FEATURE

The Art Of Gaming

Michael Thomsen's picture

By Michael Thomsen

February 8, 2010

See also:

Related Articles:

“Maybe we just have to do it and stop apologising for it,” Ian Bogost said at the opening night of the Art History Of Games symposium. The event, co-hosted by the Savannah College for Art and Design and Georgia Tech between February 4 and 6, was intended to trace the co-evolution of games and art. The centerpiece of the event was the presentation of three games in Atlanta’s Kai Lin Gallery by Jason Rohrer, Tale Of Tales, and the duo of Eric Zimmerman and architect Nathalie Pozzi. The only instructions were: “It has to be a game and it has to be art”.

The joining of 'art' and 'game' in a single sentence has often been the cause of debate and consternation. Before anyone can rightfully conclude whether or not games are art, John Sharp, Celia Pearce, Jay David Bolter, and Brian Schrank took the stage to trace their historical connection. From Roman frescoes to Rococo painting, they said, art has represented games as tests of manly skill to opportunities for flirting roleplay free of social consternation.

They went on to explain that in the early 20th Century the Dadaists applied a sense of play to art itself, putting urinal in a museum and reading nonsense under the guise of poetry at Cabaret Voltaire. This informed the experimental work of the Fluxus movement of the 60’s and 70’s with an explicit focus on interaction. Works like Yoko Ono’s Cut Piece and Robert Rauschenberg’s Open Score, show interaction becoming a major tool in modern art.

The first work of self-described video game art, they said, arrived in 1983 with Jaron Lanier’s Alien Garden for the Atari 2600. In the 90s there was an explosion of game art produced as game modifications, including Velvet-Strike, which replaced bullets for graffiti in Counter-Strike, Sod by Jodi.org, which stripped all the art out of a Quake level leaving only geometric abstractions, and Mary Flanagan’s Domestic, which uses the Unreal Engine to conflate the traumas of memory with escape from a house on fire.

With this history as pretext, the game designers were given the stage to match academic theory with individual works. Jason Rohrer’s game, Sleep is Death, takes aim at the idea of games as storytelling, to which so many modern commercial games are bound. The game is a networked experience for two players, one of whom is in a room acting as a “player,” while the other serves as a kind of storyteller able to add objects and trigger events in the room. The play becomes a narrative negotiation between the two players.

Rohrer’s game embodied one of the pervasive questions of the conference. If the expressive power of games lie in their mechanics, does the artistry lie in the performance of the player using those mechanics or the game itself? Henry Lowood, a curator at Stanford University, brought this point into focus when he showed a draft of the original 13 rules of basketball from the 19th Century and compared it with an image of Michael Jordan dunking. Does the creator of the ruleset deserve credit for the improvised beauty of Jordan’s play within those rules?

If games cannot be appreciated without the element of player performance, then how can they be preserved and presented as art in traditional museums? How do you curate a mutable performance? If art is about “viewing” and games are about “doing,” is there really a place for play in the museum’s white box?

Sixteen Tons, the work of Gamelab head Eric Zimmerman and architect Nathalie Pozzi, offered a response with the game presented as large interactive art installation. A board game played on a four-by-four grid with four pairs of knee-high metal pieces, the players' goal is for both their colored pieces to move to adjacent spots on the board, but they aren’t allowed to move their own pieces. Instead players are forced to persuade their opponents to move their piece using a provided sum of money.

The game is presented with heavy architectural elements, including a big circular barrier separating the play space from the rest of the gallery, invoking Johann Huizinga’s 'magic circle'. The game purposefully vulgarises the museum, conflating aesthetic beauty with industrial metal and color and demanding the exchange of cash in the reverent air of the gallery.

