Games Are Art

[AllenSmithee]

Whoever got an emotional response out of Michelangelo's David, aside from, damn he shouldn't be this old! is pretty silly.

But I'd still say it is art. And, actually, I based my definition off of what I got in a Webster's dictionary. And I use other definitions in other contexts. If the entire world had one word for every context things would be different but they don't, and that's pretty much that.

I mean, people don't think about why they call the Mona Lisa art but not Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days, and that's the problem. They assume axioms where they don't belong. It is all media intrusion. But anybody can see that Dog Days both has a message (strong critique on violence in the media, and desensitization of death in video games) and is designed as an aesthetic experience, because it is, because you consumed it (like a consumer) and therefore it was an aesthetic experience.

But, this is it, there's an art, or high arts, or visual art, or whatever else, but the thing is, people trying to make art games are fucking dumb a lot of the time because they forget what they are there for -- they're trying to make avant garde games. I mean, I'd say, games are art because movies are art and books are too, because you experience them the same way. The problem is nobody tries to do anything with them that challenges anything or anythings anything anytime at all.

And, no ECM, I'm not changing the word, on GUG I used a definition which said what I'm saying now.

And, also, about your signature, the reason we use some words different now then we used to is exactly that. Words change all the time, and so do their uses. Fancy comes from the word Fantasy, or vise versa, but etymological study would pretty much prove what you're saying in your signature dead wrong.



Now, Donatello's on the other hand? This is a scene with feeling! Although, they're both art, and Michelangelo did a fine job on sculpting a beautiful form of the male specimen.

[ECM]

Jul 1, 2011 18:35:26 GMT -5 AllenSmithee said:

Whoever got an emotional response out of Michelangelo's David, aside from, damn he shouldn't be this old! is pretty silly.

Huh?

But I'd still say it is art. And, actually, I based my definition off of what I got in a Webster's dictionary. And I use other definitions in other contexts. If the entire world had one word for every context things would be different but they don't, and that's pretty much that.

OK, in what way is David art?

And wait, wait: you base your definition of art on the dictionary but you also use other definitions in different contexts?? How is someone supposed to communicate with you if you have several, 'off-label' definitions for something most people define as 'x' or 'y'? This sounds *exactly* like what you did with misogyny: you decided that it meant chauvinism, then sent me off on a tangent where it turns out, oh no, you didn't really mean what misogyny means. And you don't see a huge problem with this approach??

I mean, people don't think about why they call the Mona Lisa art but not Kane & Lynch 2: Dog Days, and that's the problem. They assume axioms where they don't belong. It is all media intrusion. But anybody can see that Dog Days both has a message (strong critique on violence in the media, and desensitization of death in video games) and is designed as an aesthetic experience, because it is, because you consumed it (like a consumer) and therefore it was an aesthetic experience.

It's not really a problem if your definition of art conforms to what the vast majority think it means--it has nothing to do w/ thinking about it, because, as far they know, 'x' is art and 'y' is not by common usage. There's no need to think about it because, if they feel this sudden swell of emotion on viewing the Mona Lisa (or whatever) they might be every bit as likely to characterize it as "incredible" or "amazing" or "epic", etc. and it's only art in the sense that it's objectively a piece of art.

The only time this is a problem is if someone decides that art means 'x' when it really means 'y', in other words, the problem lies with the minority that think it means what they say it means, and not w/ the people who are using the definition as understood in common usage.

But, this is it, there's an art, or high arts, or visual art, or whatever else, but the thing is, people trying to make art games are fucking dumb a lot of the time because they forget what they are there for -- they're trying to make avant garde games. I mean, I'd say, games are art because movies are art and books are too, because you experience them the same way. The problem is nobody tries to do anything with them that challenges anything or anythings anything anytime at all.

