|
The term "art" is used in a broad spectrum. I try to quickly summarize what video games are and what they aren't in that regard and what we want them to be. Feel free to comment with your own point of view.
Art Terminology
Art often means arranging
elements in a creative way that appeals to senses or in a broader meaning the
mastery of a skill. Often stimulation of thoughts or an aesthetic experience
triggered by an object, concept or performance is considered art. Also
individuality, uniqueness and value given by an audience can define a piece of
art. Moreover innovation has always been an important aspect in the history of
art.
Artificiality and
Culture
Anything artificial, as a
counterpart of nature, can be considered a cultural achievement of human kind.
The possible impact after all also depends on how widely spread or common
something is in a culture. Thereby the creation of thoughts, concepts and
artifacts can possibly influence whole generations.
Video games for sure
already influenced many people in the way they think and their everyday life.
Video games as a phenomenon have an impact on our culture. The more important
question is, how valuable something is to a society or an individual.
Creativity and Industry
Again we have to reflect on
the different aspects of creativity. On the one hand there is the sole meaning
of creating something as an output of work that did not exist before. On the
other hand we have creativity with the implication of innovation. An industry
(with its production plans and "code monkeys") as a whole can hardly
be considered art or even innovative. Therefore some parts of the
"creative industries" aren't any more creative than car factories.
Fine Art and Applied Art
Nevertheless the term
applied art can definitely be used to describe a big part of the game industry.
It means that the sound artists, visual artists and designers all require not
only certain knowledge to execute their job but also a set of skills that fits
their profession. They need sensitivity for their subject to create elements to
be used in a practical way.
Teamwork and
Authenticity
Fine art is often
considered to be the expression of an individual artist. In video games the
complexity of the technology requires a wide skill set and knowledge. Only very
small games can be created by a sole artist already by means of the work output
one man can accomplish. To get around that restriction some artists use games
made by other people and modify them in order to make a certain statement.
Authenticity is related to how much a piece of art reflects the author’s individual
intentions and personality.
Intention and Perception
At least since Marcel Duchamp,
art cannot be limited to the artist himself. While he makes the statement that
art can be made solely by claiming something to be art he also brings into
consideration that the recipients interpretation is part of the creative act.
Thus the status of being a piece of art is dependent on its reception likewise
as its creator’s intention. Nevertheless something can be considered art that
was never intended to be art.
Communication and
Meaning
Some art is special for its
communicated messages. Games usually don’t touch really meaningful subjects due
to their commercial basis and by that avoidance of controversial content. Art can
be especially valuable for the society when it is politically, spiritually or
philosophically motivated. Only very few games touch that aspect of art at
all.
Aesthetic and Experience
The strongest point for
video games as art can probably be made by the aesthetic experience they are
able to create. Video games have the power to completely immerse the player
into a different world. They can create emotions and make the player feel involved
and committed to an extraordinary amount. Games can be beautiful and touching virtual
illusions but also create connections and interaction between people like no
other medium can.
Medium and Art Form
Art forms are defined by
the constrictions and specific formal qualities they provide to the artist. Basically
every medium can be an art form; it depends on what you do with it. So of
course video games can be a form or basis for art.
Video games are a special medium
at several levels. Outlining all the limitations and possibilities of the
medium cannot be done in this context. Interactivity is often named as the
outstanding attribute. But also other mediums like the internet offer
interactivity. Even though interactivity is an important aspect of games a game
is more than that. A game usually sets goals to the player and challenges him
in some ways by constricting the user’s possibilities. Games are supposed to be
fun and entertaining above all.
Interactivity and
Context
While we group the visual
creators in something called the "art department" true innovation in
the field of games is always a combination of all the aspects of the medium.
Foremost there is interactivity that has to be designed by the game designers
as a rule set of mechanics. But this rule set cannot stand for itself without
context. Interactivity can only be experienced through the filters of our
senses. Our senses perceive information that is limited by the provided
interface. The interface also restricts the user’s possibilities of input to
the interactive system.
