Can Art be Games?
sophiehoulden.com
Can Art be Games?
1–10 of 38 posts
Re: Can Art be Games?
#2There is also an interesting argument between Roger Ebert and Kellee Santiago (the co-founder and former president of Thatgamecompany) on this topic http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve...
Re: Can Art be Games?
#3[deleted]
Re: Can Art be Games?
#4This has to be one of the worst straw man arguments I've read on this subject, and I'm in favor of seeing games as art. Yes, if you reduce art to prints, it does seem like games have a leg up. However, film and theatre and music have long since been considered to he art, and this is usually where the debate takes place.
The examples she cites aren't convincing either. For games to really be seen as a great art form, IMO, it can't be that they simply provide a vehicle for other art forms, such as music and film (I.e. cutscenes).
The key dimension that games add is interactivity...in that sense, the art of games is more along the lines of modern performance art in which the viewers actions amplifies the artistic meaning.
The first time I really felt that a game had hit me in a narrative way that was impossible in film/theater/literature was in Portal, in the scene in which Glados compels you to "kill" the Companion Cube. At the end of it, I felt this huge sense of comic relief because I half expected the box to start screaming, and then I laughed and marveled at how the gamewriters were able to create a sense of attachment to an inanimate box, merely by having you pick it up and move it to places. I haven't played portal 2 yet, but I can't think of any other game that elicited such a strong emotional reaction from me through the mechanism of interactivity.
Re: Can Art be Games?
#5This has to be one of the worst straw man arguments I've read on this subject, and I'm in favor of seeing games as art. Yes, if you reduce art to prints, it does seem like games have a leg up. However, film and theatre and music have long since been considered to he art, and this is usually where the debate takes place. The examples she cites aren't convincing either. For games to really be seen as a great art form,…
I think the post was supposed to be satire. I didn't really get that either, but the reactions I'm hearing in other places seem to be along the lines of, "Ha ha, that was funny."
Re: Can Art be Games?
#6This has to be one of the worst straw man arguments I've read on this subject, and I'm in favor of seeing games as art. Yes, if you reduce art to prints, it does seem like games have a leg up. However, film and theatre and music have long since been considered to he art, and this is usually where the debate takes place. The examples she cites aren't convincing either. For games to really be seen as a great art form,…
This is satire, and is a direct response to how several art critics have dismissed "games" as capable of being considered fine art for reasons that are just as silly as this blog post, which is precisely why it's funny.
Re: Can Art be Games?
#7This has to be one of the worst straw man arguments I've read on this subject, and I'm in favor of seeing games as art. Yes, if you reduce art to prints, it does seem like games have a leg up. However, film and theatre and music have long since been considered to he art, and this is usually where the debate takes place. The examples she cites aren't convincing either. For games to really be seen as a great art form,…
I think the post was supposed to be satire. I didn't really get that either, but the reactions I'm hearing in other places seem to be along the lines of, "Ha ha, that was funny."
I knew I shouldn't check HN on a Saturday...I blame it on the reflexive groan I make every time a Square-Enix game is mentioned in the context
Re: Can Art be Games?
#8There is also an interesting argument between Roger Ebert and Kellee Santiago (the co-founder and former president of Thatgamecompany) on this topic http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve...
It's not really that interesting to me. Ebert's argument is based on the idea that art needs to be good to be art. There's plenty of bad art, but it's still art. Indeed, the bar as to what can be art is startlingly (and often maddeningly) low.
Video games are part entertainment, part engineering challenge, part craft. Just like all art forms.
I enjoy reading Ebert's film reviews, but I think with this debate he's just stirring up controversy for notoriety's sake.
Re: Can Art be Games?
#9> After Emily left I checked on the internet and it turns out she was right, you really do just look at it, that’s all!
Well, that's one way of doing it, and it's what most people do, but you're not going to get the most out of it.
Rothko's Four Seasons murals are a good example - big slabs of colour, nothing too complicated. But then when you find out that he said ...
> "I accepted this assignment with strictly malicious intentions," Rothko said. "I hope to ruin the appetite of every son of a bitch who ever eats in that room." He wanted his paintings to make them feel that they were trapped in the room "where all the doors and windows are bricked up, so that all they can do is butt their heads forever against the wall."
... you get a better appreciation for them.
Re: Can Art be Games?
#10> After Emily left I checked on the internet and it turns out she was right, you really do just look at it, that’s all! Well, that's one way of doing it, and it's what most people do, but you're not going to get the most out of it. Rothko's Four Seasons murals are a good example - big slabs of colour, nothing too complicated. But then when you find out that he said ... > "I accepted this assignment with strictly mali…
Ah, a brick and mortar troll!