Videogames Still Not Art. ( updated )

Roger Ebert has taken on director, author and videogame advocate Clive Barker, reiterating his stance that games cannot be art-or as he specifies, "high art."

For complete article: http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6529&Itemid=2

And I say he is definitely wrong, Why?

I think videogames have art in everything from writers to Directors to designers to composers to actors/actresses.

Writers: they are people who makes hundreds of great game-stories that make you feel emotionally sick.

Directors: from the name, they are the guys who animate the story and everything from beginning to the end of the game.

Composers: people who writes music, make you unstable in particular scenes in the game.

Actors/actresses: from their voice or their motion captions, they make that scene exactly perfect.

So tell me isn't that art, if you are not convinced, then I'll tell you what is the definition of art.

Art is a human activity, made intentionally to stimulate the human senses as well as the human mind, it is measured in quality by the amount of impact or effect or influence it has on people, the degree of their appreciation and the number of people that relate to it.

A videogame is an art( IMO ) that you can relate to it, feel it, experience what the artists what made of it, you can explore it and you play with the lead character, then when you finish the game you will appreciate the creators very much.

When you see a movie, artwork or reading a novel your feelings are limitless and your imagination also, this exists with videogames also.

Edit: Videogames consists oftwo points:

1- making the videogame : The creators of any game are people full of art and I think nobody will disagree with this point.

2- Playing the game : IMO I think playing the game is a form of the creators to show people what they made from their art, it is just like going to theatre to see a movie, or going to the library to read a book...etc.I think what Ebert reffered to is playing the game not making it and that is also wrong because when you play a great game, ask yourself, did it have impact on me? did I influenced with it? Can I relate to this? is this a form of art?

The answer is simple...yes, When you finish this game you go to your friends and tell them your feelings about this game or what make it a masterpiece or a clasic and that is the impact.When you see something special like great gameplay or great skills or movements or beautiful enviroments or unforgotten music, then you say "WOW I wish all games to be great like this", then you go to System Wars and compare it with other games, this is your relation and your influence with games, all combined to tell you this is art.

I don't thinki t is right to consider some genres as no art, I think all genres are forms of art, look at the enviroment, look at everything in a game, you are walking through art.

I think bad games are bad forms of art and great art is great games, but not genres of games.

this is some interesting articles about videogames.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6480127.stm

http://www.gamepro.com/gamepro/domestic/games/features/74917.shtml

Your thoughts.

"I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist."Roger Ebert

That's a good observation and tough to really disagree with, but what I don't get is why if you're also the artist of a certain object, that object ceases to then be art. This isn't like people trying to paint over the Mona Lisa and calling it art. People create their own experiences in video games, and derive some type of fulfillment from that.

I think Bioshock is a prime example of a truly artistic video game, both from an aesthetic standpoint and in terms of the amount of control you have to create your own experience.

When the most-hyped games of the holiday season all involve shooting stuff (Halo, Killzone, Crysis, Haze, Bioshock, etc.), then it's not exactly rocket science as to why nobody outside of the industry considers videogames as art.

Ebert should stick to what he knows; movies. And he generally seems pretty open-minded to I'm surprised at his stance on videogames.

I think I'll kidnap him & lock him in a room with no snacks until he plays all the way through Okami, then see if he still thinks that videogames can't be considered a legitimate artform.

If you guys think videogames = art, you guys don't know what art is. There's not more than one or two videogames in existance that could be considered art. I bet you guys think music is art too. Which is true to some point, but only classical and similarly composed genres (black/death metal) could be considered art.

EDIT: There isn't many movies to be considered art either.

videogames arent art yet.

Maybe someday, but the only games that have ever made me feel that way towards them would be Sotc, ico, and okami.

Certain videogames can be considered art. The vast majority, in my opinion, do not fit into that category, however.

When the most-hyped games of the holiday season all involve shooting stuff (Halo, Killzone, Crysis, Haze, Bioshock, etc.), then it's not exactly rocket science as to why nobody outside of the industry considers videogames as art.

Smoke_ManMuscle

Bingo. The form of expression is seen as juvenile. Nobody denies videogames as a medium of expression, but they disregard the meanings to them, the ideas which are intrinsic within them.

You're going to have a very difficult time expressing to a critic why Halo is a piece of art, when it's core elements of expression involve shooting aliens and frankly not much else, the ideas, even the story can be seen as juvenile.

Here's the real question the industry should be asking itself: What games would we consider art and why?

