Xbox Live Arcade may end up changing all of that. At least I hope it does.Missing wrote:That's true as well. With the production costs of games going up with the rise of technology, you can't profit on releasing a simple game anymore. At least not on home consoles. At least the Internet has a large fanbase for underground games, even if the developers aren't profiting from them.
Have videogames reached artistic status?
-
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:37 am
- Location: N/A
- Contact:
-
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:37 am
- Location: N/A
- Contact:
- Billy the Kid
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
- Location: internet
I'm back, fellas.
I've been giving it more thought (and arguing with Shockley about it) and I have reached a new conclusion. That's right, I changed my mind. Uhhh, so here's what I think now:
Art is expressive creation.
This simple, broad definition means that anytime anyone anywhere creatives something with the intent of expressing something, that creation is art. This could be a painting, a song, a sculpture, a written story, a sketch, a freaky looking pancake, or anything else. Therefore, it is essentially up to the creator to decide whether or not the thing he made is art, because he knows whether or not he made the thing with the intent of expression.
You see, I originally argued that the medium of interactive digital entertainment (aka: videogames) had more potential than other art mediums, and while this is true, it was missing the point. The point isn't whether the PS3 is better than a VCR or a hard-cover novel; the point is whether or not the software on that disc can possibly be congruent with the definition of art.
Well, according to my definition, it can.
Some people might say that a collaborative effort makes it impossible for a videogame to be "expressive creation", since some people may just be doing their jobs without any artistic goal. But here's where I have to make a comparison to symphony...
Is Beethoven's music art? Of course. And yet he didn't play every instrument. He was the orchestrator and the conductor, and it was his vision that others were playing out. Just like how a videogame "director" (like Kojima) can conduct a group of people to collectively produce an "expressive creation". You have to look at the entire thing as a finished product, not whether or not that one note in the song can be art. Just as you can't ask whether or not the texture on the grass is art.
Kojima said that videogames weren't art because they were a service. In other words, he's doing his job. He said that there was a picture where there was a chair, but the seat had spikes on it -- which meant that it was designed to displease a person, and not a service that was catering to them. He said this was what art had to be able to do. And he's absolutely right. If you are not free to expressively create, you can't be making art.
Anyway, I don't want to go on too long before I read some feedback, so I'll stop for now. What do you guys think now?
I've been giving it more thought (and arguing with Shockley about it) and I have reached a new conclusion. That's right, I changed my mind. Uhhh, so here's what I think now:
Art is expressive creation.
This simple, broad definition means that anytime anyone anywhere creatives something with the intent of expressing something, that creation is art. This could be a painting, a song, a sculpture, a written story, a sketch, a freaky looking pancake, or anything else. Therefore, it is essentially up to the creator to decide whether or not the thing he made is art, because he knows whether or not he made the thing with the intent of expression.
You see, I originally argued that the medium of interactive digital entertainment (aka: videogames) had more potential than other art mediums, and while this is true, it was missing the point. The point isn't whether the PS3 is better than a VCR or a hard-cover novel; the point is whether or not the software on that disc can possibly be congruent with the definition of art.
Well, according to my definition, it can.
Some people might say that a collaborative effort makes it impossible for a videogame to be "expressive creation", since some people may just be doing their jobs without any artistic goal. But here's where I have to make a comparison to symphony...
Is Beethoven's music art? Of course. And yet he didn't play every instrument. He was the orchestrator and the conductor, and it was his vision that others were playing out. Just like how a videogame "director" (like Kojima) can conduct a group of people to collectively produce an "expressive creation". You have to look at the entire thing as a finished product, not whether or not that one note in the song can be art. Just as you can't ask whether or not the texture on the grass is art.
Kojima said that videogames weren't art because they were a service. In other words, he's doing his job. He said that there was a picture where there was a chair, but the seat had spikes on it -- which meant that it was designed to displease a person, and not a service that was catering to them. He said this was what art had to be able to do. And he's absolutely right. If you are not free to expressively create, you can't be making art.
