Roger Ebert: VIDYA GAEMS CAN'T BE ART!!1

[Loki]

[
Yeah, architecture jumped out as the big counterexample in my mind.

Architecuture has a practical component and an artistic one. Buildings and houses have narrowly defined functions, very specific utilitarian purposes, so they are not Art, however you can be very artistic in the way you present the appearance of the building. So the appearance of it can be Art, but the building as a whole is not Art.

Same goes with videogames, there is the creation of the artwork for the game, and then there is the game itself.

Same goes with religion. There is the style of the language, the metaphors, the imagery....and then there is the actual function, the purpose of it.

 

[Robot]

There is no element of competition toward an end goal, nor is there a specific purpose to the object, unlike games, and sports and vehicles.

There is no purpose to a game outside of playing it, which is analogous to books existing to be read, paintings viewed, and music heard.

 

[Loki]

There is no element of competition toward an end goal, nor is there a specific purpose to the object, unlike games, and sports and vehicles.

There is no purpose to a game outside of playing it, which is analogous to books existing to be read, paintings viewed, and music heard.

No, within any given game, there are specific goals in mind, and usually an ultimate end goal, with rules and elements of competition, and the interactivity drives the game forward to an end result. The meaning of the game is clearly defined and unambiguous. Hence, it is not Art as I defined it.

However, like I said, Art can be contained within a game, so games can be very artistic, but a game itself can never be art. Same goes for toys, vehicles, buildings, tools, and sports.

 

[Hoodoo]

 

[Lyric Suite]

Video games are obviously an artistic form of expression, there's just no genius in them, for the same reason there is no genius in the world of comic books, or television cartoons.

 

[Davaris]

Hence, it is not Art as I defined it.

You have just said that none of your statements have any support, other than your personal opinion. Essentially you have just said that art is subjective.

Ask someone who likes architecture, if a building can be art and they will say yes. Ask a car enthusiast the same question and they will also say yes. It is the same for many things.

 

[SCO]

Meh, I agree with him.

Dwarf Fortress isn't art?

Haven't played it but I doubt it. I wouldn't consider Planescape Torment art and that's frequently cited as the most art-like video game. Literary narrative and gameplay are two competing priorities and are exclusive from each other. Even in RPGs with dialogue, that dialogue is weighed down with gameplay information -- "Where can I find the village blacksmith?" -- that disrupts the thread of characterization, often minimal, and plot development. Furthermore, developing coherent thematic meaning depends on the actions and feelings of the characters, and the events of the plot happening in a certain way. If Player Achilles tells NPC Patroclus not to worry that the ships are on fire, because he's returning to action, and then after an epic battle through the Trojan ranks, he slays the boss mob Hector, then the themes of the Iliad are never developed and you're left with mush. Likewise, if Player Achilles keeps dying to boss Hector and quits the game. Of course, you can tightly control all of this, but then what room is there for the player's skill and choices if he can't die to a boss because the plot demands it? Again, gameplay and narrative are competing forces, and for that reason games in so far as they're games and not long uninteractive cutscenes, i.e. movies, won't ever be a literary medium.

Why the fuck can't all a game branches develop a theme?

See galatea for instance.

Edit: and in fact the notion that books have a thematic theme that they don't deviate from, is ... kinda ridiculous - some books are like so, some not. So that is your notion of art? Thematic consistency, only achievable by fixed narrative?

 

[SCO]

What is Robert Egbert?

A filthy creature. I avoid him whenever i can.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

Only people who are too daft to comprehend things as they are have any desire to focus on labels. Art, no art. Nobody sane gives a rat's ass.

 

[Lyric Suite]

Only people who are too daft to comprehend things as they are have any desire to focus on labels. Art, no art. Nobody sane gives a rat's ass.

Only genius. Speaking of which:

For comparison, here's something that is not genius:

 

[SCO]

I never knew they had punk butch lezzies in chapels ceilings (lower right). Guess i should pay more attention.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Q: Can you really not conceive of a hypothetical game that moved you, taught you a thing or two, and that you enjoyed playing? Do you really believe that such a game could NEVER be produced by human society? If you don't, then your position doesn't reflect your true beliefs and I imagine is pretension. If you do, you lack some serious imagination, sister.

I thought that the ending to PS:T was pretty gripping the first time I saw it. The second time I beat the game, I played an evil fighter, had killed two of my incarnations, and was unable to raise my companions. In that case, the emotional payoff at the end was pretty minimal. Nonexistent, in fact. But without the opportunity to affect the outcome of the action, can it even really be called a game?

Again, the more control you give to the player, i.e. the more of a game it is, the less coherent and meaningful the narrative -- by narrative, I'm referring to characterization, setting, theme, etc. in addition to plot, i.e. the whole which is the story itself. Any game that is actually a game, i.e. gives the player influence over the outcome of any action, will necessarily have a narrative that only serves to create context for the game, rather than existing for itself as a film or novel does.