Tale Of Tales pressed in the opposite direction, laying out their philosophy in four simple declarations in bright yellow capital letters: “GAMES ARE NOT ART,” “ART IS DEAD,” “VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT GAMES,” and ending with “MAKE LOVE NOT GAMES”. To wit, its Vanitas iPhone/iPod Touch app presents players with a wooden box containing a single object that changes each time you open it. The items, like a playing card or a flower, can be manipulated and eventually respond to being handled, wrinkling, bending, and slowly decaying. There are no rules, backstory, goal nor plot. Change is the only reward.

This provocation points to another obstacle for both art and games, as neither has yet been defined to any general consensus. History provides a relatively clear understanding of what art has been, but that does not help to define what it will become in the future. “Even after sixteen years in the games industry I have a hard time articulating the feel of a game,” Harvey Smith, lead designer of Deus Ex and now working on an unannounced project at Arkane Austin, noted in the closing panel discussion.

Frank Lantz, founder of Area/Code and designer of Big Urban Game and Pac-Manhattan, entreated players to embrace the “wild strangeness of games”. The most pervasive problem in the gaming world is the attempt to squeeze games into the old lenses of generations past. He compared Nabokov’s romance with butterfly collection to that of Pokémon collection, not as a literal parallel but an attempt to re-emphasise our appreciation of games in terms of the experience they give players. “I’m less interested in what Nabokov brought to lepidoptery and more interested in what lepidoptery brought to Nabokov,” Lantz explained.

Likewise, the most interesting questions for art and games arise not from identifying their dissimilarities but by appreciating how long and intertwined their histories have been. In their own times, art and games have brought untamed discoveries and provocations to their audiences. To trap either in the rigid scaffolding of the past is to strip the life from both. Better to let each pursue its own way forward, and without apology.

Keeyop's picture

Isn't it just down to a personal interpretation of art and as such isn't it prejudiced by the self, is there then any value in trying to postulate a viewpoint onto a medium (or collection of mediums) that are open to a variety of interpretations both physical and philosophical, especially when said interpretation is based upon the evolution of art as form and not on the definition of what art itself inherently is?

As such is art defined by the ideal behind it, is it classed by the philosophy of the aesthetic or the wider axiology, is it defined by form and structure, or even just by approach and is it therefore right for any person to claim an understanding of what can or can't be judged as art. When there hasn't been a single person in history that has ever been able to give a conclusive argument for (or indeed against) any such definition?

Art itself is fluid and has changed over time, it's original definition as pertaining to mastery over a medium is almost lost to the point that when most people argue about art (or artistic merit) they tend to get bogged down in a semantical argument, based entirely on their own set of prejudices as perception is always coloured by personal experience.

Or to quote Novitz "the passionate concerns and interests that humans vest in their social life are so much a part of all classificatory disputes about art".

AndyLC's picture

When critics talk about art, they talk about meaning, emotion, feeling, their opinion on so and so, why this and this is and why that and that isn't.

When artists talk about art, they talk about where to buy paint for cheap.

I Am The Manta's picture

Haha too true. Art students, however, also talk about where to buy drink for cheap.

My degree is somewhat of a haze...

gavmoffat's picture

I really enjoyed Flower and have been thinking of giving it a second playthrough, but it's far too obvious a choice. It was created specifically with the purpose of being seen as "arty", and just comes off like a cliche as a result. Even the trophies are pretentious, "Return to the game after three minutes of contemplation" and all that floaty bullshit.

I don't think games should have to justify themselves the way they do to be seen as art. Remember the first time you ever clapped eyes on Super Mario 64, and saw a fully realised 3D world, oozing with character, life and wit. That's art. As is the first moments when you walk out on Hyrule Field in Ocarina of Time, a gaming moment that still sticks with me ten years on.

Or listen to the soundtrack of any game from the 8 or 16 bit era, then a modern pop / electro tune. Games' influence on art spreads far and wide.

99TEARS's picture

Oh dear. Here we go again. Another stupid Edge article. Don't be so bloody childish. You have to remind yourself that you are playing a VIDEO GAME and that anything experienced is constructed to make you play a game.

Ask an art historian and they will tell you this.

