|
Post by ECM on Jun 22, 2011 17:21:39 GMT -5
Because game devs, game 'journos' and (way too many gamers) keep telling me it is. But here's the thing: these 'debates' (mainly pep rallies for the games are art crowd) usually fail to define what "art" actually is/means. As near as i can tell it's defined as: "i desperately need mainstream respect (read: media handjobs; the respect of the plebs; etc.) for my silly job, so if we can get everyone to agree its art, then I'll feel better about myself and I can feel superior to you, too, because then I'd be an 'artiste'! Awesome! Win-win!" This is exacerbated by the fans who have wasted huge quantities of their lives playing games (hey, that'd be me!) and need them to be art (hey, that's not me!) so that they can at least convince themselves that spending 3000 hours in WoW wasn't all for naught 1. (Rather, it was a transgressive, sublime, experience creating a new paradigm of, if you'll forgive my gaucheness, 'entertainment', one where boundaries are regularly redefined and a man person bipedal mammal can be anything he her it wants to be. Like a Crusader warrior ambassador for justice understanding; like a hero adventurer individual on a journey of ass-kicking and name-taking self-discovery; or you could be out to save enable the damsel girl gender-neutral individual, liberating it from the bad evil misunderstood, villain good-challenged soul being; or even a man-cow wielding a giant, flaming, battle axe that took me 3000 hours of gameplay to obtain. It's fucking deep, man. But you wouldn't understand: it's art.) So, we're going to have the debate that *no one* ever has by first DEFINING what it is "art" means, exactly. To that end, here's what Dictinoary.com says about the word: So, yeah, that's basically of no use at all since: 1. That basically means *anything* can be art, i.e. art is in the eye of the beholder. And let's get real: games are *not* "of more than ordinary significance", unless you're a braindead goober that needs games to be art so you can feel good about your life (your real one, not the one where you're a female night elf, despite being a male irl). (And I've read art critics state, without a hint of irony/humor that "art is whatever an artist says it is." So that clears up...nothing at all.) 2. This is useless, too, since you have to already be art 2 to be included in option 2. And since we don't know if games are art yet it doesn't apply. 3. Again, useless: games aren't art, yet, so it can't be a category of art. So, anyway, let's first define what art is, then we can get into the weeds of whether 'games' like Passage are truly "of more than ordinary significance". (Or just a monumental, pedantic, completely un-self aware/un-ironic, "I'm deadly serious, dude, it's art", journey into five minutes you could have spent masturbating...which, oddly enough, is what most of the chatter about games as art seems to be. (Note: we can even go in the direction of *certain* games are art, so that vile, evil, misogynistic game, Duke Nukem Forever, doesn't sully the hallowed halls of the Louvre. 3) 1 I've tried convincing myself that I at least made some lasting friendships over that 3k hours, but that'd be as big a lie as games are art.2 Like submerging a crucifix in urine or smearing feces on a portrait of the Virgin Mary--you know "transgressive", "edgy", stuff like picking on Christians...which hasn't been "transgressive" or "edgy" since the early '90s. Now, if someone would do the same to, say, Muslim articles of faith, well then, that would be "transgressive" and "edgy". (Edgy means getting your head chopped off w/ an edged weapon, right?).3 FYI: half the outrage directed at Duke is from the games are art crowd because stuff like Duke sets 'the cause' back by at least a decade so, yeah, thank God for Duke Nukem Forever. (The other half is a signaling mechanism to let other, holier-than-thou, gamers know that you're playing on the same softball team Halo clan.)
|
|
|
Post by elchevalier on Jun 22, 2011 17:34:53 GMT -5
Video games are a craft, now, the artistic value they might have will depend a lot on the person. We know the vg media is desperate to validate their existance, thus why they rush everywhere they can with their "THIS IS ART THIS IS ART" flag. I think video games can truly have artistic value, but those morons are hurtin the cause instead of helping thanks to their unwarranted self-importance and clueless comments.
|
|
|
Post by ECM on Jun 22, 2011 17:39:42 GMT -5
I agree: games are a craft. Like quilting. Or macramé. Or beating up on Mexicans. But I'm still not convinced *any* game is art...whatever that is.
