|
I'm a big fan of PZ myer's blog "Pharyngula".. I read it at least a couple of times a week, and generally find him to be a very intelligent and thought provoking social commentator.
Recently, he made a post regarding video games, you can find it here.
+ Show Spoiler [Full post] +
Tycho and Gabe seem a tad peevish that Roger Ebert has dissed video games as art — he says video games can never be art, which may be a bit excessive. Still, I read Ebert's explanation, Penny Arcade's cranky dismissal, and a serious advocates counter-argument, and you know, I tend to think Ebert is mostly right. It might be because I'm a "wretched, ancient warlock" too.
I think video games can contain pieces of art — artists participate in their creation, after all — but art isn't the intent, the performance is. A basketball game is not art, no matter how well somebody plays; it's as physical as a dance performance, and the participants are just as skilled and often just as amazing, but dance can be art while the game is simply sport. Not to dismiss it entirely, which is not what Ebert does at all, but to point out that they are different things.
Art is a kind of distillation and representation of human experience, filtered through the minds of its creators. A great painting or poem is something that represents an idea or emotion, communicated through the skill of an artist, to make you see through his or her eyes for a moment. Computer games just don't do that. No team sits down to script out a video game with the intent of creating a tone poem in interactive visual displays that will make the player appreciate the play of sunlight on a lake, for instance. It's all about balance and game play and keeping the action going and providing a means to win or lose, and most of all, it's about giving the player control in the game environment. No one wants to play a game that's on rails and simply leads you to the conclusion the author wants. In that sense, a good game hands the player a toolbox to work within the game environment — it is to art as providing a studio and a set of pigments and a collection of brushes.
Video games will become art when replaying the performance becomes something we find interesting, when the execution of those tools generates something splendid and lasting. It just doesn't now, though. If you want to see something really boring, watch someone else playing a video game. Then imagine recording that game, and wanting to go back and watch the replay again sometime. That's where games fail as art, which is not to say they can't succeed as something comparable to a sport — we may want to explore the rules of a game at length, and repeatedly, and we may enjoy getting better at it. But no matter how well or how long you play a game, it's never going to be something you can display in your home as a representation of an experience.
Being avid TeamLiquidites, i'm sure we'd probably disagree with the last bit in particular. Though reading through PZ's post raised a number of questions for me.
I'm sure we'd agree that there are certain games that should not be considered 'art' by any standards. What must a game do to transcend and become an art form? Do most games have the potential to become an art form, if only the right playing environment were developed, or is it more a question of a select few (or only one?) being good enough and having the potential to become an art form?
Furthermore, if we accept his definition of art as "Art is a kind of distillation and representation of human experience, filtered through the minds of its creators" does even the mighty Starcraft qualify? Does it fumble at this final hurdle? Can any sport?
Personally, I'm inclined to say Starcraft can be considered an art form. Leave aside for the moment all the tricks, the micro, the macro, the meta game and so on, the things that make it a fantastic sport to watch... and you're still left with the raw emotion of the players shining through. You can truly feel the anger, the frustration, the ambition as you watch.
What are your guys thoughts on this?
|
|
|
unfortunately i dont think it's fair to group all videogames together.
a game like starcraft is competitive and basically a sport
a game like shadow of the colossus is an experience that attempts to elicit an emotional response and is basically art
|
On April 23 2010 07:18 On_Slaught wrote:
Basically he's ignorant?
I agree, but at the same time I feel it provides an interesting starting point for discussion.
What are your thoughts on the matter?
|
this guy bashed Gladiator and praised Know1ng, thanks for giving me 1 more reason to dislike him.
|
United States24782 Posts
His entire argument seems to hinge on the claim that videogames can't accomplish what other forms of art do which is bullshit... although they usually aren't as good at it as more classic forms... but that's completely irrelevant.
|
Canada8036 Posts
Art should elicit some sort of deep emotional response from the viewer. And before someone says it, no, mudang storms causing excitement do not count.  I believe some games would qualify as being art, but Starcraft, I feel, isn't one of them.
|
On April 23 2010 07:20 Ideas wrote:
unfortunately i dont think it's fair to group all videogames together.
a game like starcraft is competitive and basically a sport
a game like shadow of the colossus is an experience that attempts to elicit an emotional response and is basically art
Agreed. People just don't realize how different games can be, and the different goals they try to achieve.
|
Ignorance at its finest. Starcraft itself is not art, but when put in the hands of a skilled player art is absolutely created.
edit: what gives this guy any credibility when it comes to talking about video games? I've never heard of him, and it just seems like he is some random old guy. I clicked the link you provided, and it says he is a biologist. Why are we even discussing his opinions when he is irrelevant?
|
The art in sports is not art of the game itself, it is the art of emotion, and the same is for games such as starcraft. Taking a screenshot of starcraft is not art, but photographs capturing Jaedong's disappointment after a loss or Flash's intensity as he plays is art, just as seeing an image of an athlete concentrating on his/her goal, or ecstatic after winning a close game is art.
|
i once went to a philosophical debate about what constituted "art."
