- Posts: 986
- Thank you received: 1824
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)
Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.
Can games, electronic and otherwise, be ART?
Regarding board games, he disagreed that they could be art as they depend on a single force overcoming and defeating opposing forces. Same for cooperatives, but there the opposing forces are the player and designer.
Obviously both have aesthetic qualities that can be judged on their own as art as visuals or miniatures or whatever, but I want to know whether the unity of mechanics, rules and presentation are an art themselves. I think they must be as they can be satires like Modern Art or High Society, but I lack the language and argument to express it.
I know the answer to this question won’t matter to whether we enjoy these games or not, but I do believe it is worth pursuing. Are we engaging in Art when we play Starcraft and Cosmic Encounter? Call of Duty and SEAL Team Flix? Tetris and chess? Or are they merely product and pleasant distraction?
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Posts: 1897
- Thank you received: 1268
The Grizzled may be my most 'artistic' game, but perhaps I feel that way because I was a soldier.
Art is where you find it. It is not defined by someone else for you.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Black Barney
- Offline
- D20
- 10k Club
- Posts: 10045
- Thank you received: 3553
Some of these games hire dozens if not hundreds of artists to work on them. I don’t know how the end result couldn’t be considered anything other than art.
It’s no different than a movie. You hire artists to design parts of your movie or game, both require artistic direction. The end result is a piece of art.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
But that's very true of art anyway.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- hotseatgames
- Offline
- D12
- Posts: 7185
- Thank you received: 6315
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Shellhead wrote: I think that games are capable of rising to the level of fine art, but maybe nothing we have seen so far reaches that level.
I think Demono might fall in that grey area between applied art and fine art.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
This means that I view board games, chairs, and mostly everything, as the artistic expression of someone.
Now, I am also willing to admit that we find things that were not done purposefully to be artistic. Some accidental splash of paint while working, a broken down building, etc. We find some sort of pleasure in things like that.
Do I think that board games will receive the recognition of the theater, paintings, and the like? No. Generally, board games are mass produced (though the print runs can be small). I think that pulls it out of what people generally conceive of as art. Some expensive, unique chess sets may find inclusion among the cultured as art. But that is due to the quality of the sculpting and to the cultural weight that chess has.
I don't think that mechanics will ever get that kind of recognition. Game rules do not touch the heart strings like movies, literature, and paintings do.
EDIT: Also, (aside from abstracts like Go) Napoleon's Triumph is the most holistically artistic game I have run across. The map and pieces come together so nicely, and the rules, once learned, are so smooth. They step out of the way, and you can just think about what you want to do, where you want to maneuver, without getting hung up by the rules.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Erik Twice
- Offline
- D8
- Needs explosions
- Posts: 2300
- Thank you received: 2650
"Oh, it's not real art, because it's interactive"
"Oh, it's not real art, because money was paid for it"
"Oh, it's not real art, because you used a machine to record it"
"Oh, it's not real art, it's just illustration"
Etc, etc. It's a stupid term. You can pretty much flip the names and argue that cinema isn't art and you'll get the same conversation.
Politics get into it because the whole thing is not about definitions or games or anything, it's about being "accepted" as something good and valuable and people being afraid their own little turf may see some competition.
The guy really had a hate-boner for games. Lots of his reviews have dumb attacks against videogames for no logical reason. Like, he's talking about a movie and suddenly he dropped some game-hate at the end. Hate towards games he hadn't played, of course, common sense couldn't get to the guy when it came to this.Black Barney wrote: Roger Ebert was super against games ever being regarded as art and was an internet warrior against them when he wasn’t trying to figure out how to eat a Twinkie.
What bothered me the most is that people took him seriously. The moment he said that idiotic "Would burn all video games to save Hukelberry Finn" line he should have been laughed out of the room. Instead, you had game personalities and critics talking about how he "might be right" and listing recommendations about how the medium can "improve" so we can actually see art. And to rub salt on the wound, most of these recommendations were "let's copy movies" nonsense.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Legomancer
- Offline
- D10
- Dave Lartigue
- Posts: 2944
- Thank you received: 3873
I will say, though, that in my experience, the people who yell the loudest for games (especially video games) to be treated as art, mean something really odd by "art". So many gamers see "art" as a ward against criticism. As soon as something is declared as "art" then for some reason it can't be judged in any way. I think a lot of folks see the term "art" as a sort of canonization of opinion.
