Video Games, Art?

[Dias Ex Machina]

Rarely do I weigh in on current talking points. Firstly, because I feel they are manipulated and forced into the light by its fanatics and also because people are entitled to their opinions but not necessarily their facts. The one catching my attention recently deals with the dialogue over whether or not video games are art. The extremes of this conversation appear to be defined by Roger Ebert at one extend and the operators of Penny Arcade (Gabe and Tycho as they are publically known) at the other. The reason I am discussing this is because I'm a huge fan of both of them and regularly frequent their respective sites. I value Roger's opinion as well as Tycho's (the more vocal of the pair). So where do I place myself?

Flat squarely in the middle. I sincerely believe both parties are sitting too far in their respective camps. I've played computer games from the early days of Pong. It comes down to expression, which I believe is Roger's point. If someone is expressing something passionately through a work, it is artistic. Someone can even make the claim that true art is long, frustrating, and ultimately unrewarding in its process. Roger's point stems from the format of games. Since a game is user defined and user influenced, and forces a purpose and an objective, it removes the capacity of total expression and is against the purpose of art...to have no purpose. Games must make concessions on multiple levels for the purpose of gameplay.

A work must be rated on its total expression--meaning music in a game or art in a game does not render the game artistic--it is the totality of the work. Just because a game has art or music does not translate to it being anymore artistic as is an oil painting on canvas being considered more artistic than a graphite expression on paper. In this way, Roger is absolutely correct; nearly every game you can think of is not art. Not Pong or Wing Commander, not Sims or God of War or Gran Turismo. They have no artistic merit. It is unfortunate that these works include music and art and writing, which, when separated, become art, but amalgamated into an interactive game, it loses that expression. However, some other people claim art is any medium which does not produce or serve a function. If you create something which does not create something else and does not serve a purpose (other than entertainment) and is only there to exist, it is an artistic expression. Then, anything can be art.

In the end, art is subjective and a matter of opinion. For either side to declare their opinions as absolute and fact I believe shows a weakness in both their arguments. There are so many examples of artistic expressions some critics would claim as art and others they would not. Consider these: War miniatures, automobiles, role playing games. Are they artistic? If you buy a warhammer miniature, is it art? Is your painting of that miniature art and if it is...yours or the original sculptures? It's important to know that I never look at aspects of my life and world around it as artistic or not artistic. I don't sit in a theatre contemplating if Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen is art and if Michael Bay considers himself an artist. If we claim Darren Aronofsky's The Fountain is artistic, then Transformers 2 must also be considered art as well, just art I particularly despise. I never liked Jackson Pollock's work but I acknowledge that many people considered him a master. I look at Nick Greenwood, my primary artist for Amethyst and I do indeed declare him as one...an artist. Am I? I have never stood on a soapbox and declared my writing as artistic, but some writing is.

Going back to Roger and PA, they both make extreme points of yes and no. I've explained Roger's argument. PA counters by declaring my previous point, that nearly anything is art if it's an expression of one or several people's opinion. I can see and understand that as well. However, I think PA missed a hat trick by reducing their talking points to personal attacks against Mr. Ebert. It threatens their opinion as being the knee-jerk reactions of the extreme opposite.

Tycho makes a point that games like Braid and Flower can be considered art. Roger makes a point that they are not because they have an objective--a purpose to be completed--and thus cannot be considered artistic. I think both sides are right. However, I disagree with Tycho where he says "If a hundred artists create art for five years, how could the result not be art?" Well, a million monkeys typing at typewriters will eventually create Shakespeare but it is not art despite the fact it looks like Shakespeare. I was also upset by Tycho's dismissing of Roger's opinion, further degraded with remarks like "I can't for the life of me figure out why we give a what that creature says." It's unnecessary, especially since Roger effectively says something similar ("Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves?")

