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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Are Videogames Art?

griffinA on 02 December 2008

@celine

so we dont want the developers thinking their games are art? or do we?



"Pier was a chef, a gifted and respected chef who made millions selling his dishes to the residents of New York City and Boston, he even had a famous jingle playing in those cities that everyone knew by heart. He also had a restaurant in Los Angeles, but not expecting LA to have such a massive population he only used his name on that restaurant and left it to his least capable and cheapest chefs. While his New York restaurant sold kobe beef for $100 and his Boston restaurant sold lobster for $50, his LA restaurant sold cheap hotdogs for $30. Initially these hot dogs sold fairly well because residents of los angeles were starving for good food and hoped that the famous name would denote a high quality, but most were disappointed with what they ate. Seeing the success of his cheap hot dogs in LA, Pier thought "why bother giving Los Angeles quality meats when I can oversell them on cheap hotdogs forever, and since I don't care about the product anyways, why bother advertising them? So Pier continued to only sell cheap hotdogs in LA and was surprised to see that they no longer sold. Pier's conclusion? Residents of Los Angeles don't like food."

"The so-called "hardcore" gamer is a marketing brainwashed, innovation shunting, self-righteous idiot who pays videogame makers far too much money than what is delivered."

Around the Network
Sky Render on 02 December 2008
Reasonable said:
Sky Render said:
Art is subjective. There is no certainty implied in the definition, because honestly, what one persons sees as art another will not see as art at all. The most popular solution to this is that of pseudo-elitist groups and institutions defining given objects as art, but as with all pseudo-elitists, their efforts are accepted almost exclusively by their groups and not by the mainstream.

Now if you look at "art" in quantitative terms instead of the slippery slope of qualitative, then "art" is defined by that which has the most impact on the largest number of people. In video games, that would be the games which have sold the most. You have to remember, when using this definition, that there is absolutely NO consideration for standards of "quality", only for sheer numbers of copies in circulation. The quantitative definition of "art" is mainstream-accurate, while the myriad qualitative definitions are antimainstream-accurate.

 

Is 'mainstream-accurate the new populist? Call me elitist but populist doesn't automatically equal and attempt at Art. While Art is absolutely in the eye of the beholder it remains something you try for creatively.

I believe there is a lot of confusion between Art, Marketing and Entertainment - not that they're mutually exclusive, but sometimes a creative endevour is only to entertain, sometimes great art is employed just to sell something, while othertimes its only for the sake of Art, and sometimes its for both or all three.

BTW I have to confess I shudder (and not in a good way) at the thought of quantitive Art - by that yardstick a MacDonalds would be the finest meal known to man... something it clearly isn't. Quantitiave Art to me is simply a concession to the mass-media/you-tube content where accessibility and low thresholds for entry outweigh quality and capability.

 

 

 

 You fell into the most dangerous caveat of "quantitative art" there, trying to give it qualitative backing.  You must never do this.  "Quantitative art" must never be taken beyond its numeric side: it is a measure of scope, of popularity, of awareness, but not of any trait which indicates quality.  As I said, it is an accurate portrayal of how the mainstream perceives the subject, as anything authentically popular enough to register that way with the mainstream is a cultural phenomenon, and thus has a sort of "social art" status if you will.  It's not the object, in that case, which is art; it is the RESPONSE to the object by culture at large which is the art, the object simply being the catalyst for the event.  Some would argue that the only true art is that which does cause such a large-scale social reaction, as this means that it has had a true impact and thus can be appreciated without explanation or institutional background by nearly anybody.

 What I'm really encouraging is that you look beyond institutional definitions of art, ones which involve subjective instead of objective terms, and see that the concept of art can in fact extend to a more universal level.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

Reasonable on 02 December 2008
Sky Render said:
Reasonable said:
Sky Render said:
Art is subjective. There is no certainty implied in the definition, because honestly, what one persons sees as art another will not see as art at all. The most popular solution to this is that of pseudo-elitist groups and institutions defining given objects as art, but as with all pseudo-elitists, their efforts are accepted almost exclusively by their groups and not by the mainstream.

Now if you look at "art" in quantitative terms instead of the slippery slope of qualitative, then "art" is defined by that which has the most impact on the largest number of people. In video games, that would be the games which have sold the most. You have to remember, when using this definition, that there is absolutely NO consideration for standards of "quality", only for sheer numbers of copies in circulation. The quantitative definition of "art" is mainstream-accurate, while the myriad qualitative definitions are antimainstream-accurate.

 

Is 'mainstream-accurate the new populist? Call me elitist but populist doesn't automatically equal and attempt at Art. While Art is absolutely in the eye of the beholder it remains something you try for creatively.

I believe there is a lot of confusion between Art, Marketing and Entertainment - not that they're mutually exclusive, but sometimes a creative endevour is only to entertain, sometimes great art is employed just to sell something, while othertimes its only for the sake of Art, and sometimes its for both or all three.

BTW I have to confess I shudder (and not in a good way) at the thought of quantitive Art - by that yardstick a MacDonalds would be the finest meal known to man... something it clearly isn't. Quantitiave Art to me is simply a concession to the mass-media/you-tube content where accessibility and low thresholds for entry outweigh quality and capability.

 

 

 

 You fell into the most dangerous caveat of "quantitative art" there, trying to give it qualitative backing.  You must never do this.  "Quantitative art" must never be taken beyond its numeric side: it is a measure of scope, of popularity, of awareness, but not of any trait which indicates quality.  As I said, it is an accurate portrayal of how the mainstream perceives the subject, as anything authentically popular enough to register that way with the mainstream is a cultural phenomenon, and thus has a sort of "social art" status if you will.  It's not the object, in that case, which is art; it is the RESPONSE to the object by culture at large which is the art, the object simply being the catalyst for the event.  Some would argue that the only true art is that which does cause such a large-scale social reaction, as this means that it has had a true impact and thus can be appreciated without explanation or institutional background by nearly anybody.

