|
@The Riddler.
Not going to deny that I have my own preferences on what is Art, mainly sticking with high Art, the one that has been here for tens of thousands of years such as the Lascaux cave paintings. However I don't see how you can consider an object without intellectual, spiritual or philosophical meaning a work of Art, all Art has meaning thus a message that touches us, the spectator, regardless of that message/meaning being dull or brilliant there must be one.
But what you're doing is just nitpicking definitions on Art.
There is not a definitive one Plato, via Aristotle, believed art should be defined as the imitation of nature. Seneca and Cicero essentially agreed.
Many others disagreed.
But we could play all day with definitions, and find exceptions to every one.
Still my main argument stands strong. Video Games are not Art, as long as there is the word GAME in it. And also as long as it is an industrial process and the the goal of the gaming industry is sales & profit.
The medium we utilize for gaming (Computer generated interactive experiences), can be Art if it removes all the game elements such as competition, rules, goals, conditions, winning or losing etc.
The indie title Dear Esther, in which you just wander aimlessly in a virtual world, is not a videogame, you're not really playing as there is no goal, it's an interactive experience. That could arguably be considered Art by some, the jury is still out. Same goes for Home Alone. Furthermore, the fact that they are being developed by an independent small team, these experiences stick to the author's vision and are less distorted by publishers and all that industrial/financial aspect of the gaming industry. Something else noteworthy is the fact that videogame reviews SCORE and RATE video games, thus acting as a buyers guide for gamers (Enhancing the commercial and industry aspect). Unlike real Art critics who just say I liked it or I didn't and heres why, but never put a rating. The moment you put a score on a game review you make it a product, not a work of Art.
No one in or out of the Art field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists, composers, sculptors, painters and architects.
This is just a mistaken as calling e-sport gamers, Athletes (a person who is proficient in sports and other forms of physical exercise). They are tremendously skilled, but that does not make them athletes.
Just to be clear, I don't have issues with the medium video games use, just the game element, that medium can be used of Art. it's not that my definitions are not allowing video games to be art, they just can't. Sports are not Art, games are not Art.
Cheers.
Edit: In retrospect, some nitpicks you did are valid. Many result from me not expressing myself correctly in order to be fully understood. What I mean that if you alter a finished work of Art and you are not the author, it's vandalism, thus that piece of work stops being Art as it is no longer the work of the original Artist. Seeing it changes the meaning of that piece, destroying it. It's similar to considering a copy of the Original work of Art, as Art. Even if said copy is perfect the motivation for doing it is not genuine, there is no genius behind it. However if you copy a piece of art while making your own original changes to it in order to contradict or honour the original one; it's Art because it's a whole new original work of art inspired by another one, they are similar in aesthetics yet distinct in meaning/message. The example in gaming would be what a MOD is to a Released video Game.
But I have to agree on you with the finalized claim. One can consider it Art even if it the work of Art is still in progress. I just got tunneled vision with the fact many Artists dislike having unfinished work being leaked, published as they don't deem it ready nor worthy, yet.
|
|
It’s quite curious how this thread shifted from discussing Swedish politicians’ populist tricks with gamers to the classificatory debate about including video gaming in Art. But well this is the scrapyard; let’s talk to our hearts content.
I’m going to weigh in on the Art debate. All previous posts agree on Art being a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities. Yet I see that none of you have mentioned or identify what makes the essence of Art, previous post get close to it but miss stating it.
Well,it's to mark one’s passage on Earth, regardless of there being an audience, a spectator. That’s why architecture, paintings (on any support), sculpture, literature or even the work of artisans are the highest Art.
It’s not purely about emotion, it’s not about feeling, it is a statement. Those works of Art, once crafted have an existence of their own; they are present in this word either to be admired or reviled, rarely leaving individuals indifferent and can stand the test of time like no other, they will outlive us. I'm not denying that there is good art & bad art, which is mainly a matter of taste, preference and seing if the artist is truly gifted.
For instance Nowadays people tend to consider many forms of new media as Art, well it's mostly BAD Art and what it truly is is entertainment.
90% of films are bad Art, even if cinema is dubbed the seventh art, it’s pretty rare to see a film really worthy of being assimilated to Art, same goes for commercial music. This has to do with entertainment being a commercial & financial industry, contrary to Art.
Most of Hollywood movies are meant to be emotional and entertaining, just because you cried as a kid when Mufasa died or had a great experience with any Hollywood summer blockbuster does not make it Art if there's no outstanding/properly serious message/statement, same goes for most commercial music, you can like a song, really enjoy, it can make you happy or sad, but Miley Cyrus wrecking ball is not Art.
But I assure you that the latest single from any current superstar won’t be hummed nor singed in 1000 years. Melodies are Art, such as familiar rhythm or musical theme, as they can be deeply intertwined within a culture in the course of several centuries, making said melody a tradition that defines local folklore. It’s the case of national anthems and so on.
Moreover, when it comes to new media, films and videogames need to be played, if no one is there to turn on the projector/radio/console/pc, nothing happens, there is no message, no beauty, no statement, no feeling, no life.
