art is subjective one cannot argue for or against what constitutes art. Just because its not high art or fine art doesnt mean it isnt art, doesnt mean it definitely is art either.
I would personally say its art simply because of the incredible skill and technique employed to create such richly designed experiences.
Seems like a pretty poor argument to me. Movies, plays, operas, etc all have outcomes as well. It just sounds like he's never experienced a video game in the way we have and is under the impression that there is only one way to play through a game.
"Is X art?" is up there with "I disagree with your obviously incorrect political opinion" and "music genre X is better than music genre Y" for The Most Pointless Argument Ever Award
I believe it was Duchamp who defined art as something the Artist begins and the Viewer finishes. Trying to develop a perfect definition for art is a fools' errand, but I think Ebert couldn't be more wrong in his opinions on the subject. applying Duchamp's definition, games are absolutely a medium through which art could be created.
My notion is that [art] grows better the more it improves or alters nature through an passage through what we might call the artist's soul, or vision.
I'm going to pull this quote out of context and apply it against his argument, because there is a pretty direct correlation between the idea of improving/altering nature and the goals most environment artists work towards.
I like Ebert, he's a nice guy, iconic within the film industry and the recent tragic events of his life catapult him to a near godlike status in many circles.
That said, i fully disagree with him and think it's kinda pathetic that he would try to force his own opinion of what "art" is. Why is he always the center of this conversation? he doesn't play or appreciate games. To be frank i could give 2 shits what Roger Ebert thinks about video games.
Don't know who the guy is, don't care. Even if a famous game designer said something like that, so what? How is this interesting? Its about as interesting as finding out that Shigeru Miyamoto doesn't like eating cheese.
If I chose not to read books, can I just claim it can't ever be art?
Roger Ebert is only looking to spark more controversy over the topic so he can be in the spotlight again since 90% of people don't care what he thinks anymore. He can argue all he wants, it's nothing more than an opinion... an opinion that is biased and based in a world of entertainment from 5 decades ago. I bet he secretly plays WoW.
Apparently my response to the article on Kotaku about this never got posted (go figure), but it pretty much summed up as this:
If games are not art, why do those of us that are working on them have titles such as "fx artist, environment artist, character artist"? These are titles shared by those in the movie industry (so is "producer, director, etc").
If writing and books can be considered art, then technically Ebert himself is an artist, for how stylized his writing can be. If he isn't, then he should say no more than "this movie sucks".
Of course, someone could then come along with a Dadaist writing movement, and he'd be an artist again.
games are not art. but neither is painting. they are mediums. yes, there are paintings that are art, but that doesn't make painting art, that guy at the beach airbrushing t-shirts is never going to be in the Whitney, he is not making art. but this guys has.. http://www.coryarcangel.com/things-i-made/IShotAndyWarhol
so there are games that are already art, move along.
Why would anyone care what Roger Ebert has to say on Video Games? The man has probably never played anything beyond Pacman, and anyone who says "never" is 99% of the time wrong.
Video Games are composed of Art from the environments to the characters to the FX. They convey mood, thoughts and feelings.
The story or gameplay expands on these and can further envoke deep emotional responses. Not only that but many games take staunch positions in politics or morals.
What Ebert should've said was that "Video Games can never be art to me, because I'm old, ignorant and hold massive biases to things I don't understand."
This is typical of anyone who has very little knowledge of something. Just like someone who ate boxed cereal everyday of their life would think that cooking and presenting food could never be art. It's simple ignorance.
He also makes the mistake of thinking that the "artists" are the players. When quite clearly the artists are the people who make the game not play it.
I think games have the potential to easily be art. most games arent. i see it more as a craft than an art, honestly. Yes you can craft worlds and experiences that can be art, but your craft alone isnt art i dont think.
Bah to people who still even care about the "what is art?" question. Too many people have been distracted for too long by that notion, and they've lost sight of the more important thing to ask: "is it GOOD art?"
Yeah the whole art thing is bullshit. I have been moved more by a moment in a game than any painting as i have seen. I have seen a good number of "works of art" that have moved me but no more so than any game, movie or song.
But what do i know, to me art is something that moves me emotionally. Art has no need for a frame or title, nor need a to be recognized by all, it is what it is good or bad.
Also,
Art is beauty, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so anything and everything is art.
Pretty interesting read, yeah, it's about his opinion on the subject, but I figured most of his writing was (I don't often read Ebert's reviews). However I will say I was intrigued by this part
"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."
I wonder this myself actually, I mean the game's industry easily has more interest and a larger fan base than the High Art world. So it's not like games is going under appreciated, seriously there are more people that know about Final Fantasy than Bruce Nauman.
I'm also curious because I know tons of people here have nothing but spite for High Art, and all I can think is why do you want to be apart of a world you're not really fond of? Games can be works of art, but they're not commonly works of high art, that's a totally different form of entertainment. Not better, not worse, just totally different.
Oh, and you better hope games never become high art, instead of paying $50 or $60 for a game, you'll be paying a ton more, also they wouldn't be mass produced, probably be released in super limited editions like prints or something, so there would be like only 200 copies of a game ever made.
Where would we be without talentless blowhards trying to define "art". I think he's turned being a pretentious douche into an art form...
If ever there was anyone I wanted to punch in the tutle neck its this guy.
He routinely misses the point of a lot of popcorn movies and expects everything to have a deeper moral meaning. If it has blood, or more than 2 people get punched in the face its all over. He shakes his jowls and only 1-2 stars fall out, try as you might you won't get any more...
If its not art, then we have a lot of artists who need to change their title. If you can't consider the whole thing to be artistic then you can at least consider aspects of it to be. Honestly I don't care who calls what art as long as they keep buying it so I can keep making it.
Where would we be without talentless blowhards trying to define "art". I think he's turned being a pretentious douche into an art form...
If ever there was anyone I wanted to punch in the tutle neck its this guy.
He routinely misses the point of a lot of popcorn movies and expects everything to have a deeper moral meaning. If it has blood, or more than 2 people get punched in the face its all over. He shakes his jowls and only 1-2 stars fall out, try as you might you won't get any more...
