121 réponses à ce sujet

[Reorte]

 

One can go to say all games are made of art.

The models, the sprites, the textures, levels, and story are all art in their own right, and are put together for the purpose of a game.

 

Even chess, with someone needing to design the pieces, and originally carving them from wood or stone.

I think that that's beside the point though. Is the game itself art? To me it's a new storytelling medium, with its own unique strengths, in the same way as books, plays, films, narrated stories etc. all are. Those have their own artistic components too (the sets in a play or film for example) which are art but removed from whether or not the play is. So something non-artistic can have artistic components.

[Divine Justinia V]

Yes.

[Gravisanimi]

I think that that's beside the point though. Is the game itself art? To me it's a new storytelling medium, with its own unique strengths, in the same way as books, plays, films, narrated stories etc. all are. Those have their own artistic components too (the sets in a play or film for example) which are art but removed from whether or not the play is. So something non-artistic can have artistic components.

Yes, it is beside the point.

But that was why I wrote it.
Sometimes the best way to reach a destination is to take some back roads, think in different paths

[CybAnt1]

BTW, there is more to the topic than just answering the question in the topic title. Which you could, obviously, do with just a yes/no/"no point to answering" answer. (As some have.) I realize it would require reading the 1st page, something people typically don't do when they first encounter a thread on pgs 2-500. 

 

There is an article in the first post which most notably has an argument from the film critic Roger Ebert that the answer will always be no - and a series of questions from me as to engaging that point in the 2nd post. (I disagree with Ebert and I know why I do, but I'm interested in why other people do.) 

 

It's also really interesting to me that nobody has engaged Jane McGonigal's argument: that maybe some art-games should have a purpose that goes beyond just entertaining the player(s), to giving them a larger social function. (As I keep emphasizing, though, it's not that you can't do both; I think there have also been many "message" films that are also quite entertaining.) 

 

(P.S. I wouldn't be raising that point if it didn't seem to me that Bioware was actually trying.) 

[SwobyJ]

 

that maybe some art-games should have a purpose that goes beyond just entertaining the player(s), to giving them a larger social function.

 

IMO we're transitioning into a place where this will be more welcome, and popular opinion about video games will shift by 2050.

 

But for now, the normal gamer just wants a game they can toy around with . TBH, that was often the foundation of most media forms. Something to just be entertained by.

 

Videa gamez have only really been around for a few decades tops. It's sooo young, even when we take into account technological acceleration. It has a ton of promise, potential controversy, utility, and unexpected outcomes on its way.

[CybAnt1]

Yeah. But people are already starting to do this - and other people are watching.

 

http://en.wikipedia....ki/Serious_game

 

• Edutainment: A combination of education and entertainment.
• Games-Based Learning or "Game Learning"- These games have defined learning outcomes. Generally they are designed in order to balance the subject matter with the gameplay and the ability of the player to retain and apply said subject matter to the real world.^[8]
• Edumarket Games - When a serious game combines several aspects (such as advergaming and edutainment aspects or persuasive and news aspects), the application is an Edumarket game. For example, Food Force combines news, persuasive and edutainment goals.
• Newsgames - Journalistic games that report on recent events or deliver an editorial comment. Examples include September 12th^[9]
• Simulations or Simulation Games - games used for the acquisition or exercise of different skills, to teach effective behavior in the context of simulated conditions or situations. In practice, are widely used simulation driving different vehicles (cars, trains, airplanes; e.g. FlightGear), simulation of management of specific industries (e.g. Transport Tycoon), and universal business simulation, developing strategic thinking and teaching users the basics of macro-and microeconomics, the basics of business administration (e.g. Virtonomics).
• Persuasive Games - games used as persuasion technology
• Games for Health, such as games for psychological therapy, cognitive training, emotional training^[10] or physical rehabilitation uses.^[11] Technology and mental health issues can use Serious Games to make therapy accessible to adolescents who would otherwise would not find a psychotherapist approachable.
• Exergaming - games that are used as a form of exercise.
• Art Games - games used to express artistic ideas or art produced through the medium of video games
• Productivity game - games which reward points for accomplished real-world tasks using to-do lists.^{[citation needed]}
• Training - See Gamification.
• Games with a purpose try to solve various tasks that require common sense or human experience in an entertaining setting.

