|
Okay, attempting to define 'art':
The word itself comes from the Latin root 'ars' meaning a skill, craft or art. We still use the word art in this same context in English, such as in "state of the art", "martial arts" and "artisan". In essence, playing a video game (which I think we can all agree is a skill, albeit probably not a very useful one) can be considered an art form.
Video games also definitely contain "art" (graphics/music/possibly storyline).
However, there is that more modern meaning to the word "art", which sort of defies definition. What is the purpose of this art? Entertainment? Video games provide this. Creativity? Some video games provide this. Intellectual stimulation? Not many video games do, but then again a lot of "art" doesn't do this either.The fact is art means different things to different people, and it seems that as long as one group of people consider something art, then it is. So I guess video games are art.
|
Ebert is a great movie critic but he has no business talking about video games >.>
|
Games are not art.
The article is retarded and as biased as 99% of the response here.
Maybe I will explain myself after a good night of sleep.
In one line. Video Games are equivalent to Games or sport. Chess or Soccer are not art, video games are not art.
|
On April 26 2010 09:04 0x64 wrote:
Games are not art.
The article is retarded and as biased as 99% of the response here.
Maybe I will explain myself after a good night of sleep.
In one line. Video Games are equivalent to Games or sport. Chess or Soccer are not art, video games are not art.
I will be interested to hear your explanation. Considering the fact that there are so many different types of video games, I find it difficult to swallow such an all-encompassing statement. Sure you could make an argument that a Counterstrike match may not be art, but I would be interested in why you wouldn't believe that a game like God of War isn't.
|
On April 26 2010 09:07 HeartOfTofu wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2010 09:04 0x64 wrote:
Games are not art.
The article is retarded and as biased as 99% of the response here.
Maybe I will explain myself after a good night of sleep.
In one line. Video Games are equivalent to Games or sport. Chess or Soccer are not art, video games are not art. I will be interested to hear your explanation. Considering the fact that there are so many different types of video games, I find it difficult to swallow such an all-encompassing statement. Sure you could make an argument that a Counterstrike match may not be art, but I would be interested in why you wouldn't believe that a game like God of War isn't.
The argument that Ebert is making is something a lot of people are misunderstanding.
Ebert is saying the game system is not an art, there is no expression. The system of pressing square for quick attack, the system of immortals hardcountering roaches, the system of the rules is not an art.
This can leave room for the fact that the story, the ART direction, the soundtrack - those can be art. However, the game of chess and the chessboard is not art - it's the player who expresses himself through the decisions and his strategy is what comes off as art.
|
to be fair though the writing in Braid is really bad
|
This is failing to realize that the game system itself is the creation and expression of its developers. Making music with a guitar is art, but so the guitar itself due to the creative labor behind it. Ebert's argument runs under the assumption that the game is something people work within without taking into account the fact that the game itself is the product of someone's work.
|
Does it have to be an art to be meaningful? I never thought of videogames as artistic works, yet that never stopped me from enjoying them. The fact that this guy says that games can't be art doesn't go farther than evoking a "so what?" from me.
Oh well Catch]22 said it earlier. The guy in the article is just a troll.
|
Simply a pathetically uninformed stance to have. I feel sorry for anyone so willfully closed minded or ignorant.
Go has long been considered an art in many Asian cultures on the level of music, calligraphy and painting.
![[image loading]](http://i41.tinypic.com/2d2gars.jpg)
I also submit Auditorium as a counter argument.
|
On April 26 2010 08:28 Athos wrote:Show nested quote +Her next example is a game named "Braid" (above). This is a game "that explores our own relationship with our past...you encounter enemies and collect puzzle pieces, but there's one key difference...you can't die." You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game. She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie. Wow, this is such skewed and biased interpretation of braid. Mr. Epert should at least fucking trying playing Braid before he cites it as a failure at art. The man should just stick to film. Show nested quote +The three games she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic. What kind of fucking moron reviews a game without playing it? Somebody needs to sit him down and force him to play this shit or shut up.
Whoa, criticizing people for reviewing stuff without trying it? Are you aware of the forum you're on?
|
Another advertising genius. How to appeal to a younger audience when you are a middle-aged film critic ?
This guy is probably Idra's father.
|
cannot understand why a film critic can't see the art in video games...however Art is a hard subject to talk about but in this case I see video games as a form of installation art. you interact with it and the mediums can be anything in technology.
|
First of all, I think it's the experience that should be compared, the experience of playing a game versus other forms of expression, as opposed to the creation of them. Can playing games games give you the same things, or as good, as other kinds of art?
Videogames are designed to give stimulance to the human brain, in a more strict and controlled way (even if the objective of the game is more towards the free type). Compared to other artforms, it's a rather shallow stimulance, kind of like baby food which comes in baby portions and is easy to swallow. They just fill a void. I love playing games but a game in itself won't make me think anything worthwhile. This isn't to say that it's a waste of time because just having fun is also important.
Arguing about definitions is totally meaningless, but I can see where the guy in the article is coming from.