So what's your complaint here, that he won't give a popcorn movie three or four stars? Yeah, the problem here is that you apparently don't actually read his reviews. He just gave mediocre popcorn fest Clash of the Titans three stars, which was rather generous IMO. As far as violent flicks go, he gave Inglorious Basterds four stars last summer - that was pretty fucking bloody, what with the dozens of people being shot, stabbed, beaten and burned to death in a flaming movie theater. Ebert has been a pretty good supporter of geek/popcorn stuff over the years, when it's actually been worth the praise. If you're expecting him to agree with you about how radical awesome a bag of shit like Transformers 2 was, you're bound to be disappointed, because it's always going to be a bag of shit.
Not that I'm saying you like Transformers 2, I respect you more than that
*edit*
Just looking over Ebert's recent reviews... he gave District 13: Ultimatum a three star review. It's a freaking French dystopian sci-fi parkour movie. Actually, to be precise, it's the sequel to a freaking French dystopian sci-fi parkour movie, featuring still more dystopian sci-fi parkour. Draw your own conclusions.
Roger Ebert is only looking to spark more controversy over the topic so he can be in the spotlight again since 90% of people don't care what he thinks anymore. He can argue all he wants, it's nothing more than an opinion... an opinion that is biased and based in a world of entertainment from 5 decades ago. I bet he secretly plays WoW.
Right, I'm sure you've nailed it. He's the most famous movie reviewer in America and was on fucking Oprah last month - it's clear he's just not in the spotlight anymore, so he's got to pick fights with 1337 g4m3rz to stay current.
He also makes the mistake of thinking that the "artists" are the players. When quite clearly the artists are the people who make the game not play it.
Now THIS is interesting. I think that where games differ from other media is that the viewer/player IS in part the artist. When you watch a movie or read a book, it's a totally passive, linear experience - the creator gives you exactly what he wants, when he wants. Games are often not like that at all. If you play through Mass Effect 2 as a total paragon and I beat it as total renegade, we have a somewhat comparable experience, but we've also personally determined part of that experience - we can't compare it on a 1-to-1 basis the way we can discuss the ending to a movie or whatever, because we didn't 'see' the same movie.
I think that's what makes it hard to quantify the artistic element in games, since the user is part of the equation. A friend of mine blasted through Deus Ex like a Quake-style shooter, missing tons of great experiences, and he still doesn't understand why I think it's one of the best games ever. Warren Spector can't force him to play a certain way to ensure he gets what made the game great - for better or worse, the gamer has his hand on the brush as well.
I think debating what is "art" is useless here, i dont think he discredits games as art, just undervalues the notion of what games are.
I'm not a fan of how he says you can't lose at a game, then follows it up with speaking of experiencing things in the absence of being presented "victory." That really is never the case - not in the obvious sense that you can "lose" at playing a game, but that it quotes that there is no experience when presented with reward - and i'm assuming he shares the same ideas.
You don't win a novel, play, film, or painting after viewing it, nor do you win anything after playing a game. You win shit if you're using a robot arm to pick stuff out of a crate, but you can't "win" a game. Sure there are goals, but novels, plays, films, and paintings also have a goal - the experience of the narative, like he mentions.
It could be said you "win" at a book, film, or play for getting all the way through it, i know ive felt "victorious" after watching some movies (in no order of quality: Gigli, Avatar, LoTR, Matrix). Not in the sense that I had overcome them, but come out with something emotional (good: avatar & bad: Gigli), or inspirational that made the experience worthwhile.
The experience is the "play," just as your eyes, ears, brain, and emotions experience the other mediums he mentions. The play is a new goal that I guess he cannot grasp. Games present a new object to be tickled when viewing entertainment media - and i really do think the act of playing a game, and experiencing it is art - despite the fanatical and sometimes misguided views on people who do enjoy playing.
I have the lowest opinion about other peoples opinion about what they think is art, after the classics like "Shit in can" and "Rotten fruit on canvas". The term "art" is being misused to the extent that it means everything now. There is good art and then there is shit art and I have to put the audience up in rational people, and deluded people (who calls everything art...its not, its bullshit)
Its about as interesting as finding out that Shigeru Miyamoto doesn't like eating cheese.
WAIT HE DOSNT? Oh shit thats nuts. I would have never guessed his cheese prefrences from the interviews he has given but this is really eye opening. So fascinating.
On a serious note he makes the assumption that games are defined as art or not by those playing them. When it is not the consumer who makes it art, it is the artists who craft the work that makes it art.
That would essentially be saying "this book isnt a work of art because it can be read!"
The viewer/gamer is the one who is enjoying the art, they are not defining it.
The viewer/gamer is the one who is enjoying the art, they are not defining it.
I agree with you but he is probably looking at games from the perspective of an art critic not an artist or gamer. Art critics take something inane like "rotten fruit on canvas" and they ascribe meaning to it and the art enthusiasts praise these critics for thier astute definition of what the artwork means when really the artist probably just threw some old fruit at a canvas and said "heh thats kinda cool" and has no idea what meaning will be given to his creation.
The art critics actually embue the meaning into the art, they choose how to define it not the artist and I think this is what is frustrating Mr Ebert - gaming as an experience seems to be a foreign concept to his mind and he feels like he lacks the ability to give his own interpretation of what they mean so he does the next best thing and says "I declare they are all meaningless".
I think games are art because they are created by people to illicit an emotional response. That response might be traditional 'artistic' responses such as happiness, awe or fear but they also create emotional responses like panic, trauma and shock which are rarer when reading a novel or looking at a painting. Yeah, 99% aren't 'good' art, but then 99% of films, plays, books, poetry and paintings are shit as well!
We seem to think that sadness is the pinnacle of emotion in art and if a game can make you cry then as artists we have won! I've never cried playing a game, but there's a whole world of emotions we can create in players, we're great at shock, paranoia and excitement so we should be proud of that as they are hard emotions to conjure up in different mediums!
If you care about injecting subtext and meaning into your game, then you definitely should, Schafer says. But if that doesnt interest you then you should spend your time on the part of the game that does, and thats great too. Games dont all have to be the same thing to all people. They canand shouldbe completely different depending on whos making them. Thats one of the things that makes them art.
