Art as well as beauty are in the eye of the beholder. The guy may have a mmorpg screensaver, and not even realize it.
Attempting to "pin down" what constitutes art has proved to be an exhaustive undertaking. Currently, it seems the best that we can do is to identify certain elements, or criteria that should be present in art. Such a cluster definition, cannot decisively say that something "is" or "is not" art, but can help us understand and identify the elements and responses that exemplify some of the best and enduring art.
As for beauty being "in the eye of the beholder", evolutionary aesthetics argues that at least some of our aesthetics responses, concerning those objects which we find "beautiful" or "ugly" are hardwired, and the result of fitness adaptations.
While what we view as being "art" seems to be more or less subjective, there is a sense of objectivity when we talk about our aesthetic repsonses toward such objects.
Anyone who is under the impression that video games can't be art just hasn't played AoC. Seriously, play it in high quality and check out some of the armour and scenery. It really is a work of art.
I don't think they are talking about artwork when they say video games can't be art.
You can hang a picasso on a shack, that doesn't make the shack art.
So the creativity and imagination to create a painting is far more artsy than to create a scenery in 3d? Why a painting in the wall is called art but a landscape in 3d is not considered so?
Now this is a very, very good question actually. As each is very much art, yet two very distinctive styles of it. World creation in the 3D sense is as much a form of art as sculpting something from clay. As without an artistic vision you're not going to come up with much, you may have a basic shape or even a perfect human figure. The problem is it will be stiff and lifeless the expressionism is lost meaning the artform is lost.
It takes an artistic eye to create a visual representation of an object. Without an eye for it, there will be zero expression, without understanding what expressionism is you will not be creating pieces of art.
Firstly, I fail to see how someone who attempts to paint an object "without understanding what expressionism is", will be failing to produce art. Disregarding the fact that expressionism is a specific genre of painting, I will assume (hopefully not incorrectly) that you mean artistic expression. A painter or sculptor may represent an object without having any "eye" whatsoever for that specific thing. Expression enters in the form of the emotions, thoughts, beliefs and views that the artist holds towards the object and which are imbued in his work.
Secondly, I think it is beyond doubt that many, if not all visual/audible/fictional elements of video-games are, or at least can in some instances be considered art in their own right. What we might be forgetting, or misunderstanding, is the role of the viewer/participant, and their aesthetic experience. Although video-games, or at least certain aspects of them are likely to be considered art, does the viewer enagage them as such?
Video games are a multimedia, A combination of many art forms. Multimedia is the next step in Artistic advancement and expressions. People who don't realize this are still living in the past. Art is about doing new things, new ideas. I am willing to bet if any of the masters were alive today they would take advantage of a new medium. This is how new art periods are made, not by people who stick with things that have already been done. Not to mention this statement was created by a film critic, his opinion means nothing. I would not respect any opinion about art unless it was made by and experienced and skilled artist. This is one thing that makes me mad about my profession everyone thinks they are an expert when it comes to art.
Basically this boils down to when did collaboration started not making something art
I think that Ebert is wrong. I think that games are bridging the gap cinematically. Graphics are dramatically improving and it is an art form that gives players control over the art. There is interactive art. Just because players can exert their force doesn't make it any less artistic. So I would say that he is very incorrect.
Thank you for your reply. Now that you've mentioned it, Morrowind is a striking example. It had a very distinct and fascinating atmosphere, and since the game itself wasn't in my face all the time (none of the time, to be exact), I felt free to let my thoughts wander and define the experience myself. To this day, I still fire it up occasionally just to visit a player-made home that I simply love to death. (On the other hand: Oblivion, while the same game in many respects, didn't have the same lasting impression for me. The game world didn't carry the same mystique, or something like that. I'd be less inclined to classify it as "art" - and from your comments, I gather we're in the same ball park here.)
Have to admit, though, that I don't care whether it's generally regarded "art" or not. That moniker just involves a lot of conflict and bitter debates. (Maybe it's different where you live, but where I'm at popular culture carries infinately more significance than the marginalized "higher arts", so I don't think we're missing out by being part of the mainstream.)
I think video games can be art, and it's ridiculous to think that they can't be. But to understand why you have to understand how games compare to other mediums like film, photography, painting, etc.
Art is constantly changing in response to the ongoing advancements in technology. In general, painting was superseded by photography, which was superseded by film, which is superseded by video games/digital interaction. Each of these new developments was built off its predecessor, designed to take the idea of storytelling/suggestion with images to the next level once the current stage of technology had reached its potential. It is in this way that art and technology have forever influenced one another, as man's desire to tell stories and share his emotions has led him to seek out better and better ways to do so.
Now, our culture's response to each of these developments may not have completely surpassed what the previous achieved, but it is important to distinguish how each new advancement has a greater potential to bridge the gap between an artist trying to express something and his audience. Each new tier of technology further and further creates an artificial reality that the viewer can become lost in, and once they are there it is up to the artist to guide their emotions and feelings and lead them to certain realizations or discoveries.
