Forums > MobyGames > Poll: Are video games art?
St. Martyne (3648) on 3/18/2009 8:10 PM · Permalink · Report
A simple question. A simple answer.
My answer is "Yes".
Somebody bring me Sisko! (8) on 3/18/2009 9:54 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start stvedder wrote--]Games can be art, but that doesn't make all games art. [/Q --end stvedder wrote--] Precisely. Every form of human expression can be. But what have you voted? "Yes" or "Can't say"? :P
Indra was here (20755) on 3/20/2009 4:58 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start stvedder wrote--]Games can be art, but that doesn't make all games art. [/Q --end stvedder wrote--] All games are art. Taste is not a defining factor. Art is an emotional representation and outlet, technically not a logical one.
Hell, everything is art as long as someone is stupid enough to dramatize it, publish it and get other people to buy it.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/21/2009 7:03 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Problem is, history has shown us that 'art' that was once considered as crap is now considered as art (while everyone should know that glueing a toaster to a lawmowver shouldn't be art, but they call it modern art now).
Works from anyone like Beethoven to Picasso, once upon a time was judged by populace at a certain point in time as junk. It is indeed a matter (a combination of) taste, cultural/religious/spiritual/political doctrination (read=hegemony), or simple subjective emotional representation.
Since the variables keep changing depending on the mood of the populace, the only way to define art is to define the 'artistic' interests of the people at a certain given time.
Somebody bring me Sisko! (8) on 3/18/2009 11:34 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start beetle120 wrote--]My definition of art is that it serves no other purpose then to be visually appealing ...[/Q --end beetle120 wrote--] Post of the Day®
Edit: Forget my question about you being deaf and functional illiterate... no need to stress forum peace unnecessarily about such a testament of sadness.
Somebody bring me Sisko! (8) on 3/19/2009 12:34 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Xoleras wrote--]You know, art comes from artwork, which is used in games as a synonym for graphics. By this definition, text qualifies only as art when it's used as ASCII-"graphics". :P [/Q --end Xoleras wrote--] Which is exactly what he wrote, Mr. Semantics. We're not talking about visual arts but art, ladies.
Somebody bring me Sisko! (8) on 3/19/2009 3:08 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Xoleras wrote--]This was meant as a sarcastic response, but I guess I failed. =) [/Q --end Xoleras wrote--] Damn! Where's the animated gif from that ad with the dinosaur, who slaps himself on the head after snacking away a blonde woman's head and being informed too late that lecker alternatives in form of superior chocolate bars are available.
GAMEBOY COLOR! (1990) on 3/19/2009 12:33 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start beetle120 wrote--]I wanted to say some games are and some aren't but that option is not there. My definition of art is that it serves no other purpose then to be visually appealing and some games achieve that. [/Q --end beetle120 wrote--]
That's what I think.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/19/2009 4:01 PM · Permalink · Report
They don't need to be taught in order to know what they like! Why challenge or broaden their horizons when their initial knee-jerk response is valid?
I think the place of art vis a vis games can be extrapolated from the use of the term "assets" to describe things like graphics and sound. Like films, games are the culmination of artists in several fields contributing the height of their craft. But if not integrated in a consistent and harmonious fashion in accordance with some greater design or vision, the work only rises as high as the most laggard of its parts. (Hence the advantage of the small or solo development teams in software as in film -- if they know what they're doing, there are fewer disruptive and distracting elements to derange the consistency of the vision.)
Of course, this doesn't mean that deranged and laggard games aren't art; just that they're bad (or worse, ineffective) art 8)
lasttoblame (414) on 3/20/2009 7:49 AM · Permalink · Report
This art debate really sucks.
folks, by demanding that video games are art by the notion that "hey, everything is art", you're comparing video games to a urinal. Duchamp was right, but man did he piss on us all. Taking pride in his conceptual breakthrough for the artistic quality of videogames is just like supporting the child pornography by advocating complete free speech. I mean: eew. Bad bedfellows are bad bedfellows. Let's get away from that arguement.
"Are video games art?" is not the right question. Undeniably they are art, but that isn't enough. The question should be, "Are video games good art?" because then you would have to undeniably answer, "No."
Stvedder and pseudo have the right idea. Folks, just because you are some guy who can draw nifty gundams in the margin of your calculus text doesn't make you an artist. All those guys who draw for video games aren't artists. They're designers. (Goddamn, I wish me a bold and italic font right now.) They design stuff to be cool. They make stuff to lead you to think that whatever you're seeing is the coolest, most bad ass shit ever.
The best example I can think of doesn't have to do with games, but y'all know who I mean: Michael Bay. Everybody loves giant battling robots, even Michelangelo supposedly had designs on some Renaissance mecha. So, this Transformers movie, is it art? No. Is it even a movie? No, I would say. What Micheal Bay does so well is give you two hours of reasons why this is the most amazing shit you'll ever see in your life. Michael Bay is an aesthetic arguer.
Take this back to video games, a medium through by it's interactive component means you invest your time in emotionally. You're playing through something, watching shit get blown up, and led to believe that this is the coolest shit ever. Well, you're not to be blamed. It was designed to be that way.
So what if video games are art? Video games are the lowest form of art on the planet. Folks, just play your games and enjoy them. Don't think of them anything else than a hobby or else you will get caught in a logic snare trap.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/20/2009 8:05 AM · Permalink · Report
Don't think of them anything else than a hobby or else you will get caught in a logic snare trap.
Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/20/2009 8:56 AM · Permalink · Report
Everybody knows Wookies are from Kashyyyk, man. (that's 3 y's) We were all disappointed they didn't show in ep. VI but that's what ep. III was for. That's how I know you're just baiting me.
fine, I was ranty, you were (uncharacteristically) ranty... talking about art just does that. I suppose I could list off a bunch of arguments, but then sum up with what? "oh, that's just my own little honest opinion, I'm entitled to that just as you are all to yours.."
It's teh internet: go big or go home. And as it's Moodygames.com, the end of the internet: go flamewar or just agree with everybody else. Speaking of which, where's Oleg? How come he's not around but this sprintcar guy has a whole thread devoted to himself? Isn't that his job? See what happens when the Unicorn B Lynx isn't around! Mediocrity!
lasttoblame (414) on 3/20/2009 9:13 AM · Permalink · Report
I'll put it this way: if I sound rant-y and moralizing, well a bunch of arguments that aren't eptomized by a deciding conclusion (that may sound preachy) is like a money shot that doesn't have any nickels or dimes.
Anyways, that'll show me for agreeing with you in the first place. Fool me once..
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/20/2009 11:41 AM · Permalink · Report
I enjoy your rants. You should write more.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/23/2009 8:41 AM · Permalink · Report
Fuck you! It's not a rant, it's my own humble little opinion to which I'm entitled, right or wrong, just as you are entitled to your own.
Fake edit: mm, thanks for your support (?). I just about gave up on this site after my "scandalous" bioshock review, to which I still get hate/support mail to this day. (thank you, Mobygames, for making my reviews the most read/most voted unhelpful!) Thanks for wanting to hear me out, if not to blantantly agree with me.
Sniff. Where do I go for a hug? Is there a mom and a glass of warm milk on this site?
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/20/2009 4:58 PM · Permalink · Report
Your invocation of a logic snare trap moved me to repost South Park's take ("the Chewbacca defense") on Johnny Cochran's closing remarks during OJ's trial.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/23/2009 8:32 AM · Permalink · Report
Ahh. This is a cultural reference that completely slipped me by. I saw and enjoyed the movie and songs and unclefucking, but have largely missed out on the show. I suppose I should reevaluate your post, my esteemed MG peer.
All the same, I am saddened to know I am burdened with the knowledge of where Wookies come from, and how to spell it. Anyways, backing to ranting..
Indra was here (20755) on 3/20/2009 5:02 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--] The question should be, "Are video games good art?" because then you would have to undeniably answer, "No." [/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--] Seconded.
[edit] We need more heavy duty questions. Intellectual stimulation has been almost non-existent lately here.
micnictic (387) on 3/21/2009 1:37 AM · Permalink · Report
First of all, an answer like "some games are art, others not" simply doesn't make any sense. No half-way reasonable definition of art would make subjective, normative demands like "it has to be good", "it has to be entertaining" or "it has to be thought-provoking". So, games are art; even the bad, boring and stupid ones.
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--] Undeniably they are art, but that isn't enough. The question should be, "Are video games good art?" because then you would have to undeniably answer, "No." [/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
And that's a totally wrong question either. Maybe you should ask "are paintings good art?" to realize how senseless that question is. You just can't give a general answer to that. All you can say is, it depends on who's painting them.
vedder (70822) on 3/21/2009 1:54 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--]First of all, an answer like "some games are art, others not" simply doesn't make any sense.[/Q --end Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--]
Which brings me to the next questions:
Are toothbrushes art? Or network cables?
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/21/2009 8:42 AM · Permalink · Report
Next you're going to say that urinals can't be good art!
Indra was here (20755) on 3/21/2009 7:07 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--]Phrasing a good definition is something I leave for smarter people than me. I only found it obvious, that toothbrushes don't fall in the category of art... [/Q --end Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--] You should check out the art collections in Seattle. They have whole kitchen appliances glued together and call it modern art. Bah.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/21/2009 7:08 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Xoleras wrote--]Exactly. That's why paintings aren't art, because they fulfil a practical function - they are designed so that an empty wall doesn't look that empty any more. [/Q --end Xoleras wrote--] I gotta figure out where you get these insights. Most fascinating.