'L'art pour l'art' - Art for Art's sake. That's all you need to know.

Now put a videogame into the context of art and it doesn't work. You don't get videogames for art's sake - It's for entertainment/gaming and yes, let's face it LOW BROW entertainment presented in the form of a game at that. Don't kid yourselves on guys. I've been gaming for 24 years and I have the intellect to be able to appreciate them separately without fooling myself into believing that what I'm PLAYING is something else in order to make it seem 'more grown up' or 'sophisticated'. Articles like this are depressing to read. You should have the brain cells to differentiate between the two.

Now can we please bring our heads back to reality where videogames are and always will be classes as video games and if they ever infringe within the realms of Art it will never be art in the true sense: IT'S A VIDEO GAME!!!

VIB's picture

what a silly comment!

'video game' is just a label, like 'book', or 'movie'. take away the language used to describe what you're experiencing and you'll find that games are more similar than you think to all other mediums, and life itself.

Digitalis's picture

pretentious rubbish.

life itself? Do me a favour, since when has going round shooting a shed load of people been like life itself?

What a silly comment!

VIB's picture

yeah, because shooting games are the ONLY genre out there aren't they? that's ALL we're doing in games, just shooting stuff.

Digitalis's picture

Sorry me bad,

I often go jumping round platforms slashing stuff up with my girlfriend pulling me towards ledges.

Oh, I'm forgetting all the times I driven round courses absolutely smashing my car up and then just jumping a new one from exactly the same spot.

As I said, do me favour, games are nothing like 'life itself'.

idiot.

Digitalis's picture

Did I mention my other life as a ninja?

Or my other slashfest life as a demon hunter?

VIB's picture

whatever..

Digitalis's picture

Exactly.

Typical response from someone who has nothing constructive or intelligent to bring to the party.

99TEARS's picture

VIB, your comments are so vague you're not actually saying anything at all, which makes me think you have no knowlege whatsoever in any form of art. Give me an example of a videogame that you consider as a piece of art, describe your reasons as to why this qualifies it as art, place it within one of the forms (visual/performing/contemporary etc.) - Put forward some reasons to refute my points of view and maybe I'll know what you're trying to say here. Otherwise, your remark means nothing.

I'd suggest reading 'The Story of Art' by E.H Gombrich while you're at it... You might learn something.

VIB's picture

'Don't be so bloody childish. You have to remind yourself that you are playing a VIDEO GAME and that anything experienced is constructed to make you play a game.'

-a game is just a set of rules; those rules structure experiences. life also has its own set of rules, structuring our experiences. obviously it follows that the whole universe has physical laws that pull us all down, around a center. part of the rules of a video game are limitations; these limits can be spatial boundries such as locked doors, or level caps in MMOs, limiting the growth of a player for a certain ammount of time. there are also often temporal limits, especially in racing games or race sections in action-adventure games. in life, obviously there are limits too. money is a big restriction (but also allows for choice, and freedom), binding everyone in a contract that allows and disallows certain experiences, needs or desires depedning on the amount of money you have. games aren't in a vaccum. it's childish to pretend that they are.

Digitalis's picture

The men in white coats are at your door, get your coat.

Alex Walker's picture

I find comments like this really depressing. Why is 'it's just a videogame' seen as an appropriate fall back when dismissing games as art? You could equally argue 'it's just a book, 'it's just a film', or 'it's just a painting', and it's just as meaningless a statement.

Art can be a film. But not all films are art. By the same token, videogames can be art, but it doesn't mean Carnival Games qualifies.

The question of what exactly constitutes art is one that has been raging well before the birth of the videogame. But that's the beauty of art, it's different things to different people. Tracy Emins bed isn't art to me - it's simply my room, but in a gallery. But it is to Charles Saatchi, so fair play to him and Tracy. I'm sure they wouldn't see the artistic value of Shadow of the Colossus, so it's swings and roundabouts.