IMO, the most artistic game ever made has been Shadow of the Colossus. But I would definitely consider Ico and Myst as artistic games.

[QUOTE="Smoke_ManMuscle"]

When the most-hyped games of the holiday season all involve shooting stuff (Halo, Killzone, Crysis, Haze, Bioshock, etc.), then it's not exactly rocket science as to why nobody outside of the industry considers videogames as art.

Hoobinator

Bingo. The form of expression is seen as juvenile. Nobody denies videogames as a medium of expression, but they disregard the meanings to them, the ideas which are intrinsic within them.

You're going to have a very difficult time expressing to a critic why Halo is a piece of art, when it's core elements of expression involve shooting aliens and frankly not much else, the ideas, even the story can be seen as juvenile.

*applauds*

Okami, Fl0w Geometry Wars. Nothing else needs to be said.Verge_6

SotC, ico

Now I agree, maybe not about GW though :?

Ebert is jealous that video games are becoming near movie quality and taking over his industry.

He probably doesn't even have the skill to play simple ol' Wiisports.

Ebert is jealous that video games are becoming near movie quality and taking over his industry.

He probably doesn't even have the skill to play simple ol' Wiisports.

NobuoMusicMaker

Skill? Wiisports? lol

Okami, Fl0w Geometry Wars. Nothing else needs to be said.Verge_6

I would agree with Flow as there are much more elements that are subject to interpretation and can be proclaimed as art. I think Okami is visually artistic, along with its core message, but much of its gameplay elements still don't quite adhere to the qualitys of art. But i don't see where you're coming from with Geometry Wars.

How 'sculptures' comprised of two girders welded together get to be considered art, and video games are not able to is beyond me.Verge_6

I think Hoobinator said it best:

"the form of expression is still considered as too juvinile"

bang bang BANG

Art is something that is created by either machine or human. Creation of art has no limit, a blind person can grab a canvas, some paint and start painting, his art will sell for a million dollars. A machine can be programmed to do certain movements and that is considered dancing which is also known as art. A man can create a motion picture and make millions off of the royalties and that is also considered art. A deaf man can rap his fingers on the table feeling the vibrations of his rythm and he creates music and that is well known for art. A man cancreate a storywith great monsters and tales and he creates a tale and that is regarded as art.

Put them all together and you get a video game. Since all art forms are combined... video game is indeed art.

If you guys think videogames = art, you guys don't know what art is. There's not more than one or two videogames in existance that could be considered art. I bet you guys think music is art too. Which is true to some point, but only classical and similarly composed genres (black/death metal) could be considered art.

EDIT: There isn't many movies to be considered art either.

GodLovesDead

"I bet you guys think music is art too."

Pretty strange comment. Is there anyone on the planet besides you who doesn't consider music a form of art? How did you come to the conclusion that only classically-composed music deserves to be called art? Because that's what Mozart played?

Games really aren't art, not yet, and the way current games are play doubt they ever will be. They are, as Ebert stated, more related to sports. Having colourful backgrounds and flashy explosions is not art. Afterall, great care are taken to create pretty playfields, especially when it comes to golf.

There is no goal in art, there is nothing to win, nothing to defeat. Art is not a game. That video games are games, by default makes them more of a sport than art. Something like Forever Blue/Endless Oceancould be perhaps considered art because the greatest emphasis is on the visuals, exploration, and just the beauty of it all, however it's still a treasure hunting game presumably.

Bits and pieces of a game can be artistic, but as a whole, video games are games, not art. They can have elements of art, but those elements of art do not relate to the game itself. Afterall, the graphic or artwork can be replaced with something different and it would still be the same game. If the same was done with artwork, it would not be the same piece of art.

Why would you want games to be art. Art includes a painting of a soup can, a bed covered in cigarette butts and a cow in formaldehyde. I'd prefer not to be associated with anything as ridiculously pretentious as that.

Everything is art. Look around you from the architecture of the walls that your are incased in to the chair you sitting in. This guy is just another one of those art snobs who think they can tell people what is art or not. Video games are art. Anything resulting from the human imagination and emotion is art.jaycouvera

Dude.. that is a comon assumption that is wrong..

Games really aren't art, not yet, and the way current games are play doubt they ever will be. They are, as Ebert stated, more related to sports. Having colourful backgrounds and flashy explosions is not art. Afterall, great care are taken to create pretty playfields, especially when it comes to golf.

RahnAetas

Ebert looks at those things everyday in theatres and regards them as art. The man even praised "Beavis and Butthead Do America."