But I guess another way of looking at the issue is by asking: when does craft cross the Romulan Neutral Zone and become art?
But, again, we need to define "art" clearly before we can tackle this sub-question.
|
|
|
Post by ECM on Jun 22, 2011 20:27:47 GMT -5
The more I think about this, the more thorny it gets if we employ "of more than ordinary significance" as a litmus test for what is or isn't art, since now we also have to define ordinary as it applies to games.
So is, say, Castle of Illusion ordinary? If not, why not? And if it isn't ordinary, is it then art because it isn't?
Does this mean that extraordinary games like Super Mario Galaxy are automatically art?
Does this make Passage (review linked above) art because it has more than "ordinary significance" to jackholes like David Jaffe?
Am I being pedantic? Is this a question we can actually answer? Or is it so hopelessly subjective that art really is in the eye of the beholder?
(I tend to think it isn't, since I think we can all agree that the Mona Lisa, Symphony No. 40 and Journey's Greatest Hits are all art.)
Also: (as I continue to monologue this), I figured this, of all topics, would draw some commentary! You're *all* letting me down, save El Knight, who at least dipped a tentative toe in the boiling oil. C'mon, cough up. I know you all have an opinion on this, so let's hear it.
|
|
|
Post by ECM on Jun 22, 2011 23:52:52 GMT -5
So, is it fair to say that the following is a reasonable, objective, definition of art, as you see it?
Mind you, I've *never* seen it rendered as such, not even in scholarly articles on the topic (for what they're worth), but it might be a starting point for nailing it down to something more concrete than "...if I play, look, or listen to it and it feels like art, then it's art. Otherwise, it's not" or the typical, textbook, definitions presented above.
I also included negative responses because I've seen the argument made that disliking something is a sure sign it's art, e.g. Piss Christ, since it invokes transcendental (or visceral) emotions (my words, again, but that's what they're saying w/o realizing it) that makes it art, objectively, not just that they say it is1. (I realize you aren't making that argument, but it is certainly a popular one and happens to also fit nicely into the above definition.)
Personally, I probably don't agree w/ your base formulation (irrespective of the definition I present here) if only because it leaves the door open for things like murder, genocide, and villainy on a galactic scale to be considered art. (Not by you, of course, but by someone, which is a bridge too far for me if we're considering art to be a generally positive2 'construct'.)
I have more, but I don't want to get too far ahead of myself depending on what your (or others!) response(s) might be.
(And I'm actually sorry I missed the rudeness! Even if it was aimed at me!)
1 I imagine numerous "games are art" aficionados of Passage would make just such an argument if they were to read your review because I've heard plenty of fine artists (not hot--well, some of them are, I guess--but the type that starve) make the exact same argument.
2 Yes, yes I know: just because I don't consider it positive doesn't mean it isn't/someone else doesn't, but since I believe in a concrete reality where murder, etc., is de facto wrong (not just because we, as a people, here and now, say it is), that just isn't going to work for me.
|
|
|
Post by ECM on Jun 23, 2011 9:19:25 GMT -5
I have no time to get into this right now but I will be back later w/ thoughts! (In case anyone is hanging on the back and forth here...which they probably aren't!)
|
|
CHI
Stripling
The Benchmeister General
In Poland, brick hit you!
Posts: 70
|
Post by CHI on Jun 23, 2011 9:55:58 GMT -5
I, uh... I just like my lil' buddies.
|
|
|
Post by elchevalier on Jun 23, 2011 15:19:37 GMT -5
We could spend pages and pages and never arrive at a definition that we can all agree with. What i think we can agree is, once more, that the vg press is desperate to elevate themselves from the worthless place they know they occupy. I don't think they really care if a game ever gets put in the louvre or something like that, they just want to be refered as media that covers a form of art.
