Nailed.
I wrote you an e-mail, Ian, but if you like I can put it here and get some discussion going.
Wrong argument. Of course video games are art. So is Chutes And Ladders. They’re graphic art. But they’re not, and never will be, narrative art, which is what ‘video games as art’ people are trying to claim in a back door way.
Okay, then I’ll get into it…
I’ve thought about this for a long time. In art, the only message that is intended to be conveyed is the author/artist/filmmakers. We can draw nothing new that the filmmakers did not intend for us to draw. This is good for the artist, because it makes their work much more timeless, as people keep “discovering” new things about the art over the years, and it’s good for the person because they have a paradigm shift in their understanding of how the art, and the world in general, works.
I believe this qualifies in video games as well. Are games truly interactive? Because in the end, you still are presented with the game-maker’s message. Even “open-ended” games are hardly that. But instead of dealing with the face value of what you are seeing/reading/hearing, you are probing, constantly probing, to get to the realization and the intended message of the game-makers. There are rewards in this art, as you successfully navigate through it, and get that extra piece of information that makes the message clearer. Have games reached the potential of this new mode of communicating art? Not remotely. They are still locked into plots that are as simple as children’s books.
Video games are not art, not yet, but that’s not due to the medium, which is capable of great art, in my opinion. I don’t think the potential has been reached yet.
Negative, Devin. It’s not graphic art that I’m arguing for, nor is it narrative art. Those are both reductionist limitations imposed on the genre, by people who want to make videogames conform to established artistic forms. Interaction is key, not storytelling. Those people who argue for “games as art” on the fictive front aren’t getting it right, either.
And Nordling, I just responded to you, but I’d love to see your points in here. edit: Ian is too late.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Alan “Nordling” Cerny In art, the only message that is intended to be conveyed is the author/artist/filmmakers. We can draw nothing new that the filmmakers did not intend for us to draw. |
I’ve got a brief bone to pick with this statement, which is that authorial intent is becoming less important (almost null importance) in any form of art.
A guy standing on stage and farting for six hours is art, so the gates are wide open when it comes to definitions, but the fact is that video games do not elicit an emotional response beyond excitement, fun and frustration. There are people who have cried or been deeply moved by video games, but I find these people to be suspect in the extreme and probably moved to tears by The Real Ghostbusters cartoon. I think this whole argument is moot because no one has even remotely attempted to make a video game that’s anything but a time wasting fun thing.
I also find people who need to rationalize their hobbies as ‘art’ to be sort of baffling - I spent a lot of this past weekend playing THE GODFATHER game, but I have no need to explain that time away with anything loftier than it was something to do with myself.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by iandonnell I’ve got a brief bone to pick with this statement, which is that authorial intent is becoming less important (almost null importance) in any form of art. |
BS. The death of the author is a valid and important way to analyze art, but it isn’t the only way, and to remove the author fully is reductionism of the worst kind and, I think, a false egalitarianism that makes everything art and so devalues art beyond any meaning.
Devin, do you think a video game by its nature cannot elicit a genuine emotional response? At least something more than excitement, anyway.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Alan “Nordling” Cerny Devin, do you think a video game by its nature cannot elicit a genuine emotional response? At least something more than excitement, anyway. |
I think that what we define as a video game will never elicit an emotional response. There may be next generation interactive experiences that will, but sitting on your couch mashing the X button will never be an emotional experience for anyone but the most developmentally immature.
I don’t think that it’s a moot argument, but I don’t think it’s a very important one, either. It’s just a topic that fascinates me. The list of valid emotions elicited by gaming is a good deal wider than you cited, Devin.
Also, re: death of the author – I don’t argue for that school of criticism. I’m saying that authorial intent is not a solid enough bedrock to construct any argument atop. The egalitarianism that you mention is theoretical, and can’t be evidenced in the real world of criticism.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by devincf AI think this whole argument is moot because no one has even remotely attempted to make a video game that’s anything but a time wasting fun thing. |
Many have tried, you just don’t think anybody has been successful at it.
When you look at something like flOw, it is designed to make you waste time, but that shouldn’t be used to dismiss any other ambitions the game has.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by devincf There may be next generation interactive experiences that will, but sitting on your couch mashing the X button will never be an emotional experience for anyone but the most developmentally immature. |
I see gaming heading toward being labeled “interactive experiences” rather than “games,” because the semantics are such a hangup for some people. That’s kind of why I cited “The Marriage” in the article, since it’s not fun – it’s just interactive, and as such creates a relationship between the creation and the player.
Here’s the thing: are games art? Is playing Monopoly an artistic experience? Or playing Dodgeball? I am not talking about watching people play them or the inspiration one draws from playing them or something, I mean the actual playing of them. I don’t think games are art. You can make art from games and you can make games from art, but I think they’re essentially different things.
And I think that the interaction between author and audience is more theoretical in real art than it is in video games. The interaction is ‘I present my ideas and feelings, you interpret and absorb them’, not ‘Hit X, hit Y, shake the controller and move the pixels on screen.’ Your definitions have turned my refrigerator, a designed device with which I interact, into a work of art beyond the design arts. I just don’t think my fridge is art, much as I don’t think Halo is art.
Not to be a pussy about this argument, but I can see both points here. Maybe the proper question isn’t “Are video games art?” but “Are video games useful?”
Quote:
| Your definitions have turned my refrigerator, a designed device with which I interact, into a work of art beyond the design arts. I just don’t think my fridge is art, much as I don’t think Halo is art. |
My counterargument to that is that art demands introspection, and while I agree that your fridge doesn’t require any of that (hunger notwithstanding,) I think that the created worlds and interactions of games do allow – and capably so, in certain circumstances – for that introspection.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by devincf I think that what we define as a video game will never elicit an emotional response. There may be next generation interactive experiences that will, but sitting on your couch mashing the X button will never be an emotional experience for anyone but the most developmentally immature. |
This is kind of a bullshit comparison. By that logic, a painter isn’t creating art, because he’s just dragging a wet stick across a sheet of paper. The tools and the method are just that. The result is what matters, and in this case, pressing X can mean a whole multitude of things depending on the game’s context, just like a single brushstroke can.
I’ll take a poke at that Marriage game, but I can’t think of a video game that required real introspection, or even elicited it. In fact I regularly take actions in video games that are totally unrelated to any aspect of me or my personality and are only taken because they are dictated by the extremely limited set of options offered. Even what I think of as the best video game ever made, GTA: San Andreas, is enjoyable on a pulpy, impersonal level and not because it any way reflects upon me or who I am. People keep saying Shadow of the Colussus is the game that has all the meaning, but I’ve played it and it’s at best just a critique of the form and has no bearing or relevance on my life. In fact, I think that the overwhelming majority of games and gamers are aimed at whatever would be the exact opposite of introspection.
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Crow This is kind of a bullshit comparison. By that logic, a painter isn’t creating art, because he’s just dragging a wet stick across a sheet of paper. The tools and the method are just that. The result is what matters, and in this case, pressing X can mean a whole multitude of things depending on the game’s context, just like a single brushstroke can. |
So who’s the artist, you or the video game designer? Because you’re using comparisons that make no sense. The better comparison is to a sport - who’s most important, the rulemaker or the player? The groundskeeper or the player?
Essentially what you’re saying is that the crayon drawing you made isn’t art but the crayolas you used are.