I mostly agree with this BUT then we arrive at the problem of art goobers (as Zig calls them) stating that even if an art game sucks, it doesn't matter: it's art. Not because it's art by the common usage of the term, but because, by their definition it is, just like GTA (just an example!) is art to you by your definition. Do you see where this leads? They say art is 'x', you say art is 'y' (or 'z' or 'beta' or w/e since you stated it seems to ebb and flow based on "context"), and everyone else thinks it's 'z'. That's a problem, and that's why words need to have clearly-defined meanings or it all disintegrates. We end up talking past each other even though we're speaking the same language and dialect. In other words: that way lies madness and the end of civilization, taken to its logical ends.

And, no ECM, I'm not changing the word, on GUG I used a definition which said what I'm saying now.

Dude, I have no idea what his even means! Did we discuss this on GUG?? I don't even remember! But I'll take your word that you said your definition shifts with the context, but if it lies outside of the common usage (read; dictionary) definitions, then you're stepping into a minefield and inviting misunderstanding!

This, again, is what happened with the "misogyny" bit. You decided it meant ''x', when it means 'y' and you invite chaos by arbitrarily shifting their meanings and conflating misogyny with 'generally bad things aimed at women'.

The same thing happens when I sometimes use the archaic definitions of words for effect which has led to problems in the past because everyone expects common usage and, generally, has no idea about extended/archaic/academic/legal distinctions of words outside of these sub-cultures...which was my point about creative types seeing art as 'x' when everyone else sees it as 'y'.

And, also, about your signature, the reason we use some words different now then we used to is exactly that. Words change all the time, and so do their uses. Fancy comes from the word Fantasy, or vise versa, but etymological study would pretty much prove what you're saying in your signature dead wrong.

No it's only "dead wrong" if you assume the meanings of words change on a dime. They do not. Ever. (The part about "an agenda" should have tipped you off that you're getting it all wrong which is what people with an agenda do: they take words with clear, concise, meanings and *corrupt* them, in the archaic sense, over very short spans of time to reach the desired definition[footnote:1]Racism is a super-perfect example of this: once upon a time it meant the dictionary definition--still in effect!--that mainly means hatred of another race. However! Starting in the early '90s, racism started to become *corrupted*, starting at the academic level, to mean "anything that isn't supportive or is critical of 'x' group, be it black people, Asians or unicorns is racism, i.e. conflating criticism, no matter how reasonable, with hatred. Which is great if you're trying to nullify criticism of a particular 'tribe' because, fuck, who wants to be called a racist? Racists are bad, bad, hateful people w/ hate in their hearts and minds and all over their jeans like hateful mud!You'll note, however, that this is *not* in any dictionary as one of its definitions because it's still considered an 'off-label' definition and most people do not understand it as such...that and the fact that it's fucking lunatic.[/footnote]. They have generally fixed meanings that linger on for decades and even centuries

Again, why do you think Zig's (not picking on you!) formulation for art is not in any dictionary? Because it isn't in common usage and the language hasn't caught up to him yet and might not ever if a critical mass of people don't start using it the sense that he (and others) do. It may fade away like a fad, when the art goobers die-off in a meteor strike or it may become a third or fourth definition in common usage...but it isn't. Yet.

But I can see where you'd believe that it's wrong because you engage in it on an, apparently, regular basis. I don't say this as an attack, I say it as a plain observation of the words you've used in this and other posts. You can't keep changing definitions based on "context" (and whimsy) because the people around you aren't going to see this shift and/or they're not going to be aware of any other definition outside common usage.

And, hell, in the case of misoygny, you were flat-out altering its meaning wholesale as you went along until we discovered, oh wait, what you were talking about isn't misogyny anywhere except in your mind, which no one else can know and which is why grappling with Zig's definition of art is so difficult because we can't know what you mean if you start stepping outside the boundaries of common usage. (Or, again, as I said above, if you're hanging out with, say, Zig and you say "hot damn, that's art right there" he will implicitly understand you. Say that around my Dad and he'll look at you like your from Mars.)

And again, none of this is an attack, but I'm just not quite following some of your arguments and it makes it much more difficult if you're altering meanings as you go because now it feels like I'm having to tease out your intent on everything you post! Le sigh.

[ECM]

Jul 1, 2011 19:00:32 GMT -5 Zigfried said:

The Eberts of the world may not see art as a subjective thing, but they're treating it as a subjective thing because they're using their personal criteria to classify art versus not-art. Ebert's actually laid out some requirements for "art" in his articles, and they were pretty specific to his own prejudices.

OK, thank you for clearing up Ebert (which might have made him a bad example).

So, when people say Michelangelo's David is art, period, I say that's a subjective statement. I may not know their criteria, and they make think they've made an objective statement... but down inside, they've come up with some personal reason to justify in their mind why David is art and the giant Rocky Balboa statue isn't (even if they apply that reason uniformly).

OK, but here's the thing: I'm pretty sure what most people think of as art (in the Western sense) is art because they were *taught* that all classical sculpture is, by definion, art. Or the works of Mozart. Or the Parthenon. I don't think it even rises to the point where they make a subjective judgment short "hmm, that's very nice" which has nothing to do w/ whether they believe it's art or not. (I say this because, as a kid, that's *exactly* what I was taught was art. It just was because it's old and that's art, kid!)

I agree that the two questions are satisfactorily answered. Art goobers are wrong when they say all games are art (the "out" that I granted them was meant to be for individual games that they've actually played, not for games as a whole). It's dumb for one group to say that anything produced as part of their profession/hobby/lifestyle is art and try to make the rest of the world accept that (or face nerdly wrath!). I also agree that "art" is not a clear word, so it's pretty useless in the hands of someone who strives for clarity.

OK, glad we could sort that out! Now I can sleep at night...if I didn't have raging insomnia.

[AllenSmithee]

Alright. Well, basically, the misogyny thing was just me getting confused with a word.

As for "common usage", that's silly, because most people are absolute idiots, and idiots skew the "common usage" into something unlikable.

I use various different dictionary definitions of art in various different contexts. But this is what I mean when discussing games (and films and media):

a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

So, a naturally occurring tree is not art. Nobody used skill or creative imagination for a tree to exist. But, when a tree is presented to others, as a piece, it becomes art, because of the human-thought-level influence. It doesn't particularly need a statement or emotional value, although I certainly appreciate those things.

When people explain what they mean by things to one another and those definitions counter-act each other, then they can say "Oh, okay, so I guess we weren't really looking at it the same way! I see what you mean, now!" and end it. Or they could say "Well, assuming your position, then wouldn't that mean... [et cetera]" to which somebody might reply "Oh, sorry, you misunderstand this part of why I think this way. And, as for what you said after, really, I haven't thought about that much! I could ponder it for a while. I get where you're coming from though, I guess we kinda look at it differently."

And everyone might be a bit happier.

ECM, you really put value into dictionary definitions, but the Webster, for the longest time, had the definition for anime to as something like "hyperviolent and sexual animation from Japan". So, you can't put too much weight on what some scholars put in a book.

As for why Michelangelo's David is art, in my eyes? Well, it is the conscious use of skill and creative imagination in the production of a naked man statue.

[ECM]

Sorry, I clicked modify on your comment instead of reply and screwed up your post! (I didn't edit or delete anything

Anyway, moving on...

Listen, I'm trying to understand, I really am! But you seem to agree w/ me half the time and not agree w/ me the other half! And that agreement seems to shift from post to post, so I have to beg off. You get the last word, and I'm going to go put my hand in a meatgrinder because I think that's probably more fun at this point.

I love you Smithee (really and in a wholly Frodo and Sam way)!

[AllenSmithee]

Call me unpredictable

Although, I dunno if you just insulted me and called me a flip-flopper, or just called me somebody who is varied in their taste of opinions (?)

[elchevalier]

The concept of art is something that is on constant evolution, it has been evolving since the dawn of time, it's not a thing that never moves, a static thing that never suffers changes. Defining art IS a subjective thing, no matter how many dictionary definitions we throw around. Whoever writes those definitions also gaves his own input when defining the word.

I have to say, once more, the most vocal people in these debates, the vg media and people like Roger Ebert, are more concerned about being "right" than about reaching a good middle point. I respect Ebert as a movie critic, but every time he opens his mouth about video games he sounds like a cranky old guy that wants kids to get off his lawn. Movies were not regarded as "high" art, or art for that matter, when they started. Many books, paints and other things seeing as fine art today were consider trash and worthless when they were created. Mozart used to compose music for pompose rich dbags, Shakespeare wrote plays for the common people to watch, Van Goh never sold a single piece of work in his entire life.

So once more, i think we need to put the times and the art in their proper context. In this sense this is why i insist about the awful mistake developers make every time they try to make a game look like a movie. Games are a very different format, and they need to develop by their own rules, not by others.

[kog3100edw]

You guys are hitting the mark pretty squarely but not realising that the answer is maybe simpler than your making it out to be.

I have a fair amount of 'formal art training' and this debate has been wrangled around in my presence more than a few times, though usually not about video games. So here's my educated (still an opinion obviously) take:

Defining 'art' has two aspects. The actual definition of art isn't really mutable. The dictionary quote early on in the thread isn't accurate because it is vague. But as far as I've been able to determine in all my advanced years here is the actual definition of 'art':

Something created with the express goal of communication, usually in the form of an emotiona resonance or connection, from maker to audience.

Now here's the kicker. The definition itself is NOT subject to change. But what constitutes an object that SATISFACTORILY communicates IS. So the so-called subjectiveness in the idea of art lies with the audience for the work. NOT really in the definition. With this outlook, the flowers painted on a wooden chair would be 'art' if the flowers communicate cheeriness or charm. The chair itself is NOT art. A chair in and of itself communicates nothing. A sunset is NOT art. It might create an emotional response, but it was not created with that in mind (not by humans at any rate). In video games, whether or not games themselves are art, the music, character designs, background paintings and all that stuff all would be. They are the art IN the game.

That's the first aspect.

The second is that 'art' can also be defined by what society thinks it is. There is a sort of critical mass a form much reach to be considered so... a gestalt decision that the form is art. This allows a sort of benchmark to be established so that discussion about art can take place. You might not think Cameron's Avatar is art, but cinema itself is considered an artform, so there is basis for comparison with established 'art films' in which to discuss whether Avatar qualifies.

That's also why a form can be considered 'art'... an artform... but not every example of the form is. A trashy Jackie Collins novel isn't literature. A paint-splattered canvas from my dog's butt isn't art. Devlin and Emmerich's film Independence Day isn't art cinema. The Barney theme song isn't music as art.

But it is established by society that all those milieu are artforms. They are all capable of communicating from the originator to the audience.

So for the purposes of this discussion, you don't need IMHO, to define 'art'. That's been done already. And really we all KIND of know what 'art' is or at least what it is supposed to do. But it is decidedly untrue that EVERTHING is art. I think we all also know this. The problem discussing art, or fun, or any of the terribly subjective-seeming words, is that what FITS the definition is so subject to the individual.

Does a video game communicate, usually emotional, from maker to audience, 'yes' much of the time. So on aspect one of the definition games would be art.

Does society recognise them as an artform? HERE NOW is the REAL question. The real stickler. Video Games are at the same point cinema was before Citizen Kane. Lots of people think games are art, but society hasn't agreed with them. So one aspect two, the answer is 'no'. Not yet.

Everyone whining about wanting games recognised as art is pushing for this aspect number two to happen. Aspect one already has. Video games don't fall under the simply craft aspect because there are simply too many that go beyond a simple challenge and move into emotional territory... and by that I mean even the intensity of getting your winged avatar through the last level of Espgaluda... not just crying big ol man-tears when your all-game companion dies at the end of some JRPG. And as in every other artform not everyone will 'get' the communication from this game or that game. They don't all work for every gamer.

The recognition of games as art will come. Whiners are in a hurry because they need the validation, as others in this thread have said. Artforms seem to get recognised as generations that are familiar with them become the majority.

As always, opinions. YMMV