Also, greatest piece of performance art ever? Look no further

99TEARS's picture

Books are literature. Films are mostly motion pictures/entertainment, unless we're talking about 'Video Art', which is displayed as an installation within a gallery.

Videogames are not art. any mature gamer out there with a degree or profession within the arts will tell you that. I play a hell of a lot of games and I love them to bits but I have the brain cells to know that when I want to experience some real art, I tend to leave the house and check out what's going on... That usually means visiting a gallery or museum.

I highly recommend it.

I Am The Manta's picture

I have a degree in fine art, and regular exposure to the art community through my fiancé, who works in a gallery. And yes, I would agree that there are no commercial games thus far that could be described as Art due to many reasons, one of which is the factor of intent which you mention.

However, Alex is completely right that viewing games as a medium which is somehow artistically curtailed by its focus on play is ridiculous - of all the art forms (which includes Art itself), video games are the youngest, and the least fully explored. This to me would suggest a great deal of potential, and a need to maintain an open mind. And there are games for art's sake - how about Antonin-Fourneau's experiments?

Artists so persuaded began rejecting the idea of the artist as the sole creator in the 20s. Interactive art is a huge component of the art world, and when seeking to generate sensations or responses in a viewer, allowing them to become part of the piece, rather than a passive observer, is a powerful tool indeed. It is no less valid to assume that the Art world can learn from the games world's explorations of interaction, than it is to observe the games world's absorption of the aesthetic explorations of the art world.

UVA (United Visual Artists - http://www.uva.co.uk/) are a fantastic example of a collective who straddle traditional creative boundaries, working in multiple commercial industries as well as producing Art. I saw a brilliant piece at Belsay Hall's Picture House exhibition a couple of years ago: an interactive mirror that showed the ethereal reflections of people who had recently been in the room to its current occupants. A wonderful experience which responded to the space and required audience participation to exist.

Art responds to its time, and any artists today ignoring the prevalence of games - even if that response was ultimately a negative one - would be out of touch indeed.

In the wider scheme of the debate, however, the most important thing to realise is that saying something is not Art, be it a game, film, book or unwanted cross-stitched gift from an octogenarian does not mean that it is not artistically valid - Art and artisrty are two distinct things, and can be (though are not always) mutually exclusive.

99TEARS's picture

Antonin-Fourneau's knows that to present his work as art he has to remove it from the confines of it's typical surroundings (unplug, turn off, re-construct) and creates something which is then installed and presented to people within a gallery. It's really cool stuff but it's not a video game. It's still very much within a conventional artistic setting - i.e an art gallery.

UVA's work (as interesting as it is) is installed & presented within an gallery setting and is such, presented to the viewer as Art (Art for Art's sake). It's not pretending to be aything else. It's not a videogame.

Commercial videogames are not art at the moment in my opinion. They are funded by companies to sell by the droves. Rez, for example (a fave of the Edge staff) might look pretty but underneath it all it's an on-rails shooter and nothing else.

I'd be interested to hear your what fiance's colleagues think of this subject as my wife and I both work within the arts. It's a question that's been brought up with people over the years with a number of people I've met and I have always had a resoundly strong response to the question, it tends to start with a stifled laugh and slight look of disbelief. I'm talking about your Marios and your SNES games, Playstation 3 and commercial mainstram videogames, or even the odd bizarre ones like Flower. I don't want to start banging on about which curators, artists, technicians and various gallery staff I am referring to but believe me there's not a soul I've met in over 10 years that believe that videogames are in any way an art form yet. Not at this present moment in time. They have a long way to go in the eyes of the developer and publisher before that happens.

Mooks's picture

This is a fascinating discussion. From my un-art-educated perspective, there seems to be some disagreement introduced by a person's understanding of the word art itself. Some may think that art is something that provokes emotions and stimulates senses and that poses intellectual ideas such as social commentary or questions of identity, for example. In this case then many forms of media fulfil the concept of art, such as music, literature, film - and possible "games". Others seem to only consider art as something that fulfils some or all of those prerequisites, but with the additional constraint that art can only be art - as in your quote - Art for Art's sake. In which case then, as you comment, these pieces need to be installed within the context of an artistic setting - i.e. an art gallery.

