Good game but is it art?
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Good game but is it art? I'm certainly no expert on computer games as art, far from it. But sometimes its good to look up from the IDE and perhaps have a lofty aspiration that you may never begin to reach. With that stated...
Interesting article, and it mentions in passing a point that I believe: the proper measure of a computer/video game is its interactivity.
This is given in the positive statements of De Margheriti, and even in the negative statement of Ebert. I think that Ebert is correct when he states that the very interactivity of computer games means they can never be regarded as "art" in the sense that he uses the term. That is, the criteria for interactive art are completely different from the criteria for non-interactive, passive art. I think that games can indeed be art, but based on their interactive merits and not on passive criteria.
Unfortunately, the mention of interactivity is mixed in with a lot of discussion of graphics and sound, which in my opinion, are not the core measure of a game's worth (or "artistry" if you like). Combining the two tries to blend two forms of art (interactive and passive) together, which I think is a mistake.
That is, a sound recording might have an excellent illustration on its jacket, but the music on the CD is awful. In that case, it's not a good album, since the core value is the music. Similarly, the article itself mentions the pioneering art of some early, silent movies with no discussion about their lack of sound as drawbacks: audio has no bearing on their artistry in the visual medium of film.
So I must disagree with the second half of Kelman's assertion (at least as stated here) that "the storylines, complex characters, sound, music and breathtaking visuals in games make them valid artworks." In my opinion, the audio-visuals might well make them artistic as audio-visual presentations, but they have nothing to do with their artistic value as interactive games. And the characters and storylines only matter if the player can have proper, choice-rich interactivity with them.
I agree with Chris Crawford who put it like this: "The computer is a medium of expression, and the artist using this medium must understand its fundamental basis of competitive advantage: interactivity. Computers can do a lot of things well: graphics, animation, music, sound effects, and even text. Plenty of media can do these things better than computers, however. [...] A $10 calendar or a $20 poster delivers better imagery than a $1000 computer. If you want animation, you can rent a DVD for a few bucks, and it doesn't take a computer to play that DVD - just a DVD player costing perhaps a tenth as much as the computer. You want sound or music? You can buy a CD player for even less than a DVD player. And let's not even talk about the cost and quality of the text in a paperback book compared with what you get on a computer. In all these areas, the computer is second-best, an also-ran.
[...]
Interactivity is another matter entirely. No other medium can deliver true red-blooded interactivity - not movies, not audio CDs, not DVDs, and certainly not books. When it comes to interactivity, computers are the only game in town. So if you truly want to get down and dirty with the computer, interactivity is what you want to concentrate on; that's the basis of competitive advantage of this medium."
Interesting article, and it mentions in passing a point that I believe: the proper measure of a computer/video game is its interactivity.
This is given in the positive statements of De Margheriti, and even in the negative statement of Ebert. I think that Ebert is correct when he states that the very interactivity of computer games means they can never be regarded as "art" in the sense that he uses the term. That is, the criteria for interactive art are completely different from the criteria for non-interactive, passive art. I think that games can indeed be art, but based on their interactive merits and not on passive criteria.
Unfortunately, the mention of interactivity is mixed in with a lot of discussion of graphics and sound, which in my opinion, are not the core measure of a game's worth (or "artistry" if you like). Combining the two tries to blend two forms of art (interactive and passive) together, which I think is a mistake.
That is, a sound recording might have an excellent illustration on its jacket, but the music on the CD is awful. In that case, it's not a good album, since the core value is the music. Similarly, the article itself mentions the pioneering art of some early, silent movies with no discussion about their lack of sound as drawbacks: audio has no bearing on their artistry in the visual medium of film.
So I must disagree with the second half of Kelman's assertion (at least as stated here) that "the storylines, complex characters, sound, music and breathtaking visuals in games make them valid artworks." In my opinion, the audio-visuals might well make them artistic as audio-visual presentations, but they have nothing to do with their artistic value as interactive games. And the characters and storylines only matter if the player can have proper, choice-rich interactivity with them.
I agree with Chris Crawford who put it like this: "The computer is a medium of expression, and the artist using this medium must understand its fundamental basis of competitive advantage: interactivity. Computers can do a lot of things well: graphics, animation, music, sound effects, and even text. Plenty of media can do these things better than computers, however. [...] A $10 calendar or a $20 poster delivers better imagery than a $1000 computer. If you want animation, you can rent a DVD for a few bucks, and it doesn't take a computer to play that DVD - just a DVD player costing perhaps a tenth as much as the computer. You want sound or music? You can buy a CD player for even less than a DVD player. And let's not even talk about the cost and quality of the text in a paperback book compared with what you get on a computer. In all these areas, the computer is second-best, an also-ran.