Anyway, I don't want to go on too long before I read some feedback, so I'll stop for now. What do you guys think now?
I'll make ya famous.
- Rick Deckard
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:43 pm
- Location: L.A. 2019
-
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:37 am
- Location: N/A
- Contact:
Then I suppose the defintion or art isn't at stake, but rather the quality of that art. After all, it one considers that floppy pancake their life's masterpiece, it's still going to be a subject of much scrutinzed debate. Outside of Kojima and perhaps the creators of Ico/Wanda and the Colossus, who else is using games as an expressive medium? Very few.
Again, I do think games can be art, but the problem is few ever attempt such a feat, as the creation of the game itself is enough to drain someone without having to be expected of delivering an enriching experience that one might expect from a film or novel. Movies, literature, and music can focus solely on being a work of art and not conflict with the abililty to engage their audience in any sort of fantasy like games are forced into doing. But game design is largely a commercialistic enterprise. It'd be hard for a game to ever free itself from those chains completely, as the primary goal will always be to appeal to the mass audiences, instead of being an artist's sole conception (which I believe is what Kojima meant now that I know the full story).
Of course, film's have largely the same fate, however films are becoming easier and easier to make independently, away from the threat of having your life's work taken from you and butchered beyond recognition or stored on a shelf never to be seen by the public. Maybe when game creation becomes less and less expensive, more and more talented artists will come out of the woodwork to put their skills to the test and prove that games are more able at telling a story than their harshest critics would have you think.
Again, I do think games can be art, but the problem is few ever attempt such a feat, as the creation of the game itself is enough to drain someone without having to be expected of delivering an enriching experience that one might expect from a film or novel. Movies, literature, and music can focus solely on being a work of art and not conflict with the abililty to engage their audience in any sort of fantasy like games are forced into doing. But game design is largely a commercialistic enterprise. It'd be hard for a game to ever free itself from those chains completely, as the primary goal will always be to appeal to the mass audiences, instead of being an artist's sole conception (which I believe is what Kojima meant now that I know the full story).
Of course, film's have largely the same fate, however films are becoming easier and easier to make independently, away from the threat of having your life's work taken from you and butchered beyond recognition or stored on a shelf never to be seen by the public. Maybe when game creation becomes less and less expensive, more and more talented artists will come out of the woodwork to put their skills to the test and prove that games are more able at telling a story than their harshest critics would have you think.
- Billy the Kid
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
- Location: internet
Translated:I think pseudo-intellectualism is fantastic.
I didn't read or understand what you said.
Not many people make videogames in order to express something. That means that they aren't art.
For example, if a machine was set to randomly spray colours on a paper, that painting wouldn't be art, because the machine is incapable of trying to express something. HOWEVER, if a person specifically uses the machine to paint something expressive, it's art. So really, whether it's art or not depends on its creator's intentions.
That's why it's bothersome when someone calls something art that really probably isn't. They just add some deep meaning to it and start showing it off like it means something.
Not even 5% of videogames we see on retailer shelves would even claim that it's art. They are making "entertainment". EA comes to mind.[/quote]
I'll make ya famous.
-
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:37 am
- Location: N/A
- Contact:
People can find deeper meaning in anything if they really want to. Look at all the "goth" and "scene" kids who find deeper meaning in music that's cranked out to make somebody a quick buck.Billy the Kid wrote:
That's why it's bothersome when someone calls something art that really probably isn't. They just add some deep meaning to it and start showing it off like it means something.
Art isn't something that you can just throw a defintion at, obviously. I mean, look at the size of this discussion. I've come to the conclusion that, like life and love, art is just what you make it. If you let somebody else tell you what art is, you won't get any enjoyment out if it. You have to go out and define art for yourself.
