Every Thursday (or thereabouts), "Reverend" Anthony Burch monologues about games and gaming culture for a segment we call "Rev Rants."
However inadvertently, a lot of my rants end up addressing the idea of games as a uniquely expressive art form. There is -- and I don't have to qualify the following statement, because that's why God invented hyperbole -- effectively no one on the Internet who truly believes that games are not an art form, even if we're just talking about the art of entertaining people.
There have been, however, a few instances of confusion regarding what is so artistic about games. If I say, "games are an art form," and you say, "yeah -- just look at how beautiful Okami is!," then we're not talking about the same thing.
Hit the jump for an (unfortunately text-based, as I've been busy editing HAWPs this week) explanation of what I'm talking about.
When I say I'm of the position that games are an art form, I mean to say that when pared down to their most minimalistic aspects, games have a unique, medium-specific ability of expression that makes them different from (not superior or inferior to) other mediums.
This is why I brought up the Okami example before the jump. Okami is a visually beautiful game, yes, but its graphics have nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- to do with its belonging to an artistically unique medium. Making things look pretty is not a game-specific skill. The art style certainly has an impact on one's enjoyment of the game, and it's almost definitely one of the first things that pop into my head when I think about Okami, but I would no more point to Okami's beautiful watercolor graphics to exemplify gaming's artfulness than I would present the cover art for Abbey Road to show how uniquely artistic music can be.
I would point out the Magic Paintbrush Thing mechanic. I would point out anything interactive, anything that could not possibly be done in any other medium. Film, for instance, can be considered a uniquely expressive medium, thanks at least in part to the power of editing. Simply by juxtaposing images against one another, or letting certain shots go on longer than others, you can evoke a totally unique intellectual or emotional reaction compared to anything found in novels or on the stage (see: Eisenstein's Montage Theory). Gaming has many unique powers like Eistenstein's theory of montage (though the actual phrases being used to describe them vary from designer to designer), and to focus on things like pretty graphics or epic stories at the expense of realizing the uniqueness of gaming's other aspects is to pretty much miss the point.
This is why I'm also hesitant to hold up JRPGs as examples of artistic greatness, at least in the way that I've seen them championed by a fair number of people. Final Fantasy VI may have a cool story, yes, but is it delivered in a way specific to the medium? Or is it conveyed through long dialogue scenes and noninteractive cut scenes? I'm not trying to make some sort of qualitative statement about how good or bad JRPG plots generally are, but it's worth noting that game narratives, at least as conveyed through many, many games across many, many genres, aren't particularly unique to our chosen medium. Though you wouldn't be able to experience the fun of leveling up and finding items (activities that are unique to gaming, and are thus worthy of recognition), a FFVI miniseries would be just as effective at delivering narrative as its source material.
The same goes for pretty much any game that doesn't attempt to fuse story with gameplay in a medium-specific way, whether we're talking about something as simple as increasing immersion by never leaving the protagonist's viewpoint and providing environmental story clues (see: Valve, BioShock), or as far-reaching as allowing the player to determine where the story will go at any given time (à la Masq). Or, in getting rid of story almost entirely (Dwarf Fortress, Spelunky, the better parts of Fable II and Far Cry 2).
I more or less shat on "fun" games in my last few rants, but it's worth saying that as a medium, games have the ability to deliver unique fun in ways that other artistic mediums can simply never touch. There is something artful in how unusually satisfying it feels to chainsaw a Locust in Gears of War. There is something aesthetically interesting about dicking around in Wii Sports or Bookworm Adventures that you can't really get through other mediums. I'd love to see our medium use its expressive strengths in other directions as well, but "fun," and the unique dimensions it takes within videogaming, are unquestionable support for the idea that games can deliver unique feelings and ideas through unique avenues.
And if none of that proves they're an art form, I don't know what the hell to say.
Contest:
2:20 PM on 08.06.2009
| 
Always good to clarify now and then.
They need distraction from the world. If they don't want substance, that is absolutely their right.
Don't worry, Anthony. If auteur theory has taught us anything, it's that even mainstream products can reveal something important and meaningful in their work. GTA 4 sold some 5 million copies and actually forces the player to deal with the inherent incongruities in the Constitution, force them to choose a side in that battle, and than explain to them that their choice was wrong. The substance can certainly be there.
Every recent art has brought something new using the previous one, like cinema has brought four arts into one (image, music, writing and play), comics (or I don't know how it's called otherwise) blended image and writing.
Games are now a young and new art form that has broght interactivity to it (though you can interact in some way with other art forms like sculpture.
For me Okami is one of the best :it has good music, beautiful artstyle, good scenario and good gameplay.
(I think I just repeated what Anthony said ...)
