The Hotness
Games|People|Company
Dominion: Dark Ages
Fantastiqa
Mage Knight: Board Game
Total War
Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)
Eclipse
Mice and Mystics
Dungeon Fighter
Collapsible D: The Final Minutes of the Titanic
Lords of Waterdeep
Agricola: All Creatures Big and Small
Libertalia
Android: Netrunner
Virgin Queen
The Lord of the Rings: Nazgul
A Game of Thrones: The Board Game (Second Edition)
Dominion
Star Wars: X-Wing Miniatures Game
Infiltration
The Lord of the Rings: The Card Game
Among the Stars
Twilight Struggle
The Swarm
Agricola
1989: Dawn of Freedom
Goa
7 Wonders
Glory to Rome
Arkham Horror
Village
Ora et Labora
Battles of Westeros: House Baratheon Army Expansion
Through the Ages: A Story of Civilization
Thunder Road
Trajan
Zombicide
The Castles of Burgundy
7 Wonders: Cities
Ace of Spies
War of the Ring
Skyline
Space Alert
Sherlock Holmes Consulting Detective
City of Horror
Race for the Galaxy
Dungeon Command: Sting of Lolth
Twilight Imperium (third edition)
Kingdom Builder
Le Havre
Battlestar Galactica

BoardGameGeek News

To submit news, a designer diary, outrageous rumors, or other material, please contact BGG News editor W. Eric Martin via email – wericmartin AT gmail.com
Recommend
95 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up

Links: Why Games Aren't Art, Interviews Galore, Squirrels & More

W. Eric Martin
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
Let's kick off this link round-up with a heady post that spins in a different direction than what I normally cover:

• Brian Moriarty goes to the mat to argue that "video games can never be art" in "An Apology for Roger Ebert", a speech he presented at the 25th Game Designer's Conference in March 2011. Movie reviewer Roger Ebert caught flak from thousands of gamers after making statements along this line in 2005 and again in 2010 – yet Moriarty points out that Ebert was correct in noting: "No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers."

Moriarty delves into the history of art in many media, draws classic games into the argument to broaden the scope – "If Chess and Go, arguably the two greatest games in history, have never been regarded as works of art, why should Missile Command?" – and discusses the nature of kitsch and Arthur Schopenhauer's world view in order to get at the heart of why Ebert's statement is true. From Moriarty's essay:

Quote:
In my "Digital Game Design I" class, I define "play" as superfluous activity. I define a "toy" as something that elicits play, and a "game" as a toy with rules and a goal. Games are purposeful. They are defined as the exercise of choice and will towards a self-maximizing goal.

But sublime art is like a toy. It elicits play in the soul. The pleasure we get from it lies precisely in the fact that it has no rules, no goal, no purpose.

A brilliant essay that provides much to ponder, no matter where you fall on the games are/can be/never will be art spectrum. Check it out!

• Spielbox has opened voting for its "Guess the Spiel des Jahres" contest. Enter early for your best chance at winning. Oh, and choose the right game, too.

• Codito Development has posted screenshots of the Tikal and Puerto Rico iPad apps that it has in the works.

• As for other cardboard-to-digital developments, I had previously overlooked this Geeklist from Maciek Kasprzyk and others, which looks ahead to all the iPhone/iPad conversions coming in 2011.

• Designer Richard Garfield was interviewed about Netrunner at the Cannes game festival in February 2011. Netrunner, for those who don't know, was a collectible card game created by Garfield and published by Wizards of the Coast in 1996 in the unbelievably large wake of Magic's success. Fifteen years on, Netrunner still has a pool of devoted fans who would love to see the game return.

• Matt Morgan from MTV Geek interviewed Steve Jackson at PAX East in March 2011.

• On his Board Game Back Room blog, Matt Stevenson interviews Sean Ross, designer of Haggis.

• Issue #421 of WIN: The Games Journal is now available in English and German. The issue can be downloaded for free from the website, or ordered through the website with a bonus Ö-deck for Agricola.

• German publisher DDD Verlag has sold out of its Spiel 2010 release 1655: Habemus Papam. DDD is making small changes to the graphic design, while leaving the game play untouched, for a new edition to appear in April/May 2011.

• Check out this ridiculously detailed 3D version of Forbidden Island. Do it make you jealous or inspired?

• Designer Seth Jaffee pontificates on the nature of deck-building games, starting with granddaddy Dominion and ending with a current design project of his – Alter Ego, a superhero-based deck-building game that Jaffee has been brainstorming and testing since mid-2010. (Thought on Jaffee's Eminent Domain are also in the mix.) From Jaffee's post:

Quote:
I think the single most interesting thing about deck building is that the iterative small scale decisions you make throughout the game have a direct relationship with your late game position. Every card you add to or remove from your deck has a lasting impact on the game for you. Which means that you need to consider long term ramifications of short term decisions, making even somewhat trivial choices more interesting.

What does this mean in terms of designing a deck building game? It means that for one thing, the end game goal should be clearly stated from the outset, so you have some way to reasonably know what cards you'll want in your deck later on.

Has he diagnosed the pulse of deck-building games the same way that you would?

• Courtesy of Thomas L. McDonald, I present to you squirrels playing cards.
Twitter Facebook
144 Comments
Subscribe sub options Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:26 am
Post Comment
Mike Compton
United States
West Valley City
Utah
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wow, nice 3D Forbidden Island!
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:37 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Robert C Branch
United States
Granada Hills
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Here is the final answer on whether or not Video Games and Board Games are art...YES. That IS the final answer

I made my vote for the Spiel des Jahres winner and I chose the correct one. Here is a hint...it has a very LUCKY number in it

3D Forbidden Island - SICK!

A SUPERHERO-BASED DECK-BUILDING GAME!!! Where do I sign up?!?! AWESOME!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:57 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
On the video games as art thing, I find it weird. Video games certainly are not, as of now, great art. But there is no Mona Lisa of video games because, like, the forms of music, visual art, and theatre have been developing for thousands of years while interactive games have been around for what, a few decades?

Games, and video games, clearly can be art. After my 25 years in gaming, this seems transparently obvious. Maybe not good art yet, but that doesn't matters. Video games have an artistic vision, a creative element that is almost by definition artistic, and many are created not just for fun, but also as as avenue for expression. It all seems fairly ridiculous to try to debate. Anyone who has spent any times with games of any kind knows they can be artful, even if it is a very recent art form that is just starting to find its voice. Ebert could only argue video games can't be art out of ignorance. Art doesn't have to be high art, the transcendent music of Beethoven or Mozart or writings of Shakespeare or Tolstoy, it just has to be a person trying to express something in an artful way. We still call the most formulaic Top 40 dreck or Twilight novels art, so to me, there is no reasonable argument that games of any kind are not and can never be art, so let's move on.
26 
 Thumb up
0.50
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:03 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Nate Downs
United States
Granville
Ohio
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cfarrell wrote:
On the video games as art thing, I find it weird. Video games certainly are not, as of now, great art.


Shadow of the Colossus?

There are others too.

I find it odd that a man who made a living off movies couldn't see all the effort that would go into creating something like the aforementioned game. Or could appreciate the moments of brilliance in Metal Gear Solid 2. Anyway...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:27 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jonathan Kift
Canada
Vancouver
BC
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Some of the comments in the GameSetWatch reposting of the article give some very well-thought-out rebuttals. They're worth checking out.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:51 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Peer Sylvester
Germany
Berlin
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The first time I saw the headline I read: "why squirrels cant be art"
Which would have been a far more interesting debatte cool
11 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:03 am
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:18 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Dave Seidner
United States
Willow Grove
Pennsylvania
In another time's forgotten space, your eyes looked through your mother's face. Wildflower seed on the sand and stone, may the four winds blow you safely home.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
But sublime art is like a toy. It elicits play in the soul. The pleasure we get from it lies precisely in the fact that it has no rules, no goal, no purpose.


Aren't there rules, goals and purpose within films?

His "games are not art" argument makes no sense.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:36 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jorge Arroyo
Spain

Madrid
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I guess, if you consider art to be something "finite" or static in a way (paintings and sculptures are static, movies/music have to be experienced, but are always the same, or similar in the case of live performances) then games can never be art because they not only need the experience, but that experience is different each time.

But I think art goes beyond that. Art is a way to express something that comes from deep inside. Art usually has a purpose, or message even if it is an unconscious one, even if that message is interpreted differently by different people. It is a creative act that connects the artist with the "public".

In this sense, art is not limited by the medium but by the artist. Artists can use any medium to express their ideas, and just like anyone can dabble a picture, not everyone can draw great paintings.

That's why I think games can be art, and to use one of the examples in the article, I'd say Go is art. Why? Because there's a message that whoever made the game is transmitting to you. The way the rules work need a certain approach to the game that can also be applied to your life in general. It's basically a way of teaching philosophy by experience. And the great thing is that each player will ultimately interpret this message differently, developing their own style of play depending on how they are.

This kind of definition may be more radical, but "normal" Art is already there. For example, there are sculptures that can be interacted with, or theatrical performances that rely on the audience participating. Improvisational theater is created on the fly just like the actual experience of playing a game and in fact some improvisational performances use rules like the famous Cobra by John Zorn. Where do we draw the line?
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:38 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
Avatar
mbmbmb
Quote:
If Chess and Go, arguably the two greatest games in history, have never been regarded as works of art, why should Missile Command?


That's just the thing, sir. Chess and Go ARE works of art. Your argument is circular.

We don't think games are art because we don't think games are art!
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:31 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Yours Truly,
United States
Gainesville
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
As far as
Quote:
"No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers."


I have heard comments to the effect that Red Dead Redemption comes pretty close, would anyone agree?
(Haven't played it myself, but, if it ever comes out on PC I might)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:37 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Yours Truly,
United States
Gainesville
Florida
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Check out this ridiculously detailed 3D version of Forbidden Island. Do it make you jealous or inspired?


Isn't part of the game that you have to turn a tile over, and then the 2nd time remove it? If it gets flooded?
So I wonder what they do with these...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:40 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jeffrey Allers
Germany
Berlin
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remus wrote:
Quote:
But sublime art is like a toy. It elicits play in the soul. The pleasure we get from it lies precisely in the fact that it has no rules, no goal, no purpose.


Aren't there rules, goals and purpose within films?

His "games are not art" argument makes no sense.


ALL art has rules, goals and purpose, even if the artist is explicitly trying to create art without rules, goals, and purpose.
10 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:49 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Emmanuel B
France

Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JohnnyDollar wrote:
Isn't part of the game that you have to turn a tile over, and then the 2nd time remove it? If it gets flooded?
So I wonder what they do with these...

If you browse until the last ten pictures or so, you'll see that they use some big transparent blue-ish stones that they put on the tiles when they gets flooded.

Drawing the board at random in the beginning probably needs using the original tiles on the side or something, though.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:27 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Rik Van Horn
United States
Livonia
New York
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There's a difference between a game using art versus being art.
Video and board games use art without being art IMO.

I think all this outrage about Ebert's mostly correct statements is a tempest in a teapot.

And yes, video games haven't been around long, but that's no excuse to not make masterpieces if it's truly art.

Birth of a Nation, made in 1915 in the nascent art of cinema, was recognized quite quickly as a lasting work of art.

Half-Life or Heroes of Might and Magic has not.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:32 pm
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:30 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Wesley Kinslow
United States
Piperton
Tennessee
flag msg tools
Seven and a switchblade...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm thinking that a mainstream push to bring Netrunner back is the only thing that would keep me interested in CCGs.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:12 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Breno K.
Brazil
Brasília
Distrito Federal
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
jeffinberlin wrote:
remus wrote:
Quote:
But sublime art is like a toy. It elicits play in the soul. The pleasure we get from it lies precisely in the fact that it has no rules, no goal, no purpose.


Aren't there rules, goals and purpose within films?

His "games are not art" argument makes no sense.


ALL art has rules, goals and purpose, even if the artist is explicitly trying to create art without rules, goals, and purpose.


Interpretation isn't purpose-oriented. The same movie may create several valid interpretations. In games, there is just one purpose, victory.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:20 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jeff M
United States
Bethesda
Maryland
Avatar
Part of what makes this discussion difficult is that everyone has different definitions of what makes something art. Roger Ebert attempts to argue that 100% authorial control is required for great art, and video games lack that feature. I'm not sure I see the connection; not only do many games have strong authorial control, but even those that don't may have branching lines, each of which may result in a final experience tantamount to art.

So while I agree that Half-Life does not qualify as great art, I would submit that games such as The Last Express or Grim Fandango certainly gesture in that direction. And both could arguably meet Ebert's "full authorial control" requirement because of their tightly constrained plots.

The reason the medium hasn't yet reached Tolstoy-esque heights is that games are expensive to make (it's very hard for a single person to produce a quality game alone) and the marketplace has targeted teenagers (and focused on violence, fantasy, and sci-fi). As games spread their influence, however, I would expect more adult productions to flourish, and eventually indisputable great art.

With regard to Moriarty's arguments, it seems to me that he's taking the easy way out, citing plot-less action and strategy games as straw man examples of an-aesthetics. I would be more impressed if he used the strongest examples of the genre (e.g., the games mentioned above) to explain why those kinds of games support the argument that games cannot be art.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:26 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Liam Liam
Scotland

flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
Art is a subjective value judgment. Making normative statements about what art is or should be, is a tell tale sign of someone who doesn't get it.