I suppose it's possible that some intrepid game designer will find a way to preserve narrative coherence while giving the player the ability to fail, the ability fo make decisions, etc. but I don't see how. Can you honestly think of a story that would share the same meaning and power if you could control the protagonist? Would Henry V be the same if the player had brought extra siege weapons on campaign and took Harfleur at the first assault, thus removing the need to rally the army with "Once more unto the breech, dear friends! Once more, clog the wall up with our English Dead!"? Likewise if the player failed his speech check at Agincourt, badly bungling "We few. We happy few. We band of brothers. For he that sheds his blood with me today shall be my brother, be ne'er so vile this day shall gentle his condition." and causing the English army to route in the face of French chivalry.

Shit just don't work mang.

 

[Loki]

Videos games are obviously an artistic form of expression, there's just no genius in them, for the same reason there is no genius in the world of comic books, or television cartoons.

I'll agree that videogames are becoming more and more infused with artistic elements. More money and talent is going into music, graphics, and writing. But the game itself is no different than sports. The game itself can't be art, but it can be "sexed up" with Art. Videogames are clearly a medium where artwork is expressed, but the game itself.... that's different.

Essentially you have just said that art is subjective.

Of course it is, it's what one defines it to be, it depends on where one draws the boundaries. The boundaries aren't there independent of ones mind.

Ask someone who likes architecture if a building can be art and they will say yes.

By his own admissions that he would have to make, he would have to submit to my view.

The aspect of Architecture that is "Artistic" is completely without any utility, so it only conforms to my definition. The aspect of a building that gives shelter and services is the non-Art component, and he would have to accept this to remain sane.

Same goes with videogames. Take tic-tac-toe. You can dress it up with fancy, attractive graphics, and make it look really pretty. So it can be Art on a purely aesthetic level, but the game itself is not Art.

The moment you start using a building on a purely utilitarian level, you cease to engage with it as Art, and instead engage with it as it was primarily intended to be: a utility.

Ask a car enthusiast the same question and they will also say yes. It is the same for many things.

Same as above. The enthusiasts would accept certain premises, and then I would own him. The vehicle can be appreciated on purely aesthetic grounds, so you see it as Art, but when you do that are excluding it's other dimension, which is it's ability to provide service/utility. The moment you start using it to perform a service, your engagement with it becomes completely inartistic, much like, in a video game, it's utterly inartistic to micromanage your inventory, analyze your stats, and prepare for the next fight.

 

[Gragt]

It's pretty.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Meh, I agree with him.

Dwarf Fortress isn't art?

Why the fuck can't all a game branches develop a theme?

I'll have to play Galatea and see what it's like, but look to my most recent post where I describe how PS:T has much less emotional payoff if you are evil, and if you haven't pumped your wisdom stat. Certainly every game I've ever played has been like that. Furthermore, I'd challenge you to name a story that would have the same meaning and emotional investment if the protagonist didn't experience the things he did, and didn't take the actions he did.

As for art in general, I only know enough about literature and film to talk about those media with anything approaching expertise. I'm much less knowledgable in music, painting, sculpture, etc. I will say that I find Michelangelo's David and the diskobolos to be as meaningful and awesome as any work of literature I have read, but I don't have the analytical framework or language for such media that I do for narrative art.

At any rate, I'd call narrative art a story which arouses and directs emotion in service of meaningful expression. In other words, when analyzing a story of artistic merit, you need to ask yourself what happened, what that made you feel, and why the author/director wanted you to feel that way. If an event makes you judge a character harshly, how does that make us feel about the ideas and principles that character stands for? If asking questions such as these about a story leads to fruitful answers, then you have rich literature that's a work of art. If asking these questions leads no where, or leads to answers that don't make up a coherent core of ideas and meaning, then you have a story, nothing more, and probably a bad one at that.

 

[Zomg]

But are they mature?

 

[Damned Registrations]

The game part isn't exclusive with the art part though. The performance changes the narrative (the artsy part). If it were done exceptionally well (Which it hasn't been, yet) it would create a unique, coherent, and interesting narrative no matter what you did.

Can improv be art? If so, why not a 'game'? I use quotes because video games need not have scoring systems and defined goals. Sim City is a game. It has rules, you interact with it. But there isn't necessarily a goal. Maybe you build cities to let godzilla trash them, or to build as big a city as possible, or the most utopian, or to put your mayor's house in the middle of a garish collection of monuments. Other games can go further in this direction. Without the main quest Morrowind would be a hiking simulator. Would it be art then, instead of a game?

Imagine a game in which you control a human being in a perfect simulation of reality, at whichever time period and setting you desire. And then you act out Hamlet (Or whatever you consider to be true narrative art). Would it be less gripping because you made it so, or more? That's what I imagine the ideal artistic game to be like.

 

[Lyric Suite]

I'll agree that videogames are becoming more and more infused with artistic elements. More money and talent is going into music, graphics, and writing. But the game itself is no different than sports. The game itself can't be art, but it can be "sexed up" with Art. Videogames are clearly a medium where artwork is expressed, but the game itself.... that's different.