I somewhat agree with the guy; that is, on the statement that games are not art and it will take them a long time to reach that status.
However, his notion that games cannot become art based on their major principles is ridiculous. Games are not an art form not because any restrictions or goals are imposed on the player, but because they are simply silly. Sad truth is; games are not beautifully crafted works, but rather crude pieces put together with no other goal than to entertain. That does no surprise me of course, since so many developers these days are inspired by Hollywood.
I know it sounds harsh and I mean no disrespect towards the people who work their asses off to create them, but games have yet to surpass the quality of execution (or even reach the same level) as found in older artistic mediums. By comparison, games look like their retarded and crippled cousin.
Lets take the storytelling for instance; characters in games are thin as a sheet of paper, they rarely become fully fleshed out, their motivations are overly simplistic and interactions between them are not grounded in reality.
The narrative techniques are mediocre at best; and whats even more surprising, examples where interactivity has been used to enhance it are pretty scarce. Audio and visuals also do not have the same impact, compared for instance to the cinema when they are constantly used to amplify atmosphere and emotional impact of a scene. Endings of The Good The Bad and The Ugly and Joint Security Area (have anyone seen it?) instantly come to mind.
Plots rarely have any depth and are stuck in the realms of typical male fantasy. Symbolism in games is immature at best and rarely meant to convey any interesting thoughts; its usually meant to be artsy, but doesnt bear any real meaning.
The situation with other elements is fairly similar, although visuals and audio are usually better executed than other aspects.
Games are simply too young to be artistically relevant at this point; developers are still experimenting with the medium and it's hard to define what can and what cannot be done. The technical limitations are still too much of a problem to offer us a full level of creativity. There is a clear lack of direction; games are filled with elements (animation, music, etc.) that are there but do not complement each other. In terms of the execution there is much more that could be done.
That said, I am SURE games will become an artistic medium at some point in the future. I can only hope I will live long enough to see it, or even better be a part of it.
Rant over, dont kill me; I will add more once I come up with another half-assed theory.
so... a lead art designer has his team create works of art, which are designed to stimulate a specific response from a viewer;
a great dragon inspiring awe
a dark corridor inspiring fear
a forest with magical flowers inspiring wonderment and joy...
all of these things and more, are created, with the specific idea to create certain moods or emotions within the viewer. they're then put into a game, which was also designed to create specific moods, tensions, and feelings within the player.
sure, games have an outcome, a goal, a motive. but those things are designed by someone, to create a feeling within the player.
that's why they're art. they're created by someone, to make someone else feel a certain way.
Sad truth is; games are not beautifully crafted works, but rather crude pieces put together with no other goal than to entertain.
I know it sounds harsh and I mean no disrespect towards the people who work their asses off to create them, but games have yet to surpass the quality of execution (or even reach the same level) as found in older artistic mediums. By comparison, games look like their retarded and crippled cousin.
Games are simply too young to be artistically relevant at this point; developers are still experimenting with the medium and it's hard to define what can and what cannot be done.
Yeah well games that look like artsy stuff and compare to classical master works would take ages to make and probably only appeal to a niche artsy fartsy group of art-gamers who could not possibly hope to keep the industry afloat.
As cliche as it sounds art is in the eye of the beholder and either you appreciate what you have right now for what it means to you or you dont. When that day comes that games are comparable to classical artworks I dare say there will be people similar to you there saying "one day it will be art but right now its not quite there yet".
heh this is a rather pointless discussion but its fun nonetheless
Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.
If his argument hinges on this then it pretty much falls apart immediately. Many singleplayer games are not "won" but are "finished", much in the same way that books or movies are. I never won Fallout, Mass Effect, Half-Life, or others, I simply navigated the story and then reached its conclusion. It may be hard to "see the forest through the trees" since so much is made of graphics and gameplay, but the core of the singleplayer experience is a story that has a beginning, middle and end.
I think what keeps Ebert (and others with a similar opinion) from seeing the potential for games to be art is that he's thinking about them in terms of media he's more familiar with. Ebert is a film critic. He's used to seeing things in terms of people crafting a viewer experience through character development, narrative pacing, camera techniques and framing, etc. Games look kind of like movies, with things moving around, talking and making sounds, and situations taking place on the screen. They're made by a team of many people including directors and producers. Sometimes they even have actors. Because of their resemblance, it's easy to start trying to look at games in movie terms, and most likely come to the conclusion that games have a long way to go before they can reach the same artistic level as movies.
But games aren't movies any more than a book on tape is a music album or a sculpture is architecture.
What they're doing is comparing them in those terms and coming to the conclusion that since one is accepted as potential art and the other shares similar elements as that one but fails to use them in the same way, it must not have potential as art. That's exactly the same as coming to the conclusion that since soccer is a sport, and basketball isn't played like soccer (they're using their hands and not even getting a penalty for it!), then basketball is less of a sport than soccer.
Sort of relatedly, regarding the definitions of art in general-- I think one really commonly overlooked idea is that art is a form of entertainment. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that my personal definition of art is "crafted entertainment". Entertainment includes the gamut of emotions (tearjerkers and horror movies are entertainment as much as comedies are) and it's really what separates something from being completely utilitarian, scientific, or mundane and being something that attempts to be at least slightly more than that. I think it's really the most accurate definition that covers the entire range of what can be considered art, regardless of taste, quality, or intention. Some forms are less entertaining than others (furniture assembly diagrams, for instance, but some tiny level of entertainment is present, simply because they're designed with aesthetics in mind). By that definition, I don't see how games could possibly not be considered art.
I think what keeps Ebert (and others with a similar opinion) from seeing the potential for games to be art is that he's thinking about them in terms of media he's more familiar with. Ebert is a film critic.
agree, kinda similar to what I was saying further up the page about him being like a fine art critic.
its about someone somewhere in this world still being elitist
I hope this wasn't aimed at me :P, though I agree that my post might seem overly negative.
However, I think that quality should not be underestimated, especially in relation to such young medium as video games which still lack credibility in eyes of many. Before we classify it as art, games should meet some basic standards, which are very often completely ignored.
