next »

[moi]

"I'm Tony sinclair and this is how I play videogames..."

[Chris Whitman]

Oh dear, this is getting exciting, my own bi-monocles are starting to fog up!

I would recommend lying down for a spell and seeing if the situation improves. Failing that, I find leeches or bloodletting to be most efficacious when I am suffering from an imbalance of the humours.

[Anthony Flack]

If you ask me (which you didn't), I think you should have higher hopes for yourself than giving people moderate amusement... if we have moderate hopes for ourselves, we will achieve very little; if we have high hopes for ourselves, we will have moderate success; and if we have unobtainable hopes, then we will do some pretty great things.

Well... I guess that the standard that I try to set for myself is kind of seperate from the effect I hope it will have on people. Honestly, I don't really feel like I do things for the sake of an audience at all; just as a sort of weird private compulsion. I'm certainly not going to go giving myself credit though, because that is sure to lead to complacency (besides, I haven't released anything in years, so my current status is effectively "failure")

It occurs to me though, that this is really a very big topic with multiple facets. So why do we make art? Is the size of the audience really important?

my little quirk to all of this is that there are two parts of every brain, Flack, and people use one more than the other (apparently) but we all still have both. Oh, and i'm no moderator, but i've sincerely enjoyed reading this great debate-ish thing, and everyone's being real considerate, for the most part. However, i really really don't wanna see this go spiraling somewhere bad... Just saying, though, as this is the heart of it all....

Um, well I wasn't aware of any kind of hostility in this discussion at all, except perhaps for you slappin' me with the last name thing just there, and maybe that's just me being sensitive but it always sounds like "bitch" to me. I thought we were just kicking around this very interesting subject all friendly.

Personally, I've never really bought into the whole left-brain right-brain dichotomy thing, but if you were implying that I thought that only certain people are "wired for art", so to speak, then I suppose I should clarify a little. My suggestion was that the most powerful, refined sorts of art - the kinds that affect you most profoundly - are probably quite personal, and will only find their receptors in a small number of people. A few people were tuned to receive that classical violinist's performance and received it loud and clear. The rest of the people passing by had their dial set do a different frequency, but that's okay too. Perhaps they should have hung a fantastic painting on the other side of the room, because I wouldn't be surprised if a different set of people stopped to look at that. The thing I objected to about the experiment was the presumption that this music performance could be expected to transcend, that it was something that everyone "should" like.

And as I say, lots of people find their spiritual nourishment in things other than "art" in the traditional sense. Some people really responds strongly to math, or philosophical ideas, or precision engineering. Some people won't notice the music, but they will notice the beautiful car parked outside.

I guess what it comes down to is, we shouldn't really expect to attain universal appeal. It's okay to exist within a small niche. All we can do is try to do whatever it is we are wired to do, as well as we can.

[Icedemon]

well. sorry about the last name thing, i mean man, you're a higher LVL than i am (...) hah but my friend:

Personally, I've never really bought into the whole left-brain right-brain dichotomy thing, but if you were implying that I thought that only certain people are "wired for art", so to speak, then I suppose I should clarify a little.

You did clarify, quite nicely i should say. 

And i don't think this thread is hostile at all, i agree on that, i've just seen these sorts of things be discussed before, and it can get hot. That's all.

[ஒழுக்கின்மை (Paul Eres)]

Sorry for the delay in reply Anthony, I've been busy creating art ^^

And yes, I think there's room to see this differently. But I think the greatest artists did great things because they *weren't* humble. For instance, Leo Da Vinci's last words were: "I have offended God and mankind because my work did not reach the quality it should have." (Okay, that sounds humble at first glance, but it really isn't.)

And while you may have had less effect on history than than George Bush, Leonardo Da Vinci probably had more of an effect on history than George Bush. Think of it this way: you're a (as of yet) largely unknown artist with a moderate influence on people (your old clay game did reach a significant number of people, but still, small). You're not one of the most important artists to have ever lived, is all I mean. George Bush on the other hand isn't just a rank-and-file politician, but one of the most powerful politicians in the world (note that I didn't say the most powerful, because some of his advisers are more powerful than he is, realistically speaking).