What's art about that then goo
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:38 pm
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:36 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Steven
United States

Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Is this the same Brian Moriarty who wrote Infocom's Trinity? Because if any game is art, it's that one. (And A Mind Forever Voyaging.) Which means he's already refuted himself!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:17 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Garrick Solberg
United States
Seattle
Washington
mbmb
While most video games are not art, that is because they weren't intended to be. The same can be said for movies and other mediums as well. The argument that video games cannot be art is just silly. There are already examples out there that cross this line, such as flower, braid, and limbo.

Board games have the same potential. Just because a medium is interactive doesn't mean that it cannot be deeply artistic.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:21 pm
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:20 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Ray
United States
Carpentersville
Illinois
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rokkr wrote:
There's a difference between a game using art versus being art.
Video and board games use art without being art IMO.

I thought of this too. but then I thought isnt a movie the same way? it has musical scores which are art. it has costumes and sets which are art. is not the whole movie also art?

I think a game set can be art in how its presented surely. Are there not expensive ornate chess sets?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:31 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Tiwaz Tyrsfist
United States
Gladstone
Missouri
designer
Behold in amazement as my wife demonstrates the proper way to clean your cat.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This constant flawed logic makes me want to beat people with heavy objects.

Games can't be art? Just because certain games you cite aren't art?
Okay, by that logic, Justin Beiber proves NO MUSIC CAN BE ART, the total body of work of Richard Coreman proves NO MOVIES CAN BE ART, Black Velvet Evises Prove that NO PAINTINGS CAN BE ART, and the writings of Sir Edward George Earle Bulwer-Lytton prove that NO NOVEL IS EVER ART!
LOGICS!!!1!

Chess and Go not being art proves Video games can't be art?
Well, by that logic, Justin Beiber's singing proves no painting can be art, and the movies of Richard Coremen prove no Novel can be art. Things that aren't the same aren't the same people.




OH by the way, Pac-Man is LEGALLY a work of art, that is how Namco manages to have Copywrite law protect the game when Copywrite specifically does not protect games. Pac-Man's "ARTISTIC MERIT AS A WORK OF ART" qualifies it for copywrite protection.

SO CRAM A BIG OLD MELON IN IT!
8 
 Thumb up
19.80
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:38 pm
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:38 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Rik Van Horn
United States
Livonia
New York
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
wtrollkin2000 wrote:
Rokkr wrote:
There's a difference between a game using art versus being art.
Video and board games use art without being art IMO.

I thought of this too. but then I thought isnt a movie the same way? it has musical scores which are art. it has costumes and sets which are art. is not the whole movie also art?

I think a game set can be art in how its presented surely. Are there not expensive ornate chess sets?

Game pieces can be art, yes. There are some amazing game pieces out there. But that's really just the pieces, not the game itself.

Moriarty is bang on. Games themselves have a goal. Art really doesn't.
Perhaps the true test is interpretation.
Games do not give me pause to reflect on their meaning,true art does.

Maybe the problem here is that when someone feels something they love has been criticized or found lacking by others they feel it necessary to defend it.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:38 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Art is that which has an esthetic.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:57 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jeff M
United States
Bethesda
Maryland
Avatar
While Pac-Man may not give you pause, there are many games that do inspire a reflection on their meaning. Perhaps you are not familiar with the better examples of the so-called "adventure" genre.

Moreover, there are many games that are not focused on a goal. In fact, there's a whole indie genre of allegorical exploration games.

I don't think there's a "problem here," or that anyone is being defensive. A broad statement like "x never can be y" fairly invites scrutiny, especially when it's been made by someone unfamiliar with "x." For example, I haven't seen a defense of Ebert's central point -- which is that the inclusion of reader/player choice precludes the formation of great art. It's certainly not an obvious point, and needs further elaboration to be compelling.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:03 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Nico Solitander
Finland
Helsinki
HEL
Avatar
Rokkr wrote:

Game pieces can be art, yes. There are some amazing game pieces out there. But that's really just the pieces, not the game itself.

Moriarty is bang on. Games themselves have a goal. Art really doesn't.
Perhaps the true test is interpretation.
Games do not give me pause to reflect on their meaning,true art does.

Maybe the problem here is that when someone feels something they love has been criticized or found lacking by others they feel it necessary to defend it.


Of course board games can be art as defined by artists - but they will never overlap with what is considered a (good) game as defined by the peer group that is board gamers.

A designer who has done plenty of board games that is above all art is Brenda Brathwaite - her most famous art game piece is Train
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:10 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Luis Escobar
United States
Rancho Cucamonga
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My good friend Raul Aguirre Jr. has a podcast called MAN vs. ART. He's a 16 year Disney animation veteran whose gone independent and likes to talk about, write about and MAKE art. He has just come out with an new podcast which talks about debunking 7 Myths people have about art. Check it out:

http://manvsart.com/man-vs-art-episode-46-7-myths-about-arti...

This is the gist of what he covers in the podcast:

Quote:
Today I want to rip apart and put to rest 7 awful myths and misconceptions about of art!


These Myths are totally wrong and mess up the integrity and purpose of art.

1. Art means whatever people want it to mean.

No way Jose! A professional artist always has intention, and it’s his or her job to communicate that intent through mastering their craft and applying their skill in the form of hard work.

2. Art is all a matter of opinion and is subjective.

Hello! All of responses to art are opinions, so that’s nothing new. What the myth implies is that all opinions are equally valid. That is FALSE! Some opinions are better than others. Opinions that are based on better reasoning are much stronger than opinions based on bad or zero reasoning!

Not all art is subjective. Some art is objectively good, and some art is objectively bad. The correct assessment depends on the evaluation of the criteria, not on the viewer’s whims or tastes.

3. Art is meant to be totally confusing like a puzzle.

WROOOONG. Professional or sincere art is not there to confuse anybody. Insincere art is meant to confuse, shock, and irritate people.

4. Art is high brow. If regular folks get it, then it’s not art.

This myth is meant to let the viewer off the hook, because if it is true, why bother to even think about the art? All art is understandable, but some art requires more knowledge of the that art form in order to comprehend it.

5. The purpose of creative writing is for me to express myself.

Writing for personal self improvement is a private thing while writing for the public is an artistic thing – The purpose of public writing is to communicate with others, not to unload personal feelings.

6. Artists are random and abstract thinkers. They don’t think in order or sequence.

This is a big wuss-out from people who want to appear artistic but aren’t necessarily interested in doing the real work. In addition to creating art, artists also organize, revise, and hammer out their art to make it more understandable, An artist with strong revision skills means he has organizational skills, understands structure, and a works hard.

7. Art only comes from inspiration and genius.
responding to inspiration is a reactive process. Most artists wait around for inspiration to strike.

On the contrary, it is the artist’s job to create inspiration, to make it active. Art comes from passion and dedication more than from inspiration or talent.


The common theme in these myths is that art is supposed to be esoteric, abstract, and comes from some kind of wacky inspiration or genius rather than intelligent thought, planning, decision making, and hard work. If it’s obtuse, beyond reason, or inexplicable, it must be good. Another theme here is that there is no way to accurately judge the quality of art, that’s it’s all subjective.

All of these misconceptions are WRONG, stupid, and harmful because they ignore the fact that creating art is really hard work. Instead they treat art as created by chance. These myths try to excuse the audience (and the artist) from having to think about the work.

The truth is that the artist is always in control of the meaning behind their art. Professional artists don’t want their audiences to “take away whatever they want” from their work. Pro Artists are trying to communicate thoughts, feelings, ideas, and don’t want everyone to take away something different.


He goes much deeper into this in his podcast. I recommend it and agree with it and I'm sure he'd LOVE for you to challenge him.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:16 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Ralph T
United States
Signal Hill
California
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Video games have yet to be pure expression, and I'm not sure they can be, which is what movies, paintings and sculpture can be. Can a TV commercial be art? I don't think so. By that nature a TV show cannot be art.

So as much as video games have artistic elements, their purpose prevents them from becoming art.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:22 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Ian Andrews Madsen
United States
Logan
Utah
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I find the whole 'what qualifies as art' argument silly. How many movies would be considered 'great art' to someone who is blind from birth. What distinguishes 'great art' from 'trash'. To be art, it has to be perceived and experienced, so what qualifies becomes dependent on perception and experience.

When it comes down to it, arts are hobbies. Arguing about semantics is just wasting your time that could be devoted to your hobbies, unless of course arguing is one of your hobbies.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:28 pm
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:25 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Rik Van Horn
United States
Livonia
New York
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quality of art isn't really the discussion here.
Bad movies, bad music are still are, albeit bad art.

So the Justin Bieber arguments etc. really don't apply.

If games were art, then certainly chess would be considered classic art.
But it's not and never has been.
A classic game, yes. Sets made to play the game, of course. The pieces are small sculptures.

And yes, defensiveness does enter into this. There will always be blind and pointless defenses made when people are passionate about something. It doesn't make them valid though.
6 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:35 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Patrick C.
United States
Milford
New Hampshire
flag msg tools
Labyrinth: The War On Terror is historically inaccurate & politically biased. It's the one popular game that violates BGG's requirements to keep politics out of gen. discussion. And yet it receives special treatment =US-centric views of this site.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
My first reaction is, why does anyone even care if someone thinks or doesn't think video or board games are art? Does it change anything? Ummn, no. Opinions are like . . . well, you know.

That being said, there are multiple definitions of "art." The most generic is the most accepting. Furniture is art. Anything hand crafted. Any nice photo. Anything at all that took creative artistic effort. With that definition, sure, many many games of all kinds are art.

But mass produced games (and by that I mean almost everything made by a company) don't hold up to a more strict definition.

Biggest in my mind is exclusivity in talent and ability of the original maker of the art.

There are people here who have homemade versions of board games that are absolutely works of art under a strict definition. But is anyone going to put a copy of Dixit in the Museum of Modern Art? No. And Dixit is about as artistic as it gets. However, a museum might host a display of the original artwork that preceded the mass production of Dixit. I assume that these illustrations only exist in limited number so are thus close to "exclusive."

As a photographer I find myself less and less impressed with both my work and that of others.

When I was a teenager if I captured something with my manual focus 35mm camera and limited 50mm lens it was because of effort, talent and a bit of luck.

Today . . . between the cameras and the software, anyone can be a photographer. There is so little knowledge and true creativity required these days. So even when I take a shot that I consider "art" in the general sense, it's just never going to be Art. And I don't see 99% of what other people shoot as Art either because it can be soooooo easily duplicated. And by that I don't mean just copy a digital file. I mean actually recreate the photo and come up with your own version that's just as good with very little effort.

The same is true of most video and board games.

Show me a game that is similar to the exclusive talent of Monet or da Vinci and then I'll call it Art. I'm sure there are some that exist. But they are a tiny tiny fraction of what is just general/generic "art." Grouping generic art with Art smacks of some real arrogance. As in, "This is as good and as original as da Vinci's drawings."
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:38 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Chris Farrell
United States
Cupertino
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
That Train game may be art, but I think it fails some basic measures as a game, so I'd just as soon call it art and not a game. As art, it's also pretty weak, in that it takes an immensely complicated subject and boils to down to something fairly simplistic. This kind of moral storytelling is still better suited to the nuance of the written medium. Well, Nuclear War is perhaps an interesting thought experiment.

When I think of artful games, I tend to think of stuff like Beowulf, Lord of the Rings, Black Friday, Settlers, High Frontier, Space Alert, or Ingenious. They are clearly games, yes, but they are also artful in some way: Black Friday's cynical editorializing on bank bailouts, Beowulf's clever evocation of the spirit of the book, High Frontier's imaginative portrayal of space exploration. All of them use the forum of a game and the decisions made in the context of the game to express some idea, in a way that is unique to games and couldn't easily be done with a non-interactive art form. (This is why Train fails the "game" test for me - the part that is trying to be artful is layered on top of, and entirely separate from, the decisions that characterize a game).

There are relativists and absolutists (my terms) in the critical world for other art forms, for me notably classical music. The relativists would argue that no art is objectively superior to anything else, it all is what it is, and we should appreciate it as such. The objectivists think otherwise, and say that we can make concrete statements about some art being better than others. To me, both philosophies, when relentlessly applied, are clearly wrong. One leads me to inevitably treat Bach and Britney Spears with the same respect, while the other ends up with people telling me that Bach is inherently better music than Beethoven, both of which seem clearly bogus.

I took the "games can't be art" position 20 years ago, maybe because the intent behind game creation - just having some fun - seemed base, even if I enjoyed them. But plenty of great art has been created for far worse reasons. In the last 10 years I've come to clearly see the expressive power of games, and if that exists, how can games not be, or at the very least have the potential to be, a powerful art form?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:56 pm
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:54 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Shawn Bowers
United States
Portland
Oregon
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If a guy can dribble art on a canvas and call it art (Jackson Pollock), then the worst video game in the history of gaming in a masterpiece.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 5:54 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
David Gonzalez Rice
United States
New London
Connecticut
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I can see I'm in a very small minority here, but I absolutely agree with Moriarty. He makes a compelling case, and e has already headed off at the pass most of the "rebuttals" here in the comments.

Let's flip the debate around: instead of telling me all of the ways you can manage to include games in the category of art, give me ONE criteria that would allow us to exclude anything from the category of art. One.

Because most of your criteria for inclusion are too inclusive. "Anything aesthetic", or "anything that elicits an emotional response" basically boil down to this: everything is art. And when everything is art, nothing is art. The term becomes meaningless.

Put another way, refute this claim: Mathematics = art = politics = morality = religion = fun = power = God = existence = the world.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:08 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
David Gonzalez Rice
United States
New London
Connecticut
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rokkr wrote:
Quality of art isn't really the discussion here.
Bad movies, bad music are still are, albeit bad art.

