|
[In this important Gamasutra essay, former game journalist and current EA producer Jim Preston dispels the illusion of an 'art club' that games aren't allowed to enter, suggesting that diversity has made the 'games as art' debate effectively meaningless.]
Last November Roger Ebert reviewed the film Hitman (pictured below) and raised the ante in his ongoing
low-stakes game of "is it art?" with video gamers. Instead of simply
declaring, as he has done in the past, that videogames are not art, Ebert goes
even further to declare that videogames "will never become an art form."
The claim that games aren’t an art
form isn’t controversial, even among many gamers. But to take it to the next
level and deny that they ever can become art is, well, just plain ol’ mean.
Naturally the reaction among gamers was the righteous fury of the deeply
transgressed. Many noted that Ebert actually liked Garfield: The Movie while others pointed out the devastating
ravages of senility. The desire to be considered
an art form, and to get all the benefits of legitimacy that come with it, is
natural for any hobbyist. The problem for video gamers, however, is not with
Roger Ebert; the problem is that gamers don’t understand the disheveled state
of "art" in America.
Most gamers think of their plight this way: there’s this really great
club downtown called the Arty Party and all the cool people are in it. George
Clooney is getting drunk with Oscar Wilde; Chopin is playing foosball with
Allen Ginsberg; and Picasso is hitting on Emily Dickinson -- it’s the best.
Meanwhile, we gamers are out
here on the sidewalk in the rain with the comic book guys and the graffiti
sprayers and we can’t get in because that cranky bastard Ebert won’t let us
through the door. Ebert, and others like him, man the door and glower at us,
not letting us in to this one big party.
The problem with this picture is
that it isn’t even remotely close to reflecting the state of art in 21st
century America. To think that there is a single, generally agreed upon concept
of art is to get it precisely backwards. Americans' attitude towards art is profoundly divided, disjointed and
confused; and my message to gamers is to simply ignore the "is-it-art?" debate altogether.
Note, however, that
I am not saying anything about art per se,
or anything about art in any other culture. Rather, I would like to suggest
that the U.S.’s constant influx of immigrants, exiles, and refugees has led to a current artistic
landscape that is so widely varied that the "is-it-art?" debate is almost meaningless.
Our current cultural attitude towards art is like an enormous cocktail,
with so many ingredients added over time that it is almost impossible to digest
the final result.
A quick and crude history would be familiar to all of us: the
early European settlers and merchants brought a broadly Christian conception of
art; the slave trade injected African oral traditions and rhythms that would
lie murmuring underneath the surface for decades; the antebellum and agrarian
South fully embraced a neo-classical view of art.
The turn of the century saw the rise of the
Blues and Jazz from the Mississippi delta; the second World War brought a wave
of European thinkers and artists, many of them avant-garde; the post-War era witnessed the rise of rock ‘n roll
and abstract expressionism; and the GI Bill sent (and still sends)
unprecedented numbers through college, leading to a great blob of theorists who
are forced by the economics of higher education to dream up more theories of
art or perish.
|
Printer-Friendly Version
Here in germany the whole discussion about ebert vs. games was dominated by angry players who complained that an old man critizised their hobby. Unfortunately none of these players had an idea what art in this context could mean and the main argument why computer games are art is that they involve graphics and music and that they are something like films, only better.
What gamers need is, in my opinion, a broader concept of art, today most gamers are awfully antiintellectual and they despise the idea of art.
I totally agree with the author, that the reception of games can show an artistic element in games. Bruce Sterling wrote in his SF novel "Islands in the net" about someone who found an old VCS2600 along with "Missile Command". He showed it to his friends and they were terrified about the hopelessness of the game, they saw in the game a reflection of the late 20th century. I think looking at games from different angles like this one can help us to see if games are something like a cultural assets, maybe then we don't need to stretch the term art again and again.
The problem is that nearly a hundred years have passed since Duchamp created Fountain, and I'd be willing to be that 99% of America at large would not agree that it's art. This piece is probably the single most important and influential work in the last century, and people still haven't caught up with why it mattered.
If people want to debate what something is or isn't, it helps to have some education on the matter, and it doesn't seem as if this debate is being carried out by many people who do. I include Ebert in this category of people that needs a little education before they start making declarations.
I'd be willing to bet that most people who have spent some time studying art and art history would be unwilling to try and define art, as if anything it is a thing that defies definition and categorization.
While I don't know if games are art, I think that the let's-dismiss-their-potential-and-just-piss-around movement is pretty lame.
@ norb - You and I are on the same page, then, although I know plenty of people celebrate that fact as what is great about art in America. Too each his own, I suppose.
