Ignoring Art, Ignoring Ebert

[Baron Samedi]

In this week's cover feature (http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3536/the_arty_party.php) over at Gamasutra, former game journalist and current EA producer Jim Preston fires one over the bow of the aesthetes:

The problem with this picture is that it isn’t even remotely close to reflecting the state of art in 21st century America. To think that there is a single, generally agreed upon concept of art is to get it precisely backwards. Americans' attitude towards art is profoundly divided, disjointed and confused; and my message to gamers is to simply ignore the "is-it-art?" debate altogether.

Preston's proposal? Get games into museums, as context determines artistic appreciation. Games will be art once we're all grumpy, old codgers.

Electroplankton...

[LongStepMantis]

In my view, Games are as much art as any movie or TV program is.
If they wanna say none of those are art, fine.
But singling out just games is stupid.

[teksama]

If a fucking stack of newspaper can sit in the San Francisco Museum of Modern Art and be viewed as an amazing piece and HL2 can't ...

Things change, it is the nature of the universe we live in

It's funny and sad at the same time to watch Ebert and those of his ilk become what they once detested

[Roc Ingersol]

It's the only practical advice that makes sense.
Art is intensely personal, and a mess. Ebert is one old guy.

Ignore the whole thing. Make games that people love to play.

[Heretic Machine]

I stand by my position that game design itself is an art (as in, designing the rules of a game like chess or checkers), and that video games are also a composite art made up of many different arts (game design, cinematography, writing, various kinds of visual and sound arts... etc).

[NationalKato]

During the Dada movement, Duchamp's toilet water fountain was considered 'art.' By definition, 'art' is 'the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.'

I personally don't care what any one critic, no matter how ensconced Ebert is in the film world, says about the definition of art. It's never been something any one person can define. So, in this case, Preston is correct. We have more pressing concerns in this industry than struggling with ourselves over whether this medium we hold such passion for is worthwhile on artistic merits.

[vherub]

videogames may be art, but a museum is a less than ideal setting in which to display video art. Unlike music or even movies, you can't really setup a looping video of shadow of the colossus and have people understand it.
There would need to be an education factor involved, just as people are taught why so and so is a great artist.
But really, is something Art only after an authority has delcared it Art,or is it Art the moment it is created?

[LongStepMantis]

I think the big issue is what the fuck does Ebert know about art?
He sits on his fat ass and watches movies all day. To him, a big mac is probably art.

[Baron Samedi]

During the Dada movement, Duchamp's toilet water fountain was considered 'art.' By definition, 'art' is 'the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.'

I personally don't care what any one critic, no matter how ensconced Ebert is in the film world, says about the definition of art. It's never been something any one person can define. So, in this case, Preston is correct. We have more pressing concerns in this industry than struggling with ourselves over whether this medium we hold such passion for is worthwhile on artistic merits.

No, the definition of art changes. The West has had many different theories over the ages. This new fangled idea of art as something subjective and personal is a new definition of art. Will art mean personal a century from now? Probably not. What is "beautiful, appealing and...significant" changes based on a culture's values and mores. For games to be art, what has to change is not so much games (although there is plenty of game design yet to be explored), but our definition of art. Getting games into academic establishments will legitimize them.

[teksama]

Sounds like we neeeeeed a video game museum with interactive pieces. Imagine that field trip for the kiddies. If the adults let the children join in.


I loved to watch siskel and ebert growing up. To see him be so simple and closed minded is disheartening.

[Baron Samedi]

Sounds like we neeeeeed a video game museum with interactive pieces. Imagine that field trip for the kiddies. If the adults let the children join in.


I loved to watch siskel and ebert growing up. To see him be so simple and closed minded is disheartening.

Oh? Then why is EvAv so resistant to the Wii, casual gamers and minigames? And we're all youngin's.

[NationalKato]

No, the definition of art changes.

Well, I don't know about you, but I live in the 21st century. Why would you define art in 15th century terms? Or 25th century terms? Of course art changes, but the definition doesn't have to. We don't know what mediums will be used 50 years from now, just as we don't typically see frescos being painted traditionally anymore.

Throughout history, art has always been subjective and personal, whether it's commissioned works of old or mass-produced, collaborative items today.

[Typical_Michael]

Art is in the eye of the beholder, man!

[Baron Samedi]

Well, I don't know about you, but I live in the 21st century. Why would you define art in 15th century terms? Or 25th century terms? Of course art changes, but the definition doesn't have to. We don't know what mediums will be used 50 years from now, just as we don't typically see frescos being painted traditionally anymore.

Throughout history, art has always been subjective and personal, whether it's commissioned works of old or mass-produced, collaborative items today.