Now when you compare top-level politician with mid-level artist, it doesn't come out that well, but compare equal levels. What's your influence compared to a mid-level politician, like a city council member, or a small-town mayor? *Probably more!* Don't underestimate your long-term influence on the independent games community, it's been very important, in ways you probably don't even notice. Now compare a top-level politician like Bush to a top-level artist like Da Vinci. How does that come out? Probably in favor of the artist. So I'd say that when you compare artists and politicians of equal influence, the artists win.

[torncanvas]

Well, speaking for myself, at least 14 hours of every day is spent doing things I don't want to do, and most of the rest of the time is broken down into little 5 or 10 minute chunks (hey, I'm spending one now, while I'm waiting for work to start). A few years ago I probably would have said the same thing, but now I have a family and a mortgage and all the rest, the terrible thing is that suddenly it's all about responsibility and duty. Which is why I don't participate in indie community stuff; why I'm not releasing a game a year, why I don't paint any more, why I don't play in a band (my favourite thing in the world) any more, why I can never read a book all the way through any more, why I don't listen to records, go to concerts, visit art galleries or even play videogames except on rare occasions. Not because I don't want to - I would love to; I'm desperate to - but I have worked very hard (and will need to continue to work hard) in order to get myself into a position where I can once again indulge in the creation and appreciation of art, which is all I ever really wanted to do in life.

But, we're all ignorant people. Does it really matter? If someone took a $50,000 bottle of wine and gave it to you in a $10 bottle, would you really sit up and take notice? Probably not, unless you were a wine enthusiast. But we don't all need to be wine enthusiasts. Wine, classical violin, videogames - they're all just one of many niche interests that some people choose to pursue with a passion, and the majority of people choose to largely ignore in favour of painting, photography, heavy metal, cooking, sports, reality TV, etc etc etc.

You make a great point about this stuff.  Especially about the wine; I agree, we don't all need to be enthusiasts.  I think you may be overlooking something, though.  What if you put less emphasis on the responsibility and duty?  What if you made time to dabble in music?  I can totally understand that you want a good life for your family.  But the whole point is to think about what really makes that life a "good life."  What if your kids grew up listening to you practice your favorite musical instrument every single day?  Wouldn't they have a better appreciation for the level of passion you have for music?  For the level of passion you have for art in general?  Knowing that would instill in them a sense of value for art (you're an indie game developer, though, so that one's covered, but I hope you see what I'm saying).

I don't mean to pick on you specifically, and I hope you're not offended by me mentioning family stuff directly.  You've got to understand though, I feel this way too.  I feel an overwhelming sense of duty for my (soon to be) family.  So much so that I'll give up artistic things to fulfill that duty.  Sometimes I wonder if that's the right decision, though.  I've definitely thought about it more recently.  I'm hope I'm not out of line, but I guess I feel that I have a right to talk about it.  My dad worked very hard to make sure we lived a very comfortable life.  He was a farmer's son with 7 other siblings living on a small farm with barely enough money to go out to town once a month.  Despite that, he managed to reach millionaire status.  And yet, I don't really care.  Why?  Because he died of a heart attack almost 2 years ago, just as I was starting to really appreciate him for who he was.  I can't help but wonder how much more I would have been able to appreciate him earlier in my life if he had cared less about giving us a comfortable life and cared more about giving us himself.

I think part of the message was exactly about that kind of stuff.  I think a lot of people in modern culture tend to get their priorities mixed up.  The fact that we all make sacrifices to be indie game developers is evidence that we aren't part of that, so I'm preaching to the choir a bit.  Still, I know I forget it too much.  I agree that when you look back on life at your death bed (or if it flashes before you in a tragic case), you won't remember how great it was that you were able to get to your meeting 5 minutes early, which let you be 10% better at your monthly review.  I feel that one of things art can do is teach you how to think that way.  And that's a beautiful thing; sometimes stuff like that changes people's lives.  It has certainly changed mine.

You're totally right about appealing to different people.  It's ok that go for a niche.  It can allow you to really reach them.  What made tears well up in my eyes wasn't the music I heard from Joshua Bell, but the reaction of the man who truly appreciated him:

"This was a superb violinist. I've never heard anyone of that caliber. He was technically proficient, with very good phrasing. He had a good fiddle, too, with a big, lush sound. I walked a distance away, to hear him. I didn't want to be intrusive on his space."
Really?
"Really. It was that kind of experience. It was a treat, just a brilliant, incredible way to start the day."

