90 réponses à ce sujet

[Fiery Phoenix]

Ah, Mirror's Edge.



And yes, I could definitely see ME being art. If I remember correctly, Casey Hudson said at one point that Mass Effect was originally intended to be a bunch of artwork envisioning the future, before they decided to make it a game.

[smudboy]

Video games as art?  Planescape: Torment.

Every game has media in it.  Whether ME2 evokes a lasting impact on someone is subjective; however, there are objective properties that constitute something as art, and only a few dramatic scenes exist in ME2.  The rest is popcorn.

[Fiery Phoenix]

Here is another link: 

www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/06/20/tom_bissell_extra_lives_interview_ext2010/index.html

[SuperMedbh]

InvaderErl wrote...

YohkoOhno wrote...

When Critics like Ebert talk about Videogames not being art, they are more specifically discussing the Fine Arts.

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

I don't see anything yet in video games that approaches this.

http://tale-of-tales.com/ThePath/

+1  Seriously, anyone who enjoys videogames past a "pow pow pow" level owes it to themselves to play the Path.  Last I checked, it's all of $10.

Modifié par SuperMedbh, 22 juin 2010 - 06:43 .

[Psython]

Anything can be art! I think what defines something as art is what the "artist intended" The more of him/herself the artist puts in to the project, the more meaning it has. If it means something to the artist, I still think its art regardless of whether anyone else in the world thinks so.



For example, whats the difference between a zen rock garden and just a pile of rocks. The arranger puts his/her internal universe into the rocks. However, an observer might not even recognise the rocks on their own. So I think art is just a completely subjective meaning we give to something that has some personal representation for us. If all of humanity completetly dissapeared, would Rembrant have any value as art anymore? I dont think it can exist on its own as an independent entity. I think people can find meaning in something that was not even intended to be art. I would consider many of the beautifull natural things in this world to be like art to me. I have seen things in nature that to me are as perfect as though a master craftsman dilligently carved it!



Art is not a popularity contest. What is more meaningfull, a piece with which the general concensus is that it is art or a more "mediocre" piece that generally people dislike but manages to save one unique person's soul?



I believe that ME is art because I think the games are beautiful visually and give me a great sense of wonder and possibility. I can feel the tremendous personal input from the developers and designers. Even if the developers did not care at all about their own creation, in my opinion the ME series stands out amoung other games as being very artistic.



*reloads bong

[Minister of Sound]

Anything that touches a person on an emotional level is art. For me, Mafia comes to mind.

[SuperMedbh]

I know. Again, there's bad examples of art. But that doesn't mean that Kincade isn't an artist and Vermeer was. They both do the same thing, it's just that Vermeer was a genius and Kincade is execrable.



I mean, we can get pretty silly about our exclusion of video games from Art. CG? C'mon, that's just a medium choice. One of the following is in a museum, the other only exists as a datafile:













I can hear the Eberts of the world saying "But the art part of videogames is incidental to the actual gameplay". I'd disagree for a number of reasons, but even if we say that's true we'd have to call Opera a non art because all those arias and overtures are incidental to the (usually fairly lame) storyline. I mean, really, who goes to an opera to listen to the recitative?

[YohkoOhno]

On and on and on...thats alot to throw out. After reading Roger Ebert's diatribe, I have lost respect for the man. He comes across like a stodgy traditionalist with the same old tired arguments, and we've all met one.

Actually, I like his rebuttal to that

Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.
Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?" Then let them say it, if it makes them happy.

That's why I don't consider games "art". Now, do they have artistic qualities? Yes. But that would probably be "commercial art" at best. It is not "fine art".
Even Gary Gygax, who created the RPG, said "games can't be art", and he had no pretensions of calling the tabletop RPGs anything more than a craft or a "low art". And I have yet to personally see a videogame, no matter how well written or sophisticated, that could be consider a true fine art.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 23 juin 2010 - 11:46 .

[SuperMedbh]

 I think that the difference between a rule set and an immersive multimedia presentation such as a videogame is fairly obvious.  Perhaps Mr. Ebert and Yohko are blinded by the existence of game rules in video games, making it hard to see the whole of the experience.  But interactivity and rulesets don't prevent something from being art.  Do the rules of counterpoint prevent us from enjoying a Bach fugue? 

Why should we care?  Because by acknowledging the art in videogames, we encourage better art.  There's nothing wrong with playfulness, but I think that the videogame medium has the potential for much more than just that.  We've mention The Path already, but I'd also point to Mass Effect as a more mainstream example of how narrative can be communicated through a videogame.  For all the traditional RPG and shooter elements of the Mass Effect series, it conveys a story in a way that other media can't.  It's not a videogame trying to be a novel or a film, it's its own animal.  And if it isn't "serious" enough for some to regard it as Art, well then, much of the Western art canon wasn't at the time, either.

Commercial Art (for that's what commissioned portraits were):

Modifié par SuperMedbh, 23 juin 2010 - 03:26 .

[YohkoOhno]

I think that the difference between a rule set and an immersive multimedia presentation such as a videogame is fairly obvious.  Perhaps Mr. Ebert and Yohko are blinded by the existence of game rules in video games, making it hard to see the whole of the experience.  But interactivity and rulesets don't prevent something from being art.  Do the rules of counterpoint prevent us from enjoying a Bach fugue?

Just because you enjoy something, or try to improve your craft, doesn't mean that it counts as art.  I simply recognize something as a craft, or, in best case, commercial art, rather than fine art.