So the Justin Bieber arguments etc. really don't apply.

If games were art, then certainly chess would be considered classic art.
But it's not and never has been.
A classic game, yes. Sets made to play the game, of course. The pieces are small sculptures.

And yes, defensiveness does enter into this. There will always be blind and pointless defenses made when people are passionate about something. It doesn't make them valid though.


Careful: Moriarty (rightly) parses kitsch from art. Art as "the product of artisans" from Art with a capital "A". The latter category is extremely small, and not everything in the art museum qualifies. Ebert himself rules out most movies.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:10 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Nik Borg
Canada

I believe that games can be art. I consider Metal Gear Solid to be an interactive movie, and it elicited a stronger emotional response in me than most films.

The idea that "art has no purpose" is inherently false. Any attempted art without purpose is not art. I agree that Jackson Pollock was not an artist, and abstract expressionism is almost never artistic, specifically because it is without purpose or vision. Any expressive work that elicits the response intended by the artist is not only art, it's good art.

The board game Duderama was created to be a work of art inspired by a film. I included esoteric elements drawn from the film. It is even printed on fabric, so that it can be hung on a wall.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:23 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Nik Borg
Canada

TiwazTyrsfist wrote:
This constant flawed logic makes me want to beat people with heavy objects.

Games can't be art? Just because certain games you cite aren't art?
Okay, by that logic, Justin Beiber proves NO MUSIC CAN BE ART, the total body of work of Richard Coreman proves NO MOVIES CAN BE ART, Black Velvet Evises Prove that NO PAINTINGS CAN BE ART, and the writings of Sir Edward George Earle Bulwer-Lytton prove that NO NOVEL IS EVER ART!
LOGICS!!!1!

Chess and Go not being art proves Video games can't be art?
Well, by that logic, Justin Beiber's singing proves no painting can be art, and the movies of Richard Coremen prove no Novel can be art. Things that aren't the same aren't the same people.





When you say Richard Coreman, you mean Roger Corman, right?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:43 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
James Lowry
United States
Sunnyvale
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
comandantedavid wrote:
Put another way, refute this claim: Mathematics = art = politics = morality = religion = fun = power = God = existence = the world.

Actually, I would call that roughly correct. Though I'd use the wavy equals sign of 'equivalent to' instead of 'equal to' (not commonly found on keyboards).

Any attempt to communicate with and/or elicit a response from your fellow sapients not restricted to pure logic and reason could be construed as partaking in art.

(Yeah, I'm a Scott McCloud fan.)
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:55 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Kevin Whitmore
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'd never before heard of PAX East or PAX West for that matter. Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:24 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
David Tracy
United States
San Francisco
CA
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks for the update and the link to that Moriarty piece. I attended GDC and completely missed it. I have to say I agree with the guy.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:31 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Kevin L
United States
Somerville
Massachusetts
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
But sublime art is like a toy. It elicits play in the soul. The pleasure we get from it lies precisely in the fact that it has no rules, no goal, no purpose.


Just some works from various fields that I think few would dispute to be works of art:

Film: Olympia, Leni Riefenstahl

--The goal itself may not be one we agree with, but I think it's clear that the film was made to document and glorify the 1936 Summer Olympics. And yet it is one of the most highly regarded films today.

Literature: The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck

--From Steinbeck's own quote (from wikipedia): "I want to put a tag of shame on the greedy bastards who are responsible for this [the Great Depression and its effects]", which is certainly a goal or purpose. And this novel is certainly one of the reasons why Steinbeck won a Nobel Prize in Literature.

Painting: Guernica, Pablo Picasso

--Another wikipedia quote: "This work has gained a monumental status, becoming a perpetual reminder of the tragedies of war, an anti-war symbol, and an embodiment of peace." There may be different interpretations of the painting itself, but I think few would disagree with the notion that it was created with a purpose.


The proponent of the idea that art has no purpose can respond to my examples in the following ways:

1) These works are genuine works of art, but they have no purpose

--I find this hard to believe, and try as I may, I am having trouble coming up with much of an argument for someone trying to make this point. At the very least, the proponent of this idea will have to rely on a very counterintuitive notion of "purpose", and that is the cross that he or she would have to bear.

2) These examples are not really works of art / are works of art, but not sublime works of art

--Again, it seems to me that all three examples of highly regarded pieces of work in their respective fields, so I doubt this position would be convincing to many. These really are usually considered sublime Art, Art with a capital "A", as Moriarty likes to say.


I think that the proponent of the idea that games cannot be works of art might instead argue like this: art can have purpose. For example, Guernica embodies the horror of war. However, games, by their nature, fail to convey the sorts of purpose we may find it genuine works of art. Personally, I disagree with this argument, but this is the best I can come up with.

But that would be much better argument than the one Moriarty gave--in my humble opinion.
6 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:39 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
comandantedavid wrote:
Because most of your criteria for inclusion are too inclusive. "Anything aesthetic", or "anything that elicits an emotional response" basically boil down to this: everything is art.


It's not "our" criteria. It's the artists who did that, by calling blank canvasses, rotting meat carcasses, and toilet bowls art.

So yeah, by art's own definitions, the best of games such as Planetfall and Caylus are absolutely art.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:41 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Leif Norcott
United States
San Diego
California
publisher
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Rokkr wrote:
wtrollkin2000 wrote:
Rokkr wrote:
There's a difference between a game using art versus being art.
Video and board games use art without being art IMO.

I thought of this too. but then I thought isnt a movie the same way? it has musical scores which are art. it has costumes and sets which are art. is not the whole movie also art?

I think a game set can be art in how its presented surely. Are there not expensive ornate chess sets?

Game pieces can be art, yes. There are some amazing game pieces out there. But that's really just the pieces, not the game itself.

Moriarty is bang on. Games themselves have a goal. Art really doesn't.
Perhaps the true test is interpretation.
Games do not give me pause to reflect on their meaning,true art does.

Maybe the problem here is that when someone feels something they love has been criticized or found lacking by others they feel it necessary to defend it.


Actually it is much more common that it is the other way, where people find the need to see a distinction in something they uphold from others. Such as we see in Anthropology of why humans are "different" from other animals or in the sporting world of how snowboarding, ice skating, and so on is not a sport.

This can be seen here with your notion that games don't allow for reflection. Obviously you are grasping for something that you have amounted as a "reflection" that doesn't happen in games. Yet games obviously have many types of reflection of how game was played, what should have been done, how the theme has been abstracted, and much more.
3 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:47 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Dan Lokemoen


msg tools
mb
BLACK AND WHITE

Yeah, if you don't look at a painting, it's not art [to you]. If you fire up Black and White and don't really engage in what it's all about, it may just seem like a weird RTS. If you actually play it, and pay attention to what's going on, and explore it and try to understand it, you will understand how the creator of the game feels about gods, about the importance (or lack of importance) of the difference between what one person calls good and another calls evil. You will experience a creation made to engage your thoughts and feelings.

Yeah, and there are bad songs and fart jokes and parts of the gameplay have some serious flaws. I didn't say that, from beginning to end, it's a tour de force, but it is, currently, for better or for worse, the Sistene Chapel of videogames (and Shadow of the Colossus is the Mona Lisa?). So, you're saying, "I played Black and White and I thought it was boring." So, art is boring sometimes, and what some people like, others don't. OK, maybe it's not the Mona Lisa, but maybe the Mona Lisa isn't really "the Mona Lisa," either.

Roger Ebert is just another tasteless phanboey seduced by Hollywood. And I can tell you from experience that he's a rude dick. He doesn't play videogames and he wouldn't know art if he ate it. Who cares what he has to say about videogames (or art or movies, for that matter)?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 9:27 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jeffrey Allers
Germany
Berlin
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
nibuen wrote:
Actually it is much more common that it is the other way, where people find the need to see a distinction in something they uphold from others. Such as we see in Anthropology of why humans are "different" from other animals


Do other animals create, market, and debate the merits of boardgames?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:00 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jevon Heath
United States
Berkeley
California
What the hell is doing is being used out of clefts by me.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Moriarty seems to be conflating the playing of a game to the game itself. I don't disagree that playing a game is not art; but the game itself, the system of visuals and choices, can be.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:01 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Patrick Riley
United States
San Jose
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I love how much vitriol the topic of games as art generates. I love how rude, clueless people denigrate Ebert for his rudeness and cluelessness. The discussions about what is or isn't art has been with us for a very long time and won't go away just because a critic, designer, or gamer makes a declaration.

Depending on how wide a definition you put on the term "art," it could apply to the entirely of human experience. Games represent a small subset of what we, as humans, do.

What elevates anything to art? If we learned anything from the dadaists, it is the importance of context to the definition of art. If games can be art, are all games art and how do you tell the difference? Everyone has a line where they divide art from the non-art. Ebert and Moriarty have drawn that line to not include games. You might draw it to include Alan Wake, but not The Ungame.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:42 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Andrew Hodkinson
Canada
Kemble
Ontario
兵者詭道也
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Roger Ebert should be reminded of the status that movies had a hundred years ago.

Then, movies were not considered art, but entertainment. While they had an artistic side, in their resemblance to paintings, through movement, they were considered an amusement, a technological display. Such an art 'component' is shown in the first Academy Awards when the award for best picture was called Artistic Quality of Production and even today when a separate Oscar is given for Art Direction (usually won by costume dramas or movies about painters).

Seeing movies as an art form in the early 1900's would have seemed as trivial as seeing novels as an art form in the early 1800's... or seeing video games as an art form in the early 2000's.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:52 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Ben R
United States
University place
WA
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I never understood why mediums are defined as art or not in general sweeping statements. Do you say that film is art even though that statement includes things like Jackass the Movie and porn? Do you say all television is art and include reality TV and so forth? Sure you have shows like Six Feet Under and The Sopranos that you most would call art, but I doubt anyone would consider reality TV, soaps, and other shows art. With video games some games probably can be considered art, but most are not.

At the end of the day though, why do people get upset when people say that video games aren't art? Isn't a game being fun, entertaining, and engrossing enough? Really I think the issue is more about ego and justifying one's tastes. Personally I don't think most games are art, but I still love playing games. For me that is enough and I do not at all find it belittling that own of my favorite hobby is not considered art.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 10:57 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
henry k
United States

California
I don't understand the anger over the idea that games are different than art. I guess the thought process is "Someone said something bad about games. I like games. So disagree with what they said."

But saying that games aren't art isn't actually a slam. As far as I can tell, they are made for different purposes.

Part of the problem is that, like so many things, every person has their own individual definition of what art is. And because it's so vague, creators love to dance around the edges. "You think that X isn't art? Well I just hung it in a gallery. Gotcha!"

My personal definition is that art is about conveying something other than information. It could be a world view, or it could be an emotion, or it could be a sense of excitement. But it's about causing people to respond in a certain way.

Games are all about creating an activity. You have rules and you have designs intended to guide people to a certain range of choices they can make.

There's plenty of overlap - games make lots of design choices that effect the mood, atmosphere, general feeling of a game. And painters/musicians/writers leave plenty of room for decisions in interpreting. There are a million counter-examples I'm sure you could think of - what about interactive art installations, or what about games that are more about the atmosphere and theme than the gameplay? Still, at the end of the day, game designers and artists are aiming for different sides of our personalities as people, and we play games and consume art for different reasons. What's the problem with that?
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:44 am
  • Posted Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:39 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
Avatar
mbmbmb
wafflesnsegways wrote:
I don't understand the anger over the idea that games are different than art. I guess the thought process is "Someone said something bad about games. I like games. So disagree with what they said."


Or maybe people actually believe games are art?

Nah, better to denigrate their views and assume they're being dishonest.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:08 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
henry k
United States

California
I didn't call anyone dishonest. I just think that many people have an emotional response, especially when the discussion is framed as an attack on games.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:29 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Bastian Bux
Canada
Halifax
Nova Scotia
*PWWAAANNGGGGGG*
badge
...or do I?
Avatar
mbmb
wafflesnsegways wrote:
at the end of the day, game designers and artists are aiming for different sides of our personalities as people, and we play games and consume art for different reasons. What's the problem with that?


well, one problem is that that's a completely ridiculous assumption. I play games and consume art for exactly the same reason--to enter into another world, created by another, which can be inhabited by me. If a painting doesn't let me 'enter into' it, I call it bad art, or simply scrap material left in a random location. The same for games, though admittedly I don't consider too many games art. OH comes to mind, as do Go and Icehouse (the game, not the pieces). The Decktet system also, perhaps? Train, certainly. Poetry games are certainly art, and actually, most good poetry is play, wordplay, so there's a connection there.

I don't play videogames, so I can't comment there, but I did once play one where you had a pixellated man and moved to the right, geting married, older, then dying suddenly. That approached art, for the befuddling of expectations, the realization that the points were useless, that gahtering things was useless, that life as commonly understood was useless. Brilliant, Buddhist, Existentialist art. Others could probably tell the name of it.

Art installations are my fave. Christo is magnificent. Paintings not interactive? Are you a frigging block of wood, or a person? If a painting or any other piece of art is not interactive, than it is nothing. You looking, experiencing through whatever the relevant sense is, is all art has. Art is all interaction. That is all it is. Otherwise it is only bits of tin sitting on cotton. Art manifests only as, thorough, an interaction between audience and creator, mediated by whatever the medium du jour is.

of course games can be art, they're a medium richer than most artistic mediums.

This is a tedious discussion, but also a continual and necessary one--whenever someone challenges what is traditionally art, (dada, performance art, surrealism, beat, rap, whatever), it is usually a good sign. It's a good sign when the question is being asked, disputed, when the traditionalists crawl out of the woodwork to defend rigid and ill-understood conventions of the past, without irony or reflection. It means growth is happening.