I disagree that in order to qualify as art a message must be told. I think good escapist fare can equal the artistry of any intellectual work if it's done well (that was one of the reasons why Hitchcock was seen by the public for so long as being nothing but the director of suspense pictures, without anyone bothering to take notice as to how well he created his films). After all, I don't think anyone would deny Jaws is a masterpiece simply because it isn't as profound as Schindler's List.Billy the Kid wrote:Not many people make videogames in order to express something. That means that they aren't art.
- Rick Deckard
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:43 pm
- Location: L.A. 2019
Not at all. I did read it, and felt obliged to comment on the fact that I find it quite galling when essentially pretty basic, potentially interesting opinions are rendered virtually incomprehensible through being injected with unneccesary quantities of self-importance and are needlessly over-articulated (although perhaps I'm slightly more guilty of the latter), asking all those rhetorical questions as if the post is some self-contained essay which everybody else must react to or comment on rather than actually being part of the discussion itself. Just venting here.I didn't read or understand what you said.
- Billy the Kid
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
- Location: internet
Deckard is a dumbass?
Is this a joke or are you really the biggest hypocrite in the world? This entire train-wreck of a post was just to say that I made things too complex? Shouldn't you find your own posts "quite galling"?Rick Deckard wrote:Not at all. I did read it, and felt obliged to comment on the fact that I find it quite galling when essentially pretty basic, potentially interesting opinions are rendered virtually incomprehensible through being injected with unneccesary quantities of self-importance and are needlessly over-articulated (although perhaps I'm slightly more guilty of the latter), asking all those rhetorical questions as if the post is some self-contained essay which everybody else must react to or comment on rather than actually being part of the discussion itself. Just venting here.I didn't read or understand what you said.
I wanted to dissect the whole thing about point out how ridiculous it is, but I decided I have better things to do. I suggest you read it again slowly and admit that you're full of shit. I guess you weren't being sarcastic when you said "I think pseudo-intellectualism is fantastic!"
I'll make ya famous.
-
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 398
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 7:37 am
- Location: N/A
- Contact:
Re: Deckard is a dumbass?
You're a silly goose, Billy the Kid. A silly goose.Billy the Kid wrote: I suggest you read it again slowly and admit that you're full of shit. I guess you weren't being sarcastic when you said "I think pseudo-intellectualism is fantastic!"
People need to stop taking this thread so seriously.
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2005 7:36 pm
I agree with Rick personally. If we look at even the games most lauded for their 'artistic merit', e.g. Snatcher or MGS objectively we're still getting extremely derivative and cliched storylines with often subpar writing and acting, it's just that interactivity goes a very, very long way.
I'm definitely a huge videogame nerd and I love the things to death but if I went to see a movie with the standard of dialogue and acting a lot of the more 'cinematic' games have I'd be really, really disappointed. They're hardly up there with The Godfather right now.
I must admit I can enjoy a lot of vg music, e.g. Uematsu's work on the 16bit Final Fantasies almost as much as my Pixies or Sonic Youth albums, though.
I'm definitely a huge videogame nerd and I love the things to death but if I went to see a movie with the standard of dialogue and acting a lot of the more 'cinematic' games have I'd be really, really disappointed. They're hardly up there with The Godfather right now.
I must admit I can enjoy a lot of vg music, e.g. Uematsu's work on the 16bit Final Fantasies almost as much as my Pixies or Sonic Youth albums, though.
That tooPeople need to stop taking this thread so seriously.
- Rick Deckard
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:43 pm
- Location: L.A. 2019
Re: Deckard is a dumbass?
It's the self-importance that bothers me, that's all.Billy the Kid wrote:I wanted to dissect the whole thing about point out how ridiculous it is, but I decided I have better things to do. I suggest you read it again slowly and admit that you're full of shit. I guess you weren't being sarcastic when you said "I think pseudo-intellectualism is fantastic!"
- Billy the Kid
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
- Location: internet
It's not about whether it's GOOD ART.... just whether it's art at all!HorseFactory wrote:I agree with Rick personally. If we look at even the games most lauded for their 'artistic merit', e.g. Snatcher or MGS objectively we're still getting extremely derivative and cliched storylines with often subpar writing and acting, it's just that interactivity goes a very, very long way.