Why should we care?  Because by acknowledging the art in videogames, we encourage better art.  There's nothing wrong with playfulness, but I think that the videogame medium has the potential for much more than just that.  We've mention The Path already, but I'd also point to Mass Effect as a more mainstream example of how narrative can be communicated through a videogame.

But it doesn't have to be art for you to improve your craft.  Or it can be art and still be, like Ebert says, not fine art.

I enjoy pop music but I don't think most of it is art, nor do I think most of the TV shows are art.  My favorite music and TV shows are enjoyable, sometimes inspiring, but I don't have the self-righteous full-of-myself attitude thinking that every thing everybody ever creates is art.  I think Ebert has the correct attitude.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 23 juin 2010 - 06:14 .

[SuperMedbh]

I think you're stuck on the term "fine art". It's not really a term used by academics, outside of the phrase "College of Fine Arts", which typically means a school for the visual arts. Incidentally, most character modelers/environmental artists/animators have gone through a Fine Arts curriculum, or something similar at another school.



Unless, of course, you mean "fine" as synonymous with "good". I suspect that's the case, because you seem to want to put good art in the "art" camp, leaving bad art outside the definition. I mean, my dog might chew my favourite sweater up, but she's still a dog. She's just not a good dog.



My challenge stands: describe the distinguishing characteristic of videogames that prevents them from being art.

[YohkoOhno]

I'll wait for you to describe how they are.

The term art is still varied.

http://en.wikipedia....putes_about_art

I still have yet to see a Videogame be art, even The Path.

Modifié par YohkoOhno, 23 juin 2010 - 06:41 .

[Bryzon]

As my Art History teacher used to say "anything can be art." If someone thinks it is art, then it is art, no matter what you think.

[YohkoOhno]

As my Art History teacher used to say "anything can be art." If someone thinks it is art, then it is art, no matter what you think.

That's a laughable statement.



Is your body art?

Is a pen?

Is a car?



If everything is art, then nothing is art, and the description loses all value.

[mybudgee]

"Art is a lie that helps us to see the truth"- Pablo Picasso

[Bryzon]

YohkoOhno wrote...

As my Art History teacher used to say "anything can be art." If someone thinks it is art, then it is art, no matter what you think.

That's a laughable statement.

Is your body art?
Is a pen?
Is a car?

If everything is art, then nothing is art, and the description loses all value.

Yes
Yes
Yes

You do not see art in the design of a car, pen, or human body? All are beautiful in their own ways. You are confusing art and exceptional art. You see something like a Roman sculpture as art because you have been told it is art, and things that you weren't told that are art must not be art. Performance and writing can also be art, not just the tangeable objects.

Back to the conversation of a videogame, there are several layers of art within. These would include animation, character design, texture art, voice acting, motion capture, and writing.

Modifié par Bryzon, 23 juin 2010 - 07:28 .

[SuperMedbh]

YohkoOhno wrote...
I still have yet to see a Videogame be art, even The Path.

Tale of Tales has funded much of their work through art grants (including the Path), so I'd say that several major art foundations disagree with you there.*  No offense, but if you can't elucidate why videogames can't wear the scarlet A of Art, you really haven't a cogent argument.


*

[games and multimedia of Tale of Tales] exhibited widely, including at the Laboral Centro Del Arte in Gijon, Spain, the Artefact Festival in Leuven, Belgium; the New Museum of Contemporary Art in New York City; and The Walker Art Center in Minneapolis; as well as a solo show of their games and net art at the
Inmerso Cyberlounge Museo Tamayo, Mexico City. Funding history includes a New York Foundation for the Arts Fellowship, an Emerging Artists/Emergent Medium Grant from the Jerome Foundation, and the SFMoMA
prize for Excellence in Online Art.

Modifié par SuperMedbh, 23 juin 2010 - 08:10 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

mybudgee wrote...

"Art is a lie that helps us to see the truth"- Pablo Picasso

in translation, "truth in fiction"...

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 23 juin 2010 - 08:11 .

[SuperMedbh]

Bryzon wrote...

Back to the conversation of a videogame, there are several layers of art within. These would include animation, character design, texture art, voice acting, motion capture, and writing.

While I absolutely agree with you, I think at their best, videogames can be more than the sum of their parts.  When we think "Silly game, but the graphics will wow you" or "Terrific plot, but the gameplay stinks", the videogame hasn't acheived its full potential.  Then there are games, such as the ones we've been talking about in this thread (and I include ME) that do acheive that.

I feel a bit uncomfortable in the role of videogame apologist here, as I really do feel the field has a long ways to go. Unfortunately, there are many preconceptions that inhibit that growth, both outside and within the industry and consumer base that inhibit that growth.  "It isn't art" isn't even on the top of the list, but it does reflect one of those detrimental attitudes.  It's much akin to the "games are for teens and younger" mindset.

[zvbxrpl]

I'm not sure I would call Mass Effect art, but it is head and shoulders above a lot of games in its storytelling. I think a better description than 'art,' which has a lot of pretty heavy connotations regarding thematic gravity, would be that it is a good piece of genre fiction. The character and narrative in the game are central and developed enough that if Mass Effect were restructured as a novel, a movie, or a TV show, there would be enough to work with that the finished product would be genuinely enjoyable.

[SuperMedbh]

I'd definitely go with the "genre fiction" label. Now, whether or not genre fiction can be art depends utterly on whether you feel that art is some snooty realm inhabited by Andy Warhol sorts where ne'er the hoi polloi should trot, or whether it's simply a word used to describe creations made primarily for aesthetic reasons.

[Minister of Sound]

I'm surprised no one has cited Myst as an example of a piece of art. I remember when Myst came out, the New York Times and Wired suggested that it was considered a piece of art.