How many times have we encountered jerky animation, annoying bugs or performance problems? Such issues are common even in so-called AAA titles. What about cheesy voice acting, major plot holes, music suddenly cutting off due to triggering a cutscene, assets of uneven quality and other graphical mess? Game devs should be given credit for managing this mess and reducing it to the bare minimum. Given the amount of control that the player has and effort required to create a game it is commendable that we encounter only minor issues.
However, we should remember that even those minor issues can completely destroy any efforts to create immersion. It's like crew members who appear in the background, a guy wearing a watch in a film set in ancient Rome or a novel filled with grammar errors - minor problems which destroy immersion and credibility. Such things are normally considered to be unacceptable, yet we tolerate them in games.
...and this is only the bare minimum of quality. What about writing, use of lighting and camera? Dialogue is usually composed of witty one-liners or semi-philosophical rambling. In-game cinematics are either filled with talking heads, or cheesy, overblown scenes. Games are still far behind films and literature.
It's not all about quality; if games are to become an art form their unique characteristics have to be used. Interactivity seems like an amazing storytelling device and it's a pity that it's often ditched in favour of static cutscenes. This is something that will certainly be explored and might be a key element of games. However, before we start coming up with innovations we have to make sure that everything else is already in the right place.
Yeah well games that look like artsy stuff and compare to classical master works would take ages to make and probably only appeal to a niche artsy fartsy group of art-gamers who could not possibly hope to keep the industry afloat.
Not necessarily; some of the greatest films (I know I compare games far too much to them, but it's the closest thing we have) were done on a relatively low budget. Asian and European cinema fared fairly well without spending millions of dollars; heck, one of my favourite films, "Rashomon" was made for $250,000.
Of course, even low budget games cost more than that these days, but we don't have to strive for photorealistic graphics and there are always ways to cut-corners without affecting the quality. "Rashomon" serves as a great example; by retelling the same story 4 times they were able to reduce the amount of actors, props and sets needed for the film.
Also, such films, books or plays rarely become popular in the same sense as Hollywood blockbusters. But they don't have to; if games industry reaches the same size as film industry, then niche market should be big enough to make a profit.
As cliche as it sounds art is in the eye of the beholder and either you appreciate what you have right now for what it means to you or you dont. When that day comes that games are comparable to classical artworks I dare say there will be people similar to you there saying "one day it will be art but right now its not quite there yet".
You are completely right, but then they will be as credible as someone saying that cinema is not a form of art. I am safe for now :poly142:
Sadly, the games are far from being generally accepted as an art-form.
And yeah, this discussion is totally useless yet so much fun that I have already wasted nearly two hours on it Still this topic is very relevant to me; I might not have a job in this industry, but if I am to work there I don't want games to turn the same way as American comics did; I don't want to be a nerd ALL my life.
I think that he actually makes a good point if we don't clump all games together. Games are going into different directions; casual/arcade games are based solely on the gameplay and resemble traditional games, MMO's/online games are based on interaction between the users and hardcore games are slowly turning into interactive stories.
If we only talk about the last group (which is the most relevant to the discussion) then comparison between games and films is fairly obvious. Honestly, putting something like let's say Mass Effect 2/Uncharted into the same category as Bejewelled/Wii Sport just doesn't cut it anymore.
But I do agree that his negative stance is ridiculous. Especially when it comes from a fan of medium which was supposed to never become an art form.
Bleh, I wonder if anyone is even going to read this crap.
Movies/poems/visual art tends to be a one man attempt to tell a story/get an idea across/make something beautiful but entertaining. Are video games too much a commercial group project?
Yes
Also when i see a game being optimised to appeal to as much people as possible
how the fuck could i call it art.
I want a ego that doesnt care what people think and if i consider his/her work as art so be it.
Of course, even low budget games cost more than that these days, but we don't have to strive for photorealistic graphics and there are always ways to cut-corners without affecting the quality. "Rashomon" serves as a great example; by retelling the same story 4 times they were able to reduce the amount of actors, props and sets needed for the film.
Also, such films, books or plays rarely become popular in the same sense as Hollywood blockbusters. But they don't have to; if games industry reaches the same size as film industry, then niche market should be big enough to make a profit.
I did read most of it simply because its an insight into what others consider art, you seem to value the quality of the work and its social/emotional impact on the public and the appreciation of that quality which is great. I simply call all of it art regardless of quality some of it is great art and some of it is awefully bad art. This applies to videogames, films, whatever just cause it sucks doesnt mean its not art.
The reason I call all of it art is that as soon as you give yourself the right to declare what is and isnt art you become elitist and oppress other members of society with your own subjective opionion of what art is. This is what Ebert is doing quite overtly and also what you are doing to a much lesser extent.
It is good to have people like you guys around though just so that the rest of us dont become complacent and forget how great we could all be if we tried to create great art rather than just getting by and creating boring or bad art.
just as an example:
would I tell a child that thier little drawing of stick people outside a house is not art?
No, I would encourage that child and let them know they are an artist and thier picture is a work of art.
The general public may take a long time to accept video game content as art but that doesnt mean that I have to reject the notion of video games as art. As an individual I am free to accept whatever I appreciate as art and the sooner people realise that the sooner games will be recognised as art by the general public.
A few semesters ago when I was still at school I was in a digital arts class. The person teaching it was in fine arts and knew less than I did about the programs we were using. One day we got into a discussion and I come to find out that the person teaching my class doesn't consider 90% of the stuff created digitally to be art. In addition said that 3D Imagery (modeled stuff) could never be art.
When I asked why they were teaching the class then, they responded... the department made me do it.
Meanwhile during a mandatory class assignment I had to drive 30 miles out of my way to go to my teachers Art Show that was in a building so old I had to sign a waiver to enter because it might collapse on me (awesome right?). What did I see? "installation art"... this installation art ended up being trash bags thrown in a corner and glass bottles painted green and lined up.
Just like I don't think the trash bags in a corner are art (in fact I think it's complete bullshit) my teacher didn't think that most anything digital was art.
When it comes down to it, as long as what you make is enjoyed by yourself and others who cares what a "few" people think. I care less about are games art, than are games enjoyed?
I would gain very little satisfaction from knowing that the "art world" sees games as art, but tons of satisfaction knowing that thousands of people are enjoying my hard work, so much so that they're shelling out their hard earned money to do so.
