Main > Everything Else
Video Games Aren't Art (Yet)
Jeff AMN:
I didn't write this, so I think it's fair to share it with you all. Here's an intelligent editorial claiming that games are yet to the point in their maturity that they can be considered art. Whether you agree or not with the claims here, it's a fascinating read for a gamer.
So, do you guys agree with him or not? I tend to think he's right, even if my reasoning is a tad different.
Here's the link: http://ds.advancedmn.com/article.php?artid=4711
Glaine:
Well, there are always laser disk games, adventure games, and other games that use so much motion picture in them that you wonder when you will get to start playing again ;D . But I know where you are going with this.
Theres this one book I loved - "Everything bad is good for you".
It states that, in general, trends in TV and games has become increasingly complex and demanding. I suggest it, fun read.
For example, the number of simultaneous mission threads in games like Zelda and the number of simultaneous plot lines used in a TV episode are both way up. And while there are a whole lot of stupid shows out there I can't stand, there are also now forums for almost all of them for people who compare notes and ponder about their favorite shows - which shows a sort of TV watching evolution.
The book also talks about how involving game playing is now - how you have to explore just ho far a game goes with things and how everything works. I for one always play with the console commands window or source code on the games I play a whole lot of until I'm utterly intimate with the game, so far as to making amateur mods every so often.
Not to say 80's games aren't involving, they still rock hard.
Sorry to rant, but I love that book. :soapbox:
Loki:
Benoît Sokal's Amerzone or Syberia anyone? :)
Anyway, If Picasso sneezes on a canvas it's also art ^^;
Glaine:
Thats true too, although it depends on the show.
The point was that the first shows they tried plot branching, people rejected it, they didn't like following that much - which was compounded by the fact that if you missed an episode you were hard pressed to see it until it ran again, unless you had a friend who taped it that night.
So there were shows like most of the A-Team episodes which had nothing to do with each other (no plot building except we learn just how much Mr T hates Murdock, that crazy foo).
But because of BitTorrents, Boxset Dvd, etc, people can watch all the episodes when they want as much as they want, entertainment oversaturation if you will.
Speaking of plot drift, this thread is supposed to be about video games being supposedly incapable of being a match for movies, etc.
I see it like this: Anime is a valid format for TV, some say it isn't. It can elicit laughter and tears just like live action TV. And while a FPS video game won't tear me up (because they don't try to build that in you and it is hard to set a drama and mood when you are shooting monsters), I have played a few adventure games and such that made me really feel for the characters. There was emotion and deep plot. I feel that puts some video games on equal footing. It all depends on the game, of course. Solitare and Super Mario Bros isn't likely to win a grammy though, use common sense.
I'm just sick of people dismissing things because it isn't in the format they like.
If Heroes was a cartoon, people wouldn't watch it as much I bet (by the way, did anyone notice that Stan Lee was the bus driver on last weeks episode? I was laughing so hard, no one else even knew who it was).
Howard_Casto:
Well I took enough art classes in college to be able to understand the following:
ANYTHING is art. Scholars are fellow artists can categorize dfferent styles, but it's nearly impossible to say that one thing is art and another isn't. The only requirement for something to be art is it has to be a created work intended to provoke some sort of response or to represent some type of idea or object. Note the intended bit, if it's successful or not is irrelevant. It's still art, just "bad" art.
An artform doesn't have to mature, the viewers do. Most art styles and mediums evolve rather slowly, but they aren't accepted by the art community for a while. The reason isn't that they evolved into a more complex form, the reason is that the community was too dumb to "get it" until then.
Critics ALWAYS miss the mark. Why? Well they are paid to be jerks that don't like anything (so only the really great will be recognized) and as much as they'll fight it, they will eventually settle into that role. Ever wonder why most of the great artists died penniless? Because art collectors listen to the stupid critics and they don't like anything different. Also note that the poster doesn't mention any story-driven games produced after 2001... that is because he's a critic and no longer plays the games. He is out of touch.
We aren't getting "Hamlet" from videogames yet, we are getting "Heroes", but still, they are art. What's holding them back isn't the story-telling, but the technology (space limitations prevent lengthy plot branches and excessive dialog from being practical), and that is about to change.
Also need I remind you all that god's gift to literature, Shakesphere, wrote common plays for the common man. Sure he's all hailed NOW, but he was really the equivelent of a sit-com writer in his day. Things are better appreciated when they aren't available anymore. Plays are only considered "artsy" now becaues nobody goes to plays anymore. The same thing with books.
Years from now, as has been the case in the past, the works of our pop-culture will be preserved as our great works of art. So forget about novels, broadway musicals and ground-breaking documentaries, stuff like spiderman, Heroes, internet blogs and video games will be our great works.
Hmm... maybe I should spell-check more often... Afterall, I'm sure to be considered a famous internet artist someday. ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
Go to full version