Also, every time you tell a bad pun about mexicans eric, a god of war clone gets greenlighted.
|
|
|
Post by ECM on Jun 24, 2011 10:25:47 GMT -5
I think we can agree that nailing down an actual definition that anyone can agree on is going to be very difficult (since no one else has managed after all these years, it isn't likely we're going to do it), but I think we can at least determine what it definitely is not, so maybe by process of elmination... And yes, of course: game creators (not all of them!) and game journalists (not all of them!) need games to be art for precisely the reasons I noted in the OP and that also mentioned. If this is even open to debate, well, someone is going to have an even more difficult time than defining what art is to convince me that it's something else. Getting back to Zig's points, I agree that the definition is broad *but* that was kinda the point: regardless of the sphere from which 'art' is drawn, it has the same, net, result as encompassed here: Certainly we're only concerned w/ the man-made variety, but the transcendental aspect is the same, along w/ the accompanying series of emotions, be they awe, wonder, joy, *insert hazily-defined superlative here*, so I think it's a good, working, definition for *all* forms of art--even lunatics that think genocide is art--at least as a launching off point. As far as getting back to 'what I like is art and what I don't isn't' (and the accompanying everything and nothing is *potential art or non-art), I have some follow-up questions to keep the ball rolling: 1. Is somethings 'art-ness' permanent? For example, if Zelda II was art in the late '80s, is it possible for it to become non-art after you've had some time to think about it? Perhaps whatever buzz it once gave you is gone and it's settled down to 'cool' but not 'super mega awesome artsplosion'? What, then, does that do to the definition of art (generally)? If art is a transient state that can be lost like Lucifer losing Grace as he's cast down from Heaven, I think nailing down what art is has become a hell of a lot more difficult. 2. What happens when you bring intent into the picture? What if, say, you have a friend that works in the game biz who has been making games for decades (as I do 1) and *insists* that "games are my art" and that everything he produces is meant, on one level or another, to be art (again, likely in the rough definition sketched above)? Of course then you have to square that w/ a definition that says art is only in the eye of the beholder? In other words, does your judgment trump his or does his judgment (or perhaps belief) trump yours? Obviously, someone has to be wrong or at least off tack, and if I'm reading Zig correctly, if he doesn't think your shit is art, it isn't but, man, would this game dev vehemently disagree w/ you (trust me, I've had this *exact* conversation w/ him far too many times in the past). The problem, of course, is that the game as art crowd is only really interested in the 'modern art' version of art where everything they say is art (in their case: all video games are art on some level...except DNF), objectively, regardless of whether you think it's art or just some shit scratched on a canvas, sometimes literally. And to Zig, directly: 1. Yes, it is a slipper slope, that is for damn sure! Which is why I like objective definitions! That way we don't find ourselves in freefall to Hell! That said, we can't, of course, objectively define everything such as... 2. Emotions as intuitively grasped: of course all emotions are intuitively understood as there is no objective way to orient them since we can't know another person's mind or heart, which just makes things even more difficult! Anyway, please, more people kick something in here! It can't just be me and Zig and El Chevalier De Mexico driving this forward. (Don't be afraid of ridicule: since I actually want a *real*-ish answer, you may have noticed I've dialed down the snark tremendously, so as long as Justin doesn't answer, it's likely I'll treat you w/ very little contempt 1 You've *all* played this guy's games at some point or another, but the same situation applies to *all* fine artists, tons of musicians, poets, authors, etc. who believe most of everything they create is automatically art in the sense that it invokes a transcendental (i.e. intuitively grasped, not objectively understood) emotional response, be it positive or negative and if you don't accept that it's art, you're some sort of demented lunatic (that generally has actual taste).
|
|
|
Post by elchevalier on Jun 24, 2011 16:26:15 GMT -5
I still don't understand why DNF is a scapegoat for the "artsy" crowd, yet they don't cry about GTA and their endless ways to kill hookers.
As for the rest of the topic, this is one of those moments where i have to wonder once more, do the vg industry has the media it deserves?
|
|
|
Post by Justin on Jun 29, 2011 23:38:56 GMT -5
Hipsters like art. I hate Hipsters. I love video games.
And so, it is philosophically impossible to declare that video games are art.