the debate was that art was either:
a) the creative act of producing artwork
b) the product of the creative act of producing artwork: artwork
i don't think that debate was productive, and i'm not sure that discussing what qualifies a videogame as artwork is gonna be a lot more productive.
on the other hand, there was an old team whose prefix was "ArtOf____" so maybe the founder of that team is the guy for you to find.
whether or not starcraft itself is art, i'm pretty sure i see art every time jaedong builds mutalisk, stork builds a shuttle, or flash plays starcraft
|
He is pretty shallow, why would we use his definitions for anything? If he reads replies in his blog, link him to this thread. Maybe he will even care to watch a decent VOD( probably with English commentary since he doesn't seem to possess enough gaming experience to enjoy a raw VOD himself)
|
Trying to objectively define something as art is kinda pointless imo. If someone thinks a certain game is art then the game is art to them, that's all there is to it
|
Is it just me or is debating what and what isn't art about as pointless as discussing whether or not things exist when nobody is around to observe them?
I mean...there are real problems we could be talking about...and maybe even resolving...
|
On April 23 2010 07:25 Newguy wrote:
The art in sports is not art of the game itself, it is the art of emotion, and the same is for games such as starcraft. Taking a screenshot of starcraft is not art, but photographs capturing Jaedong's disappointment after a loss or Flash's intensity as he plays is art, just as seeing an image of an athlete concentrating on his/her goal, or ecstatic after winning a close game is art.
Yeah good luck displaying that, which is the entire crux of his argument, since you can't display it, it's not art. I have no problem with what he said simply because I understand where he's coming from isn't all that wack/ignorant/whatever else you would like to call it.
And your examples are called photography, not Brood War.
|
On April 23 2010 07:25 Newguy wrote:
The art in sports is not art of the game itself, it is the art of emotion, and the same is for games such as starcraft. Taking a screenshot of starcraft is not art, but photographs capturing Jaedong's disappointment after a loss or Flash's intensity as he plays is art, just as seeing an image of an athlete concentrating on his/her goal, or ecstatic after winning a close game is art.
I dont quite agree with you here. Maybe taking a single screenshot isnt art, but there are countless short clips you could display that are absolutely art. Really impressive micro is art imo.
|
This man couldn't be more wrong. He's using his own perceptual filters to deny the existence of "game as art". Which means he is a sad lonely man. I mourn him.
|
Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. says wiki
I think the way players play is artful, though.
I mean, playing a guitar isn't art, but the ends are.
|
Mastermind Canada. April 23 2010 07:37. Posts 4480 PM Profile Blog Quote
On April 23 2010 07:25 Newguy wrote:
The art in sports is not art of the game itself, it is the art of emotion, and the same is for games such as starcraft. Taking a screenshot of starcraft is not art, but photographs capturing Jaedong's disappointment after a loss or Flash's intensity as he plays is art, just as seeing an image of an athlete concentrating on his/her goal, or ecstatic after winning a close game is art.
I dont quite agree with you here. Maybe taking a single screenshot isnt art, but there are countless short clips you could display that are absolutely art. Really impressive micro is art imo.
I agree that the really impressive micro is art, but it is only art because of the human element involved, because we appreciate the emotion and skill that went into the production of that micro. If it was a computer playing the game and performing the micro, would it still be art?
|
On April 23 2010 07:33 Judicator wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 07:25 Newguy wrote:
The art in sports is not art of the game itself, it is the art of emotion, and the same is for games such as starcraft. Taking a screenshot of starcraft is not art, but photographs capturing Jaedong's disappointment after a loss or Flash's intensity as he plays is art, just as seeing an image of an athlete concentrating on his/her goal, or ecstatic after winning a close game is art. Yeah good luck displaying that, which is the entire crux of his argument, since you can't display it, it's not art. I have no problem with what he said simply because I understand where he's coming from isn't all that wack/ignorant/whatever else you would like to call it. And your examples are called photography, not Brood War.
I didn't read his posts, but based upon what you just said the crux of his argument is the ability to display it?
First off that is a completey arbitrary standard which cannot seriously be given any merit as "necessary" for something to be art. By this standard music would not be an art.
Second, with such vague definitions you would basically engulf most things on this earth. I can put my hat on a shelf or my water bottle on a hook... since it's displayed it's art eh? Absurd.
Third, how is BW not "displayed?" I assume your definition of display is putting it in a frame or on a stand or some shit like that, but how is that the fact that we watch these games from thousands of miles away not require they be "displayed" in one way or another. Again the definition of "display" is up for debate but the fact this is widely shown to people (yourself included I assume, from which you find some enjoyment otherwise you wouldn't be here) means they are displaying something to us.
Finally, the word art (as many have pointed out) is arbitrary (as well). Myself, and many others, think that BW in the hand of pros, as well as great games like Shadow of Collosus etc, are a form of art. What's true for us is true for us... relativism at it's best :D.
(and to the guy above... if a machine drew the mona lisa would any give a shit? that argument applies to every accepted form of art that exists)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
