SegaXtreme

Originally posted by OPM editor: James Mielke

OPM: Have you heard of Roger Ebert's assessment that videogames can never be viewed as art? How do you feel about that?

HK: I don't think they're art either, videogames. The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, then it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art.

HK: For example, look at a concept car. You don't have to be able to drive a car, but if it's called a car and it has artistic elements in the visuals, then it's art. But an actual car, like a videogame, is interactive, so it's something used by people, so it's like a car where you have to drive it and using it. It could be families driving [abridged due to redundancy in examples]... so this car has to be able to be driven by all 100 of these people, so in that sense it's totally not art.

OPM: By that same token, if you had a Picasso on the wall, you may totally enjoy his work. I imagine you would if you had one hanging up. But I may hate Picasso; I may prefer the Bauhaus movement. So if we have different opinions, maybe we're not physically 'using' it for anything specific; we're still using our minds to evaluate it, just like the performance of a car or a videogame. That's not going to stop art from being art, but videogames can still be artistic.

HK: Let me say this in a different way, so I can better explain the nuance in what I'm trying to say. That building there [points to one of the adjacent Roppongi Hills Towers] has an art museum called Mori Museum, but any museum will do. Art is the stuff you find in the museum, wether it be a painting or statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum-how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museumfor those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum.

Originally posted by lordofduct@Thu, 2006-01-05 @ 07:51 AM

skank's gotta bring up the porno...

I couldn't even explain how many girls on my website 'think' they are artists... and in consideration you could call what those girls do... art.

not very good art... really tasteless, ugly and amateur art.

[post=143239]Quoted post[/post]

Home	Forums	What's new	Resources

		it290		Jan 5, 2006
			For the most part, I would say they have not been (and I don't think Kojima's games have been, not in a serious way at least), but on the whole, interactive media can certainly be art. I say 'interactive media' because on the whole I would say things that are more artistically inclined are less likely to be game-like. But there have been some examples of games I would consider works of art - Rez being one (and commonly cited). Here is another example, an art project using the Quake III engine (not a game0: http://q-q-q.net/... And a game, done in a more satirical fashion: http://www.monochrom.at/suz-game/index_en.htm... And another project, with some game-like elements: http://www.99rooms.com/... Overall, I would say whether anything is 'art' or not depends on its conception and realization. That's about as broad as you can get, I know, but if a game (or anything else) is intended and created to have an 'artistic' meaning, whether it's encapsulated in the work itself or represented on a more conceptual level, then it can be considered art (good or bad is another question entirely). Most likely you'll see more 'art' projects out of individuals or small groups of people -- just like with Hollywood, the big studios don't really produce artistic stuff. And I think you'll see this stuff more commonly in galleries and museums as time goes on. There have already been plenty of serious exhibitions devoted to games, game art, and game consoles, and many up and coming people have been influenced heavily by gaming.

		lordofduct		Jan 5, 2006
			I agree with you it290... but the level of serious or quality I don't think discounts anything from being art. A finger painting by a small child made for his mommy isn't very good and well... isn't all to serious... it was just an assignment can still be art. Just not great or serious art. The full definition of art is very particular to the person defining it. This is why I posted the poll. Everybody views what art is as different things per person. Some consider only paintings and statues art... when others may consider the mastery of a skill art... fighting an art... it depends on the interpreter. I personally feel that any media form (and interactive media is a very good name for it it290) or medium used to convey a personal feeling with the use of specific skill and devotion is art. That is ummm... vague and probably confusing to read, but I'll explain. When someones has a skill like programming. A generic benign thing that is very mechanical and dull to look at... and then hones his skill at it and throws tons of devotion into it to string specific lines of code perfectly together in just the right order to create a world that is nothing like the mechanical and generic medium that they started with. Similarly to a painter taking a generic oil and pigment and mixing them together and putting them onto canvas to create a world. May that oil painting just be a stick figure... or a black box (i hope someone got that) mocking the complexity of conventional art. as long as it is immitating without a strict purpose. Such as a car has purpose... it drives you around, necessary in this day and age. The paint job on the car is not necessary... it is the art. A videogame is not necessary... it doesn't not serve a purpose, but to entertain for no strict reason. A videogame will never assist you in getting you your groceries or give you a job or anything. There is no money or sustanance to make from really playing a video game... only the making of it. and I'm happy you brought up Rez... I was very happy to see you uploaded that to me. I've been dieing to play it for years but never got my hands on it.