The man was so humbled that he stayed far away out of respect of the musician.  And I bet he'll remember that experience for quite some time.  He was the niche, though, and it's awesome to go for that.  Rock on, Anthony!

Again, I don't mean to offend anyone here.  I really enjoy all of the different perspectives of everyone and respect them greatly.  It's just that I really connected with the article and it made me want to articulate why to others.

[nikki]

I have been reading these posts, and thinking a bit about them,
and i wanna put in my 2 quarters of knowledge.

I don't try to hurt people's feelings with this , and i would like to warn ahead for my stream-of conscious type of writing.

But first...
VIDEOGAMES ARE NOT ART !!!

A lot of the reasons i've read here that state the opposite of this are talking about expression, beatiful work, good feelings, nostalgia, niches of same-minded, and other fluffynes.

But these things have nothing to do with the above statement.

VIDEOGAMES ARE NOT ART !!! because;

-a (video)game is a game (per definition)
-art is art (per definition)


This might sound super-simplistic and silly, but think about it.

A videogame (almost always) lets me be a character in a world and the meaning is to win the game. when i've done this i have beaten the game , I am a winner and the Game is Over.

The game can have the 'best'-looking graphics, 'finest' backgroundmusic ,'sweetest'-spritegraphics in the world, but it is still a game.
and all these workfields are the APPLIED ARTS or CRAFTS

-offtopic
Coming from the same background as probably most of y'all (born 1980)
feeling nostalgia to games on casette-tapes, slightly nicotine flavoured arcades mixed with pre-teen sweat,tears and quarters.
I've been working with these feelings and backgrounds whilst studying to become a fine artist.

-ontopic

The technology or medium of the videogame is a tool to an artist.
You could make Art and utilize pixelart,trackermusic and assembly language(or whatever) in the process.

If you want to take a different approach to the whole you can look at the context of the both things .

Videogames their context (if you are BIG) is the shelf at the local toystore
Indie-Videogames their context is freeware web-hup gaming portals (or your own website)

Whilst most art their context is the museum (if you are BIG)
or else Art-initiatives, festivals, small galeries (or your own website)

To make this post even more un-coherent i would like to tell you a way _{to make videogames art after all.}

change the context of your work

[Terry]

If you really think it's that simple, I suspect you're just not playing the right games.

[AdamAtomic]

movies are movies, not art.
books are books, not art.
paintings are paintings, not art.

see where I'm going with this?  Where do you draw that line?  There IS a reason there is a "debate" over this.  Interactivity can't possibly preclude something from being artistic.

[nikki]

Interactivity on its own is not enough to make something NOT art.
obviously, there are hundreds of interactive-art exhibitions to prove that point.

But to keep stuff clear; artistic in my book is NOT the same as art.
my great-grand-aunty dabbles withg oils and pastels and i would call her artistic, what she makes on the other hand is NOT art.

I think you've to think in different lines,

"movies are movies, not art.
books are books, not art.
paintings are paintings, not art"

moving images is a tool for artist to make art.
the written word is a tool for artist to make art.
paint and brushes are tools for artist to make art.
photoshop is a tool for artists to make art.
programming is a tool.....
everything is a tool.
etc. etc.

you see ?

But you can't turn these sentences around.

for example
an artist uses paint to make a painting, he does this alot, and the place where he shows of his work is a well-know galery;  what he makes is art.

a crafty shopkeeper(sells fruit&veg) uses paint to paint this beatiful apple at the wall above his shop, hoping people will like it (but more hoping they buy more apples at his place; what he makes is an advertisement.

this doesn't mean the artist can paint better /or different than the shopkeeper, but the intentions are totally different. So with the same tool the outcome is different. (it's all in the intention).



@Echo : I like keep things simple (Kiss), and the discussion "Are (Videogames) Art" is not about one or two games I hope ? ...

(Edit)BTW.
I would like to know where your idea 'videogames are art' comes from ??

[AdamAtomic]

i just don't agree that you can't have a dual purpose in your work.  If a guy paints a really great apple in the hopes of attracting customers, but also cuz he wants to paint a really nice apple, how is that not art?  It is dangerous to segregate things that way.  All the great renaissance masters were commissioned or had patrons.  Most great art has been both a commercial venture in some form or another (after all, artists do need to eat from time to time), as well as had artistic merit (e.g. spectacular rendering, attention to detail, political/social commentary, emotional/evocative).  Granted, commercial value was likely not the driving force behind the great works of art, but commercial success is not the driving force behind indie games either!

