Games As An Art Form
There is a discussion, although brief, at Game Politics about games as an art form. There are some people in the industry who believe that games are and some within and without who believe that games aren't. I think it is fair to say that being a creative form of expression means that games can be an art form, but like all other mediums, it doesn't make every piece of expression in that form art. Just because you can write a song, or paint a picture, or write a book doesn't mean you are an artist. This is the key, because people confuse the notion of creative expression and the creation of art as being the same thing, while they are not. Ultimately, game developers have the tools inwhich to create art, whether they use those tools or not to create art or entertainment is up to them.
So what is art? This is where you will hear a lot of people yelling and cursing about how art is defined. It is a subject which has been debated for a long time. I have a very specific opinion on what art is and I will use that to categorize art in general. The easiest way to classify art, as far as I am concerned is in this way: Art is any form of creation which makes you question your existence in some way. Whether it be an aspect of your existence or your existence in its entirety is up to the artist. Therefore entertainment for entertainment's sake is not art.
It is interesting to note that a lot of art forms started as a means of telling a story. The first painters used painting as a means to tell a story. They would paint pictures on the walls of caves. This was also a means of documenting their history as well. They weren't necessarily making a statement of some sort. This is much the way gaming started.
As time has passed in the last thirty years the technology behind gaming has developed. Games have gone from being archaic wall paintings on caves to fine works of craftsmanship and skill. The other aspect which make people wary to slap the "art" tag on it as an industry is the way that games are created in general. Games are created by a team of different people providing a number of different skills to each production. They are more a collaborative effort like the creation of a film or television show. While the director of a film takes most of the credit for the production and its creative control, games are not quite like this. People such as Roger Ebert (the film critic) are critics of games as art for this reason. The author/director/painter is not in complete control of the process. He says, "simply can’t compare to great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers ... There’s a structural reason for that ... Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control." This scares those people who want to restrict art to those who can only decode its symbols.
Tim Schafter, the creator of Double Fine Productions, says this about games as art, "Art is about creatively expressing thoughts or emotions that are hard or impossible to communicate through literal, verbal means ... Can you use games to do that? Of course you can." Denis Dyack, president of Silicon Knights, says, "I feel video games are probably the most advanced form of art thus far in human history ... Not only do video games encompass many of the traditional forms of art (text, sound, video, imagery), but they also uniquely tie these art forms together with interactivity ... This allows the art form of video games to create something unique, beyond all other forms of media. Simply expressed, you can put a movie in a video game but you cannot put a video game in a movie. Video games are the ultimate form of art as we know it."
Interactivity is also the factor which brings gaming its greatest art critics. Those people who deny that gaming is art due to user participation. There are a lot of people who don't want art to be a part of the masses. They want art to remain what they consider to be "high art". So that art is restrictive, it's symbols and meanings are confined only to those who know how to interpret them. Therefore making the process of decoding and understanding art exclusive to just a selected few. These people will always argue that only restrictive forms of communication are considered to be art. They are worried that a common person can storm the temple and understand their pseudo-language, be able to interpret their symbols and understand the hidden meanings contained within.
Art should not be the means by which snobbery or an elite is created. It is about sharing a common means of communication through symbolism in which we can all interpret the world in which we live. This is why games as a generality are not art, just as not every painting is art, some paintings are just pictures. However, those which manage to make us question our very existence are art. Those people who help create this means of communication and symbolism are the artists. Whether they be coders or painters.
So what is art? This is where you will hear a lot of people yelling and cursing about how art is defined. It is a subject which has been debated for a long time. I have a very specific opinion on what art is and I will use that to categorize art in general. The easiest way to classify art, as far as I am concerned is in this way: Art is any form of creation which makes you question your existence in some way. Whether it be an aspect of your existence or your existence in its entirety is up to the artist. Therefore entertainment for entertainment's sake is not art.
It is interesting to note that a lot of art forms started as a means of telling a story. The first painters used painting as a means to tell a story. They would paint pictures on the walls of caves. This was also a means of documenting their history as well. They weren't necessarily making a statement of some sort. This is much the way gaming started.
As time has passed in the last thirty years the technology behind gaming has developed. Games have gone from being archaic wall paintings on caves to fine works of craftsmanship and skill. The other aspect which make people wary to slap the "art" tag on it as an industry is the way that games are created in general. Games are created by a team of different people providing a number of different skills to each production. They are more a collaborative effort like the creation of a film or television show. While the director of a film takes most of the credit for the production and its creative control, games are not quite like this. People such as Roger Ebert (the film critic) are critics of games as art for this reason. The author/director/painter is not in complete control of the process. He says, "simply can’t compare to great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers ... There’s a structural reason for that ... Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control." This scares those people who want to restrict art to those who can only decode its symbols.
Tim Schafter, the creator of Double Fine Productions, says this about games as art, "Art is about creatively expressing thoughts or emotions that are hard or impossible to communicate through literal, verbal means ... Can you use games to do that? Of course you can." Denis Dyack, president of Silicon Knights, says, "I feel video games are probably the most advanced form of art thus far in human history ... Not only do video games encompass many of the traditional forms of art (text, sound, video, imagery), but they also uniquely tie these art forms together with interactivity ... This allows the art form of video games to create something unique, beyond all other forms of media. Simply expressed, you can put a movie in a video game but you cannot put a video game in a movie. Video games are the ultimate form of art as we know it."
Interactivity is also the factor which brings gaming its greatest art critics. Those people who deny that gaming is art due to user participation. There are a lot of people who don't want art to be a part of the masses. They want art to remain what they consider to be "high art". So that art is restrictive, it's symbols and meanings are confined only to those who know how to interpret them. Therefore making the process of decoding and understanding art exclusive to just a selected few. These people will always argue that only restrictive forms of communication are considered to be art. They are worried that a common person can storm the temple and understand their pseudo-language, be able to interpret their symbols and understand the hidden meanings contained within.
Art should not be the means by which snobbery or an elite is created. It is about sharing a common means of communication through symbolism in which we can all interpret the world in which we live. This is why games as a generality are not art, just as not every painting is art, some paintings are just pictures. However, those which manage to make us question our very existence are art. Those people who help create this means of communication and symbolism are the artists. Whether they be coders or painters.
posted by thecynicalgamer @ 9:25 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home