Like I said, the way our culture has embraced these technologies is almost always to turn them into entertainment. This stunts their growth as pure art forms somewhat because certain formulas become established, and then the very meaning of the art to both viewers and new artists becomes how to copy or improve on these formulas. So an art begins to go in a certain direction, and it snowballs until people largely forget where it came from, what it's basic capabilities are, and the countless different ways they can be used. Once it reaches this point, the idea of what is "mainstream" becomes affirmed, and conversely those who go against it become the avant garde. These two forces play a constant balancing act, with the avant garde responding to what is needed to invigorate an art form and the mainstream taking that and pushing it to the extreme, until it has become exhausted and again something new is needed.
The history of video games up until now has more or less been to create interactive movies. This was probably a necessary way for games to develop, as we are only in the first 20 years or so of major video game development and it is natural for a new, fledgling art form to at first imitate the ideas of its predecessor (film). During the first few decades of any new art, it takes the artists and innovators time to experiment and figure out what works and what doesn't.
With film, the first films were simply static shots of moving trains or people exiting a building, because they were fascinating at the time, and just to achieve those was an accomplishment (and likewise we have Pong, Asteroids, and Tetris). But then filmmakers began to use different camera angles, and then began to juxtapose shots to create montage and convey a message from a series of images, and then finally there was sound, and then in recent years we have the onset of computer graphics/special effects. This traces a 100+ year history of film and shows how artists learn more and more what they can do to better convey their message, and create worlds for viewers to become immersed in.
You can look at video games and draw some parallels. There are too many developments to try and mention them all, but off the top of my head: look at FPS games, and how companies like Irrational and Valve have experimented with using the first-person view to place the player in the shoes of the character, rather than behind an avatar; look at what Bioware is doing with branching story arcs that build on each other to narrow down a more and more specific story based on the player's decisions; think about how the idea of an HUD has evolved, with things like lifebars or bullet counts more and more disappearing from the edges of the screen and instead being integrated into the visuals themselves. These are all ways that innovators are learning to better immerse the player in the experience.
Looking to the future, with 3D and the idea of virtual reality, it is games that will take the furthest advantage of this, not films. Already, we have become disillusioned to films somewhat because we no longer have that feeling of discovery, that anything can happen, because we know that this will be a one-off experience, with a predetermined pacing and timeframe, and that there is an ending at some point. We have realized, more or less, that films are a passive experience.
This is because we have experienced video games where we can actually change the outcome, where we have to interact with what's in front of us. It is a much more immersive experience, by design. That is because games are the cutting edge of technology; the best our innovators have to offer and have achieved. The mainstream, as I mentioned above, will continue to utilize this technology to create blockbuster experiences like Halo or Super Mario, which will always simply remain games and do not really innovate when it comes to interaction itself, while games I referenced above like Bioshock and Mass Effect explore more of the art form side, and push the boundaries to new levels. The mainstream and the avant garde; they will always be the two driving forces of an art form, and they are beginning to take shape in the games industry now that basic things like graphics and how to ergonomically design a controller and its buttons, etc, have been figured out.
Games as we know them today will probably someday be replaced by greater levels of immersion as technology increases, like something that plugs directly into your brain and overtakes your very consciousness. But that's just an example. The idea though is that games are art; while still early in their development, they are the closest we have come to suggesting a separate reality to a viewer. This is always what art is about. Music has the power to completely change your mood, writing/wordcraft can expand your mind and make you think on greater levels of intelligence, film and photography can take you places suggestively that are impossible to go physically, and video games bring these new worlds even closer to you by making them feel real and imminent because they present you with things from this world that you actually have to react to. And of course there's more, and each of these different mediums blur together and share these qualities. But games are in there; they are part of the wheel.
Cowboy
Everything you discribed is related to entertainment not exactly art.
There is escapism in art too, but art need ideas, thoughts, concepts and feelings.
Art (not ornament) is not there just to entertain, just to be beautiful, just to function in a way to remove you from the boring reality.
Most of today's cinema, pop music (including rock and alternative music), video games, and illustrations are there for entertainment purposes to please the consumer (even in small scale). Most of what people with no "artistic" interest call Art, are in truth, entertainment, social and aesthetical products.
It doesn't mean that entertainment products are worse than "real" Art, you can find artistic sensibility in a lot of entertainment media products, you can find artistic sensibility in ornaments but in human History you will find several examples that shows that a "beautiful" and imaginative object, illustration, composition will be just a "beautiful piece" without strong ideas, a filosophy behind it.
Mass Effect (as an example) is an interesting and well produced entertainment product. There is no expressive or revolutionary concept or idea on it, it is there to entertain you. The narrative is the pure space opera cliche, visualy the game is pleasant, but the concept has no thought or ideas behind it beside the space opera typical icons and functional narrative.
As an entertainment product Mass Effect is good as a "Piece of Art" Mass Effect would be laughable.
Will you find "genuine" and expressive sensibility in games like Silent Hill 2, Bioshock and many others, but they are entertainment functional products with art on it, and not Pieces of Art.
Game developers like Kojima, Miyamoto and Fumito Ueda (known for his "artistic" games) said that video games are not Art, even when there is a lot of Art in it.