When people are being close-minded nothing is going to convince them to change their stance or re-evaluate their opinions.
I'm guessing that most people won't bother to read this rant, you lazy people.
Is it sad that I can almost hear your voice in my head when I read your Rev Rant?
the hawp on mgs 4 Shows that u shaved
And why did u have to shoot the women with the shotgun she was just minding her business not even looking at u
Because we all know in order for game design to be good game design everything has to be specific to the medium.
What a boring world that would be! I feel like design mediums and art platforms are becoming countries in the cold war now that we have to have everything be specific to the medium in order for it to be good.
Suddenly if every movie ever made was like No Country for Old Men or Citizen Kane, we'd have people complaining that there needs to be more popcorn movies.
That's the point. There are too many silly "entertainment" games right now. Let's push the pendulum the other way for a bit and see what happens.
You have "The Sims", not beautifully drawn, but you look for a game that shows the way a person lives there live doing the same things over and over again to get a few extra items to make their live more tolerable. I'm pretty certain I once met someone who had that game...
Then you have Sports games, fun yes, but fun isn't just killing. Plus within this selection of games the simulation side of it can be found and you can organise the finances of a club or just run a team without even playing the sport as a player.
You have detective games like "CSI" and "Phoenix Wright" that make you think, show you how what you thought is wrong. Actually making you think (if you dont use a walkthrough).
I could carry on. I think the problem here is not whether games are art. The problem is whether we can accept they are art, and not limit our thinking that games are use FPS or RPGs.
Games can be fun and silly like Gears and still be art, precisely because you are the one controlling the gun and chainsaw and all that.
Games can be profound and thought provoking and can barely be called a game in some senses like FF and MGS, there's gameplay which is entirely interrupted by long cutscenes or protracted periods of reading.
I don't think people generally think of "games" as an art form at all. Chess? Soccer? It's stretching the definition of the word art quite if you want to make that statement.
Video games on the other hand must consist in part of video. The video component of a videogame is inseperable from art. The game component I would argue is not.
Videogames like Final Fantasy are in spirit more video and less game, and should probably be held to a higher artistic standard like you ranted about last week. Videogames like Asteroids or Galaga are in spirit really just games, and are worthwhile simply for the fun they are to play.
You've explained it much better than I ever could have. Thank you.
Really though, all that needs to be said is that game mechanics have the ability to act as a metaphor, and because of that, games have an ability to act as art. The effort to go into explaining why it is that games and game mechanics are a metaphor are not for naught, Anthony, but I believe that the key term "metaphor" is always ominously absent from your arguments. Is it to pander to the Destructoid audience, to avoid the frustrations of accusations of simply thinking about something? Maybe. But I encourage you to not fear these frustrating anti-intellectual comments. It's annoying that most disagreements in the comments aren't against your actual thesis, but the fact that you even chose to think enough to create one. And quite frankly, I would understand if you get annoyed at that, and I understand why you chose to call those who fall within this camp "cowards."
As for encouraging more exploration into how gameplay can uniquely be used as a metaphor, I applaud you for your efforts. I encourage more rants which focus on how this can occur, though. My favorites are the ones about difficulty and character empathy.
Tetris is one of the most addictive, popular games of the modern era. Is it art?
I don't know that it says much about the 'human condition', but whole buildings have been erected in the shape of Tetris pieces, so there's that.
I think too many terms and ideas are being thrown around improperly and interchangeably: accomplishment or challenge vs. plain old fun, art vs. aesthetics, and others....
When in reality, art in all its forms is probably a lot like porn: you just know it when you see it.
...and how does one pitch that???
Yet, while those examples use an artistic medium (cinema) and create different meaning and emotional reactions for different people, can we call them Art?
Now I get that there are a loooot of things that can still be explored using interactivity as a defining factor for games, and I do believe that is where we'll find true artistry in our medium. But I think we have to look beyond just adding interactivity. Some may enjoy watching a movie like the Texas Chainsaw Massacre and enjoy it in some way. That same person may enjoy chainsawing a Locust himself in another way. But both examples from both media are still pure entertainment.
Just like how cinema can create pieces of art through excellence in technical means or innovation (Citizen Kane, sorry) or through storytelling (Memento for instance), shouldn't we hold the way interactivity adds to the total experience as the bar to rate games as art? And even then, who decides what that bar is? Some people think a Mondriaan is art, some don't.
Long story short: I agree what interactivity is the factor where we will find art in gaming, as long as all the other factors work to support it in an excellent way. Just like how editing, storytelling, etc. can work to turn a movie into art if all other elements support it. But how then do we define that artistry? I sure as hell don't know :)
All games are art. Even the lousy games are art. And I agree, many don't take full advantage of the medium. Films and prose do the exact same thing. Video games are just younger and less experienced.
