Saturday, April 17, 2010
Video games can never be art
Roger Ebert's Journal: "Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to enlarge upon it or defend it. That seemed to be a fool's errand, especially given the volume of messages I receive urging me to play this game or that and recant the error of my ways. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art. Perhaps it is foolish of me to say 'never,' because never, as Rick Wakeman informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Alright, so I will admit the experience that I have with video games begins and ends with Mario and super smash brothers. But that doesn't mean that I don't notice now or haven't seen some of the amazing things video game creators have done. I don't agree with what this author is saying because I don't think one person can decide what another person must think is art. I think that is ignorant and close minded. I also don't think that it is right to say it's not art because it's not like the work of great composers or artists, because they are completely different mediums. Since I don't have that much experience with video games I can't draw upon specific examples of art, but just because I haven't or this author doesn't think that it exists, doesn't mean he is right.
I don't have much experience with video games either, and what experience I do have comes from watching my brothers play, as opposed to playing myself. But I also disagree with the author. He seems to think that whether or not this is art is based on the story. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a novel isn't art, it's literature. Performance art is a combination of both, but most art forms are a sensory experience. The image of the flower, to me, is art. It's beautiful, it made me feel an emotion, and it was created by a person. A videogame series that is commonly lauded for visual effects, Final Fantasy is art. The visuals created are beautiful. --Not that all art has to be beautiful, but the renderings are very high quality, and the creativity and craftsmanship are excellent. Does the author also consider digital paintings to be non-art as well? Because the medium is similar, as well as the effects. Yes, in a videogame, they are in motion, and interactive, but that doesn't negate the artistic quality it has. There is 'interactive' art in the gates building that changes as you move past it. Is this not art?
I don't really agree with this article. To be honest I feel that I have grown a lot more form some video games that I have played than from some paintings I have seen that would still qualify as Art. Granted, personal growth is not the end-all-be-all of Art but it certainly should be something that it brings to the table. After beating the first Modern Warfare game, I felt like just laying down the rest of the day; they just made it seem so real for me. I later learned that a lot of current war veterans just want to lay in bed all day everyday and not do anything -- not because they are tired -- but, because they are reflecting on what it was they have seen. This is only in terms of story-line but, then if you take into account the graphics, then for sure there can be some argument made there as well that they certainly are Art.
I dont have very much experience with art but i disagree with this author a lot. some video games are amazing and i know its different, but its a different form. It has its own community and it takes a lot of work to design a game and make it look great and be entertaining at the same time.
I think Robert Raushenberg has a great metaphor for this. He took a famous drawing/sketch and erased it. and that became famous. if that can be art, why cant video games?
I think that video games can be art. I know that there is a video game company (although the name escapes me) that hires designers to create really well architected environments. The thought that goes into this proves that it has at least some potential for "art". Plus art cannot be defined. I think that as long as there is a real emotional experience that comes as a reaction to games (if there is a higher intention, they could be considered art. I do not think that the presence of a winner or loser has any affect on the artistic sense of a game.
As someone who considers themselves into games and such, I find this an interesting article. I disagree with Ebert for the most part in that I think that games do have the potential and are working their way towards art, but I also understand that there are certain games that have done a pretty good job. Games like Myst, and more recently, Portal and Bioshock, immerse you into environments and make you feel like you're part of the world on the screen, and that immersion, that delving into a world, I think is similar to what a reader experiences when wrapped up with a good book, and I think in that way, video games can be classified as art. I think to also to dismiss the artistic vision of the creative team that creates the concept and the game itself is to shorting those teams. While I think we are a ways away from having video games being considered as a full-blown artistic medium, I think they are well on their way, and shouldn't be dismissed so quickly.
Post a Comment