Then would the game "Love" be more of a work of "art"?
I'd say that a game looks like "Traditional" artwork is no more or less Art than say, Mario64 or even Pong
I can walk through a games environment and appreciate a beautifully crafted level and stop and look at the detail, landscapes, etc. And I generally do. Just in the same way I walk through a real life art gallery, building or street.
As a games artist its part of my job to better my skills in creating better art assets for a game. To do this I need to practice many skills, such as drawing, modelling, etc. Anyway. Clue's in the title. Game ARTist
So to me. Any art asset in any game is the art. Bringing them all together in a game with a story, goal, whatever makes no difference.
Now. I wonder if a Coder would consider a beautiful piece of coded physic's a work of art. I know that all that colourful text in C++ just bewilders me.....
blah...he's entitled to his opinion...It's just a bloody stupid opinion..tsall...
Right, I'm sure you've nailed it. He's the most famous movie reviewer in America and was on fucking Oprah last month - it's clear he's just not in the spotlight anymore, so he's got to pick fights with 1337 g4m3rz to stay current.
I'm sorry if I offended you. My words were meant with a bit of sarcasm that does not translate well over the internet. I understand his fame, trust me. I'm just saying his reviews are opinions, no matter how unbiased they try to be. Any time you try to argue what is and isn't art, you know what tree you are barking up. He's an intelligent man, he knew what he was saying would spark discussion among those in the computer graphics industry. That being said... I still feel he's been replaced with more current reviewers.
On another note, thatgamecompany put out a response.
Short Answer:
He hates zombie movies and is a prick about anyone who uses the internet. He's become a bitter, spiteful old man who feels replaced, largely because he has been.
Long Answer: (feel free to skip this its just expanding on the above)
I stopped paying attention to the guy in the mid-late 90's as a trusted source of whats good and whats not. For about 10 years before that, Siskel and Ebert where pretty much my measuring stick for movies, there wasn't much I disagreed with.
Since then he's fully become a characture of himself, almost as if people trying to sound like him are running his blog and writing reviews and telling him what to say. Maybe hes just old and set in his ways but he's super predictable and that predictability comes in the form of pretty shallow and pretentious review, most of the time.
I can pretty much guess what his rating is going to be without reading the review. Would a emotional wounded yet brainy, 7th grader trapped in a 70 year old body, feel vindicated by this movie? 3.5+ stars. I guess I outgrew him when I stopped being an emotionally wounded 7th grader...
Diary of a Wimpy kid, 3.5 stars. He must identify deeply with this movie to give it 3.5 stars. Fish Tank, 4 stars. Its indy, 1 star, angry friendless kid 3 stars. Greenberg, 4 stars. Ebert, I mean Ben Stiller being angry at himself and the world, 4 stars.
Now lets look at his review of Zombieland...
Classic zombie popcorn movie that he liked and wrote a good review. But puts up a final super weak argument just to knock it down half a star.
Vampires make a certain amount of sense to me, but zombies not so much. What's their purpose? Why do they always look so bad? Can there be a zombie with good skin? How can they be smart enough to determine that you're food and so dumb they don't perceive you're about to blast them? I ask these questions only because I need a few more words for this review.
"oh fuck I didn't say anything bad... and I hate zombie movies... err yea vampires! Would have made this zombie flick better!".
Replies
I would personally say its art simply because of the incredible skill and technique employed to create such richly designed experiences.
I'm going to pull this quote out of context and apply it against his argument, because there is a pretty direct correlation between the idea of improving/altering nature and the goals most environment artists work towards.
That said, i fully disagree with him and think it's kinda pathetic that he would try to force his own opinion of what "art" is. Why is he always the center of this conversation? he doesn't play or appreciate games. To be frank i could give 2 shits what Roger Ebert thinks about video games.
If I chose not to read books, can I just claim it can't ever be art?
He's an obsolete fossilized dinosaur.
I bet 60 years ago, music aficionados like him were claiming Rock n' Roll couldn't ever be art.
Roger Ebert is only looking to spark more controversy over the topic so he can be in the spotlight again since 90% of people don't care what he thinks anymore. He can argue all he wants, it's nothing more than an opinion... an opinion that is biased and based in a world of entertainment from 5 decades ago. I bet he secretly plays WoW.
If games are not art, why do those of us that are working on them have titles such as "fx artist, environment artist, character artist"? These are titles shared by those in the movie industry (so is "producer, director, etc").
If writing and books can be considered art, then technically Ebert himself is an artist, for how stylized his writing can be. If he isn't, then he should say no more than "this movie sucks".
Of course, someone could then come along with a Dadaist writing movement, and he'd be an artist again.
I consider games virtual installation art.
so there are games that are already art, move along.
Some movies are an "experience" some are trash thrown together to make money (Transformers), same things with games. IMO
Video Games are composed of Art from the environments to the characters to the FX. They convey mood, thoughts and feelings.
The story or gameplay expands on these and can further envoke deep emotional responses. Not only that but many games take staunch positions in politics or morals.
What Ebert should've said was that "Video Games can never be art to me, because I'm old, ignorant and hold massive biases to things I don't understand."
This is typical of anyone who has very little knowledge of something. Just like someone who ate boxed cereal everyday of their life would think that cooking and presenting food could never be art. It's simple ignorance.
He also makes the mistake of thinking that the "artists" are the players. When quite clearly the artists are the people who make the game not play it.
But what do i know, to me art is something that moves me emotionally. Art has no need for a frame or title, nor need a to be recognized by all, it is what it is good or bad.
Also,
Art is beauty, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so anything and everything is art.
"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."
I wonder this myself actually, I mean the game's industry easily has more interest and a larger fan base than the High Art world. So it's not like games is going under appreciated, seriously there are more people that know about Final Fantasy than Bruce Nauman.
I'm also curious because I know tons of people here have nothing but spite for High Art, and all I can think is why do you want to be apart of a world you're not really fond of? Games can be works of art, but they're not commonly works of high art, that's a totally different form of entertainment. Not better, not worse, just totally different.
Oh, and you better hope games never become high art, instead of paying $50 or $60 for a game, you'll be paying a ton more, also they wouldn't be mass produced, probably be released in super limited editions like prints or something, so there would be like only 200 copies of a game ever made.
