|
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 States24723 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.
|
Canada8031 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)
|
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.
|
Figuratively, you could say anything is art due to skill, talent, aesthetic, whatever. Like the example Archaic gave, "The Art of War". "The Art of Properly Clipping Your Toenails", wtfe. "Art" is used as a value judgement in this way and if this is the meaning anyone is talking about, it's sort of pointless to argue about.
Literal "Art" as in "the sort of thing you'd expect to find in an art gallery" isn't a qualifier for something being good/bad or skillful/not skillful... the key is that it was purposefully created/presented to be art (and, in turn, accepted by an audience to be art). You don't set out to make something mundane and then make art by mistake. If I take a shit, it's not art. If I take a shit in a museum and put it on display and make an argument about it's significance beyond being a piece of shit, then it's art. It'd be retarded and awful art, yeah, but the literal meaning of "art" is not a value judgment.
Most video games are not art because they were not intended to be, and not presented as such. Starcraft is not an art, it's something entirely different that I think is awesome and way more interesting than a lot of art. You could of course, say, that FIGURATIVELY playing starcraft is an art, that it requires the skillful hands of an artist to do proper muta micro, whatever. I'd agree with that analogy, but it doesn't mean much besides "Starcraft is cool". Technically, it's not art. However, there ARE video games that were intended to be art (like Jason Rohrer's work or Tale of Tales), and there's absolutely no reason that something as such shouldn't be considered art because of its medium.
Asking "Are video games art?" is like asking "Are dishes art?" and expecting to encompass both fine-art pottery and crate & barrel. "Are objects art?" Uhh some of them I guess
|
On April 23 2010 14:18 hoborg wrote:Figuratively, you could say anything is art due to skill, talent, aesthetic, whatever. Like the example Archaic gave, "The Art of War". "The Art of Properly Clipping Your Toenails", wtfe. "Art" is used as a value judgement in this way and if this is the meaning anyone is talking about, it's sort of pointless to argue about. Literal "Art" as in "the sort of thing you'd expect to find in an art gallery" isn't a qualifier for something being good/bad or skillful/not skillful... the key is that it was purposefully created/presented to be art (and, in turn, accepted by an audience to be art). You don't set out to make something mundane and then make art by mistake. If I take a shit, it's not art. If I take a shit in a museum and put it on display and make an argument about it's significance beyond being a piece of shit, then it's art. It'd be retarded and awful art, yeah, but the literal meaning of "art" is not a value judgment. Most video games are not art because they were not intended to be, and not presented as such. Starcraft is not an art, it's something entirely different that I think is awesome and way more interesting than a lot of art. You could of course, say, that FIGURATIVELY playing starcraft is an art, that it requires the skillful hands of an artist to do proper muta micro, whatever. I'd agree with that analogy, but it doesn't mean much besides "Starcraft is cool". Technically, it's not art. However, there ARE video games that were intended to be art (like Jason Rohrer's work or Tale of Tales), and there's absolutely no reason that something as such shouldn't be considered art because of its medium. Asking "Are video games art?" is like asking "Are dishes art?" and expecting to encompass both fine-art pottery and crate & barrel. "Are objects art?" Uhh some of them I guess
Firstly, nobody is talking about 'art' in the sense of a craft, or mastery of something.
I suspect however (though i could be completely wrong), "The Art of War" was intended to have the double meaning. Sun Tzu was pretty bloodthirsty, and I wouldn't be surprised if he considered warfare an art form.
Secondly, I don't think anybody is trying to claim Starcraft itself is art (or if they are, it isn't the discussion at hand). We are talking about players using Starcraft as a medium. Can the very best of players be considered artists? Is what they are doing art?
Lastly, I couldn't disagree with you more about your "key" to whether something is art or not. I really can't see how it matters whether something is intended to be art or not. Many archaeological cave paintings and sculptures almost certainly had completely different purposes (for instance, a crude carving of a woman intended to help a man become aroused currently residing in the British museum). Is it intended to be art? No. Is it presented as art? No. Is it art? Undoubtedly. Furthermore, for the most part, the intention of the creator is largely unimportant, it is the observer that shapes their own meaning.
|
Osaka27154 Posts
I think Samwise Didier might take issue with this.