@ Forrest - You and I are also on the same page. I didn't want to come right out and say it in the article, but the conditions for the appreciation of art also include a minimum level of education. That does NOT mean formal education, however, but at least some appreciation of the ideas expressed in most artworks.
@ Grassroots - sorry, I'm not sure I've grasped your point.
I think that Pac-man was a more seminal work of art than Fountain.
Two other things to consider in the "are video games art" debate:
1) Are the 3d models and textures in a game art? They are made by artists after all. Another way to ask this question is: are the products of craftsman, artists, and artisans art?
2) Is design art?
I think that Scott McCloud of Understanding Comics fame basically said that anything done by a person that isn’t an immediate necessity is art.
Of course, most games out these days don't express much aside from combat scenarios, brain-teasers, and tests of manual dexterity. So the industry has a lot of work to do. Let's not get distracted by Roger Ebert.
And in all fairness, Ebert doesn't exactly say games will never be art. He says that unless they "morph into something else", they won't be. So even he is acknowledging that it's possible someday. But whatever - let's get back to the task at hand: How do we express ideas in games?
If got one question: why do you pay so much attention to this Ebert? From reading his review I am just asking myself - why the hassle? I am not native English, but he says video games will never be art if films about videogames are as bad as hitman?
You cannot be true! Videogames CAN be as original and thought provoking as any other art form. Although I wouldn't say that the Hitman videogame is a perfect example. I am thinking more of Psychonauts or Okami.
I'm glad you wisely took the position that games can eventually be accepted as art, and not the stronger position that games actually *are* art, since, like you said, that comes down to the yet-to-be-decided essence of art.
The popular view is that games are "for fun" and therefore they somehow "don't count." It doesn't matter what game is, they're played to kill time and be forgotten and created for nothing but a profit.
Art on the other hand is a serious matter and in that respect intimidating. It must be studied; it is a discipline. It requires philosophy and education.
I don't care whether someone agrees that games are art, but I do care if they limit games to "fun" (a meaningless term as it is). By saying games are not art, you discourage their study and limit their progress.
There's nothing to be lost by admitting games as an artistic medium. Not for "artists" and not for game developers. Can we stop being such scaredy cats about it?
@ Joel - Thanks, Joel, I'm glad you enjoy the links.
@ Chris - Agreed. There's another pragmatic reason to label them so: the political benefits that come with such legitimacy. You don't see politicians trying to pass obesity taxes on films, or trying to enable stronger labeling laws on books, and that is because both of those mediums are fully accepted as art forms even if the vast majority of actual films and books fall far short of that ideal.
However, I disagree with the uniqueness of the US that you argue:
Over here in Europe, I don't see anyone with a generally open view of art feeling they need to discuss whether games are art or not (those who do are generally the people who also question whether movies/cubism/rock music/whatever is art).
I feel the culture here in Europe is generally past that sort of nitpicking of which mediums are allowed for creating art - the US might not be as unique in that respect as you think.
The "hunting beavers" theory of norb rozek, while it certainly evokes an amusing image, is off the mark too. If you are talking about the 17th and 18th centuries, there was hardly the kind of public mass-market art discourse that we have today (not even in Europe...) - rather, when the early yanks were busy hunting beavers, most of the early Europeans were busy ploughing fields or, well... even hunting beavers :)
When it comes to creative art, Europe and the US have always been and continue to be very very similar.
Great article, I like your perspective on the issue!
I feel it is also worth pointing out that all art requires some degree of interaction. Books, movies, and music lose their meaning if the observer refuses to indulge themselves in the work. Even the observation of art is, itself, interactive: You have to witness the beauty to appreciate it.
Consider "Flight of the Bumble Bee." Remove the listener and it is simply a string of notes. A child might be amused by it because without context it is a silly string of scaling pitches. A layman would likely not appreciate it because it doesn't tell much of an acoustic story - which is sensible, as it was written to simply close an act in an opera. Myself, having learned to play an instrument, I find it astounding that anyone can play the first few bars without tying their fingers into knots. In appreciating the piece for the mastery required to play it, I have interacted with it and created meaning for it, which makes it art. This is a classical, educated appreciation of the work. If, instead, the music conveyed in me a sense of flight, then I have experienced a sense of flight with it, which is an interaction. This is a romantic appreciation of the work.
My point is that appreciation requires some kind of interaction, psychological or otherwise.