Edit: I think that the interactive element of games creates a sort tunnelvision, because you always have a task to focus on. This decreases the potential for reflexion which is an important aspect of art. If you take away this, is a game still a game?
|
On April 25 2010 04:36 Rekrul wrote:
this whole discussion is retarded
the definition of art is different person to person
i guess koreans think it can be
real art yo~
If some paint splashed on the canvas or a stool with one broken leg is considered art, why more complex things shouldn't?
But you're right about the definition of art varying incredibly. For me, most things that are considered modern art are just "art". Doesn't mean that for some they're masterpieces without equal.
|
8748 Posts
The primary goal of some video games can be expression -- the creators are expressing something via the game. Art can be interactive. The form that interaction takes can be a game.
Anyway, everyone knows that Robot Unicorn = art
|
honestly I have a pretty low standard for art and I believe there's pretty much an art to everything people do.
in terms of "high art," with things such as music, film, paintings, etc I think videogames fit in. It's just a generation gap. Some games have low artistic quality to them (such as like gears of war or sport games or something) but then that applies to every medium. Videogames have the ability to move people emotionally in ways no other medium can. Sometimes it's only a trickle or a glimmer, but as videogames evolve, they will be able to carry heavier and heavier emotional impact.
I think in time it will be clear that there are clearly different types of games, and sometimes games are just games (like starcraft or battlefield), but there are also games like shadow of the colossus or half-life that are more of "interactive fictional experiences" or something than a game. Honestly when you think about it's quite bizarre that most games have single player story modes AND multiplayer modes.
To sum it up: videogames are art, there's just a large generation gap (much like when film was 1st invented). There are some games (such as SC) that just strive to be games/sports and other games (such as shadow of the colossus) that strive to be stories or experiences.
|
i believe art is a very easy thin to understand art changes with time even today art has changed art however i believe is something that can last a lifetime and is worth looking at /playing over and over but can videos games be art based on what most time have considered art i believe games are art just due to the things that are art in the old times a art was a painting depicting something graphics are moving paintings so number 1 number 2 is art is a depiction of ones imagination games are created by imagination with people in a studio number 3 art is a depiction of life,nature taking into effect that paintings sometimes are fictional does not games depict life as it would be if those things were actually being involved therefore with those 3 reasons i can honestly say games are art not will be /can be
|
I believe that in terms of a videogame being art, it is most greatly expressed as the game being the creastion of a "world." Now this obviously varies from between games; the world of the soccer stadium in FIFA to the post apocalyptic american wasteland of Fallout 2. So i think this viewpoint requires a bit more thought, since it doesn't directly apply to all games. I think it applies very well to RPGs, action games, and even RTS's. So I will continue:
The game world is therefore an amalgamation of several elements: characters, histories, stories, places, objects, and actions. The player takes the role of a character at some point in the history of this world. In Starcraft, the world is the galaxy and the history is the intertwining meeting of the three races, and the player plays the role of the Commander (Overmind/Executor) as the story unfolds. The game is then a vehicle for the expression of this world, complete with all elements, in which the player explores, competes, searches, fights, interacts - in which he plays.
Using this description, one metric for measuring the artistic merit of a videogame would be the completeness or richness of a world. Obviously, since art is (largely) subjective, players might disagree on a certain game being "better" than another as a piece of art. However the interactive aspect of videogames confounds this line of view - what if a game had created a thoroughly imaginative, thought provoking, and beautiful world, but had abysmal clunky controls and the player was therefore unable to enjoyably play? A good game will balance all of these elements.
I think a good example of a game as art of the sort i am speaking of is Morrowind. Here we have a hand crafted world, with unconventional environments, a complex story, a hero and villain, and a large variety of places. The game is also resplendent with history and stories, legends, poetry, myth and song that provide the careful in game reader an abundance of material to digest and embrace - were he to take the time to find and read the scores of in-game books. The story is presented but need not be followed: the player is free to go and do what he pleases, within the limitations of his character's development. The world is open, mysterious, and varies from hostile and oppressive ashlands to rolling hills and fields. Yet several flaws in the game, which are perhaps so sore because they are so easily avoided, mar such a creation. The poor dialogue and large absence of voice acting make interaction with characters mundane. The combat system is unintuitive to many, making one of the games primary activities unengaging. The alchemy and enchanting systems are easily abused, turning the player into a demi-god within minutes.
Another issue with games is the limitation of technology. Paint and brush hasn't changed too much for a while, but there is a huge difference in the toolset of the NES and the XBox 360. If games are to be judged as art, there must also be some qualifier that is independent of the technological sophistication of its production. We should be able to compare Super Metroid and ICO regardless of when they were made, much as we can compare Jacson Pollock to DaVinci, were we so inclined.
Anyway i'm rambling now and should probably finish writing my lab report! :p
|
competitive games are not art.
story based games could be art.
This argument reminds me of those stickers that stupid art kids slap on everything (garbage cans, bus stops, stuff that's clearly not art) that say 'this is art'.
|
a "video game" is not an art form. video games are a compilation of several different art forms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
