Topic: Are Video Games Art?

Earlier today the Twitterverse saw a conversation sparked by Roger Ebert's post Video games can never be art.

There was a response from Penny Arcade, and a further rebuttal from P Z Myers.

Our own Dorkman, Teague, Ryan, and Eddie hashed it out on Twitter; check their pages for the full conversation.



I would have to say that the issue comes down to how you define art, which itself is a sticky subject, because one cannot define art without invoking the idea of aesthetics, or beauty, and beauty as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.

Personally, I'd say that yes, video games are as much art as film.  There are arguments regarding the interactive nature of video games vs. movies; in a video game you create the experience as you go.

I don't fully understand the objection to the dynamic aspect of the video game experience, vs. the static experience of a movie (or a painting, sculpture, or The Golden Gate Bridge for that matter), so maybe someone here can help me with that.

So what do you think?

Re: Are Video Games Art?

I honestly don't even understand how this is a debate.

Well, actually I do, because everyone I've seen on the "video games aren't art" side says somewhere in their thing "Now, look, I've never played a video game" or "I haven't played a video game since Asteroids." So there's why. They're uninformed and they like it that way -- which infuriates me as a general rule, regardless of the subject at hand.

I share your confusion as to why the dynamic/interactive nature of video games is somehow a hindrance to their possible artistic merit. I thought the whole point of art was that you as the observer of the art bring something of yourself to it, that you can interpret it and participate in making it a complete experience for yourself. That's what you're doing when you read a piece of literature or look at a painting you appreciate as art -- engaging with the work. Full-on interactivity strikes me as being a logical extension of this aspect of art -- how can someone argue that it is somehow a detriment to the artistic potential of the medium?

I can dig it if it's not your kind of art. I'm not really that into paintings or poetry (although I should probably give them another shot now that I'm older). But to say it cannot be art, objectively, because [hand-waving bullshit] but really just because you don't get it and don't care to -- that just strikes me as vacuous and ignorant.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

I dunno, I can see where he's coming from, because I came from there as recently as this morning. He does seem to be painting with an exceedingly large brush, though, one I wouldn't have chosen over another, smaller brush, with a bit more finesse.

However, I disagree with even that part of me, so now I'm in the camp of "games can be art, I'm not aware of many that are, and I'd like to see more." Not that I play games. I very rarely do.

In terms of a definition, I think it's important to realize the difference between artistic integrity and pop culture influence. The meta-art of changing society with a game, like our friend Mario has done, is one that I appreciate fully.

In terms of artistic integrity, the games I tend to respect as Works of Art are often more abstract. I've seen Brian playing a Wii game that resembles flying through a 2001-esque tunnel and it plays different tones when you do different things. I'd call that art as a conglomeration of visuals, sound, and interactivity. Sort of like Tone Matrix.

However, I can see reason in the argument that games heavily reliant on cinematic story can be art, too. Art in terms of storytelling. However, if we're thinking of games as either Art or Not, and games that function mostly as a form of entertainment as Not (shoot 'em ups), I wonder if the "art" happened before the game was even released, let alone purchased and played. It was written artfully, and now you're just playing through it, akin to "just" watching a movie. After that point, I haven't figured out how I feel. Can making a game out of your artful story be artful in and of itself?

Well, I guess so. Seems like it could. Making a movie out of your artful story can.

I still prefer Guitar Hero and Wii Bowling to Portal. But Portal is fucking awesome, and artful, and there ya go.

/my two cents

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

downinfront wrote:

I wonder if the "art" happened before the game was even released, let alone purchased and played. It was written artfully, and now you're just playing through it, akin to "just" watching a movie.

I would say that whether or not a game can be art and whether the act of playing it is art are two separate things.

I will assume we can agree that the act of looking at a painting is not art. Does it follow that the painting itself is therefore not art?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

Nope, that's why I'm saying I can see their ability to disconnect it from art status because you're playing it and "making it happen," as opposed to passively appreciating it.