Mr. Ebert 's fallacy stems from his lack of experience. He refuses to indulge the possibility that he is wrong, nor is he willing to sit down and play these games people have been suggesting. Braid is a good example, so is Flower, two games I have played and would very much claim is art. Yes. I would say that. Braid and Flower have artistic merit. I would go further than that and also claim that Okami, Ico, and Shadow of the Colossus are also artistic. But I have experienced these games directly. But this is my opinion. It is not a declaration to be considered as fact. There are people out there that think Pong has artistic merit. Some people feel Okami and Ico are horrible games and not worth your time. They may not call it art.

So this is my opinion, which it always was. I think Roger is on shaky ground because he is not willing to expand his definition of art nor is he open to seeing if these games have artistic value by actually playing them. I also think Penny Arcade is wrong by declaring, without concession, that Roger Ebert is "on the wrong side of history" discrediting him as an old man who just doesn't get it. I'm sorry Tycho. We can lay that argument against O'Reilly or Glenn Beck, but don't aim your crosshairs to Roger Ebert in questioning his comprehension of artwork. Remember, this is the guy that stood on a soapbox and declared Dark City as the best film of the year. It is wrong to dismiss him and to drop him in the wastebasket as an obsolete voice of an almost forgotten age.

Am I an artist? You can call me one...but if someone asked me, I would say no. I'm a storyteller. This is what I do...

 

[Felon]

Is a game art simply because it takes a stab at aesthetic appeal? Flower and Braid are art because they're decorative? Are the pretty tulips depicted on the cover of the birthday card from my mom art?

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

Good question. I would answer from my opinion in that it is based entirely on
interpretation by another. I want to emphasize "interpret". If it is a directed to someone with only one opinion by the creator, it's more an essay than an expression to be pondered. Artwork's validity as art is entirely based on the viewer. In which case, everything can be art but it is a narrow field confined to the viewer. Also remember that art can be a closed loop intended just for the artist. It is still art if the artist feels it is and shows it to no one.

 

[Krug]

I have to disagree with Ebert. Games CAN be art; not just the Okamis, but other games such as Space Invaders, Mario.. even Gran Turisimo. Ebert's refusal to try games is about the same as those who criticise movies without having watched them.

I don't see how having an objective makes something less than art. So what about having multiple objectives?

 

[Richards]

I also think Penny Arcade is wrong by declaring, without concession, that Roger Ebert is "on the wrong side of history" discrediting him as an old man who just doesn't get it. I'm sorry Tycho. We can lay that argument against O'Reilly or Glenn Beck, but don't aim your crosshairs to Roger Ebert in questioning his comprehension of artwork.

You might want to lay off the political discussions here, my friend -- that sort of thing is pretty much against the rules. There are plenty of places on the Internet where you can trash conservative (or liberal) TV commentators, but EN World is not one of them.

Johnathan

 

[Felon]

How did Penny Arcade ever get to be this successful? To draw this much attention? I mean, the website's only initial offering was just a crudely-drawn, profanity-filled, three-panel comic, right? What's the big deal with them?

In short, when did the opinion of Tycho ever become a rallying point?

 

[Fast Learner]

Probably since the rise of PAX.

I feel that Ebert is wrong and inexperience is the problem. That and that interactivity has been largely infeasible in art until recently. As to objective, I'm curious if a beautiful garden maze would therefor not be considered art.

Tycho is wrong because he's being an ass. I think he's generally right about videogames as art, though.

 

[Hand of Evil]

The problem is that we are at a transtional period in history, art has always been something that effects the senses and / or emotions. It is sort of the early days of movie making, movies were seen, not as art but entertainment, it was only after a people started to voice their feeling on the subject and people looked at the impact it made on their lives that it was classed as art.

It was the outcome of the sum of the parts but only when there is enough to compare it too. It is not what you and I think but what all of us think together, the glass has to go pass the halfway point for some to become.

 

[Jeremy Ackerman-Yost]

To the OP, we (including Tycho) are allowed to put Ebert on the wrong side of history because all the evidence suggests that he is.

