selectbutton :: View topic - Michel Gondry says that Games aren't Art.

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile / Ignoring

Michel Gondry says that Games aren't Art.

selectbutton Forum Index -> King of Posters

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Hot Stott Bot
banned

Joined: 05 Dec 2006

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 5:58 am

Ben Reed wrote:

I'd buy that video games are art in the "creative expression" sense but I don't know that I would call them art in the CONVENTIONAL sense, simply by virtue of the experience they impart onto the player is determined by ACTIVE PARTICIPATION -- by actively changing the state of the game in a way that will inevitably unique from someone else's experience -- but at the same time, their aesthetic experience, unlike a physical art form such as dancing or music, is not completely generated by the participant. Even if you're playing a cover song, you're doing it through the agent that is your own instrument, held in your own hands and controlled by you -- even if you pick up Brian May's own Red Special, the music coming from that guitar is ALL YOU unless you are Brian May himself.

Case in point: when two guys look at one of Michaelangelo's frescoes, they don't LITERALLY see completely different naked Greco-Roman people doing the pull-my-finger gag -- it's always God and Adam, and by definition you go from there. When two guys go to see Lord of the Rings at the same theater, one of them doesn't see a musical finale to the crumbling of Sauron's tower, excellently choreographed and with very impressive footwork on the part of Ian Holm as Bilbo.

Oh?

If I view a movie in the theare, with someone talking loud, sitting on the right side of the second row, I most certainly do get a different sensory experience than someone watching it on DVD, pausing frequently for their friend who has been drinking too much and keeps needing to go to the bathroom.

How is this difference in sensory experience somehow not the same as the different experiences of two people playing the same videogame?

Of course, the degree to which the experiences vary from person to person when watching a movie is controlled by the creator, but isn't the same true of videogames?

This argument doesn't really hold up.

Unfilter / Back to top

Hot Stott Bot
banned

Joined: 05 Dec 2006

Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:50 pm

Mister Toups wrote:

The difference is that these variations in how you might see a film or a play or whatever else are incidental, where the variations in a game experience are by design.

Most television (and many movies) these days are designed so that they can be paused, rewound, started half-way through, etc., etc. and still be satisfying experiences due to the advent of PVRs and DVDs!

That's not incidental!

What if I were a movie director and designed my movie carefully with the awareness that some people are watching on the left side and some on the right side? Or with the awareness that I am targetting different possible audiences (as most movies are, in fact!)?

Do those movies suddenly lack the potential to be art?

Trying to argue that something is not art because the intentions of the creators vary unilaterally across the medium is probably no good!

Unfilter / Back to top

Hot Stott Bot
banned

Joined: 05 Dec 2006

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 12:55 am

Mister Toups wrote:

I'm not the one arguing that this doesn't make them art. But it's a significant different between the mediums that shouldn't be dismissed!

Sure, I'll accept that.

Just like how the fact that movies have motion and photography doesn't is a significant difference that shouldn't be dismissed. I feel that difference (movies and photography) has a dramatic effect on the types of things the two mediums are able to convey!

(Though I don't think it has anything to do with "what is art?".)

2ps wrote:

To put it another way -- variance between experiences is at the very heart of game design, regardless of genre.

I'm not sure I buy that!

Why do you say that? In fact, I'd say most games are designed specifically to avoid variance. You always want to make sure that "everyone" or "the average user" gets to see the same things and has the same difficulty curve, etc., etc. -- anything else would be an inefficient use of production time! You don't make something so that a only a small percentage of people can experience it.

Toups wrote:

This isn't really true of films, which, aside from incidental things (which the filmmaker may or may not accommodate while filming), are generally the same experience for everyone who views them.

I still don't buy that they're "generally the same experience for everyone". I think the difference in audience effects the experience dramatically, and that's essentially the same thing as the variance in experience of videogames.

I mean, just because (unlike videogames) there's no (major) variance of the actual picture and sound itself doesn't make the variance of experience that occurs at the psychological level any less important or impactful.

=============================================

Also, in many ways, there's no variance in videogames. I mean, the rulesets and the data that is stored on the disc is exactly the same for everyone getting it!

If film can be said to be invariant because the picture and sound on the film is the same for everyone, how come videogames can't be said to be invariant because the data on the disc is the same for everyone?

Unfilter / Back to top

Hot Stott Bot
banned

Joined: 05 Dec 2006

Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:39 am

Ben Reed wrote:

Hot Stott Bot wrote:

For the purposes of my argument, I considered basically all outside influen ce -- i.e. the nature of the audience, the circumstances of the viewing/playing, and other externalities as irrelevant. I made my argument from the standpoint of a completely self-contained experience, namely, the player/artist themselves completely isolated from all external influence, where nothing matters but the raw experience of the media itself.