Foxhack (32100) on 3/21/2009 2:07 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start stvedder wrote--]And that's why I say not all games are art. Because most games are designed specifically to be practical and functional in providing entertainment. Those games who are NOT designed in this way, they might be art! [/Q --end stvedder wrote--]BOOGERMAN IS ART, GOSHDURNIT
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/22/2009 4:59 AM · Permalink · Report
Interesting discussion. I'm with Daniel on his statement about practical usage, although I would slightly correct it: things that only fulfill a practical need are not art. Works of art may also have a practical purpose, as the other colleagues pointed out nicely.
The moment something goes beyond its pure practical usage - it becomes art. But!.. I also agree with lasttoblame and others that there is such a thing as good and bad art. Or maybe "strong art" and "weak art". Mona Lisa and little cute chicken painted on a roll of toilet paper. They are both art. Sure, in many cases it's a matter of taste. But the emotional and the intellectual impact of Mona Lisa is by far stronger as that of the cute chicken on toilet paper. Fact. Therefore, we could apply the definition of strong and weak art to them.
As for games - yup, they are art. And a pretty weak one at that.
micnictic (387) on 3/22/2009 5:27 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
When people say "this is a work of art", it usually is meant to be a compliment already. But calling something art shouldn't be a compliment in itself, as there always have been and always will be bad examples of art. Question is, should we draw the line along our personal preferences? Should I call only those things art, which I like? No, that wouldn't be right. If we accept something as a form of art, it means the works in this particular art form are art, even though this may sometimes be hard to admit. Example: if movies are an art form, it effectively makes Uwe Boll an artist. This may sound like a joke to some, but it's a logical consequence in the end. (The only way to exclude certain works would be to find objective criteria for doing so. Documentary films should be filed as journalism, not art, for example. What we do about porn movies is a tougher question... :)
Anyway, the problem of this debate seems to be the different definitions about what the talk is about. In other words: before discussing whether games are art, we would have to clarify what actually defines art.
I just realized that stvedder is right from his point of view. You seem to watch art and entertainment as something antithetic – or at least two different things. Well, you're not the only one who believes that something like "true art" must be standing above mere trivial entertainment. It's quite a modern thought, for example, that art must not only affect us emotionally, but also in an intellectual way – that it must "make people think" or whatever. I myself have a broader definition. Seemingly banal intentions like pure entertainment or recreation are not contradictory to what I would call art. You can find many renowned "artists" in history who actually wanted nothing else. Still, a good and watertight definition of art isn't something one can write down in a minute. It's something that would require a lot of thought and therefore a lot of time. And since I don't have much time and can't think of any existing definitions from wise intellectuals I would identify with, I just can't give a really satisfying answer as to why games are art in my opinion. (However, Sam Jeffreys expressed many helpful suggestions in a single small paragraph at the beginning of this discussion.)
Indra was here (20755) on 3/22/2009 6:34 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--]Should I call only those things art, which I like? No, that wouldn't be right. [/Q --end Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--] Yes, it would. Art is defined by subjective taste, not a universal understanding of emotion. Some people think Jazz is art, some consider the hardcore versions of Jazz as noise, same goes with Metal. Some people consider abstract paintings as art, some just consider it 'abstract'. Some people think games are art, others think that it has no relevance with "true art". As long as one person believes that something is art...then to him or her, its art.
/end.
DreinIX (10446) on 3/23/2009 9:28 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of 'da Clan Depari wrote--] [Q2 --start Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--]Should I call only those things art, which I like? No, that wouldn't be right. [/Q2 --end Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--] Yes, it would. Art is defined by subjective taste, not a universal understanding of emotion. Some people think Jazz is art, some consider the hardcore versions of Jazz as noise, same goes with Metal. Some people consider abstract paintings as art, some just consider it 'abstract'. Some people think games are art, others think that it has no relevance with "true art". As long as one person believes that something is art...then to him or her, its art.
/end. [/Q --end Indra Depari of 'da Clan Depari wrote--]
But Jazz and Metal fall under the "music" category and I believe music is universally accepted as art. So if someone does not like Jazz or Metal or let's say for a moment that indeed Jazz or Metal or whatever worth nothing, they wouldn't say or consider music as not being art at all, would they?
vedder (70822) on 3/22/2009 7:49 PM · Permalink · Report
The problem with art is that there is no absolute definition (as far as I know) as to what it is. I go to art school myself, but personally I wouldn't really consider anything I've made there as art. In this thread I've also given some examples of what art isn't in my opinion, but honostly I couldn't give you a good description of what it is. A good friend of mine studies musicology and couldn't define it either. In my experience, the more people work with and study art, the harder it becomes for them to define art.
And thus I must agree with Daniel. The discussion about if games are art, is mostly about semantics: what is art? By September I hope to have received my Master of Arts degree. But what is art? Frankly, I haven't a clue.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/22/2009 7:54 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start stvedder wrote--]But what is art? [/Q --end stvedder wrote--]Something you personally identify having aethestic (did I spell this right?) value.
Somebody bring me Sisko! (8) on 3/22/2009 9:09 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of 'da Clan Depari wrote--]aethestic (did I spell this right?) [/Q --end Indra Depari of 'da Clan Depari wrote--] No. :(
lasttoblame (414) on 3/23/2009 9:05 AM · Permalink · Report
Dig it:
Duke Ellington, the famous swing big band leader and composer was asked his opinion on bebop, the emerging music style that evolved from swing and yet was diametrically different in terms of harmony and melody. It is clear to say that, at the time, you either belonged to the "swing" camp or to the "bebop" camp; the factions were divided and there was no middle ground. Duke answered thusly:
"There are only two types of music. Good music and bad music."
By this statement, from a seminal figure of modern American music, we can extrapolate that there is such a thing as an ABSOLUTE in art. Get rid of your prejudices, judge something fairly with no regard to yourself, and find that there exists something that transcends humankind and time immortal. That which is universal is GREAT ART.
Just about every video game ever made is a flash in the pan upon the mark of human existence. It will come, in time, but the real question is why it needs to take so long because we as gamers actively resist it.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/23/2009 9:44 AM · Permalink · Report
Man, I love to see that everybody is squirming in their definition of what art is. Why? Because we all should. Art isn't something stale and stuffy in a museum. It can be wonderful, enlightening, cruel, terrible, fascinating. If you let it into your lives.
Also, stvedder, I would say it's not the problem of art, but the beauty of art. (yah yah, art is a bitch, cruel mistress, blah blah)
I suppose I could keep touting what I think "blah blah blah", but because that's terribly boring I'm going to mess up this debate even further.
The buildup to the release of Resident Evil 5 was met by some controversy over the setting of Africa and the use of primarily black Africans as enemy zombies. Though literally no one (of importance) has come out to be quoted as saying "this is a racist game", gamers flocked in droves to defend this game. The basic defense is one of "you're not shooting black people, you shooting at zombies, there's a difference", "there wasn't any controversy over shooting Spanish zombies in RE4, this is a creation of the biased liberal media", as well as "it's just a game, get over it."
Folks, when you say, "it's just a game," then you are dismissing anything else it could be, including art. It can't be said for sure if all the people who say "RE5 is just a game" are the same people who say "video games are art", but the two arguments can not be held at the same time. If you hold the recently released RE5 as state-of-the-art ART, what with it's amazing graphics with characters with detailed, sublte expressions, then because it is a work of art you then allow that this artwork has to ability to move emotions and complex ideas and values.
Concisely, if video games are art, then a video game like RE5 has the ability to be interpreted culturally as being racist. Art doesn't exist in a vaccuum, and everybody has their own (wrong) opinions. Therefore, RE5 is not "just a game" and gamers should start paying attention to the criticism lobbed towards the medium and its sacred cows. Just like that witch in the Sandman says, "intent and outcome are rarely coincident"; maybe at Capcom they just wanted another sequel and some more money to buy hookers and blow with, but they made something that has affected alot of people in ways they didn't imagine. As art can do.
(and my thoughtsas if I wouldn't say so: RE5 is completely racist. RE5 is goddamn Louisiana lynching, corn cob watermelon fried chicken eating, uncle Tom smiling shoe shining racist. It's so racist aliens from outer space will play this game and be convinced blacks are inferior and need to be exterminated. It's so racist that it's become the offical State game of South Carolina. It's so racist that if Abraham Lincoln played this game when he was in office he would have declared Civil War and WWII at the same time. I'd say why, but this is the art thread; we don't want to scare off the beatniks.
However, RE5 is also alot of fun and a decent game. I suppose my apparent contradictions may infuriate some (ie. my "all games suck, but are alot fun" rant) but the two opinions don't necessarily cancel each other out.)
lasttoblame (414) on 3/26/2009 4:36 PM · Permalink · Report
(as no one seems interested in continuing this discussion, I will continue on my own and go sprint_car_fan on your asses)
Art is unique. Art is one of a kind. While it can be said that prints are duplications and the entire run of a ballet or opera is the same, no two prints are the same just as no two performances are the same.
In the modern age that we live in, digital distribution makes the consumption of art much easier. Whenever is convenient for us we can pop in a DVD or CD to watch our favorite Shakespearean play or Maria Callas performance. However, we should differentiate between a film and a DVD, just as we should differentiate between music and a CD. A DVD or CD is just the digital format the work of art comes in--a format that has a monetary value. You can watch a movie in the theatre, on TV or on a plane; you can listen to music on your iPod, on the radio or even go listen to the band perform their music live. A DVD or CD is just something you buy.