Playing Games and
Conclusion
Are we playing art or are
we playing games? Would anyone consider the game of chess and thereby its rule
set of interactivity art?
After all most games are
not art but have artistic components. There are examples where the medium of
electronic games is used to create artistic statements that surpass the
possibilities of other mediums. Therefore video games can be an art form but
usually are nothing less than platforms for entertainment.
Why the obsession with
wanting to be art?
I think, really we, the
creators of games, want to put a meaning into what we do and want to be
recognized as a valid source of cultural output. In that we should not mistake
art for the only legitimate form of cultural value. The industry as a whole has
to make a shift in its approach to appeal to the public. On our side there is
too much focus on violent content and on the other side the press likes to
reduce video games to its possibly harmful outcome. Video games have become a
mainstream medium and that is why there will be more variety in niche markets
but also more of the easy digestible and exchangeable meat.
In the end we are in
control and the most valuable goal we can have, is to make video games a great experience
for gamers.
|
Actually this article does a pretty good job of summarizing everything that has already been said on the subject. I'd be really surprised if anyone here can think of a point that he missed.
As such, the last sentence of the article is probably the most interesting to me. Let's stop arguing about whether or not games can be considered art and start asking ourselves what we use our medium to make games more artistic (or more entertaining, depending on your design/sales goals).
Let me give an example that should be very easy: a painting. I think universally we can all agree that a beautiful painting is a work of art, right?
Yet I would claim that, strictly speaking, the art is not the painting (the medium), yet when we point and say "that is a work of art" we point to the painting. But what do we mean? What are we pointing at?
I think art lies in meaning beyond functionality. That is to say that the "art" in a painting is not the medium, but the "feeling" or meaning instilled in the observer when the painting is experienced.
Thomas argues: "An industry (with its production plans and "code monkeys") as a whole can hardly be considered art or even innovative."
I reply: What about the architecture industry? Can't a building be a work of art? There are some gorgeous, artistic buildings, all of which were constructed by following design plans by "construction workers" yet are considered art and innovative.
I think the problem with the "are games art?" argument is in categorization. Why is it so hard to accept whether or not the medium of "video game" can deliver art? Clearly, the problem is confusing the following two statements:
All video games are art.
The medium of video games can convey art.
Books, for example, can convey art. But not all books are art. A great work of fiction is art, but a technical manual is not art. Yet where is the "are books art" debate?
There is art in games and games are arstitic, but in and of themselves they are not art. Art is really a one of a kind, kind of thing. Even the the artist can't recreate it exactly.
I'm not really an artist, so y'all decide whether or not you want to hang a disk on the wall and call it art. Someone nailed a rope to a board and called it art, so.
Art in and of itself is a human concept and is open to infinite interpretation. When we look at things outside of our perception of 'art' there is typically a reference to there being an art to the thing, as in the art of war.
The truth is that computer games are an interactive art form. Similar to any other form of art, there is more crap out there than there are masterpieces.
Even if your definition of art is pictures, you should realize that 30 frames per second is 30 pictures shown within a second. This is also the rate of pictures per second that the art form of movies and television utilize.
Not considering computer and video games to be an art based on them being entertaining is a huge fallacy of a misnomer. Art in all of its forms entertains in one way or another, be it by entertaining ideologies or perceptions of moments, there is something somehow being entertained be it frustration from being fragged or enjoying a sweeping vista within an MMO.
Looking at video games, what is it that we are saying with our games? By playing a game, what can you say about the people who worked on it? We tend to think that making something look pretty makes it art, or by simply putting in a story it is art. This is not the case. It is the duty of everyone involved to say something when they make a game, from the writer, designer, and creative director, down to the testers and programmers.
Movies are a great parallel to the problems we face with art in games. Movies have multi-million dollar budgets with hundreds of people touching and impacting it in some way. Yet movies like Apocalypse Now or Saving Private Ryan can still be art and express something.
