An Exhibition That Proves Video Games Can Be Art(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
An Exhibition That Proves Video Games Can Be Art
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/10/t-magazine/art/jason-rohrer-video-games-exhibit-davis-museum.html
9 comments
As I understand it gaming enthusiasts regard games as being intrinsically art, with no need to "prove" that they can be. Every game from Pong to Call of Duty is a work of art. This whole discussion around whether games are art or not seems to be coming from outside the gaming community, and should not really be attributed much importance.
The definition of "art" is not "hung in a museum". The people who hang art in museums would tell you that. So the real question isn't whether video games are art, but whether they can address the kinds of questions addressed by other forms of modern art (and do any do that well enough to be considered for inclusion in modern art museums, alongside other works of concept and technique).
This is aggravated by the mutual contempt between the "art" and "engineering" camps, with each finding reasons to look down on the other.
This is aggravated by the mutual contempt between the "art" and "engineering" camps, with each finding reasons to look down on the other.
Not unlike the rest of the entertainment industry, the vast majority of philosophically and ontologically compelling games don't make it into the mainstream.
As bullshit as the Oscars are, they at least try. There is no equivalent in the Gaming industry.
Just check out Galatea. Very few people know about that game, but it is amazing.
As bullshit as the Oscars are, they at least try. There is no equivalent in the Gaming industry.
Just check out Galatea. Very few people know about that game, but it is amazing.
The Independent Games Festival gives awards out to plenty of games no one has ever heard of.
Even the Game Awards, the most Oscar-like award show that video games have, gives awards to smaller, more "artsy" titles. For instance "Her Story" won best narrative for 2015 over more mainstream blockbuster titles like "The Witcher 3".
Even the Game Awards, the most Oscar-like award show that video games have, gives awards to smaller, more "artsy" titles. For instance "Her Story" won best narrative for 2015 over more mainstream blockbuster titles like "The Witcher 3".
The Witcher 3 can hardly be categorized as a "mainstream blockbuster." It's more akin to a cult classic that was finally accepted by a larger audience.
Beyond that the original comment was lamenting the lack of a central cultural authority on gaming, which there is none (and I don't think there necessarily needs to be one given the lack of marketable personalities or reasons to watch one beyond ad space). "Her Story" was recognized last year because of its approachable, non-linear play mixed with FMV, but there dozens of other titles released that would be easier to argue for as "art" that aren't going be recognized in any notable manner. Does something need to have recognition to designated as art? No. Neither sculptures nor paintings have award shows, so I think it's fair to say that artistic merit goes beyond gaming having an Oscars.
Beyond that the original comment was lamenting the lack of a central cultural authority on gaming, which there is none (and I don't think there necessarily needs to be one given the lack of marketable personalities or reasons to watch one beyond ad space). "Her Story" was recognized last year because of its approachable, non-linear play mixed with FMV, but there dozens of other titles released that would be easier to argue for as "art" that aren't going be recognized in any notable manner. Does something need to have recognition to designated as art? No. Neither sculptures nor paintings have award shows, so I think it's fair to say that artistic merit goes beyond gaming having an Oscars.
Galatea is great. In general there are a lot of great works in Interactive Fiction. "Shade" by Andrew Plotkin comes to mind.
There are many attempts, but most people don't care. You like what you like, awards are generally bullshit and gamed.
The only industry award for gaming I respect are those given out at GDC to industry people who've had an impact on the industry and a few games, but it isn't a spectacle, its more a pat on the back from other industry members.
The only industry award for gaming I respect are those given out at GDC to industry people who've had an impact on the industry and a few games, but it isn't a spectacle, its more a pat on the back from other industry members.
I don't think people don't care. It's just like sales/marketing - you need to communicate the value of artistic games to the people.
No one cared about quality in the early days of film/tv either. But, eventually, some people saw value in them as an art form, and started helping others understand how.
I think we should start doing this for games.
No one cared about quality in the early days of film/tv either. But, eventually, some people saw value in them as an art form, and started helping others understand how.
I think we should start doing this for games.
I believe I proved that 20 years ago already. At least that's what the relevant art historians write in their books. ArsDoom 1995. https://www.google.de/search?q=ArsDoom+game+art
I don't buy any hard criteria for accepting something as "art". Ultimately it's just a status contest. Will the hip folks accept video games into "high culture", or will they keep sneering? Post facto excuses can be made for either choice, but the deal maker is the opportunity for social differentiation.