If ever there was anyone I wanted to punch in the tutle neck its this guy.
He routinely misses the point of a lot of popcorn movies and expects everything to have a deeper moral meaning. If it has blood, or more than 2 people get punched in the face its all over. He shakes his jowls and only 1-2 stars fall out, try as you might you won't get any more...
If its not art, then we have a lot of artists who need to change their title. If you can't consider the whole thing to be artistic then you can at least consider aspects of it to be. Honestly I don't care who calls what art as long as they keep buying it so I can keep making it.
Ummhmm.
our engine director mike acton tweeted this:
Movies are just a degenerate form of games. They're a one-button game (Play) with a single 90 minute quick time event (QTE). @ebertchicago
So what's your complaint here, that he won't give a popcorn movie three or four stars? Yeah, the problem here is that you apparently don't actually read his reviews. He just gave mediocre popcorn fest Clash of the Titans three stars, which was rather generous IMO. As far as violent flicks go, he gave Inglorious Basterds four stars last summer - that was pretty fucking bloody, what with the dozens of people being shot, stabbed, beaten and burned to death in a flaming movie theater. Ebert has been a pretty good supporter of geek/popcorn stuff over the years, when it's actually been worth the praise. If you're expecting him to agree with you about how radical awesome a bag of shit like Transformers 2 was, you're bound to be disappointed, because it's always going to be a bag of shit.
Not that I'm saying you like Transformers 2, I respect you more than that
*edit*
Just looking over Ebert's recent reviews... he gave District 13: Ultimatum a three star review. It's a freaking French dystopian sci-fi parkour movie. Actually, to be precise, it's the sequel to a freaking French dystopian sci-fi parkour movie, featuring still more dystopian sci-fi parkour. Draw your own conclusions.
Right, I'm sure you've nailed it. He's the most famous movie reviewer in America and was on fucking Oprah last month - it's clear he's just not in the spotlight anymore, so he's got to pick fights with 1337 g4m3rz to stay current.
Now THIS is interesting. I think that where games differ from other media is that the viewer/player IS in part the artist. When you watch a movie or read a book, it's a totally passive, linear experience - the creator gives you exactly what he wants, when he wants. Games are often not like that at all. If you play through Mass Effect 2 as a total paragon and I beat it as total renegade, we have a somewhat comparable experience, but we've also personally determined part of that experience - we can't compare it on a 1-to-1 basis the way we can discuss the ending to a movie or whatever, because we didn't 'see' the same movie.
I think that's what makes it hard to quantify the artistic element in games, since the user is part of the equation. A friend of mine blasted through Deus Ex like a Quake-style shooter, missing tons of great experiences, and he still doesn't understand why I think it's one of the best games ever. Warren Spector can't force him to play a certain way to ensure he gets what made the game great - for better or worse, the gamer has his hand on the brush as well.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
i dunno man... some games have definitely affected my senses and/or emotions.
I'm not a fan of how he says you can't lose at a game, then follows it up with speaking of experiencing things in the absence of being presented "victory." That really is never the case - not in the obvious sense that you can "lose" at playing a game, but that it quotes that there is no experience when presented with reward - and i'm assuming he shares the same ideas.
You don't win a novel, play, film, or painting after viewing it, nor do you win anything after playing a game. You win shit if you're using a robot arm to pick stuff out of a crate, but you can't "win" a game. Sure there are goals, but novels, plays, films, and paintings also have a goal - the experience of the narative, like he mentions.
It could be said you "win" at a book, film, or play for getting all the way through it, i know ive felt "victorious" after watching some movies (in no order of quality: Gigli, Avatar, LoTR, Matrix). Not in the sense that I had overcome them, but come out with something emotional (good: avatar & bad: Gigli), or inspirational that made the experience worthwhile.
The experience is the "play," just as your eyes, ears, brain, and emotions experience the other mediums he mentions. The play is a new goal that I guess he cannot grasp. Games present a new object to be tickled when viewing entertainment media - and i really do think the act of playing a game, and experiencing it is art - despite the fanatical and sometimes misguided views on people who do enjoy playing.
WAIT HE DOSNT? Oh shit thats nuts. I would have never guessed his cheese prefrences from the interviews he has given but this is really eye opening. So fascinating.
On a serious note he makes the assumption that games are defined as art or not by those playing them. When it is not the consumer who makes it art, it is the artists who craft the work that makes it art.
That would essentially be saying "this book isnt a work of art because it can be read!"
The viewer/gamer is the one who is enjoying the art, they are not defining it.
I agree with you but he is probably looking at games from the perspective of an art critic not an artist or gamer. Art critics take something inane like "rotten fruit on canvas" and they ascribe meaning to it and the art enthusiasts praise these critics for thier astute definition of what the artwork means when really the artist probably just threw some old fruit at a canvas and said "heh thats kinda cool" and has no idea what meaning will be given to his creation.
The art critics actually embue the meaning into the art, they choose how to define it not the artist and I think this is what is frustrating Mr Ebert - gaming as an experience seems to be a foreign concept to his mind and he feels like he lacks the ability to give his own interpretation of what they mean so he does the next best thing and says "I declare they are all meaningless".
We seem to think that sadness is the pinnacle of emotion in art and if a game can make you cry then as artists we have won! I've never cried playing a game, but there's a whole world of emotions we can create in players, we're great at shock, paranoia and excitement so we should be proud of that as they are hard emotions to conjure up in different mediums!
"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome"
So he defines art as something you cant win... Not even in a raffle!
I have a whole arguement against what he's saying in my head. But i cant be bothered...so i'll just say
What a numpty...again
EDIT: found this. Might have been linked to already
http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20070316/ochalla_01.shtml
If you care about injecting subtext and meaning into your game, then you definitely should, Schafer says. But if that doesnt interest you then you should spend your time on the part of the game that does, and thats great too. Games dont all have to be the same thing to all people. They canand shouldbe completely different depending on whos making them. Thats one of the things that makes them art.
