Over at Amber’s blog, she references a speech made at the GDC wherein the speaker called the Wii “a piece of shit” and also stated that Nintendo doesn’t care about games as art, because if you search their site for that phrase it doesn’t appear.
Well, that’s hardly a scientific analysis. As someone who has studied the design of games and has devoted his life to the concept of games as art, my semi-expert opinion is that Nintendo does view games as art, almost certainly moreso than Sony or Microsoft.
But, as what happened in the thread talking about this, it seemed to me that people were misunderstanding what it meant to view games as art. So I put on my academic hat, and said this:
“It doesn’t refer to the graphics of the game. It’s not “the graphics must be art-like.”
Generally it is the idea is that games are a form of expression in the same way that any other artform is. Someone has an idea that expresses a concept that comes from their own vision. In games, this vision is implemented via theme (which includes graphics) and mechanics.
I absolutely feel that Nintendo views games as art. It was someone’s idea to say “Hey, what if we had a game that actually felt like you were playing tennis by waving a controller around?” and they made choices that they felt best conveyed that experience.
It so happens in this case that it’s what a lot of people like, and ended up being a great move for marketability. So this guy’s comments are obviously off base, and I don’t think even he understands what it means to make games that are art.”
Of course, this assumes a base definition of art that you may not agree with: that art is anything that is a form of expression, constrained with a medium. In my definition, things such as Outsider Art qualify. As do random YouTube videos. It’s probably a broad definition, but it works for me.
Of course, that doesn’t apply anything to the value of the art itself. Just by calling it art doesn’t mean it’s Good art. And this can not be evaluated as an overall statement, that all art must have x. The language of art critique will vary by the medium.
Film is often evaluated through scripting, acting, and technical aspects (such as lighting.) Paintings would not be evaluated the same way, but would involve mastery of brush strokes, color balance, detail, etc.
(I take it back, I figured out one way that all art can be evaluated: that all choices are purposeful. That everything in it was chosen, instead of left to hazard. And no, this doesn’t include emergent properties, because those are Good.)
The language of games is different than the others, and because it’s a relatively new (and mostly unrecognized) discipline, it is still a developing language. Though thanks to other game academics such as Raph Koster and Eric Zimmerman, the field is starting to become more concrete. Kory Heath is doing a great job in developing a language for boardgames of his desired properties in a Good game.
One big question, though, is does that evaluation include Fun? I don’t know the answer to that. Is it a Good film if everyone who sees it is bored when it ends? If a painting is technically precise in every single way but features so boring a subject that you hate it, is it Good? (Another way to phrase it would be if I were to make a well-made documentary about an important subject, but it doesn’t entertain, is it Good?)
Or is it that the qualities that go into describing something as Good also share qualities with reasons that the human brain enjoys something?
And of course, there’s certainly a strong argument to make that the entire purpose of games, video and board, is to entertain! So, artistically, is a game only Good when it entertains, which we measure your brain to find out?
I don’t know, hard questions, but certainly something I’d like to research more.
I may have a series of comments on this one, so I’ll try to keep each one specific and exclusive.
Deciding that all art can be evaluated on the basis of all choices being purposeful you have backtracked to where you were trying to get away from. Jackson Pollock created his paintings entirely with unintentional consequences to the dripping of his paintings. Certainly he quickly becamse skilled in the artform specifically, but there is still little exacting control over the purpose of each aspect of the painting.
This can also lead to arguing that the randomness and uncontrolled portions of the painting are -on purpose-, but it is an unscalable and un-judgeable quantity. Purpose assumes an intention of an outcome, and who can say what was intended compared to the result but the artist, and we are a whimsical lot (liars) at best!
Does the Wii come with a hot, bent over, blond woman? Cause, if so, I’m buying one!
Look at the guy’s legs! His “Wiimote”!
Where did you find the picture?
Indeed, I would definitely say the choice to use paint drippings was a decision he made- it didn’t just happen. It was a direct consequence of choices he made. “Stream of Conciousness” writing like Walt Whitman is the same way.
