scratches on cave walls are covered under art, random objects thrown together from every day life are considered art, and crap boring movies with a plot line as slow as frozen molasses gets called art,... To randomly claim that games can't be art is as bad as to randomly claim acrylic can't be used to make a window, as it isn't glass.
Well this may be one of those pointless questions that always gets asked but in the end has no real answer and is just an excuse to get in a good old fight over the Internet... after sitting here for yet another hour staring at the beginning of a new paragraph i started to wonder what other peoples take on it is... So what's people's opinions?
Why didn't you start with your own opinion? Why don't you tell it now? (And it's not clear what your question is anyway. What about "art"?)
And give us examples for your arguments. Is Flow as much "art" as Call of Duty: Black Ops is? Is Fifa Soccer 11 comparable to the Mona Lisa?
When I hear people talk about how games are art, I suggest to them instead to think of a game as if it were a table painstakingly built by a craftsman putting hours of effort into something that he loves doing. The table may never be actually seen as art but the quality of the piece cannot be denied.
Author
Why didn't you start with your own opinion? Why don't you tell it now? (And it's not clear what your question is anyway. What about "art"?)
And give us examples for your arguments. Is Flow as much "art" as Call of Duty: Black Ops is? Is Fifa Soccer 11 comparable to the Mona Lisa?
I didn't add my own explanation so the first post wouldn't just be a wall of text. The question is essentially "are games to you a player/designer what you consider are or capable of being art?” As for what art it is well I’ll have to agree with other posters and say that it’s subjective since well art itself is subjective. If i was pinned up against a wall and forced to choose a definition i think Kellee Santiago's one from her 09 talk is as good as any.
As for games themselves being art. Yes i think they could be and will be in the future. Are they now? I think there are some games that are very finally crafted and are on their way to being art; i couldn't point out a game off the top of my head and without hesitation call it art.
Personally i would view Flow as more artistic than Call of Duty but neither of them would really be art to me. I guess both Fifa and the Mona Lisa could be comparable but i think it’s hard to do that when there such a big difference in the subjects.
To be honest i do think this is the sort of question no one will think of asking in a few years’ time, it will just be accepted in a similar way films are today. Currently game are fundamentally different from any other form of art and it will take time for people to become accustomed to thinking of games like they do say film or music, but like i said i do this that will happen.Really the whole thing seems more of a way for designers and players to have their passion given more acceptance in intellectual circles (if that makes any sense) than actually caring if games really are art.
"are games to you a player/designer what you consider are or capable of being art?”
That's two questions:
1. "are games art?”
2. "are games capable of being art?”
to which you get two completely different answers:
1. Some are, some aren't.
2. Ipso facto, yes.
If I may make a blanket statement: "blanket statements about art are flimsy, likely to fall apart in the first light breeze."
That's two questions:
1. "are games art?”
2. "are games capable of being art?”
to which you get two completely different answers:
1. Some are, some aren't.
2. Ipso facto, yes.
If I may make a blanket statement: "blanket statements about art are flimsy, likely to fall apart in the first light breeze."
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
