Video Games and Art (Video Games AS Art) (and so on)

i think i am ready to agree that games can have an impact on your mind / imagination / etc. but so can things that are not defined as art. so is that the best way to approach it i wonder?

from a strictly experiential point of view, i'm trying to think of a work of art that i "use" in any the same way as a video game. ie, i play it over and over again until i "beat" it or "make it till the end." the first part, definitely could apply to records, but it's the sense of "completing" the work in an active way that i get stuck on.

although theoretically that could apply to my effort to finish ulysses or moby dick, haha, but i don't think those are typical cases

what about a TV series?

I completed Twin Peaks
*achievement unlocked*

re: rhythm games, rez was mentioned a few times.
re: chess, in their pursuit of winning, the players reveal the sum of their philosophies on the game, maybe life -- it's totally an expressive act, it's that expression that's compelling about it. same with hot dog eating contests at the top level.

same thing. nothing i do changes the input the tv series gives me. xxp

re: chess, in their pursuit of winning, the players reveal the sum of their philosophies on the game, maybe life -- it's totally an expressive act, it's that expression that's compelling about it. same with hot dog eating contests at the top level.

― Philip Nunez, Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:08 PM (37 seconds ago) Bookmark

i agree it's an expression of something (most likely skill), but not all expression is art, surely you agree with that! is football art? is sex?

Maybe not the way YOU do it. ;-)

lol

http://www.five.no/sandra/records/images/ArtOfLove.jpg

i've been thinking about my attachment to the idea that games are explorations of rules systems whereas art isnt and i start thinking about like, how certain paintings are exploring the 'rules' about academic painting and modern arts own deconstruction of the 'idea' of art &c &c and so while its sorta frustrating to be unable to articulate clearly how different they are i just don't xp games the way i do art, i don't think of these as fundamentally trying to do the same things, as operating within in the same set of values. i can 'get' some of the same things out of games that i do art, i even think games are capable of the kind of transcendence that art is, that games can help create connections btw things, illuminate the world and how i move in it &c &c but they're working the same to those ends?

The category of narrative games confuse this conversation in that they are so clearly analogous to other narrative forms. Those games feel like a movie with a game scattered around it, but those are increasingly what people think of when they think about games because they dominate the marketplace, and are the games that nerds tend to want to defend ... not because of the beauty of their systems but because of the stories they tell.

its all bioshocks fault really

well in wtv modern art we're talking about, it's the artist who is really exploring those rules, the viewer doesn't really experience that in the same way, can't make choices about what "happens" in the painting

The category of narrative games confuse this conversation in that they are so clearly analogous to other narrative forms. Those games feel like a movie with a game scattered around it, but those are increasingly what people think of when they think about games because they dominate the marketplace, and are the games that nerds tend to want to defend ... not because of the beauty of their systems but because of the stories they tell.

― polyphonic, Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:16 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark

i agree, but i sort of see them like the uncanny valley animatronic dolls of narratives, ie they kind of look and feel like movies but you know on every level that they're not, no matter how "realistic" they get

and i think they exist because of that anxiety about games as art/entertainment

i agree, but i sort of see them like the uncanny valley animatronic dolls of narratives, ie they kind of look and feel like movies but you know on every level that they're not, no matter how "realistic" they get

Is Polar Express a film?

i definitely think there are (narrative) art-like things that are crucial to a lot of games, like setting/character/goals, that make games more than just complete abstract rule-play, but i think they're just there to make us more comfortable in the ludic experience, not to be the experience itself

Is Polar Express a film?

― polyphonic, Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:19 PM (39 seconds ago) Bookmark

yes—sorry, i didn't mean because they're VISUALLY uncanny valley, but the way they act as narratives is somehow incomplete & unsatisfying

and i think they exist because of that anxiety about games as art/entertainment

I don't know about that. Narrative has been a part of gaming since Zork at least, long before this art issue became a thing.

from a strictly experiential point of view, i'm trying to think of a work of art that i "use" in any the same way as a video game. ie, i play it over and over again until i "beat" it or "make it till the end." the first part, definitely could apply to records, but it's the sense of "completing" the work in an active way that i get stuck on.

although theoretically that could apply to my effort to finish ulysses or moby dick, haha, but i don't think those are typical cases

― we're up all night to get (s1ocki), Wednesday, June 12, 2013 2:05 PM (14 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

it's funny u bring up sex bcz i was gonna make a jerking off joke here, and then realized i was only half kidding

like what i talked about in the uncharted thread a billion years ago, you go from a cut scene where one guy holding a gun is enough to stop your hero, to a scene where you fight 100 dudes with bazookas like it's no problem, it's that disconnect that makes the narrative seem false

I don't know about that. Narrative has been a part of gaming since Zork at least, long before this art issue became a thing.