(and if you try to anyways, I hope you choke on your scarf)
|
|
AllenSmithee
Stripling
Compulsive Pedant
dead men don't have dog days
Posts: 92
|
Post by AllenSmithee on Jun 30, 2011 3:56:22 GMT -5
Since games are created by people to ellicit a response from people and presented by people, I'd say they're art. Some games on the shittier side of the spectrum, just like shitty movies, like 2012 aren't good movies (and therefore aren't good art) some games aren't (Medal of Honor) at a high level.
I mean, really, that's my definition -- well, one of my definitions. Because fucking, words get multiples uses... my word (hey there's another use of one, holy shit), and yeah. So people looking for just one definition are dumb-asses, and need to realize that the word is used in different contexts and meaning different things, and by golly, you should define which you're using and if people aren't using the same one they can say "Oh, semantics... okay." and walk away from each-other.
It is like saying "run" can only be one thing. You can run to the store! Run a computer program. Run your mouth! Get the runs! Have a runny nose! Et cetera.
Basically, yeah, so that's it, guys. I mean, yeah, here's how I define it -- art in the context that I'm pretty sure people are looking for here, that is -- has to be something made by human minds -- or something equal to that level, like smart extraterrestrials or gynoids or anything else -- to percieve and achieve some level of aesthetic sensation from (id est sensation from the aesthetic realm of being, like Kierkegaard talks about. Basically, the five senses). This means that something which exists a purely ethical response is not art -- presented to you, however, you immediately percieve it in some form of captured/non-recreated existence and it becomes a form of art -- not what I'd call high art, but art nonetheless (well it could be high art (but I'm talking newscasts or whatever)).
I suppose there are some more questions I could ask myself regarding this, such as intent, death of the author, et cetera.
Anyway, yes. So if a tree exists and you see it, it is not art. But, if you present it in some humanly possible way (a photograph, a frame, et cetera) it becomes art. So, effectively, art is an aesthetic sensation driven by a sentient framing, hence video games would be considered art. This is my definition of course! If your definition is not mine (which it probably isn't seeing as we are not the same person) then this doesn't apply to you and your thoughts on whether video games are art or not does not apply to me! However, we can still share them and be cultured.
Now, I have thought a lot about different levels of video games, which basically range from asteroids to Fate/Stay Night. These aren't levels that go up and become superior. In fact, I'd say they're lateral, so they're not really levels, more like categories. Anyway, effectively, this is a range between pure-game, which is created in the highest level of abstraction, contrast to the extreme being non-game which is created in the lowest level of abstraction -- hence almost everything is so close to your mind you must imagine it. Interesting is that if you were to create a visual novel consisting only of text on a black background, it would be the opposite to Asteroids, yet extremely similar -- I suppose this is because they are near-absolutes and so they become near-non-entities on some level. When the entire world is blue, blue means nothing.
|
|
|
Post by ECM on Jul 1, 2011 10:01:05 GMT -5
@smithee:
The problem, Smithee, is *your* definition of art (like Zig's) doesn't exist, even as a fourth or fifth definition, in any dictionary, of what art actually is to most people. You're defining something that is wholly subjective to your personal experience, and yours alone. This is more than just an issue of semantics: if nobody is subscribing to your definition, then you've created a new word (which is fine, in and of itself), but it doesn't automatically mean the feeling you describe is "art" as commonly understood (or, in our case, as the "Games are art" crowd does). Discussing art under your definition, when the rest of the world is using another, is, to put it mildly, problematic, since there is no common ground (the point of language), which is what we're attempting to find. (And stating it is because you said it is and to hell w/ everyone else doesn't get us anywhere at all. You might as well start defining words as you please, which would mean you couldn't communicate at all.)
Again, we need to, at the very least, grasp what game devs and game journos *in general* consider art, before we can decide, by their lax standards ("games are art", period), whether or not they truly are as commonly understood. Failing that, we arrive at our own definition and apply that standard, which is where the conversation has been (glacially) going. (I think, at this point, at least based on Zig's interpretation, how the "games are art" crowd defines art is not acceptable, but Zig or someone else can correct me if I'm wrong.)
