By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming - Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

Khuutra on 19 April 2010
Helios said:

Khuutra: "Nobody, I should think, claims that the act of playing games is an art."

Playing games? No, that is an occupation. But the act of playing a game? I don't know about that. You mentioned performance arts. Is, then, the act of playing (a game) not a kind of performance art? Whatever vision is exercised through the design of a game, the artistic essence of an interactive medium ultimately lies with the hic-et-nunc nature of the player experience. Or do you think I am wrong in my assertion that game design is an art form concerned with the expression of ideas through player experience?

There is also art created by using games, but I think we can all agree that is something different altogether.

Reasonable: So, what is your criteria for art?

Me, I consider any sort of expression of human creativity to be art. And yes, that includes Michael Bay. My own (admittedly poor) opinion of his filmmaking is simply a matter of personal perspective.

You make a solid point: I realized, partway through the conversation, that I was wrong on the previous point, but did not say so.

You and I are in agreement, actually. Art lies in the experience, and the ability to induce a specific experience, or allowing people to experience the same thing in multiple ways.

I believe that what Reasonable - and Ebert, now that I think about it and which infuriates me - is saying is that "art" is a question of quality rather than definition, of interpretation of both meaning and import, usually handled by the academia. He can correct me if I am off on that point, though.



Around the Network
Helios on 19 April 2010
Khuutra said:
Helios said:

Khuutra: "Nobody, I should think, claims that the act of playing games is an art."

Playing games? No, that is an occupation. But the act of playing a game? I don't know about that. You mentioned performance arts. Is, then, the act of playing (a game) not a kind of performance art? Whatever vision is exercised through the design of a game, the artistic essence of an interactive medium ultimately lies with the hic-et-nunc nature of the player experience. Or do you think I am wrong in my assertion that game design is an art form concerned with the expression of ideas through player experience?

There is also art created by using games, but I think we can all agree that is something different altogether.

Reasonable: So, what is your criteria for art?

Me, I consider any sort of expression of human creativity to be art. And yes, that includes Michael Bay. My own (admittedly poor) opinion of his filmmaking is simply a matter of personal perspective.

You make a solid point: I realized, partway through the conversation, that I was wrong on the previous point, but did not say so.

You and I are in agreement, actually. Art lies in the experience, and the ability to induce a specific experience, or allowing people to experience the same thing in multiple ways.

I believe that what Reasonable - and Ebert, now that I think about it and which infuriates me - is saying is that "art" is a question of quality rather than definition, of interpretation of both meaning and import, usually handled by the academia. He can correct me if I am off on that point, though.

Ah, it is good to know that we are in agreement.

And yes, you are right in that the academia's definition of art is the only culturally authorative one. Our definitions only have meaning to ourselves, and I only expressed my own rather liberal views on art in order to juxtapose them with Resonable's (and Ebert's).



Grahamhsu on 19 April 2010
famousringo said:
Grahamhsu said:
 

I can't say that gameplay is beautiful. For me gameplay is a method, my definition of method would be steps or acts for performing a function. A method can never be beautiful to me, just as the suzuki method is not beautiful to me though the music in it can be. A bad game is not fun to play, and a good game is fun, to me beauty/ugly can't be used to describe them.

For me art comes from ourself, it is part of our human nature, all people when they are born already have an idea/sense of art. As so, to me there must be a universal structure to what constitutes good and bad since I believe we are all instrisically born with the idea of what is beautiful and what is ugly.

It seems in our arguements you believe that if a game includes artistic values it can be considered art, while for me I don't believe blending them together makes them art. The best example I can use for my idea would be vinegar and oil, they make bread taste delicious, and complement each other but I wouldn't say they are blended together, as I can separate the parts easily.

Actually, I don't think that artistic values are blended into game rules. I think they are instrinsic to the rules themselves. I feel like this is where we differ and why both our views are correct, for you art is in the rules for me it can never be. 

Let's take multiplayer games as an example. There are quite a few ways to get multiple players in a game.

A competitive rule set is a very common way to get multiple player together. Monopoly is a good example. You can cut mutually beneficial deals, but the ultimate goal is the complete domination of the game board and all other players. I know people who hate competitive multiplayer, and it's because of the negative emotions it evokes. They don't like being dominated by the winner, the sense of isolation that comes from being alone against all opponents, or the sense of failure that comes with losing.

