Red Mosquito

The Last of Us is not high art. It's art, but it's bad art.

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Absolutely. But there's high art and low art. Last of Us Remastered is high art. A TMNT game/movie tie-in build on a pre-existing engine for another game is low art.

Interesting. I've never once thought of video games as art. In my mind they've always been... well, games. And thereby consumer entertainment. This is a really interesting idea that I'd like to think/discuss more about. I'm open to having my mind changed.

It is absolutely an artistic medium. But it's the newest one in existence, so I get that it takes a while for people to grapple with the concept (movies went through the same thing when they were first invented). If you want to be strict with the definition, there are lots of games that are the vision of one artist and express ideas and themes and emotions just like any other type of art.

High art = art made with the user's connection to the art being the primary focus.
Low art = art made for commerce.

Of course video games are by definition commercial. But I have no doubt that Last of Us fits into the first category.

I would also argue that some of the more definitively high art games are designed for mobile, rather than PS4/XB1/etc.

tragabigzanda wrote:High art = art made with the user's connection to the art being the primary focus.
Low art = art made for commerce.

Of course video games are by definition commercial. But I have no doubt that Last of Us fits into the first category.

I really don't want to get into this type of debate again, but suffice to say I don't think such classifications are very accurate or worthwhile, and I think they are nearly impossible to delineate in any kind of meaningful or practical way.

I'm painting with broad strokes Verm, but those strokes serve a purpose. Some games are made on the cheap, and assume that the user will be happy with the colors and buttons for a couple months. Others put a lot more resources into voice acting, sound design, plot. Surely you can see the difference and understand why Last of Us is high art, even if you didn't enjoy the game?

tragabigzanda wrote:I'm painting with broad strokes Verm, but those strokes serve a purpose. Some games are made on the cheap, and assume that the user will be happy with the colors and buttons for a couple months. Others put a lot more resources into voice acting, sound design, plot. Surely you can see the difference and understand why Last of Us is high art, even if you didn't enjoy the game?

But so what? That doesn't make it any better, so who cares? I don't believe in factoring in those parameters when judging the final product. All that does is create pointlessly elitist discourse.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Absolutely. But there's high art and low art. Last of Us Remastered is high art. A TMNT game/movie tie-in build on a pre-existing engine for another game is low art.

Interesting. I've never once thought of video games as art. In my mind they've always been... well, games. And thereby consumer entertainment. This is a really interesting idea that I'd like to think/discuss more about. I'm open to having my mind changed.

It is absolutely an artistic medium. But it's the newest one in existence, so I get that it takes a while for people to grapple with the concept (movies went through the same thing when they were first invented). If you want to be strict with the definition, there are lots of games that are the vision of one artist and express ideas and themes and emotions just like any other type of art.

"One artist" has never really been a qualifier for me when it comes to art. Theater, Film, Music, Television, none of these are art forms by one artist. I'll have to think about whether or not expressing ideas, themes and emotions makes something art. My immediate reaction is that it's the square/rectangle conversation. But I need to think about it more.

Are board games art? Many board games fall under the same parameters you've listed.

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Absolutely. But there's high art and low art. Last of Us Remastered is high art. A TMNT game/movie tie-in build on a pre-existing engine for another game is low art.

Interesting. I've never once thought of video games as art. In my mind they've always been... well, games. And thereby consumer entertainment. This is a really interesting idea that I'd like to think/discuss more about. I'm open to having my mind changed.

It is absolutely an artistic medium. But it's the newest one in existence, so I get that it takes a while for people to grapple with the concept (movies went through the same thing when they were first invented). If you want to be strict with the definition, there are lots of games that are the vision of one artist and express ideas and themes and emotions just like any other type of art.

"One artist" has never really been a qualifier for me when it comes to art. Theater, Film, Music, Television, none of these are art forms by one artist. I'll have to think about whether or not expressing ideas, themes and emotions makes something art. My immediate reaction is that it's the square/rectangle conversation. But I need to think about it more.

Are board games art? Many board games fall under the same parameters you've listed.

Potentially, sure. But most modern videogames are way closer to movies than board games. What's the difference between a narrative videogame and a feature film outside of interactivity? Does interactivity preclude it from being art? If so, why? I have gained lots of insight into myself and other things through videogames. Is that not an artisitic accomplishment?

I'm gonna let someone else weigh in, 'coz I gotta get going. Happy to revisit it later. Verm for A&E Mod.

durdencommatyler wrote:
Are board games art? Many board games fall under the same parameters you've listed.