This discussion reminds me of this Calvin & Hobbes strip:

[QUOTE="jaycouvera"]Everything is art. Look around you from the architecture of the walls that your are incased in to the chair you sitting in. This guy is just another one of those art snobs who think they can tell people what is art or not. Video games are art. Anything resulting from the human imagination and emotion is art.FlockofSpagheti

Dude.. that is a comon assumption that is wrong..

Explain.

From my understanding art is the result of action of human beings with a desire to stimulate. I simply cannot see how the world created around us isnt art. I doubt you or anyone else can say what is and what isnt art. Including myself.

Roger Ebert can be such a tool sometimes. I go to school for graphic design and illustration, and everywhere I look there are people that fall for all this elitist crap, that certain things can be art and certain things can't.

I'll say what I said to my art teacher senior year of high school when he tried to explain why comics and cartoons weren't art, but paintings that were nothing more than random splatters were:

If you look at it, then you recognize it, and it is registered in your brain. That justifies it, and when it is justified, its art. Deal with it.

This discussion reminds me of this Calvin & Hobbes strip:

Zeliard9

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]

[QUOTE="jaycouvera"]Everything is art. Look around you from the architecture of the walls that your are incased in to the chair you sitting in. This guy is just another one of those art snobs who think they can tell people what is art or not. Video games are art. Anything resulting from the human imagination and emotion is art.jaycouvera

Dude.. that is a comon assumption that is wrong..

Explain.

I believe anything that sparks your imagination can be art. Do videogames spark your imagination of a game you want to create?

Games are art.
Just as paintings, music, movies, books . . .

I don't get why so many (especially older people) have such difficulties understanding this. . . haols

maybe its the degree of art that is really under question:

literature is something that is far above most movies in terms of "art", simply because it is considered a far greater skill to make a great book than to make a good movie. Who would you say is better, shakespeare or speilberg?

I think videogames can be brought under the same kind of scrutiny when compared to any of the "fine arts".

[QUOTE="RahnAetas"]

Games really aren't art, not yet, and the way current games are play doubt they ever will be. They are, as Ebert stated, more related to sports. Having colourful backgrounds and flashy explosions is not art. Afterall, great care are taken to create pretty playfields, especially when it comes to golf.

A_zombie

Ebert looks at those things everyday in theatres and regards them as art. The man even praised "Beavis and Butthead Do America."

There's a difference between having an explosion for the sake of an explosion, and having one for a good reason. Best example is grenades. Grenades are a shrapnel weapon, not an explode and you're dead thing that movies like to make them up to be. When it comes to movies, as an artform, it's suffering, most everything being Hollywoodized. Too many cliches, too many pop culture references and jokes, too much mindless action. They are supposed to be a form of story telling, and for the movie, telling a good story isn't profitable because they are too sophisticaed, or too complicated for the average movie goer. Such a thing is evident in a lot of movies because a lot of things are dumbed down so even a child can understand what's going on.

Everything is art. Look around you from the architecture of the walls that your are incased in to the chair you sitting in. This guys is just another one of those art snobs who think they can tell people what is art or not. Video games are art. Anything resulting from the human imagination and emotion is art.jaycouvera

I think his implication is that videogames have more in common with the chair than with the Mona Lisa or Dr Zhivago (movie or novel). The question is whether video games can ascend to the levels that these pieces of art do. The answer for now I think is no. And the real question is do we really care? Do we prefer watch Dr Zhivago or Star Wars? Personally 99% of the time I would prefer Star Wars.

[QUOTE="NobuoMusicMaker"]

Ebert is jealous that video games are becoming near movie quality and taking over his industry.

He probably doesn't even have the skill to play simple ol' Wiisports.

GodLovesDead

Skill? Wiisports? lol

I know what you're thinking.... and I say, exactly. ^_~

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]

[QUOTE="jaycouvera"]Everything is art. Look around you from the architecture of the walls that your are incased in to the chair you sitting in. This guy is just another one of those art snobs who think they can tell people what is art or not. Video games are art. Anything resulting from the human imagination and emotion is art.jaycouvera

Dude.. that is a comon assumption that is wrong..

Explain.

From my understanding art is the result of action of human beings with a desire to stimulate. I simply cannot see how the world created around us isnt art. I doubt you or anyone else can say what is and what isnt art. Including myself.

People use that definiiton of 'art" as an excuse for everything.. grafiti is used to deface buildings and stimulite anger.. but does that make all graffitiart..