So a co-operative rule set suits them better, like in the Lord of the Rings board game. In this game the players start with equal abilities and a common goal. This builds a sense of comeraderie and friendship in the face of adversity. Unlike in a competitive game, players are willing to 'die' for the greater cause and show their loyalty to the group.

Then you've got the traitor rule set, which you might be familiar with if you've attended one of those murder mystery party games. (Quite familiar with Bang, Catan, and Munchkin lol) It's co-operative but with a twist: One of the players is not on the team. This instills a tension and a paranoid suspicion, as the other players need to co-operate with each other while being wary of the traitor/spy/murderer in their midst.

Just a few examples of multiplayer rules, each with different emotional implications. (This is another area where we differ on our definition of art. In my definition of art, it can stimulate emotions and the end goal of an art piece could be to stimulate said emotions, Shostakovich 7 goal was to let out all Shostie's anger from Stalin's period of reign. However, even though the goal of an art piece can be to stimulate for me an art piece doesn't have to stimulate emotions but must stimulate senses (I actually count a 7th sense for art because our minds have the power of imagination). Take the piano piece 4 minutes and 33 seconds. This is a very famous piece because it's actually absolute silence from the performer for 4'33''. There is no emotional stimulation, when Cage wrote this piece the idea was that any sound could be music. Cage has also said this was his most important work, but according to your definition his piece wouldn't be art.  On their own, these rules might look like just a method or a device, like a literary device. It's how you put together these rules that creates an experience that the players interpret, just as a reader places his/her own interpretation on a poem.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on you, (not at all I haven't had a good discussion in a while)  this is just a subject of much interest to me, and you're offering the most substantial material on the 'games aren't art' side of things.

 




-=Dew the disco dancing fo da Unco Graham=-

famousringo on 19 April 2010
Grahamhsu said:
famousringo said:

Actually, I don't think that artistic values are blended into game rules. I think they are instrinsic to the rules themselves. I feel like this is where we differ and why both our views are correct, for you art is in the rules for me it can never be. 

Let's take multiplayer games as an example. There are quite a few ways to get multiple players in a game.

A competitive rule set is a very common way to get multiple player together. Monopoly is a good example. You can cut mutually beneficial deals, but the ultimate goal is the complete domination of the game board and all other players. I know people who hate competitive multiplayer, and it's because of the negative emotions it evokes. They don't like being dominated by the winner, the sense of isolation that comes from being alone against all opponents, or the sense of failure that comes with losing.

So a co-operative rule set suits them better, like in the Lord of the Rings board game. In this game the players start with equal abilities and a common goal. This builds a sense of comeraderie and friendship in the face of adversity. Unlike in a competitive game, players are willing to 'die' for the greater cause and show their loyalty to the group.

Then you've got the traitor rule set, which you might be familiar with if you've attended one of those murder mystery party games. (Quite familiar with Bang, Catan, and Munchkin lol) It's co-operative but with a twist: One of the players is not on the team. This instills a tension and a paranoid suspicion, as the other players need to co-operate with each other while being wary of the traitor/spy/murderer in their midst.

Just a few examples of multiplayer rules, each with different emotional implications. (This is another area where we differ on our definition of art. In my definition of art, it can stimulate emotions and the end goal of an art piece could be to stimulate said emotions, Shostakovich 7 goal was to let out all Shostie's anger from Stalin's period of reign. However, even though the goal of an art piece can be to stimulate for me an art piece doesn't have to stimulate emotions but must stimulate senses (I actually count a 7th sense for art because our minds have the power of imagination). Take the piano piece 4 minutes and 33 seconds. This is a very famous piece because it's actually absolute silence from the performer for 4'33''. There is no emotional stimulation, when Cage wrote this piece the idea was that any sound could be music. Cage has also said this was his most important work, but according to your definition his piece wouldn't be art.  On their own, these rules might look like just a method or a device, like a literary device. It's how you put together these rules that creates an experience that the players interpret, just as a reader places his/her own interpretation on a poem.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on you, (not at all I haven't had a good discussion in a while)  this is just a subject of much interest to me, and you're offering the most substantial material on the 'games aren't art' side of things.