― polyphonic, Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:21 PM (26 seconds ago) Bookmark

see what i said two posts above this

I definitely like your way of thinking about it, slocks, I'm just not sure I agree.

see what i said two posts above this

Yeah I should've read xposts before I replied.

Most of the connections I feel between "experiencing a game" and "experiencing a work of art" come from a life-long immersion in so-called "absolute" chamber music, i.e. Bach and Palestrina and Boulez. The work is a) interactive, b) entirely mathematical with no reason for existing except "the glory of God" and "I need to pay my bills" and "technological expansion of musical/game language" i.e. self-expression may exist but it's not the m.o., c) it conveys at the best of times a glimpse of purity that is otherwise alien to the human experience

explain how bach is interactive?

That was an xp to Lamp, btw, wrt to "transcendence", kind of exactly what I expect from my art

I play Bach

but the way they act as narratives is somehow incomplete & unsatisfying

But being incomplete or unsatisfying doesn't mean that they're not narrative. But I agree that they're often window dressing for the ludic experience.

whoa slocks, i dont think theres any argument that playing bach is anything but interactive

Re: Bach, I think sheet music is an interesting comparison. The way my mom played Bach vs. the way Glenn Gould played it could not be more different, within the parameters of the text.

The necessity of an audience is a moot point, too, as many canonical pieces were designed for the player alone. Audience has been grafted on afterward

games don't create emotional responses in me

― we're up all night to get (s1ocki), Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:38 PM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Not even frustration at losing? 99% of video games will frustrate the 99% of possible players within the first 30 minutes of play, usually resulting in colorful vocal inflections. Have you never fallen down and endless pit and cursed at the screen?

have you ever reacted to art like that??

i have never yelled at a movie because i somehow failed at watching it!

I remember the first time I saw the Mona Lisa, I fell down an endless pit and cursed at the frame

which brings another topic: you can objectively say that one player is "better" than another at a game. can you say that about the viewer/reader/listener of a work of art? doesn't that fact alone mean we're talking about two very different things?

whoa slocks, i dont think theres any argument that playing bach is anything but interactive

― O_o-O_O-o_O (jjjusten), Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:25 PM (3 minutes ago) Bookmark

i'm talking about listening not playing. like i said, if you wanna argue that as a video game player, you are an artist, i'm all ears! but i'm dubious.

I remember the first time I saw the Mona Lisa, I fell down an endless pit and cursed at the frame

― they are either militarists (ugh) or kangaroos (?) (DJP), Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:29 PM (57 seconds ago) Bookmark

irl lol

"if you wanna argue that as a video game player, you are an artist, i'm all ears!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daigo_Umehara

have you ever reacted to art like that??

Yes one of my earliest memories of being an artist was creating a collage out of construction paper and then getting frustrated with it and immediately destroying it. And plenty of artists have a love/hate relationship w their work.

Also you could ask the audience that nearly rioted during the premiere of Stravinsky's "The Rite of Spring".

Playing a modern game is both an active and passive experience. Performing music is active, and listening to it is passive ... although if you're performing in a group you're performing and listening simultaneously. Theater is probably a better analog for video games than film, in that sense.

which brings another topic: you can objectively say that one player is "better" than another at a game. can you say that about the viewer/reader/listener of a work of art? doesn't that fact alone mean we're talking about two very different things?

My mom was definitely better at playing Bach than I was. On the other hand she would suck at Trials HD.

you can objectively say that one player is "better" than another at a game. can you say that about the viewer/reader/listener of a work of art?

ha isn't this the entire enterprise of ILX?

xp I stand by my architectural analogy but don't disagree w/you

Art History buffs can look at a piece of minimalism and understand it in the appropriate context, whereas your average person may look at it without that specialized knowledge and completely fail at interpreting it. You can be objectively better at interpreting art, and you can be objectively better at interpreting the patterns of the eagles in Ninja Gaiden.

you really think you could OBJECTIVELY measure how much better someone is at, say, watching an episode of degrassi than someone else?

s1ocki I feel that the keystone of your "not art" argument is the requirement that the viewer be entirely passive. A situation where the viewer is entirely passive. That situation is limited to film and television. Every other form of art requires that the audience-- the entire audience, at least some of the audience, or a performing body-- take an active role.

Some people are better readers than others, too, "fourth grade reading level", "eighth grade piano", "twelve level sorcerer"