 What I'm really encouraging is that you look beyond institutional definitions of art, ones which involve subjective instead of objective terms, and see that the concept of art can in fact extend to a more universal level.

So you are saying MacDonalds is the best meal in the world... 

.

 



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

BrainBoxLtd on 02 December 2008
Reasonable said:

So you are saying MacDonalds is the best meal in the world... 

.

 

Ugh, he said:

"Quantitative art" must never be taken beyond its numeric side: it is a measure of scope, of popularity, of awareness, but not of any trait which indicates quality.



Sky Render on 02 December 2008
BrainBoxLtd said:
Reasonable said:

So you are saying MacDonalds is the best meal in the world...

.

 

Ugh, he said:

"Quantitative art" must never be taken beyond its numeric side: it is a measure of scope, of popularity, of awareness, but not of any trait which indicates quality.

Precisely.  Meaning that, while it is far from the "best" meal in the world, the McDonalds hamburger is easily one of the most recognized and culturally influential meal in the world.  Both of those traits are quantitative: recognition and cultural influence are measurable attributes, as long as you're patient enough to go to the trouble of measuring them.  You can say "McDonalds" to just about anybody and they'll know exactly what you're talking about, quite likely because they'll have actually eaten at McDonalds at some point.



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.

Around the Network
deathcape on 03 December 2008

only Wiifit Wiimusic and Wiiplay are art!!!

everything else is garbage!! and when a game is NOT ART

YOU SHOULDN'T PLAY IT

when your food is not art

DON'T EAT IT

when the air around you is not art

DO NOT BREATHE!


are you stupid elitists dead now? good...
the world is now a better place...

who gives a crap?!?! play your games and enjoy them! XD

who cares IF this one is art or not?

OMG my video GAME is not ART ...can't sell it for millions T_T


awww..I tried to drive my HOTWEELS mom...but it won't go as fast as dad's LAMBOURGINI



The Truth About Nintendo

The truth about Hardcore and Casual

The Ghost of RubangB on 03 December 2008

Here is how you definitely scientifically objectively prove something is guaranteed to be art beyond a reasonable doubt:

ask if it's art.



twitter.com/evaneldeneller

Sunday Fundays

Reasonable on 04 December 2008
BrainBoxLtd said:
Reasonable said:

So you are saying MacDonalds is the best meal in the world... 

.

 

Ugh, he said:

"Quantitative art" must never be taken beyond its numeric side: it is a measure of scope, of popularity, of awareness, but not of any trait which indicates quality.

 

I know.  I was being sarcastic.  While I can see its interest in certain areas, I don't buy into 'qualitative art' as a useful criteria other than measuring the 'reach' something has gained.  Without any other factors the assuption that something has achieved great reach translates to impact is erroneous IMHO.  Starbucks & MacDonalds have great reach, certain popular films, books, etc have great 'reach'... but in pretty much every case I think of this simply translates to populist, not any useful measure of their true worth.

Perhaps I'm simply elitist but to take cinema as an example Titanic's reach, the fact everyone knows Celine's song, or remembers the shot of Jack and Rose at the bow of the ship doesn't change the fact it is actually a pretty average film as Art, that its screenplay is okay to weak to poor from scene to scene, that it lurches between the 'serious' story and genre staples like the bad guy (David Warner in this case) getting a suitable comeuppance, and so on.  Titanic quatatively would seem to have reached a lot of people, yet artistically is lags miles behind many other films.  Interestingly despite the approach of looking at it quatitatively, in polls I've seen of memorable images, films, etc. it scores much lower than most, less seen but more artistic films.

If you're trying to judge Art, and remembering its both subjective and often it takes time for a work to find its place, then simply looking at it quatitatively is the weakest approach IMHO.



Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...

arsenicazure on 04 December 2008

games like :

jet grind radio
shenmue
onimusha
okami
rez HD
mirrors edge
FF CGI
paper mario


I'd consider them to have some merit as to be deemed artistic. Any game that uses a unique visual method to enhance gameplay would be art(istic).



Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd.

owner of : atari 2600, commodore 64, NES,gameboy,atari lynx, genesis, saturn,neogeo,DC,PS2,GC,X360, Wii

5 THINGS I'd like to see before i knock out:

a. a AAA 3D sonic title

b. a nintendo developed game that has a "M rating"

c. redesgined PS controller

d. SEGA back in the console business

e. M$ out of the OS business

Sky Render on 04 December 2008

We seem to have brought up one of the oldest issues known to man here: the self versus the group. Heinlein summed it up pretty well: "Democracy is based on the assumption that a million men are wiser than one man. How’s that again? Autocracy is based on the assumption that one man is wiser than a million men. Let’s play that over again, too. Who decides?"

It's a logical nightmare one way, and a massive bootstrapping issue the other. How can "everybody" be right when nobody agrees unanimously on anything? How can one person be said to be right when nobody will ever reach a universal consensus on it? Defining art just falls into that same trap. Social art is gladly ignored by the elitist since it doesn't fit the definition they've personally crafted, while the mainstream by and large just takes the elitists' word for it when the elitists proclaim something to be art, not really putting any stock into the claim or even caring.

Me, I tend to favor the solution that gives everybody a voice in cases like this. It may end up being a cacophony, but you're far more likely to find the truth if you ask a million than if you ask just one. The real trick, of course, is figuring out which one is the truth...



Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.