 

Actually, I would consider that piece art. The artist is trying to create an experience, and even if that experience involves the musician making no sound, it still stimulates thoughts and emotions in the audience. It challenges us to think of the implications of nothingness as a necessary counterpoint to somethingness. It provokes self-consciousness as the audience suddenly finds their own breathing, shuffling and coughing to be the performance, giving them a taste of the pressure that every performer feels on stage. It might even provoke outrage as some audience members wonder why they bothered to show up to watch a musician sit there for four minutes and 33 seconds.

As I stated in my first post in this thread, my definition of art is very broad. So broad that I don't think the important question is whether or not something is art. I think the important question is whether it's good art or not.



"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event."  — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.

JUG on 19 April 2010
RolStoppable said:
@JUG

I never watched that Disney movie, but the difference here is that Bambi's mother is an actual character who is relevant to the story. That is a good reason to care about her and have emotions of sadness when she dies.

On the other hand every Pikmin is like any other. They are comparable to units in the board game Risk. Sure, Pikmin are cuter and animated, but feeling guilt for making a mistake that kills them is over the top.

To reiterate one of my points from the previous post: Most people won't feel what you did when 30 Pikmin died. Bambi's mother's death makes (nearly) all people feel the same way though, for the reason outlined above.


I beg to differ. I could cite numerous examples of characters within films and literature who are peripheral to the story and yet their deaths evoke an emotive response. In many cases it's the senselessness of such death. The opening scene of saving private ryan springs to mind, where characters are killed without having had more than a few seconds screen time. They are quickly replaced by more soldiers, but it still evoked a response in me. For some reason Achilles's Aristeia in Book XXII of the Iliad also springs to mind. If ever there was a scene in Classical literature involving large scale slaughter of seemingly endlessly replaceable troops, then that would be it.

I think the problem here is my use of the word "guilt". Reading that back makes it seem a bit over the top! But I think the only reason it sounds over the top is because it is a word which has interactivity as a pre-requisite. It is never a word we associate with other art forms because the viewer/reader is more detached from the proceedings. Hence we can say that the audience is saddened by the death of Bambi's mother and not find it "over the top" because we are accustomed to such reactions in film. I think it's easy to imagine that an alien from another planet would find it very curious to see people cry at the sight of Bambi's mother's death or see people recoil in revulsion upon hearing the excess of Achilles's slaughter in his most bellicose aristeia. The alien might be confused and ask the human why he/she is crying or recoiling saying "But it's not real". Yet this is the effect that the creative arts have on people. The word "guilt" has probably never been used by critics before because video games (as an interactive medium) are the first to allow for such a possibility. We all know the Pikmin aren't real, but we still feel somewhat sad/ responsible/ guilty for letting them die (or some of us do anyway - everyone else I've shown the game to, has the same reaction as me... maybe it's something in the water in London). A friend of mine felt the same way in Bioshock. He harvested a little sister once but then felt so bad that he couldn't bring himself to do it again (despite the fact that doing so actually gives you more adam and helps you """win""" the game more easily). I think this is why "guilt" sounds over the top, we're used to sadness, anger, happiness all being evoked through film and literature, but we are not yet used to the idea of guilt, so we still have the alien's reaction of "What are you feeling guilty about? There must be some malfunction in you! They're not real!"

Shigeru Miyamoto himself stated that he was trying to evoke a mixture of happiness and sadness with Pikmin. Whether or not you think videogames are art, Miyamoto is certainly an artist. He set out to do that, and in my experience he achieved it in spades. I don't think Miyamoto supposed that he would only be able to succeed in his aim with social retards (he notoriously tries to appeal to the masses these days, after all).

Maybe it helps that I've watched the following video before playing the game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esYm9q-bi4w

If that song doesn't pull at your heart strings, Rol, then you have no soul.



Wii code: 1534 8127 5081 0969

Brawl code: 1762-4131-9390

Member of the Pikmin Fan Club

Around the Network
darklich13 on 19 April 2010

If there can be art films there can be art games.



EMULATION is the past.....NOW.......B_E_L_I_E_V_E

 

 


The Ghost of RubangB on 19 April 2010
Khuutra said:
dib8rman said:
He's totally correct if you disagree and or have a differing opinion, regardless of perspectives.

=D

Tony Hawk can make Skate Boarding look like an art, when he pulled the 900 it was amazing, doesn't mean Skate Boarding is art.

When I trash people around in Marvel vs Capcom 2 you could call that level of butt wooping amazing that I mean their jobbing look like an art but it doesn't mean Marvel vs Capcom 2 is an art.