This leads to some interesting questions - well to me at least, that you may be able to answer for me. Using the urinal as an analogy - assuming you accept this as a piece of art - then in its "natural" setting it is clearly only something functional, but when abstracted to the context of an art exhibition, where upon it starts to fulfil some of the above constraints, it becomes art. Could this be the case with games? A game itself is not a piece of art, but what if it was used as part of a piece of art within a gallery or exhibition? Although the game itself was not art, could it become part of art?

This then leads to some other interesting questions. What if a game was specifically created as part of an art exhibition, and was accepted as such within the confines of the exhibition? But, now, what if that was distributed and became popular as a "normal" game? Does it lose its artistic quality once it is removed from its setting within the exhibition? But if this is the case, why does a sculpture or painting not lose their notion of art once they are purchased (perhaps even mass purchased if they are prints) and installed in a person's (or peoples') home? Is it because games would have the other function of entertainment, whereas a painting, for example, is still a painting? But then the whole point of the game in the art exhibition could have been a comment on interactive entertainment - and some paintings could be said to be entertaining in some sense. Furthermore, many historic paintings (such as portraits), which are now accepted as art, were not designed for an exhibition nor designed to make social commentary, but have only taken on this quality when we look back in hindsight. So do these paintings not start life as art, but only become art when they are put in an exhibition or we deem them historically important? Is the notion of whether something is art or not that transient? If not, should not this hypothetical game still retain some sense of its roots in art wherever it is? But if these paintings are always art, regardless of the intentions of the artist, then are games not also art?

Incidentally, of course those within the art industry are essentially the arbiters of what is and what is not art. However, historically many of those within the art industry (the vast majority in some cases) have been, shall we say quite elitist, when new art has been created - but which has later on become widely accepted - and been very resistant to this new art initially. As such, I think we should always bear this in mind when someone in the art industry scoffs at something that could potentially be art.

So are games art? Well that certainly depends on the definition of art for one thing. I am very much undecided myself, but I think whether they fit the definition of one word is of much lesser importance than whether they contribute something to society - whether that be by improving our brains, by making thought provoking social commentary (something I would like to see more of), or by being beautiful and provocative in an emotional sense, or whatever. To my mind, I am not particularly worried whether they become accepted as art by the art cognoscenti, after all we have seen already that by some definitions books don't - but books are clearly worthwhile - I am more interested in whether they can be taken seriously as a medium in their own right. In this sense, I think there is a long way to go, and not every game will be socially important, as not every book is, but they are certainly on the right track in many ways.

99TEARS's picture

Mooks / I Am The Manta - your posts make great reading and It's refreshing to read threads ike this in the Edge forums for a change... If only the articles were as well written as this!

I love Duchamp. He once said that artists and art are basically subjctive and relative and hence meaningless but nevertheless he maintained his interest in what was really and radically new but by the 20's he renounced all artistic activity and devoted himself to chess at which he became a master. In short, he replaced his obsession with art and focused the remainder of his life to something we refer to as a 'game'. He never intertwined the two and I doubt he would have with videogames either ;)

I Am The Manta's picture

Whilst I disagree with your comments about Edge Online's writing (the quality of the articles here is no different to those in the mag, and both are my primary inspiration for journalistic writing - had get that off my chest :-D), your Duchamp observation is great. I think that's checkmate.

Perhaps Duchamp would have preffered Archon..? ;-)

I Am The Manta's picture

@99Tears
Absolutely – this is where I agree with your consternations that games aren’t Art. Their commercial & entertainment intent, no matter how noble the creator’s original intentions, produce a disconnect from the notion of Art that cannot be bridged without amending your priorities (as evidenced by your observations on Fourneau and UVA). I am very much in agreement with you here, and I can’t overstate that.