![[image loading]](http://us.blizzard.com/_images/community/contests/holidayfanartcalendar/ss/ss5.jpg)
He might even throw a snowball at you. After touring Blizzard HQ and seeing the work there, everything seems to start with writing and artists. To claim that the way it is shown means it isn't art... well, my opinion differs.
-edit I realize this not actually be his. :p
|
Art is in the eye of the observer.
|
On April 23 2010 07:38 mangomango wrote:
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.
give him some company?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
PZ is great, you should check out his blog for non-videogame related content.
|
On April 23 2010 14:50 sob3k wrote:
PZ is great, you should check out his blog for non-videogame related content.
I agree entirely. I wouldn't have wanted my OP to lead you to think PZ is a complete ignoramus. He is brilliant, and frequently entertaining.
|
art is not interactive. this is just an argument of definition, not some big insult. games can be artistic, but they can't be "art" until its been an established media form for a long, long time
|
On April 23 2010 14:16 Alethios wrote:
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.
the difference between music composition and starcraft play is that music composition is (almost always) meant to appeal to human aesthetic in some way, whereas the goal in starcraft is to triumph over an opponent in a system designed by humans.
|
Osaka27154 Posts
On April 23 2010 14:54 KurtistheTurtle wrote:
art is not interactive. this is just an argument of definition, not some big insult. games can be artistic, but they can't be "art" until its been an established media form for a long, long time
![[image loading]](http://www.flytecrewblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/obama-etch-a-sketch.jpg)
Interactive art.
Really? Games are based on designs which are started with art. I would say that artistic things = art. And I don't know about your "long long time" thing too. Maybe classical art is old but art mediums doesn't have an incubation process. I mean, just look at Myst. That game is art.
|
i think it's important to distinguish the design process of the game and the process of playing!
|
Everything that ever became art, originally had "no chance at ever becoming art."
Anyways... wtf is art anyways? It's not something objective, unlike "sport," which he mentioned. Sport means there's competition, and rules, and stuff. What's art to one person can be completely meaningless to the other (this must have been mentioned before since it's so dead obvious,) on the other hand I don't see how you can't consider the process of designing and creating a video game art... After all it requires creative processes, and such... but then again that's just me.
|
Despite the fact that this guy might be smart, he doesn't have a really good idea of what art is.
Art is anything that claims to be. Literally I could take a shit in a gallery and call it art, whether it is good art is up to the viewer to decide.
That brings up a new question, what does good art consist of?
Let's make a video game analogy:
It good be could art because of successful formalism: (sick graphics, a beautiful environment).
It could be good art because of fun interaction like an interactive art piece or an installation: (puzzle games or good fun game play in the game.)
It could be good art because of successful narrative: (games with good stories or immersion.)
etc. etc. etc.
There is no way to rate a piece of art, art doesn't need to explain itself and it always lets the perceiver decide.
edit: kurtis the turtle you are blatantly wrong
|
it is an art form, fte pure reason it bring out emotion and after watching it and the players u can gather something about humans overall
|
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.
Using his definition of art, a game like Braid is art. It actually mixes the philosophical concepts of the game with the game's play mechanics. Replace all the graphics with simple gray shapes and remove all sound, and you still have a game that expresses the creator's life experiences and emotions. That fits his definition of art exactly.
So why doesn't he say they are art? He doesn't play video games. Since both his and Ebert's opinions are based off of misinformation gained from their own assumptions, all I could realistically get out of their articles was that they don't play video games.
Ebert wouldn't review a movie after just seeing the trailer, and he wouldn't call a book "pathetic" after reading one paragraph on one random page. Why is he suddenly doing practically the same thing to video games?
Lastly, they're unjustly forcing all games into one category. Who can blame them, they don't play video games and therefore cannot differentiate between the ones that are art and the ones that are not art. If I were to say to Ebert that movies are not art, he would likely present specific examples of movies that he believes to be art, whereas my statement was that movies are not art (not my real opinion, of course). If I were to say that specific movies are not art, he may actually agree with me depending on the movie, as I would agree with him depending on the game.
Bottom line: Ignorance leads to assumption leads to misinformation leads to opinions that offend leads to this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