=D Yes I just wanted to make clear my dominance in MvC in light of MvC 3 being announced.

You're referring to actions, not to a medium. Nobody, I should think, claims that the act of playing games is an art.

I would make an argument that several of the courses on which Tony Hawk skates are works of art, and I would argue that MvC is the end result of a long artistic endeavour.

You clearly haven't seen the way I play Super Mario Bros.  Actions can definitely be art.  Singing a scale a million times in a row to practice singing isn't art, but Jimi Hendrix playing guitar with his teeth and setting his guitar on fire is performance art.  Follow me through an argument, good sir!

 

1) Designing and building a guitar is art.  Composing a song with a guitar is art.  Playing a guitar is performance art.

2) Designing a virtual guitar (Jam Sessions for the DS) is art.  Composing a song with Jam Sessions is art.  Playing Jam Sessions is performance art.

3) Designing Super Mario Bros. is art.  Creating machinima is using a game to create a film, which is art.  The way I can play the first level of Super Mario Bros. with my eyes closed, by jumping to the music, that's performance art baby.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Khuutra on 19 April 2010
The Ghost of RubangB said:

You clearly haven't seen the way I play Super Mario Bros.  Actions can definitely be art.  Singing a scale a million times in a row to practice singing isn't art, but Jimi Hendrix playing guitar with his teeth and setting his guitar on fire is performance art.  Follow me through an argument, good sir!

 

1) Designing and building a guitar is art.  Composing a song with a guitar is art.  Playing a guitar is performance art.

2) Designing a virtual guitar (Jam Sessions for the DS) is art.  Composing a song with Jam Sessions is art.  Playing Jam Sessions is performance art.

3) Designing Super Mario Bros. is art.  Creating machinima is using a game to create a film, which is art.  The way I can play the first level of Super Mario Bros. with my eyes closed, by jumping to the music, that's performance art baby.

Yeah I know I was wrong when I said that

I admitted it earlier



Khuutra on 19 April 2010
Helios said:
Khuutra said:

You make a solid point: I realized, partway through the conversation, that I was wrong on the previous point, but did not say so.

You and I are in agreement, actually. Art lies in the experience, and the ability to induce a specific experience, or allowing people to experience the same thing in multiple ways.

I believe that what Reasonable - and Ebert, now that I think about it and which infuriates me - is saying is that "art" is a question of quality rather than definition, of interpretation of both meaning and import, usually handled by the academia. He can correct me if I am off on that point, though.

Ah, it is good to know that we are in agreement.

And yes, you are right in that the academia's definition of art is the only culturally authorative one. Our definitions only have meaning to ourselves, and I only expressed my own rather liberal views on art in order to juxtapose them with Resonable's (and Ebert's).

You would be somewhat surprised: the academia's response is slow, but their definition is ultimately reactionary rather than authoritative: it will take time, but if the people take games seriously for long enough as pieces of art, then the academia will be forced to do the same, and Super Mario Bros. will be treated with the same awe and respect as something like Metropolis.



Kasz216 on 19 April 2010
Khuutra said:
Helios said:
Khuutra said:

You make a solid point: I realized, partway through the conversation, that I was wrong on the previous point, but did not say so.

You and I are in agreement, actually. Art lies in the experience, and the ability to induce a specific experience, or allowing people to experience the same thing in multiple ways.

I believe that what Reasonable - and Ebert, now that I think about it and which infuriates me - is saying is that "art" is a question of quality rather than definition, of interpretation of both meaning and import, usually handled by the academia. He can correct me if I am off on that point, though.

Ah, it is good to know that we are in agreement.

And yes, you are right in that the academia's definition of art is the only culturally authorative one. Our definitions only have meaning to ourselves, and I only expressed my own rather liberal views on art in order to juxtapose them with Resonable's (and Ebert's).

You would be somewhat surprised: the academia's response is slow, but their definition is ultimately reactionary rather than authoritative: it will take time, but if the people take games seriously for long enough as pieces of art, then the academia will be forced to do the same, and Super Mario Bros. will be treated with the same awe and respect as something like Metropolis.

Is it really an eventuallity though?

I mean, I don't think even TV has gained widespread acknowledgement as art.  It has yet to throw off the shackles of being "the idiot box" although some cable shows and TV documentries are finally working to change this perception.

I think Ebert is probably very right when he says we won't be living here if it is ever accepted as such.