However, something does not have to be in a gallery to still fulfil the tenants of being Art. My counter example to the Rez problem would be Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller’s walks (http://www.cardiffmiller.com/artworks/walks/index.html). I wrote about these for my dissertation, and I was very much enamoured with their deliberate attempts to remove art from the gallery setting. They have used the format of an audio guided tour, and changed the context of the reality you walk through by ‘dramatising’ the soundtrack. There are a great many parallels between this and Rez – both are ‘on-rails’, yet interactive experiences. It isn’t too big a leap to imagine Rez being created from the outset as an installation in a gallery (of course, this boat has been missed, but it could always be appropriated in a wider piece). Then from here, considering Cardiff and Miller’s work, it is not impossible to imagine them creating an on-rails game with similar artistic intent.

I’ll have a word with Lotte tonight about the subject and report back what she says.

@Mooks
Couldn’t agree more – the elusive world of Art is perennially fascinating, but so bloody hard to pin down! :-)

There are many examples of games being transferred, out of context, into the gallery (many listed in the article these comments reside below), and I think your distinction between games being part of a piece of Art, and not necessarily Art themselves is spot on. Of course, that doesn’t preclude anything from changing in the future, but at the moment, I think that’s the stage we’re at.

The question of editions (and commerciality) is an interesting one. The clearest parallel is Warhol’s explorations of print. In this context, he used the degrading nature of copies as part of his Art, and explored what it meant to remove the exclusivity of a piece. In doing this he appropriated technology and ideologies from other sectors, but the overall consideration of his work remained above the commercial possibilities.

As for hanging a reproduced painting on your wall, I don’t think a print of, say, the Mona Lisa is art – it is simply a reproduction of it. The original painting is the work of Art, but it should be borne in mind that it is Art from a very different era, and so not necessarily comparable to Tracey’s bed or Martin Creed’s light going on and off (though of course, art history informs contemporary art always).

But, to get to the point, I don’t think that something being massively reproduced necessarily degrades Artistic integrity, as long as that reproduction (commercial or otherwise) is part of the art work itself.

“In this sense, I think there is a long way to go, and not every game will be socially important, as not every book is, but they are certainly on the right track in many ways.”
Spot on :-)

VIB's picture

i went to an exhibition in liverpool last week ('space invaders' - it was mentioned on EDGE a while back), and they put 'flower' in an art gallery! i thought that was just silly. that doesn't make it art to me.. just sticking a downloadable game that i didn't consider art anyway, in a dark gallery room.

Alex Walker's picture

99Tears. So books are literature. But what is literature, but the art of the written word?

Why do you feel that video art has to be displayed as an installation within a gallery? Uploaded to Youtube, or released on DVD, does it lose it's artistic status? I'd certainly argue the case of Koyaanisqatsi , wherever it's viewed.

Galleries and museums are places where artistic works are collected. That doesn't mean that it has to be though, as people like Andy Goldsworthy show.

Wall_E's picture

Games are not and never will be art. Games are entertainment, nothing more, nothing less...

greedo1980's picture

I find the Birth of Venus say.. or the Mona Lisa... or any piece of art you care to mention to be entertaining to some degree. So that cant be art either by your reckoning.

The length of time I spend thinking about the piece of art afterwards is how I can tell if i like it or not.

So if to entertain is to stimulate the senses then what is it that happens in your head when you look at a piece of art, if not that?

VIB's picture

'Wall_E' won't be able to reply because he probably hasn't given it as much attention and thought as you. people like that just go around closing things down with 'controversial' statements and then have trouble explaining afterwards.

cockbeard's picture

Maybe one of the reasons games aren't accepted as art is the amount of stimulus provided. An image can be diluted by accompanying sounds, so with the amount of sensory input generated by games it must be difficult for many to ascertain the intention of the piece. How many movies are actually accepted as art? Yes they are seen as a valid entertainment medium, but high art? I think very few, with this in mind I don't think games fare badly in comparison, especially given the relative ages and breadth of output between each medium

VIB's picture

yeah i agree. entertainment is always often towards stimulation and 'stuff that happens', with key intentions of suprising, shocking, making laughter or sorrow etc.

art often has more concrete, isolated ideas that the form is used to express; minimalism for example.