Just like design a videogame need to be functional, a video game is not primaly a vessel for thoughts, ideas and everything related to artistic movements.
If you get the concept, ideas and original thoughts behind entertainment products, from videogames to pop music and "Hollywoodian" cinema and start to call it "Pure Art" you will get a lot of unoriginal, weak, "coward", inexpressive "Pieces of Art".
From Classic to Postmodern, from Sturm und Drang to Deconstructivism, if you analize an expressive Piece of Art you will get much more depth than what you see or what you listen. Some good entertainment products (like Silent Hill 2) have more on it than just an intereting "skin" but is not on par with pure art, especially with the fact that an entertainment product like a videogame or mainstream cinema need to be accepted, need to be functional.
If you call a videogame an entertainment product with "art" on it I agree and I think you will be respecting what game developers are producing, but if you want to call a videogame a "Piece of Art" you will be reducing it to an unoriginal, beauty but shallow and comercial "piece of art".
Art is not just an ornament it is not just what you see at first glance, what matters is what is "behind" it.
The incredible Ivan Aivazovsky paintings are examples of expressive art not just because they "look" good, but because they have thoughts, ideas that justify them.
Sometimes Art does not look pleasant, does not sound pleasant but there is a reason behind it.
If you don't understand the reasons and ideas you don't understand the piece even if you enjoy it (or not) at first glance.
Thank you for your reply. Now that you've mentioned it, Morrowind is a striking example. It had a very distinct and fascinating atmosphere, and since the game itself wasn't in my face all the time (none of the time, to be exact), I felt free to let my thoughts wander and define the experience myself. To this day, I still fire it up occasionally just to visit a player-made home that I simply love to death. (On the other hand: Oblivion, while the same game in many respects, didn't have the same lasting impression for me. The game world didn't carry the same mystique, or something like that. I'd be less inclined to classify it as "art" - and from your comments, I gather we're in the same ball park here.)
Have to admit, though, that I don't care whether it's generally regarded "art" or not. That moniker just involves a lot of conflict and bitter debates. (Maybe it's different where you live, but where I'm at popular culture carries infinately more significance than the marginalized "higher arts", so I don't think we're missing out by being part of the mainstream.)
Now that I think about it, the way you describe Morrowind is exactly the difference between the two games, and why I consider Morrowind on a different plane from Oblivion. Both have massive, realistic worlds, populated by somewhat dimensional people (when judged by the sheer volume of them). Oblivion may even be considered more real in that NPCs have lives and schedules in a more realistic way.
It is, as you say, the way you interact with the game. Morrowind lets you experience the world. It lets you enter into it and do what you will. It does not force itself on you. Oblivion does. It constantly reminds you that you are in something artificial. The way the map works, the fast travel, the journalling system in general, it all works against the feel of the world.
Perhaps that will have some serious meaning for the future of games as an art form. It is not just the story, or the emotions, the quality of the graphics or music, but also the way the player engages with that experience.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
"Of course video games are art. They are nothing but art. They are art piled on top of more art..."
"...I say games are art and last time I checked, I was beating Michelle Obama, Oprah and Taylor swift in Time's 100 most influential people list. -Gabe out"
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
Originally posted by melmoth1 ...Nothing in the Ebert blog contributed to this debate and his definition of art was largely a motley collection of quotes, a cliched collection of "great works" that idiots the world over accept as great art because they have been told it's so (a bit like people who stuff their shelves with Booker prize list books), and an unconscious endorsement of the idea that art is an objective, descriptive category....I kinda harbor an impossible hope that video games will NEVER be recognized as art because it would save the genre from smug and insufferable custodians of taste like Ebert and Bloom and the Booker judges. When video games are "officially" recognized as art it would to do to our games what the art critics and custodians of high-culture did to surrealism: castrate what was once virile and fresh into a safe and sterile medium for the bourgeoisie to discuss in their dull ego-stroking dinner parties.
Thread starter owned in very first reply.
People who depend on critics to tell them what is art are the same kind of dumbasses who habitually buy every Next Big Thing on the tv shopping channel, believe in the healing and eternal youth rejuvinating powers of crystal, and swear that Elvis was seen at a nearby 7-11 because the tabloids said so.
I tend to agree with him, so what is your opinion?
Metal Gear Solid.
/thread
Playing: *sigh* back to WoW -------- Waiting for: SW:TOR, APB, WoD --------- Played and loved: Eve and WoW -------- Played and hated: WoW:WotLK, Warhammer, every single F2P
Originally posted by rebelhero1 Originally posted by Aercus According to Roger Ebert on his blog. I tend to agree with him, so what is your opinion?
Metal Gear Solid.
/thread
First, I want to agree with and applaud your Metal Gear Solid mention.
Second, I have to know. You loved both EVE and WoW? Can you elaborate on this? I do not think I have ever encountered someone that says this.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
It made me lol, because of the ignorant use of the word 'never' of the blogger and how the discussion turned out to be.