But I also don't think that video games need to be large-scale, 30 hour adventures in order for them to be art. In my personal view, the game Portal is art, and is great art. It is very apparent that the personalities of Valve all leak through, from the game design (companion cube, you are missed) to the story and art design. The game is sarcastic, light-hearted, and definitely unique. Yet it is a simple and short puzzle game. We have a lot to learn and we need to explore our interactive medium further in order to make art.
@Casey Exactly the term art is very widely used. Like in "art of fighting" but there is a rather clear difference to the modern interpretation in the meaning of fine art. It gets blurrier when we try to define fine art in itself. Thats why I tried to cover a lot of different aspects in my article and I believe dadaism could be found somehow in between "stimulation of thoughts", "uniqueness" and political message. Your argument with the 30 fps of pictures is rather weak though. I am pointing out that the medium itself of course can be a basis for art. If you consider a performance of a singer or other entertaining artists art in the broader sense, in the same way the product of game developers could be called art of course. In that matter it comes down to a classification/linguistic/definition problem.
@Charles Personally, I am on the same page with you. Art for me is mostly about expression of an individual person or their message. If a lot of talented people meet as in Portal or you can see the "handwriting" of one inspiring personality all over a large-scale production as with some movie directors I think there can be art after all. Not to forget there is also "social art" and group performances. To be really in control about your piece of art as an artist it would be easier to work on a small scale project all by yourself.
What I don't grasp is why waste your and others time with this - again? This whole issue was created by videogame journos who needed to write about something. If the MOMA includes Pong etc. into their museum, your (and my) opinion has no weight.
I come from the field of History and Philosophy. In that business people spent centuries and even milleniums on useless discussions that led to nowhere. It is an exercise in vanity. No offense.
I understand your point, but I don't think it is wasted time to summarize the "art thing" even if most of the arguments where made before. In the same way I don't think Philosophers waste their time if they reconsider things or talk about the same stuff over and over. It can still be productive or even new to some part of the audience.
It is a crucial question that will define how you make games. If MOMA includes Pong in their museum, it is actually MOMA's opinion that will have no weight.
I have a very specific definition of art. Games do not fit the definition. I've had this discussion many times (even for non-games). Art has to do with an artist's values. Pong has no values originating from the creator. If games go more art-like, they will be less and less like games. If a game reaches a point where you say "now THAT is art", you will have created something that is not a game, by my standards. Whether or not games are viewed as art will affect video game development in the future. It is the philosophical basis of your work, and therefore will determine how you think games should be created.
Currently I'm working on a "game" I hope to have finished by Sep/Oct. But I suppose really, it's not a game at all. It's more *art* than anything- digital art, story, sound. Although I do think I could add gaming elements that would work, technically. They'd be puzzle elements. But here is why I don't think I want to bother: all of the gameplay mechanics that I can think of would really have no meaning or true value. They would only be added so that I could truly call my "game" a game. So I've decided to abandon the idea.
But you know, I do think that in the future, there will be games in which gameplay mechanics do perfectly coordinate with all other elements of the game- in a meaningful way; a way that has value. Mind you, I have no idea how it would work, but I do think there will always be people willing to try.
@Louis
Now the argument presented by the piece is that many games are not art, but the medium, is more than capable of BEING art. Pong perhaps, is not art, merely a defining item in our industry. But to say that as soon as you can perceive a game as art, it stops being a game, is akin to saying as soon as you start enjoying art, it stops being art (both blatantly false presumptions). Mind you all that aside, if we talk about Duchamp's concept of perception making the work art, then if MOMA consider's Pong art, then quite succinctly, it is, regardless of your own opinion on the matter.
@All
While this is a somewhat romanticised view of what game development is, it saddens me to see that somehow being a part of a team is generally considered to reduce any intrinsic artistic value a game could have. Teamwork is used because the individual parts make something greater than the whole. Why is it that in a game each separate piece is art and not the composition? Is this not saying in an orchestra that each individual sound is art, but the entire piece of music is not? Is it saying that in a stage play, that each individuals performance is art, and yet the entire play is not? What of architecture, is the work of the mason, who carefully and painstakingly figures out how to realise the architect's vision, somehow lesser than the architect? What if someone suggests a better way of doing things to the architect, is he no longer an artist because he took advice?
