15 replies to this topic

[Dave]

Roger Ebert is once again wading hip deep into the toy department to say video games are not art. He did so previously (in response to Clive Barker). And double previously.

Ebert's better arguments were in the Clive Barker response, but his recent salvo is interesting nevertheless. I find it irritating that most defenders of video games confuse the definition of "entertainment" with "art." Also, the need of some gamers to have their medium of choice be labeled art is merely pathological and has nothing to do with the argument itself (I also think what's going on is the modern tendency for people to attempt to elevate mediocre tastes to the sublime--the championing of mediocrity, but that's also irrelevant to the argument). Personally, I love games and I love art. They are different things. In terms of expanding a word to include more 'stuff' under its definition, I tend towards the conservative. I don't believe 'everything is art.' I also don't think it's possible for anyone to believe that in any meaningful way. For a word to have meaning, for a word to have usefulness in a given language, it must necessarily have limits. There must be members of the set of things that are art and also members of the set of things that are not.

Games have artistic elements in them, without a doubt. But that's not the point being argued. Lasagna has beef in it. That doesn't make it a cow.

I love the original Zelda. Still do. The fact that it's not art does not lessen my experience with it at all.

Interesting snippets:

Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control. I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept.

Many experiences that move me in some way or another are not art. A year ago I lost the ability (temporarily, I hope) to speak. I was deeply moved by the experience. It was not art.

Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless. A bowel movement, for example.

Barker: "I'm not doing an evangelical job here. I'm just saying that gaming is a great way to do what we as human beings need to do all the time -- to take ourselves away from the oppressive facts of our lives and go somewhere where we have our own control."
Ebert: Spoken with the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old. I do not have a need "all the time" to take myself away from the oppressive facts of my life, however oppressive they may be, in order to go somewhere where I have control. I need to stay here and take control.

[Chad]

For me, video games serve more of a purpose than distraction. Right now there are hundred of teams playing Halo 3 for the grand prize of $20,000. It's a competition for those of us who are fat and suck at sports. It's also a social thing. I've never used profanity and racial slurs like I do when playing 14 year olds online.

[malfouka]

Dave, on 17 April 2010 - 05:24 PM, said:

...Personally, I love games and I love art. They are different things. In terms of expanding a word to include more 'stuff' under its definition, I tend towards the conservative. I don't believe 'everything is art.' I also don't think it's possible for anyone to believe that in any meaningful way. For a word to have meaning, for a word to have usefulness in a given language, it must necessarily have limits. There must be members of the set of things that are art and also members of the set of things that are not....

You and I have discussed this before--as far as the "art" versus "everything is art" goes. There has to be a standard or the term "art" is meaningless. The problem partly lies with our ability to publish (on the internet) every fucking shit we take--believing, of course, that any and every shit is somehow art. Furthermore, everyone is so fucking scared to critisize anyone who waves the art banner. There is also a schism between the delineations of art and craft.

Words have to have meaning or they are useless. If "art" means anything someone declares as so, then the word is obsolete.

[Chad]

malfouka, on 18 April 2010 - 10:13 AM, said:

If "art" means anything someone declares as so, then the word is obsolete.

Well said. I don't think video games are art. I think they are entertainment. And brilliant social networking tools to become a pedophile.

[MrLew]

Chad, on 17 April 2010 - 09:51 PM, said:

For me, video games serve more of a purpose than distraction. Right now there are hundred of teams playing Halo 3 for the grand prize of $20,000. It's a competition for those of us who are fat and suck at sports. It's also a social thing. I've never used profanity and racial slurs like I do when playing 14 year olds online.

Video games have been a art form for a good many years. I have never cared for Ebert's rants, although I think he would be a fun dinner guest

[Dave]

MrLew, on 25 May 2010 - 10:10 PM, said:

Video games have been a art form for a good many years.

As argued above, no. (said with love)

At least tell us why rather than restating the opposing view.

[Mecha]

Personally, I have never seen games as an art form. I have always seen them as entertainment, a portal to leave the strife of daily life and do what you want to do.

[SIG]

Chad, on 18 April 2010 - 05:29 PM, said:

Well said. I don't think video games are art. I think they are entertainment. And brilliant social networking tools to become a pedophile.

Point 1
So by your definition something that entertains is not artistic? Dont think that arguement holds any validity. Isn't art suppose to create a feeling, or spark emotion in the creater and the observer. Shit I dont know of any greater art form that produces as much feeling and emotion than a video game.

Point 2
So if someone take a picture of an enviroment, this can be art. If someone paints the exact same enviroment, this is art. But if a person creates the enviroment just a bueatiful in whcih people interact using ones and zeros this is no longer art? Kind of lost here.

[Dave]

1. Addressed above. Not everything is art. Art and video games are both subsets of entertainment; that doesn't make them the same thing.
2. Also addressed above. The environment is an element within the game. For example, the fact that the Chance cards in Monopoly have art on them doesn't make Monopoly art. It's a game.

We use names and definitions in language to differentiate groups of objects. It helps us talk about them in meaningful ways. I honestly don't understand what is gained by conflating 'art' and 'games.'

[SIG]

Dave, on 03 June 2010 - 03:55 AM, said:

1. Addressed above. Not everything is art. Art and video games are both subsets of entertainment; that doesn't make them the same thing.
2. Also addressed above. The environment is an element within the game. For example, the fact that the Chance cards in Monopoly have art on them doesn't make Monopoly art. It's a game.

We use names and definitions in language to differentiate groups of objects. It helps us talk about them in meaningful ways. I honestly don't understand what is gained by conflating 'art' and 'games.'