Video games have had a short history, comparatively, and from its conception has been regulated fiercely as per its distribution. Namely, video games have always been a product with a price tag. Only in recent history have games become free due to the internet as a platform (ie. free flash games), piracy or as rewards (ie. XBLA or simular). [ shareware and demos, while free, have the expressed purpose of acting as advertisement ] Therefore, in most cases if you wanted to play a video game you had to buy it as no option is availible for a video game library (one that is legal and has current games on it, not like the deathware facility homeoftheunderdog.com)
The problem with this setup is that because video games have such a monetary value assigned to them whatever artistic or aesthetic value they have takes a secondary importance. Somehow gamers demand more from their game if it is expensive and demand less if it is a budget game. If one were to seek out a truly fine artistic experience, then cost shouldn't be an issue. Consider the exorbitant prices paid for Van Gogh's "Sunflowers" (Van Gogh died a penniless man who only sold two paintings), or say the scalping of tickets to a sold out Phish concert.
Video games make alot of money, and this is always going to be the first and last reason a video game publisher will ever need. For them, whatever artistic worth of a game is not as important as the sales of said game. This, of course, is a reason why the development of video games as an art form will continue to stagnate and not prosper. After all, many video gamers do not celebrate the "artists" that make them, instead only recognizing giant publishers like EA, Take Two/Rockstar, Konami and Capcom. ~
Hey, St Martyne, "a simple question, a simple answer"? Not on your saintly life. Where are you on your own thread?
micnictic (387) on 3/27/2009 3:37 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Say, have you ever read Theodor Adorno? Or some other critical theorist? I don't mean to accuse you of plagiarism or something, but your rants, as you call them, keep reminding me of the Frankfurt School. By the way, I agree with many things you stated in this post, but somehow I still see it all a bit less negative.
One question I have for you: would you say the same things about other forms of art, too? Because the way I see it, every product has a price tag nowadays. Thus, the production of art generally happens under commercial constraints. Would you then say, that no art form can prosper, as long as capitalism rules?
lasttoblame (414) on 3/27/2009 7:45 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--]Say, have you ever read Theodor Adorno? Or some other critical theorist?
One question I have for you: would you say the same things about other forms of art, too? Because the way I see it, every product has a price tag nowadays. Thus, the production of art generally happens under commercial constraints. Would you then say, that no art form can prosper, as long as capitalism rules? [/Q --end Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--]
Theodor Adorno? Who the hell is that? As for reading... dude, I play video games; I'm currently trying to capture all 30 BSAA emblems to unlock the sexist/racist Sheva tribal outfit. I guess I'll check out Adorno and other theorists.. once I finish killing African natives (but it's so much fun!).
Also, aren't you the Daniel Steinbruck who wrote me once asking why I think games aren't art? And, I'll take that charge of plagarism as the highest possible compliment.
[Q --start Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--]One question I have for you: would you say the same things about other forms of art, too? Because the way I see it, every product has a price tag nowadays. Thus, the production of art generally happens under commercial constraints. Would you then say, that no art form can prosper, as long as capitalism rules? [/Q --end Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--]
Daniel D.S. Duel Screen Steinbruck , I'm seriously not used to people asking me for my opinion when I so freely give it, but I'll field yours best I can:
It's a capitalist world now; all the proof you need is to see that everybody wearing those ubitquitous Che Guevara shirt BOUGHT them. The funny thing about a capitalist world, I find, is that because everything has a price then it is possible for something to be either expensive, cheap or FREE.
People equate free with worthless value, but when something is free of monetary value it is also freed of expectations and made accessible to all. The internet, your local library, wednesday morning at the art gallery (happens in most cities), rush tickets at the opera .. while not all completely free, these are examples of information and the appreciation of art that are next to being free, meaning that art isn't neccessarily something that must be elitist or be of high cost.
(This is going to be controversial, but you know, I can't stop now...) That why video game piracy is a good thing, if just for the short term. While piracy does cut profits for a maker of games and thus encourages them to make business decisions to maximize their profits, the upside is that it allows anyone to appreciate a game simply on its own merits without having to take a monetary loss. It's ridiculous to hear gamers complain in a review about how much they paid for a game and how little gameplay time there was (Fable II, the first Riddick game), but in their eyes they make sense as they see themselves as a consumer who bought a product.
Capitalism can be good for art or bad; in the 90's China had a humongous visual art market that made millions of yuan and sold countless (bad) art. Now, in this time of recession (say it with me) art appreciation will be scaled back--I wouldn't be surprised if schools started to cut back on art and music classes to emphasize the three R's.
Video games will cross over and freely become art when the technology allows some guy in some basement to make a game on his own and then release it for FREE. (or next to free) The reason why it has to be free is because gamers are a snarky bunch who love their sequels and status quo and complain about a 5$ download; even if some guy makes a masterpiece the gaming public won't have the incentive to check it out unless the hype machine (fed by the money making game companies and driven by ourselves) makes it out to be the next Halo.
Also, I don't consider these posts a rant. What am I, angry?
micnictic (387) on 3/27/2009 6:55 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--]
It's a capitalist world now; all the proof you need is to see that everybody wearing those ubitquitous Che Guevara shirt BOUGHT them.
[/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
Quite funny thing this is. Capitalism is bringing its own enemy to the people, as long as there's some money to be made. But actually we should see that as something good. Of course, most of the kids who wear that shirts haven't got a clue about Che, but they're free to read books about him, watch a surprisingly good movie by Walter Salles about him and so on. As long as anyone is interested enough in something to spend money for it, capitalism promotes almost everything. Arguably that's a reason, why artists (and other people) can express themselves much more freely in capitalism than in socialist societies, which always tended to put much more ideological pressure on artists by censoring and controlling – like in the soviet union, where socialist realism was dictated as the official state art style and so on.
I see it like this: we all get what we deserve. In the end, consumers decide the ways in which arts evolve. And luckily, not all people all idiots. Of course, the best-selling things out there have the artistic value of a Resident Evil 5 (which I haven't played, but I absolutely trust your description of it). Question is, why do you play that shit and complain that it has no deeper value? Take a look at other things and you may find something better.
I'm not sure, whether I can follow you in your thinking, that games should be free. I at least agree, that it's ridiculous, when people complain about games being too short. At least no one complains about a book, that hasn't enough pages. It indeed shows, that many gamers only play to senselessly waste their time – and as much of it as possible. But would things improve, if games were free? I don't think so. For me this rather is a question of what people demand, when they turn on their computers and start to play.
When I play games, I surely want them to entertain me. But entertainment has neither anything to do with wasting time nor with turning your brain off, in my mind. I think of it as quite exciting to witness the beginnings of a new medium. Even though games may not be as far evolved as other art forms, it's always great to discover something that hints at all the possibilities. And yes, I would even say, that it's already possible to discover some "good art" among video games.
With one thing you're right: we indeed already had the pleasure of speaking to each other. Back then we differed over the subject as well, when I recall things right.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/28/2009 6:44 AM · Permalink · Report
Your interpretation of Che t-shirts is an optomistic one, but I think the truth is that more people wearing his face don't know who he is than the opposite. In fact, western capitalist society has a history of taking their enemies and destroying their image by appropiating them. Have you heard of Pontiac? If your first answer is yes, that's a car, then the white colonists of Amercia has done their job. Pontiac is first and foremost a famous Indian chief who had opposed the white man; now he's forgotten. He's just a brand name. The same thing will happen to Che, Benicio Del Toro movie notwithstanding. (here's the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Pontiac). Also you should delve into Hallowe'en and April Fool's Day and discover that these were once pagan festivals that were appropiated by Christian culture and had their meaning subverted.
Oleg constantly tells me he's proud of the games he's played (go look at his all time best list, for example). I'm the opposite: I'm not proud of the games I've played, but rather the skills I bring to each game. That's why I love playing bad games; they are fascinating to dissect. Regarding RE5, everybody and their chiropractor should have a chance shooting black people (who've be infected, whatever) who are poor and dressed up like savages and also dress up the female protagonist like a tart. If you want to locate Sheva's boobs, just press down on the right trigger and her boobs will be highlighted by a ring and a "boop".
I don't seek out good games because I think it's not a notable cause, because I've been disappointed again and again. Instead, I just play games even though they suck because they're alot of fun. Hella fun. The reason I complain so much is that this situation is completely fixable, but isn't fixed because we don't want it to be fixed. Check out my post below for a follow up. I'm basically saying video gamers don't want their games to be "art".
Here's a question: if video games are art, why aren't there video game museums around the world? Why aren't video games in art galleries and libraries? Yes, you can get them off the internet, but wouldn't a video game in a gallery or library denote its artistic value and spread word of its importance to others? I know the New York Museum of Moving Image had a video game retrospective, but c'mon: it had Tomb Raider in it.
Sciere (930490) on 3/28/2009 8:51 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
I'm glad I can even give one example, as Mark Essen exhibits his games (Randy Balma: Municipal Abortionist, Punishment, Cowboyana, Flywrench) at art galleries, for instance The Generational: Younger Than Jesus at the New Museum in New York. He travels the world o festivals and expositions where people can simply play his games. They are more of an experience, as no publisher would release them as retail games.