Games should be entertainment. I don’t think art always has to be entertaining, and entertaining activities aren’t always art. There are people who are entertained by football games. You could try to call that art, but you’d have a hard time convincing everyone. On the other side, a beautiful designed building is art, but it’s not going to entertain everyone.
There is art in the games, definitely. There’s art in almost everything that humans do, but I think it’s secondary with games.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ico
Does the evaluation of Good include Fun? In the arena of boardgames, I say yes. But interestingly, I almost never think in terms of “fun” while I’m designing. The term “fun” just seems too vague to be useful for me. Lately I’ve been trying to come up with the “fundamental qualities” that I’m interested in when designing games, and they are all more technical (and hopefully more objective) than “fun”. I have a kind of faith that a game that exhibits all of these technical qualities will automatically be fun. And, to flip it around, if a design doesn’t seem fun enough, I have a feeling that this failure can be traced to one of these technical areas.
To Elena99: I agree that games should be entertainment, and that art doesn’t have to be entertaining. But it doesn’t follow that art is a secondary aspect of games.
To draw an analogy, I think that paintings should be visual, and should incorporate paint, but not all art is visual or incorporates paint. Paint just happens to be one of the fundamental elements of the art of painting, just as “entertainment” happens to be a fundamental element of the art of games.
Heathkit: So you think it’s more important for games to be pieces of art than entertaining? We play games to be entertained, right? Or do people play games to experience art?
The point of my article is to make the claim that games ARE art, as they are a form of expression. The argument seems to be whether entertainment (which is hard to measure, and is subjective) is a criterion for a game being Good or not, or if the qualities that go into making a Good game automatically make it entertaining.
Elena99: I’m saying they’re the same thing – being entertained by playing a game is precisely what it means to experience that game as art. The entertainment aspect is primary. A boardgame that virtually nobody in the world enjoys would just be “bad art”, in my opinion. (At least, as a game. I can imagine a purposely-designed “bad” game to be viewed as some form of ironic art on a different level.)
Of course, I’m talking about relatively abstract strategy games here (read, “eurogames”), which is all I really know about. I can imagine a role-playing game or a computer game being a really painful, emotionally draining, and not-entertaining experience, but still be considered “good art”.
Maybe this whole “are games art?” question is just a quagmire. Nice going, The Game.
Heathkit: Sorry, I was thinking games like Nintendo games. Console games. Not board games.
It is a quagmire, hence why I have so many unanswered questions instead of just telling you all what to think 🙂
Not just my quagmire either: Slashdot posted something about it recently, and references a very good Gamasutra article.
(And those are both in reference to video games)
Right, sorry, I can’t stop focusing on board games nowadays. The discussion was clearly more focused on computer games, and specifically console games.
There is still the large issue with The Game’s argument that Art is judged by how Purposeful the decisions are in making it. The first problem is that it is near impossible to determine if what you’re seeing/experiencing was purposeful or not. Even the Emergent Properties he brings up are sometimes (often?) accidental and not intended from the beginning. Sure you say that Jackson Pollock’s drip painting was driven by purpose, but suppose he accidentally knocked a can of paint onto a canvas the next day, and hung them side-by-side. One puprose-driven and the other accidental, is one more art then the other? What if you were not told which was which, and asked to identify the work of art?
The true definition of art, if there can be such a thing, is that it is defined by the person who is asking the question. The person experiencing something decides if it is art, thusly everything becomes simultaneously art and not-art. Our societal definitions of Art have been challenged and argued time and again, it should have been perfectly clear in the 60’s and 70’s when they began splattering toilets with paint and displaying them that anything can be Art.
Then again I also agree with The Game, in that I believe there is a marked difference between good art and bad.
Bartoneus: I’m afraid I’m going to have to slice up your comment here to be able to respond to each point. However, I will say that this is a big issue that has been debated time and time again, and we probably won’t reach a consensus. But I do feel the need to refute your points based on my own definition.