I suggest that not everything is art to everybody, but rather art is subject to an individual’s perception. But to take it a step further into the argument of semantics "why can't everything be art?" Is it because human nature and development only find things pleasing to be subjects of positive enlightenment. Certainly someone had to design and create the Chance card or the board you speak of, and to create anything would pull from the studies of artistic expression. A child’s drawings, the construction of a bridge, the curves of a car, advertisement on a billboard all have demanded creativity, and design. But because we as society grow complacent with cars, billboards, bridges, and drawings we prevent ourselves to look into their creation and meaning. Sure a billboard, car, and bridge severe a purpose just like a video game, but to deny them the merit of artistic expression proves that we as humans only identify art as something that doesn’t serve a physical purpose, but rather one of intellectual or spiritual means. The classification of a subject as art falls into a pointless argument of semantics, which when discussed relies on a person’s principals and beliefs instead of logic. Therefore a video game is art to whoever chooses to view it as such.

Of course if we discuss the actual game play of monopoly (a game with obvious creative and artistic elements) we then are discussing art in the form of expression. Is a song art? If so, can the performance of that piece of music be art itself? If so, can those participating in the audience be part of a larger art piece?

To some driving a car is a sport; to others it is just driving a car. But can’t the bond and the dance between driver and car both be seen as a form of art to others. If someone can transcend the obvious and look beyond one can find a flow, a natural harmony within what is being witnessed, thus some may be hesitant to call it art because of preconceived notions of what they think art is. If it is possible for a performance to be considered art then an individual’s performance in and artistic environment like a video game would also have to be considered.

[Dave]

SIG, on 03 June 2010 - 12:43 PM, said:

Therefore a video game is art to whoever chooses to view it as such.

This is exactly the sort of relativist approach that doesn't wash with me. (It's a common argument, so I'm referring to 'it' and not you, Sig, specifically.) It has a ring of truth to it because it invokes some aura of metaphysical depth, like 'hey man, in the end we can't know nothing about nothing so it's all good.' Except it isn't. It isn't good at all, and in fact it is not how people interact with each other. It is not how language works. It is certainly not how we use words.

If I said to you taste (as in food) is subject to an individual's perception, at first gloss that may seem like all sorts of relativist fun. Isn't it super that we all experience the taste of food differently? It's not true, however. Two people, John and Mary, might eat a steak, for example. John likes it. Mary doesn't. That's okay. They can disagree about whether they like it or not. But can they disagree about whether or not it is salty? Savory vs. sweet? Moist vs. dry? If John comments on the moistness or tenderness of the steak, noting its natural juices and so on, and Mary says it's dry, does this entitle each to his own opinion? I say it does not. John is going to challenge Mary first for evidence of her claim (and she his). Failing that, John's going to challenge her understanding of the word 'dry.' If this behavior persists to the extent that John points and says 'tree' and Mary points at the same object and says 'antelope' John and Mary will not have anything meaningful to say to one another.

To get back to your point about discussing the transcendence of an experience, be it viewing art, playing a video game, driving a car, go nuts. One's art. One's a game. One's transportation. You don't need to conflate them all in order to discuss the awesomeness of your experience. Because doing so confuses rather than clarifies, then it's my conclusion that we shouldn't.

[SIG]

But language is all relative, it has no finite definitions such as mathamatics or laws as science. Language is a lot like relativity, when it all boils down, its the observer who is important. Language is relative, and I agree with your points discussing the tricky situation we sometimes find ourselves in in conversation. But language and communication have many flaws and we can break down language all we want and eventually we sound like Plato discussin the theory of forms. Theres an unexplainable commonsense aspect to communication where each individual can discuss obejects to a certain extent, continue any conversation long enough and it breaks down into the different lines drawn between the two people having the conversation. Ones line may be more flexible than the others, and thus the situation we have here. What is Art? The more we talk, the more bullshit it becomes because each of us are up against our line testing its tensile strenght. But I enjoy bullshit lets continue.


The majority of food isnt intended to be art. We can break down the argument to simplistic subjects like steak, trees, tables, paper clips, or pencils but none of the above are designed first to promote intangible complex feelings. Once again its easy for us to discuss objects that serve technical purposes, but art is beyond such aspects. Its up to the obeserver to determine the flexibility of his line, and the meaning of the subjest he is looking it.

If we stepped back we should redefine what is considered art. We have discussed it from the perspective of the observer so far, and it has only taken us to the bullshit metaphysical lines we all have. If we discuss art from the perspective of the creator we may have an easier time.

Video Games fall into the category of technical purpose to us the observer, but games are created with elements that cause complex feelings. If we started our discussion on photography being art, we could eventually move to cinema which I think we could agree is a type of art with little difficulty. The next step beyond movies is the video game, it takes all the same elements from photography, and movies but uses them to create an interactive enviroment designed by the creator to provide a specific experience and feeling. I would argue that to the creator of a video game he would view his creation as a work of art.

[Dave]

Oh c'mon man, it's Friday.

The food example was used to show a parity of reasoning. It had nothing to do with food=art.

re: language/relativity. You're confusing meta discussion with the syntactic/semantic rules of a language. When two people engage in meaningful conversation, they are implicitly agreeing to the rules of a shared language. Meaningfulness is bound by the rules of that language.

[Chad]

In local news, my cat fell asleep in between the couch cushions this morning and it was the cutest thing.

[Dave]

Chad, on 04 June 2010 - 05:22 PM, said:

In local news, my cat fell asleep in between the couch cushions this morning and it was the cutest thing.

In the old days, you, Deb and Corporal would've devolved this thread into sexual innuendo and outuendo like 7 posts ago. You're slipping.

[Chad]

I know, old age is catching up to me