For Ebert to state that the involvement of a player precludes video games from ever becoming an art form, he precludes his own passion from qualifying. You cannot claim to have watched a film without watching a film, and that point seems to have escaped Ebert. You cannot judge a film's dialogue without first listening to it. You cannot critique an actor's performance without first watching it. Regardless of how you appreciate the art: whether it convey an emotion, is masterfully executed, is ornately decorated, provokes thought or question, or satisfies any other criteria, you must experience something for the art to be meaningful. Experiencing something always involves interacting with it, even if this interaction is entirely psychological.
I can't even come to terms with the idea that Ebert might be advocating that art can only be appreciated in a classical sense; my film appreciation professor forced me to read far too many of Ebert's reviews in which he rants about the romantic qualities of the film. Ditto, vice-versa.
I've generally dismissed Ebert's article as close-minded and poorly considered. To me, it is little more than intellectual noise, and I'm surprised by how many people continue to think about it. Perhaps he deserves some credit for being bold enough to state his opinion, but it doesn't negate the fact that he seems to have entirely missed the point of his own article. Perhaps, if someone can tell me how I've missed the point, as well, then I can learn to appreciate his opinion in the way that I've learned to appreciate Fountain. Until then, I think I've devoted entirely too much thought to the issue.
No one medium is safe from the artists' creative impulse Assuming they have access (and we usually do). There are many artists working in and with the videogame medium. The big problem is that games have quickly become very complex to make and as such tend to attract the more hardy and/or technically proficient of artists. There's never been a medium that is excluded from art.
The question - as yet unanswered is - "What *kind* of art do we make with video games?". Is Halo art? No. Is Electroplankton? - Iwai intended it to be a commercially viable interactive art/sound project - so it is.
There is no argument, it's happened/is happening but no you can't just label any game Art (well you can, you can do whatever you want) not unless there was artistic intent and an attempt to bring new interpretation, expression or point of transcendence to the medium. Same argument with film, is Die Hard 3 art? No. Is Eraserhead? Yes.......and so on.
m
@ Anonymous - You make an excellent point about interaction. While it is true that videogames are an "interactive" medium while, say, the novel is a passive medium, consider how much active reading you have to do to appreciate a great and complex piece of writing. A truly challenge work of art is quite interactive, as you point out, whether you are the performer or the viewer!
@ Mike - I'm not sure what to say as I thought the role of "the artist's intention" had been thoroughly rubbed out of current theories of interpretation. The classic example of Frost's "Stopping by the Woods on a Snowy Evening" shows how it supports three very different readings, and the fact that Frost deeply objected that his intention was to write a poem about suicide, the fact of the matter is that the poem supports that reading.
I don't really see how intent can play any role in determining the artistic worth of anything. You claim that Halo isn't art, but then point out that Electroplankton must be simply because Iwai intended it to be. How do you know that the developers at Bungie did not intend the same? And even if they did intend it, why would that, ipso facto, make it art? Surely the thing can only be judged on its own merits, and the artist's intent has no bearing at all. So I half agree with your interpretation of Duchamp - it's all about context, not at all about intent.
Jim, I agreed on your point that art is also about context, but not at all when you last said in response to Mike that it's not at all about intent.
The question could be: who makes art? the maker or the viewer?
I agree with Mike: most of the people in the industry do games based on the market, the audience and the technologies. Sadly, most of them don't try to say anything through their creation. Things must simply work and be fun for the player. So videogame is like building a car: you make a product. That's the same difference you find between painting and commercial illustration, sculpture and product design.
Now, you have sometimes people in the industry who try to say something, who conceptualize their work, as Mike said.
If Bungie just wanted to make a very good and successful game (like we all do), then no it's not art. If any of these guys tried to express something through his work (like an artist working on a specific building), then his piece only is art, not the whole game.
Now, if the creator of the game conceptualize his game, then you may consider it as an artistic vision, therefore as art, no? Of course, it doesn't mean that his whole team would do the same, they would just help him achieving his vision, but that's the same for music, movies, etc. As long as there is an artistic lead, then you can start considering the whole as art.
Again I agree with Mike on videogame as a medium any artist could use to create art. But because it's so expensive, it's really not easy for them. When we'll have more products like Torque and Flash for example, and even more easy to use, we'll see more art coming from this medium.
If someone were to ask if fencing was an art they would likely say no, it is a sport. Yet, if other fencers were to witness some of the champions of the world they would beg to differ. Those champions show the potential art that fencing contains.
Chess, a simple board game with limited amount of moves creates such a foundation of possibilities that the world has held tournaments trying to decide who has become a master at it. Yet chess in itself is displayed in many different shapes and forms. (from LOTR to basic shapes)
Let's not forget a great deal of game design is taken from board games...