Like always this discussion will come down to the definition of the word art. The discussion between Santiago and Egberts is only about defending their definition of the word art. This makes the discussion meaningless because they dont find any truth in there, only some discussion of semantics.
It also shouldnt matter. All that matters is the intention of the creator, not what some critics have to say about it. I mean, who are they?
I tend to agree with him, so what is your opinion?
Metal Gear Solid.
/thread
First, I want to agree with and applaud your Metal Gear Solid mention.
Second, I have to know. You loved both EVE and WoW? Can you elaborate on this? I do not think I have ever encountered someone that says this.
I do like them both too. It is not that difficult if you simply look at games as a form of entertainment. It entertains you or not. Your reaction implies a certain point of view about how MMO's should be. I assume you associate liking WoW or EVE with intelligence. Which is bollocks.
I always find it laughable if players dont want to be known for liking WoW, because it has such a bad name. Especially if they dont realise that some of their more 'complex' games are not that complex at all. Certainly not complex enough to derive some status of it (if thats even possible). They are all just bloody entertainment to begin with.
I tend to agree with him, so what is your opinion?
Metal Gear Solid.
/thread
First, I want to agree with and applaud your Metal Gear Solid mention.
Second, I have to know. You loved both EVE and WoW? Can you elaborate on this? I do not think I have ever encountered someone that says this.
*brofist*
As for the Eve and WoW thing. I spent a lot of time on WoW mainly because of friends. I had fun in it similar to how someone has fun at a mall with their friends.
I just loved Eve for who she was
Playing: *sigh* back to WoW -------- Waiting for: SW:TOR, APB, WoD --------- Played and loved: Eve and WoW -------- Played and hated: WoW:WotLK, Warhammer, every single F2P
My opinion is that games are not art, and its due to the fact that its a mass merchandise product with only focus creating profit for a corporation. I find games to be like a Hollywood blockbuster or Dan Brown novel - the main focus is not maximizing the artistic values but profits. It cannot possibly be art, though it may be kitsch.
The question I ask myself when faced with situation where something may or may not be art is: Would the creator sacrifice profits to increase the art value of the product? If he wouldn't, then it's not art.
As for why many gamers so desperately want games to be considered art I believe it is to make them feel better about their past time. At least I feel like a better person after having read The Process instead of a crime novel, but the latter is a lot more fun to do
So you're saying that if something is made for mass merchandise is not art? That makes no sense.
Saying that there is no art in games today is offensive to thousand of great artists that work on this field.
Its not exactly what I am saying. What I am trying to get acros is that art serves a higher purpose than profits and entertainment. Its made to make you think, reflect, react, as critizism or commentary and/or many other things. Games serves no higher purpose than to entertain and turn a profit, and any artistry is added becaue it will increase these aspects.
I see that many are attacking Ebert instead of arguing his opinion, but the fact is that he is a very well reknown critic of the arts. Doesn't mean you need to agree with him, but ad hominem attacks doesn't further your case. Many also critizise what is widely regarded as art, e.g. "shit in a can" and "animals in pieces". You may not like that type art or understand it, but that does not detract from the fact that, unlike games, they are made for reasons other than profits, they have a deeper meaning and thus they are art.
As for critizising me for taking the opinion of experts - if I have limited knowledge myself, and someone with vast knowledge speaks, I stop, listen, and learn. Tending to agree with subject matter expert isn't a sign of sheepishness, rather that you realize the limits of your knowledge and acknowledge that sometimes people know better than yourself.
People who depend on critics to tell them what is art are the same kind of dumbasses who habitually buy every Next Big Thing on the tv shopping channel, believe in the healing and eternal youth rejuvinating powers of crystal, and swear that Elvis was seen at a nearby 7-11 because the tabloids said so.
Well, people you discribed will sometimes think that everything they "like" and everything "that looks pretty" and entertain them is "Art" and something more than just entertainment.
Most people will call what they like "Art", if you noticed most people here call games that they like and games that look pleasant "Art" .
Ideas, thoughs, genuinity and expressivity, those details are related to fine Art for centuries in human history. Those are some of the reasons Design is not accepted as pure art and they fit some of the reasons mainstream videogames are not pure Art even with the fact you will find a lot of artists working with videogame developers.
Melmoth used nice arguments, but he doen't owned the OP, you don't even know the OP's arguments, you only know that he agree with Ebert words.
I disagree with Ebert arguments but I also disagree with most arguments here that are the opposite of Ebert words.
A functional entertainment product without a strong filosophy, concept, expressivity and ideas behind and it dependant on mass marketing and acceptance like all mainstream games (that include less well known games like ICO, Silent Hill, Folklore, "independent" mmorpgs etc) is much more of a entertainment product than a piece of Art. But just like a mainstream hollywood movies, will you find artistic details and artists working with it, but those artistic details, ornaments and sensibility only make a videogame a more deep entertainment product not a Piece of Art.
Even people like Kojima who created videogames that most fans call "Art" said videogames are not exaclty art so I don't understand why you hold such a low image of someone who agree with this like the OP.