[...]
Interactivity is another matter entirely. No other medium can deliver true red-blooded interactivity - not movies, not audio CDs, not DVDs, and certainly not books. When it comes to interactivity, computers are the only game in town. So if you truly want to get down and dirty with the computer, interactivity is what you want to concentrate on; that's the basis of competitive advantage of this medium."
If a TV program can be art....
Loved Odeworld that was prbably Art. And Outcast, that was art. And homeworld, just zooming out and watching the battles, (Specialy the garden).
Thing is Homeworld and Outcast had good classical musical scores, and that with the images made it feel more arty.
Anyone know what happend about Outcast 2? Im off to look.
Loved Odeworld that was prbably Art. And Outcast, that was art. And homeworld, just zooming out and watching the battles, (Specialy the garden).
Thing is Homeworld and Outcast had good classical musical scores, and that with the images made it feel more arty.
Anyone know what happend about Outcast 2? Im off to look.
Tell you one game that looks like I'd think about calling it art... LocoRoco for the PSP.
It's the one game that might make me buy a psp.
How to describe it.................... Hrm. Maybe something like Lemmings with Fluid Dynamics. :)
It's the one game that might make me buy a psp.
How to describe it.................... Hrm. Maybe something like Lemmings with Fluid Dynamics. :)
If new age "throw a few blobs of paint together" constitutes art, then I think games should be too.
"Art" seems to be defined by a few old grumpy men/women, and I don't see them playing too many games to care.
"Art" seems to be defined by a few old grumpy men/women, and I don't see them playing too many games to care.
Well Wikipedia says: "Art, in its broadest meaning, is the expression of creativity or imagination, or both."
With that definition some computer games would be art. But it would have to be an original idea. I guess it also depends of the definition. I think I need to get an Oxford dictionary.
With that definition some computer games would be art. But it would have to be an original idea. I guess it also depends of the definition. I think I need to get an Oxford dictionary.
In general, when people who talk about things as art or not talk about art, they mean - something that creates an emotional bond with the observer and takes them on an emotional journy... Be it for 5 seconds, or for 50 hours.
Much of the 'new age "throw a few blobs of paint together"' art was an exploration of what art is. The meaning of art. Much was about method, Pollock would carry buckets of paint and a giant canvas into his barn, dance around on top of the canvas splattering paint all over... and then her would cut out a few feet of the canvas with the best composition in it. It was almost cubist dance, not just some guy dripping paint on a canvas. (cubism, attempts to show all the sides of an action or an object on one flat canvas, not to just create wonky looking shapes and people. Pollock's drips are cubist dance, because the drips catalogue his dancing in much the same way.)
Typically, I don't consider many games art. Shadow of the Colosus, LocoRoco, Katimari, and some older games as well... I consider these art, because they don't look like anything else, play like anything else, or try to do things the way consumors are trained to like things.... No large breasted women, none of the cliches.
Most movies aren't art... So I think Games are in the same class, you just can't expect art every year yet...
Also... The whole article ignores gallery-based interactive art, which there is a lot of. I mean... The University of the Arts has a whole program called Multimedia which is about interactive, sonic, visual, textural art.
Much of the 'new age "throw a few blobs of paint together"' art was an exploration of what art is. The meaning of art. Much was about method, Pollock would carry buckets of paint and a giant canvas into his barn, dance around on top of the canvas splattering paint all over... and then her would cut out a few feet of the canvas with the best composition in it. It was almost cubist dance, not just some guy dripping paint on a canvas. (cubism, attempts to show all the sides of an action or an object on one flat canvas, not to just create wonky looking shapes and people. Pollock's drips are cubist dance, because the drips catalogue his dancing in much the same way.)
Typically, I don't consider many games art. Shadow of the Colosus, LocoRoco, Katimari, and some older games as well... I consider these art, because they don't look like anything else, play like anything else, or try to do things the way consumors are trained to like things.... No large breasted women, none of the cliches.
Most movies aren't art... So I think Games are in the same class, you just can't expect art every year yet...
Also... The whole article ignores gallery-based interactive art, which there is a lot of. I mean... The University of the Arts has a whole program called Multimedia which is about interactive, sonic, visual, textural art.
Something is art as soon as its creator says it is.
Trying to classify it is worse than those astronomers who couldn't invent a classification system to save their lives.
Trying to classify it is worse than those astronomers who couldn't invent a classification system to save their lives.
What if your mom said that YOU were art.