This is not to say that such externalities are irrelevant in practice -- that is certainly not the case. Surely I would think differently of Street Fighter II had I never indulged in the multiplayer aspects, or explored the competitive community associated with it. But we're not dealing with externalities here. I am looking solely at the "meta" of the issue.

See, I just think this is totally absurd.

You can't isolate a piece of media from those externalities. Media is created wtih the externalities in mind. They're an essential part of the experience!

Quote:

Of course, the degree to which the experiences vary from person to person when watching a movie is controlled by the creator, but isn't the same true of videogames?

The reason I disagree with this statement is twofold, and directly analogous to my original argument. First of all, unlike a "passive" media such as film, painting, or television (i.e., you sitting down and viewing them), what you get out of a video game is directly correlated to what you put into it. You may not "get" a film like Brazil, but that is due not to your ability to actually ENGAGE in the medium (namely, by viewing it), but to your subjective approach to thinking about the medium.

I don't see the difference here.

I think if someone doesn't "get" a film then they have failed to engage the medium. Simply having a movie play for you on a screen isn't enough to engage the medium. The audience is required to have a certain amount of knowledge and viewing skills to be capable of watching a movie! Not anyone can watch just any movie, and I don't think this is very different from how not anyone can play just any videogame, even though it might be more obvious for videogames.

Quote:

There is nothing PHYSICALLY opbstructing you from watching the whole of Brazil from beginning to end unless your DVD player dies on you. In a video game, you cannot make wholly legitimate (though not wholly ILLEGITIMATE, in many cases) claim to have experienced the entirety of a game such as God Hand (deliberately playing favorites here) unless you have played the entire game from beginning to end. Until you can clear the barrier of actually being able to "finish" the game, or at least play enough of it to get a clear and objective view of how the aesthetic and systemic elements mesh with each other, you cannot render total judgment on the game.

Aside from my previous point, you could argue that the barrier you describe isn't a "barrier to the media" but the media itself. Learning to clear that barrier and your inability to do so is a part of the experience!

If you are too good or not good enough at playing the game that your experience meshes with what the creator intended, then you simply can't enjoy the movie in the same way that someone without the prerequisite viewing history can't enjoy certain movies...

You could practice over and over until you were good enough to play through God Hand. Or maybe you're just not physically capable of ever being that good?

Well, a child isn't going to be physically capable of understanding the complex emotional and romantic situations in something like a Wong Kar-Wai movie either...

I don't see the difference.

Quote:

Secondly, unlike "active" "art" such as music or dancing, while you are a wholly active participant and ability DEFINITELY plays a role in your experience, you are not wholly in control of the rules of the game. If you find a particular song too difficult to play, or a particular musical genre not to your liking, you have complete freedom to play a different song, switch genres, pick up a different instrument, do whatever, at ANY point you wish. Within a video game, you are given specific control of assigned elements of the game, and short of altering the game's actual substance, you will always be confined by those restrictions. Your ability to change the "rules of the game" are unalterably limited.

That constraint is exactly one of the things I'm trying to point out. The fact that the rules are set and create a set experience is exactly why videogames can create a consistent experience for the player when you consider that the rules themselves are part of the media...

Quote:

Again, I am CERTAINLY not making the case that video games are an unworthy medium, or in any way inferior to what we consider "art". I simply believe it's a bit too easy to simply take affront to the perceived assertion that "OH MY GOD VIDEO GAMES AREN'T ART, HOW CAN YOU TELL ME I HAVE BEEN PLAYING A LIE?!?" without taking a calm step back and REALLY looking at what makes video games special. It is easy to SAY that high-concept games like Shadow of the Colossus constitute ART by virtue of aesthetic elements, but I believe too many people fixate on the asesthetic and stylistic elements of video games and more or less ignore the role that technical aspects play. (Think for just a second -- would anyone have cared about the classic yellow design and quirky sound effects of Pac-Man had it not been a functional, entertaining game as well?) They fixate too much on the "video" to the detriment of the "game" -- you cannot have a "video game" without considering both facets.

And the same is true of movies, plays, television, music, etc., and most media. It all has its functional elements, and I don't think that having a funcitonal element precludes the notion of "art".

Last edited by Hot Stott Bot on Sun Feb 11, 2007 2:43 am; edited 1 time in total

Unfilter / Back to top

Quick Reply

Attach signature
Notify on replies

Display posts from previous:

	selectbutton Forum Index -> King of Posters	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum