|
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.
and then
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.
Edit: (there is an initial problem here of him defining art to support his own conclusion, and doing little to justify that definition. However, I think his argument is poor even under his definition of art, so I'll accept the definition for now).
This point is the basis of his argument that games cannot be art in themselves. I think many of us would dispute this point with a great number of games (MGS and Ico come to mind immediately, others mention Shadow of the Collosus). Maybe the author has never played anything other than CS or solitaire.
He does concede that perhaps games may allow the player to create art through the playing of the games, but then outright states (with no support other than personal opinion) that
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.
I can make the same sort of statement about figure skating, but me finding something boring doesn't negate the emotional effect that the thing may have on others who don't find it boring. In conclusion, this guy isn't personally moved by video gaming, so he doesn't think it's art. Poor argument.
|
On April 23 2010 07:40 On_Slaught wrote:Show nested quote +On April 23 2010 07:33 Judicator wrote: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)
How is it displayed? Let's say you watched a game of BW (or whatever else you want here), how do you display it? They're displaying what? Passion? Intensity? Well shit we must see art every day now? Form of art how? Displaying what?
Go think about SoC, why do you think it's art?
|
who the fuck cares if starcraft is an ART.
why does this matter
Starcraft = fun or not fun. period.
|
On April 23 2010 07:40 Newguy wrote:Show nested quote + 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?
Of course, then you stumble upon the problem that somebody would have had to code the program to create that micro, which is a different level of abstraction entirely.
On April 23 2010 07:54 dangots0ul wrote:
who the fuck cares if starcraft is an ART.
why does this matter
Starcraft = fun or not fun. period.
Starcraft equals fun or not fun period period period. Thanks for that eloquent contribution.
|
From Wikipedia:
Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.
Games are absolutely a medium through which you can create art. In fact, I would argue that games can be an even better medium then traditional methods. Within a game you have all the traditional forms of art. Music, literature, film, sculpture, and painting are all contained within games. I feel that all of these forms of art gain a personal aspect when displayed in a video game. Literature goes from being read to being made. You are not simply watching film, but taking part in it. You do not simply have stand-ins for roles, you are them. Music changes from being made with a thought/emotion in mind to being an auditory memory of a situation you yourself experienced. By taking part in the creation/exploration/decision/experience of the game, the art becomes much more personal.
|
It's a semantic argument. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong. Each use their own definition of terms and chosen situation to develop their point.
Further, art is subjective. Whether you, Ebert, or anybody else tries to define what art is to you they've all ready lost. Whether we view Starcraft as a whole as an art is up to the individuals, not a community.
|
On April 23 2010 07:25 Failsafe wrote:
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
That's a good point. It makes me think that it would be useful if we ask the question whether art can be produced in sports. If the answer is yes, then we can draw a parallel with Starcraft. That's simply because we can clearly see Starcraft, a video game, being elevated to the level of sports in Korea, producing the same effects (Ie. failsafe's example, people being gripped with excitement watching these players play). Strangely I've actually never thought of sports as capable of producing art, yet I've considered Starcraft capable of it. Now that I think about it, it seems like sports can produce art, and that I just wasn't really thinking to not to have noticed it. So to restate my point, it might be useful to determine whether sports is capable of producing art, but it might not be much easier than determining whether video games can produce art.
|
Yeah because it's not possible for him to be right in general and for there to be exceptions he's not aware of or doesn't bring up in his blog because they detract from his point.
I'm super pissed that he doesn't like watching videos of games.
|
Hitler was quite an artist in his days.
|
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
Got to agree with this. Just because StarCraft contains works of art within the game, such as graphics, pictures, music etc does not make the game itself a piece of art. But I do think some games can be called art, just not StarCraft. I would like someone who believes that StarCraft is art to really explain why it could be considered art and what they consider to be art in the first place. Part of the reason why I think this is so controversial is that art can't really be defined. It changed by person to person. One of my old art teachers from high school said a guy actually put a toilet into a art show. Stuff like that is ridiculous to me but some people consider putting a toilet somewhere to be art. It's just to subjective to have a definitive answer imo.
|
Sun Tzu's Art of War.
Starcraft is war, am I right?
|
Archaic, that doesn't really work, because art has two different meanings. The one Sun Tzu is talking about is the 'art' of doing something very well. For example, the art of cooking, the art of carpentry, the art of winemaking. This type of art is just completely different from art in the sense of Kubrick or Van Gogh's work.
While I disagree with some of the guys points, particularly his idea of display (do you display Sibelius's 5th? Can't you just listen to it by yourself with greater rewards?) I think it's fair to say starcraft isn't art. At its best it has moments which are beautiful or fascinating in a way kind of similar to art, but for the most part it is 'just' an excellent competitive game/sport. In a similar way football and chess have beautiful moments, but essentially aren't art.
I don't think saying everything is subjective is very helpful...if you define art however the hell you like, then 'art' does not mean anything, so why talk about it? Using the (fairly reasonable) definition of art as attempting to communicate an emotion or experience, Starcraft doesn't have that intent, so it isn't.
Could someone who has studied aesthetics chip in? I'd like to know some of the 'official', or at least critically accepted definitions. Whenever I've read philosophy it has seemed to already be established that art is something like 'communicating emotion', but it wasn't spelled out, and I'd really like to know.
|
Guys, Kant has quite a lot to say on this. I think we should all read Kant.
|
I watch people play through single player games on youtube. There goes that argument.
|
PZ Myers is a great man... He's got it wrong about this but he probably hasn't seen much and he's talking out of his ass, but he's done many great things and he's a master at biology. I've been at one of his lectures and there are some things he does right; most things, I would argue.