Nope. Go read history. Art use to be more social. Greek poetry, plays and music? The orchestral hall, the opera, the theater? You're applying a modern view to the past. But yes, art is certainly something personal for us today.

EDIT

I see games as the fruition of the language indeterminacy and the role of the reader discussions from the past century. Games are the embodiment of our culture's definition of art as something personal. They are the definite statement that the player "creates" the art just as much as the designer or the author. No gamer plays a game exactly the same, and each play session is something unique and intensely personal. Games are made for us and tailored for all our artistic Barbie needs.

[teksama]

Oh? Then why is EvAv so resistant to the Wii, casual gamers and minigames? And we're all youngin's.
did you pick the wrong quote kal, i am teksama not evil avatar

i will field your question though:

casual gaming comes of as lazy and uninspired.
example- wii sports(which i love) vs. HL2
my mii "poopstain", doesnt have any arms

and this site seems geared to the more dedicated gamer who wants a severe challenge
example- my 6 year old niece has 2 300 games and dominates me at cooking mama
she named her mii "peestain" and my sister in law is still not speaking to me

[Baron Samedi]

did you pick the wrong quote kal, i am teksama not evil avatar

i will field your question though:

casual gaming comes of as lazy and uninspired.
example- wii sports(which i love) vs. HL2
my mii "poopstain", doesnt have any arms

and this site seems geared to the more dedicated gamer who wants a severe challenge
example- my 6 year old niece has 2 300 games and dominates me at cooking mama
she named her mii "peestain" and my sister in law is still not speaking to me

Funny, I think Ebert would say that same thing about games not providing the same "severe artistic challenge" which film does.

[Roc Ingersol]

Sounds like we neeeeeed a video game museum with interactive pieces. Imagine that field trip for the kiddies. If the adults let the children join in.The only appropriate place for that, is online.

Most of the greatest video games of all time require hours to appreciate. You can't do that in a museum. You can, however, host an archive of downloadable virtual machines preconfigured to play a given game.

It's such an obvious idea, I'd have to imagine someone's doing it. But a brick and mortar museum? Probably not going to work. It might be a decent add-on to a proper gaming museum. A collection of short summaries, displays, video loops, etc. But it'd have to be in addition to the game archive.

[NationalKato]

Nope. Go read history. Art use to be more social. Greek poetry, plays and music? The orchestral hall, the opera, the theater?

I'm sorry, Kalaquinn, but how are those examples not personal and subjective? You're listing art forms...not definitions of art. Please enlighten me to the old definition of art that is so different from the one I presented.

[Baron Samedi]

Most of the greatest video games of all time require hours to appreciate.

Many connoisseurs sit for hours in the National Gallery contemplating Monet or Rembrandt. Great art requires contemplation.

It's such an obvious idea, I'd have to imagine someone's doing it. But a brick and mortar museum? Probably not going to work. It might be a decent add-on to a proper gaming museum. A collection of short summaries, displays, video loops, etc. But it'd have to be in addition to the game archive.

Great idea! Good luck on the licensing.

[Baron Samedi]

I'm sorry, Kalaquinn, but how are those examples not personal and subjective? You're listing art forms...not definitions of art. Please enlighten me to the old definition of art that is so different from the one I presented.

Did you read Preston's article? He lists two of his own: Classical vs. Rock n' Roll. But here, go read Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art). No offense, but if you really think your definition of art is the only definition, then you're out of your element, Donny.

[teksama]

Considering it takes a lot longer to make 'Halo3' then it did to make 'There will be blood'; I don't think the lazy and uninspired part is attributable to the medium comparison as it would be to the genre comparison

Casual games are like the sci-fi movie of the week, not the same quality but there is still plenty of fun to be had

[NationalKato]

Kalaquinn: Of course I read the article. I also have read history books, but thanks for the condescension. I just read the Wiki. I still present, despite popular culture defining art as specific, varied things over time (from a skill or mastery to stimulation of the senses to mixed-media performance) that art remains and has always been personal and subjective.

You can cite classificatory disputes amongst scholars and critics until your face turns blue...or just post links to opinions; whatever. That's what critics and philosophers have been doing in their circle-jerks for the better part of the last century. As the Wiki states, from Novitz, it's rarely the heart of the problem, is it not?

[Baron Samedi]

Then why did Chaucer read his works aloud to an audience and write them as both social entertainment and enlightenment? Why did the masses go to plays during medieval pageants? Or the Greeks during their festivals? Why was the church a bastion of art during the middle ages and Renaissance? (see previous posts)

Art as experienced reading alone or in front of a computer is something very new. Art as the playground of the reader where the author doesn't matter is something very new.

Would you call a rock concert something personal? Or is there some sort of social element to it? What about the musician who sounds off on social and political ills?

