Send News. Want a reply? Read this. More in the FAQ.   News Forum - All Forums - Mobile - PDA - RSS Headlines  RSS Headlines   Twitter  Twitter
Customize
User Settings
Styles:
LAN Parties
Upcoming one-time events:
Greenbelt, MD 08/22

Regularly scheduled events

Op Ed

View
18 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >

18. Re: Op Ed Mar 13, 2013, 19:05 saluk
 
Is a graphic novel not art because the "art"work and the dialog were not created by the same person? The definition being based on an artist is even more poor in my opinion than "I know art when I see it". From a development perspective, the difference in team organization between creating an animated film a high end game production are very similar, and I think all but the most snooty art critic would consider films like beauty and the beast art.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
17. Re: Op Ed Mar 12, 2013, 08:15 InBlack
 
A stick man can be art. But for the stick man to be art, there has to be an artist. So basically someone who drew the stick man. Someone who people can either admire for his genius and his bold "sticks" or spit on and derride for claiming that his stupid stick man is art.

I still stand by my original assumption, the creator is the one who defines HIS art as art. If only one other person agrees with him then at least in the eyes of that person it is art.

Games are made by development studios, they are more crafted and built then artistically designed and most of the time there is no one person who is credited with the vision and direction of the project. If more games were created in with the direct leadership and responsibility of one man or woman would they be art? I dont know, but they sure as hell would be a helluva lot better.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
16. Re: Op Ed Mar 12, 2013, 07:05 panbient
 
PropheT wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 19:14:
I feel like I should be surprised we still talk about this, but...

If you make the picture on a page, it's art.
If you write the story on a page, it's art.
If you join the two and make them move, and then let people interact with it... it stops being art?


If I draw a disproportionate stick figure rather than the beauty and details of a face is it still art?

If I write a punny limerick on a page rather than reflecting a substantial experience with prose is it still art?

Is art defined by the creator or the viewer?

While I've played some games that have provided the same results as a great book, they're far and few between. So while there are definitely some exceptions that could definitely be compared on the same artistic level as traditional media, there are plenty of others that simply don't compare.

Just because there's an art to making the product, doesn't mean the resulting product is art.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
15. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 19:14 PropheT
 
I feel like I should be surprised we still talk about this, but...

If you make the picture on a page, it's art.
If you write the story on a page, it's art.
If you join the two and make them move, and then let people interact with it... it stops being art?

 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
14. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 18:57 Saboth
 
The man from the Guardian is a buffoon. He states: "A survey of the past 2,500 years of art philosophy offers no support for the classification of games as art." Yet, we are talking about video games, not a game of tag. Video games came about in the past 50 or so years. So toss out the irrelevant 2,450 years before that. Games today weave a story using realistic art and imagery, developed by thousands of creative digital artists, programmers and other highly intelligent and well-trained professionals. Not only are the components of the game art (the backgrounds, 3d models, etc.), but the story they tell is art as well.  
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
13. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 18:48 saluk
 
Games are probably art. But they are considerably different from other art forms. You can't say, oh, they aren't as good at movies, because they aren't on the same spectrum. I think the people who claim they AREN'T art and the people who claim they ARE generally are saying the same thing, just with a slightly different phrasing. Games excercise different emotions in slightly different ways than other media.

The dialog between the creator the the viewer is more direct than in other media: the designer says "go here, I have something to show you" and the player says "yes, I agree with you and want to see what you have to say" or "no I'm going to go here instead, you can't tell me what to do".

When the designer has something clever to say to that second option, or even better, secretly wants the player to choose that second option, games are pretty powerful in a way other media can't touch.

But it's not the same kind of dialog you see elsewhere. So we have two options really. Expand "art" to include this new media, or call it something else. Historically, new media tends to eventually expand "art" to include it. I expect with enough time this will just happen. We will laugh about the good old days when people argued about whether games were art or not, and we will be deriding some new thing as not worthy of the term.

Personally, as long as games are respected for the talent and creativity that are put into them, and the unique experiences that they can enable, I don't really care what term is used.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
12. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 17:25 Cutter
 
I wasn't thinking of SCOTUS or the Python, it's just a common, old expression that I've always agreed with. I actually agree with the following quote from Anonymous.

Ben Jonson: Politics? My play has nothing to do with politics. It's just a simple comedy.