I believe that a crappy painting made by a highschool student can be art, even if it looks bad and fails to do what he intended. Why? It was expressive creation, which is the same thing that "great" pieces of art are. It's the common denominator in all artwork.
Just like videogames. They may not be very original or creative, but they can still be art, if the creator made it in order to express something. Kojima has said that he makes games as a service to people, catering to their wants. If that's really the case, then he isn't making art anyway.
In short: art doesn't need to be good in order to be art.
Also, if you really didn't take the thread seriously, you wouldn't impose your expectations onto me. Just take it easy and let me do things my own way.
I'll make ya famous.
- Rick Deckard
- Second Lieutenant
- Posts: 367
- Joined: Sat Oct 09, 2004 4:43 pm
- Location: L.A. 2019
- Billy the Kid
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
- Location: internet
There's no question that games are a form of creative expression. The question is, how does that expression measure up to more acceptable forms of what others define as "art"? How do you even judge the artistic merits of a game compared to film or literature? Should there be a specific criteria or do you judge from a game-to-game basis? Can a sports game be judged equally with an RPG? Maybe the issue doesn't need to be so deeply analyzed, but there's a lot to be asked as far as I'm concerned.
- Billy the Kid
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
- Location: internet
Monetary value - price, cost, material value, etc.
Aesthetic value - beauty, and the ability to please visually or audibly
Sentimental value - the story of an artwork and artist, usually, but could be any personal significance to the viewer
Expressive value - the effectiveness of the piece of art to express what the creator intended
These are the 4 values that all artistic criteria must fall under, I think. This isn't an /10 checklist, either. It's a personal assessment, and different people put more or less emphasis on different values. Personally I think Aesthetic and Expressive values are the most important, so things like MGS appeal to me a lot. I think they're good looking, and they each express a lot of philosophical ideas, even if they're not always original. Others would think that the Sentimental value and Monestary value are important... etc. etc.
There is no definitive standard for judging art. Nothing's simply "better" or "worse", because only the creator can judge whether or not the artwork successfully accomplishes that which it was made to do.
Aesthetic value - beauty, and the ability to please visually or audibly
Sentimental value - the story of an artwork and artist, usually, but could be any personal significance to the viewer
Expressive value - the effectiveness of the piece of art to express what the creator intended
These are the 4 values that all artistic criteria must fall under, I think. This isn't an /10 checklist, either. It's a personal assessment, and different people put more or less emphasis on different values. Personally I think Aesthetic and Expressive values are the most important, so things like MGS appeal to me a lot. I think they're good looking, and they each express a lot of philosophical ideas, even if they're not always original. Others would think that the Sentimental value and Monestary value are important... etc. etc.
There is no definitive standard for judging art. Nothing's simply "better" or "worse", because only the creator can judge whether or not the artwork successfully accomplishes that which it was made to do.
I'll make ya famous.
- Billy the Kid
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
- Location: internet
The same could be said for anything, though, don't you think?
If everyone in the entire world (except you) said the sky was red, the sky would be red. Even though the color wouldn't change, it would be generally accepted that, whatever colour the sky is, that colour is now red. The terms we use and accept are indeed based on popularity, so things could "become art" that actually aren't.
Just look at something as basic as meat. "Meat" once referred to any substantial food, including bread. But now, meat refers to... well... meat. That's why I try not to go according to general opinion when defining something.
"Greatness" is one of those things that changes from one minute to the next. The Mona Lisa isn't really "great" anymore, but it's a classic and it would be insulting to say it wasn't "great", so everyone agrees that it's great. How many people are still marvelling over the thing? How much attention does it get? Next to none, save for a few spoofs. It's a household name, but familiarity does not equal greatness. ...Or does it? I guess to most people, yeah.
Anyway, you're right to say that there is no specific attributes that make something "great".