Go back to the beginning of cinema and the Roger Eberts of the world were art critics who spent most of their time on paintings. They wrote screeds against film that read almost exactly like Ebert's opinion pieces on video games. The parallels are deep and hilarious.

In fairness to them, early cinema was loaded with stinkers and pandering to the lowest common denominator. Sort of... exactly like video games now. And mass market books/magazines/newspapers and even theater were before film and television was after film. In fact, all these mass media forms are bottom heavy with low art and utter dreck and always will be.

As a stab in the dark, I would estimate 1% of the output in any given medium qualifies as high art. Over time, a mass of high art in that medium accrues until people are forced to acknowledge that medium is art. Every once in a while, a game-changer comes along. A work like Citizen Kane brings some percentage of the detractors up short. Or a game-changing artist like Hitchcock shows a large audience what film can do that theater can't.

The elite of the previous generation always resist this kind of change. It is consistent across history.

Video games have a particularly tough row to hoe because of their interactive nature. With a partial exception for theater, all our other art forms are passive. Art is presented to us. With video games, we participate in art. This is a larger mental leap for the old guard, not least because you have to train yourself to do it.

 

[Dias Ex Machina]

<Something I wrong in the PA forum>

I am incorrect (though no one has pointed it out) comparing Tycho's final remark about artwork and my counter about monkeys at a typewriter. Art is a directed intent and Monkeys at a typewriter is an example of finding patterns in chaos. I am incorrect in that one.

I will then stress that artwork is the intent by a creator or creators to present something which can be interpreted by another. I want to emphasize "interpret". If it is a directed to someone with only one opinion by the creator, it's more an essay than an expression to be pondered. Artwork's validity as art is entirely based on the viewer. In which case, everything can be art but it is a narrow field confined to the viewer. Also remember that art can be a closed loop intended just for the artist. It is still art if the artist feels it is and shows it to no one.

Games can be art, as can automobiles or houses, but this is my opinion. In fact, trying to define artwork as a term can also be considered offensive. Ebert's point about games being interactive is also questionable as artwork is interactive but not in ways readily measured. Some performance artwork have been directly interactive. What you get from the experience is why it becomes art. Roger then pushes the point by saying you complete a game, and artwork refuses such confines of "completion". This is valid but once again stems from his view of artwork. Is your time viewing the Mona Lisa not "complete" when you walk away from it? Games can have resonance for hours after you walk away from it, as can any movie, book, or painting.

My defense of Ebert derives from his intelligence and my respect of his opinion. My criticism of him comes the fact that I simply disagree with him this time. I understand PA also disagrees with him but to go on such a venomous attack--disregarding him like they did--I feel devalues the worth of their argument.

I will clarify my criticism on the record. I found the comic hilarious. Absolutely. The first two frames are exactly what I expect from PA. The last frame was Jerry making his valid point. Now if the comic stood on its own, I wouldn't have spoken up. It is the blog I responded so disapprovingly over. They direct as much fervor and firepower as their attacks against Jack Thompson. I mean "reeking ejaculate"? "Wretched, ancient warlock?" This is Roger Ebert. He adores science fiction, loves anime. He supports avant-garde filmmaking and has rained praise on some of the most controversial works in history. Yes, I have disagreed with him in the past and disagree with him here, but he doesn't deserve those words.
Art defies definition. It is, by its very nature, opinionated. Determining the artistic value of a work ranks up there as one the most vocal debates in history, placed just below religion, sovereign territorial rights, and our favorite transformer.

When I watch Jon Stewart, he does likewise ("Go F$%& yourselves" just last week) but he goes after people who are morally and ethically my opposite. We cheer on PA when they went after Thompson. Is my opinion manipulated because of my respect of Roger Ebert?

Yes.

I admit I am...but that is because I value his opinion. I respect both Jerry and Roger so I was bothered to see them in discord. I do give a s$%&# what Roger Ebert says, because he is not a creature.

Roger Ebert...is an artist.