Earl of Oxford: It showed your betters as fools who'd go through life barely managing to get food from plate to mouth were it not for the cleverness of their servants. All art is political, Jonson, otherwise it would just be decoration. And all artists have something to say, otherwise they'd make shoes. And you are not a cobbler, are you Jonson.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
11. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 16:50 Jivaro
 
Cyanotetyphas wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 15:58:
Cutter wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 13:30:
I don't know if it's art, but I know what I like.
Pretty good call back to the obscenity Supreme Court ruling, it really fits here.

Art is complicated, which pretty much means that no one knows what it is. Its a know it when I see it thing which means you don't know it, not really. You can say it requires imagination or creativity but all you're really doing is setting up a post for "good art". But sometimes people move rocks and call it art. http://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/levitated-mass
Really art is just something deliberate.

The real question that people seem to be debating is, are video games good art? Can you appreciate them beyond the fact that they're fun to play? Certainly. I was playing Bastion last night and it seems to qualify.
Are they great art, do they evoke philosophical discussions and soul searching? In my opinion, not quite yet, certainly not on the level of film yet.


So wait, Monty Python was referencing the Supreme Court? All kidding aside, I forgot about Justice Stewart and the whole obscenity thing. Had to Google that.

Also, Cyanotetyphas, what a great way to explain art and games. I can only think of a few games that have made me really think about them on some sort of deeper level, and some of those probably have as much to do with me and my own life experiences as they do the actual games. Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Planescape: Torment, and the Syberia series are a handful of titles that pop into my head. More recently I would point at Journey and Flower. The film industry on the other hand...I mean I could sit down for hours listing titles. The age of the industry contributes to that of course, but still...today's game industry is focused on fitting into labeled and marketable genres and profit margins. Hopefully the indie developers of the world can provide fun games that consistently go beyond simply shooting zombies. (even if shooting zombies is fun as hell)
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
10. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 15:58 Cyanotetyphas
 
Cutter wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 13:30:
I don't know if it's art, but I know what I like.
Pretty good call back to the obscenity Supreme Court ruling, it really fits here.

Art is complicated, which pretty much means that no one knows what it is. Its a know it when I see it thing which means you don't know it, not really. You can say it requires imagination or creativity but all you're really doing is setting up a post for "good art". But sometimes people move rocks and call it art. http://www.lacma.org/art/exhibition/levitated-mass
Really art is just something deliberate.

The real question that people seem to be debating is, are video games good art? Can you appreciate them beyond the fact that they're fun to play? Certainly. I was playing Bastion last night and it seems to qualify.
Are they great art, do they evoke philosophical discussions and soul searching? In my opinion, not quite yet, certainly not on the level of film yet.

 
Avatar 49609
 
Synthetic Error - Entertainment bloggin http://syntheticerror.wordpress.com/
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
9. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 15:40 WyldKat
 
Let's put it this way.. if an artist can shit in a can and call it art, or if Yoko Ono can scream into a mic and call it art, than many, many videogames can and should be considered art.

Not all of them mind, just as lots of movies, music, and books aren't, but many of them. It's snobbish and ill-informed to say otherwise.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
8. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 15:39 Fion
 
If anyone thinks videogames aren't or cant be art, I point you to the website of one Daniel Dociu, my favorite artist. He works for ArenaNet.

http://www.tinfoilgames.com/
 
Avatar 17499
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
7. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 15:21 Jivaro
 
Cutter wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 13:30:
I don't know if it's art, but I know what I like.

Wait...was that a Monty Python reference?
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
6. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 14:38 jacobvandy
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 10:12:
I read a few days ago that videogames will be considered art when one person becomes recognised as the sole responsible person for said game.

So, you're saying Minecraft is art.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
5. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 13:30 Cutter
 
I don't know if it's art, but I know what I like.
 
Avatar 25394
 
"The South will boogie again!" - Disco Stu
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
4. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 11:22 Jivaro
 
Yeah, I get what you are saying InBlack, but that is merely a result of public perception and not at all the reality. I don't think anyone in the entertainment industry, let alone the movie industry specifically, would consider a movie "art" simply because one person is held accountable for the success and failure of a project by the public. Football is not "art" because we can blame the quarterback if the team loses.

Movies are considered art because they are a production born out of creativity and skill with the goal being to convey a story or express an emotion...and nearly every movie can be described in that way. The problem video games have is that some, like a Heavy Rain or L.A Noire, could just as easily fit the art definition by those standards. There are other titles however, from a puzzle game like Bejeweled to an arcade classic like 1942, that run into problems when you start wanting to label them as art. If Bejeweled is art, aren't board games like Jenga art as well? If 1942 is art then how many carnival or casino games are art?