However, his notion that games cannot become art based on their major principles is ridiculous. Games are not an art form not because any restrictions or goals are imposed on the player, but because they are simply silly. Sad truth is; games are not beautifully crafted works, but rather crude pieces put together with no other goal than to entertain. That does no surprise me of course, since so many developers these days are inspired by Hollywood.
I know it sounds harsh and I mean no disrespect towards the people who work their asses off to create them, but games have yet to surpass the quality of execution (or even reach the same level) as found in older artistic mediums. By comparison, games look like their retarded and crippled cousin.
Lets take the storytelling for instance; characters in games are thin as a sheet of paper, they rarely become fully fleshed out, their motivations are overly simplistic and interactions between them are not grounded in reality.
The narrative techniques are mediocre at best; and whats even more surprising, examples where interactivity has been used to enhance it are pretty scarce. Audio and visuals also do not have the same impact, compared for instance to the cinema when they are constantly used to amplify atmosphere and emotional impact of a scene. Endings of The Good The Bad and The Ugly and Joint Security Area (have anyone seen it?) instantly come to mind.
Plots rarely have any depth and are stuck in the realms of typical male fantasy. Symbolism in games is immature at best and rarely meant to convey any interesting thoughts; its usually meant to be artsy, but doesnt bear any real meaning.
The situation with other elements is fairly similar, although visuals and audio are usually better executed than other aspects.
Games are simply too young to be artistically relevant at this point; developers are still experimenting with the medium and it's hard to define what can and what cannot be done. The technical limitations are still too much of a problem to offer us a full level of creativity. There is a clear lack of direction; games are filled with elements (animation, music, etc.) that are there but do not complement each other. In terms of the execution there is much more that could be done.
That said, I am SURE games will become an artistic medium at some point in the future. I can only hope I will live long enough to see it, or even better be a part of it.
Rant over, dont kill me; I will add more once I come up with another half-assed theory.
its about someone somewhere in this world still being elitist
This.
he can have his opinion. who the fuck cares.
a great dragon inspiring awe
a dark corridor inspiring fear
a forest with magical flowers inspiring wonderment and joy...
all of these things and more, are created, with the specific idea to create certain moods or emotions within the viewer. they're then put into a game, which was also designed to create specific moods, tensions, and feelings within the player.
sure, games have an outcome, a goal, a motive. but those things are designed by someone, to create a feeling within the player.
that's why they're art. they're created by someone, to make someone else feel a certain way.
Yeah well games that look like artsy stuff and compare to classical master works would take ages to make and probably only appeal to a niche artsy fartsy group of art-gamers who could not possibly hope to keep the industry afloat.
As cliche as it sounds art is in the eye of the beholder and either you appreciate what you have right now for what it means to you or you dont. When that day comes that games are comparable to classical artworks I dare say there will be people similar to you there saying "one day it will be art but right now its not quite there yet".
heh this is a rather pointless discussion but its fun nonetheless
If his argument hinges on this then it pretty much falls apart immediately. Many singleplayer games are not "won" but are "finished", much in the same way that books or movies are. I never won Fallout, Mass Effect, Half-Life, or others, I simply navigated the story and then reached its conclusion. It may be hard to "see the forest through the trees" since so much is made of graphics and gameplay, but the core of the singleplayer experience is a story that has a beginning, middle and end.
Also headshots are totally an artform.
But games aren't movies any more than a book on tape is a music album or a sculpture is architecture.
What they're doing is comparing them in those terms and coming to the conclusion that since one is accepted as potential art and the other shares similar elements as that one but fails to use them in the same way, it must not have potential as art. That's exactly the same as coming to the conclusion that since soccer is a sport, and basketball isn't played like soccer (they're using their hands and not even getting a penalty for it!), then basketball is less of a sport than soccer.
Sort of relatedly, regarding the definitions of art in general-- I think one really commonly overlooked idea is that art is a form of entertainment. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that my personal definition of art is "crafted entertainment". Entertainment includes the gamut of emotions (tearjerkers and horror movies are entertainment as much as comedies are) and it's really what separates something from being completely utilitarian, scientific, or mundane and being something that attempts to be at least slightly more than that. I think it's really the most accurate definition that covers the entire range of what can be considered art, regardless of taste, quality, or intention. Some forms are less entertaining than others (furniture assembly diagrams, for instance, but some tiny level of entertainment is present, simply because they're designed with aesthetics in mind). By that definition, I don't see how games could possibly not be considered art.
agree, kinda similar to what I was saying further up the page about him being like a fine art critic.
I hope this wasn't aimed at me :P, though I agree that my post might seem overly negative.
However, I think that quality should not be underestimated, especially in relation to such young medium as video games which still lack credibility in eyes of many. Before we classify it as art, games should meet some basic standards, which are very often completely ignored.
How many times have we encountered jerky animation, annoying bugs or performance problems? Such issues are common even in so-called AAA titles. What about cheesy voice acting, major plot holes, music suddenly cutting off due to triggering a cutscene, assets of uneven quality and other graphical mess? Game devs should be given credit for managing this mess and reducing it to the bare minimum. Given the amount of control that the player has and effort required to create a game it is commendable that we encounter only minor issues.
However, we should remember that even those minor issues can completely destroy any efforts to create immersion. It's like crew members who appear in the background, a guy wearing a watch in a film set in ancient Rome or a novel filled with grammar errors - minor problems which destroy immersion and credibility. Such things are normally considered to be unacceptable, yet we tolerate them in games.
...and this is only the bare minimum of quality. What about writing, use of lighting and camera? Dialogue is usually composed of witty one-liners or semi-philosophical rambling. In-game cinematics are either filled with talking heads, or cheesy, overblown scenes. Games are still far behind films and literature.
It's not all about quality; if games are to become an art form their unique characteristics have to be used. Interactivity seems like an amazing storytelling device and it's a pity that it's often ditched in favour of static cutscenes. This is something that will certainly be explored and might be a key element of games. However, before we start coming up with innovations we have to make sure that everything else is already in the right place.
Not necessarily; some of the greatest films (I know I compare games far too much to them, but it's the closest thing we have) were done on a relatively low budget. Asian and European cinema fared fairly well without spending millions of dollars; heck, one of my favourite films, "Rashomon" was made for $250,000.
