|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic
|
| Author |
Message |
DarwinMayflower
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Feb 10, 2007 9:29 am |
  |
|
I think video games are good enough to be considered art insofar that there are enough wankers and pretentious critics out there debating a variety of useless opinions on which game is better than what...just like the art world.
However I think the true art of video games is in it's ability to mimic popular forms of media that are considered "art" and but at the same time not be totally overshadowed by that theme to make it less of a video game. To me, the concept of anything typically non-art be considered as art means that particular item trancends it's normal boundries of what it represents. I mean anyone could probably make a Picasso or Kubrick related/themed riding lawnmower which could be considered art...or kitsch. However I think by making the best riding lawnmower ever created, so great that even a non-lawnmower enthusiast could say "Yeah...that thing is a fucking beaut," that in itself should be considered art. Not in the traditional sense, but as a badge of honour. I guess to a certain degree if you were using a 5.0 star raiting system, something 5.5 stars would considered art. But that's how I feel about it.
But it's hard to define. I mean The Sims trancended all sorts of demographics and boundries; but I don't really consider it art. Much like I couldn't care less about Limp Bizkit's latest single as art. The pretentious fag in me basically labels SOTC as art (and I imagine most of you expected that) however who am I to judge really without the collective backing of thousands of other pretentious fags?
But in the end I think what most hampers video games from attainting true art status is that it's still pretty much an infant media; grade A screenwriters a lot of them are not. Zelda Twilight Princess's story read like something done a decade ago on video games, of which even FF7's storyline felt it was done 2-3 decades ago in film. Once video games depart from mimicking other art mediums, such as film, and manage to truely embrace the video game nature and the eventual evolution of it...then perhaps it might be respected as art or even beceome something entirely different. This isn't to say to totally get rid of other art influences, but to challenge what it means to make a video game and how to advance it without being a copy of something else. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
 |
DarwinMayflower
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 11, 2007 8:53 am |
|
|
| Ben Reed wrote: |
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. 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. |
I find this a problem because the same could be said about art in general. If following your interpretation of total judgement of a game could be also attributed to a film. It's like saying that unless you consider all possibilities of existence for the film from a variety of opinions, that you cannot render a total judgement on a film like Brazil because you might have missed something. At least with some video games they will give you a 100% rating on discovering everything there is to discover.
| 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. |
I disagree because with this statement because there's a bias. It's like you're giving music and dancing far too broad an ability to change the rules whereas you're getting too specific about video games' limitations. The problem I find is that yes you can change whatever song you want to play or whatever genre you want to switch over, but the same can be said of video gaming as a whole. Tired of Zelda? Try Okami. Tired of fetch quest games? Play some R-Type. Tired of shooters? Try out God Hand. The thing with the song being too difficult to play, even if you have the ability to switch to another song...that song will still remain in the same rigid format in which you have to play in order actually play it correctly. Much like any game that is too difficult to play and you decide to switch to another different game. Sure you could possibly play the song slower or a more simplified version of it; but how is that any different than...say playing RE:4 with the knife only or using the infinite rocket launcher?
The same variety of choice in music or dance as active arts could be applied to video games. Seeing people abuse glitches such as AHVBx3, the 3rd Collosus sword leap glitch in SOTC and snaking in Mario Kart DS, shows that video games could bend the rules as much as any dance or music routine while still being the same game and/or genre.
| 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. |
Originally paintings have been commissioned to provide a visual record of an event or the existence of particular human being. It was only after a long period of time with the invention of photography that the function of painting was wholly changed and made obselete as a metheod of record. So the idea of focusing on the aesthetic of a video game and ignoring some of the more technical aspects of playing it seems totally acceptable considering that various amounts of art pieces were more function than art in the first place. However I think that being pleased by the aesthetic of any medium has a lot to do with a product or piece being a result of very good function. SOTC had some amazing animation for the characters which put Zelda:TP's stiff Link running animation to shame. And it's that ability of function that makes the game to enjoy aesthetically.
However I do agree with you statement how we have to step back and reanalyze what video games as art means. Like I said in my post in the last page, it's only when video games stops mimicking other art mediums and focus more on what makes it a gaming medium that I think it would truely attain artistic merit. Otherwise then, it's just something posing as art as opposed to being art. That's why as an art student myself so long ago, I have a more moderate approach to viewing art. I can be the pretentious art fag, anaylyze/bullshit critiques and roll with the rest of the art students and I fucking love it. However from time to time, I do step back take a look at it from a realistic point of view and realize that hey, "This isn't art, it's crap." Which brings up the point that perhaps the first step to considering video games an art, is that you have to enjoy or have an interest playing them in the first place. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
DarwinMayflower
Joined: 17 Dec 2006
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:30 am |
|
|
| Adilegian wrote: |
| DarwinMayflower wrote: |
| Once video games depart from mimicking other art mediums, such as film, and manage to truely embrace the video game nature and the eventual evolution of it...then perhaps it might be respected as art or even beceome something entirely different. |
I agree with this completely.
Though I'd like to add (without being deliberately snarky toward you, DarwinMayflower) that the notion of "videogame criticism" will become a lot more credible when its professionals demonstrate versatile experience with traditional arts.
I mean, shit, do you know what it sounds like when every person who talks about videogames-as-art only compares them with films-as-art? It sounds like a bunch of dejected film students who don't see anything interesting being done in film, so they're moving onto videogames as "the next revolutionary thing." Nevermind the whole history of human culture and civilization that preceded it! |
No snarkiness detected at all. But it does make me wonder how my suggestion for the direction for video games to be perceived as art should proceed or what it's final product shall be. I don't have the answer, I just know the direction it should take. And I wonder if we as gamers would benefit from the advancement of video-games into art or if we'll encounter something that would kill the industry outright.
My suggestions is partially rooted in being an aging gamer, that useless cinemas (or the "art" content of video games) are making games unplayable for me at times. I tried to play FF10 only to quit/return the rental after finishing the excessive prologue portion of the game. I don't know, perhaps I'm just too old or have too little time to enjoy these games as I once was. However I still love games even as they are now; as "faux-arty" as they seem to be.. I love SOTC, FF6 and the MGS series is just great.
However you do bring up a good point with the failed film students. In order for video games to advance artwise, we do need more traditionally art aware people in the industry. However this does bring up an interesting chicken and the egg predicament. Should video game criticism's crediblity change in order to change the credibility of video games? Or should the video games change before the credibility of video game criticism advances? In the end whether video games would actually reach that high enough of a position to be considered art, the future has the potential to offer a lot. Whether it's something to be excited or feared remains to be seen. |
|
| Unfilter / Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