I already said this, but if you analize games that are considered good as a full entertainment product that is fun, relatively"deep" but accessible, exciting and emotive and start analize it as a Piece of Art you will have a shallow piece of cheap cliche, without original or unique filosophies and ideas behind it and a piece that wouldn't last more than 10 years without look and sound dated and not very expressive as it need to sell and sell fast.
What do you prefer, call games a good and well produced piece of entertainment or a bad, comercial and shallow piece of Art?
Now this is a very, very good question actually. As each is very much art, yet two very distinctive styles of it. World creation in the 3D sense is as much a form of art as sculpting something from clay. As without an artistic vision you're not going to come up with much, you may have a basic shape or even a perfect human figure. The problem is it will be stiff and lifeless the expressionism is lost meaning the artform is lost.
It takes an artistic eye to create a visual representation of an object. Without an eye for it, there will be zero expression, without understanding what expressionism is you will not be creating pieces of art.
Though I do think people are getting caught up in the whole idea of being able to create renderings and textures and therefore it takes skill and therefore it is art.
Art is more about perception than anything else.
A few years ago at the Museum of Fine Arts here in boston there was a showing of classic cars.
Now there is art to their design but I'm not sure the makers were thinking "oh we are creating art". maybe they were, who knows.
But if you take a painting from Mondrian's later period, one might look at it and say "hey, it takes far more "artistic ability" to create a game world or a game avatar than that painting.
And as far as ability, sure! It takes much more ability to create a game world than to probably recreate one of Mondrian's later paintings. But Art is more than just the object. It is also the perception of the object. Piet Mondrian is considered a major 20th century painter. An Artist. So again it takes far more skill to create a game world, to render a realistic item than it would take to create this. But this is not about art of ability so much as art as an idea:
So is all game media art?
It seems that it's far more complex. I believe there is art and artistry in games. But one can also create such a thing and offer it as is without attaching the moniker of art.
Or, one can paint a square on a white canvas and say "it's art". So it seems to me that there might be some sort of unspoken collaboration in the event, in the offering of the work of art, when one considers wthether it is art.
If I make a chair and add some nice touches I might not consider it art. But someone else might look at it and say "heck, it's art!".
You make a very good point which should be considered when ever questioning whether something is art or not. However when I'm referring to an artform, I'm referring to a specific medium. In this case that would be world design and layout. Just like sculpting it takes a keen eye to create something sellable. Whether that be a mismatch of basic shapes and patterns or a more finely detailed diorama. There's an approach an "artist" will take that will create an appeal to others.
An average person is capable of this of course, it's just without experience ( just like any skill) you're going to be making mistakes. I went through four years of art school, these are the things you are taught to avoid.
As a musician you should understand there's a difference between someone who plays music and someone who writes music, it's the same in the world of art as well.
What you're showing above is an example of how the simplest thing can appeal to the eye, in this case it's a form of negative/positive in color (commonly Black and white is used in such a style). The color is used in a way that catches the eye. There's also a bit of a pattern to it, most likely pre-planned, as the artist was creating what ever he/she was invisioning.
I'll use another example that could be compared to music, as music like art is both a skill and an avenue of personal expression. Comic books, a lot of kids grow up drawing comic figures, with a dream of one day working for Marvel or DC etc.. Now many can be talented at drawing and creating characters. The problem is without studying the fundamental principles these companies require from an artist they will never have a chance at fullfilling that dream. These principles may completely ruin your style at first as when you do something wrong for to long a time you develop bad habits that are hard to break.
Just like playing Piano or a guitar. There is a proper way to play and an improper way to play. Professional artists, are expected to use these fundamentals in their work. This is where expressionism comes in. Anyone can draw given enough practice, the problem is they all can't create an image that inspires the feeling of action taking place. This boils down to how you start your picture, someone who is untrained is likely to just jump right at drawing their character. Someone who is trained starts with what's normally called an action line.
This line gives you a basis of motion, or power. Without it your picture will look stiff and lifeless.
Just like if you use progressions that do not work your music comes out lifeless and generic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Can you not see the gritty earthiness of existence that the caveman has expressed? The minimalist brush stokes that give the sensation of movement, the vibrancy of the colours reaching into the wild mans soul? One might question the artists need to show the horse ‘having a pony’ as it were, but this expresses the wisdom that we are all part of a cycle of nature so essential to early mans psyche.
We live in a world of art by endorsement, so don’t try to tell your betters what art is.
And hasn't Ebert ever heard of machinima? I wonder if he thinks they are neither art, movies nor videogames. And what about Star Wars? They were all CG, same thing you see in video games, so maybe Star Wars is not art or movie either, just another game.
Comments
Attempting to "pin down" what constitutes art has proved to be an exhaustive undertaking. Currently, it seems the best that we can do is to identify certain elements, or criteria that should be present in art. Such a cluster definition, cannot decisively say that something "is" or "is not" art, but can help us understand and identify the elements and responses that exemplify some of the best and enduring art.
As for beauty being "in the eye of the beholder", evolutionary aesthetics argues that at least some of our aesthetics responses, concerning those objects which we find "beautiful" or "ugly" are hardwired, and the result of fitness adaptations.
