Comments on: Games as Art Discussion Transcript

By: Games as Art Discussion « Remember What The Dormouse Said

Games as Art Discussion « Remember What The Dormouse Said — Mon, 02 Apr 2012 17:51:05 +0000

[…] The Ludologist has written a transcript of the discussion! Yay! Found here! […]

By: Mads Tejlgaard Olesen

Mads Tejlgaard Olesen — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 11:43:10 +0000

I was quite suprised the discussion was unmoderated and the channel was open; I thought the quality was hampered as a result, but it was still great to be there and participate.

Not that the discussion answered my questions concerning the capacity games have to reinforce more static and traditional art – it did not – but it did provide me some clear answers as to the nature of art and where games fit into that picture, a lesson it seems I, and some of the audience, was overdue.

Discussing whether games are art is something I’ll specifically try not to indulge in again, particularly the games I want to, and am, making.
Such discussions, I think, should be left to those people who feel indie and small-time game developers should recieve art-fund grants rather than be consumed by large corporations, people who can actually make a difference on that front.

If I were to do it, it would be like the carpenter who insists his wooden floors, or certain other wooden floors, are art, in the trade-guild he’s part of…the only reason for me to do it would be to make myself feel better about my trade, or to convince others it’s a worthwile one, not because it makes an actual difference to mine or anybody elses games; it would be snobby and ego-centered, and worse, I would admit that having taken up this trade demands I defend it as being reasonable!
Comming to this realisation gave me a foul taste in my mouth for having taken part in the discussion thus far, my own motivations for doing so revealed to me.

So my thanks go out to the other participants – I feel I learned something worthwile wednesday night.

By: Dominic

Dominic — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:41:18 +0000

I read the whole transcript and the part I found the most interesting was the need for critique. Like Fabian says, not too many people want to consider Shaq Fu (which I bought off ebay a few weeks ago – after all, we need the worst to recognize the best) as art. This issue of (subjective)quality is found in all “art” fields, hence the great chef who won’t see fast food as art, or the classical music composer who’ll disregard Heavy metal while it is clearly art to me. I personally think that art is defined by society’s view and cultural considerations, so if we want games to be seen as art, we should push forward the critique department to get more people interested and able to distinguish the good from the bad. (Hence Jenkins’ and Egglet’s comments). Of course then there is the question of do we want games to be seen as art, and why? But ultimately, if we do convince enough people to view games as art, we won’t escape the industry/art dichotomy that is found in every medium: Britney Spears is industry, Rachmaninoff is art; Psycho is art, Scary Movie is industry; etc. The fact that what is considered industry and art changes according to different people does not change the fact that this consideration exists for everyone (I think, but I could be wrong – is there anyone who considers ALL music to be art, or ALL movies to be art? Doesn’t the fact that seeing some things as art inevitably leads to rejecting some of these things as not art?). Most people accept the fact that cinema is art and acknowledge that some movies aren’t, and the same for music. So what saying “X is art” really means is that “X can be art”. In that sense I think there aren’t too many people that will disagree with that statement, as it achieves a theoretical sense – even if by someone’s standards no games are art or have ever been art so far, one day one game could be art.

By: Brook

Brook — Sat, 04 Nov 2006 04:16:55 +0000

I would have liked the discussion to have centred less on the definition of art, but that seems to be the way of all such discussions like this. I think this is one of those occasions where academics have to go and search outside of their knowledge areas for an answer.

I see this going one of three ways, either we agree on an exclusive answer where games are not art as they are primarily designed as an entertainment medium. Secondly we could agree for an inclusive definition which means even my poop is art, or as a third option only games with a named artist (or other quantifiable ruling) are considered art.

By: Fabian

Fabian — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:39:42 +0000

Also there seems to be confusion concerning “art as medium” and “art as quality.”
Are we trying to add videogames to the genres/media of artistic expression? Is a painting/a sculpture/an installation/a performance always art, no matter the content? If so, can videogames be added as another category?
Or is a painting (etc.) only art if it if the content meets certain criteria. If so, what are these, and how can they be applied to videogames?
Are only good games art? It seems unlikely that anyone would propose Shaq-Fu and Spice World to be art.

By: Fabian

Fabian — Fri, 03 Nov 2006 20:22:27 +0000

I have not read the whole script, but it seems to me the discussion would benefit greatly from looking more extensively at concrete examples (from Tetris and Pong to GTA and Half-Life), and perhaps also by not considering only videogames but other forms of games as well.
A question that I feel is also important is whether a game can be “artistic” on one level, and not on the other (narrative, visual, aural, other). Should such a distinction be made at all? Also obviously, games make different use of those different levels. There may be games without narrative, but are beautifully rendered; and then there are games that might not be striking visually, but have a strong story.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:36:00 +0000

I hosted a round table at GDC with Greg and Santiago, Chris Bateman and Jenova Chen, and the use of a recording mic as a pass token really helped structure the pacing from the bottom up. Still, it was a hell of a lot of fun, playing Cost of Life simultaneously made for an interesting layering to the experience.

Let me offer some conclusions:

– Art can mean a lot of things, but if it allows new funding channels to facilitate production that wouldn’t otherwise happen, then recognizing games as art is important.

– Typically across media we recognize works as artistic if they exhibit multi-layered content, playing with subtext and context and other sorts of text. In game’s this is implicit in the simulation gap between the dynamic and its representation, so if a game isn’t art then the designer is being pretty lazy.

– Games can imply things about the real world, including social and political dynamical principles, though the masterful manipulation of the simulation gap. Case in point, Cost of Life.

– Casual and serious can converge with indie to facilitate prestige game production. Not explicitedly stated, but it should’ve been.