Of course, even low budget games cost more than that these days, but we don't have to strive for photorealistic graphics and there are always ways to cut-corners without affecting the quality. "Rashomon" serves as a great example; by retelling the same story 4 times they were able to reduce the amount of actors, props and sets needed for the film.
Also, such films, books or plays rarely become popular in the same sense as Hollywood blockbusters. But they don't have to; if games industry reaches the same size as film industry, then niche market should be big enough to make a profit.
You are completely right, but then they will be as credible as someone saying that cinema is not a form of art. I am safe for now :poly142:
Sadly, the games are far from being generally accepted as an art-form.
And yeah, this discussion is totally useless yet so much fun that I have already wasted nearly two hours on it
I think that he actually makes a good point if we don't clump all games together. Games are going into different directions; casual/arcade games are based solely on the gameplay and resemble traditional games, MMO's/online games are based on interaction between the users and hardcore games are slowly turning into interactive stories.
If we only talk about the last group (which is the most relevant to the discussion) then comparison between games and films is fairly obvious. Honestly, putting something like let's say Mass Effect 2/Uncharted into the same category as Bejewelled/Wii Sport just doesn't cut it anymore.
But I do agree that his negative stance is ridiculous. Especially when it comes from a fan of medium which was supposed to never become an art form.
Bleh, I wonder if anyone is even going to read this crap.
Also when i see a game being optimised to appeal to as much people as possible
how the fuck could i call it art.
I want a ego that doesnt care what people think and if i consider his/her work as art so be it.
I did read most of it simply because its an insight into what others consider art, you seem to value the quality of the work and its social/emotional impact on the public and the appreciation of that quality which is great. I simply call all of it art regardless of quality some of it is great art and some of it is awefully bad art. This applies to videogames, films, whatever just cause it sucks doesnt mean its not art.
The reason I call all of it art is that as soon as you give yourself the right to declare what is and isnt art you become elitist and oppress other members of society with your own subjective opionion of what art is. This is what Ebert is doing quite overtly and also what you are doing to a much lesser extent.
It is good to have people like you guys around though just so that the rest of us dont become complacent and forget how great we could all be if we tried to create great art rather than just getting by and creating boring or bad art.
just as an example:
would I tell a child that thier little drawing of stick people outside a house is not art?
No, I would encourage that child and let them know they are an artist and thier picture is a work of art.
The general public may take a long time to accept video game content as art but that doesnt mean that I have to reject the notion of video games as art. As an individual I am free to accept whatever I appreciate as art and the sooner people realise that the sooner games will be recognised as art by the general public.
When I asked why they were teaching the class then, they responded... the department made me do it.
Meanwhile during a mandatory class assignment I had to drive 30 miles out of my way to go to my teachers Art Show that was in a building so old I had to sign a waiver to enter because it might collapse on me (awesome right?). What did I see? "installation art"... this installation art ended up being trash bags thrown in a corner and glass bottles painted green and lined up.
Just like I don't think the trash bags in a corner are art (in fact I think it's complete bullshit) my teacher didn't think that most anything digital was art.
When it comes down to it, as long as what you make is enjoyed by yourself and others who cares what a "few" people think. I care less about are games art, than are games enjoyed?
I would gain very little satisfaction from knowing that the "art world" sees games as art, but tons of satisfaction knowing that thousands of people are enjoying my hard work, so much so that they're shelling out their hard earned money to do so.
I'd say that a game looks like "Traditional" artwork is no more or less Art than say, Mario64 or even Pong
I can walk through a games environment and appreciate a beautifully crafted level and stop and look at the detail, landscapes, etc. And I generally do. Just in the same way I walk through a real life art gallery, building or street.
As a games artist its part of my job to better my skills in creating better art assets for a game. To do this I need to practice many skills, such as drawing, modelling, etc. Anyway. Clue's in the title. Game ARTist
So to me. Any art asset in any game is the art. Bringing them all together in a game with a story, goal, whatever makes no difference.
Now. I wonder if a Coder would consider a beautiful piece of coded physic's a work of art. I know that all that colourful text in C++ just bewilders me.....
blah...he's entitled to his opinion...It's just a bloody stupid opinion..tsall...
I'm sorry if I offended you. My words were meant with a bit of sarcasm that does not translate well over the internet. I understand his fame, trust me. I'm just saying his reviews are opinions, no matter how unbiased they try to be. Any time you try to argue what is and isn't art, you know what tree you are barking up. He's an intelligent man, he knew what he was saying would spark discussion among those in the computer graphics industry. That being said... I still feel he's been replaced with more current reviewers.
On another note, thatgamecompany put out a response.
http://www.facebook.com/#!/notes/thatgamecompany/right-moving-on-my-response-to-ebert/381980073067
He hates zombie movies and is a prick about anyone who uses the internet. He's become a bitter, spiteful old man who feels replaced, largely because he has been.
Long Answer: (feel free to skip this its just expanding on the above)
I stopped paying attention to the guy in the mid-late 90's as a trusted source of whats good and whats not. For about 10 years before that, Siskel and Ebert where pretty much my measuring stick for movies, there wasn't much I disagreed with.
Since then he's fully become a characture of himself, almost as if people trying to sound like him are running his blog and writing reviews and telling him what to say. Maybe hes just old and set in his ways but he's super predictable and that predictability comes in the form of pretty shallow and pretentious review, most of the time.
I can pretty much guess what his rating is going to be without reading the review. Would a emotional wounded yet brainy, 7th grader trapped in a 70 year old body, feel vindicated by this movie? 3.5+ stars. I guess I outgrew him when I stopped being an emotionally wounded 7th grader...
Diary of a Wimpy kid, 3.5 stars. He must identify deeply with this movie to give it 3.5 stars.
Fish Tank, 4 stars. Its indy, 1 star, angry friendless kid 3 stars.
Greenberg, 4 stars. Ebert, I mean Ben Stiller being angry at himself and the world, 4 stars.
Now lets look at his review of Zombieland...
Classic zombie popcorn movie that he liked and wrote a good review. But puts up a final super weak argument just to knock it down half a star. "oh fuck I didn't say anything bad... and I hate zombie movies... err yea vampires! Would have made this zombie flick better!".