 

It's debatable whether Dragon Age is helping anybody learn applicable real-world skills. Even if you're interested in learning real-world medieval combat for Renaissance Faires et al., the game can't help you with that. It's not like a flight simulator that could help you learn how to fly a real-world plane. IMHO, the one thing the romances are not there for (unlike a Japanese dating sim) is to improve your real-life dating skills.   Still, they can help you at least think about the problems some human relationships sometimes face. 

 

Because it's fantasy, it isn't directly helping you learn about medieval history, really, either. Except! If you're motivated enough, it looks to me like some of the characters in the game are "portals" to learning about some real-world medieval or pre-medieval historical figures. 

 

What I would say is what you and others noted earlier: like many relationship-based games, it can help you learn how to balance your goals with the needs of others in a group/team - the other companions in your party. Who often have contradictory value systems, yet are all following you. The fact is, whether the setting is an alternate-fantasy reality or not, those kinds of skills have always involved negotiating the same kinds of difficulties ... 

 

I also believe Dragon Age is an "Art-Game," focused on dealing with several artistic themes, which relate to real-world social issues, as art often can, and maybe more easily in a "more unreal" setting like a fantasy or sci-fi world, ... like racism, balancing order and liberty, and the place of religion within society (though I do not believe the ultimate argument is the only role of religion, even in a modern scientific society like ours, is only negative. It's more like they are looking for a "balanced" and not too extreme place of religion in society.)

[SwobyJ]

Yes. Starting.

[Captain Crash]

I think its past being a point of debate to be honest. Back in the 90's, even early 2000's, you could debate against it. I think were long past that. Now the style, lore and designs rival any movie which also claims artistic style and scope.

 

I will digress slightly here to make a point in terms of art in video games in a broader sense but keep Bioware in mind.

 

I think the only drawback is that games are still first and foremost a form of entertainment. Entertainment and mechanics are primary as no matter how good your vision or art is, if you can't play it who will know? Recent games like Journey or Limbo do hope to change the norm and combine mechanics very well into artistic vision. Albeit those are tens out many thousands.  Still the same can be true about big budget movies, they to need to drive sales and yet many of these are considered art.

 

The only thing recently that challenged my opinion on this topic was was Biowares stance at the end of Mass Effect three which was "respect our artistic integrity" in light of the negative feedback from the ending. Art doesn't have to be popular and Bioware even with that stance buckled. To me this compounded the fact that games are entertainment and that three DLC pieces were used to alter the original vision.  Although the original vision, well what was written on paper, didn't translate well into game mechanics.  I suppose limitations there can also be restrictive. But all art has restrictions to some degree.

 

Back ontopic with Dragon Age. Well I think the above pretty much states my perspective. Yes I feel it is and I in fact collect video game art in the form of lithographs for multiple games.  The vision may be more then one persons dream, but that doesn't stop being art.

[CybAnt1]

You know, we definitely have to move beyond the vision of the artist as working in solo, isolation. Perhaps this is still true for painters and sculptors, poets. When it comes to music, most of the best modes are collaborative, and sometimes involving lots of folk - orchestras. Films require large teams of people to work on them (watch the credits) and so now do modern video games (watch the credits) ... there may be solo authors to the "smaller" iOS and other games, but most modern games require large-scale, specialized team/studio efforts. 

 

When you are producing such stuff, it is a team effort, and requires team visions. IMHO, though, the main cohesion, since this is a story/narrative-based game, is coming from the writing teams. They're writing the lore/backstory/history of the world, the characters, the story arc. It's the fact that the combat team and writing team are working a bit separately that leads to the famous "gameplay/story segregation" we often discuss here. 

 

What I think is most interesting in the games-as-art discussion is there is a new, radical difference as far as collaboration: it's not typical that visitors can add to (or subtract from) paintings or sculptures in museums. But games are often being modified and changed by the end user - the modder as collaborator to the artistic vision - and I think sometimes the choice of whether to allow this, or not, is based on whether you're willing to accept this new situation as integral to this new form of art. That the player not only interacts with the story and setting as provided within it, but perhaps by directly modding or using mods of others, altering it as well. 

[slimgrin]

Of course it's art. Wouldn't say it's good art but it's art nonetheless.