In a sense, all art, each and every piece, is an attempt to answer 'what is art?', and usually with mixed results. It needs to be continually asked, and never fully answered. If it can be fully answered, than you're wrong. As long as the question is being asked, you have life, possibility.

The most established art mediums are also the ones with the most tenuous claims on being art nowadays, in my mind. Painting is close to the most stagnant and trite 'art' being produced today. It is highly ironic that paintings of sunsets or whatever are held up as a ur-examples of art, highly ironic. Perhaps when the question stops being asked, the medium starts to die, calcify.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 1:48 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
Avatar
mbmbmb
wafflesnsegways wrote:
I didn't call anyone dishonest.


No, you just implied it.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:31 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
henry k
United States

California
You have a lot of good points, although I still don't agree. I had written up a response, but I don't want to bicker about it. I would just suggest that blurring the edges between games and art - and the edges are very blurry - doesn't mean that the two are one and the same. I got frustrated with similar issues in academia, where they love to pick apart all categories and labels. (Every single class on, say, American Literature is apparently required to spend a lot of time showing just how hard it is to determine what is and isn't American Literature. At a certain point, it stops being interesting, and becomes mind-numbing.) Yes, they are vague. Yes, there are exceptions and overlap. But overall, a lot of these terms are still useful and still have meaning. And I still think games and art are generally separate things, despite games and art that fall into the fuzzy middle between them.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:44 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Grant Fikes
United States
Abilene
Texas
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Disclaimer: I'm an uncultured cretin who listens more to the music of Timothy Follin than to Beethoven, so I am unqualified to speak about art.

I think the reason why people are so defensive about the claim that games can't be art is that they equate not being art with not being good. I mean, if you say that Justin Bieber's music isn't art, you're saying it isn't good, right? So if you say that games aren't art, people probably think you're saying they're bad, and they're comparable to Justin Bieber, rather than saying that games, while entertaining and fun, aren't a medium with the same artistic possibilities. Video game fans are especially defensive; have you ever seen the fights between Microsoft, Nintendo, and Sony fanboys?

In the hopes of finally making some sense out of the debate on whether games are art, I looked up the word art in Merriam-Webster's dictionary. Unfortunately, it left me confused. Definition 4a: "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced". It definitely took the conscious use of skill and creative imagination to create Super Mario Bros. 3, but is it an aesthetic object? I suppose one could say that a bunch of programming code is not an aesthetic object, but something abstract like a mathematical equation. On the other hand, the pixels displayed on the screen, the sounds generated by the console's sound chip, and the tactile sensation of pressing controller buttons to manipulate the game are certainly aesthetic. Whether or not it is quote-unquote "art", Super Mario Bros. 3 is a beautiful game which has attracted players for over 20 years, and which I hope is preserved for all of mankind to enjoy even after it has passed into the public domain. Many players just play the game and have fun without thinking about it; a few people, though, have managed to go in-depth about analyzing the level designs and how they make the experience so worthwhile for the player, in much the same way that an art critic might analyze the Mona Lisa while most people are content to just look at it. Despite its threadbare plot and the fact that the creator is still alive today, Super Mario Bros. 3 shares some qualities with art.

I think the most sensible view is that "art" cannot be defined solely by its medium. . . if it can be defined at all. I will say that out of all the media, if video games are an art form, then compiling a panel of qualified impartial judges for an awards show like the Academy Awards or the Grammy Awards will be far more difficult than for movies or music.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 3:00 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Nick Fash
United States
West Hollywood
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Godard didn't see what he did as art either; he argued that art can only be created by an individual. Once a team is involved, it ceases to have any unique vision.

Arguably, the more closely it is controlled by an individual, the closer it could be to art (I.e., David Chase and his supreme control in every aspect of The Sopranos). This is why indie games come a lot closer to art than AAAs.

And ironically, this is why board games could come a lot closer to art than they are now. But they're not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:10 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Seth Jaffee
United States
Tucson
Arizona
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
• Designer Seth Jaffee pontificates on the nature of deck-building games, starting with granddaddy Dominion and ending with a current design project of his – Alter Ego, a superhero-based deck-building game that Jaffee has been brainstorming and testing since mid-2010. (Thought on Jaffee's Eminent Domain are also in the mix.) From Jaffee's post:

Seth Jaffee wrote:

I think the single most interesting thing about deck building is that the iterative small scale decisions you make throughout the game have a direct relationship with your late game position. Every card you add to or remove from your deck has a lasting impact on the game for you. Which means that you need to consider long term ramifications of short term decisions, making even somewhat trivial choices more interesting.

What does this mean in terms of designing a deck building game? It means that for one thing, the end game goal should be clearly stated from the outset, so you have some way to reasonably know what cards you'll want in your deck later on.


Has he diagnosed the pulse of deck-building games the same way that you would?

Hey, it looks like someone does read my blog after all!

To be clear, there are other interesting things about deck building games as well - in that blog post (and in general) I have focused on the aspect discussed in the quote above because, as the quote says, I think it's the most interesting part.

If you do read the post, feel free to leave a comment. The post may sound critical of Ascension and Thunderstone, but that's not the intent. Also, it's not a complete analysis of every deck building game out there, just some of my current thoughts on the genre.

- Seth
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:55 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Grant Fikes
United States
Abilene
Texas
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Duke_Rufus wrote:
Godard didn't see what he did as art either; he argued that art can only be created by an individual. Once a team is involved, it ceases to have any unique vision.


Does that mean no movie can be art unless we pull a Tommy Wiseau and have only one actor, who is also the director, producer, executive producer, and writer?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:58 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
Avatar
mbmbmb
mathgrant wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm an uncultured cretin who listens more to the music of Timothy Follin than to Beethoven, so I am unqualified to speak about art.

I think the reason why people are so defensive about the claim that games can't be art is that they equate not being art with not being good.


Or maybe they actually think that games can be art! Nah, better to just assume they're illogical, emotional, dishonest people.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 12:19 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jeffrey Allers
Germany
Berlin
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
There will never be a meaningful discussion on this topic as long as there is not a consensus on the definitions of both "art" and "games."

I disagree with both Moriarty's definition of art (too vague) and his definition of a game (too restrictive).
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:33 pm
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 2:25 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Derek Springer flawlesslyfaulted
United States
Fresno
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think we can all agree that video games and games in general are not themselves works of "visual art" but they do, (like "shadow of the colossus" that was mentioned) include great art.

While not visual the art of weaving together an engaging story and/or intuitive game mechanic into video games or other medium like board gaming could be considered art, just not visual art.

Games most definitely contain visual art and they are an artistic endeavor (more so now then ever before) and like I said before many contain the art of storytelling as well...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 4:42 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
Avatar
mbmbmb
dspringer13 wrote:
I think we can all agree that video games and games in general are not themselves works of "visual art"...


No, I'm pretty sure the reason why this discussion has been happening is precisely because we don't all agree on that.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:06 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Derek Springer flawlesslyfaulted
United States
Fresno
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BagelManB wrote:
dspringer13 wrote:
I think we can all agree that video games and games in general are not themselves works of "visual art"...


No, I'm pretty sure the reason why this discussion has been happening is precisely because we don't all agree on that.


I realize that people pretty much don't agree on anything... my point is that the "game" part of a video game itself is not visual. It is the "video" presentation of the game, the visual feedback which contains the "art". The game, at least I like to describe is this way, are the rules and effects that are governed by the programming. The art, is the way in which these rules and effects are presented to the player...

I realize however that 10 other people will have 10 other descriptions of this... so maybe the thread is futile and should be destroyed, burned, and then disintegrated since no consensus can be had. Then again what is the fun in that, right?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:16 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Grant Fikes
United States
Abilene
Texas
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BagelManB wrote:
mathgrant wrote:
Disclaimer: I'm an uncultured cretin who listens more to the music of Timothy Follin than to Beethoven, so I am unqualified to speak about art.

I think the reason why people are so defensive about the claim that games can't be art is that they equate not being art with not being good.


Or maybe they actually think that games can be art! Nah, better to just assume they're illogical, emotional, dishonest people.


It's a mixture of both factors, then. I never meant to imply that people don't actually believe that games can be art (because I genuinely believe they can be art, too). However, I admit that my gut reaction to the claim that games cannot be art was to take severe offense, and I believe my theory above explains why. As long as we're clear that games are entertainment, and you let me play my games without guilt (unless I'm breaking a moral law, like by playing a game of Werewolf where you actually kill the people who lose), I won't care what the definition of art is.

IMHO, if signing an ordinary urinal turns it into art, then not only can Super Mario Bros. 3 or Ingenious be considered art, but even Action 52 or LCR can be considered art.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:28 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dspringer13 wrote:
BagelManB wrote:
dspringer13 wrote:
I think we can all agree that video games and games in general are not themselves works of "visual art"...


No, I'm pretty sure the reason why this discussion has been happening is precisely because we don't all agree on that.


I realize that people pretty much don't agree on anything... my point is that the "game" part of a video game itself is not visual. It is the "video" presentation of the game, the visual feedback which contains the "art". The game, at least I like to describe is this way, are the rules and effects that are governed by the programming. The art, is the way in which these rules and effects are presented to the player...

I realize however that 10 other people will have 10 other descriptions of this... so maybe the thread is futile and should be destroyed, burned, and then disintegrated since no consensus can be had. Then again what is the fun in that, right?


Art isn't only visual. The full experience should be the art.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:37 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Derek Springer flawlesslyfaulted
United States
Fresno
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lfisher wrote:
dspringer13 wrote:
BagelManB wrote:
dspringer13 wrote:
I think we can all agree that video games and games in general are not themselves works of "visual art"...


No, I'm pretty sure the reason why this discussion has been happening is precisely because we don't all agree on that.


I realize that people pretty much don't agree on anything... my point is that the "game" part of a video game itself is not visual. It is the "video" presentation of the game, the visual feedback which contains the "art". The game, at least I like to describe is this way, are the rules and effects that are governed by the programming. The art, is the way in which these rules and effects are presented to the player...

I realize however that 10 other people will have 10 other descriptions of this... so maybe the thread is futile and should be destroyed, burned, and then disintegrated since no consensus can be had. Then again what is the fun in that, right?


Art isn't only visual. The full experience should be the art.


My previous post explains that video games contain multiple forms of art working together. Perhaps I should say that video games are a Super Art Form

see this:

dspringer13 wrote:
I think we can all agree that video games and games in general are not themselves works of "visual art" but they do, (like "shadow of the colossus" that was mentioned) include great art.

While not visual the art of weaving together an engaging story and/or intuitive game mechanic into video games or other medium like board gaming could be considered art, just not visual art.

Games most definitely contain visual art and they are an artistic endeavor (more so now then ever before) and like I said before many contain the art of storytelling as well...


2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:58 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Clint Herron
United States
Elkhart
Indiana
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
casperthegoth wrote:
cfarrell wrote:
On the video games as art thing, I find it weird. Video games certainly are not, as of now, great art.


Shadow of the Colossus?

There are others too.

Based on the whole discussion when Roger Ebert first made his tempest, I just bought Shadow of the Colossus a few months ago, and dusted off the PS2 to see what all the fuss was about.

It was a nice game, with beautiful artwork in it, and some great writing.

But I felt like it was gameplay to unlock movies.

The ending (arguably the most "artistic" part of the whole game) felt like a 20 minute cutscene. Yes, it was a nice cutscene. But at what point in that 20 minutes did I make any meaningful "game" decisions?

The parts of SotC that were most art-like were the ones that were most movie-like, and the parts of SotC that were the most game-like were the ones that were the least art-like.

Is that seriously the best example?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:59 pm
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:58 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Lee Fisher
United States
Downingtown
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dspringer13 wrote:
lfisher wrote:
dspringer13 wrote:
BagelManB wrote:
dspringer13 wrote:
I think we can all agree that video games and games in general are not themselves works of "visual art"...


No, I'm pretty sure the reason why this discussion has been happening is precisely because we don't all agree on that.


I realize that people pretty much don't agree on anything... my point is that the "game" part of a video game itself is not visual. It is the "video" presentation of the game, the visual feedback which contains the "art". The game, at least I like to describe is this way, are the rules and effects that are governed by the programming. The art, is the way in which these rules and effects are presented to the player...

I realize however that 10 other people will have 10 other descriptions of this... so maybe the thread is futile and should be destroyed, burned, and then disintegrated since no consensus can be had. Then again what is the fun in that, right?


Art isn't only visual. The full experience should be the art.


My previous post explains that video games contain multiple forms of art working together. Perhaps I should say that video games are a Super Art Form

see this:

dspringer13 wrote:
I think we can all agree that video games and games in general are not themselves works of "visual art" but they do, (like "shadow of the colossus" that was mentioned) include great art.

While not visual the art of weaving together an engaging story and/or intuitive game mechanic into video games or other medium like board gaming could be considered art, just not visual art.

Games most definitely contain visual art and they are an artistic endeavor (more so now then ever before) and like I said before many contain the art of storytelling as well...





Oh, sorry, I had trouble parsing that second sentence. I guess we may agree!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 5:59 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Derek Springer flawlesslyfaulted
United States
Fresno
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Its ok...lfisher...i had trouble writing it since I'm using a mobile phone to do it...besides I'm used to being misread...I have a wife...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 6:09 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brian M
United States
Grand Ledge
Michigan
Tasteless Brute
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Are video games art?"