I disagree, natch.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

There was an article about this on Cracked that I think is worth a read. Personally, I think art is kind of an abstract term, and what is or isn't art can very wildly from person to person. For example, I don't think something like 4' 33" is art, but there are probably people out there who think it is. And I'm ok with that.

"ShadowDuelist is a god."
        -Teague Chrystie

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

Well hot damn, that article even uses Modern Warfare as a specific example.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

I cast a fairly wide net in defining art, and am an avid gamer, so I have no problem saying games are art.  In fact, they are art on a couple levels.

Making a game, is definitely an artistic process.  The creators are designing a very literal journey to take a person on, and through mob encounters, level design, and progression of story they are manipulating the players (or, patrons) emotions and feelings, like any good art should do.

The other aspect to this is the art the player creates through playing the game.  If you're like me and consider things like athleticism to be art, then you can understand this.  For instance, I don't have to know much about Basketball to understand that Magic Johnsons no look pass was an artistic expression.  You don't have to be a fighter (but it helps) to watch Genki Sudo fight and recognize that he is a performance artist while fighting.  In this sense, any kind of performance can be interpreted as art.  So when I see a kid making amazing combos in Street Fighter 4, or someone do a brilliant timed run in Left 4 Dead 2, that is an art unto itself.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

For me, I find it helps clarify the topic by separating art out into distinct categories. And these are the definitions and distinctions I've laid out for myself, though far from any degree of certainty about the subject:

Narrative art and experimental art. Fundamentally, the whole point of artistic endeavors and creative expression is to further our understanding of who we are and the nature of the universe and how those pieces fit together. Art that tries to do that, I consider "narrative art," or art that has a point it's trying to convey through some kind of story. And yes, story can exist in mediums other than books, film, and stage.

Then there is experimental art, by which I don't necessarily mean the crazy crap in a modern art museum. Those things are that, but the term is broader than just them. Experimental art I define as any creative expression where the artist is testing a new tool or technique to see what the results will be. Ultimately, the point of experimental art is not to arrive at some insight about the human condition (though it might also do so), it is to provide a lesson in new ways of arriving at those insights on future projects.

"Art" is probably the single most problematically defined word in human language, second perhaps only to "God." I don't want to create too narrow of a definition that excludes art forms unduly, but at the same time, once a definition becomes broad enough and inclusive enough, it becomes meaningless.

So unless we can derive a definition with enough specificity that lays out clear lines of what is included and what is excluded and why, then the discussion strikes me as rather meaningless.

Re: Are Video Games Art?

This is me responding before reading Ebert's article.

I don't know what the hell "art" means. So I consulted a dictionary. The first definition says, in a nutshell, that art is any deliberate application of skill and imagination to create something which is meant to be evaluated primarily on aesthetic terms. As good a working definition as any, I guess.

The definition of "aesthetic" is pretty clear: of or concerning beauty or the appreciation of beauty. Judging whether something is fun to play is not an aesthetic evaluation. It's another kind of evaluation.

So no. Video games, by virtue of the fact that they're primarily meant to be fun, cannot be art. Because art is primarily meant to be beautiful. Different goals.

Find me a video game that isn't meant to be fun and I'll call it the exception that proves the rule. Video games are aren't designed with some close cousin of "fun" in mind are exceptional specifically because they're unusual. If video games evolve to the point where saying they're usually meant to be fun is an unreasonable generalization, then video games can certainly be art. Because the nature of video games will have changed.

Can video games have artistic merit? Sure. Everything humans do can be evaluated aesthetically, and frankly I think things should be more often. But the subject of the debate is whether video games can be art, the noun, and until and unless the commonly accepted notion of "video game" changes, I say no.

Now, this is me responding after reading Ebert's article:

Okay, Roger was far less simplistic than I was. He rejected the notion of working from objective definitions and instead spoke subjectively about what "art" means to him. That's why he's the genius and I'm a guy with a laptop.