[Reorte]

 

The only thing recently that challenged my opinion on this topic was was Biowares stance at the end of Mass Effect three which was "respect our artistic integrity" in light of the negative feedback from the ending. Art doesn't have to be popular and Bioware even with that stance buckled. To me this compounded the fact that games are entertainment and that three DLC pieces were used to alter the original vision.  Although the original vision, well what was written on paper, didn't translate well into game mechanics.  I suppose limitations there can also be restrictive. But all art has restrictions to some degree.

Maybe going off-topic, and maybe dragging things into this thread that shouldn't be there, but the whole artistic integrity thing is a distraction. Art, like anything else, can be good or bad (even if it's rather more subjective in art than in many other areas) and can be improved or spoiled by alteration. I'll respect someone refusing to change something I think is worthy of respect, and hold someone in contempt for refusing to change something that's broken.

[Cyonan]

When you boil down the arguments they seem to all really lead to the same place: Does wrapping a story in gameplay negate it being art?

 

I doubt if many people would argue about a game being art if they took out all the gameplay and just showed you the cinematic parts. That would just be a film, and most people consider film to be a legitimate art form.

 

If you argue that it does negate it being an art form however. to me that person is saying that as long as one part of the whole does not qualify as art, none of it does.

 

and that just seems silly to ignore half of it because the other half doesn't conform to a standard of what art is supposed to be. To use Roger Ebert's own argument about story being something you can't win, when I recently did another playthrough of Dragon Age: Origins I won plenty of combat. I participated in a number of dialogue sequences, although those are not something you "win". Achieve a desired result maybe, but there is no win or lose.

 

Now, the main story was about the Grey Wardens defeating the blight. While I controlled one of the Grey Wardens I did not "win the blight". There was no win or lose that my choices could have changed outside of simply not finishing the game. It was a story in a video game that was experienced. and not only that but it was my own experience that I got a bit of influence over to make it more personal. Even if the dialogue choices don't sit well with you for it being considered art, I'm sure I can find a game that is story heavy that doesn't include branching dialogue options.

 

So why would hitting a few buttons in between dialogue scenes negate the experience of the story?

[Orian Tabris]

Without really reading the (broken) wall of text, I would just like to say this.

 

Games may not be art in and of themselves, but they do contain art. Many of, if not all of, the elements that make up a video game or board game can be considered (and are) art. Graphics, for one, are art, and any video game worth it's salt has graphics (this may include text/word games, but I'm not sure if literature is really graphics, since the visuals are mostly in the mind). On the subject of literature, I think writing is art, because it requires a person to be creative or imaginative (either the game's creator, or a player of the game).

 

So to me, art is something that requires creativity or imagination.

 

Maybe the whole equals art, but the parts are definitely art, either way. So, yes, Dragon Age is art.

[NekkidNones]

No I do not consider video games art.  I consider them a production, like babymetal, boy/girl bands and comicbooks.  I agree with Orian Tabris that they contain art, or elements of art, but it is not like they're Michelangelo's David or anything.  Once you involve marketers, ceo's & editors, all the pretension of art goes to pot pretty quickly IMO

[Gravisanimi]

But Michelangelo's David was commissioned by the Church, and Michelangelo was most likely instructed on what kind of piece they wanted.

 

That's how the majority of what Renaissance art is, art commissioned by the Church, or someone who wanted a portrait.

 

The only one that I can think of that might have been done for the sake of art was the Mona Lisa, but even that is just a theory.

 

Art is not always made for the sake of art, a lot of the time, it is made for the sake of the artist so they can make more art.

[SwobyJ]

Art is sometimes just the process. If the artist is feeling interrupted in a bad way about it, then they'll be touchy. Sometimes the money is less of an issue than interference in itself.

 

CREATEive process.

[NekkidNones]

But Michelangelo's David was commissioned by the Church, and Michelangelo was most likely instructed on what kind of piece they wanted.

 

That's how the majority of what Renaissance art is, art commissioned by the Church, or someone who wanted a portrait.

 

The only one that I can think of that might have been done for the sake of art was the Mona Lisa, but even that is just a theory.

 

Art is not always made for the sake of art, a lot of the time, it is made for the sake of the artist so they can make more art.

 

But there is only one, which is not available for sale (btw).  There were a lot of sculptures commissioned by the church, not all of them are art.  Some are just sculptures, others busts.  Kind of like how a baker can be a craftsmen/woman, but few would call a loaf of bread "art", even less so now with automation.