I'm of the opinion that if one person wishes to make something artistic, and calls several others to aid him when his own skills fall short, that the end result is still of the same artistic value as it would have been had but a single man done the work. If anything the accomplishment is greater, for the skill and art in composing the end product from such disparate entities is greater than the skill required by a single man to formulate his ideas.
Ultimately though, if we pander to these concepts, that teams of people cannot produce fine art, that the parts and whole are not both art, but only the parts are, then we severely limit the scope of what we as people can accomplish. More importantly than asking, "why do we think we need our games to be art?", perhaps it is more pertinent to ask why some people don't want games to be art. It's a very narcissistic view that art can only be accomplished by the individual, and is a quite pronounced form of elitism. Both of which, if followed dogmatically, are quite self destructive.
@Michael
I'd say that it's not an artistic ideal, but a design ideal. I may be confused though; do you mean like 3D modeling with programs? If so, that is oftentimes art, but not always. It's just the fact that games require people to play them. It requires choices. It is more about the player's values. It is not the artist's values. There may be an exception in some RPGs, but mainly in the context that the battle system and narrative are entirely separate (i.e. Final Fanasy games). Certain puzzle games could be art, although I'm not sure those would fit my definition of a game. I have not played Marriage or Passage, but I would not call Braid art (it looks pretty, though).
(usually I try to avoid posting too much in blog posts, but you asked me a question specifically)
Thats exactly why the article doesn't end there ;-)
I have to admit I'm having a hard time with teamwork, in an productive industry setting, expressing a collective vision or a statement and everyone together, and also everyone involved for himself, creating art there (talking about fine art here). Although I agree art does not have to be executed by the artist himself in every detail. But we are getting very blurry here. I think after all intention is important and somehow a "spark" of innovation. Visionary thoughts, concepts and an audience of some kind. Maybe in some ways a spirit of not caring what other think and a strong believe in the own concept. So yeah artists are often narcissistic. Art can do everything, it has a free spirit. Most of the games being developed have the uppermost goal of being sold. And in that special definition I don't think an artist painting beautiful pictures, that have been there 100 times before, is producing art.
Btw. I think teamwork is great and it is very productive and inspiring when done right. I think being an talented creative artist in the broader sense is a great thing that can fulfill yourself. I am a designer and also graphic artist but I don't consider any of my own works fine art. For myself probably mostly because of my intention in its creation.
After all this is a topic with problems in lingual definitions and thats why I tried to sum up the most important aspects in the article.
Personally, I see art as anything that uses a medium to try and explain/illustrate a complex idea. The deeper the message and techniques used, the "finer" the art. Artistic games might be few and far in between right now, but that doesn't mean that the possibility isn't there.
"I may be confused though; do you mean like 3D modeling with programs?"
Sorry, my wording was a little vague because I didn't want to call the "software" a game. Let's look at Braid then, since you've played that. The creator of Braid has stated before that everything in the game (the mechanics, art, etc.) were meant to express an idea that he couldn't simply explain in words. Is that not art? If not, why not?
"It's just the fact that games require people to play them. It requires choices. It is more about the player's values. It is not the artist's values."
Yet the developer can guide a player's values through game mechanics. If I don't think a certain choice supports my story/themes, I can simply remove that option from the game. The player only has control over what the developer chooses.
"Certain puzzle games could be art, although I'm not sure those would fit my definition of a game. I have not played Marriage or Passage, but I would not call Braid art (it looks pretty, though)."
Play the Marriage and Passage (each take only a few minutes to complete) and tell me if you consider them to be games. If not, what are they?
I don't really want to hijack this blog post to further our discussion, so contact me at louisvar3@gmail.com if you would like to continue discussing.