But I still think there's something to be said for the question of intent. What is the creator's (or creators') intent when they made Run Around With A Gun VII or whatever? Were they merely trying to amuse? Were they trying to Make A Big Point? Were they trying to seem profound without actually taking a stance on anything? None of these are, in my opinion, art. Ars gratia artis, and all that. Art is that which is done solely for its own sake.

What we now call "video games" but would be better described as "interactive audio-visual computer programs" are indeed a medium. It might well be possible to create not just art — which I'm sure has been done — but successful art in that medium. I can't name a successful work of art in the interactive-audio-whatever-I-said medium, but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. In fact let's say, for sake of argument, that at least one does.

Is it a video game?

And just like that, we're back to definitions. Games are meant primarily to be fun; art is meant primarily to be beautiful. It's silly to assert that one is inherently more noble or worthy than the other. They're just different classes of human endeavor.

So no. I still come down on the side of video games never being art. But on the other hand, art can never be a video game. So there's that.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

Jeffrey: how many video games have you played?

Do you consider it possible that a movie can be a work of art?

I reject the notion that something that is fun cannot be art. If I'm a musician and I enjoy playing a piece of classical music, has that music suddenly been rendered not-art by my enjoyment of it?

If I am a music lover and I enjoy listening to a piece of classical music, has that destroyed the art by my enjoyment?

Come on. That definition makes no sense.

And goddammit, Ebert is not a genius. He's a windbag with an opinion and a vocabulary. And sometimes I agree with his opinions. But an opinion is not correct just because it's Ebert's. He has to be able to defend it, which he can't.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

Hey screw everyone that says they aren't, thats what I say. I think you have to be pretty god damn stupid or ignorant as fuck to say they aren't. Penny Arcade said it best:

If a hundred artists create art for FIVE YEARS, how can the result not be art?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

TrowaGP02a wrote:

If a hundred artists create art for FIVE YEARS, how can the result not be art?

^This.

And for the record, I have a deep respect for Ebert and have for a long time.  I often disagree with him, but the man loves film like few others and has done a lot of good not only for film criticism but film preservation and advocacy.  His opinion on this and Kick Ass infuriate me to no end, but he still has my respect.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

I agree with the respect for Ebert, he was one of the few critics I would actually have followed. But this just infuriates me to no end. IMO it's like he is saying "no one living now will be alive to ever see anyone or personally catch a baseball".

It is fucking INTERACTIVE ART. It is a movie, THAT YOU FUCKING PLAY! When is the last time you watched a movie for 60 hours and were entertained by the characters the visual style the music and oh yeah you got to decide how to story unfolds and control the main characters instead of just watching them. Not only are video games art, they are art that allows you to create more fucking art by playing them. They are fucking Art^2! HULK SMASHHH

Last edited by TrowaGP02a (2010-04-22 23:54:48)

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

DorkmanScott wrote:

Jeffrey: how many video games have you played?

Um. Fewer than you have, I'd venture. As I confessed elsewhere, I used to play World of Warcraft a bit. SimCity has eaten a lot of my spare time, as have the Civilization games. A friend got me into Call of Duty for a while last year. Oh, and the Infocom games were a big part of my childhood, if those count. But I'm far from an expert.

Do you consider it possible that a movie can be a work of art?

I'd guess — totally pulling this out my ear — that a movie is more likely to be a work of art than not.

I reject the notion that something that is fun cannot be art.

Not to nitpick, but that's not what I was saying. I made a distinction based on intent. Is something mainly intended to be fun, or is it mainly intended to be beautiful? That's where I drew the line.

And again, I freely admit it's an arbitrary distinction. But if we're going to talk about this at all, we have to have some notion of what both "art" and "video game" mean. Otherwise we're just smearing words on each other.

Let's back off to a more comfortable point of debate for a minute. Can architecture be art? I say no. I'm not saying I don't think architecture is worthy or whatever; I'm not making a value judgment. It's just that architecture is primarily functional. More than anything, a building must work in order to be successful. It has to keep the rain off and the jaguars out. If it's also beautiful, that's awesome. But it can't merely be beautiful, or else it's not good architecture.