Art's a personal thing. Art in the gallery/revered sense tends toward alot of people having a similar peronal feeling on the value of the thing. DuChamp's Fountain is art to some, purely an insult to others, and further still just a urinal. But there's enough agreement on its value as art (and/or art commentary) to warrant its place in art galleries and collections.
I would wonder then, if the reverrence of games as art doesn't rely more on a bunch of people creating galleries or a high class/mainstream validated forum by which games are merely considered art, than on the games themselves having aspirations to Art.
While VI did have plenty of long cut-scenes filled with text, I don't actually remember any of them. What I do remember is walking about an opera stage attempting to remember my lines in order to convince my legions of fans that I was a real opera star. I do remember dashing around the beach trying to catch that one fish that might keep Cid from dying (but I never could and he always died anyway). I do remember waiting on an airship as a counter ticked away and a continent fell out of the sky, hoping that damn ninja would make it to the airship before time ran out. In fact I can remember at least a dozen other moments like that from the game, where the player is forced to actively act out story elements that would often be left up to scripting in other JRPGs, but I only have a vague recollection of any of the cut-scenes. While it may not have been as groundbreaking as the story immersion in something like say, Half-Life, for a genre that's steeped in film and literary conventions FFVI is one of the few that did what it could to establish itself as a "game" through and through.
And this time (not necessarily always the case) the only thing I could say to give my opinion on this matter is: WORD.
The majority of people don't even consider modern or abstract art as art, while most people consider things like a Rembrandt as such. So if that being art is dependent on an arbitrary definition by a group of people (the art experts of gaming perhaps?) or some level of common acceptance among the mainstream, how the hell are we ever going to truly define contemporary games as art?
Cel-shaded 3-D graphics on the other hand are specific to videogames.
No art form, including board games and sports, is completely independent from another. It's how you use the art form that determines its quality and ability to create emotions and thought.
The problem, which the Good Rev seems to have identified (more than once now!) is that we're not all on the same page. Commenter A sees "art" and thinks "pretty pictures", someone else thinks "Citizen Kane" (including RR), someone else... who knows what. But when we talk about "Art", which is a word I would purge from this discussion if that were possible, we're not talking about the same thing, so we never even get the point where debate is possible. We're arguing about semantics, not art.
We don't enjoy a piece of sculpture the same way we enjoy a symphony / great album / live show / painting. I think we're still essentially trying define HOW a videogame is enjoyed as an artistic statement, not really whether or not it IS one. (We've gotten past that, right?)
It's hard enough in the "real" art world. How is an interactive art form defined in terms of artistic excellence? I don't have the answer.
But just to give you a specific example, Bit.Trip Core (I game I love to my... well, core) doesn't have the greatest graphics or the most groundbreaking play design, but interacting with it puts me into this very unique headspace, and gives me this certain unity of tension and relaxation that would certainly not be possible passively observing a traditional masterpiece for the twentieth time. Will I fail? Will it matter if I do? Where do I position my brain to truly succeed at this game?
God, I almost made a segue into literary theory but decided against it. Be glad.
Watching someone else play a game and playing a game is not the same "artistic" experience. (In a room full of people watching a movie masterpiece, we all enjoy it [or not] as art; in a room full of people with a game, only the players interacting with it have an inside track as to its rhythms, whether they're lining up heroes in a turn-based RPG or floating around the clouds.
Art does not need to say deep things about the human condition.
Anyway. Yeah. Good talk.
Maybe the question needs to be narrowed. For example, do video games have didactic potential?
I better see what you were trying to say last week and I think you're right, but compromise (which may not really be the best word) is still going to be the most effective way to get an artistically novel game made and played. Fight Club is a great example of a movie that does this. If you're in it for the male power-fantasy, you got it. If you're watching for the layers of metaphor and cultural commentary, you'll come away happy and feeling smarter than if you'd mentally checked out. But you'll have had a more enjoyable experience either way because you had a choice. Isn't that what games are really about, after all? And maybe, just maybe, you'll get a convert or two along the way.
This might be because people see games as escapism. Not only do they not look for "teachable moments" - they play games so they can get AWAY from those moments.
This might explain why more people play "Burger Shop 2" than "McVideoGame" (do a google search)... also, I find the first game leagues more fun and involving than the latter, even if the second game is more socially responsible.
I don't think that developers are deliberately ignoring this type of development, in order to just turn a quick buck with the next big FPS; But that developing this type of game is new ground, and incredibly difficult to do so in a compelling way that delivers a satisfying experience.
The only small scale game I can even think of that borders on this type of game is "Today I die". Which seems more of an interactive poem instead of a "game".