Inspired by the fact that some of the most influential and enduring gestures in art and history have been made by young people in the early stages of their lives, “Younger Than Jesus” will fill the entire New Museum’s building on the Bowery with approximately 145 works by artists all of whom are under the age of thirty-three years old. Hailing from countries including Algeria, China, Colombia, Germany, India, Lebanon, Poland, Turkey, and Venezuela, many are showing in a museum for the first time. The exhibition will span mediums and encompass painting, drawing, photography, film, animation, performance, installation, dance, Internet-based works, and video games. Major support for the exhibition has been provided by The Andy Warhol Foundation.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/29/2009 3:19 PM · Permalink · Report
Sciere,
as there are a ton of galleries around the world in low rent hipster places just waiting to be gentrified, I'm sure that somebody somewhere had done it. I can add my own example, though it isn't technically a game. Paul Robertson is some guy who has made mock-ups of a fantastic 2D 16-bit (?) beat em' up scrollers that makes you wish you can play them. Such works include Kings of Power 4 Billion% (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/usermovies/199337.html) and Pirate Baby's Cabana Street Fight (just google it yourself); they ordinarily have to do with themes of power and "kickassery".
However, this galleries aren't the Louvre or the Met in New York. Yes, it will take time to happen but at the same time the real stuff has yet to be made, so I think there is danger her of watching eggs hatch.
Let's bring it back to distribution and the value of "free": Mark Essen sounds like he makes some quirky games by those titles (Municipal Abortionist? sounds like a new Mobygames ID handle), and it's more than likely that they are a game experience that you won't ever have since most people play the same kind of games. However, putting a video game in a gallery in this instance (quirky game in a off-Broadway (?) gallery) will be exposing it to the wrong people. Only beards with ponytails and unshaven legs in cargo pants will get to see this game, and for what? Over lattes they might/might not argue over "best art EVAR", but the general public who go the Guggenheim or the Tate will miss out.
The people that will miss out will be the gamers, an obstanant bunch who complain about a 5$ download. If you put a price on art--really amazing, new, innovative, challenging stuff--then gamers won't pay to play it. (eg. Planescape, ICO, that LucasArts Mexican Day of the Dead adventure game, Psychonauts--all bombs in sales). And if you think game developers and willing to gamble that the gaming public is ready to accept challenging and creative games, check out my post below.
micnictic (387) on 3/28/2009 11:20 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--] I'm basically saying video gamers don't want their games to be "art". [/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
St. Martyne has already said everything about your generalizations, but I'd like to give an answer, too. I think, there are many people out there, who want games to be art, who take a closer look at what they play and who show an appreciation for design and presentation of it all, thus enjoying it in a way, that is more than just a superficial method of killing boredom.
When I browse through this site, I think it's quite cool to see that there are so many glowing reviews for Grim Fandango, a creative and unique game that sold absolutely miserably. It somehow shows that the "good art" in video games gains recognition with time, while the predictable, uninspired, run-of-the-mill crap gets forgotten. This process happens in any form of art, I think. The fact, that most amazing games aren't selling good, sadly proves that this Chuck Beaver guy has a point. But take a look at the record or box office charts to see whether this is a general problem or limited to games. If you wanna continue lumping together games and gamers as equally stupid, that's fine, but it won't lead this discussion anywhere. Sorry, but I'm really starting to ask myself, why I should even bother about it.
micnictic (387) on 3/28/2009 11:59 AM · Permalink · Report
I reply to my own post, because I forgot something. My interpretation of the Che Guevara shirts wasn't more optimistic than yours. I repeat myself: "most of the kids who wear that shirts haven't got a clue about Che". I wonder, whether they'd still wear his face, if they knew, that he would have actually bombed the US during Cuban Missile Crisis.
I also wasn't talking about any Benicio del Toro movie, but about "The Motorcycle Diaries" by Walter Salles, a damn good movie, that follows the young Che on a trip through South America. The film doesn't glorify him, but rather asks what made him become such a fanatic. It has its audience have a look at the social reality, which made him politically aware and which is still prevailing.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/29/2009 4:00 PM · Permalink · Report
I write way too much. I'll say it. I know you all love to read it (just as I love to write), but it's long; it's true. So, when you come out and say I make generalizations it prompts me to write some more.
If I simply said "every single Daniel Steinbruck living in Brussels doesn't know what he's talking about it," well, that's a crass generalization. However, if I said the same thing but backed it up with reasons, facts, pie charts, witness statements, and box office receipts--well, that's not a generalization, that's an argument. Dual Screen, that's what I'm doing here.
You can obviously disagree with me; whether or not you live in Brussels you can say, "I'm Daniel Steinbruck and I know what I'm talking about, goshdiddly darn it!" (I don't know if you swear or not, and I don't want to put words in your mouth) Ok, you disagree with my statement, you're Daniel Steinbruck and you know what you're talking about.. well, your opinion doesn't mean much if you don't explain yourself, or worse, just keep it to yourself.
Obviously yes, you are Daniel Steinbruck, you know what you are talking about and you are moving to Brussels right after you read this. But getting back to the discussion, if you disagree with me, say so. Better yet, if you think I'm making a generalization, point it out. Say, "lasttoblame, clarify, don't generalize" and I'll say "go make me a sandwich, bitch" and you'll go, "yes, sir."
I completely expected some nerd-on forum flames. You know, that thing people do--they cut up your words and put them all out of context. I really think they aren't expressive of anything but pure nerd rage. Here, I'll do it with you, Dual Screen:
[Q --start Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--] St. Martyne [/Q --end Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--] Who? Who's he? The Pope? The Pope of Video Games? I'm Jewish, haha. [Q --start Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--] has already said everything about your generalizations,[/Q --end Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--] he forgot to say this: "You suck!" [Q --start Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--] but I'd like to give an answer, too. [/Q --end Daniel SteinbrĂĽck wrote--] And I have the answer to all your questions: "Yes, you were adopted."
Pretty juvenile. Hope you don't mind the example--and not to encourage you, as well. Just saying.
To actually answer to your point brought up: Grim Fandango is a cool game (that I've never played, hence why I didn't know what it was called in the previous post), but unless we the gaming public demand it, such games won't be made in the future. That's the urgency I'm trying to leave with you all. The difference between the film industry and the games industry--even though the games industry makes more money--is that some film can be made for next to no money and gross several times its original cost: look at Blair Witch Project, Saw or Juno or Superbad (I don't know which, but for a good movie those sure did LOOK bad). The games developers just crank out the equivalent of blockbuster summer movies, and because that's what gamers want: big, dumb, loud, boobs, explosions.
Unicorn Lynx (181775) on 3/27/2009 4:38 AM · Permalink · Report
I agree with you that game development is dominated by commercial thinking, but this state of affairs is in no way unique to video game industry.
Look at the history of any art and you will see that it has always been connected to money. Many of the great writers, musicians, painters, etc. of the past pain did their work purely for money. Most of Mozart's stuff is casual background party music required by his customers. Balzac was calculating precisely how many lines he'll write and how much dough he'll get for them. Rembrandt had to paint portraits of assholes because they ordered them.
Famous artists of all kinds bemoaned the fact that people required superficial art, that nobody wanted serious, thought-provoking stuff anymore, that everyone just wanted to be entertained in a shallow way, etc., etc.
With time elements of commerce in art were perhaps reduced. But take any art form today and you will see that pop, food for masses, stuff that sells - still dominates everything. How many serious novels are being released and how much trashy pulp fiction? How many great compositions and how many meaningless pop songs that will be forgotten and replaced by others next year? Why should it be any different with games?
lasttoblame (414) on 3/27/2009 8:02 AM · Permalink · Report
Shame on you, Oleg. I get the feeling from your post that you've been whiling away your time at JZ as a jobber.
Dude, I don't deny that many famous artists have had patrons who support them and in return must shill out some petty ornate device to appease the money that greases their palm. However, this is just a job; these people would go on and make real, great art on their own time. Mozart's Requiem, his best work (need I remind you of your distaste in Mozart) didn't make him any money--in fact he died doing it, perhaps even killing himself to do so. Van Gogh only sold two paintings in his life and died a miserable failure (this after getting into a fight with Gauguin over a hooker, cutting his own ear off and going crazy--after which he STILL made great art)
While they can turn a quick buck and shit out something that's not half bad (anything by Picasso) it's when they are freed of commercial restraints that they are free to make the best art of their lives. Look at Bobby McFerrin: once a Top 10 hit, he's gone on to be an amazing jazz vocalist (but not as good as Kurt Elling)
The problem with video games right now is that it's all about money. These indie guys and their fresh approach don't have much of a chance against behemoths like EA and the gamer mentality which automatically supposes the higher the sequel the better the game.
St. Martyne (3648) on 3/27/2009 6:07 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--] Hey, St Martyne, "a simple question, a simple answer"? Not on your saintly life. Where are you on your own thread? [/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
Carry on. I'm all ears.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/27/2009 8:10 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]
Carry on. I'm all ears. [/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--]
Since I've got your attention, I wanted to ask you: why do video games have to be art? They don't have to be. Some art critic for the New Yorker could come home from work, pop in Mass Effect and never make the association between art and video games. After all, they're called video GAMES, not video art. People play them for fun. People like me like to talk about them, but it's just a game not unlike other games like Texas Hold 'Em, Monopoly, or "Doctor" with the five-year-old girl next door (when you were five).
Sure, video games are art, but so what? Why do they have to be art?