Trowa quoted Penny Arcade, who said something … well, kinda stupid, I think. Saying that something's art because it was made by people whose job title is "artist" is a textbook example of begging the question. Whether something's art is determined by the intent of its creator or creators, not by what's on somebody's business card.

As for Ebert … okay, maybe "genius" was a bit over-the-top. But the guy is one hell of a writer. He's smart and thoughtful and calling him a windbag is — if you'll pardon my borrowing of your thesis — an opinion you'd better be able to defend.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

Jeffery Harrell wrote:
DorkmanScott wrote:

Jeffrey: how many video games have you played?

Um. Fewer than you have, I'd venture. As I confessed elsewhere, I used to play World of Warcraft a bit. SimCity has eaten a lot of my spare time, as have the Civilization games. A friend got me into Call of Duty for a while last year. Oh, and the Infocom games were a big part of my childhood, if those count. But I'm far from an expert.

Right. This is as if my experience with movies began and ended with SyFy's Movie-of-the-Week and I went on to say that movies cannot be art.

Whereas your position on movies is:

I'd guess — totally pulling this out my ear — that a movie is more likely to be a work of art than not.

I challenge you to formulate a clear, non-tautological definition of "art" which applies to movies and not video games.

Many modern video games are more akin to participatory movies than they are to Sim City. They tell stories, they have characters with arcs and histories, they're thematically and emotionally powerful.

Not to nitpick, but that's not what I was saying. I made a distinction based on intent. Is something mainly intended to be fun, or is it mainly intended to be beautiful? That's where I drew the line.

Okay, then I reject the notion that there's inherently a line to be drawn between fun/beauty, fun/function, or beauty/function.

Eddie came up with the example of martial arts on Twitter. I believe that martial arts can, indeed, be a work of art in the same way that ballet or other physical expression can be art. It's beautiful to look at and it's fun to do, but the intention is neither. The intention first and foremost is to be functional.

Granted, there are certain offshoots of martial arts -- like wushu -- which are developed more toward beauty than function, but something which is functional can still be beautiful, and fun, and if it's not art then I don't know how you define it.

And again, I freely admit it's an arbitrary distinction. But if we're going to talk about this at all, we have to have some notion of what both "art" and "video game" mean. Otherwise we're just smearing words on each other.

Let's back off to a more comfortable point of debate for a minute. Can architecture be art? I say no. I'm not saying I don't think architecture is worthy or whatever; I'm not making a value judgment. It's just that architecture is primarily functional. More than anything, a building must work in order to be successful. It has to keep the rain off and the jaguars out. If it's also beautiful, that's awesome. But it can't merely be beautiful, or else it's not good architecture.

And I reject your definition of art if this is what it is. The notion that something must be useless in order to qualify as art is absurd, and I'd like to know how you can define movies as art under this paradigm, and video games as not-art.

Trowa quoted Penny Arcade, who said something … well, kinda stupid, I think. Saying that something's art because it was made by people whose job title is "artist" is a textbook example of begging the question. Whether something's art is determined by the intent of its creator or creators, not by what's on somebody's business card.

That's an assumption on your part, that they are only considered "artists" because they call themselves "artists." Whereas I think Penny Arcade would say they can be safely called "artists" because they create "art."

As for Ebert … okay, maybe "genius" was a bit over-the-top. But the guy is one hell of a writer. He's smart and thoughtful and calling him a windbag is — if you'll pardon my borrowing of your thesis — an opinion you'd better be able to defend.

You got it.

Smart - I can go with this. He's smarter-than-average, but not nearly as smart as he seems to think he is.

To give a not-happening-right-now example, a while back Ebert made a post on his blog that made him sound like a Young Earth Creationist -- the earth was made in 6 literal days, 6000 years ago, things were created with apparent age, a worldwide flood created the geological formations we see in a day and not millions of years, etc.

People were shocked, and told him so. And the next day he responded, "Guys, I don't really believe that. It's satire, like Jonathan Swift. Are people so uncultured they don't even appreciate satire anymore? Gosh!"

