catfood
AGAIN
PS: most of the gaymz that are brought up as examples of gaymz-as-art-form are shit at, well, being games. Make that of it what you will.
I hate the games as art movement. That path leads to Walking simulators and the like...
Not only are video games art, but they are the superior art form of all because all other art forms are a subset of them. Every story that can be told through film can be done told in a video game, but video games can tell stories in ways that films can't.
if the moment to moment gameplay is shooting aliens with laser guns, I can’t really call that “art”.
if the moment to moment gameplay is shooting aliens with laser guns, I can’t really call that “art”.
Conan the Barbarian (1982) has plenty of scenes where the moment-to-moment action is half-naked dudes whacking each other with swords, yet it's one of the greatest works of art ever made.
The whole argument is stupid. Play Unreal Tournament 1999 - the music is art and stands up alongside many DnB/EDM albums of the era, the visuals are art (some very strikingly aesthetic levels like Facing Worlds), and the game itself offers an adrenaline-packed experience you couldn't get in any other medium.
If the argument is something along the lines of "ah but art has to ~mean~ something or provoke an emotional response", I don't find 99% of paintings or sculptures emotionally moving or meaningful, and I don't enjoy the overwhelming majority of movies (which people unquestionably consider an art form). I'd rather play UT99.
The art has to mean something or provoke an emotional response seems like a bad argument to me. Think of what likely produces an emotional response in art. The works of Jackson Pollock are going to produce an emotional response in anyone, but its not a good one. By that metric, the works of every edgy teenager on Deviantart have made high art. Has anyone not laughed at Coldsteel the Hedgehog? Laughter is an emotional response. Ergo, Coldsteel the Hedgehog should net the artist millions.The whole argument is stupid. Play Unreal Tournament 1999 - the music is art and stands up alongside many DnB/EDM albums of the era, the visuals are art (some very strikingly aesthetic levels like Facing Worlds), and the game itself offers an adrenaline-packed experience you couldn't get in any other medium.
If the argument is something along the lines of "ah but art has to ~mean~ something or provoke an emotional response", I don't find 99% of paintings or sculptures emotionally moving or meaningful, and I don't enjoy the overwhelming majority of movies (which people unquestionably consider an art form). I'd rather play UT99.
So, I actually think you have a point... theoretically speaking.
However, the reality is that all of these elements usually end up inferior to their counterparts in other mediums, rather than resulting in some kind of “gesamtkunstwerk” like you describe. I don’t know if there are, or will be, any developers with the skill to put all those elements together into something that is truly a work of art.
Like I said, the core issue is gameplay. Gameplay has to be the main foundation of everything. And good gameplay = fun gameplay. The story and visuals and music can all be great, but if the moment to moment gameplay is shooting aliens with laser guns, I can’t really call that “art”.
"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."
-Roger Ebert
https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/video-games-can-never-be-art
Do you guys think he's wrong? If so, why?
On a game like Last of Us, the only reason the gameplay is in there is to give the illusion the world is a real place where you are with the characters in it, so you have the impression of doing a journey but that is gameplay in the service of traditional story telling but that isnt the only way to do it and "better" is a subjective assement.Essentially: gameplay and interactivity can add to the story, but also detract from it. Interactivity allows the player to create their own story, but a well-crafted linear story written by a good writer will generally be better than the one that a player creates by themself on the fly.
I agree that games can't be art as a rule. I also say cinema can't be art as a rule, and artists themselves are extremely rare. An artist is a born mega-psycho possessed by gods of genius, so devoted to excellence in all life that nothing around him is even real anymore. They aren't just talented hipster cucks pretending to be great for presstitutes and random internet losers. Since these are the only people capable of possessing the ideal of beauty, they are also the only people capable of true, aristocratic art."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."
-Roger Ebert
https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/video-games-can-never-be-art
Do you guys think he's wrong? If so, why?
Not only are video games art, but they are the superior art form of all because all other art forms are a subset of them. Every story that can be told through film can be done told in a video game, but video games can tell stories in ways that films can't.