[QUOTE="A_zombie"][QUOTE="RahnAetas"]

Games really aren't art, not yet, and the way current games are play doubt they ever will be. They are, as Ebert stated, more related to sports. Having colourful backgrounds and flashy explosions is not art. Afterall, great care are taken to create pretty playfields, especially when it comes to golf.

RahnAetas

Ebert looks at those things everyday in theatres and regards them as art. The man even praised "Beavis and Butthead Do America."

There's a difference between having an explosion for the sake of an explosion, and having one for a good reason. Best example is grenades. Grenades are a shrapnel weapon, not an explode and you're dead thing that movies like to make them up to be. When it comes to movies, as an artform, it's suffering, most everything being Hollywoodized. Too many cliches, too many pop culture references and jokes, too much mindless action. They are supposed to be a form of story telling, and for the movie, telling a good story isn't profitable because they are too sophisticaed, or too complicated for the average movie goer. Such a thing is evident in a lot of movies because a lot of things are dumbed down so even a child can understand what's going on.

You make a point there about the sake of explosions and frag grenades do not kill unless your in the danger zone or the unfortunate one to take a shrapnel into killzones of your body.

But still, the graphics = art becauase it's created out of a mind to create a world, story = art because it's created to grab the player and put him into a stranglehold. Sound and music = art to create adrenaline for the players. Everything about the game is art.

I dare you to say Okami isn't art.

[QUOTE="RahnAetas"][QUOTE="A_zombie"][QUOTE="RahnAetas"]

Games really aren't art, not yet, and the way current games are play doubt they ever will be. They are, as Ebert stated, more related to sports. Having colourful backgrounds and flashy explosions is not art. Afterall, great care are taken to create pretty playfields, especially when it comes to golf.

A_zombie

Ebert looks at those things everyday in theatres and regards them as art. The man even praised "Beavis and Butthead Do America."

There's a difference between having an explosion for the sake of an explosion, and having one for a good reason. Best example is grenades. Grenades are a shrapnel weapon, not an explode and you're dead thing that movies like to make them up to be. When it comes to movies, as an artform, it's suffering, most everything being Hollywoodized. Too many cliches, too many pop culture references and jokes, too much mindless action. They are supposed to be a form of story telling, and for the movie, telling a good story isn't profitable because they are too sophisticaed, or too complicated for the average movie goer. Such a thing is evident in a lot of movies because a lot of things are dumbed down so even a child can understand what's going on.

You make a point there about the sake of explosions and frag grenades do not kill unless your in the danger zone or the unfortunate one to take a shrapnel into killzones of your body.

But still, the graphics = art becauase it's created out of a mind to create a world, story = art because it's created to grab the player and put him into a stranglehold. Sound and music = art to create adrenaline for the players. Everything about the game is art.

I dare you to say Okami isn't art.

It's Design...

Not art

As for pictorial presentation video games uses art, art background, art knowledge, art skills.

As for content, it is not high art. And Ebert's point (which I completely agree with) is that a video game is not like a book because you are playing the video game, so that diminishes whatever message or carefully constructed theme that a author could give. there is no wild variability or terrible participation in a play or book, but there is in a video game.

I think people are just mad that their hobby is not considered cultured, since they want entry into this esteemed social rung any way they can. No, no easy entry for you, you need to earn it through reading and sensitive study. Just because you like how Super Mario Bros. or Metal Gear Solid looks does not make you cultured. Judging by how most people here think and speak and have been fed on a childhood regimen of video games and not real art books, the results speak for themselves. Exclusion stings, but it has to be accepted. Get off Ebert's back. Any man that reads Voltaire for leisure is more qualified to understand the true impact of art than others here.

As for pictorial presentation video games uses art, art background, art knowledge, art skills.

As for content, it is not high art. And Ebert's point (which I completely agree with) is that a video game is not like a book because you are playing the video game, so that diminishes whatever message or carefully constructed theme that a author could give. there is no wild variability or terrible participation in a play or book, but there is in a video game.

I think people are just mad that their hobby is not considered cultured, since they want entry into this esteemedsocialrungany way they can. No, no easy entry for you, you need to earn it through reading and sensitive study. Just because you like how Super Mario Bros. or Metal Gear Solid looks does not make you cultured. Judging by how most people here think and speak and have been fed on a childhood regimen of video games and not real art books, the results speak for themselves. Exclusion stings, but it has to be accepted. Get off Ebert's back. Any man that reads Voltaire for leisure is more qualified to understand the true impact of art than others here.

PhoebusFlows