Now if you're talking about the creation of art as something personal for the artist, again you're wrong. The idea of the "artist" didn't even come about until the Renaissance. Before then, gifted artisans were hired to paint or construct a cathedral and were given no props.

I'm sorry if I have to come across as a fucking douchebag, but you're so wrong. I dare you to ask any historian about whether or not art is and has always been something personal.

Now where's a Dax when you need him...

[Schnoogs]

definition of art = subjective


/thread

[Baron Samedi]

definition of art = subjective


/thread

definition of Schnoogs = the community's opinion

/Schnoogs

definition of art = the culture's opinion

/thread

[Schnoogs]

definition of Schnoogs = the community's opinion

/Schnoogs

definition of art = the culture's opinion

/thread

the culture's opinion = subjective

/thread already ended with my last post

[Roc Ingersol]

Many connoisseurs sit for hours in the National Gallery contemplating Monet or Rembrandt. Great art requires contemplation.And what works for a painting doesn't necessarily work for a game. Me looking at a painting does not prevent you from looking at it. Games aren't like that. You're limited by number of controllers.
Great idea! Good luck on the licensing.That's like saying "good luck buying a Monet!". Difficult. Expensive. Not impossible. Naturally it would require donors and supporters willing to put time and money into the project.

That said, I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to get Publishers to sign off on older games. And once you have established a relationship, getting 'newly old' games added to the collection wouldn't be so tricky. You could even make deals where the oldest games are freely available for download, and newer games were made available at gaming kiosks in the museum for X years before they are put online.

[NationalKato]

I see your problem now - you're misunderstanding the semantics. I'm not referring to 'personal' as meaning 'one person.'

Then why did Chaucer read his works aloud to an audience and write them as both social entertainment and enlightenment? Why did the masses go to plays during medieval pageants? Or the Greeks during their festivals?

Because people liked it? In each example, people personally enjoyed the creation and/or exhibition of these forms due to their subjective and personal appreciation. I dare you to tell those people what they enjoyed doesn't qualify as art. Did they secretly hate these public displays yet went anyway, feigning enjoyment, because someone defined it as art?

The idea of the "artist" didn't even come about until the Renaissance. Before then, gifted artisans were hired to paint or construct a cathedral and were given no props.

Because someone, somewhere liked the work. And paid for it. Again, personal and subjective. Just because the Pope likes one piece and not another doesn't make the other unworthy of being considered art. If a wealthy individual decides to ignore a skilled artisan, does he cease to be an artist?

I'm sorry if I have to come across as a fucking douchebag, but you're so wrong.

I'm sorry, too. I was hoping for a balanced, mature discussion. As I stated previously - and as discussed in the Wiki you linked - classifacatory disputes over 'what is art' have been argued since Greeks discussed ethics as the 'art of living well.' So whether I'm 'wrong' and you're 'right' really comes down to your own personal and subjective view. Funny, isn't it? As it was in the beginning...

[Baron Samedi]

the culture's opinion = subjective

/thread already ended with my last post

science = subjective

/thread already ended with last Schnoog post

As I stated previously - and as discussed in the Wiki you linked - classifacatory disputes over 'what is art' have been argued since Greeks discussed ethics as the 'art of living well.' So whether I'm 'wrong' and you're 'right' really comes down to your own personal and subjective view. Funny, isn't it? As it was in the beginning...

There has always been the majority's opinion which determines the definition; failing that, the MAN. All discussions have tacitly agreed upon certain criteria upheld by the culture, then argued various facets. And no, it doesn't boil down to my opinion, because others hold my opinions just like others hold yours. I am not an island; neither are you.

I see your problem now - you're misunderstanding the semantics.

Fair enough. We will end these language games.

[Schnoogs]

science = subjective

/thread already ended with last Schnoog post.

Science != subjective

your post = does not make sense

art = still subjective

/thread should have ended a long time ago...no idea why it's still going or how science got dragged into this

[Baron Samedi]

Science != subjective

your post = does not make sense

art = still subjective

/thread should have ended a long time ago...no idea why it's still going or how science got dragged into this

You're an easy fish to hook, Schnoogs.

[lockwoodx]

Disciples 2 for the PC still has some of the best artwork of any game

[Chainblast]

Anything that inspires a person to imagine and create is art, period. Some bad and some good. I can vary from a very clean and systematic design to something more transient and colourful. This goes for everything from film to photography to food (yes) to video games, and so much more.

[Johan]

When I play a game, I'm playing to enjoy myself, take a break, interact with friends if I'm playing a multiplayer game, and just having fun.

Call it whatever you like. Art. Not art. Call it grbzeek, for all I care. Games are fun. Done for me.