I think there are two FAR more interesting questions that people aren't asking:

1) "Should video games be art?"
2) "Whose standards are we using to determine if it is art?"
2 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:25 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Vetrhus of Rogaland
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
designer
West over water I fared bearing poetry's waves to the shore of the war-god's heart; my course was set. I launched my oaken craft at the breaking of ice, loaded my cargo of praise aboard my longboat aft.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
remus wrote:
Quote:
But sublime art is like a toy. It elicits play in the soul. The pleasure we get from it lies precisely in the fact that it has no rules, no goal, no purpose.


Aren't there rules, goals and purpose within films?

His "games are not art" argument makes no sense.


I agree with remus. And interpretation and appreciation of art (something I am educated in) is quite subjective. Some art has rules, purposes, and objectives.

Some of the finest American art was actually commissioned during the war efforts in the early 20th century. Much of the Renaissance (fave period) had rules and purposes, and overt messages... Caravaggio, for instance.

Purposeless art is a really constricted opinion, which one is entitled to have, but it only applies to post-modern art.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:42 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Vetrhus of Rogaland
United States
Milwaukee
Wisconsin
designer
West over water I fared bearing poetry's waves to the shore of the war-god's heart; my course was set. I launched my oaken craft at the breaking of ice, loaded my cargo of praise aboard my longboat aft.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One of my fave art quotes describes an ethereal purpose which might actually apply to video and board games in a more tangible way:

"Art enables us to find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time."

-- Thomas Merton
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 7:43 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Stefan Lopuszanski
United States
North Wales
Pennsylvania
So hear me roar! RAWR!
badge
Her Serenity, The Lady of Pain.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think that people who argue that video games (or games in general) are not art look at it from the perspective that games are interactive and have a "goal" to be accomplished.

Not sure how this factors into "games" that have no goals (I guess more accurately called "toys"), but they must be considered art if a critic considers interactive art to be "true art."

If they consider interactive art to be true art then I have no idea why they wouldn't consider something like Electroplankton to be true art.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:02 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Stefan Lopuszanski
United States
North Wales
Pennsylvania
So hear me roar! RAWR!
badge
Her Serenity, The Lady of Pain.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mathgrant wrote:
Duke_Rufus wrote:
Godard didn't see what he did as art either; he argued that art can only be created by an individual. Once a team is involved, it ceases to have any unique vision.


Does that mean no movie can be art unless we pull a Tommy Wiseau and have only one actor, who is also the director, producer, executive producer, and writer?


To that regard what about a video game created entirely by a single person? Is that art? I think it is all subjective and getting all angst-y about it is futile. What does it matter if it is "art" or not?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 23, 2011 10:03 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
rod humble

jhk
Earth
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Spectacularly amusing timing.

This months ARTnews (you know, written by actual art critics rather than movie reviewers or grumpy ex-game makers) has the title "How video games became art."

http://artnews.com/issues/issue.asp



4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:11 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
Avatar
mbmbmb
rodvik wrote:
written by actual art critics rather than movie reviewers


So it's your position that films aren't art?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:28 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Ralph H. Anderson
United States
Norwalk
Connecticut
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Regarding the art debate, let's get to basics and consider three related words:

Artisan: someone who makes things usually with a connotation of some skill

Artifact: something made by someone, again usually with a connotation of some skill

Art: At root this is really the same as artifact but over time we have expanded its meaning.

So to simplify
An Artisan makes Artifacts which we shorten and call Art.

So we could reasonably state that at root Art simply means "made by humans."

The real debate
The great debates are actually over whether something is good art or bad art and then go on to argue that bad art is not art. However, it is all art - just some is not seen as worth talking about.

Consider, we put our three year old's efforts, no matter how crude, on the fridge because we recognize that the child made something and we glory in that effort.

However, as the artist mature, we expect something more from the maker's efforts and many of the posts above have done a great job of describing this.

In the end, for each of us, the best art resonates with our souls and it is for those efforts that we want to reserve the term art.

My favorite quote sums it up for me:

"In art as in lovemaking, heartfelt ineptitude has its appeal and so does heartless skill, but what you want is passionate virtuosity."

— John Barth END OF THE ROAD

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Extra Credit
and here is an interesting extended quote from Wikipedia on Art:

"Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[1] Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions."
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:33 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
rod humble

jhk
Earth
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BagelManB wrote:
rodvik wrote:
written by actual art critics rather than movie reviewers


So it's your position that films aren't art?


Is your position that movie reviewers define what art is for us?

But I wont dodge your question, no movies are not art. Some can be, same as games. I am more interested these days in artists work rather than a specific form. I dont think I am unusual in that regard, its where high art criticism has been for the past few decades.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:10 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Stew Woods
Australia
Wellard
Western Australia
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Portal was a work of art.

Just sayin'
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:07 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jacob Russell
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
Bullshit!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
What a surprise that on a page about games the majority of users think games are art.

I think the term art has become so meaningless that anything could be called art, I've lost all use for the term when it's applied equally to Beethoven and Justin Beiber, as someone said above.

I used to think that there was a difference between entertainment and art but many gamers hate the word entertainment.

It's not a dirty word you know and there is no shame in enjoying some.

Apparently anyone who expresses themselves in a grocery list or paints a particularaly nice stop sign is making art now. All you need to do is "express yourself" well.. what isn't art? I'm pretty sure that if you tell kids that video games are art there really won't be a reason to read poetry or listen to string quartets anymore.

Games don't become better because someone takes a word and applies it to them. I enjoy being entertinaed by games.. I have never been enlightened by one... from chess to portal to go to caylus.. they're all just entertainment and games. No need to muddy the waters here.
4 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:16 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jeffrey Allers
Germany
Berlin
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DragonCat wrote:
Regarding the art debate, let's get to basics and consider three related words:

Artisan: someone who makes things usually with a connotation of some skill

Artifact: something made by someone, again usually with a connotation of some skill

Art: At root this is really the same as artifact but over time we have expanded its meaning.

So to simplify
An Artisan makes Artifacts which we shorten and call Art.

So we could reasonably state that at root Art simply means "made by humans."

The real debate
The great debates are actually over whether something is good art or bad art and then go on to argue that bad art is not art. However, it is all art - just some is not seen as worth talking about.

Consider, we put our three year old's efforts, no matter how crude, on the fridge because we recognize that the child made something and we glory in that effort.

However, as the artist mature, we expect something more from the maker's efforts and many of the posts above have done a great job of describing this.


Interesting points!

DragonCat wrote:
In the end, for each of us, the best art resonates with our souls and it is for those efforts that we want to reserve the term art.

"In art as in lovemaking, heartfelt ineptitude has its appeal and so does heartless skill, but what you want is passionate virtuosity."


Careful here, as you begin to get into a typical postmodern dichotomy, where art is placed in a separate space that cannot be "known," but only, romantically, "sensed."

DragonCat wrote:
Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions."[/size]

This is closer to the point: stimulating emotions AND THOUGHTS, i.e., it has both an emotional and intellectual component.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:27 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Ryan Gatti
United States
Portland
Oregon
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
lokides wrote:
Portal was a work of art.

Just sayin'

This may be one of the best examples of video games as art. None of the individual components of the game are exceptionally artistic, although all contribute to the final artistic composition in a complementary and unifying fashion. It isn't really something that is thought of as art until the entirety is digested. When you finally see the art, it's hard to overstate your satisfaction.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:18 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Scott Alden
United States
Dallas
Texas
flag msg tools
admin
Aldie's Full of Love!
Avatar
mb
Just wondering what was artistic about Portal? Felt like a puzzle game to me.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 12:36 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Bruno D.
United States

New York
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe it is a lot simpler ... it is Art if you feel it is Art ! In a way, if you are (or think you are) "connecting" with a would-be Artist in a special way, you may feel his or her work is Art.

Some interesting "definitions" googled out there ...

1) Art can be defined as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others"

2) Art historian Thomas McEvilley agrees that today "more or less anything can be designated as art."

See http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/artartiststoday.htm...


Can something be considered Art even if the artist/creator doesn't consider it so ?

Is art more closely associated with the creative process or the difficulty of the work ? (i.e. a work of art shouldn't be easily reproducible, as previously stated in this thread) If so, works of Art could cease to be considered so as copies/fakes pop out and be considered "common" objects ?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:41 pm
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 1:39 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Luis Escobar
United States
Rancho Cucamonga
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DragonCat wrote:
Regarding the art debate, let's get to basics and consider three related words:

Artisan: someone who makes things usually with a connotation of some skill

Artifact: something made by someone, again usually with a connotation of some skill

Art: At root this is really the same as artifact but over time we have expanded its meaning.

So to simplify
An Artisan makes Artifacts which we shorten and call Art.

So we could reasonably state that at root Art simply means "made by humans."

The real debate
The great debates are actually over whether something is good art or bad art and then go on to argue that bad art is not art. However, it is all art - just some is not seen as worth talking about.

Consider, we put our three year old's efforts, no matter how crude, on the fridge because we recognize that the child made something and we glory in that effort.

However, as the artist mature, we expect something more from the maker's efforts and many of the posts above have done a great job of describing this.



I'm sorry, but I think your being FAR too rational and reasonable for this discussion. Your not suppose to have a good point.


DragonCat wrote:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Extra Credit
and here is an interesting extended quote from Wikipedia on Art:

"Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[1] Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions."

Your just suppose to say no one can be right and then state your opinion based on personal preference, knowing as you do that your not right either.

Having definitions that actually make sense is a big no no. And going into the philological roots of the terms USED? Well, that's just right out.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:04 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Aldie wrote:
Just wondering what was artistic about Portal? Felt like a puzzle game to me.

It has an esthetic.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:42 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
One example of how to look at things as to whether or not they are art is the example of a pillar.

Suppose we have a load-bearing pillar in a hall.

In one example, the pillar is just a wooden beam, hastily nailed in place, with no decoration or even any paint or finish. Most people would not call this wooden beam "art."

In a second example, the pillar is a carved Greek caryatid column. The column was sculpted by an expert Greek craftsman more than 2000 years ago to resemble the goddess Artemis. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that he did a fantastic job. A lot of people would immediately feel that this pillar were art, even though its function were to be a load-bearing pillar.

Clearly, this example shows that the fact that an object serves some other function is completely independent of whether the object is art. The fact that the pillar is holding up a roof has nothing to do with it. The second pillar has an esthetic, and the first one does not. This is what makes the second pillar art. The pillar is used for something else, but this is irrelevant.


8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 4:54 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
W. Eric Martin
United States
Apex
North Carolina
flag msg tools
admin
Avatar
diehard4life wrote:
remus wrote:
Quote:
But sublime art is like a toy. It elicits play in the soul. The pleasure we get from it lies precisely in the fact that it has no rules, no goal, no purpose.


Aren't there rules, goals and purpose within films?

His "games are not art" argument makes no sense.


I agree with remus. And interpretation and appreciation of art (something I am educated in) is quite subjective. Some art has rules, purposes, and objectives.

Some of the finest American art was actually commissioned during the war efforts in the early 20th century. Much of the Renaissance (fave period) had rules and purposes, and overt messages... Caravaggio, for instance.

Purposeless art is a really constricted opinion, which one is entitled to have, but it only applies to post-modern art.


I think you guys are missing the writer's point, which is that the art itself ("sublime art" mind you) has no rules, no goal, no purpose. The created object exists, and yes, the creator likely had a reason for making it or some emotion or thought to convey to the audience, but if the creation is truly "sublime art", then it stands on its own without the audience needing to be aware of the context of why the artist created it or what he or she was trying to express.

You, as the audience, interact with the work by observing it, thinking about it, discussing it with others, and so on, but the creation itself demands nothing of you. For example, upthread someone described Leni Riefenstahl's Olympia as "one of the most highly regarded films today", while also noting "I think it's clear that the film was made to document and glorify the 1936 Summer Olympics." Yes, that was perhaps the Riefenstahl's goal, but we can view the movie apart from that knowledge. We don't have to know anything about the movie's background to watch it.

Yet with a game we need to know what to do with it in order to experience the creation. We interact with and experience games differently than we do books, movies, plays, graphic art, etc. because with those items we just read, watch, etc. to experience the creation. Reading is a skill that someone can apply to anything, be it novel or cereal box; being able to play games, however, means little when faced with a pile of tiles and a game board. We can bring our own interpretation to the objects in front of us, but we can't play the game as created without knowing the goal imbued in its design by its creator.

At least that's how I interpret the author's point about "sublime art [having] no rules, no goal, no purpose".
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 7:22 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Alan Goodrich
United States
Centereach
New York
flag msg tools
IT'S HERE!!!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
comandantedavid wrote:
Because most of your criteria for inclusion are too inclusive. "Anything aesthetic", or "anything that elicits an emotional response" basically boil down to this: everything is art.


It's not "our" criteria. It's the artists who did that, by calling blank canvasses, rotting meat carcasses, and toilet bowls art.

So yeah, by art's own definitions, the best of games such as Planetfall and Caylus are absolutely art.


As an artist, I'd like to refute this argument. Artists have rarely ever said "anything" is art. Duchamp certainly was not saying such a thing by hanging a urinal on the gallery wall - he was prying the urinal out of its usual set of associations (the bathroom, obviously) where we fail to see the urinal in its "thingness." We use the urinal, not thinking about how it looks, why it looks the way it does, etc... basically, we do not think about how odd it is that we pee into this ceramic contraption attached to a wall. Outside of its normal context, we have to consider all those other aspects of the urinal (and by calling the piece "Fountain" he links it to another unnoticed piece of our everyday world, the drinking fountain, which looks similar, and perversely suggests the opposite end of the process). The act is not about appropriating "anything" and calling it art, but rather forcing us to see our world anew, clearly, without the baggage that the day-to-day provides.