(And, yes, even the current, accepted, definition art has multiple meanings (as noted clearly in the OP), but so what? Almost all words have multiple meanings and what words mean do change over (generally) vast spans of time[footnote:1]This is very important: if language wasn't stable over periods of at least a generation or two, we wouldn't be able to communicate.[/footnote], but, at the end of the day, you *need* to subscribe, in every day life, to the commonly understood (or at least not completely ignore it/write it off/flush it down the toilet) definition or we're simply talking about two different things, which gets us nowhere--language isn't as simple as you say tomato, I say Buick and fuck off if you don't agree.
@justin:
lol, yes, I kinda share your outlook (as I think we can already probably tell from this thread), albeit I'm open to Zig's interpretation (even if it doesn't have any sort of anchor in objective reality) insofar as it doesn't apply to the "games are art"[footnote:2]Again: they seem to believe that it's *all* art, period, like my game dev friend and countless other 'artists' across the globe (in other words, intent trumps everything)[/footnote] crowd but as a more sane definition of what art actually might be to, for lack of a better word, the proles[footnote:3]The unwashed masses whom the 'art' crowd look sternly down their noses at.[/footnote], i.e. a feeling or emotion, rather than an objective state of being.
|
|
|
Post by ECM on Jul 1, 2011 10:48:33 GMT -5
OK, can we all at least agree that as the "games are art" crowd defines it, games are not art? Has that at least been settled? (I'm not saying they aren't art, at least in the way Zig elucidates it, but as the crowd that really *needs* it to be art, by that criteria[footnote:1]Read: primarily intent.[/footnote], it isn't.)
And, hey, the rest of you reading this: feel free to yay or nay this, slackers!
|
|
|
Post by ECM on Jul 1, 2011 11:48:28 GMT -5
It's when they try to push that label into the world-at-large and achieve some sort of "objective" validation, that they fail. So, uh, you're agreeing w/ my previous post then?? And, again, I don't have a problem w/ your definition, per se (at least mechanically), but then there's really no point at all in having this conversation or taking it any further since there's no 'real' definition 'we' can agree upon, i.e. art is, to some, not an objective state, it is an emotional one. So my original formulation of your take is pretty much spot-on as a working definition[footnote:1]Submitting this to Webster's![/footnote]. Full stop. (Regardless of intent, regardless of whether an expert says it is, etc.) The only glaring flaw I see is that it renders it literally impossible to determine if any given anything is, objectively, art which may not be a flaw to some, but it absolutely is to many people (including art goobers, many game devs, and millions of other people). For example, Michelangelo's David is only art when it elicits a strong emotional response, not that it is in and of itself. It literally cannot be both a subjective, personal, experience and an objective, de facto, one as they are mutually-exclusive[footnote:2]I think that the fellows that say art is objective can go both ways, since they can also have the subjective aspect, but the folks that say it's subjective, obviously, cannot see it objectively, in the sense that what someone says is art is art.[/footnote], save that *everyone* on the planet has some sort of profound emotional response upon viewing it (and we know that this is simply untrue w/o doing a study on it (And yes, it can be art in the very vague sense as laid out by definition three in the OP (which you can pretty much shoehorn anything into rendering it, essentially, meaningless), but it isn't art, by this definition, w/o the emotional resonance.) I also quibble (well, maybe more than that) with the idea that many people (when looking at the vast sea of humanity, not just isolated pockets or sub-cultures that aren't remotely representative of the masses) see it as a subjective experience. I think, in fact, that most people see art in the very vague sense as outlined in option three of the OP and that is the commonly understood and/or common usage definition of the term for most (and by most, I mean more than 50%), e.g. Michelangelo's David is art. Period. Regardless of your subjective take on it which may in fact determine that it isn't art, by the emotion-inducing criteria. (Personally, I don't use the word as it's been defined here at all, mainly because I think it imparts a patina that maybe many things labeled as such shouldn't have, (I also dislike it because it adds a layer of prestige that makes it harder for the Average Joe to criticize because, man, it's art! And who can quibble with art! Not me cause I want to get along w/ people! Etc.) preferring the more clear and explicit "super mega awesome" or "that freaking rocks!" superlatives which, seem to me, to be exactly what art is being defined here as: extra wonderful/awesome/amazing/transcendent. When