I personally have a very simple, perhaps too simple, definition for art. If a complex production is to be considered art it must be made up of components that are also art. A script, the props, the art assets, etc..these are all works of art when looked at individually. My simplistic brain can not understand why anyone would take all of those things, put them together, and then claim the resulting expression is not also art. Movies, cartoons, sitcoms, video games...they are all works of modern art using modern technology.

I think the real issue is that people want to use the word "art" as an accomplishment or rank. It isn't. It has a rather simple dictionary definition, "works produced by skill and imagination", and that definition may be somewhat different depending on which dictionary you look in but it doesn't get much more complicated and it doesn't allude to it being some sort of prize. Additionally I think people, particularly people who don't play video games or only play casual games on their smartphone (Angry Birds for example), struggle with the concept that "games" and "art" might be overlapping terms. Not all games will be art, but being games does not exclude them from being art.

This comment was edited on Mar 11, 2013, 11:31.
 
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
3. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 11:06 InBlack
 
Beamer wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 10:39:
InBlack wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 10:12:
Maybe game designers should start designing games where the final say on any thing in the project has ONE guy and not some board of suits somewhere. Maybe games would turn out much better? Hmmm definitely something to think about...

I don't think you're aware of how movies are made.

"Suit" involvement is as heavy as games. The days of directors being left untouched died in the 70s. Now the investors are watching the dailies and giving feedback constantly. They're replacing people. They're very careful about how their money is spent.

It's pretty much on exact parity with games.

And it isn't as if games made without any involvement are always better. Steam is full of crappy games made with little involvement from more than 1 person. Like at Gratuitous Anything. A "suit" would probably say "this needs gameplay." But no one told Cliffy that, and his games have, essentially, no gameplay.

Im quite aware how studios meddle with films, and the decline of the filmaking Art but for all intents and purposes we still have some big name directors who wont tolerate (much) studio interference and we have the indie scene as well which is quite interesting.

Also there is the matter of responsibility. An established director will never sign up for a project that might turn out to be a failure, and new guys want to prove themselves all the time. So even with all the meddling people can at least point the finger to one person.

Also when Michael Bay is directing a movie, you pretty much know what youre going to get without even looking at a single trailer. I know Im not going to pay to see the movie and part with my cash for trash. A Spielberg movie on the other hand, well I know that I will enjoy the direction at worst, and at best Im going to see a great film....

You see what Im getting at here??
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
2. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 10:39 Beamer
 
InBlack wrote on Mar 11, 2013, 10:12:
Maybe game designers should start designing games where the final say on any thing in the project has ONE guy and not some board of suits somewhere. Maybe games would turn out much better? Hmmm definitely something to think about...

I don't think you're aware of how movies are made.

"Suit" involvement is as heavy as games. The days of directors being left untouched died in the 70s. Now the investors are watching the dailies and giving feedback constantly. They're replacing people. They're very careful about how their money is spent.

It's pretty much on exact parity with games.

And it isn't as if games made without any involvement are always better. Steam is full of crappy games made with little involvement from more than 1 person. Like at Gratuitous Anything. A "suit" would probably say "this needs gameplay." But no one told Cliffy that, and his games have, essentially, no gameplay.
 
-------------
Music for the discerning:
http://www.deathwishinc.com
http://www.hydrahead.com
http://www.painkillerrecords.com
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
1. Re: Op Ed Mar 11, 2013, 10:12 InBlack
 
I read a few days ago that videogames will be considered art when one person becomes recognised as the sole responsible person for said game.

This to me is as good definition as any. Consider films for instance. Who is the one person on any movie set who is considered the guy in charge and has creative final say? The director of course.

When a film does well or is critically acclaimed praise is heaped upon this person, when it does badly fingers are pointed and people start making comparisons to Uwe Boll...in any case, films are considered art.

Maybe game designers should start designing games where the final say on any thing in the project has ONE guy and not some board of suits somewhere. Maybe games would turn out much better? Hmmm definitely something to think about...

This comment was edited on Mar 11, 2013, 10:25.
 
Avatar 46994
 
I have a nifty blue line!
Reply Quote Edit Delete Report
 
18 Replies. 1 pages. Viewing page 1.
< Newer [ 1 ] Older >


footer

Blue's News logo