I tend to agree with most of Rik's statements on this topic. Games are not art, even though they make use of illustration, design, etc. They have more in common with machines, with the tinkering/learning how to work the machine happening mostly in the intellect, rather than in the physical world. Games don't deliver the same experiences as other types of art, they don't tend to communicate interiority or interpret experience. You can't "read" a game in the same way you can a book, a piece of art, or a movie (that is, come to an interpretation of what it's "all about"). Games are closest to movies, in that they are partly industrial and produced as a product, by a group, and partly an expression. So while I'm not saying a video game could never be art, as someone who's played a lot of games and seen a lot of movies, I'd say if you find most video games as compelling as most movies, you haven't seen very many good movies.

I play games to understand and interact with a system or a set of systems - it is more akin to a puzzle than a narrative. My imagination is at work, yes, but not in the same way as when I'm looking at art, reading a book, or watching a movie (all of which work in their own particular ways). Making distinctions is a positive thing - it forces us to understand these objects better. Saying "everything is art" does nothing to further our understanding of art, games, or anything else, and I'd say the same thing to an artist who tried to justify his work in such a way.
5 
 Thumb up
2.00
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:17 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cayluster wrote:
Games don't deliver the same experiences as other types of art, they don't tend to communicate interiority or interpret experience.


See, I'm just a regular guy. I have no idea what that part even means.

All I know is that games have provided far more emotion to me than "real art" ever has. I've cried while playing Planetfall. Laughter, joy, anger have all come from board games.

"Real art" gets a mild "I like that" or "Not very nice".
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:54 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Alan Goodrich
United States
Centereach
New York
flag msg tools
IT'S HERE!!!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
See, I'm just a regular guy. I have no idea what that part even means.


It just means that they communicate an experience of the world filtered through another person's consciousness.

UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
All I know is that games have provided far more emotion to me than "real art" ever has. I've cried while playing Planetfall. Laughter, joy, anger have all come from board games.

"Real art" gets a mild "I like that" or "Not very nice".


I've felt anger, joy, and happiness while playing board games - but that comes from the frustration, surprise, or delight in discovering how the game works (or fails to). The emotions provided by art, or books, or movies, are empathetic. You can be made angry by a traffic light stuck on red, or because someone screws you over in a game, but it's not the same as being angry because a character in a film is abused or experiences difficulty. In the case of board games, you're continually encountering reflections of yourself - with a good book or work of art, you are encountering something outside yourself.

Btw, I have similar feelings about most art - most of it doesn't get there for me (books and movies do much better). The thing is, when it does get there, it is very powerful, because the imprint of the person who made the art is so close and palpable; the art is a remnant of their physical being.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:18 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Bruno D.
United States

New York
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The GIPF series comes to mind here. Wouldn't you consider Project GIPF Art ? I think I do.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:56 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cayluster wrote:
Saying "everything is art" does nothing to further our understanding of art, games, or anything else, and I'd say the same thing to an artist who tried to justify his work in such a way.

Right. But it's not that everything is art. It's that art is that which has an esthetic. "Being art" and "having an esthetic" are the same thing.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:11 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
General Norris
Spain

Avatar
The problem with those that claim that games aren't art is that they either dishonestly never give a definition for "art" (Ebert), beg the question or follow double standards so they exclude games and games only.

There's another degree of dishonesty that is claiming that say, Justin Bieber's song are not "art" because they aren't good. Who decides what is and what isn't good and who chose that definition of art? Surely not some overrated old man who gave max score to Avatar and never played a single game in his life.


Those self-proclaimed defenders of "art" are masturbating. "Art" is as meaningful as "biweekly".
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 10:27 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jeffrey Allers
Germany
Berlin
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
OK, it's time I took advantage of the opportunity this thread provides. I have, admittedly, gone back and forth on whether or not games can be art. But during the past year, I took up the challenge to use the design medium to create art. Of course, it needed to use the medium in a way that can still be recognizable as a "game." Here is my first attempt:

http://www.boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/92913/war-game-a-prot...

I would welcome any comments and criticism you might have on the game!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:08 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Alan Goodrich
United States
Centereach
New York
flag msg tools
IT'S HERE!!!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dbuel wrote:
cayluster wrote:
Saying "everything is art" does nothing to further our understanding of art, games, or anything else, and I'd say the same thing to an artist who tried to justify his work in such a way.

Right. But it's not that everything is art. It's that art is that which has an esthetic. "Being art" and "having an esthetic" are the same thing.


Why is that? An aesthetic can be completely accidental. And what doesn't have an aesthetic anyway? Seems like we're back to everything is art pretty quick.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:16 pm
  • Posted Thu Mar 24, 2011 11:15 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jacob
United States
Lexington
Kentucky
Go Pats!
badge
My awesome son =)
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Soloing in Diplomacy - that's art...
3 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:48 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Dan Lokemoen


msg tools
mb
Rokkr wrote:
Half-Life .. has not.

Wrong. I recognized it the first moment I saw it. Do you have to be told by an "authority" that something is art? Who is your authority? Currently, the most recognized authority on music in the western world is Simon Cowell. Thanks, but I'll think and decide for myself.
xenongames wrote:
I love how rude, clueless people denigrate Ebert for his rudeness and cluelessness.

Rude, yes, in this case, I am. But, to deflate a puffed-up sacred cow like Roger Ebert may take a little rudeness. However, I'm about as far from clueless as people get, and if you're an honest person, you'll have to admit to being rude, here, too.

This debate is really over the definition of the word, "art," obviously. Define it one way, games aren't; define it another and they are. However, some people's definitions are ridiculous, and don't jibe with what ANYONE means when they say the word, "art." For example, one poster said, "Art can't have a goal," and since games have goals, they're not art. The problem is that there are not just individual works of art, but WHOLE ARTISTIC MOVEMENTS, that HAVE GOALS. One guy's definition is that, in art you "encounter something outside yourself." Apparently you don't do that in games, and I guess that makes my local grocery store art because I encounter ... I don't even know that that guy meant.

Granted we won't all agree on one definition, but can we at least try to have our precious personal definitions make some sense? If your definition is so broad that it includes pilates classes, or so narrow that it disincludes things that you, yourself (or 99.9% of all people) call art, you can check out of this debate.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Fri Mar 25, 2011 5:19 am
  • Posted Fri Mar 25, 2011 4:40 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Tiwaz Tyrsfist
United States
Gladstone
Missouri
designer
Behold in amazement as my wife demonstrates the proper way to clean your cat.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
God yes, Roger Corman. I have a Labeling Disorder. Sometimes I call Gene Simmons Richard Simmons and vise versa. It's a thing.
5 
 Thumb up
0.25
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Mar 25, 2011 6:21 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
cayluster wrote:
dbuel wrote:
cayluster wrote:
Saying "everything is art" does nothing to further our understanding of art, games, or anything else, and I'd say the same thing to an artist who tried to justify his work in such a way.

Right. But it's not that everything is art. It's that art is that which has an esthetic. "Being art" and "having an esthetic" are the same thing.


Why is that?

Well, the English word "art" comes from the Latin "artis," which refers of course to art but more literally to the skill of something. The skill they were referring to is esthetic skill. That's where we got the word from.

Quote:
An aesthetic can be completely accidental.

This doesn't change anything. What is the offered alternative? "Art" is "whatever makes me feel"? It's even more true that that can be completely accidental.

All of this is irrelevant. Whether a thing is art is in the thing, not in me. Emotionless robots don't change "art" to "not art," and emotions don't change "not art" to "art." The thing is art. I'm not "art" "because I like it."
Quote:
And what doesn't have an aesthetic anyway?

A wooden beam hastily nailed in place.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Mar 25, 2011 2:17 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jacob Russell
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
Bullshit!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dbuel wrote:

Quote:
And what doesn't have an aesthetic anyway?

A wooden beam hastily nailed in place.


pre-Duchamp that used to be a claim you could make. The 20th century has muddied the term art beyond repair. That could be art if you wrote a good essay and stuck it in a gallery.

So now we have the notion that having an esthetic or being done with skill is enough to make it art? I'm not buying it. That opens a lot of doors. Going back to the latin root is nice but we don't use all latin based words the way they were used then. English is a growing and changing language and between then and now we've lost that original latin base. I'd rather deal with the Je ne sais quois of the romantics then the mathematical etymology of the word or the post-modern notion that we define it for ourselves. At least the Romantics recognized a feature that we seem to want to deny now.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Mar 25, 2011 7:14 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Peter Hall
United States
Columbia
Missouri
mbmbmbmb
Craft is one of the categories you hear mentioned as being adjacent to, yet distinct from, art. It's not necessarily the case that art is better than craft -- see, for example, this discussion: http://www.denisdutton.com/rnz_craft.htm -- just that craft describes a work that has some use other than simply being experienced. I know some have voiced objections to this distinction already, but I think it's a good starting point -- even the author of the above piece concedes that some examples of a craft can 'transcend' the category.

The interesting thing is, I'm not sure if you would say that games have a "use" or not. You don't quite play a game the way you would use an abacus, but you don't really play a game the same way that you read a novel or view a painting, either. I think it's somewhere in between.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Mar 25, 2011 10:27 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Nik Borg
Canada

JonJacob wrote:




So now we have the notion that having an esthetic or being done with skill is enough to make it art? I'm not buying it. That opens a lot of doors. Going back to the latin root is nice but we don't use all latin based words the way they were used then. English is a growing and changing language and between then and now we've lost that original latin base. I'd rather deal with the Je ne sais quois of the romantics then the mathematical etymology of the word or the post-modern notion that we define it for ourselves. At least the Romantics recognized a feature that we seem to want to deny now.


Dude!! Whatever that means I agree with it.
2 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sat Mar 26, 2011 5:54 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
John Mehrholz
United States
Springdale
Arkansas
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've seen a lot of comments along the lines of "why does this matter?" and no one has really answered that, so I thought I would: politics.

In societies that purport to have some level of free speech, often one of the biggest factors in determining whether or not something can be censored is whether or not it has "artistic merit".

Something that is defined as having "artistic merit" is a lot easier to defend against censorship than is something that is defined as not having any "artistic merit".

This is pretty much a non-issue when it comes to board games, but is a potentially huge issue when it comes to video games.

If games are accepted as being incapable of being art, then arguments of "artistic merit" will be dismissed out of hand, making attempts to defeat censorship that much harder.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sat Mar 26, 2011 1:56 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brian Thomas
United States
Langhorne
Pennsylvania
"I will take love wherever I find it, and offer it to everyone who will take it. Seek knowledge from those wiser, and teach those who wish to learn." -Duane Allman
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
If a crucifix submerged in urine is considered "Art", then surely a video game as evocative and immersive as Ico can be considered "art".
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:04 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Conrad
United States
New York City
New York
flag msg tools
Who is bought and sold? Who is beyond the law? Who is free to choose? Who follows orders? Who salutes longest? Who prays loudest? Who dies first? Who laughs last? -Barbara Kruger
badge
"Now a question of etiquette: as I pass, do I give you the ass or the crotch?"
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shawn_Solo wrote:
If a guy can dribble art on a canvas and call it art (Jackson Pollock), then the worst video game in the history of gaming in a masterpiece.


(1) Go ahead, try to copy Pollock. He was very, very careful with what he did, and no one has been able to replicate his methods in such a way that someone paying careful attention can't tell the difference.

(2) I don't think you dignify art by implying that effort is all it takes to make an example of it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sat Mar 26, 2011 9:44 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
David Ells
United States
San Clemente
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I always considered board games (especially the DTP games) to be a kind of 'folk art' at the very least (albeit one where the author is known, which is typically not the case with FA), which is damning with faint praise, but it's still a type / level of art. I mention this because I noted at least a few similarities between games and Folk Art.

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

I also think boardgame designing is part of Industrial Designing and Industrial Art (a knowledge of both is helpful and evident in the more successful boardgame designs, as is familiarity with Industry Standards), so this is also something I'm exploring. Fine art? No, but still art nonetheless ...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Sun Mar 27, 2011 6:49 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
We're all in this together
United States
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I have an art degree, so I feel like I have some credibility here.

The tools available to video game designers equal or rival those available to filmmakers. Writing, dialogue, cinematography, lighting, editing, music, acting, stunts, and so on.

What distinguishes video games from cinema is the ability for the medium to change in response to input.

Purely from a functional standpoint, Dragon's Lair is a movie where you get to choose which scene comes next. Were Dragon's Lair presented sequentially, we probably wouldn't classify it as Art with a capital A. But that's the same argument you could apply to any film.

So the whole argument to me seems to come down to whether or not the mutability of a video game precludes it from being art. Which to me is nonsense. It, in fact, increases the potential for video games to be meaningful art.

It is the concessions made to that mutability which can lessen, or eliminate, the artistic merit of most video games.

Ico, mentioned above, is the single greatest refutation of this argument in my gaming experience. It evokes constant emotional responses and uses the constraints of interactivity masterfully. It breaks your heart a couple times, and puts it back together. Many gamers will tell you it made them cry. I know I did, literally.

Shadow of the Colossus, a game set in the same universe, also mentioned above, is a demonstration of how that art can be diluted by concessions to interactivity. But just barely.

Both are masterpieces of video game design. And the differences between them can be drawn directly from their protagonists. In Ico, the protagonist is driven at first by the desire to survive, and then adds to that being driven by love (although it is up to you whether it is love or just being nice). In SotC, the protagonist has no threat to his survival. He is driven by love. So much so that he is willing to destroy magnificent beasts to take their essence to revive his dead or dying love.