I Am The Manta's picture

Couldn't agree more - and the same is true of most music, novels, poetry or any other 'artform' that isn't expressly concerned with being Art.

VIB's picture

that's an incredibly close-minded attitude...

I Am The Manta's picture

That entirely depends on context - urinals are for urine, nothing more, nothing less... ;-)

michael_sylvain's picture

If they're designed well, they're artistic urinals! Who was the artist that hung up a toilet in an exhibition in the 20s? Manet even painted them.

Even if the function is practical, it doesn't mean that the form can or should only be seen in terms of its use. Really: lampposts in Rome; Wallpaper by William Morris; Houses by Lloyd-Wright. Lemon-juicers by Stark. Design (and sometimes, therefore, art) is about combining form and function, about having art in one's life rather than saying it only exists in museums and galleries.

I Am The Manta's picture

That was my point ;-)

Fountain was a ready-made by Duchamp. He signed it 'R Mutt', a fictional name, and it ironically came to signify modern art - he was attempting to undermime it.

michael_sylvain's picture

Hurrah - always pleased when i miss a nuance in public! Also: thanks, I've been trying to remember who it was for the last two days and failing - it was an excellent piece of art that was, as you say totally misappropriated.

Lalian's picture

Well just read an article about the same thing in gamasutra and there seems to be a bit more life in the comments over there.
To bring a bit more life here, I will carry on from the great last comment I am the Mantra.
Well obviously the statement that games are not art, was made to ignite discourse around the subject. At the end of the day, it will come to trying to define what art is, then defining what that means in context of the history of art, and find that art has never been, it just is. Art changes from creator to subject (audience).
A piece of clothing might be considered classy and arty in one part of the city, whereas it might be considered as trashy and out of date in another.
It has to do with the expectations as well as the sensibilities of the audience. Also the delivery of the creator will influence how the audience perceives it.
Anyway at the risk of repeating a summarized version of what people already know or at least have been discussing elsewhere, I ask what would be your favourite "game as art" existing or make believe.

For me one of the closest ones that spring to mind at the moment is 'Flower'.
Ideally I would like a game which gave you a 3d world, and allowed the audience to change that world into one of their own. Not like ‘Little big planet’, which gives you a blank canvas, with tools to fill it with, but an already populated world such as ‘GTA’, and play around with the already laid out rules, machinima style, but in a simpler, more user friendly way.
Who says that art cant be easy and pop? Look at Banksy

I Am The Manta's picture

I started writing a response, but it became so long, I turned it into a blog instead :-)

The short answer, though, is that I agree with you entirely that Flower transcends most games from an artistic point of view. I would also offer Small Worlds in answer to your question - it's a brilliant flash game that is almost entirely experiential, and seems to deal with similar themes to Flower.

Here's a link to the game:

http://armorgames.com/play/4850/small-worlds

haraldderhammer's picture

It's sad in a way that not more seem to be interested in this topic, as it is quite a big one considering that videogames have yet to be accepted as an art form and as soon as they will be (I hope that someday this will happen at least) there will be a lot of great new opportunities for overlooked game designers out there.