St. Martyne (3648) on 3/27/2009 4:51 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--] Sure, video games are art, but so what? Why do they have to be art? [/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
Oh, no, my friend. I have no intention of either ruining or fueling this little circus of yours.
If you ever actually become interested in having a real discussion, without simplistic generalizations, nauseating condescension and general cockiness, maybe then I'll reconsider your offer and join the fun.
Till then you just have to manage without me. Sorry.
EDIT: Nevertheless, I do find this thread fascinating, in no small part thanks to you.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/27/2009 6:18 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]
Oh, no, my friend. I have no intention of either ruining or fueling this little circus of yours.
If you ever actually become interested in having a real discussion, without simplistic generalizations, nauseating condescension and general cockiness, maybe then I'll reconsider your offer and join the fun.
Till then you just have to manage without me. Sorry.
EDIT: Nevertheless, I do find this thread fascinating, in no small part thanks to you. [/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--]
I don't deny that I've been condescending or that I've cocky; however, I find these useful tools on a forum where I've been treated like a troll and generally put down, especially for having opinions that may be construed as controversial. That put aside, am I trolling now? I (personal opinion here) am making opinions and backing them up with arguments; if you disagree you can always say what you think. If I've hijacked this thread from you, the original poster, then it's because of your own inactivity and desire to stay silent.
I called upon you specifically because I think you had an adverse reaction to my opinion "all games suck", which I think I've more or less explained here. I get the feeling you hold games to this high pedestal and will object to people like me. I get the feeling that you think "video games must be art, amazing life changing next to godliness/cleaniness", but of course, now I'll never know even though I asked you directly.
This is a "real discussion", one without "simplistic generalizations". Am I not explaining myself well enough? Do I need to write more? The circus part of this is how few people are getting in on the discussion that every gamer has an opinion on. Excuse me for disagreeing with your wrong opinion, but you can do the same to me. If you (or anyone else) don't say your opinion, well then, what good is it to keep it to yourself?
Fine. "A simple question, a simple answer". May all your answers be so clear in the future.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/28/2009 6:13 AM · Permalink · Report
Anyways, back to yet more reasons why video games are bad art:
Kotaku has a little article about the Games Developer Conference, have a read:
http://kotaku.com/5187214/how-dead-space-wisely-ripped+off-resident-evil-4#viewcomments
Basically, Senior Producer Chuck Beaver (what a name) stood up and told a roomful of game developers not to indulge in their creativity. As he says, "If too much is new, people will get lost," meaning that gamers only have a bare amount of tolerance to what they cannot accept. He cites Okami, a game critically praised for originality, as a warning because it was a financial flop.
If you read between the lines you'll see that Beaver is telling the games industry to bend to the will of gamers because we put food on their plate, and we know what we like. We like games a certain way: predictable, sequeled installments of established franchises in old and tired genres. He basically told game developers to dumb down their games for reasons of profitability and acceptance. In short, he's calling gamers a bunch of morons, a flock of philistines.
He's saving us from ourselves. Despite all which we bitch and moan about, he's going to give us not what we want, but what we need: more crappy games.
In terms of art, Beaver is saying that we gamers can't handle it. (please see my review of Bioshock) If there is some cool, amazing, artistic game in development, well you can be sure a gigantic publisher like EA will do the right thing and kill it. Amazing games like Okami (cited), Psychonauts and Planescape: Torment will not see the light of day anymore--because game developers want to cater to us. We as gamers are to blame.
St. Martyne (3648) on 3/28/2009 8:39 AM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--]
If I've hijacked this thread from you, the original poster, then it's because of your own inactivity and desire to stay silent.
[/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
No, no. This is not my thread. Well, technically it is mine, but it's directly related to the Poll that was going on on the title page at the time, suggested by Oleg. We have this tradition recently to openly discuss the poll in question, the validity of poll itself and/or the options given.
So, don't worry, you've done exactly what this thread was intended for.
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--]
This is a "real discussion", one without "simplistic generalizations"
[/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
Really? What about the legions of talentless arti...(sorry) designers, who couldn't find the proper job, so now their only purpose in life is to make those Gundam robots look so mind-blowingly cool, that all the sex hungry adolescent white males will get on the internet and claim that video games are art, but basically will be preserving status quo and feeding the enormous consumption machine, which in its own turn will make sure that none of them would ever want something other than booms, boobs and the next Halo sequel.
Clearly, that is the most accurate account of gaming, if I have ever seen one, without a single hint of oversimplification and sweeping generalization. And as I've already started, I might as well continue and try to make it appropriately ranty and tl;dr-able. ;-)
The point is that you're entirely correct. All those things are taking place, and I don't believe you're opening eyes to anyone here. You don't have to be a refined connoisseur with a degree in the history of fine arts to point out, that Resident Evil 5 is perhaps not the most profound and poignant artistic work since Mona Lisa. I would also have no objection to the fact that video games is indeed the weakest art form, if not in terms of the possibilities of its language (that "honor" belongs to... dancing), then certainly in terms of collective artistic value of all its representations thus far.
But, what is the alternative that you're giving? A fun little distraction, "a guilty pleasure" to be embarrassed of, a stupid hobby we should all have outgrown by now, but, unfortunately, arrested development during our puberties prevented that from happening? "A person who plays video games frequently should never be confused with being overly literate" you say, basically "all things are more important than trivial video games". What kind of reaction you expect with such statements at the site dedicated to preserving such a triviality?
No, I won't put my signature under those sentences. Which brings me to your question: Why do they have to be art? The answer is again (excuse me my invisible irony in "A simple question, a simple answer") deceptively simple. They are certainly under no obligation to. But not because they are "trivial pursuits, unworthy of a fully developed man truly valuing his time", but because their scope far exceeds the margins of what is traditionally understood by the concept of art.
You see, our world is a fascinating place, full of millions of fascinating people, thousands of fascinating places and billions of fascinating subjects. Unfortunately, due to my chosen areas of expertise, I won't experience even a fracture of those in any detail. But, look, here comes the mighty video game, which basically opens thousands worlds of possibilities before me, filling my room with the sounds of the long gone eras, distant worlds and reflections of mine own. And the most amazing part is that, yeah, you guessed it, I am there! I can control it! Can’t you see, here I am commanding the rising British empire through the bloody age of colonization, the next moment I am trying to untangle the web of conspiracy theories, but that doesn't prevent from growing some food in time for a harvest season for a small town nearby, because I know that after I'm done I could go and rescue a world or two, or condemn one to ever-burning fires of hell, or rise to the heavens and have people worshipping me, or do some scuba diving on the tropic islands, discovering the amazing flora and fauna of the ocean floor, or, perhaps, become a photo journalist and travel to Ngorongoro Conservation, or maybe I should take command of my own tropical island and make it the best tourist attraction in the archipelago, or just travel through time discovering the relics of the past or waging a war, or take a breathtaking trip on the Orient Express, or perhaps embark on the quest to the magical land of One Thousand and One nights, or maybe get in the shoes of the London detective and try to use my famous deduction method and solve a few cases, but only after I've figured out all the intricacies of controlling a WWII combat aircraft, unless, of course, I'll be seduced into becoming of a sentient AI capable of exploring societies in various periods of time with applied government development plan, but certainly not before touring a bit with my world popular rock band, whom I'll ditch the next time I'll discover some magnificent ruins in Thailand, which I promise to visit right after I'll be done with all the dirty work for the pleasure of Caesar and a blood thirsty crowd in Coliseum, the crowd, which will know nothing of my achievements as a successful brain surgeon, who possessed a steady hand and sharp mind, talking of sharp things, how about leaving it all to Jolly Roger and becoming a rum drinking pirate or maybe travel to the distant stars and do trading with hardened spacemen, which are probably unaware that in my time I was Hamlet and Lee Harvey Oswald, and that I obliterated half of this very world in the clouds of a nuclear blast and that I wouldn't neither mind planting a bullet in my best friend's head, nor would I object to taking real and passionate care for the only person in the world dear to me, I should know, because I was a Red Riding Hood six times in a row, and I didn't mind becoming a grey wolf either. I am but a petal in the wind and the whole universe is at my command.
Surely, it is pure entertainment, escapism, make believe and trivial pursuit, I don't deny it. There are far greater, worthier causes - helping friends, spreading good, doing an honest work, raising kids, developing a cure for cancer (your favorite). But in the realm of spending leisure time, video games is my second best choice, right after fishing. I do find them indecently fascinating, primarily because it's hard for me not to consider everything around me interesting, and games help me fuel this interest even further experiencing the subject of my fascination in the second best way. For me "You are in the story!" and "Explore the living and breathing worlds!" are not the examples of tiring marketing speak, the illusion of being there and making choices that really matter is still there, after all these years. The magic happens every time.
Video games give me a unique, unusual glimpse at the world around me and allow me to project myself onto it via thousands of different personalities trapped in thousands of different situations. Even every piece of the art in the world combined would never give me that opportunity. Both of those activities are useless, yes, but it is those useless extras that can add a sparkle to one's life, to inspire and bring and fill us with wonder and excitement. I don't want to shove video games at the back of the drawer as the "weakest form of art", they deserve much more then that.
So, for all their obvious faults, excuse me for sticking with video games for a little while longer.
And, yeah, 86% of video games are shit, butwhatcanyoudo? ;-)
lasttoblame (414) on 3/28/2009 10:23 AM · Permalink · Report
Holy shit. Are you agreeing with me? This odd feeling I have.. it's like satisfaction, except it's like the satisfaction that GOD must feel.