Perhaps video games and designers alike should be asking if a game would be just as complex, fun, and challenging if the visual arts/music were taken away? Try mentally replacing high poly models with stick figures, replace tanks and soldiers with basic geometry, view animation as actions that have assumed results (due to rules). Is your game still fun? Is it still challenging?
Many of you will argue with me that all of those elements I just pulled out of the game take from the experience. This is where games fails to become an art. If a game is providing an experience that is 'artificially' enhanced then it is trying to accomplished what every movie tries to accomplish(great music, stunning special effects, drama, emotion, and immersion).
Sure, paintings(textures), music(sounds effects), and acting (drama) are all art forms in their own right but why do people feel they need to fight that games are an art form when they hammer multiple art forms together to try and cover up what their real focus is.
It is all about the foundation of a game that gives it potential to be an art. Chess is played daily because its simplicity is the art. Granted video games need a few extra elements to built its foundation: input layout and sound effects. Video games have potential to be art forms but very few games have been able to balance the elements involved for them to be considered art. The high poly counts are just a new mask for the game play to take, nothing more.(very similar to a new looking chess board)
Games have the potential to be art when their foundation is well built and they don't ruin themselves with art(poly, sound effects, and AI) that is below the caliber of it's foundation. Sure it is possible for video games to become art assuming all of the different parts are assembled to create a true masterpiece (which I've yet to see, and don't expect to see in my lifetime).
Another way games could be viewed as an art is when players take the excess aesthetics out and play them like Chess or fencing. Player vs. Player. Forget the computer(AI), the graphics, and the music. Give the player a worn sword or a home-made chess board. If players take the environment (the board/sounds effects/interface) and use it to outsmart their opponent is when a game can become an art. Yet this art can only be appreciated by people who take the time to watch or have taken the time to learn the art themselves.
Sadly with the environment built on games today it is unlikely that this view will gain any popularity. Players with real skill are criticized for hacking, looked down upon with jealousy, and ridiculed. Without a respected environment we will never see video games as an art in America.
Unfortunately, I'm going to have to politely disagree with you as well. Intention has absolutely no role at all to play in determining some thing's artistic value. In fact, the idea that intent plays any role whatsoever has long been dismissed by philosophers and critics as simply the "the intentional fallacy" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_fallacy).
Consider the absurd conclusions it leads to: anything done to be popular or successful cannot be art. Likewise, anything done with artistic pretensions must therefore be art. Finally, a single collaborative work can both be art and not be art because one particular member, as you put it, "tried to express something through his work" while the others did not. Do I really have to go and poll every member of collaborative work to find their intentions before I can call a piece art? These are, of course, ridiculous conclusions.
I would simply suggest that art and commerce are not the oil and water you make them out to be. Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities," Mozart's "The Magic Flute" and Coppola's "The Godfather" were all wildly popular but also considered artistic masterpieces of their form. Why are we to say that "Halo 3" isn't art simply because it too is popular? We cannot go and ask the makers, as I'm sure everyone who labored so long and hard on the game would probably say, yes, they expressed something in their work.
Finally, I would return to Duchamp. His work "Fountain" is considered by many to be one of the most important works of art of the 20th century. Do you think the mason who created the original urinal intended for it to be art or plumbing? I'm afraid I must agree with Duchamp; the original intent for something matters not all, it is all of context and analysis.
However, I do think that you, me, and Mike would all agree that videogames are certainly a canvas upon which art can be created, regardless of whether we agree which particular game is art or how it is to be interpreted.
Consider Myst. Without the artistry, Myst is little more than clicking to navigate through a maze and solving puzzles. Would Myst be nearly as involving or entertaining if it were solid colors and basic shapes? Why, then, did the developers spend so much time on everything else, if it added no meaningful value?
I agree with Mike that the proper question to ask is "how" video games are artful, and I submit that the answer changes, sometimes within the context of the very same work. Sometimes the art is the enjoyment of play, as with many, many multiplayer games. Sometimes the art *is* the models and the texturing. Sometimes it is the story of the game, or the music of the game. Many, many things can contribute to the artfulness of a game.
In fact, it seems that asking how videogames are artful is analogous to asking how writing is artful. Writing encompasses several art forms, including poetry, calligraphy, storytelling, and more. I have never seen Elizabeth Browning's penmanship, and clearly the literary field doesn't consider it relevant to the admiration of her poetry, else they would be certain to reproduce her works complete in her own handwriting.
If an art form as old as writing can be artistic separately from its storytelling, why can't video games be artistic for more than their fun?
