Something went wrong. Try again later

MannyMAR

It's pronounced kuh-CULL-en not koo-CHOO-lain.

662 3 16 7
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

So this video games and art debate is kind of fun to figure out.

*Be forewarned this is just some artist duder's (hack) who also loves games trying to piece together some neo-profound (Yes I believe I just made that term up) dilemma on whether something you may also love should validated as art. Take my point of view as an artist pondering the philosophy of what art is and what art is supposed to do in day and age where terms like new media exist.

YO I EDITED THIS THANG A BIT: So when I say art I mean it in the sense of Fine Art rather than Applied Art. Which means fine art which is intended to evoke an emotion, where as applied art serves a purpose or function like an ad or that Nike check.

So some co-workers and I finally had a conversation on this subject, and it turns out we are on somewhat opposite ends on the debate. They like many others in the gaming community believe games are in fact art, but I tend lean more toward's Roger Ebert's point of view. Well, sort of. I believe video games can elevate to a new art form, but it will also require a lot of reinvention of what we consider video games to be.

Ask yourself,
Ask yourself, "Do I really consider this art?"

While I agree video games do use art such as illustration, music, storytelling, and etc. It doesn't mean the game itself is art. That would be like someone saying Apple's 1984 ad was art. Yeah it's an inspired piece of imagery, but at the end of the day, it's sole purpose is inform you about a product. The same is true for games of today and yesteryear: their purpose is to have fun and entertain. I mean a toilet is a toilet, no matter how nice it looks you still use that mofo to shit in.

Hey guys, is this art too?
Hey guys, is this art too?

Now, I'm not going to hit you upside the head with all that "art is supposed to make feel" crap. Well maybe just a little. I will say art subjectively pulls emotions from the people who experience it. Games can most certainly do this, and that's where I agree with the potential of video games becoming art. For this to happen you might have to sacrifice something. I mean is the purpose of every movie, painting, or song in existence to be entertaining and fun? I think not, actually this is where my opinion of art may clash with what you think art is.

I love this, for all the wrong reasons.
I love this, for all the wrong reasons.

Art to me is something that doesn't have to have a purpose or use to communicate to the senses of the beholders. It doesn't have to be a feeling of witnessing pure beauty or horror exclusively, it just brings out emotions. For example Picasso's Guernica is a massive ugly piece art that effectively conveys the tragedies of war. It's hideously beautiful in my eyes. Yet it just sits on wall not doing jack shit but be ugly as hell and is for myself, Picasso's finest work because it brings me all these weird feelings. It's not something I think is fun to look at or entertaining to behold, but I appreciate it. See all that craziness I just wrote about some dumb painting, only art can make you do that.

So pretty so emotional, so close yet so far.
So pretty so emotional, so close yet so far.

Now video games are getting there slowly but surely. I think games like Braid, Journey and Hotline Miami are good candidates for being considered art. But alas, they aren't because there isn't a game that is intentionally designed to draw emotions without caring about its game-play being entertaining or fun to counterbalance these games. You can say in some respects gameplay is subjective as well, Dark Souls and Killer7 are the two examples of non-indie games that are close to art in my book. There's just something lost with all the titles i mentioned that makes it fall short of being art.

Now this is art. Kind of?
Now this is art. Kind of?

Maybe the actual term Video Gameis what's holding back our favorite hobby. Maybe it's the idea that all this interactive media we consume has to be a game and not anything else. Anybody can experience art, but not everyone can or will complete a game for better or worse. This is the point I brought forth to my co-workers, and they just stopped and actually pondered that idea. That's where that conversation ended. I think that when developers make eschew the game part and focus on creating an interactive pieces of art, then our hobby we love can be validated as art. But until then forget trying to apply art to video games, and just enjoy playing these FUCKING AWESOME VIDEO GAMES!!!!

So there you have it from a 29 year old illustrator/ animator and someone who's been playing video games since 1986. There are other things that prevent games from being art such as corporate meddling, creative stifling from the gaming community, and other minor issues that will hopefully work themselves out in light of a ever burgeoning indie scene. Until next time I bid you all adieu.

52 Comments

52 Comments

Avatar image for slag
Slag

8314

Forum Posts

15965

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 8

User Lists: 45

@ares42 said:
@noelveiga said:

@slag said:

I think it's entirely what we call Video Games might actually include both games (well established, very common in quantity) and fine art (relatively younger and rapidly growing) but while both are distinctly different the differences between the two are much more nebulous than in other creative media.

Just another way in which that Video Games is such an imperfect term.

It's not any more imperfect than "movies", which refers both to entertainment fluff and to arthouse pieces (and to documentaries, too); "television", which includes reality shows and game shows; "books", which includes textbooks and technical manuals; "music", which includes ad jingles and elevator music or "architecture", which includes copy-pasted apartment buildings.

I hate this impetus to try and separate arthouse games from commercial games by name, as if that was going to empower one type of games or appease the critics of the other.

There is a very clear distinction though. A "fluff movie" and an arthouse piece are both expressions of the creators imagination. They are both stories told the way the creator designed them, they both have clear direction of what they are supposed to be.

When it comes to games however. You have the "experience" games that follow the traditional concepts of art, but then you have the "game" games which is the complete opposite. They don't have a designed story, they don't have any clear direction. They are rules and laws and leaves the user the power to direct. They allow us to create art ourselves (if we want to), but they aren't art in and of themselves.

Take a game like Minecraft. By itself there is no expression there. You cannot just play the game and follow the guidelines (in the same way you have to actually read a book or watch a movie) and you'll be treated to a wonderful or exciting experience. It's all up to the player to manifest the expression.

And then there is all sorts of games somewhere in between too. You explained it better than I could @ares42

@noelveiga you touched on exactly why I find the nomenclature of Video games lacking. Yes those mediums have great variety as well, but they also have more clear subnames/distinctions for the extremes in a way Video games don't. e.g. What's the textbook equivalent called in Video games? Edutainment maybe? Or an "arthouse" game?

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

@slag said:

What's the textbook equivalent called in Video games?

Wait, where the hell are there video game text books? And why didn't I attend this school that apparently uses them?