Thanks for digging up all my quotes from my past posts; it nice to know someone is thinking of me in this cruel lonely world. A generalization occurs when a short statement is made without any support or arguments; however, when you don't generalize, then a lot of explaining must be done (like on this page). Generalization is a short cut so you don't have to post after post like I seem to now like doing.
Also, I'll come clean right away and tell you I didn't click on any of moby links. I'm sure that they lead somewhere.
As you did alot of soul searching in your post, so should I.
My name is lasttoblame, and i play video games. (hiiii...) I think that video games are alot of fun, but not really much any good. I think that they are art, but not good art. I am surprised by my attention to video games given how I feel about them. I think it's fair to say that even though I don't consider video games (good) art, I still talk about them as if they are. That's because of my long time interest in them, but also in my hope that they will get better because we, as gamers, deserve better. Video games deserve better. And if my opinions can somehow influence the current trend in games, then I will continue to say my opinion.
You like fishing? Me too. However, I'm not done disagreeing with you. Have to play Bikini Zombie Hunters with Oleg now.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/29/2009 5:17 PM · Permalink · Report
So, you're back in the discussion? Your seat awaits you.
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]
You see, our world is a fascinating place, full of millions of fascinating people, thousands of fascinating places and billions of fascinating subjects. Unfortunately, due to my chosen areas of expertise, I won't experience even a fracture of those in any detail. But, look, here comes the mighty video game, which basically opens thousands worlds of possibilities before me, filling my room with the sounds of the long gone eras, distant worlds and reflections of mine own. And the most amazing part is that, yeah, you guessed it, I am there! I can control it! Can’t you see, here I am commanding the rising British empire through the bloody age of colonization, the next moment I am trying to untangle the web of conspiracy theories, but that doesn't prevent from growing some food in time for a harvest season for a small town nearby, because I know that after I'm done I could go and rescue a world or two, or condemn one to ever-burning fires of hell, or rise to the heavens and have people worshipping me, or do some scuba diving on the tropic islands, discovering the amazing flora and fauna of the ocean floor, or, perhaps, become a photo journalist and travel to Ngorongoro Conservation, or maybe I should take command of my own tropical island and make it the best tourist attraction in the archipelago, or just travel through time discovering the relics of the past or waging a war, or take a breathtaking trip on the Orient Express, or perhaps embark on the quest to the magical land of One Thousand and One nights, or maybe get in the shoes of the London detective and try to use my famous deduction method and solve a few cases, but only after I've figured out all the intricacies of controlling a WWII combat aircraft, unless, of course, I'll be seduced into becoming of a sentient AI capable of exploring societies in various periods of time with applied government development plan, but certainly not before touring a bit with my world popular rock band, whom I'll ditch the next time I'll discover some magnificent ruins in Thailand, which I promise to visit right after I'll be done with all the dirty work for the pleasure of Caesar and a blood thirsty crowd in Coliseum, the crowd, which will know nothing of my achievements as a successful brain surgeon, who possessed a steady hand and sharp mind, talking of sharp things, how about leaving it all to Jolly Roger and becoming a rum drinking pirate or maybe travel to the distant stars and do trading with hardened spacemen, which are probably unaware that in my time I was Hamlet and Lee Harvey Oswald, and that I obliterated half of this very world in the clouds of a nuclear blast and that I wouldn't neither mind planting a bullet in my best friend's head, nor would I object to taking real and passionate care for the only person in the world dear to me, I should know, because I was a Red Riding Hood six times in a row, and I didn't mind becoming a grey wolf either. I am but a petal in the wind and the whole universe is at my command.
[/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--]
See, I'm not like you. I'm not proud of the games I play; I'm proud of the skills I bring to each game I play. You can build up a video game collection as you can with any kind of art--say, CD's, movies, bronze statues, priceless Ming vases. But to me my game experiences are all of the moment; after you turn off your system, it's over. Having a retail copy on your bookself is just an affectation. It's a virtual moment that only stays in your memory or whenever you play it again.
I have certain accomplishments I'm proud of (100% completion in every GTA game I've played, actually finishing Ninja Gaiden and recently finishing RE5 on Veteran on one single playthrough--mad skillz, yo), and to me that's what I want out of a game: a challenge for me to overcome. That's a game, and the fun comes from accomplishing/trying to accomplish the set goals.
The opposite to this is being proud to have been part of the experience of a video game; that a game should prove to be so enlightening, illuminating, engrossing that it alters your experience at the world at large. From your well researched paragraph above it seems you have many. To me, I have a few, and they're not even games in their entirety:
- when I discovered you can be a Changeling or a Phantom (whatever) in Wizards and Warriors
- grabbing onto Yorda as she makes a leap of faith in ICO
- riding through the wilderness with that horse in Shadow of the Colossos
- grabbing onto the flying colossus in (see above--okay, two from the same game)
- the kick ass intro to Call of Duty 4
- the kick ass ending to Portal
- the subway scene in Rapelay with Manaka (holy fuck)
..and that's about it. And I've played more video games than you (maybe). While you and other gamers may have dozens upon dozens of "OMG" moments that change your life, I hold that the nature of video games is to trick you into thinking that each game has one or several "OMG, it made me cry, this is art" moments. It's illusion, that's what they do: there's this pivotal battle between good and evil to decide the fate of the universe, it up to you to deliver the ultimate sacrifice, you are a dog, blah blah.
I think there are only a few games that live up to being honest to themselves and offer something special. Notice I didn't say "they are real art" or whatever. I guess that's another post.
St. Martyne (3648) on 3/29/2009 7:38 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--] But to me my game experiences are all of the moment; after you turn off your system, it's over. Having a retail copy on your bookself is just an affectation. It's a virtual moment that only stays in your memory or whenever you play it again. [/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
Same with me, man. It's not about pride in the least! I rarely keep a close eye on my games, even those I've actually bought legally, let alone... other stuff. My memories and experiences is what I value the most. Same with music, films and books. I have no problem with digital distribution and I give almost anything I have to my friends, for I wouldn't want to play/read/watch it again in at least 10 years.
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--] That's a game, and the fun comes from accomplishing/trying to accomplish the set goals. [/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
I have my own view on the role of challenge in games, but I think it doesn't directly relates to the point at hand.
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--] To me, I have a few, and they're not even games in their entirety: [/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
No, no, no. You misunderstood. My list wasn't a list of my OMG moments. Really, some of the examples there are not even good games or the games I've played. That was an illustration for you to understand that you can't divide all games into two groups like "boobs and guns" and "art".
What category does the Life & Death 2 (talking of "mad skillz", you have no right to speak until you've done at least two tumor extractions ;-)) and recent Opera Omnia belong to. It's obviously not art (or bullshit), but neither it's cheap, undemanding entertainment (or Paris Hilton). What are they?
My post was intended to illustrate the huge variety, which already exists, but which unfortunately walked right past you. I wanted to argue that I can become anyone want in a video game, and that opportunity shouldn't be taken lightly. In another of my examples, Cutthroats there is very little story, art, explosions or space marines, but it's a great game. Why? Because for two hours it managed to convince me, that I am a diver preparing to search for a long sunk treasure.
How did it do it? A combination of writing, puzzles and free play might gave a hand (hands?). But without tedious deconstruction I say it's just magic, or more specifically a certain kind of it pertaining only to video games.
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--]
..and that's about it. And I've played more video games than you (maybe).
[/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
Maybe. But, suspiciously, most of your OMG moments are concentrated in the short span of two years. Not that it matters much.
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--] I hold that the nature of video games is to trick you into thinking that each game has one or several "OMG, it made me cry, this is art" moments. [/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
Obviously, a scene in ICO (and the whole game for that matter) wasn't artificially designed to induce tears from players.
Please, don't make it look that you really believe yourself to be the only one possessing enough taste and sense to discern between real emotions and the artificial theatrics.
[Q --start lasttoblame wrote--] I think there are only a few games that live up to being honest to themselves and offer something special. [/Q --end lasttoblame wrote--]
No argument here. But let me put a lasttoblame trick on you and suggest that you, perhaps, can't possibly discern what is special. You want this "special" to be in your face, you want either art in its entirety, and the game to be full of it, be without a price, and be standing somewhere in Louvre. Or, on the other hand, you want a game to stop fooling around whilst pretending to be something more, be honest to itself and players and provide guilty entertainment with boobs, explosions and other pleasures for "the penises".
Well, I don't believe it should work that way. I want, no demand art to be served with the penises, penises to be in abundance in Louvre, everything in between and even outside this silly division. I expect the Gears Of War story to challenge my beliefs, in the same way I expect not to be bored to death watching Casablanca.
However, most of all I enjoy, as I have already said to find this "special" in the most inconspicuous of places. Like the fascination, thrill and new found excitement of being a surgeon in Life & Death, or the computerized historian in Opera Omnia or railway operator in Train Simulator.
PS. I believe this discussion has become anything but. I am not really trying to prove a point, but rather let me thoughts carry me on the fuel of your own considerations.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/29/2009 6:15 PM · Permalink · Report
Egad. And I thought I had no life. :p
lasttoblame (414) on 3/29/2009 6:36 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Indra Depari of 'da Clan Depari wrote--]Egad. And I thought I had no life. :p [/Q --end Indra Depari of 'da Clan Depari wrote--]
Maybe St Martyne didn't actually play all those games. He could be out curing cancer right now, or whatever saints do.