While I have deep appreciation for both game art and game soundtracks (with the arguments that game-art books and game-music performances are both popular) they are usually appreciated as visual or aural pieces, not as a game experience.
Tetris is the old standby, but that's because it really is a good video game: it incorporates a gameplay mechanic not practically realized elsewhere (infinite falling bricks magically disappearing when a line is formed) and throws in enough variety to make it simple yet addictive. You can't get the experience any other way; you can only understand Tetris if you actually PLAY Tetris. That's what makes it a game worthy of an "art": the inability to recreate the experience in another medium.
Graphics and sounds are beautiful, but when games mimic other art forms too much, it cheapens the gameplay and therefore lessens the ability for gameplay to become art. Games that try to emulate movies, or get by purely by their graphics, sound, or story, are always trying to measure up to another standard.
I'm not saying that I don't enjoy a story and good graphics and sound, but there are very few games that truly weave the player into the game experience and make it something you have to play to appreciate. I felt Ace Combat 4 was a very good example of how narrative brought out the "game" experience; while gameplay is largely similar throughout the AC series, AC4's story was one whose impact could not be told through a movie, book, or musical piece. If you have no idea what I'm talking about when I refer to Ace Combat 4's story, I can only say that you have to play the game; there's no other way to capture that unique moment. And if you can't play the game...
...you miss the experience. Ebert's comments are shortsighted, to say the least, but he's acknowledging a key factor: games are inaccessible to a good percentage of the population. It's easy to appreciate catchy game tunes, or beautiful game graphics, or even spectacular game story writing, but until more video games tap into their inherent appeal -- accessible and enjoyable gameplay -- it's going to be an unnecessarily long time before their charm is appreciated on a greater level.
That said, my perspective (::sips from his tiny cup of strong coffee::) is this:
-Ebert hasn't been to a modern art museum in a while; realtime 3D is all over the place and growing (not just in the US either).
- Ebert has a point, even though I find his outlook primitive and dated. I believe Ebert is reflecting a very real aspect of modern video games; an aspect that articles like this do not progress a discussion on (out of fear?).
This aspect is the fact is that most game makers have very poor taste; on average, we make derivative, immature, uninspired violence, wrapped in a pretty package that appeals to the lowest senses... that's the average.
What he doesn't see (and perhaps may, and possibly then, retract his controversy-inciting attitude) is that all of that is changing for the better...
As we mature, as we draw on more influences than game designer's trifecta of Lovecraft / D&D / Tolkien, we're seeing game's mature and draw on more influences and as a result resonate with more of humanity on deeply personal & creative levels.
Video games are changing RIGHT NOW, but it's not coming from the big game companies (it cannot due to the priorities existent in a big game company); Ebert is too disconnected from it all (I think he'd agree) to see it for what it really is.
This type of article doesn't help anyone IMO; well scratch that, it helps a big corporate game maker with notorious production principles and no scruples about working teams to the breaking point, feel better about pushing out the next derivative uninspired tripe and calling it "quality".
FUD pure and simple.
Surely smaller companies outside of mainstream publishers will continue to be constantly innovating, but I give Nintendo more credit than anyone else in pushing games forward, and I don't think they're that small.
So let's try to make the most fun we can, in the best way that we can and leave the determination of what is art--let alone great art--to history.
In other words, let's strive for excellence, not greatness and avoid that dreaded "importantitis."
If you could get a famous art critic to declare that Hitman, the game is art and have it displayed in a gallery,then it would magically become art. So I don't really see the appeal in associating gaming with a word that has no real concrete definition.
Instead of asking whether or not games are art and having to deal with the question, what is art, we should be asking what is gaming and how can we deliver concepts, stories and experience far better than any piece of fine art!
Same usefulness definition could be applied to games, of course.
Here is a link to one of Danto's books on google.books http://tinyurl.com/2qgqls , the only bit I have looked at is 'Art and Meaning', it was certainly interesting, especially since he doesn't seem to be a pompish snob.
Danto is certainly one of the most challenging contemporary philosophers writing about art. You've linked to an excellent example of his work, but "After the End of Art" is another one that I think most people who want to think deeply about current art will enjoy.
The only thing that I would caution you against is reading Danto's idea about "meaning" as purely "literary" meaning, that is the kind that comes from story or words. Danto's a big fan of performance art (which includes playing a piece of music, not just the goofy stuff that goes on at the MoMa) and games would qualify more as an act of performance by the player than an act of story creation by the developers. The gamer is the artist, the developers simply create the paint and canvas via the game.