While what we view as being "art" seems to be more or less subjective, there is a sense of objectivity when we talk about our aesthetic repsonses toward such objects.
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Firstly, I fail to see how someone who attempts to paint an object "without understanding what expressionism is", will be failing to produce art. Disregarding the fact that expressionism is a specific genre of painting, I will assume (hopefully not incorrectly) that you mean artistic expression. A painter or sculptor may represent an object without having any "eye" whatsoever for that specific thing. Expression enters in the form of the emotions, thoughts, beliefs and views that the artist holds towards the object and which are imbued in his work.
Secondly, I think it is beyond doubt that many, if not all visual/audible/fictional elements of video-games are, or at least can in some instances be considered art in their own right. What we might be forgetting, or misunderstanding, is the role of the viewer/participant, and their aesthetic experience. Although video-games, or at least certain aspects of them are likely to be considered art, does the viewer enagage them as such?
Is it a game first and art second?
Which Final Fantasy Character Are You?
Final Fantasy 7
Video games are a multimedia, A combination of many art forms. Multimedia is the next step in Artistic advancement and expressions. People who don't realize this are still living in the past. Art is about doing new things, new ideas. I am willing to bet if any of the masters were alive today they would take advantage of a new medium. This is how new art periods are made, not by people who stick with things that have already been done. Not to mention this statement was created by a film critic, his opinion means nothing. I would not respect any opinion about art unless it was made by and experienced and skilled artist. This is one thing that makes me mad about my profession everyone thinks they are an expert when it comes to art.
Basically this boils down to when did collaboration started not making something art
To be honest to rebutt Roger all I have to say is two words: Silent Hill.
I think that Ebert is wrong. I think that games are bridging the gap cinematically. Graphics are dramatically improving and it is an art form that gives players control over the art. There is interactive art. Just because players can exert their force doesn't make it any less artistic. So I would say that he is very incorrect.
www.ryzom.com
Ico.
No other rebuttal is necessary.
@ Dubhlaith
Thank you for your reply. Now that you've mentioned it, Morrowind is a striking example. It had a very distinct and fascinating atmosphere, and since the game itself wasn't in my face all the time (none of the time, to be exact), I felt free to let my thoughts wander and define the experience myself. To this day, I still fire it up occasionally just to visit a player-made home that I simply love to death. (On the other hand: Oblivion, while the same game in many respects, didn't have the same lasting impression for me. The game world didn't carry the same mystique, or something like that. I'd be less inclined to classify it as "art" - and from your comments, I gather we're in the same ball park here.)
Have to admit, though, that I don't care whether it's generally regarded "art" or not. That moniker just involves a lot of conflict and bitter debates. (Maybe it's different where you live, but where I'm at popular culture carries infinately more significance than the marginalized "higher arts", so I don't think we're missing out by being part of the mainstream.)
If this is art...
Then this is art..
They may both be art but they're bad art. Just like two games can both be games but one is hl2 and one is a sack of shit.
Cowboy
Everything you discribed is related to entertainment not exactly art.
There is escapism in art too, but art need ideas, thoughts, concepts and feelings.
Art (not ornament) is not there just to entertain, just to be beautiful, just to function in a way to remove you from the boring reality.
Most of today's cinema, pop music (including rock and alternative music), video games, and illustrations are there for entertainment purposes to please the consumer (even in small scale). Most of what people with no "artistic" interest call Art, are in truth, entertainment, social and aesthetical products.
It doesn't mean that entertainment products are worse than "real" Art, you can find artistic sensibility in a lot of entertainment media products, you can find artistic sensibility in ornaments but in human History you will find several examples that shows that a "beautiful" and imaginative object, illustration, composition will be just a "beautiful piece" without strong ideas, a filosophy behind it.
Mass Effect (as an example) is an interesting and well produced entertainment product. There is no expressive or revolutionary concept or idea on it, it is there to entertain you. The narrative is the pure space opera cliche, visualy the game is pleasant, but the concept has no thought or ideas behind it beside the space opera typical icons and functional narrative.
As an entertainment product Mass Effect is good as a "Piece of Art" Mass Effect would be laughable.
Will you find "genuine" and expressive sensibility in games like Silent Hill 2, Bioshock and many others, but they are entertainment functional products with art on it, and not Pieces of Art.
Game developers like Kojima, Miyamoto and Fumito Ueda (known for his "artistic" games) said that video games are not Art, even when there is a lot of Art in it.
Just like design a videogame need to be functional, a video game is not primaly a vessel for thoughts, ideas and everything related to artistic movements.
If you get the concept, ideas and original thoughts behind entertainment products, from videogames to pop music and "Hollywoodian" cinema and start to call it "Pure Art" you will get a lot of unoriginal, weak, "coward", inexpressive "Pieces of Art".
From Classic to Postmodern, from Sturm und Drang to Deconstructivism, if you analize an expressive Piece of Art you will get much more depth than what you see or what you listen. Some good entertainment products (like Silent Hill 2) have more on it than just an intereting "skin" but is not on par with pure art, especially with the fact that an entertainment product like a videogame or mainstream cinema need to be accepted, need to be functional.