Maybe, I wouldn’t say near impossible, there’s plenty of times when analyzing art when I say “oh, I see why he/she did that.” It may be near impossible for a lay person in that field to analyze it, but when subjected to trained scrutiny, I believe it’ll show through. Also, this specific point is not about what makes something art, but instead what makes something Good art. Fiction, in particular, is analyzed this way.
Not intended from the beginning, but no art is complete from “the beginning.” A game goes through many stages before it’s complete, and by the time it is finished (or, abandoned, as is sometimes said of art) then the emergent properties should be clear to the designer, and desired.
Whether I can judge them or not is incidental to my definition. You may define art as being entirely in the Eye of the Beholder (which, as Spankleberry pointed out to me today, can petrify and thus make sculpture.) To me, that’s not art since the artist is not expressing himself since it happened by accident. To me, art is entirely defined by its creator and using it as a mode of expression. Now, as you say, if Jackson Pollock knocks over a can of paint ON PURPOSE to make a point, then I then consider that art.
OK, but, I just defined it by asking the question, and I’m defending it. So by your definition, I’m not wrong, and neither is anyone disagreeing with me. You then go on to say:
Which would be your definition of art, which you have defined by asking the question, but it is not my definition of art. And by your statement above, both are valid.
True, though moreso, the definition of Good art has changed as a whole. My definition of art in general works retroactively back to the beginning of Man, and is not bound by society’s acceptance of it. 🙂
Oh, and I should clarify that everything in the article and in my comments applies to BOTH video games and boardgames. When I talk about myself as a designer, it very specifically refers to boardgames because as of yet I have not designed a video game (that has been published.)
Are games pure art or do games have enough artistic elements in them to be considered art?
What is art? Are you saying the mechanics in a game are artful? Is being clever in your creation of a situation really art?
What role does aesthetics play in the creation of a game? By aesthetics I don’t mean “what makes it pretty” I mean what makes it aesthetically pleasing which is much deeper then “pretty”.
If you make a definition of art to broad it becomes useless. If you make a definition of art to narrow it becomes useless.
“that art is anything that is a form of expression, constrained with a medium”
This is a useless definition in that it is too broad. I shit on the sidewalk and claim it is my expression of disgust for fastfood corporations. This is a form of expression perhaps within the constraints of a slab of pavement. I wouldn’t hazard to honestly call this art, I would say it is just gross and stinky.
What is it a game is expressing? An idea, an emotion? I suppose a game like Monopoly (sorry to use this filthy word) could be considered to be satirizing the way businesses run in America. A game like Jetsetter (first thing to come to mind) doesn’t really express anything and thus is not art.
Purpose as definition seems like a pretty good line of thinking though. The problem is you need artistic purpose, manipulating numbers and statistics and such to create a situation that is mentally challenging is not artful though. It suffers the same problem as your first definition too, it makes everyone an artist if they so deem it. Too broad.
So is it possible for a game to be art? I’d say yes but the majority of games are merely meant to be entertainment. A truly artistic game would have to have all the elements of classic (aesthetic on some level) art but may not have the elements of a successful game. To continue the film analogy, there are plenty of very unsuccessful but highly regarded artistic films. There are also many wildly successful films which are merely entertaining. A high art game may be one which successfully melds the aspects of art with those of game mechanics. I think an important part of any definition of art must include a human aspect to it, not merely a subjective or objective definition.
Josh: aesthetics in my definition don’t define art, they define if it’s Good (and mainly in a visual medium.) I disagree with your assertion that if it’s too broad it becomes useless. My definition of art is inclusionary as opposed to more exclusionary. And art does NOT have to make a specific statement under my definition. Jetsetters is art because the designer had a specific vision of the kind of game he wanted to create, and made it happen. That is all my definition says, and I have no problem saying that anyone is an artist if they say so. That doesn’t automatically mean they’re a Good artist.
Dave and I have agreed that the guide’s sausage is bigger.