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
Off the top of my head, I'd say starcraft pvp is not art, its a sport. But the single player campaign, which tells a story in game play, is closer.
Both Ebert and Myers arguments fall apart quickly, because neither of them actually plays video games, or has any understanding of what is currently out there.
Designers struggle between the two constantly, game play vs story. Games that get the immersion correct stay with us a long time. But immersion differs greatly between players. Take something like Portal. A great game for people who have experience playing video games. But I honestly can't see Ebert being able to even handle the controls.
|
he seems to design "art" as something that is capable of being appreciated and enjoyed by a significant audience, which is a valid definition. the thing is, there are so many definitions of what art is -- this thread is basically pointless. if you define art as the process of using one's creativity to create something new, that would certainly qualify starcraft.
i define art as something that is
a. original
b. creative in nature
c. qualitative, not quantitative. in other words, art is not a business plan where predictions are made to increase profits and reduce risk, nor is devising a strategy to strangle an enemy's economy by commencing several simultaneous guerrilla-drops.
the reason c is included is basically because i don't think something that computers can currently do better than humans can be considered art. once again -- purely opinion!
part of myers' argument seems to stem from a lack of video game exposure. chess is a similar strategy game that has been enjoyed by a niche audience for centuries, and it has made its way to the video game world along with other variations. therefore... kind of destroying his own argument right there, unless he somehow arbitrarily disqualifies porting board gameplay to the computer/tv screen. but even that is a nonsensical metric given that all Works Of Art are either inspired or informed by previous works.
|
If all something has to do to be art is evoke emotion somehow, then for sure, practically anything could be art (anyone remember giant space banana?)
Breaking down the definition of art from wiki into two, art needs to:
1. Evoke emotion in others
2. Have the capability to be rearranged (and therefore have some elements of freedom/choice about it)
(although I think arguing #2 is pretty inane, I want to mention it briefly to build on #1)
Part of what I think the article is trying to say is that sports and games aren't art because they belong to the realm of logic. At a top level, each player is trying to win, each player plays the best moves possible. The very purpose of sport and games is not to evoke emotion, but the crush the other guy/team until they can offer no resistance. Also, we can take a simple game, like Nim, or even checkers, and say, because there are only so many best moves to make, you can't rearrange them in any meaningful way, so you can't really show anything besides the intent to win.
But most games don't have just a handful of winning moves. There's a great deal of flexibility and freedom in most games. Take Chess, for instance. Sure, there are some solid moves, and some pretty terrible moves, But grandmasters, through the course of their games, will end up developing a unique style. Confronted with the same board, different chess players of approximately the same skill level will react differently, each playing a different "best move." Isn't style just a means of expression, and by extension, not simply confined to the realm of logic? Isn't that art?
Back when Effort was actually good, I was watching him vs some protoss (maybe movie) on God's Garden, and I was amazed at how masterful - how artful - Effort's zergling usage was. The protoss was trying to take his frontexpo, having already taken the back. He had a handful of archons and other ground troops, stuck up a pylon with the intention of sticking up cannons and claiming his expo. (I might be lying about this, this game was a long while ago).
Effort just ran in with some zerglings... a lot of zerglings, "sniped" the archons and denied the expo attempt. Prior to that, the protoss probably felt confident. He was probably thinking "alright, I have a nice, balanced army, I've got a bunch of archons and I know my opponent has a ling heavy army for whatever reason, and you know this expo is like 4 steps away from my ramp and has a choke and I'm going to take it."
And Effort probably thought, "Fuck you, I'm a baller," and went ahead and raped it.
He didn't have to pick lings, I'm sure the 3 base spire into 5 h hydra or w.e was popular at that time would've worked equally well(hell, iirc, God's Garden was a zerg haven, wasn't it?). Effort's personal style and his emotional state caused him to prepare that build. Might not have even been "optimal." But you know what? It was a fucking fine game to watch.
If you look closely, you can definitely sense an opponent's emotions in game. Some people think that's part of the mind games; I think it's art. A game of Go:
"I want to secure territory here and use it as a base to attack."
"He wants to take this area from me? Fine, I'll take this area back from him."
"I'm going to pick a fight here."
And upon re-analysis, you'll see this move wasn't "optimal." It was too aggressive and could've been punished - but your opponent was pressured and nervous and scared, and played too defensively, and it shows! And from there, it's only a step till you say, "Man, if I was in his place, playing that game, I would be shitting myself too." Now it's not only a means of expression by the player, but you're on the receiving end. You're feeling what the player was feeling, or at the very least, forming some sort of deeper emotional reaction.
I don't know if maybe I'm only describing components of a game, and not the game itself. I'm certain SC has definite elements of nonartfulness in it. In fact, I can name one off the top of my head: building probes at the beginning of a game. No decision there, just 0p. But in the same way charcoal artists are limited to drawing in black and white, I believe that SC is art, giving a limited and beautiful means of communication and expression.
|
I bet Day[9] wholeheartedly disagrees with his response that video games can't be art and represent meaningful emotions or memories. As for the whole "record it and watch it later" statement he made, it's the same as watching an old Super Bowl series or any other sport.
|
Some interesting points on both sides of this. I wonder if there is something to be said for the creative aspect of Starcraft?
While I feel there is more to art than raw creativity, if that creativity is molded and formed into something beautiful, could that not be considered artistic? When Flash or Nal_rA demonstrates a new build, with precise timings and hundreds of subtle things (of the like Day[9] always tries to point out to us), could we not see it as a sort of concert? Each unit an instrument, each action a note, blended together to form a beautiful symphony of destruction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