—- (1623) on 3/19/2009 2:46 PM · Permalink · Report
Wasn't such a poll already up once? I could swear it was...
Anyway, I'm really missing an "I couldn't care less" option here.
Although my definition of art is a very broad one, which would potentially include videogames, I couldn't identify my opinion with any choice in the poll.
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/28/2009 11:39 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
[Q --start St_Martyne wrote--]A simple question. A simple answer.
My answer is "Yes". [/Q --end St_Martyne wrote--]
Depends what feelings you associate the word "art" with. If you are like me who associates the word art with something negative (pretentious bullshit), then you will most likely say no. Games are entertainment. However the word entertainment is as meaningless as the word art. Some people would say about some of the games that I play that they are artsy bullshit; to me they are pure entertainment. And what is entertainment to others, is what I'd call artsy bullshit.
I associate the word "art" with something negative and "entetainment" as something higher. Others associate "entertainment" with something low and "art" as something high.
My reasons are this - entertainment influences our lives more than art does, because we lower our guard more willingly to entertainment. Entertainment can make us love or hate certain social groups due to us being so receptive of it. Social influence of entertainment is bigger, thus the more chance for the entertainer to make this world a better place (or worse).
The influence of Star Trek: "I just saw a black woman on television; and she ain't no maid!"
The influence of Andy Warhol: "Somekinda sick fuck?"
lasttoblame (414) on 3/29/2009 4:31 PM · Permalink · Report
Dude,
art doesn't have to be so far removed from your life. Art, all the beauty and misery of it, is there waiting for you. It's not just waiting for you in a museum, it's everywhere. You just have to look for it.
Look for what? What is art? Art is the search for truth and beauty. Art is integrity, art is something with soul. If you were to boil something down to it's core, strip away all the pretenses, all the bullshit and money and lies and illusion--well, you'd come to the truth and hopefully, some beauty. But what if you didn't have to do any of that? What if somebody spent their whole life--in some cases, give their life--devoting it to getting rid of the bullshit and lies and try to figure out what it all means? Is there a God? Are you really alone? Can we honestly love one another?
Great art will challenge us, shake us to our core, demand us the answers that we are too afraid to ask of ourselves. Art can be playful and fun, but art can also be an evil soul destroyer. It's not all Debussy and Renoir, you know.
But that's the good stuff. (or should I say, really great stuff) The bad stuff is pretentious, fake, garbage. Expect to see a lot of crap on the walls of galleries--because bad art has to hang somewhere.
I play games for entertainment too, but since everything is art I can't help but criticize games both for all the bad faults they have and also for not knowing any better after over 30 years of existence. I am entertained, and it isn't enough. I/you/all gamers deserve more.
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/29/2009 6:09 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
You are not really talking to me, but to a person that you think is me. Thus the misinterpretation.
The thing is, art in most people's definition= the wackapouwa of pure awesomeness.
Basically what you say about art are the exactly the same things I say about entertainment. You say art, I think bullshit. I say entertainment, you think Paris Hilton.
In actuality, you say art, you think pure wackapouwa of awesomeness, and I say entertainment, I think pure wackapouwa of awesomeness. That is all I said - that whether games are art or entertainment is a meaningless question, since actually we all want to say that they are the pure wackapouwa of awesomeness. "Art" and "entertainment" are just words and the usage of them personal preference. I don't use the word art, because it carries too much negative baggage for me.
The misinterpretation comes that you is thinking I am doubting in my belief of greater things outside basic life and go all "Dude, art is bla-bla... God and shit... existence and so on."
All true, I just prefer not to call it art. I call it entertainment. Many great Star Trek episodes deal with those questions that you bring out in your "Dude, don't lose your faith in art" speech. Great writing=great entertainment. Bad writing=bad entertainment.
There are three levels of entertainment - entertainment of the penis (boobs and stuff), entertainment of the heart (music, emotional stories) and entertainment of the mind (philosophy, politics, tough questions).
lasttoblame (414) on 3/29/2009 6:30 PM · Permalink · Report
[Q --start Dancin' Fool wrote--] I don't use the word art, because it carries too much negative baggage for me.
[/Q --end Dancin' Fool wrote--]
I'm sorry for you. It doesn't have to be that way if you want it. It's all up to you.
I read your Arcanum review. I thought it was funny and think you should write some more.
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/29/2009 6:35 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
If we go back to my first post, we'll see that I basically said: "Games could be called art, but the word is meaningless itself. I myself like this word more but that's just me."
Perhaps the word "art" is different in chinese, but in estonian and english art=artificial. Thus there is no hidden divinity or raw power of creation in the word itself. It's just a word that points at artificial things, nowadays mostly pretentious artificial stuff - like a guy masturbating inside a closet, and then jumping out and ejaculating on the viewers of his "art". Thus it's not like I'm sawing off my legs, I just decide to call things I like with other names than the word that in my corner of the world is used to insult people.
I enjoy your reviews too.
lasttoblame (414) on 3/29/2009 7:09 PM · Permalink · Report
This isn't in a dictionary. Don't look it up. But to quote myself in my earlier post but use net speak: art=truth+beauty. At the very least, it can. Art isn't just about masterbators and closets, though sure, it can.
A funny thing about "art" (I'll put it into parantheses so as not offend anyone) is that several generations later it will become homogenized into the public even though it was shocking and innovative when it first debuted. Thus, a Francis Bacon painting made it into "Batman" (1989) and L'Oreal ads have that abstract painter's style (that's I've since forgotten). While it's unlikely, maybe generations from now people will be watching "Uncle Closet Masterbator Variety Show". S and M has gone mainstream as has gay culture. It could happen. Or not.
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/29/2009 7:26 PM · Permalink · Report
Opera is called art nowadays. It used to be the entertainment of the higher classes, and the music and scripts are worse than nowadays after school specials. Even A-Team has better writing (and music - well theme song anyway) than an opera. It's called art nowadays, because it's just not that entertaining anymore.
And while we're at it, truth and beauty=entertainment.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/29/2009 9:42 PM · Permalink · Report
It used to be the entertainment of the higher classes
In Italy at least (and really, when you think of "opera", you're most likely thinking of "Verdi's operas") opera was a populist art form enjoyed by members of all classes. It was top-40 radio, soap opera and rock concert all in one!
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/29/2009 10:34 PM · Permalink · Report
Doesn't really change my meaning. Opera still sucks, and is considered to be art today because it's so boring, while once upon a time it used to be entertainment. Thus art=failed entertainment.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/30/2009 8:06 AM · Permalink · Report
I don't know that opera would be considered art today -- culture yes, but art? Maybe modern (into the 20th c. to the present), avant-garde opera would be -- but surely neither of us knows enough about that niche subfield of a niche field to comment much.
As for its being considered art because it's boring, I think it's considered art for many of the same reasons films and plays are: collective triumphs of the costumers', setmakers', composers', singers' and orchestras' crafts contributing to a sum greater than its parts. Though I'm not a huge opera buff myself, I think that dismissing it as "boring" when it has ardent enthusiasts around the world who shell out big bucks to be enthralled by the spectacle when they don't even understand the languages it's sung in... may be a bit overly glib. The classical training shines through: I may not like opera much, but I sure as heck respect it.
(Some point to musical theatre and the "rock opera" as contemporary successors to opera's place in popular culture; I can't vouch for how successful Andrew Lloyd Webber is as "art", but a lot of people do seem to consider him a successful entertainer.)
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/30/2009 10:58 AM · edited · Permalink · Report
Just for the sake of clarification, I wasn't actually talking about opera but about art vs. entertainment. But I shall answer because you have annoyed me.
"Opera..."
It's respected because it's art and no one understands it. People who go to operas are people who usually look down upon such things as comics, games, sci-fi. Thus they are cultured users of refined arts.
"when it has ardent enthusiasts around the world who shell out big bucks to be enthralled by the spectacle when they don't even understand the languages it's sung in... may be a bit overly glib."
Have you seen those people? Those are the same people who say they're favorite book is Ulysess or their favorite film Birth of a Nation or something - they decorate themselves with respected culture to appear more cultural.
Perhaps opera is a bad example, since you fail to see the meaning behind words. Shakespeare was an entertainer, now he is considered to be "art" because he is hard to sit through without falling asleep.
I say calling games art is stupid, because more people have seen Battlestar Galactica than any "art", and since Battlestar Galactica is one heckuva entertainment that also deals with many of those... erm... "things" - "Art is the search for truth and beauty. Art is integrity, art is something with soul. If you were to boil something down to it's core, strip away all the pretenses, all the bullshit and money and lies and illusion--well, you'd come to the truth and hopefully, some beauty. But what if you didn't have to do any of that? What if somebody spent their whole life--in some cases, give their life--devoting it to getting rid of the bullshit and lies and try to figure out what it all means? Is there a God? Are you really alone? Can we honestly love one another?" - well this is all in nuBSG. Is it art? No it's sci-fi entertainment and it's superior to art.
Entertainment reaches more people than art ever can. As I said, there are three levels of entertainment - entertainment of the penis, of the heart and of the mind. An entertainment that uses all three levels can make people think things that they normally wouldn't think. Thus after using the entertainment, when a person feels "My penis is rock hard, I is crying because of this injustice and it seems logical" a person can think in either of these two ways:
1) "We must kill them all negroes and injuns and solve the jewish question. The Satan is not white!!! They migrate into our neighbourhood and destroy our way of life!!!"
or
2) "We must save the whales!!! And the children!!! And the world!!! No mare is raw!!! No mare is raw!!!"