I use the term art, it's only to describe works of art that are typically considered such by Western culture at large, e.g. David, The Fifth Symphony, and my abs. The same could be said (yes, yes, it's anecdotal), of pretty much everyone in my family and any of my friends that don't consider themselves creative types (i.e. most of them by far)--I can only imagine their response to this debate--but mainly I think they'd be in Roger Ebert's camp (i.e games are never art, period, now go do something constructive), though I also wager they wouldn't label too many movies, if any, as such, either.) Furthermore, I think only people that are obsessive over this stuff (like 'us'), generally correlate art with an intensely subjective experience when a word or phrase like "transcendental experience" or "freaking awesome" totally avoids/sidesteps/renders moot the entire debate and is actually more accurate than the hazy outlines of "art" as defined in English (I'm also going to re-emphasize that art, in the sense you use it, is perhaps limited to the 'creative class', i.e. people that consider themselves creative in some fashion). And people like us are at loggerheads w/ the art goobers from every walk of, err, art so it's really not a case of most (or even a plurality) of people seeing it 'our' way. Which is also why I think you don't find this as one of art's definitions in any dictionary, that is, that most people, far and away, don't see art as a mainly emotional response to a stimulus. I could be wrong about this, but I've consulted several dictionaries during this debate, and none of them have anything remotely akin to this usage in them. (And maybe it will be added, someday, but if *no* dictionary has something along these lines, then I think I might be correct in the belief that it's limited to those that see themselves as artsy/creative types and...fucking hipsters. ANd most people would consider me a creative type (YMMV) and I don't at all subscribe to this notion, so it's not even universal among this particular niche. I guess, in fact, it's entirely possible that the term "art" has been hijacked by both parties to describe what are, essentially, mutually-exclusive concepts, i.e that art is objective to group A (either because it inherently is or because the creator says it is, etc.) and subjective to group B (defined as a transcendental emotional response to an object--I'm being very precise with the word "object" to avoid earlier derailments, but I do think this 'art-as-experience' effect is applicable to nature, etc., but kinda in the same way any other superlative would apply, i.e. man, that sunset is awwwwwwesome (drawn out for full effect and to ensure that the person w/ me understands the sheer depth of my appreciation)). That said, at the very least, the working definition cobbled together here should be added to dictionaries because enough people have decided it means some sort of positive or negative emotional response to outside stimulus. (Yes, it needs some work, but, well, work w/ me.) (And now I'm seeing, very clearly, why, at the academic level, trying to nail down what art is is so difficult. Maybe it's an argument we shouldn't be having at all and one group needs to concede that they're talking about something else. This will never happen, of course, because nobody is going to back down at that level.) Anyway, if you are agreeing w/ the original idea that the art goobers are wrong, that what they say is art is not[footnote:3]...necessarily. (Oh you slippery bastard!) Based, again, primarily on intent and/or because the medium is, de facto, art.[/footnote], I think we've probably satisfactorily answered the outstanding questions: 1. Are the art goobers wrong to say that all games are art or de facto art ?Yes, because art can't be art just because a particular group says it is. (Some of my game dev friends aren't going to be happy about this (still)!). 2. Can art be objectively defined or is it, at least in part, a subjective phenomenon?Maybe both, but the consensus (in this thread) seems to lean towards the latter. Personally, I'm really starting to think that the term has been hijacked by everybody and it's reached the point where it's meaning is so amorphous and can mean so many things to so many different people that it's not really useful. (Certainly I don't think the fact that it's very amorphous is really up for debate as this, uh, debate has demonstrated.) In other words, and to be very clear, I'm sticking to my original guns that if you can't objectively define it, it isn't of much value or use (with this small caveat!) unless you are with like-minded company. Then you get to choose which of the iterations you'd like to use. This conflict also probably explains why the Roger Eberts of the world insist games can't be art, period, since it's pretty obvious he is not seeing art as a subjective, undefinable in concrete terms, experience--in fact, maybe people like him don't see art as an "experience" at all. (I doubt this, but clearly they wouldn't agree w/ the definition stated here.)
|
|