Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Can Art be Games?

sophiehoulden.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 38 posts

Re: Can Art be Games?

#11

Post by innguest »

DanBC wrote: post #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 mali…

But if you have to explain your "art" like that then it's probably not very good to begin with.

Re: Can Art be Games?

#12

Post by matthewowen »

I will never for the life of me understand why so many video game players are so insistent that video games must be art. Why does it matter?

For what it's worth, I don't think that video games can be art for reasons that are far too lengthy for the scope of a comment on here. But that doesn't mean video games can't be good things. I also like sport, newspaper articles, and good beer. Cultural artefacts don't have to be art to be good.

Re: Can Art be Games?

#13

Post by Jare »

danso wrote: post #7
saraid216 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That's the part that ruined the entire article for me. To quote these games as hallmarks of emotional or intrinsic value in games is to me as clueless as to talk about paintings as 'things that you just look at', renders the person in the article clueless about both art and games, and destroys the sarcasm imho.

Re: Can Art be Games?

#14

Post by Jare »

innguest wrote: post #11
DanBC wrote: post #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 mali…

But if you have to explain your "art" like that then it's probably not very good to begin with.

That line of offence more applicable to jokes than to art. Not all art is meant to be consumed easily and without context. In fact, I'd argue that if a piece of art CAN be consumed easily by anyone of any background without any context, then that piece will usually be rather obvious and just not very interesting, insightful, or valuable.

Of course, take that with a grain of salt. There's a rather large area between 'obvious' and 'unintelligible', and plenty of authors have tried (and failed) to elevate the artistic value of their pieces by turning them into useless mazes of obscure data.

Re: Can Art be Games?

#15

Post by vacri »

matthewowen wrote: post #12

I will never for the life of me understand why so many video game players are so insistent that video games must be art. Why does it matter? For what it's worth, I don't think that video games can be art for reasons that are far too lengthy for the scope of a comment on here. But that doesn't mean video games can't be good things. I also like sport, newspaper articles, and good beer. Cultural artefacts don't have to…

I don't understand either of the polar sides of the 'are video games art?'

'Art' is just a description, no more. No promise of quality, no conferred legitimacy. There is plenty of really crap art out there, that no-one will claim is not art. Every argument I've seen for the 'is not art' camp does some pretty torturous semantic weaving. And articles like this for the other camp that say 'art is shit, who wants that' are equally unenlightening.

I would say that creating video games in general is more of a craft than an art, but there is definitely art involved in getting to the final product.

edit: ugh, I didn't pick that the article was satire. shame on me.

Re: Can Art be Games?

#16

Post by vacri »

toksaitov wrote: post #2

There 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...

Ebert pretty much lost this debate from the outset with "I contend that X is not Y, and I will not discuss this any further". Even though he relented and did followups, it's pretty clear that you're arguing from prejudice rather than merit when you refuse to enter into debate.

Re: Can Art be Games?

#17

Post by vacri »

enneff wrote: post #8
toksaitov wrote: post #2

There 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 jus…

I visited MoMA in NY and in different parts of the museum, and by different artists, I saw a plain sheet of white paper, a plain sheet of red, and a plain sheet of black. Someone had considered these to be 'art' enough to hang on a wall. I found the rest of the exhibits to be interesting in some way, but these three pieces represent the lowest I've seen the bar set.

Re: Can Art be Games?

#18

Post by mjn »

blackhole wrote: post #6
danso wrote: post #4

This 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.

I believe it's most directly a response to this op-ed making the rounds recently: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/201...

The "[x] isn't art" op-ed seems to be that particular Guardian blogger's specialty. Last year, he caused a flurry of outraged discussion in a different set of communities for roughly similar reasons, when he wrote an op-ed on why neither cuisine nor high fashion are art: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/201...

Re: Can Art be Games?

#19

Post by brunoc »

MoMA posted this a few days ago - they've acquired 14 games: http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-game...

tldr:

• Pac-Man (1980) • Tetris (1984) • Another World (1991) • Myst (1993) • SimCity 2000 (1994) • vib-ribbon (1999) • The Sims (2000) • Katamari Damacy (2004) • EVE Online (2003) • Dwarf Fortress (2006) • Portal (2007) • flOw (2006) • Passage (2008) • Canabalt (2009)

Post reply on HN