So if interactivity does not preclude the work from being art, and incidental commerciality clearly does not preclude it from being art, why on earth do we have to draw that line in the sand?

If your argument is that the bulk of the video games ever published or released in one form or another have not, in sum, been particularly artistic yet, then sure, I think you might have a point there.  However, neither did film for the first 20 years that the technology existed!  We are in the infancy of this particular art form, and declaring its past to lack artistic merit is just pointless and obvious.  To claim that its future can't possibly be in the realm of art is just crazy!

EDIT - i just realized im arguing on the internet!  daaaamn

[torncanvas]

EDIT:  wow, great response Adam

Nikki, it seems you take a very modern (maybe even pre-modern?) view on what is art.  I bet most of the people here have a more post-modern view.

Using your logic about the fruit stand, the painting in the Sistine Chapel is an advertisement.  It was painted to create more emotion in church-goers and to bring more people to the church.  It's the exact same as the store owner.  Don't you think that's art, though?

I would say that what great-grand-aunty is making is art, it's just not very good art.  The fact that you call it "artistic" means you do see it as art - at least to a certain degree.  I think what you're doing is drawing a line and saying that things above that line are art and things below that line are "artistic."  Is that really necessary, though?

As you continue to learn more about fine art, particularly fine art of the last 30 years, I hope you come to understand that many, many artists have created art to specifically rebel against the kind of thinking that you yourself are doing.  It will be up to you to judge whether or not what they are making is art.  And yes, their "art" is in all sorts of museums.

Oh, and there are also museums dedicated to showing games as art (the games themselves, not just the visuals).

[Terry]

I used to get sucked into this debate all the time, so I try to keep myself brief on the subject these days. As it happens, Adam just summed up my viewpoint very succinctly:

I just don't agree that you can't have a dual purpose in your work.

To elaborate slightly, art is about intent.

[nikki]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_art


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_art

I just wrote about 1 a4's in reply to Adam (Love your arguiing way, don't share conclusion)
and a half to torncanvas (postmodernism is so 90's)
and the above two links are the reason why all these letters disappeared.


edit: "As you continue to learn more about fine art, particularly fine art of the last 30 years, I hope you come to understand that many, many artists have created art to specifically rebel against the kind of thinking that you yourself are doing.  It will be up to you to judge whether or not what they are making is art.  And yes, their "art" is in all sorts of museums."

What kind of thinking is I-self doing that many many artist rebel against ?
I am very curious about this one ??

[Bezzy]

I used to get sucked into this debate all the time, so I try to keep myself brief on the subject these days. As it happens, Adam just summed up my viewpoint very succinctly:

I just don't agree that you can't have a dual purpose in your work.

To elaborate slightly, art is about intent.

...except for the rare case when the audience considers it art, even though the author(s) don't.

[Anthony Flack]

I can totally understand that you want a good life for your family.  But the whole point is to think about what really makes that life a "good life."  What if your kids grew up listening to you practice your favorite musical instrument every single day?  Wouldn't they have a better appreciation for the level of passion you have for music?  For the level of passion you have for art in general?  Knowing that would instill in them a sense of value for art (you're an indie game developer, though, so that one's covered, but I hope you see what I'm saying).

Oh, I totally agree, and that is what I am trying to work towards. Once we have a house to live in. My daughter is only three, but she is already drawing every day. I hope to give her a good music education in time as well, if she's interested (and it looks like she might be). I'm currently working as a high school art and music teacher, so I have a fair bit of experience in that area now!

But yeah, I also totally agree that hitting a niche, and hitting it fair and square, is often the best thing of all. It's the best thing when someone does something that really hits your own "centre of interest" rather than going for broad appeal.

As for the other issue, well I don't have much time to go into it right now, but in brief:

I personally don't believe in making a distinction between fine and applied arts; I don't think it really serves any purpose except to try to keep the applied artists from the table.

Early on in my Art Theory class at university, the lecturer pointed out that people use the word "art" in two ways - one is purely descriptive, the other is meant to convey that something is very high-quality art. The difficulty in defining "what is art" often comes down to people working with a muddly mix of the two definitions. I prefer to use it in the purely descriptive form, and then move on to the much more interesting question of whether or not you like it.