If everyone in the entire world (except you) said the sky was red, the sky would be red. Even though the color wouldn't change, it would be generally accepted that, whatever colour the sky is, that colour is now red. The terms we use and accept are indeed based on popularity, so things could "become art" that actually aren't.
Just look at something as basic as meat. "Meat" once referred to any substantial food, including bread. But now, meat refers to... well... meat. That's why I try not to go according to general opinion when defining something.
"Greatness" is one of those things that changes from one minute to the next. The Mona Lisa isn't really "great" anymore, but it's a classic and it would be insulting to say it wasn't "great", so everyone agrees that it's great. How many people are still marvelling over the thing? How much attention does it get? Next to none, save for a few spoofs. It's a household name, but familiarity does not equal greatness. ...Or does it? I guess to most people, yeah.
Anyway, you're right to say that there is no specific attributes that make something "great".
I'll make ya famous.
- Billy the Kid
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 3:11 am
- Location: internet
- 87th
- General
- Posts: 2150
- Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:35 pm
- Favorite Game: MetalGear 2: Solid Snake
- Kojima games owned: METALGEAR SERIES
MetalGear (MSX2) [European]
MetalGear (NES) [European]
MetalGear (Famicom) [Japanese]
MetalGear 2: Solid Snake (MSX2) [Japanese]
Snake's Revenge (NES) [European]
MetalGear Solid (PlayStation) [European]
MetalGear Solid: Premium Pack (PlayStation) [European]
MetalGear Solid: Integral (PlayStation) [Japanese]
MetalGear: Ghost Babel (Gameboy Color) [European]
MetalGear: Ghost Babel (Gameboy Color) [European]
MetalGear Solid 2: Sons Of Liberty (PlayStation 2) [European]
MetalGear Solid 2: Substance (PlayStation 2) [Japanese]
MetalGear Solid 2: Substance + The Document of MGS2 (PlayStation 2) [European]
MetalGear Solid 2: Substance (Xbox) [European]
MetalGear Solid 2: Substance (PC) [European]
MetalGear AC!D (PSP) [European]
MetalGear Solid 3: Snake Eater (PlayStation 2) [European]
MetalGear Solid 3: Snake Eater - Premium Pack (PlayStation 2) [Japanese]
MetalGear AC!D2 (PSP) [European]
MetalGear Solid 3: Subsistence - 1st Edition (PlayStation 2) [Japanese]
MetalGear Solid 3: Subsistence - Promo copy (PlayStation 2) [European]
MetalGear Solid 3: Subsistence - 1st Edition (PlayStation 2) [European]
MetalGear Solid: Digital Graphic Novel (PSP) [European]
MetalGear Solid: Portable Ops (PSP) [American]
MetalGear Solid 4: Guns of the Patriots - Limited Edition (+ Bonus Disc, Soundtrack and 6" Old Snake Action Figure) [European]
SNATCHER SERIES
Snatcher (Mega CD) [European]
Snatcher (Saturn) [Japanese]
POLICENAUTS SERIES
Policenauts Pilot Disk (3DO) [Japanese]
Policenauts (3DO) [Japanese]
Policenauts (PlayStation) [Japanese]
Policenauts (Saturn) [Japanese]
Policenauts (Saturn) [Japanese]
ZONE OF THE ENDERS SERIES
Zone Of the Enders (PlayStation 2) [European]
Zone Of the Enders: The Second Runner - Special Edition (PlayStation 2) [European]
BOKTAI SERIES
boktai: The Sun Is In Your Hand! (Gameboy Advance) [European]
boktai 2: Solar Boy Django (Gameboy Advance) [European]
OTHER SERIES
Penguin Adventure (MSX) [European]
Kabushiki Baibai Trainer Kabutore (DS) [Japanese]
KOJIMA-RELATED GAMES
Konami Krazy Racers (Gameboy Advance) [European]
Super Smash Bros. Brawl (Wii) [American] - PSN: eighty7th
- Wii Friend Code: 4890580757769739
- Location: Zanzibarland
- Contact:
Hideo Kojima himself has something to say about this-
No
No