Perhaps. But there are plenty of art forms which include elements that are purely intellectual, and contain little individual expression in and of themselves (for instance, counterpoint in music). I suppose that, while games are essentially inartistic in nature, they are still a form of creative expression, just not an individual one, and as such they can receive the same level of praise and admiration bestowed upon other forms of technical expression. Erbert's argument is essentially flawed in that, even though games may be inartistic in principle, they can still achieve greatness from a purely mechanical or intellectual point of view. Its not a question of whether games could be art, but whether they could be considered great examples of human creativity, great enough to stand the test of time.

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

At any rate, I'd call narrative art a story which arouses and directs emotion in service of meaningful expression.

That's hand-holding, even by the standards of literature. Good writers don't make you feel, they provoke you into thought, and it's your own business what sort of conclusions and, therefore, feelings you draw and ultimately experience. They're not nannies, nor are they teachers (thank God). They're provocateurs and fools. It is their business to entertain kings. They are not kings themselves.

In classical music, the composer's music exists only as an abstraction, which is to say it does not exist at all. The music that is heard is a performance. Performances can be very different. Some of them are emotionally more engaging than others. Some performances of the same composition are emotionally engaging at different points in the narrative, or are not engaging in the first place. This is comparable to story-games with branching narratives.

In short, youa re dumb.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

If it were done exceptionally well (Which it hasn't been, yet) it would create a unique, coherent, and interesting narrative no matter what you did.

See, I don't buy this. Each player's story will be different, so each story will mean different things. Furthermore, over the course of a given game there will be hundreds, if not thousands, of permutations for the story. The idea that each will be equally compelling and meaningful seems unrealistic.

As for sandbox games, I would call those true games because there is no narrative involved, you're merely interacting with game mechanics to have a good time. Calling a game in which you can act out Hamlet art seems equally misplaced, like calling paint brushes art because the "player" can do what ever he wants with them.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

Good writers don't make you feel, they provoke you into thought, and it's your own business what sort of conclusions and, therefore, feelings you draw and ultimately experience.

So writing a story which prompts readers to ask questions about what the story means, isn't provoking thought?

 

[Paula Tormeson IV]

Good writers don't make you feel, they provoke you into thought, and it's your own business what sort of conclusions and, therefore, feelings you draw and ultimately experience.

So writing a story which prompts readers to ask questions about what the story means, isn't provoking thought?

You didn't say anything about such things. You were talking about analysis, how such stories should be analyzed. Stop being a manboon without memory. You can do it. Start making sense. Aim for coherence. Actively, as opposed to passively, reading a book is as much an interactive experience as playing games is.

 

[ScottishMartialArts]

You didn't say anything about such things. You were talking about analysis, how such stories should be analyzed.

So analysis doesn't involve asking questions and thinking? Glad we cleared that up. Here, again is what I said:

...when analyzing a story of artistic merit, you need to ask yourself what happened, what that made you feel, and why the author/director wanted you to feel that way. If an event makes you judge a character harshly, how does that make us feel about the ideas and principles that character stands for? If asking questions such as these about a story leads to fruitful answers, then you have rich literature that's a work of art.

Can you not read? Are we speaking different languages here? WTF?

edit: I also think it's pretty ludicrous to suggest that a writer/director doesn't intentionally invoke feelings; that emotion and feeling occurs only after the story has ended, when the reader/viewer thinks about it. I watched The Descent last night, and I'll tell you that I felt pretty fucking horrified during the film, not afterwards when I was thinking about what I just saw.

 

[Damned Registrations]

Well, I did say it would be an exceptional game I'm sure thinking one's writings would be studied hundreds of years later is unrealistic as well.

And you can't do whatever you want with the theoretical hamlet game- you get one person, and the reactions to your actions would be unknown. This would be more akin to calling something like this art. Or a cut gem that shines differently depending on how you place light upon it. The fact that it has multiple facets that can't be shown simultaneously and requires interaction doesn't disqualify it as art (Though you might argue it's inferior to the frozen state of it being in it's most beautiful form.)

Again, think of improv performances. Does a dance become less artistic if you interact with it and force it to change? How about a theatre performance in which you direct the actors on the fly, writing in new characters on a whim to be portrayed by other people than yourself? Sandboxes don't have to be devoid of narrative, they simply have been thus far due to limitations (Like trying to write even bad narratives for a tiny fraction of possible actions in a sandbox. Something like morrowind is as close as you can get right now; but imagine if a game of that style were developed with unlimited resources, with every character fleshed out, every quest with multiple arcs and full backgrounds. Potential for a truly interesting narrative becomes possible at some point. At some point, with enough writing/acting/gameplay quality, the shitty side quests look less like Street Fighter: The Movie and more like Alien. It's just a matter of quality.

 

[Gnidrologist]

No art.

Is art.