next »

[Chris Whitman]

I wasn't suggesting they were mutually exclusive, simply that there's no point to the debate for people engaged in authoring games.

Critics will hem and haw. It's what they do. They're conservatives. Witness public reaction to the early impressionists. Renoir didn't set about writing essays imploring people to think better of his paintings, he just got together with Monet et al and organised showings. Their works showed the truth better than any essay ever could, and history judged them the victors.

I think people can, and will, recognize quality, given time and example. The debate is frustrating and takes time and energy over a word. The word won't change what the thing is, and you can't change the world's perception by convincing them to change the name -- that's just so much advertising.

Just my two bits.

[Alec]

Yeah, but I think what comes AFTER the debate is what's actually worth talking about:

how games work as an art form

What is it about the art form that works? What doesn't work? What do the artists that are making games doing differently? Similarly?

We have these conversations all the time, but usually its about mechanics. The tools that people use, the design docs, the blah blah blah.

Its not as often about trying to evoke a feeling or analyzing what effects a game has on people. What subtext there is to the game.

It seems like there's some attitude in the industry/community that considers that stuff to be pansy/gay/stupid/waste-of-time/not-making-money blah fuckity blah.

In some cases when people try to start such a conversation, it gets transformed into "GAMES AREN'T ART, SO SHUT THE FUCK UP".

So I think its still worth having the "IS IT AN ART" debate with jackasses, just because it occasionally digs up nuggets about how games DO work as an art form, and its part of the long road to eventual widespread acceptance and meaningful discussion when we're old and gray.

[E. Megas]

You ask me, I think it's concerning that so many people want videogames to be called "art" so badly.

You can do the greatest disservice to a thing by giving it a title. "Art" in particular bears a great deal of baggage and implicit responsibility; if one goes in labeling what's done here as such, people are going to make him/her/it owe up to it--which will never be successful to the desired degree, seeing as the term itself is subjective!

Fumito Ueda and Tetsuya Mizuguchi have avoided calling their own stuff "art" in interviews. They use the generic "entertainment" instead...Which is, really, more to the point. It's less descriptive, has fewer qualifications and is something that is well within their means to do.

Some boxes just aren't worth opening at this juncture. Like Ueda and Mizuguchi I vote that we keep our hands off of this one. If it is "Art," it shouldn't be our place to say as creators that it is, particularly with our own works. If we want that moniker so badly, we'll put in the effort so that title will be bestowed upon us one day. That "New Games Journalism" is almost to the point where they can judge things in that way. Let 'em, I say!

From what I can grok of the original article in any event, it's that "Art" (much like videogames) tends to have a niche audience when generally applied. It takes certain people at certain times and certain frames of mind to appreciate it. At this point in history, that frame of mind is (unfortunately) not much of one at all, at least among most gamers; way things look, that isn't going to change overnight either. You're going to have to change the audience if you want true artistic acceptance.

Nintendo's approach might work if it wasn't so general in scope. I fear it's going to take something a tad more drastic than that...

[E. Megas]

Oh yeah: sorry for the double post, but this...Probably deserves mention separately. Just realized that a guy I know wrote an article a few months back that may be of interest in this discussion. Might've been channeling bits of it by accident; apologies if I have!

Adding fuel to the fire (Vwoooosh!):

"Gaming's Missing Kane"

[GP Lackey]

Games are already being used as a medium in fine art, it's not like this and mainstream games don't exist simultaneously.

[E. Megas]

Games are already being used as a medium in fine art, it's not like this and mainstream games don't exist simultaneously.

Err, the original post's article discussed at length the case of an artist appearing in a non-artistic context, right? It seemed to me that this thread wanted to discuss overcoming that hurdle (i.e. the general acceptance of videogames as "art"):

It's a seemingly safe place for safe people who have no vision of now and tomorrow. The world is at a stand still when no one shifts sides, no one learns a new love of the art. As artists part of our job is to create. But why create if there is no one to appreciate? I don't think that question has an answer.

That's...Sort of what led me to believe that. Is that on the mark?

I'm sure not contesting the use of game elements in Fine Art; I've seen them used quite effectively in that capacity at SIGGRAPH and elsewhere. (I still maintain that it's shameful that one of the greatest standalone art kiosk games of all--Treasure's Stretch Panic--will probably never be seen in an art gallery. But that's beside the point!) Problem is that, in such an environment, the proper circumstances are already set up in order to provide legitimacy of an item as "art." Outside of the gallery (as that original article pointed out) the work has less credibility except to those who are in that niche, the ones who can appreciate "art" as "art."

That's how my screed (and Brendan Lee's, though he's a 'scoch more bitter) applies, there. Sorry if that isn't what you wanted, though! I'm stumbling into this subject as best I can! Feedback is appreciated!

[GP Lackey]

Ah, right, then ignore my apparently short-sighted statement.

Problem is that, in such an environment, the proper circumstances are already set up in order to provide legitimacy of an item as "art." Outside of the gallery (as that original article pointed out) the work has less credibility except to those who are in that niche, the ones who can appreciate "art" as "art."

It doesn't seem like there's anything else to talk about here without exploding into generalities.  Any medium has the same concern.

Thanks for the Brendan Lee article by the way, it's a good read.

[sabajt]

Just dropping in to say, reading through the first page of this topic has been very inspiring to me.  Though the thread is wrapped up in heated debate, it is inspiring because it demonstrates that above all, people are passionate about games, which is wonderful. 

[PowRTocH]

I cried.

[s0]

derp