The idea that something is Art-with-a-capital-A when it is in a museum or gallery sounds like the Institutional Theory of Art to me. It was kind of in favour in recent decades; I never liked it. The main issue for me is that the authority of the institution only affects people within that institution. So an art gallery can call something "Great Art" and the people who respect that institution will concur, whereas people outside that institution (like say, graffiti artists or skateboard deck artists) will go "pff, that's shit". And there's no reason why it should be confined to just one institution, either. Fans of skateboard deck art also have their own hierarchy of "Great Art" and while that hierarchy will dominate opinion within their own community, they won't find much respect amongst the galleries and museums (unless they are going through a phase where that sort of thing is in fashion, of course).

And that's the other thing. What is considered "Great Art" in the fine arts community is as dependent on fashion as anything else. And it's also very much tied in with the world of finance. Remember that expensive artwork is a serious investment business. I actually think that it's a total sham and we need to get back to what is personal, and to a large extent back to local, community-based art.

[torncanvas]

I just mean that you are drawing a line between what is art and what is "artisitic."  Many artists have spent their entire lives trying to get rid of that line.  Their work is in museums all of the world.  In fact, nearly every artistic movement of the 20th century was either about that or about using art to change things.

Anthony covers it well.  People in certain communities have their own opinions.  While I don't believe in relativism, since it's a self-defeating statement to say that truth is relative, I think art can mean different things in different contexts.  Skateboard deck art is a perfect example.  If you'd call that artistic, then I would say that you'd think its just not very good art - but it's still art.  And like many other things, there are museums dedicated to it.

So bringing it back around, I think games are art because there is beauty in the way a game is experienced:  through the visuals, sound, and interaction.  I think they're art because they can communicate a message, like that it's hard to raise a family in Haiti, or that the Columbine shooters were messed up in the head.  And, last but not least, they can create an emotional response in the player, like the peace of flying through the clouds, the thrill of moving fast, or the sadness of losing someone you care about.

[Matthew]

I would love to see an argument on whether video games are art between two people who actually agree on the definition of "art".  Otherwise you're just falling down the argument stairs on what is/is not art, and that's a complete waste of time.

I think the original article is talking more about whether beauty can transcend context:  The context of participation in and understanding of a niche (I love Anthony's wine example), and the context of our everyday lives.  Sunsets happen daily and most people won't take even a minute to stop and appreciate one.

Is something beautiful if nobody notices?

[nikki]

Ive been posting some rather bold statements a few posts ago,
and since have been thinking,

and the different definition of art in everybody's head is making this discussion weird.

Let's put up my definition ;

Art is that what is being bought & sold on the art-market.
Art is that what takes part is the discours or discussion on the theoretic side of art.
Art is that what is shown in well respected musea, gallery, biennale, festivals, manifestations or initiatives.
Art is made by people who wholeheartyly call themselves artist.
preferably famous or wellknown or at least known.
Art is -in the end- for rich people who needn't worry about food, shelter of money.
Art is only art when its seen. preferably by an 'official eye'.
Art is about reflecting the world around us, or inside us.
Art is cultural warfare.
Art is about wasting perfectly good materials, time and effort to make something absolutely useless in this world, (in a materialistic way) but very interesting way of thinking that is there for a viewer to discover and explore.

I'll stop now

[Anthony Flack]

Sounds like you mostly endorse the Institutional Theory, then. The most obvious problem with that being, which art institutions do we look to? Which art market? Because despite what the conventional 20th century ideal of artistic "progress" would have you buy into, there are many art communities; most of them well outside of mainstream "high-art" culture.

Now, I'm not necessarily saying that the museum-and-university-endorsed art community doesn't know a thing or two about good art. I think they are absolutely right to sneer at the Pop Surrealists, for example. Bloody terrible rubbish, all smug and cloying and manipulative. But I'm very wary of letting them be the gatekeepers to artistic acceptance. And I also sympathise with Jean Debuffet's position that the only pure art was created by people completely unaffected by any desire for public acceptance:

Those works created from solitude and from pure and authentic creative impulses - where the worries of competition, acclaim and social promotion do not interfere - are, because of these very facts, more precious than the productions of professions. After a certain familiarity with these flourishings of an exalted feverishness, lived so fully and so intensely by their authors, we cannot avoid the feeling that in relation to these works, cultural art in its entirety appears to be the game of a futile society, a fallacious parade.