Hungry Hungry Hippos is a goddamn masterpiece.

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

LoathedVermin72 wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Absolutely. But there's high art and low art. Last of Us Remastered is high art. A TMNT game/movie tie-in build on a pre-existing engine for another game is low art.

Interesting. I've never once thought of video games as art. In my mind they've always been... well, games. And thereby consumer entertainment. This is a really interesting idea that I'd like to think/discuss more about. I'm open to having my mind changed.

It is absolutely an artistic medium. But it's the newest one in existence, so I get that it takes a while for people to grapple with the concept (movies went through the same thing when they were first invented). If you want to be strict with the definition, there are lots of games that are the vision of one artist and express ideas and themes and emotions just like any other type of art.

"One artist" has never really been a qualifier for me when it comes to art. Theater, Film, Music, Television, none of these are art forms by one artist. I'll have to think about whether or not expressing ideas, themes and emotions makes something art. My immediate reaction is that it's the square/rectangle conversation. But I need to think about it more.

Are board games art? Many board games fall under the same parameters you've listed.

Potentially, sure. But most modern videogames are way closer to movies than board games. What's the difference between a narrative videogame and a feature film outside of interactivity? Does interactivity preclude it from being art? If so, why? I have gained lots of insight into myself and other things through videogames. Is that not an artisitic accomplishment?

I certainly don't think interactivity precludes it from being art. Absolutely not.

Gaining insight about yourself and the world is an artistic accomplishment but it's not exclusively an artistic accomplishment. Many other things besides art provide those insights. Again, it's square/rectangle.

I'll have to think about what barrier there is in my own mind that separates a game from a movie. Maybe there isn't really any difference. Especially as games advance and become so much more cinematic and focus on motion capture and all of that stuff. It's interesting, I've just never thought of it in those terms. And I think that's weird.

tragabigzanda wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:
Are board games art? Many board games fall under the same parameters you've listed.

Hungry Hungry Hippos is a goddamn masterpiece.

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a [sic] immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. — Roger Ebert

In a 2006 interview with US Official PlayStation 2 Magazine, game designer Hideo Kojima agreed with Ebert's assessment that video games are not art. Kojima acknowledged that games may contain artwork, but he stressed the intrinsically popular nature of video games in contrast to the niche interests served by art. Since the highest ideal of all video games is to achieve 100% player satisfaction whereas art is targeted to at least one person, Kojima argued that video game creation is more of a service than an artistic endeavor.

Central to Tale of Tales' distinction between games and art is the purposive nature of games as opposed to art: Whereas humans possess a biological need that is only satisfied by play, argues Samyn, and as play has manifested itself in the form of games, games represent nothing more than a physiological necessity. Art, on the other hand, is not created out of a physical need but rather it represents a search for higher purposes. Thus the fact that a game acts to fulfill the physical needs of the player is sufficient, according to Samyn, to disqualify it as art.

Interesting.

Thoughts?

Hell I don't know. I'm on whatever team thinks Rocket League is amazing.

durdencommatyler wrote:

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a [sic] immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. — Roger Ebert

In a 2006 interview with US Official PlayStation 2 Magazine, game designer Hideo Kojima agreed with Ebert's assessment that video games are not art. Kojima acknowledged that games may contain artwork, but he stressed the intrinsically popular nature of video games in contrast to the niche interests served by art. Since the highest ideal of all video games is to achieve 100% player satisfaction whereas art is targeted to at least one person, Kojima argued that video game creation is more of a service than an artistic endeavor.

Central to Tale of Tales' distinction between games and art is the purposive nature of games as opposed to art: Whereas humans possess a biological need that is only satisfied by play, argues Samyn, and as play has manifested itself in the form of games, games represent nothing more than a physiological necessity. Art, on the other hand, is not created out of a physical need but rather it represents a search for higher purposes. Thus the fact that a game acts to fulfill the physical needs of the player is sufficient, according to Samyn, to disqualify it as art.

Interesting.

Thoughts?

I will respond when I have more time but hoo boy do I intensely disagree with all that. I would go so far as to say all of them exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding of what games are, and can accomplish. "Winning" hasn't been the point for a long time.

tragabigzanda wrote:Hell I don't know. I'm on whatever team thinks Rocket League is amazing.

Rocket league is incredible.

The debate has raged for awhile. I'm tempted to say they are something new altogether.

But Ebert was way off.