That is why it’s most time it's not real Art and we have to cherry pick the worthy pieces of music/films in order to categorize them as Art. The highest Art has to exist by itself, assert its presence after it is created by human activities.
Now, talking specifically about video gaming. It really is not Art, not even BAD Art and most big shots in the gaming industry, be it developers or the press agree on it.
Video games face several issues that need to be addressed in order to be Art.
1. Nothing happens without the player’s input. Therefore there is no story, no message, no visual beauty without the player. If I load up a game and sit there waiting in the main menu, I’m not experiencing anything. If I decide to start Bioshock and then decide to halt my progress and stay there on the ocean by the plane wreck instead of reaching the lighthouse and then the bathysphere, nothing happens, the story, thus the message and work of Ken Levine & Irrational games dev staff will not be experienced. Contrary to a painting or monument, that cannot be unseen it, it’s there, it exist, I saw it and won’t forget it. Or a piece of music, I cannot force myself not to hear it, if it’s being played in the background, I have to flee the place, and once heard I cannot un-hear it. You see they have a life of their own, that’s why it’s art, it’s not the case of gaming which is inherently tied to the player’s goodwill.
2. Video Games are a jack of all trades and thus suffer an Identity crisis. Painting is the illustration of one thoughts or state of mind, that’s it. Games are everything and thus nothing. They can be sports, such as MOBAs, RTS, turn based strategy games, racing games, sport games etc… They can be didactic tools such as simulators. They can be interactive movies such a Heavy Rain. They can be a wonderful storytelling medium, it’s the case of the Bioshock franchise, Last of Us and most RPGs. Sports however elegant their rules are is not Art, it’s a competition; software is not Art, it’s an instrument.
3. Art is more concerned with the expression of ideas...Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. Sure one can play an immersive game such as Dear Esther or Gone Home without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
4. The irony is the videogames are the product of an artistic process (The sketches and all stuff in the art books, the score, the writing process of the story, lore & plot), but the final product is meant to be a service or activity mainly focusing on fun and replayability (thus repetition); And not as a medium to deliver a serious message that exist regardless of player input. Finally said service (The videogame) is meant to make increasing amounts of money for an industry, the one’s really calling the shots are the publishers and Suits, not the devs who work hard, loving their work and artistic process just to see it gutted by the douchebags at marketing that want to make it mainstream and entertaining. Regardless of them having artistic talents, people “work” on videogames for remuneration. Also in order to make a video game, you need a Studio with Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management, I rest my case. A true Artist produces what he wants, not what an overseer/boss tells him to do, and does so regardless of people liking it or not, it’s not work, it’s not about remuneration. He makes his living from “mécènes” (patrons of the arts) that do not interfere in his artistic process and buy it because they liked it in the first place. Van Gogh died in misery never having sold a single painting to anyone but his brother. Videogames are all about sales & profit even if the guys whom work on it won’t make that much money, the publishers do. Also there is no such thing as a unique game, because there are several copies of the videogame, it’s an industrial product/service.
5. Most video games are not even a finalized product anymore, it used to be, but now it’s a service. We as gamers can distort, even contradict the devs intended message or gameplay. Relic never intended that every 2v2 match had to display an Elefant vs ISU-152 duel, well too bad, we as gamers abuse that strat, screw you Relic and your balance. Then they patch it, and we break it again and so on. Once a work of Art is finished and signed it cannot be altered, the Mona Lisa smiles, you can’t repaint the original piece and make it grinch, if you do so it’s not a piece of Art anymore, because a piece of Art is definitive, Da Vinci wanted it that way it stays that way until it is destroyed.
So I personally can't see how video games can be Art, it’s quite delusional to consider them as such. However some noteworthy games are making progress in the right direction, instead of emulating different forms of Art, (Such as video games trying too hard to be movies, or games trying too hard to be sports), games like the Half-life series have it right by trying to be more original and acknowledging the medium’s idiosyncrasies as strength!
There’s not a single cut scene in HL1 & HL2 and you are always in control of your Avatar, (Gordon freeman) never speaks because it’s meant to be you, the devs can’t put words in your mouth nor will force you to choose from an list of predefined Q&A. Actually it makes you more akin to a silent spectator when it comes to the story, your actions and choices have no consequence in Half life, regardless of you killing anyone or everyone will not change the story only the perspective from which you witness it, therefore the devs (artists) message is unhampered. If it keeps going in that original direction we might end up someday with certain video games recognized as Art, but note that that makes “video games” more akin to an immersive and interactive experience than a game.
Ultimately it seems unlikely as the new trend for most games is to go open world, propose 8 different endings and players want to see their actions shape the game’s world to make their playthroughs unique, so there’s no message from an artist, only what we players want in our sandbox.
I don’t see why many gamers want recognition of a game as Art, that’s mistaken. Why just not play and enjoy ourselves! Bobby Fischer, Maradona or Michael Jordan never said they thought their games were an art form. Neither should we.
Cheers.
|
France
0
Relic Entertainment