The best way to elevate the status of games is not by making art games like Gone Home that try to tackle social issues with a veneer of interactivity. That's a transparently wannabe tactic. Instead, gamers could project a hipster-like appreciation of pure gameplay as something that takes effort to enjoy. There's a good case to be made that the unwashed masses don't actually enjoy gameplay once you remove all the set dressing (art, music, plot...), so there's an opportunity for an informed minority to claim better taste. Such hipsterism could sow the seeds for eventually accepting games into the high culture pantheon.
As a bonus, creating pure gameplay is much easier than asset-heavy games. It's well within reach of a single brooding artist on drugs, and you can credibly sell it as a momentary flash of inspiration later. That's convenient, because picking out the name of one auteur from ten pages of credits is a real mood killer.
The best way to elevate the status of games is not by making art games like Gone Home that try to tackle social issues with a veneer of interactivity. That's a transparently wannabe tactic. Instead, gamers could project a hipster-like appreciation of pure gameplay as something that takes effort to enjoy. There's a good case to be made that the unwashed masses don't actually enjoy gameplay once you remove all the set dressing (art, music, plot...), so there's an opportunity for an informed minority to claim better taste. Such hipsterism could sow the seeds for eventually accepting games into the high culture pantheon.
As a bonus, creating pure gameplay is much easier than asset-heavy games. It's well within reach of a single brooding artist on drugs, and you can credibly sell it as a momentary flash of inspiration later. That's convenient, because picking out the name of one auteur from ten pages of credits is a real mood killer.
Personally, I think the biggest mistake everyone's making when it comes to video game and art (and which is being made in this article) is that 'art' is somehow only a thing when it's the one goal of a work's production. That somehow, only more obscure games made to be 'artistic' can be 'art'.
Do these people somehow think Shakespeare made his works to be studied or admired rather than enjoyed by general audiences? That works by people like Charles Dickens and Jane Austen were made to be studied in literature class?
But that's not true. A lot of games are 'art'. They're not intended to be such (or have that as their only motivation for existing), but they show the same kind of meaning and quality of design and what not as any artistic indie game you can think of. For example, a lot of people would say games ranging from Super Mario Bros to Psychonauts to Half Life to the Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask are 'art', but none of them were made specifically to be as such.
Games are already art, they're just not marketed as such.
Do these people somehow think Shakespeare made his works to be studied or admired rather than enjoyed by general audiences? That works by people like Charles Dickens and Jane Austen were made to be studied in literature class?
But that's not true. A lot of games are 'art'. They're not intended to be such (or have that as their only motivation for existing), but they show the same kind of meaning and quality of design and what not as any artistic indie game you can think of. For example, a lot of people would say games ranging from Super Mario Bros to Psychonauts to Half Life to the Legend of Zelda Majora's Mask are 'art', but none of them were made specifically to be as such.
Games are already art, they're just not marketed as such.
Only people who do not play video games feel the need to be convinced that video games is art.
Digital art is making museums irrelevant. Artists can distribute a piece of art, a performance ,even live, directly in a browser.
Digital art is making museums irrelevant. Artists can distribute a piece of art, a performance ,even live, directly in a browser.
Your first sentence is defensible, even laudable, but your second sentence goes too far trying to discredit the premise.
Seeing digital representations of non-digital art is in no way a substitute for the real thing, however.
Seeing digital representations of non-digital art is in no way a substitute for the real thing, however.
If being exposed in a museum is a proof to be art, then I still think Marcel Duchamps Fountaine de Jouvence is better placed in toilets.
Art is a just a name to classify ways of expression, and the same way the rose does not need a name nor a museum to shine in the morning, Video games never needed museum to be Art.
But on the other hand, artists need to put stuff in museum to claim authority on something they clearly don't understand.
Art is a just a name to classify ways of expression, and the same way the rose does not need a name nor a museum to shine in the morning, Video games never needed museum to be Art.
But on the other hand, artists need to put stuff in museum to claim authority on something they clearly don't understand.
I completely agree.
In addition, I feel like there have been so many games which might qualify as “artistic” that should be plenty (even for those who feel they have a rigid line between “art” and “not art”) to qualify video games as a valid medium for art.
For example, Kentucky Route Zero (talk about an incredible experience).
In addition, I feel like there have been so many games which might qualify as “artistic” that should be plenty (even for those who feel they have a rigid line between “art” and “not art”) to qualify video games as a valid medium for art.
For example, Kentucky Route Zero (talk about an incredible experience).
What's so distinctive about KRZ it that, aside from all the other great things about it, it so fluently speaks the language of video games and confidently, appropriately leverages the conventions of its sub-genre, as compared with other "art games" like Gone Home (which I enjoyed, mind you!) that live in their medium only superficially.