So a scared and loving kid versus a driven bastard for love. In one the environment is the threat, in the other the protagonist is the threat.

Both will stay with you for years. My wife walked in the room and asked what I was doing just now. When I explained, she said: well Ico is most definitely art. And she never played it. She would just sit and watch some time.

For a gamer's wife to remember some game her husband played 9 years ago and say it refutes the argument is pretty amazing.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:37 pm
  • Posted Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:30 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
We're all in this together
United States
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Anyone professionally making this argument needs to play Ico. Since that's not easily achieved, watching this ~3.8 hour walkthrough of the game is a good Plan B.

http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_uri=%2F&gl=US#/view_playl...

It took me 10 hours to complete the game, and I didn't complain one bit. Ico also makes a good case for short games. Too many studios and gamers believe that quantity of content is a a good measure of a game's worth. Ico proved that a game can be short and satisfying if the content is good.

Edit: the walkthrough strips away something integral to video games: you are the protagonist, even if the protagonist is named and viewedin the third person, like Ico. In these games, you solve the problems, you feel the betrayal, and you feel the elation.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Sun Mar 27, 2011 11:35 pm
  • Posted Sun Mar 27, 2011 10:38 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Ryan Gatti
United States
Portland
Oregon
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Aldie wrote:
Just wondering what was artistic about Portal? Felt like a puzzle game to me.

It was a puzzle game. And for most of the game, that's all it was . . . until it suddenly morphs into an amazingly well presented narrative (not to mention, extremely humorous). Although, once it all comes together, you look back and see the seeds planted along the way.

It was a great puzzle game, but it was pure art that the puzzle game served as the perfect vehicle for the (short) story being told. In the end, as great as the puzzles may be, they aren't the most memorable part of the game. When was the last time you could say that about something that seemed to be a pure puzzle game?

...That, and it made me a Jonathan Coulton fanatic... whistle
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Mar 28, 2011 12:44 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
kerli
United Kingdom
Yate, Bristol
South Glos
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I personally blieve that games are somewhere in between... I mean, they can contain great art (Dragonmaster, for example - beautiful. Or one of my favourite versions of Payday, 1976 version that looks like something out of Yellow Submarine. Or what about Reiner Knizia's LoTR, which has John Howe's!! - my fav illustrator - art in it), I do not consider games themselves as a form of art really. Yet.

However, the art in them makes the games definitely more memorable and more fun to play!

tuskel,
sincerely
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Mar 28, 2011 1:36 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JonJacob wrote:
dbuel wrote:

Quote:
And what doesn't have an aesthetic anyway?

A wooden beam hastily nailed in place.


pre-Duchamp that used to be a claim you could make. The 20th century has muddied the term art beyond repair. That could be art if you wrote a good essay and stuck it in a gallery.

So now we have the notion that having an esthetic or being done with skill is enough to make it art? I'm not buying it. That opens a lot of doors. Going back to the latin root is nice but we don't use all latin based words the way they were used then. English is a growing and changing language and between then and now we've lost that original latin base. I'd rather deal with the Je ne sais quois of the romantics then the mathematical etymology of the word or the post-modern notion that we define it for ourselves. At least the Romantics recognized a feature that we seem to want to deny now.

I don't understand, because on the one hand you seem to imply that the 20th century has muddied the term "art" to include a wooden beam hastily nailed in place, but then on the other hand you seem to imply that "art" is still something very narrow.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Mar 28, 2011 7:50 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jacob Russell
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
Bullshit!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dbuel wrote:

I don't understand, because on the one hand you seem to imply that the 20th century has muddied the term "art" to include a wooden beam hastily nailed in place, but then on the other hand you seem to imply that "art" is still something very narrow.


I'm trying pretty hard to not actually give my opinion on what art is, but it is probably clear to some degree that I am a bit conservative with how I use the term myself. I think that the art world in general is fine with a "woodem beam hastily nailed in place" as long as it is qualified by some kind of essay or very intentional placement that gives it meaning beyond what we would regularily see.

I'm not fine with this and you can tell. I like mystery, not in my posts neccessarily, but at least in my art. But I don't get to chose what "art" means, that's democracy's job. I do get to chose to not like it though.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Mar 28, 2011 9:30 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JonJacob wrote:
dbuel wrote:

I don't understand, because on the one hand you seem to imply that the 20th century has muddied the term "art" to include a wooden beam hastily nailed in place, but then on the other hand you seem to imply that "art" is still something very narrow.


I'm trying pretty hard to not actually give my opinion on what art is, but it is probably clear to some degree that I am a bit conservative with how I use the term myself. I think that the art world in general is fine with a "woodem beam hastily nailed in place" as long as it is qualified by some kind of essay or very intentional placement that gives it meaning beyond what we would regularily see.

Then it wouldn't be hastily nailed in place. It would be deliberate, and it would have an esthetic. The qualifier that you added is exactly the esthetic that would make it art.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Mon Mar 28, 2011 10:16 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jacob Russell
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
Bullshit!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dbuel wrote:

Then it wouldn't be hastily nailed in place. It would be deliberate, and it would have an esthetic. The qualifier that you added is exactly the esthetic that would make it art.


I don't agree that it would have an esthetic any more then the same object outside of that circumstance, I think it would have an exscuse, which to me is very different. Perhpas you haven't heard of "ready made" art (found art is also used), I was assuming you had, but it is just that. Find something and stick it in a gallery, then come up with some exscuse as to why it's there (essay). I agree that it is part of the art world philosophy these days, I just don't like it. To me this exercise (which is all it really is) can and perhaps should be done with all sorts of objects at different times outside of the gallery. I can appreciate a urinal just fine in the can, I don't need a gallery or ivory tower approval to do it. I've photographed them myself for exactly this reason. I just don't call it art.

But you see, I'm giving away too much now and that was not my intention.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 12:10 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Hans Brouwer
Netherlands
Utrecht
Avatar
mbmbmb
The man is right: (video) games are/can not be art, he gives valid arguments for it. Nobody thought of games as art, UNTIL both Eber and Moriarty pointed this out: then all of a sudden ppl start arguing about why games can be art, and why some games ARE art. I have yet to read 1 convincing argument for this, where arguments are given. Some commenters dont give any argument at all.

Think about it: they're right, really.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:40 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
We're all in this together
United States
Research Triangle Park
North Carolina
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FreeHansje wrote:
The man is right: (video) games are/can not be art, he gives valid arguments for it. Nobody thought of games as art, UNTIL both Eber and Moriarty pointed this out: then all of a sudden ppl start arguing about why games can be art, and why some games ARE art. I have yet to read 1 convincing argument for this, where arguments are given. Some commenters dont give any argument at all.

Think about it: they're right, really.


Your post about people not making any convincing arguments contains no convincing arguments.

My argument was this: if movies can be art, then video games can be. Video games, especially in the past 10 years, can be movies with a joystick. Unless the joystick somehow eliminates the artistic merit of the movie, then video games can be art.

I'm asking earnestly, not to needle: why does that argument fall flat for you?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:53 am
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:53 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FreeHansje wrote:
Nobody thought of games as art, UNTIL both Eber and Moriarty pointed this out


1982 - 30 years ago. Electronic Arts based their entire company philosophy and ad campaigns on games being art. They were called "Software Artists".

http://aboutus.ea.com/history.action
http://chrishecker.com/images/f/f1/Cry.jpg

Games have been art for so long, no one really thought there was anyone who didn't realize it.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:29 am
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:27 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
John Mehrholz
United States
Springdale
Arkansas
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FreeHansje wrote:
Nobody thought of games as art, UNTIL both Eber and Moriarty pointed this out

This is completely untrue. Ebert's original article on the subject was a direct response to a talk given at a TED conference, the entire premise of which was that video games were art.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:25 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Hans Brouwer
Netherlands
Utrecht
Avatar
mbmbmb
Aetheros wrote:
FreeHansje wrote:
The man is right: (video) games are/can not be art, he gives valid arguments for it. Nobody thought of games as art, UNTIL both Eber and Moriarty pointed this out: then all of a sudden ppl start arguing about why games can be art, and why some games ARE art. I have yet to read 1 convincing argument for this, where arguments are given. Some commenters dont give any argument at all.

Think about it: they're right, really.


Your post about people not making any convincing arguments contains no convincing arguments.

My argument was this: if movies can be art, then video games can be. Video games, especially in the past 10 years, can be movies with a joystick. Unless the joystick somehow eliminates the artistic merit of the movie, then video games can be art.

I'm asking earnestly, not to needle: why does that argument fall flat for you?


Come on, are you really serious?! If you put it like that, yes, everything a human being makes COULD be art. Now back to reality. I did not give any argument, I pointed out the fact, that NOBODY ever thought about (video) games as art, UNTIL some1 stated, that they where not and never would be, with arguments why he thought so.
Now, you can argue(!) about hose arguments, disagree with them, but no1 has mentioned 1 example of a game which is considered art. Not a game of which YOU think it is art, no, a game which is GENERALLY considered art. Example: I don't consider some modern art as art at all, but these expressions are considered art in general; my personal opinion does not change that. Surely you can come up with examples like that.
So, unless a game, or several games, is/are considered art there are none such. Again I point out, that no1 ever thought about games being art untill this was explicitly posed by Eber. In thousends of years of gaming there is no game considered art. Why video games should be different from other games in this is unclear to me. Dont start about movies being art so video games should/could be art as well, that is a null-value statement.

The EA argument is also a null-statement. Maybe that was their company philosophy, but is this really the case. or is this a nice, catchy story, which sells good? Anyways, is there 1 EA gamne considered art? Nope.
And nobody talks about the TED conference, so this is also valueless. This whole hubbub started with the Eber presentation, and that presentation is attacked without TED being mentioned anywhere.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:18 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FreeHansje wrote:
Now, you can argue(!) about hose arguments, disagree with them, but no1 has mentioned 1 example of a game which is considered art.

Well, this is just false.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:38 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JonJacob wrote:
Find something and stick it in a gallery, then come up with some exscuse as to why it's there (essay). I agree that it is part of the art world philosophy these days, I just don't like it.

I would submit to you that the reason you don't like these things is because they do not have an esthetic, and so people are calling them "art" when they are not.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:41 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Hans Brouwer
Netherlands
Utrecht
Avatar
mbmbmb
dbuel wrote:
FreeHansje wrote:
Now, you can argue(!) about hose arguments, disagree with them, but no1 has mentioned 1 example of a game which is considered art.

Well, this is just false.


Gimme 1 example, I'm willing to learn. If you can't, the statement is true, until proven otherwise...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:44 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FreeHansje wrote:
dbuel wrote:
FreeHansje wrote:
Now, you can argue(!) about hose arguments, disagree with them, but no1 has mentioned 1 example of a game which is considered art.

Well, this is just false.


Gimme 1 example, I'm willing to learn. If you can't, the statement is true, until proven otherwise...

People have cited several examples in this thread, and it's really disingenuous to pretend they haven't and not address those citations directly.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:49 pm
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:49 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Hans Brouwer
Netherlands
Utrecht
Avatar
mbmbmb
Do you agree, that a single, or even a few personal opinion(s) do not an artobject make? Do you agree, that something is considered art when there is a general agreement at least in some part of the global community on whether an expression or object is art?

If you do, then no example according those criteria is given. If you don't, then better give your definition of art.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 4:51 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Brian Schroth
United States
Middletown
Connecticut
Avatar
mbmbmb
FreeHansje wrote:
Do you agree, that something is considered art when there is a general agreement at least in some part of the global community on whether an expression or object is art?


Something is considered art if there is a person who considers it art.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:25 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Douglas Buel
United States
Orlando
Florida
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FreeHansje wrote:
If you don't, then better give your definition of art.

I already have. Please read the thread.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 6:07 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Peter Hall
United States
Columbia
Missouri
mbmbmbmb
Aetheros wrote:

My argument was this: if movies can be art, then video games can be. Video games, especially in the past 10 years, can be movies with a joystick. Unless the joystick somehow eliminates the artistic merit of the movie, then video games can be art.


I'm still kind of a fence-sitter on the larger question, and yours are some of the more insightful comments thus far, I think, so I hope this doesn't come across as too cheeky, but...

If you're watching Citizen Kane with an Atari controller as your TV remote, it doesn't make it "not art," but it doesn't make it a game, either. So, what if you're playing Centipede with that Atari controller, but the controller is also pausing and unpausing Citizen Kane whenever a particular sequence of inputs is given? To me, that means you're experiencing a piece of art, and you're playing a game, but the game is still not art.

Maybe it's a simplification, but this is kind of how I see a lot of the adventure game nominees for consideration as art. The artsiest "game" I can remember playing is The Longest Journey, the narrative portion of which was a respectable piece of speculative fiction. It was not high Art, but it was art in the sense I feel is in question here. It comes in on the level of, say, Princess Mononoke, which I imagine Ebert would consider art. But the art was in the cutscenes, and the game (mostly pixel-hunting) was only related to the narrative in that you had to play the game to see the rest of the movie.

Maybe some games achieve a little more integration, but I think you're correct in noting that there is a definite trade-off in allowing the player more control. On one end of the continuum, you have a "game" with no control and a strong narrative, and on the other end you have a game with a high degree of control and no narrative. To me, it seems like that's essentially a trade-off between gaminess and artsiness. I think the real question for some is whether the series of decisions that a game presents can itself be a form of art.