Or better yet classic automobiles.  Some are beautiful and are even in museums.  But art?  yea, no.  I don't think so anyways.  I may however consider the designers/engineers were masterful at their craft.

 

P.S. I thought that David was commissioned by the state..but that is pretty much splitting hairs when talking about that time frame.  though, it is interesting that the church is still trying to get a fig leaf placed on david every now and again.  Seems there are some who do not even consider David as art to be respected, so I've little hope I'll see eye to eye with people that define games as art.  I'll stick with calling really good games as epics.

[Il Divo]

Honestly, from the arguments given, I get the impression that most of these critics are more worried about video games sullying the name of their "art" than actually giving this any amount of academic thought.

 

This could be in Scuttlebutt, but I think best belongs in Story & Characters. 

 

Roger Ebert on video games as art[edit]

 

2. To my knowledge, 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. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic.

—Roger Ebert[18]

 

Basic example can be seen right here. I'm familiar with Ebert's style of reviews. I think it's hypocritical for him to claim that video games deny us opportunities to be more "cultured and civilized" when he spends quite a bit of his time reviewing one star films which he clearly despises like Armageddon and Thor. If we judged a medium by its weakest links, there would be no such thing as art period.

 

In 2006, Ebert took part in a panel discussion at the Conference on World Affairs entitled "An Epic Debate: Are Video Games an Art Form?" in which he stated that video games don't explore the meaning of being human as other art forms do.[19][20] A year later, in response to comments from Clive Barker on the panel discussion, Ebert further noted that video games present a malleability that would otherwise ruin other forms of art. As an example, Ebert posed the idea of a version of Romeo & Juliet that would allow for an optional happy ending. Such an option, according to Ebert, would weaken the artistic expression of the original work.[21] In April 2010, Ebert published an essay, dissecting a presentation made by Kellee Santiago of thatgamecompany at the 2009 Technology Entertainment Design Conference, where he again claimed that games can never be art, due to their rules and goal-based interactivity.[22]

 

Here is a bit better, citing a game's obsession with rules as preventing interaction with it as an artistic medium. Dark Souls is one of my favorite games of all time, but I can't say I'm appreciating the "artistic" aspects while lobbing controllers at the wall.

 

On the other hand, I view the malleability of games (as per his Romeo and Juliet example) to be a simultaneous strength and weakness. Games offer the ability to truly immerse the player in the role of the character precisely because we assume their role in the world. Games have the ability to make us feel powerful, powerless, hopeful, depressed, etc, all because the outcome of the universe depends on our abilities. Even with examples like ME2's suicide mission (which was terribly done), other games have done an excellent job of making the player experience the tension of not knowing if they would be able to succeed at a given task.

 

 

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a [sic] immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

—Roger Ebert[22]

 

I can agree with this a bit. Games' obsession with having dedicated gameplay where in we are required to kill everything is a weakness. Games like Mass Effect would likely have taken a different turn story-wise, if Bioware wasn't constrained by the requirements of having to put infantry troops at every location to satisfy our itchy trigger fingers. But then, other games have made excellent use of gameplay mechanics and some like Heavy Rain and the Walking Dead have come much farther in blending their story and gameplay elements.

 

 

Although Ebert did not engage with the issue again and his view remains mired in controversy, the notion that video games are ineligible to be considered fine art due to their commercial appeal and structure as choice-driven narratives has proved persuasive for many including video game luminary Brian Moriarty who in March 2011 gave a lecture on the topic entitled An Apology For Roger Ebert.[17]

 

And then we have more stupidity here. This applies to every medium. Harry Potter had commercial appeal. The Avengers had commercial appeal. Both, like games, made similar extreme sums of money. Why does this double standard not apply to those mediums as well?

 

After addressing the corrupting influence of commercial forces in indie games and the difficulty of setting out to create art given the "slippery" tools that game designers must work with, Moriarty concluded that ultimately it was the fact that player choices were presented in games that structurally invalidated the application of the term "art" to video games as the audience's interaction with the work wrests control from the author and thereby negates the expression of art.[17] This lecture was in turn criticized sharply by noted video game artist, Zach Gage.[17]

 

While this is a bit more appealing, it ignores the fact that in every medium, the audience has some control in how they interact with the sample piece. I could view Citizen Kane while standing on my head. Authorial intent has no impact on how I interact with the work. Someone else brought up the (more relevant example) of novels. No matter what words the author puts on paper, there are infinite more details about how a scene is built which depends on the reader. Games may represent the far end of the spectrum where we have insane control over the world around us, but novels still commit to this.