Sustenance raises an interesting point: how does people's experience change depending on whether they are watching or playing? Maybe we can consider the level of artistry in the interaction dimension as the way that the player differs from the viewer?
The person immersed in Fallout 3 after 20 hours will consider the gameplay different from a viewer who just sat down at that moment, as well as the viewer who has sit next to him/her for 20 hours. The amount of difference between in experience between the player and the 20 hour viewer, who experiences exactly the same things except for the interaction, would then define the quality of the interaction dimension?
Then again, give people the same amount of drugs, and look at how the player and the viewer's experience differs when playing RezHD (this would make an awesome study). Maybe they will experience the same things? Maybe not.
And finally, let a player and a viewer go through a horrible game, and the player may feel different but vastly more negative emotions. I guess interaction would have to be a defining factor AND be part of a positive experience to make it art? Hmmmmmm.
basically you are removing from most new releases because they tie themselves to an already existing game in some manner. This tends to make me think your still pushing for an arthouse game instead of a summer blockbuster like last week.
Jaffe made art in God of War much like Hitchcock made art in Psycho. They weren't ever original in either, but they presented something new in a beautiful manner for both games.
anyhow, carry on
It's the same reason why I think left 4 dead sucks. It fails to use it's setting properly. You run around and shoot zombies that are nothing but fodder, just like in every ww2,space, modern, shooter I've ever played. I could type out a massive article explaining hat it could have been, what all zombie games should have been, but I don't feel like it. Maybe I'll make a blog sometime.
I do take issue with you implication that FFVI isn't art because it doesn't deliver its emotional payload in a way specific to the medium. Certainly, it could have been done as a film or a book, but so could most stories - the idea that its content overlapping with other media makes it not art is just obviously wrong. Planescape: Torment is an astonishing work of art, a masterpiece. It's almost not a game at all, really - it's a book with an astonishingly beautiful and imaginative GUI. How that can be said to tarnish its tragic beauty is beyond me.
Your problem, Anthony, is that you can't see the forest for all the trees. You're getting hung up on the medium instead of focusing on the art. It's what you say, not how you say it. If Van Gogh had no arms to paint the Starry Night with, he'd have written something down about it instead.
Art is ultimately the expression of the truth of one's existence. Even the word "art" derives from "thou art", which of course just means "you are". This can be something heartbreakingly beautiful, or shockingly ugly, as long as it's truthful and is done well enough to provoke an emotional recognition in the mind of the audience. A love song can be art if it's truthfully written - but if it's bullshit then it's just bullshit, and people will recognise it as such. By extension, just saying "I love you" to someone is a work of art - the medium only matters insofar as its quality of execution. A good love song and a bad one are both in the same medium, trying to express themselves in the same way, but one of them is a work of art and the other isn't.
This is the only place in which the medium becomes relevant - in its quality of execution. Beethoven's "Moonlight Sonata" and Bob Dylan's "Visions of Johanna" are both works of art about being sad because the person you love is not with you, and they're both astonishingly well crafted, so they're both art. But you can't say that Beethoven's piece is MORE art, because it doesn't have any words in it, and if it's got words in it then it could have been a poem, so it's not as good. What matters is that the purpose was expressed truthfully.
I think this is similar to what David Jaffe was saying, although hopefully a little more eloquently put. It's not that people don't think games are an art form, or that nobody's trying to do it - it's just that not many people are any good at it, the same way that thousands of movies are released every year but you can count on the fingers of one hand the number that come out in that year that are emotionally honest and affecting.
Great comment!
You article really express what I am thinking about video games and their artistic value. Games have so much artistic potential when you think about it. As you pointed out with you Okami example, they can move us through the images that they just us, through the editing, the camera angles in cutscenes(I am thinking about Lost Odyssey here). They can also move us with the music they give or through the story, it's delivery and it's content like a book(once again I am thinking about Lost Odyssey). But what they can deliver us that no other medium can, at least competently, is interactivity and emergence. True artistic value can come from the gameplay of some games, just like Far Cry 2 does in it's better moments.
The Bioshock example is a bit flawed in my opinion, and that is mostly due to ludonarrative dissonance. May sound pretentious but it makes a lot of sense when you read Clint Hocking's critic of the game (http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html). This is also why I love The Sims as some experience. That game has a huge potential for emergent narrative.
Thinking about game specific methods of conveying an idea is much harder than other mediums, which is why I don't think as many people can accept it as art. Just like how many people can't think in maths and as such refuse to accept it. (think of anytime you heard someone say "I just can't do it"/"it's not in me"/"I'm not a maths person")
@protomark: they are multimedia, but the gaming apsect is one of the mediums in that media, as with the sound and the pictures and the words.