Label either what you will, but IMO KRZ's among the best examples of what the properties of video games in particular can contribute to the expression and experience of art. Gone Home could be translated to an (admittedly elaborate and large) interactive art installation (think haunted house, but less haunted, or like an escape room but bigger) and I'm pretty sure it'd be better for it—the immersive nostalgia of Gone Home wants you to feel and smell it, IMO... but you can't. It doesn't even do any of the media-blending that something like Thirty Flights of Loving does that'd make it tough to subject it to this kind of transformation. On the other hand I have trouble imagining any similar removal from the video game medium for KRZ turning out well. I don't even know where you'd start, or what you might change it into without making it something else entirely, likely inferior.
Consider also many of the Twine games and their cousins, which could just as well be choose your own adventure books—the "game" part may matter, the "video" barely does. KRZ? It both must be a video game, and isn't middling-quality (but possibly fun!) genre fiction. Very few video games tick both those boxes.
Label either what you will, but IMO KRZ's among the best examples of what the properties of video games in particular can contribute to the expression and experience of art. Gone Home could be translated to an (admittedly elaborate and large) interactive art installation (think haunted house, but less haunted, or like an escape room but bigger) and I'm pretty sure it'd be better for it—the immersive nostalgia of Gone Home wants you to feel and smell it, IMO... but you can't. It doesn't even do any of the media-blending that something like Thirty Flights of Loving does that'd make it tough to subject it to this kind of transformation. On the other hand I have trouble imagining any similar removal from the video game medium for KRZ turning out well. I don't even know where you'd start, or what you might change it into without making it something else entirely, likely inferior.
Consider also many of the Twine games and their cousins, which could just as well be choose your own adventure books—the "game" part may matter, the "video" barely does. KRZ? It both must be a video game, and isn't middling-quality (but possibly fun!) genre fiction. Very few video games tick both those boxes.
GTA, populous, civilization, space invaders, street fighter II have so much echoed every where, even in museum through plastic art, dance, movies and street art, that is is ridiculous to ask ourself if it is art. It is.
But clearly, museum, artists and institution once more prove by the example how late they lag behind the popular culture and how much they crave for legitimacy.
Every time I see an artist in a museum I feel like visiting a tomb of a now fallen comrade that tried to escape institutions and finally got revered by it. Like the biggest sign of failure possible for any arts : being revered numbly by the idiots you tried to shake.
Any artists craving for oscar, medals, title, social recognition is aiming at failing to bear any disruptive messages towards our society, hence culture. Heralding loud to aim at no disruptions about our times is called plain propaganda.
Art has misplaced the debate over proficiencies required to bear a message and its technicality while the biographies of the artists seem to point out they cared more about expressing themselves.
Art is the very art to study the envelop instead of a message and to contradict by the very same study the nature of the message. Art as an academic study should be considered very close to a religion.
EDIT: And I consider that there should be no religions taught in universities or education systems. (Yes, psychology if it persevere in failing at having reproducible results should be considered from being banned to be taught, like some economic theories, or intelligent design).
But clearly, museum, artists and institution once more prove by the example how late they lag behind the popular culture and how much they crave for legitimacy.
Every time I see an artist in a museum I feel like visiting a tomb of a now fallen comrade that tried to escape institutions and finally got revered by it. Like the biggest sign of failure possible for any arts : being revered numbly by the idiots you tried to shake.
Any artists craving for oscar, medals, title, social recognition is aiming at failing to bear any disruptive messages towards our society, hence culture. Heralding loud to aim at no disruptions about our times is called plain propaganda.
Art has misplaced the debate over proficiencies required to bear a message and its technicality while the biographies of the artists seem to point out they cared more about expressing themselves.
Art is the very art to study the envelop instead of a message and to contradict by the very same study the nature of the message. Art as an academic study should be considered very close to a religion.
EDIT: And I consider that there should be no religions taught in universities or education systems. (Yes, psychology if it persevere in failing at having reproducible results should be considered from being banned to be taught, like some economic theories, or intelligent design).
Jason Rohrer lived a very minimal lifestyle before 2012, as described here: http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/simpleLife.ht...
We have set our yearly budget at about $9,756. Town, village, and school property taxes eat up about $1500 of this per year. After that, we have a budget of about $688 per month. We have devoted $200 of this to utilities (water, electric, and amortized heat), and $65 to telephone and Internet. You might be laughing: "No fridge, but you have DSL, huh?" Remember, I am a computer programmer. After all of these expenses, we are left with about $423 per month, which must cover food and other purchases.
His computer setup back then involved a broken Dell Inspiron 4100 with 950 MHz processor and 256 MiB of RAM: https://usesthis.com/interviews/jason.rohrer/
His game Passage is a free download from his website.