		SkankinMonkey		Jan 5, 2006
			I think some game developers set out to make a game that is artistic, but that doesn't make a game 'art'. I'm sure if you were to change the definition or scope of art, sure videogames would be art, but so would most programs on your computer, for example , your windows GUI. I'm far from saying that my start button is artwork.

		lordofduct		Jan 5, 2006
			Some programs could be art... those stupid visualization plugins and the sort. But the start button no... it has a strict purpose. And is not there just for entertainment or other thought provoction like inspiration.

		it290		Jan 5, 2006
			Well, on that subject, Skankin, Brian Eno composed the Windows 95 sound, but I don't know if he'd call it art. Computers and their relation to art is a huge topic in and of itself, but I think there are only a few of things that can make games really relevant as art: -The interactive element, including any immersion factor -The techniques of creating a computer game- elegant coding, for example. If employed in a creative matter, this can be construed as art in the more popular sense. -The process of game design (moreso gameplay design) as an artistic process -ie the refinement of mechanics to produce a certain mode of thinking on the part of the player. For example, I often find myself in somewhat of a trancelike state when immersed deeply in a curtain fire type shooter.

		SkankinMonkey		Jan 5, 2006
			I guess the largest factor is intention of the author. Does he want it to be viewed as art, or as entertainment. I guess the same can be said for some pornography as well.

		lordofduct		Jan 5, 2006
			skank's gotta bring up the porno... I couldn't even explain how many girls on my website 'think' they are artists... and in consideration you could call what those girls do... art. not very good art... really tasteless, ugly and amateur art.

		EliteEvi;		Jan 5, 2006
			Returning to the gaming side of things, I would consider them an art form. If you play a game such as astal it is clear that time, effort and talent went into creating it, to be enjoyed as much to look at as play. Some box art is good too.

		tsumake		Jan 6, 2006
			Videogames can be art, but one must consider that the ultimate aesthetic value of the game is the gameplay itself; how it connects the various sounds and sights and makes them interactive. It is definitely an immature medium, but eventually the design and medium of videogames will be better understood, and then games will truly develop artistically. Of course, there are exceptional games which will probably considered as an artistic game, perhaps like Killer 7, but those are only exceptions. Making "static" games and gameplay, like Killer 7, is a risk, but it sometimes work, like I believe it did with Killer 7. People should stop trrying to compare games to paintings or movies and look at it on its own terms.

		CrazyGoon		Jan 9, 2006
			All games, whether they are crap, good, following a formula, or trying to be artsie, are art. The music is art. The graphics are art. The fact that the game does what you instruct it to do, and doesn't crash, is art. Even if it crashes, it's art - just bad art The boxart is art. Playing games is an art. Playing games exceptionally well, is an art. There is art in everything. Check out the definitions... yourself. This is no trick question. The answer is simple!

		ratfish		Apr 2, 2006
			Many developers claim that their motto is the same as his: "video games as art" , but few actually live up to their promises. IMHO he delivers. Of course most people here are going to say answer "yes" or "maybe" aka "Depends on the circumstances surrounding the individual videogame". Because we have been enlightened enough and graced to be able to play his works of electronic art. His games are what inspire many others in his field. He will be remembered for artistic, visionary works. Truly a great man.

		lordofduct		Jul 25, 2006
			I drop by SX as I haven't been here in several months... and look who I happen across. DUD! Haven't seen you in forever dawg... whats up!?

		Mr. Moustache		Feb 21, 2006
			I think you guys kind've missed the point of what he said.. What he was trying to articulate that what HE does is not art, he is the director/producer.. He decides what and where things should go but he does not create them. He's not denying that things within' a video game can and surely are art, he's simply saying that the product itself is not the art, but the things within' it are. Like a museum.

		Dud II		Apr 15, 2006
			Everyone will always determine whether something is art on their own terms. I think all the definitions of art (that I've seen) are nonsense; art is human expression, and I think of it as an idea in a box wrapped in stylistic wrapping paper. If the idea that the art tries to communicate doesn't resonate with you or you are offended by it you reject it. Those that appreciate it recognize its artistic value. But as far as videogames go, I'd say they are still an artform, just not a very profound one, save for games like Metal Gear Solid 2 and Killer7. Additionally, I've always thought it to be rather arrogant for someone to say definitively, "This is art but this isn't" or whatever. That suggests that you are some sort of enlightened elitist that has all the answers. I think of Killer7 as the most artistic game to date, but I don't say that like I'm some kind of authority on the subject, that's just my opinion. Also, because art and pretty pictures seem to be synonymous with most people, that seems to sway some opinions too. I have never been moved by a piece of "art" in that sense.