If you call a videogame an entertainment product with "art" on it I agree and I think you will be respecting what game developers are producing, but if you want to call a videogame a "Piece of Art" you will be reducing it to an unoriginal, beauty but shallow and comercial "piece of art".
Ikisis
There is a problem with your analysis.
Art is not just an ornament it is not just what you see at first glance, what matters is what is "behind" it.
The incredible Ivan Aivazovsky paintings are examples of expressive art not just because they "look" good, but because they have thoughts, ideas that justify them.
Sometimes Art does not look pleasant, does not sound pleasant but there is a reason behind it.
If you don't understand the reasons and ideas you don't understand the piece even if you enjoy it (or not) at first glance.
Thank you for your reply. Now that you've mentioned it, Morrowind is a striking example. It had a very distinct and fascinating atmosphere, and since the game itself wasn't in my face all the time (none of the time, to be exact), I felt free to let my thoughts wander and define the experience myself. To this day, I still fire it up occasionally just to visit a player-made home that I simply love to death. (On the other hand: Oblivion, while the same game in many respects, didn't have the same lasting impression for me. The game world didn't carry the same mystique, or something like that. I'd be less inclined to classify it as "art" - and from your comments, I gather we're in the same ball park here.)
Have to admit, though, that I don't care whether it's generally regarded "art" or not. That moniker just involves a lot of conflict and bitter debates. (Maybe it's different where you live, but where I'm at popular culture carries infinately more significance than the marginalized "higher arts", so I don't think we're missing out by being part of the mainstream.)
Now that I think about it, the way you describe Morrowind is exactly the difference between the two games, and why I consider Morrowind on a different plane from Oblivion. Both have massive, realistic worlds, populated by somewhat dimensional people (when judged by the sheer volume of them). Oblivion may even be considered more real in that NPCs have lives and schedules in a more realistic way.
It is, as you say, the way you interact with the game. Morrowind lets you experience the world. It lets you enter into it and do what you will. It does not force itself on you. Oblivion does. It constantly reminds you that you are in something artificial. The way the map works, the fast travel, the journalling system in general, it all works against the feel of the world.
Perhaps that will have some serious meaning for the future of games as an art form. It is not just the story, or the emotions, the quality of the graphics or music, but also the way the player engages with that experience.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/4/21/
http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/4/21/
To quote...
"Of course video games are art. They are nothing but art. They are art piled on top of more art..."
"...I say games are art and last time I checked, I was beating Michelle Obama, Oprah and Taylor swift in Time's 100 most influential people list. -Gabe out"
I am playing EVE and it's alright... level V skills are a bit much.
You all need to learn to spell.
People who depend on critics to tell them what is art are the same kind of dumbasses who habitually buy every Next Big Thing on the tv shopping channel, believe in the healing and eternal youth rejuvinating powers of crystal, and swear that Elvis was seen at a nearby 7-11 because the tabloids said so.
" In Defeat, Malice; In Victory, Revenge! "
Metal Gear Solid.
/thread
Playing: *sigh* back to WoW
--------
Waiting for: SW:TOR, APB, WoD
---------
Played and loved: Eve and WoW
--------
Played and hated: WoW:WotLK, Warhammer, every single F2P
/thread
First, I want to agree with and applaud your Metal Gear Solid mention.
Second, I have to know. You loved both EVE and WoW? Can you elaborate on this? I do not think I have ever encountered someone that says this.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
WTF? No subscription fee?
It made me lol.
It made me lol, because of the ignorant use of the word 'never' of the blogger and how the discussion turned out to be.
Like always this discussion will come down to the definition of the word art. The discussion between Santiago and Egberts is only about defending their definition of the word art. This makes the discussion meaningless because they dont find any truth in there, only some discussion of semantics.
It also shouldnt matter. All that matters is the intention of the creator, not what some critics have to say about it. I mean, who are they?
(Sry for my bad english)
I do like them both too. It is not that difficult if you simply look at games as a form of entertainment. It entertains you or not. Your reaction implies a certain point of view about how MMO's should be. I assume you associate liking WoW or EVE with intelligence. Which is bollocks.
I always find it laughable if players dont want to be known for liking WoW, because it has such a bad name. Especially if they dont realise that some of their more 'complex' games are not that complex at all. Certainly not complex enough to derive some status of it (if thats even possible). They are all just bloody entertainment to begin with.
I believe the first one is actually an early cave painting.
If anything, it is one of the most brilliant works of art that man has ever made.
Even if he meant it to just tell a story or to show what his people should be hunting.
The second...
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
*brofist*
As for the Eve and WoW thing. I spent a lot of time on WoW mainly because of friends. I had fun in it similar to how someone has fun at a mall with their friends.