When we're kid's we're told that something like the Mona Lisa or Symphony 5 is "art" and if you say you don't like it or whatever, you're declared a philistine or you "don't get it". Growing up, you're presented with literature, and are constantly told there of symbolism and such, and we often rebel, demanding to read the work literally and refusing to accept these interpretations, seeing them as "just an opinion" being forced on you, even if there's supporting material within the text.
So I think for many people, "art" comes to represent creative works which are just great in and of themselves, which have been elevated, and about which any opinion or interpretation is valid and unassailable (especially if the creator said something somewhere about it). "This is art" is intended to stifle discussion, not encourage it. "Art" takes something off the board.
But again, most people aren't taught anything about art except blind appreciation and canonical interpretation.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
Legomancer wrote: But again, most people aren't taught anything about art except blind appreciation and canonical interpretation.
I plan to make a longer post in response to the rest of this post and Erik’s, but I just wanted to say that I have believed for years now that we should be teaching Danielle Steele alongside Romeo and Juliet or Tom Clancy next to Kurt Vonnegut in high school. It’s kind of hard to appreciate the good stuff, if you don’t know mediocrity.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- GorillaGrody
- Offline
- D6
- Will kvetch for free
- Posts: 439
- Thank you received: 742
They had similar attitudes, expressed differently. Their first point was, to reductively reiterate Plato's idea, that most art isn't "real" and therefore not worthy of attention. Sounds dumb, but it's what a lot of what people say about art, that it doesn't "ring true." Their other point is that much art, in its unreality, is sentimental. Not only does it shield people from truth, it wraps lies in soft, bleary forms about how great the past was, how heroic all soldiers, and how loving all mothers. This has very real consequences for politics, and these artists rightly identified fascism not so much as a political movement so much as an extremely bad form of popular art.
Many years have passed, and a lot of arguments have been made contra Adorno and Greenberg, the most convincing of which was the way in which Greenberg and Adorno fetishized angular, clean modernism as if it, too, wasn't sentimental about crotchety, privileged white males and their perspective. I agree with the pro-kitsch critics, mostly. Both authors absolutely hated things I love; popular music, movies, etc etc. I haven't read deeply into the pro-kitsch argument, but Johannes Goransson writes about it a lot, and expresses what I instinctively feel about it: "Like Pop Art, Kitsch art makes the inside the outside and the outside the inside. Like Sontag notes about “camp,” kitschy art tends to be the baroque, the art that emphasizes “style” over content or “meaning.”" montevidayo.com/2011/06/contamination-66...nd-excessive-beauty/
In other words, surface may be all an artwork has to say, and its meaning may be totally secondary, in which case, no amount of sentimentality can reduce what is powerful about art, as long as you don't get caught up on its "reality" in terms of what its supposed to mean. Games collect really nicely into this definition. However, the mirror of this is the worst--I mean, the fucking worst-- trend in the interpretation of art ever produced, which is "art is whatever I can pay for." I call it IMHO art. "IMHO it's art." It indicates a sort of reduction to privacy that is like a cancer. "Me and my friends love to collect swastikas, that's art to me IMHO." Because games have a vast body of commercial review, but almost no serious criticism, this terrible trend in games interpretation is the only one available with which to talk about games.
And we can't count sentimentality out. Right now, we live in a world of extreme sentimentality about the promise of technology. We are already in a phase of culture in which really good video gamers are recruited by the military to fly drones to kill people who probably couldn't afford a video game system if they saved for it for a year. The remove a killer drone pilot uses when playing a video game is the same they use when killing an actual person. It's weaponized sentimentality, and it's about to become the way in which rich nations fight wars.
EDIT: To put my feelings about it succinctly, if you don't care whether or not art is important, AND you are willing to accept a sentimental interpretaion of reality as truth, it doesn't matter whether art is good or bad. You're bad--on a broad spectrum,albiet, which includes both the harmless and the harmful--and you make the art around you bad. Ouch. Discuss.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Black Barney
- Offline
- D20
- 10k Club
- Posts: 10045
- Thank you received: 3553
DarthJoJo wrote:
Legomancer wrote: But again, most people aren't taught anything about art except blind appreciation and canonical interpretation.
I plan to make a longer post in response to the rest of this post and Erik’s, but I just wanted to say that I have believed for years now that we should be teaching Danielle Steele alongside Romeo and Juliet or Tom Clancy next to Kurt Vonnegut in high school. It’s kind of hard to appreciate the good stuff, if you don’t know mediocrity.
I took North American Literature in high school and our teacher would read Stephen King short stories to us sometimes just so we could have a control group for when we start reading Huck Finn or whatever. It was great to get the pulp fiction alongside the masterpieces.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.