What Ebert failed to understand, apparently, is that the point of satire is to take an argument to its logical, absurd, extreme conclusion. To a point where no one would possibly agree with it, and from there they can take a step back and see the absurdity of their own less-extreme but related belief.

All Ebert did was parrot things that people actually believe and acted as though the absurdity should be immediately apparent to all -- which it isn't to the people who actually believe it. If Jonathan Swift had written A Modest Proposal in a time where politicians were actually advocating for a legistlative policy of the rich eating the babies of the poor, it would not have qualified as satire.

What he should have done, and would have if he understood satire, was take the extreme position of beliefs that should trickle-down from a belief in a young earth and no evolution. Saying, for example, that "Modern medicine, which is based on evolution, has not reduced mortality rates by 85% in developed countries since the development of antibiotics." But of course, sneaky sneaky, he's actually saying the obvious opposite of what is true (I don't know if it's 85%, I made that up, but if I were writing the article for real I'd research and get the exact numbers). But saying something that is obviously the opposite of reality, but follows as the logical extreme of what creationists believe, would make it clear that the creationist beliefs themselves are absurd and antithetical to reality.

That's not what Ebert did. But that's what a smart hell-of-a-writer would do. Jonathan Swift was a hell-of-a-writer.

Which brings us to thoughtful.

Ebert doesn't think. Ebert reacts, and whatever Ebert's knee-jerk reaction is becomes Ebert's reality. If Ebert were thoughtful, he would consider dissenting opinions, respond to them thoughtfully, and possibly even be persuaded by logic and reason.

Ebert doesn't do this. Ebert says "If you think I'm wrong, you're wrong, and also stupid, and probably ugly."

His response (one of them, anyway) to the video game brouhaha: "I'm not too old to 'get' video games, but I may be too well-read."

Translation: if you like video games, it's because you're most likely borderline illiterate.

If that's a thoughtful response, here's mine: Fuck you, Ebert, you condescending asshole.

Or how about his response to people objecting to his "Kick-Ass" review: "Them: I was too old to get it. Me: My problem was that I got it."

Ah, the "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense. We'll need a Master's degree in rhetoric to even consider a counter to this one.

Add to that, a thoughtful man would bother to investigate the things he says. I remember being shocked when he said this in his District 9 review:

Much of the plot involves the obsession of the private security firm in learning the secret of the alien weapons, which humans cannot operate. Curiously, none of these weapons seem superior to those of the humans and aren’t used to much effect by the aliens in their own defense. Never mind.

In WHAT fucking universe are "none of the weapons...superior to those of the humans"? The only explanation I can conceive of for Ebert making this comment is that he didn't bother to watch the third act of the film. But hey, why let that stop him from giving his opinion as if he watched and/or paid attention?

Then there's the recent Kick-Ass review, which focused exclusively on the fact that an 11 year old girl has been trained as a remorseless killing machine and thinks nothing of murdering a roomful of men and then going for ice cream. He's shocked and appalled that the movie depicts such gleeful violence as being glamorous and exciting and never once asks any questions about the moral implications of desensitizing children to violence. 

Never mind that the movie clearly does not approve of the brainwashing that Big Daddy has done to Hit Girl, that a character refers to it as such, that Kick-Ass is horrified the first time he meets Hit Girl and that the entire point of the subplot is to ask questions about the moral implications of desensitizing children to violence.

No no, Ebert says. The little girl says "cunt," so the film must necessarily have no merit.

And then of course there's the impetus for this discussion. "Video games can never be art. No I've never played one. No I'm not going to. You're stupid if you do. I'm right. Because."

Ebert isn't thoughtful. Ebert is thoughtless, and proudly ignorant of many of the things he espouses on; and if you're informed about them, then you're stupid for informing yourself about something he thinks is stupid, and he'll hear nothing in its defense.

What he is, is articulate, and he has made an entire career out of fooling people into mistaking one for the other.

So now windbag. Well, I've already described how he's essentially full of hot air and proudly so. How routinely he arrogantly dismisses the possibility that he might ever be wrong with a multisyllabic "NO U." It just needs a little more egotism to push him over the top...

Oh look. He runs a film festival called Ebertfest.

Even Harry Knowles, the biggest, most desperate attention whore I have ever seen, has the self respect not to call the film festival he runs "Knowlesfest," or his site "Ain't It Cool Knowles."

If you and I are just "the guys with the laptops," he's just "the guy with a laptop, a thesaurus, and a platform." Let me know if he ever justifies his positions with better than "Because I said so and I'm Ebert goddammit!" and I might consider changing mine. Because I'm, you know. Thoughtful.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

Anyway. Getting back to video games.

One thing that people are doing in defense of video games (I was guilty of it just above in dismissing Sim City) is implying that yes yes, we can all agree that OLDER video games weren't art. We're talking about the NEWER ones.

I used Pac-Man as an example of a non-art video game and my dad took issue with me over that. And frankly, I think he was right to.

Imagine Pac-Man had never existed. That video games never existed. And in the 1980s, someone built a Pac-Man machine -- built an arcade cabinet and had the screen in it and the maze and the little yellow wedge gobbling up pellets.

But you couldn't control it. There was no joystick and no buttons. You just watched.

Put this in a modern art museum (again, circa 1980) and tell me it doesn't belong there. How is this functionally different than a painting in a frame? It's a digital, animated equivalent. And if made at a time when it was state-of-the-art, it would be pretty impressive.

Then imagine that a year or two on, the artist adds a control interface and allows anyone to come up and take control of the yellow wedge. Suddenly, because there's participation, this is not art?

I would contend that this is another level of art, another way for the viewer to engage, just as if an artist put a brush and paints beside his work at a museum and invited anyone who care to, to add to it.

An art museum stretches a canvas across an entire wall and invites anyone to come up and add something. This can't be art?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

DorkmanScott wrote:

I challenge you to formulate a clear, non-tautological definition of "art" which applies to movies and not video games.

I already have. Well. I didn't formulate it. I paraphrased it from the Dictionary application on my laptop. Art is any deliberate application of skill and creativity where the end product is intended by the creator to be judged primarily on its aesthetic merits. I won't defend that definition, 'cause I've already confessed that I don't know what art is. But that's what that dictionary told me, so that's what I went with. I'm happy to hear other definitions, 'cause I'm sure a better one can be come-up-with. I just gave up on that after struggling briefly to find a definition that was useful in deciding what wasn't art. Cause (cue Syndrome voice) if everything's art, then nothing is.

Many modern video games are more akin to participatory movies than they are to Sim City.

I'm sure that's true. Remember, I'm not a total idiot when it comes to games. I did play Call of Duty last year, and I remember well the part where your helo gets knocked out of the sky by the nuclear explosion, and what comes after. Totally gripping, totally engaging, totally … erm, "beautiful" is the wrong word entirely, but it did have aesthetic merit. It's just that that game wasn't (as far as I know) created with the intent that it be judged primarily on aesthetics.

Okay, then I reject the notion that there's inherently a line to be drawn between fun/beauty, fun/function, or beauty/function.

Oh, that's just silly, brother. Of course there's a line to be drawn between these things. Otherwise we wouldn't bother having different words for them. Are there grey areas in between? Of course! But that doesn't mean the distinction between "fun" and "beautiful" doesn't exist. Something can be fun without having aesthetic merit at all; I think it's fair to say that the old-school Donkey Kong game wasn't easy on the eyes. And anybody who's taken an art-appreciation class from a bad teacher knows full well that you can have beauty without any fun at all.

Eddie came up with the example of martial arts on Twitter. I believe that martial arts can, indeed, be a work of art in the same way that
ballet or other physical expression can be art.

I can totally go along with that. But again, there's the question of intent there. If you're (pulling an example out of my ear here) beating up a bunch of muggers in an alley someplace, you can do it in a graceful, elegant, visually pleasing way, but it's not art. Because you're not doing it just to be graceful or beautiful. You're doing it to whup ass.

And I reject your definition of art if this is what it is. The notion that something must be useless in order to qualify as art is absurd,

…and also not what I was saying…

and I'd like to know how you can define movies as art under this paradigm, and video games as not-art.

How do we judge good movies from bad movies? I know, I know, we all have our own taste, but in the broadest terms, how do we judge? A good movie is skillfully told, or beautifully photographed, or well performed, or … whatever. All the things good movies are. Bad movies lack the qualities good movies have. There's a set of criteria on which movies are usually judged, and those criteria are, at heart, aesthetic.

Video games are meant to be a challenge of skill, or an amusement, or things of that nature. They're intended to be judged on those merits for the most part. Are there exceptions? Sure. But we're generalizing here. Like I said, a "video game" that is meant primarily to be judged in aesthetic terms and not in terms of challenge or gameplay or fun or whatever maybe shouldn't be called a "video game," but rather something else.

That's an assumption on your part, that they are only considered "artists" because they call themselves "artists." Whereas I think
Penny Arcade would say they can be safely called "artists" because they create "art."

Which was my whole point: That's the textbook definition of the logical fallacy of begging the question. You're (in this case, they are) taking the proposition under debate and turning it into an assumption, then drawing a conclusion from it. That doesn't tell us anything; it's just an assertion.

Look, we're still dancing around definitions. I don't like my working definition of "art" any more than you do, man. So help me out here. Give me a definition of "art" that can be used to declare that somebody is not art. If it's not totally nutso, I'll run with it and we'll see where we end up.

All Ebert did was parrot things that people actually believe and acted as though the absurdity should be immediately apparent to all -- which it isn't to the people who actually believe it.

Yeah, I remember that one. It was, at best, an extremely poorly constructed joke.

What he should have done, and would have if he understood satire, was take the extreme position of beliefs that should trickle-down from a belief in a young earth and no evolution.

I think you're right, in that that would have achieved his goal better than what he did. But I think his goal was kinda stupid. Too many people think satire is the end of a conversation. It shouldn't be. It should be the beginning of one. Stuff like that is sometimes called "provocative" because it's meant to provoke. "Ha ha, you dumb" isn't satire. It's just gloating. And yeah, Ebert sometimes does get pretty gloaty.

But then he turns around and writes something like his not-that-long-ago article on what it's like to be unable to eat or drink. I can't dig up a link right now 'cause I have to get back to work, but it's a really, really great read.

If that's a thoughtful response, here's mine: Fuck you, Ebert, you condescending asshole.

For what it's worth, I don't necessarily think criticizing somebody's Twitter for not being thoughtful enough is a very safe rock on which to build your nest. That said, you've written an impressive piece of rebuttalry here, and I salute you for it. I don't actually agree with much of it, but that's cool. Smart people can talk, disagree and then get on with their lives. It's the people of small mind, in my experience, that tend to grab on to a point of contention with the tenacity of a bulldog and lock their jaws around it, never letting go until either the person they disagree with, or their relationship with that person, is dead.

Those people are jerks.

Anyway. Getting back to art: Is there any class of human endeavor that we can declare, ex cathedra, not to be art? Or is it possible for anything humans do to be art, if it's done in the right way?

ON PREVIEW: Oh goddammit. You went and wrote more. Okay:

How is this functionally different than a painting in a frame?

It's not. But Pac-Man wasn't created with the intent that it should be installed in a museum and judged on its aesthetic merits. It was made to be played. Hence, not art by the definition I've already asked you to replace for us.

Suddenly, because there's participation, this is not art?

Depends on what the guy's intent was when he added the stick. Was his intent that it be a participatory artwork, or was his intent that it be a game? That's where the line is drawn in the definition I've already said I'm happy to drop in favor of a better one.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

Well, without a clear definition, the rest of the conversation is a complete waste of time.