I just loved Eve for who she was
Playing: *sigh* back to WoW
--------
Waiting for: SW:TOR, APB, WoD
---------
Played and loved: Eve and WoW
--------
Played and hated: WoW:WotLK, Warhammer, every single F2P
Its not exactly what I am saying. What I am trying to get acros is that art serves a higher purpose than profits and entertainment. Its made to make you think, reflect, react, as critizism or commentary and/or many other things. Games serves no higher purpose than to entertain and turn a profit, and any artistry is added becaue it will increase these aspects.
I see that many are attacking Ebert instead of arguing his opinion, but the fact is that he is a very well reknown critic of the arts. Doesn't mean you need to agree with him, but ad hominem attacks doesn't further your case. Many also critizise what is widely regarded as art, e.g. "shit in a can" and "animals in pieces". You may not like that type art or understand it, but that does not detract from the fact that, unlike games, they are made for reasons other than profits, they have a deeper meaning and thus they are art.
As for critizising me for taking the opinion of experts - if I have limited knowledge myself, and someone with vast knowledge speaks, I stop, listen, and learn. Tending to agree with subject matter expert isn't a sign of sheepishness, rather that you realize the limits of your knowledge and acknowledge that sometimes people know better than yourself.
Well, people you discribed will sometimes think that everything they "like" and everything "that looks pretty" and entertain them is "Art" and something more than just entertainment.
Most people will call what they like "Art", if you noticed most people here call games that they like and games that look pleasant "Art" .
Ideas, thoughs, genuinity and expressivity, those details are related to fine Art for centuries in human history. Those are some of the reasons Design is not accepted as pure art and they fit some of the reasons mainstream videogames are not pure Art even with the fact you will find a lot of artists working with videogame developers.
Melmoth used nice arguments, but he doen't owned the OP, you don't even know the OP's arguments, you only know that he agree with Ebert words.
I disagree with Ebert arguments but I also disagree with most arguments here that are the opposite of Ebert words.
A functional entertainment product without a strong filosophy, concept, expressivity and ideas behind and it dependant on mass marketing and acceptance like all mainstream games (that include less well known games like ICO, Silent Hill, Folklore, "independent" mmorpgs etc) is much more of a entertainment product than a piece of Art. But just like a mainstream hollywood movies, will you find artistic details and artists working with it, but those artistic details, ornaments and sensibility only make a videogame a more deep entertainment product not a Piece of Art.
Even people like Kojima who created videogames that most fans call "Art" said videogames are not exaclty art so I don't understand why you hold such a low image of someone who agree with this like the OP.
I already said this, but if you analize games that are considered good as a full entertainment product that is fun, relatively"deep" but accessible, exciting and emotive and start analize it as a Piece of Art you will have a shallow piece of cheap cliche, without original or unique filosophies and ideas behind it and a piece that wouldn't last more than 10 years without look and sound dated and not very expressive as it need to sell and sell fast.
What do you prefer, call games a good and well produced piece of entertainment or a bad, comercial and shallow piece of Art?
You make a very good point which should be considered when ever questioning whether something is art or not. However when I'm referring to an artform, I'm referring to a specific medium. In this case that would be world design and layout. Just like sculpting it takes a keen eye to create something sellable. Whether that be a mismatch of basic shapes and patterns or a more finely detailed diorama. There's an approach an "artist" will take that will create an appeal to others.
An average person is capable of this of course, it's just without experience ( just like any skill) you're going to be making mistakes. I went through four years of art school, these are the things you are taught to avoid.
As a musician you should understand there's a difference between someone who plays music and someone who writes music, it's the same in the world of art as well.
What you're showing above is an example of how the simplest thing can appeal to the eye, in this case it's a form of negative/positive in color (commonly Black and white is used in such a style). The color is used in a way that catches the eye. There's also a bit of a pattern to it, most likely pre-planned, as the artist was creating what ever he/she was invisioning.
I'll use another example that could be compared to music, as music like art is both a skill and an avenue of personal expression. Comic books, a lot of kids grow up drawing comic figures, with a dream of one day working for Marvel or DC etc.. Now many can be talented at drawing and creating characters. The problem is without studying the fundamental principles these companies require from an artist they will never have a chance at fullfilling that dream. These principles may completely ruin your style at first as when you do something wrong for to long a time you develop bad habits that are hard to break.
Just like playing Piano or a guitar. There is a proper way to play and an improper way to play. Professional artists, are expected to use these fundamentals in their work. This is where expressionism comes in. Anyone can draw given enough practice, the problem is they all can't create an image that inspires the feeling of action taking place. This boils down to how you start your picture, someone who is untrained is likely to just jump right at drawing their character. Someone who is trained starts with what's normally called an action line.
This line gives you a basis of motion, or power. Without it your picture will look stiff and lifeless.
Just like if you use progressions that do not work your music comes out lifeless and generic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
And hasn't Ebert ever heard of machinima? I wonder if he thinks they are neither art, movies nor videogames. And what about Star Wars? They were all CG, same thing you see in video games, so maybe Star Wars is not art or movie either, just another game.
M59, UO, EQ1, WWIIOL, PS, EnB, SL, SWG. MoM, EQ2, AO, SB, CoH, LOTRO, WoW, DDO+ f2p's, Demos & indie alpha's.