 

Other notable critics[edit]

 

In a 2006 interview with US Official PlayStation 2 Magazine, game designer Hideo Kojima agreed with Ebert's assessment that video games are not art. Kojima acknowledged that games may contain artwork, but he stressed the intrinsically popular nature of video games in contrast to the niche interests served by art. Since the highest ideal of all video games is to achieve 100% player satisfaction whereas art is targeted to at least one person, Kojima argued that video game creation is more of a service than an artistic endeavor.[28]

 

Same as above. Every medium has popular pieces. During the Renaissance, major works of art, paintings and architecture, were commissioned by patrons.

 

At the 2010 Art History of Games conference, Michael Samyn and Auriea Harvey (founding members of indie studio Tale of Tales), argued in no uncertain terms that "games are not art" and that they are by and large "a waste of time." Central to Tale of Tales' distinction between games and art is the purposive nature of games as opposed to art: Whereas humans possess a biological need that is only satisfied by play, argues Samyn, and as play has manifested itself in the form of games, games represent nothing more than a physiological necessity. Art, on the other hand, is not created out of a physical need but rather it represents a search for higher purposes. Thus the fact that a game acts to fulfill the physical needs of the player is sufficient, according to Samyn, to disqualify it as art.[4]

 

Not sure where they're going with this one and sounds like a bit of armchair psychology. The Expendables fulfills viewers' desire for wanton destruction. Are films no longer art?

 

 

 

 

 

[Il Divo]

 

In 2011, Samyn further refined his argument that games are not art by emphasizing the fact that games are systematic and rule-based. Samyn identified an industry emphasis on gameplay mechanics as directly responsible for the marginalization of artistic narrative in games and he described modern video games as little more than digital sport. Pointing to systemic problems, Samyn criticized the current model whereby the putative artist must work through a large and highly efficient development team who may not share the artist's vision. To create art using the medium of the video game Samyn suggests that the artistic message must precede the means of its expression in the guidance of gameplay mechanics, the development of "funness" or economic considerations must cease to guide the work's creation, and the development process must embrace a model wherein a single artist-author's vision gains central primacy.

 

 

Sorry, forgot this one.

 

Their point here is a bit better, but I still think they're giving too much credit to this notion of art strictly as a form of self-expression.

 

Games inherently are a more expensive medium to work with, requiring profit to justify the investment in most cases. I can start writing a novel with self expression in mind, something I can't do as easily with a game.

 

But even here, the temptation for commercial appeal still exists for any work. Writers want their work to get noticed, in many cases, which might lead them to employ more popular/conventional methods of story-telling.

 

What does this mean? On one hand, games and films suffer from this more than other  mediums. On the other, I think this indicates that what is art should be judged on a case by case basis, since clearly funness and economic considerations can be a factor for anyone in creating something.
 

[CybAnt1]

Thank you for addressing Roger Ebert's points, Il Divo. That is what I was looking for, and I would agree with most of your arguments.

 

The answer to the question in the topic title can be a yes or no answer, but I'm more interested in the counters to Ebert's arguments, mainly because I know what mine would be, but I'm interested in the opinions of others. 

 

Ebert seems to be entirely unfamiliar with interactive computer art, of which there has been plenty since the 70s. What the line is exactly between interactive art and a "video game" is an interesting question. But if he really wants to make the argument that something is not-art because it's being modified or interacted with by the user to create a customized experience ... well, heck, that definition might even rule out a lot of performance art and any kind of dramatic/theatre art that breaks the fourth wall, or "interactive" art installations all throughout the 20th century. 

 

BTW, here's the one game that Ebert conceded might actually make the "art test". You can play it today, but it's old, it requires DOS. 

 

The Cosmology of Kyoto

http://kotaku.com/59...rite-video-game

[Kaiser Wilhelm]

From what little I've managed to understand of Theodor Adorno's Aesthetic Theory, I'd say that he'd say, "NO."  Because it's fun, and art can't be fun.  Anything that entertains cannot be art, necessarily/tautologically.  So he'd say.  I think.