Like I said, art is probably the most problematically defined word of all time and the questions of "what is and isn't art" and "is this or is this not art" are all about the ramifications of the definition you choose.

To beg the question without the definition is just useless.

Re: Are Video Games Art?

BrianFinifter wrote:

Well, without a clear definition, the rest of the conversation is a complete waste of time.

Like I said, art is probably the most problematically defined word of all time and the questions of "what is and isn't art" and "is this or is this not art" are all about the ramifications of the definition you choose.

To beg the question without the definition is just useless.

Agreed.  So if we're all smart enough to recognize that the we cannot categorically say what art definitely IS, then we should not be so quick to say what art definitely ISN'T.  If Games don't feel like art, they don't have to be.  But don't say I cannot believe that. 

I think Art can appear in any medium, at any time, wether on purpose or not.  Someone mentioned the mugger's scenario as being absent of art because the intent is to survive.  I disagree.  It can be art PRECISELY because of that.  That specific moment in time, the muggers, that person defending, all meet in congruence to create the art of that moment.

If the literal definition of art is  "any deliberate application of skill and imagination to create something which is meant to be evaluated primarily on aesthetic terms," then how do you account for people with severe autism, like Stephen Wiltshere who can draw New York City skylines from MEMORY to exact detail.  He did this because he had no other way to communicate.  The application is not intentional and not done to be judged primarily on aesthetic purposes.  Is it any less art?

Or Christy Brown, the subject of My Left Foot?  Is his stuff any LESS artistic?  This is what happens when you try to take something so subjective and define it so clearly.

Eddie Doty

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

I've been trying to find a way to word my definition of art, and this is the best I've managed. "Art is a deliberate arrangement of elements to invoke a sense of beauty, emotion, contemplation, or awe." These things are subjective, thus why I believe what is and isn't art can vary between people.

Last edited by ShadowDuelist (2010-04-23 20:45:49)

"ShadowDuelist is a god."
        -Teague Chrystie

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

I like that definition.

And if I temporarily assume it for the purpose of this conversation, I don't think many games at all - seriously, very few - qualify as art. Most of them are expressly entertainment. Even many of the "cinematic" ones are simply exploiting an artificial emotional response for the purpose of entertainment. And there's a law of diminishing returns.

If we lived in a world with one war game and it was well made, it would be art by way of originality and the experience you have when you play that game. "This game is about war - I know! But it's amazing, you really feel the experience of it, it's totally unique and fascinating."

That's not the world we live in, so even Saving Private Ryan The Game would ultimately feel like a retread.

Using this definition, the abstract games are really the ones to be looking to for examples of art.

Teague Chrystie

I have a tendency to fix your typos.

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

downinfront wrote:

I like that definition.

And if I temporarily assume it for the purpose of this conversation, I don't think many games at all - seriously, very few - qualify as art. Most of them are expressly entertainment. Even many of the "cinematic" ones are simply exploiting an artificial emotional response for the purpose of entertainment.

Which is fine, as long as you're prepared to dismiss nearly all movies under the same definition.

The original assertion -- Ebert's assertion -- is that no games can ever be art. I could agree that most games are not art, just as most movies are not art. But if even one game can be considered art, the original assertion is necessarily falsified.

downinfront wrote:

If we lived in a world with one war game and it was well made, it would be art by way of originality and the experience you have when you play that game.

You seem to be adding to the definition now -- that any work of art must be wholly unique or original. The Mona Lisa is not the first portrait ever painted. Is the Mona Lisa not art?

Thumbs up Thumbs down

Re: Are Video Games Art?

Is Blackhawk Down not art because of Full Metal Jacket and From Here to Eternity?

Re: Are Video Games Art?

I agree that most games are not art. And that's fine, because most game developers don't set out to make art, but to make an enjoyable experience that will also make them money. I just disagree with people saying that video games can't be art. And yes, I believe the same goes for movies as well.

"ShadowDuelist is a god."
        -Teague Chrystie

Thumbs up Thumbs down