Aetheros wrote:

My wife walked in the room and asked what I was doing just now. When I explained, she said: well Ico is most definitely art. And she never played it. She would just sit and watch some time. For a gamer's wife to remember some game her husband played 9 years ago and say it refutes the argument is pretty amazing.


It's interesting that you mention this, because I was thinking that this might be an interesting test for whether a game had successfully integrated its gaming and narrative elements: if it feels like art to the person playing it, but it doesn't seem like art to someone looking on.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Tue Mar 29, 2011 10:30 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Steve Duff
Canada
Ottawa
Ontario
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dangerouslycheesy wrote:
It's interesting that you mention this, because I was thinking that this might be an interesting test for whether a game had successfully integrated its gaming and narrative elements: if it feels like art to the person playing it, but it doesn't seem like art to someone looking on.


That's why I mentioned Planetfall above. No graphics, purely text, wall of text to an observer. Absolutely art.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 30, 2011 1:33 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jacob Russell
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
Bullshit!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
FreeHansje wrote:
Nobody thought of games as art, UNTIL both Eber and Moriarty pointed this out


1982 - 30 years ago. Electronic Arts based their entire company philosophy and ad campaigns on games being art. They were called "Software Artists".

http://aboutus.ea.com/history.action
http://chrishecker.com/images/f/f1/Cry.jpg

Games have been art for so long, no one really thought there was anyone who didn't realize it.


Those links are pretty hillarious (read: pretentious). I have to say though that calling yourself an artist does not actually make you one. I played their games in the mid 80's. They were not art.

I've played them recently. They are still not art. Entertainment only.

Good entertainment, but entertainment none the less. I doubt anything they've ever done will stand the test of time. As evidenced by the fact that each game gets an update every year. They are utterly disposable.

Maybe in 400 years we will study NHL 98 instead of Beetohven. But I hope not.

In all honesty the closest I've seen in video game format is the stuff from Platinum Games. At least they don't pretend they're making movies. They focus on making games that embrace the fact they are games. As long as the arty games are pretending like their not games. They will never be art. They will just pretend to be.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:19 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
M.J.E. Hendriks
Netherlands
Velp
Gelderland
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Art from the Latin meaning something created by man.

Is it a tool, like the aforementioned ordinary pillar, then it serves its purpose as such and isn't Art (with a capital).

To be Art (with a capital), the creation needs to stimulate thought, perhaps on the meaning of life, or something much more complex (and often considered shallow) as for example a urinal taken out of its natural environment. Once again described quite clearly in a previous post how the said urinal can inspire us to consider the ordinary objects in our lives. Thought is not the thought of game (it makes me think too hard, or what not), but it is a deeper thought, a thought on life, or the beauty of things.

This should not be limited to a particular medium or set of mediums. If you have a boardgame that inspires you to thought - perhaps about life - then it functions as Art.

Music is a slippery slope, and it is often easier to start with its intention than to look at the final product. The intention of Justin Beiber is to sell - it is a product meant to entertain - those two intentions make it a tool. There are few who would disagree it's lower-case a art. A similar ditty played in a pub a few hundred years ago on an old-fashioned instrument we would consider Art, though then too it would've been entertainment. But the evocative powers it now holds for us inspire us to thought - evocation a time long past, perhaps.

Literature (and fiction) is a lot easier. Of course Stephen King can be thought-provoking to some (that is why so many disagree with each other in this topic here), but generally this is considered fiction, or to be more to the point here, art, that is, a tool: entertainment. If we then move to Shakespeare and look at his works, or perhaps in this case a famous quote: "To be or not to be, that is the question." Then we will see that his works are thought-provoking and were actually meant as such. Much less of a slippery slope here, in my opinion, but then I'm a literature major.

I could go on with paintings and sculptures and movies and what not, but perhaps I can finish with an object, an actual tool, crafted by man - a wheelbarrow. This could be (though it no longer is) considered art (lower case that is).

The poet William Carlos Williams took this man made object, this 'tool', and described it in such a way that it became Art, thought provoking, though admittedly on a fair few levels deeper than Shakespeare's quote:

The Red Wheelbarrow
by William Carlos Williams

so much depends
upon

a red wheel
barrow

glazed with rain
water

beside the white
chickens.


To turn to the topic of boardgames - if the boardgame inspires you, is thought provoking or what not, then yes, I would consider it Art. Whether the artwork used is pretty is beside the point. Hence any references to the artwork used have no bearing on the consideration whether boardgames are art or not. Personally I am not able to come up with any game I would consider Art unless taken out of its context (such as the urinal) or created for such a purpose (see Train and the War game mentioned previously).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Wed Mar 30, 2011 4:37 pm
  • Posted Wed Mar 30, 2011 2:23 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
John Mehrholz
United States
Springdale
Arkansas
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FreeHansje wrote:
And nobody talks about the TED conference, so this is also valueless. This whole hubbub started with the Eber presentation, and that presentation is attacked without TED being mentioned anywhere.


Claiming something is valueless doesn't make it so. The idea that video games can be art has been around for significantly longer than either the TED presentation or the Ebert response to it. The Ebert response merely expanded the discussion to a larger audience.

Also, it's Ebert, with a "t", and it was an article in response to a presentation. Ebert did not himself give a presentation.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:32 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jordan Scott
United Kingdom

Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Should anyone have read this far, though I'd take issue with some things before and after, slides 40–45 (from "Art is dead" to the Space Invaders/Pac-Man/Donkey Kong triptych) of this presentation by Tale of Tales – just looking at them, at least, without the opinions of the commentary – I've found to be one of the more enlightening contributions to the topic. (And, yes, they use stills but the point applies to games as wholes and the unspoken implication of a similar correlation between the modern art and early, unintentionally abstract video games (an aesthetic that I like a lot, whether intentional or not) – is all part of the value embedded in this one juxtaposition).

With the aim of retaining some sanity, the only way I can deal with such weight and history is to avoid the "a"-word whenever something could instead be referred to as something else, whether that be a painting, game, recital, dance, performance etc. But something I often have need to refer to as a whole and which I know no other word for is "that created by people but for no practical use" (only an emotional, artistic use), so this is what I tend to reserve it for, typically in contrast with life, nature, practicality.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:18 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
John Clark
Australia
Canberra
ACT
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hmmm lots of opinions here and I don't know why. There is nothing riding on this and its just another instance of the 'what is art?' question which will never ever be resolved. Nothing to see here. Move along.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 31, 2011 2:59 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Hans Brouwer
Netherlands
Utrecht
Avatar
mbmbmb
johnclark wrote:
Hmmm lots of opinions here and I don't know why. There is nothing riding on this and its just another instance of the 'what is art?' question which will never ever be resolved. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Well, you have anything better to do, then? whistle

Anyways, all the nitpicking on definition of words and on what Art or art is has nothing to do with everyday reality. Again I ask, is there at anytime in (recent) history been an exhibition where a (video) game has been displayed as a piece of art? Or any article on a game presenting it as a piece of art?
Really, I say again, I am willing to learn. If this has happened in the past, I really would like to know.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 31, 2011 5:22 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Jacob Russell
Canada
Vancouver
British Columbia
Bullshit!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
FreeHansje wrote:

Anyways, all the nitpicking on definition of words and on what Art or art is has nothing to do with everyday reality. Again I ask, is there at anytime in (recent) history been an exhibition where a (video) game has been displayed as a piece of art? Or any article on a game presenting it as a piece of art?
Really, I say again, I am willing to learn. If this has happened in the past, I really would like to know.


There have been several galleries that have presented video games as art. Of course several galleries have presented everything from houses to found objects to normal clothes or police photographs as art. The art world has embraced a number of ideas in this regard. Here is one article about the Smithsonian presenting just such an exhibition.

http://designtaxi.com/news/34105/Are-Video-Games-Art-The-Smi...

Of course that doesn't mean they are art. It just means that someone in charge of a gallery somewhere thinks so, or allowed the idea to be presented for the sake of conversation/controversy.

Just google "video games as art" or some similar line and you'll find that hundreds of galleries have played with this idea. It's not a new notion by any means and I don't think it's going away.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:23 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Bruno D.
United States

New York
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JonJacob wrote:
FreeHansje wrote:

Anyways, all the nitpicking on definition of words and on what Art or art is has nothing to do with everyday reality. Again I ask, is there at anytime in (recent) history been an exhibition where a (video) game has been displayed as a piece of art? Or any article on a game presenting it as a piece of art?
Really, I say again, I am willing to learn. If this has happened in the past, I really would like to know.


There have been several galleries that have presented video games as art. Of course several galleries have presented everything from houses to found objects to normal clothes or police photographs as art. The art world has embraced a number of ideas in this regard. Here is one article about the Smithsonian presenting just such an exhibition.

http://designtaxi.com/news/34105/Are-Video-Games-Art-The-Smi...

Of course that doesn't mean they are art. It just means that someone in charge of a gallery somewhere thinks so, or allowed the idea to be presented for the sake of conversation/controversy.

Just google "video games as art" or some similar line and you'll find that hundreds of galleries have played with this idea. It's not a new notion by any means and I don't think it's going away.


There you go !! Thanks for the link.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:09 pm
  • Posted Thu Mar 31, 2011 12:08 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
John Mehrholz
United States
Springdale
Arkansas
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
johnclark wrote:
Hmmm lots of opinions here and I don't know why. There is nothing riding on this and its just another instance of the 'what is art?' question which will never ever be resolved. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Nothing riding on this particular discussion, but there's actually quite a bit riding on it in the larger world of politics and law as items deemed to have "artistic merit" are often more difficult to censor than those that are generally accepted to have no "artistic merit."

Not a big deal for most board games, but a huge issue for video games.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 31, 2011 1:45 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Ralph T
United States
Signal Hill
California
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
FreeHansje wrote:
Nobody thought of games as art, UNTIL both Eber and Moriarty pointed this out


1982 - 30 years ago. Electronic Arts based their entire company philosophy and ad campaigns on games being art. They were called "Software Artists".

http://aboutus.ea.com/history.action
http://chrishecker.com/images/f/f1/Cry.jpg

Games have been art for so long, no one really thought there was anyone who didn't realize it.


The servers at Subway are called Sandwich Artists, does that make a sandwich art?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 31, 2011 7:30 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Luis Escobar
United States
Rancho Cucamonga
California
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ralpher wrote:
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
FreeHansje wrote:
Nobody thought of games as art, UNTIL both Eber and Moriarty pointed this out


1982 - 30 years ago. Electronic Arts based their entire company philosophy and ad campaigns on games being art. They were called "Software Artists".

http://aboutus.ea.com/history.action
http://chrishecker.com/images/f/f1/Cry.jpg

Games have been art for so long, no one really thought there was anyone who didn't realize it.


The servers at Subway are called Sandwich Artists, does that make a sandwich art?


Mmmmm, art.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:18 pm
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
John Mehrholz
United States
Springdale
Arkansas
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ralpher wrote:
UnknownParkerBrother wrote:
FreeHansje wrote:
Nobody thought of games as art, UNTIL both Eber and Moriarty pointed this out


1982 - 30 years ago. Electronic Arts based their entire company philosophy and ad campaigns on games being art. They were called "Software Artists".

http://aboutus.ea.com/history.action
http://chrishecker.com/images/f/f1/Cry.jpg

Games have been art for so long, no one really thought there was anyone who didn't realize it.


The servers at Subway are called Sandwich Artists, does that make a sandwich art?

No, but that wasn't the point of the response, FreeHansje has asserted that no one even considered the idea of games being art before Ebert said they weren't, and UnknownParkerBrother pointed out that wasn't true even as far back as 30 years ago.

That EA said it was art may or may not make it art, but it certainly proves that people were at least considering the possibility.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Apr 1, 2011 12:03 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Hans Brouwer
Netherlands
Utrecht
Avatar
mbmbmb
JonJacob wrote:
FreeHansje wrote:

Anyways, all the nitpicking on definition of words and on what Art or art is has nothing to do with everyday reality. Again I ask, is there at anytime in (recent) history been an exhibition where a (video) game has been displayed as a piece of art? Or any article on a game presenting it as a piece of art?
Really, I say again, I am willing to learn. If this has happened in the past, I really would like to know.


There have been several galleries that have presented video games as art. Of course several galleries have presented everything from houses to found objects to normal clothes or police photographs as art. The art world has embraced a number of ideas in this regard. Here is one article about the Smithsonian presenting just such an exhibition.

http://designtaxi.com/news/34105/Are-Video-Games-Art-The-Smi...

Of course that doesn't mean they are art. It just means that someone in charge of a gallery somewhere thinks so, or allowed the idea to be presented for the sake of conversation/controversy.

Just google "video games as art" or some similar line and you'll find that hundreds of galleries have played with this idea. It's not a new notion by any means and I don't think it's going away.


I stand corrected: somewhere it IS considered art. Though I find that amazing, never the less...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Posted Fri Apr 1, 2011 10:21 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Bruno D.
United States

New York
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We are getting there ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17373879

Some quotes from the article above:

Quote:
But the industry arguably reached artistic maturity last year when the Supreme Court decided that video games were like other works of art and should be protected under the First Amendment to the US constitution, which guarantees free speech.


Quote:
ESA spokesman Dan Hewitt says the Smithsonian American Art exhibition is another watershed moment.

"To have an institution as prestigious as the Smithsonian to say that video games are such an art form that we're going to include them and have an exhibit on them is a remarkable validation of what we've known for a while," he says.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Thumb up
  • Edited Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:18 am
  • Posted Sat Mar 17, 2012 1:09 am
    • Choose your Dice
      • Roll
      • Comment (Optional)
    • Reply
    •  
    • Quote
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.