Thus after seeing how entertainment has more ways to go pass the individual's "critical thinking" and influence that person with it's "truth", the only conclusion is that entertainment is superior to art in the ways how it affects the world.
Art doesn't speak to people, entertainment does. Remember, I am saying that opera and Shakespeare were unce upon a time a same kind of entertainment as nuBSG is - it's just when they became incomprehensible, they became art.
By the way, I noticed that you and I define art differently. I say art is what is "respected because it's high culture". But judging from your "culture yes - but art?", we see that you are the kind of person who divides between culture and art. So, you say art is what is outside of most's people's grasp because it's "art", thus in your world art is what the official art academy says what art is (something that the mob won't understand because how refined it is). But now our worlds collide, because the members of that hypothetical art academy are exactly the kinds of people I have made fun of in this thread. And in my world opera and Shakespeare is enjoyed exactly by the same people who get intellectual orgasms from stuff "that the mob won't understand because how refined it is." Thus to me there is no spiritual difference between high culture and art - nor in the users of those. And your dividing actually proves my point - a sort of ultra-refined approach "high culture is not art because some people might still enjoy it". Thus out of disgust for those people, I call stuff I like "entertainment".
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/30/2009 6:10 PM · Permalink · Report
So, you say art is
No, I try to avoid getting tied down by defining things 8) My conception of art has some overlapping areas both in the art vs. craft debate and the art vs. culture debate, but I don't believe it necessarily has to be accessible or inaccessible. (I suppose I think the stress test of art really lies somewhere between the intent of the artist and the critical and popular reception; what I personally like or whether I understand it doesn't play much into the equation.)
But since you're unhappy with my picking individual bones of the skeleton, let me back up to the start of the fork: I rejoice at the existence of art games even where they may not be any fun to play (as they often are -- see: BAD_MACHINE) since their pushing the boundaries and expanding the vocabulary reveals new and fresh options for future generations to adapt into something both novel /and/ enjoyable. In this sense, the essence of art games might be as prototypes of new game experiences and styles. (Does this mean that games comfortably settling for established experiences and styles aren't art? Certainly to make an impression as emerging from the comfort food pack they have to be extraordinarily refined to be distinguished. and so perhaps Braid is more artful than 99% of platform games.) Because most attempts will be failures, most art games will not be fun to play, but even the mistakes they make will be important for studious future game artists, to see what we did before that was new that worked and what was new that didn't work (and possibly troubleshooting why, and trying it again to see if they can make it fly), and maximise harnessing the former and minimise incorporating the latter. I suppose in game terms most artists are bringing those tools and ingredients to the table and finally a different kind of managerial artist (ah, what can we do with what we have here?) combines them into something that is both revolutionary and entertaining. But certainly I think it's valid for a game to aspire to be only one of those two. In this sense my game art renaissance men are folks like Petri Purho and Cactus.
Is the artist the only source of innovation? What of the private sector? The businessmen will perfect the art of promotion and marketing, and use them to sell a turd if they can get away with it (Cyberturd 2000, an extreme online MMORPG extravaganza featuring twenty different textures and consistencies, from pellets to pudding -- comes with 200 free hours of AOL and a rebate for the Corn add-on); R&D will invent tools of breathtaking subtlety and sophistication, and won't have any ideas on what to do with them besides simulating four holes of golf.
And... putt, putt, I'm outta gas.
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/30/2009 7:42 PM · Permalink · Report
Good writing, a little social commentary, some revelations about human nature and fun solid gameplay - and you have a winner.
Game doesn't need to strive for art. Socially responsible yeah. Revelations about human nature in a way that only game can do - yeah. But those art games - sometimes a socially responsible thing to do is to get your socially responsible message across in a mainstream way - that's my entire philosophy about this art vs. entertainment thing.
Rant some more though.
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/30/2009 8:04 PM · Permalink · Report
I don't see that an art game need have any association with a socially responsible message. Where does that enter the equation?
Certainly it's easier to make claims at a lofty art status if one pretends to be engaging deep and weighty subjects of metaphysics and existence, but who is really fooled by that?
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/30/2009 8:09 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
There was a post in this thread somewhere that defined art as socially responsible.
All I have been saying that socially responsible is important but entertainment does socially responsible better than art, due to it reaching more people. Thus entertainment superior to art.
I also like the way that you have such a radically different approach to art than lasttoblame, so when you are proving me "wrong" you're actually proving me right like with that post there - "Certainly it would be easier to claim it's art when... but who is really fooled by that?" - because this is what I have been saying all along. Entertainment is superior because when it's socially-relevant it can change the way how society will accept certain social groups for example. Art is just... waste of time.
Art sucks. Entertainment rules!!!
Pseudo_Intellectual (66362) on 3/30/2009 9:37 PM · Permalink · Report
Art is used as propaganda all the time (arguably, this has been its primary use through history), which can be both socially responsible and irresponsible... and hence, I think, it comes out pretty neutral on the responsibility front.
I think both art and entertainment can change popular views (again, a zero sum) but are more likely to simply reflect the leading edge perhaps of a general zeitgeist, as artists are members of the general public and art is simply creative work that reflects their views and issues that affect their lives (often, for instance, with a greater emphasis on mental illness, poverty, housing issues, homosexuality and substance abuse -- likely weighing heavier on the average artist than on the average civilian 8). Great art may resonate with the general public at the time of creation (Beethoven), or maybe not (Van Gogh) until decades later.
... but where I'm coming around to is not being convinced that an ability to change society through effective communication of a social relevance is a quality particular to entertainment and exclusive from art. Admittedly modern art (esp. of the Dada, Futurist, Surrealist, video, performance and Pop art movements) suffers a certain irony of being both most likely to be weighed down with a "message" (when it's not expressly aesthetic, cf. Cubism, Pollock or Mondriaan or even MC Escher for instance) and at the same time least likely of being able to express that message clearly, but the avant-garde is necessarily the extreme tip of the iceberg. Many if not most artists are still at the level of drawing doves to express naive hopes for peace (as did Picasso, whose Guernica is abstract but whose message is instantly understandable across cultures, as recognized by its display at the UN.)
When you say that art is a waste of time, my instinctive riposte is to counter that the highest function of entertainment is merely to fill time pleasantly -- when it has not been subverted to serve the propagandistic aims of the advertising industry and the media's hawkish military-industrial backers. When executed correctly art can provoke one into challenging one's beliefs and recognizing societal problems, while entertainment arguably is employed to distract from these problems (the circus in the ancient Roman "bread and circuses") if the closest they can get to encouraging a critical perspective of institutions is the Matrix, which leaves us all with a profound and important understanding that evil robot squids are totally gross. Admittedly sometimes it manages to both entertain and enlighten (eg. Network, and maybe even Dawn of the Dead and They Live despite themselves), but mostly it aims to lull us into a kind of consumerist stupor with explosions and breasts to keep us from using our spare time to ask ourselves why our bosses earn twice as much as we do when they only work half as much (a kind of question artists are much more likely to charge their works with, as all artists are, by definition, starving.)
The Fabulous King (1332) on 3/30/2009 9:54 PM · edited · Permalink · Report
Pseudo. When I say "art sucks - entertainment rules" I just am doing my own thing. The jester of the royale court. The archetypical fool. Hence the name - Dancin' Fool. I am supposed to make such claims. It's in my program.
"Art is used as propaganda all the time (arguably, this has been its primary use through history), which can be both socially responsible and irresponsible... and hence, I think, it comes out pretty neutral on the responsibility front."
Yes, but to make clear I created my own definition of art which I then attacked. You seem to use somekinda scientific neutral definition that most sane people use.
"I think both art and entertainment can change popular views (again, a zero sum) but are more likely to simply reflect the leading edge perhaps of a general zeitgeist, as artists are members of the general public and art is simply creative work that reflects their views and issues that affect their lives (often, for instance, with a greater emphasis on mental illness, poverty, housing issues, homosexuality and substance abuse -- likely weighing heavier on the average artist than on the average civilian."
But there are those who create the zeitgeist. Or are the leaders of the zeitgeist. Or have taken the role to create a more tolerant zeitgeist. The "art" of my definition does not create the zeitgeist, but the "entertainment" of my definition does.
"as did Picasso, whose Guernica is abstract but whose message is instantly understandable across cultures, as recognized by its display at the UN."
More people have seen Battlestar Galactica than that painting. And that painting wouldn't speak as clearly as the nuBSG does.
"When you say that art is a waste of time, my instinctive riposte is to counter that the highest function of entertainment is merely to fill time pleasantly."
Entertainment of the penis, entertainment of the heart and entertainment of the mind. Thinking is entertaining. Thus...
...but mostly it aims to lull us into a kind of consumerist stupor with explosions and breasts to keep us from using our spare time to ask ourselves why our bosses earn twice as much as we do when they only work half as much.
...depends on the entertainment. However, most people will never rise above that "plz-feed-me-with-official-truth" level, thus the aware and responsible entertainer accepts the limits of mankind and fucks the official status quo with the means of daily entertainment. Carefully but persistently. If he limits himself to art, then his fucking with the status quo will never reach to the masses.
Indra was here (20755) on 3/29/2009 6:13 PM · Permalink · Report
Wonder when the day a certain video game be identified as "priceless art."
Heh, not with software you don't. :p