The main difference between something that is considered art and something that is not is that art is man-made, culturally defined and essentially dependent on creativity, understanding and interpretation respectively. Anaïs Nin stated that “we do not perceive things as they are, we see them as we are”. According to dictionary.com, art is “the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance .” Most people will accept this definition with regards to movies, music or literature, although the same definition can be fully applied to what many videogames are – interactive stories brought to life, with the help of thousands of pages of extensive and well crafted artworks or storyboards drawn before, sometimes very complex narratives represented in form of a script, animated sequences to support the storyline and the art of putting everything together in a way an audience will find appealing. Since these creative processes are similar to the way movies are made, music is composed and books are written, videogame-design already can be seen as art. But we have to consider that art is unfortunately not only defined by the artists or people who like arts, but also by businesses and markets. Sure, there is a huge market out there for videogames, but it stands on its own, whereas the movie industry is almost declared divine by some like Roger Ebert (which is perfectly fine, I love movies as much as videogames). Replying to a post on his webpage rogerebert.com (2008), he said that he was “prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful, […] But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. “ This was quite an ignorant thing to say in my opinion, but others might disagree. Regardless of this, it shows that videogames are still in the process of becoming an accepted art form. It took a long time for people to accept moviemaking as an art, and as we are surrounded by a plethora of established art forms, many refuse to see the need for something new, something as much an art form as videogames are. Ebert went on by stating: “I believe art is created by an artist. If you change it, you become the artist“.

What the bloody hell would be wrong with that?

I Am The Manta's picture

Great points!

I think I agree with Elbert to some extent though - by way of games' primary intention (ie: to entertain, rather than inform like art), they are 'disadvantaged' when it comes to being elevated in this particular way.

Also, there is a difference between an 'art form' and Art. I think games (and all of the creative fields that combine to create them) are widely considered to be an art form - I certainly wouldn't have any hestation in saying so. But I don't think there is a game that could be described as a piece of Art yet, though some have sailed close.

Alex Walker's picture

I'd say that Shadow of the Colossus is nearer to art than Tracy Emins messy bed. I'd disagree that art necessarily informs too.

greedo1980's picture

Yeh but you cant say something isnt art just because you dont like it. Granted Emin's work is ugly stuff, it moves some folk. I'm not one of them either.

michael_sylvain's picture

I agree about that art doesn't necessarily inform, but I'm not sure Emin belongs in any conversation about art. Unless it's one about the fundamental shallowness of britart...

I Am The Manta's picture

I think is seeks to inform, regardless of its success in doing so. A response to any kind of input is an interpretation, and if that interpretation sheds new light on something, the viewer can take something away. But you're right, it's not a constant.

Unfortunately, the art world hasn't done itself any favours by remaining so insular for so long, and the YBA explosion, whilst initially positive, eventually left a bitter taste in the mouth - the hype and celebrity was a little crass. But Tracey's bed is underrated - if you haven't already, it's worth reading some of her essays.

SoTC is just utterly, utterly wonderful. I spent so many hours just looking around that world and letting the loneliness seep into my bones. It is certainly more traditionally 'artistic' than the unmade bed, but I would feel uncomfortable defining it as 'capital A' Art. It is certainly one of the pinnacles of gaming's endeavour to evoke complex emotional responses though - my entire 2010 is planned around buying and playing The Last Guardian ;-)

I Am The Manta's picture

A very insightful piece. There are also, however, yet more subtle intersections, that are often lost in the literality of ART and GAME. Two examples:

Duchamp, mentioned above, designed the 1942 'First Papers of Surrealism' retrospective exhibition in New York. He filled the space with a huge web of string which criss-crossed the entire gallery space, making it very difficult to see the work - here, part of the art's context was the removal of the ability to view it, and, for those brave enough to venture into the space, an upheaval of the normally refined act of promenading around a gallery. In addition to the string, he arranged for several children to occupy the space, kicking balls around and playing with skipping ropes.

Rirkrit Tiravanija is similarly interested in the subversion of the gallery space, but not from a surrealist perspective. In his 1992 piece, 'Untitled, (Free)', he stripped all of the building and placed the entire contents of the gallery (including the owner and her desk) in the front space. In the back space, he set up a kitchen and cooked food which anyone could enjoy, at no cost, whilst admiring his collected 'ready made' installation. Over the course of the exhibition, the gallery was frequented by both regulars and many newcomers (including homeless individuals who were grateful for the sustenance) and was effectively inverted, physically, socially and functionally.

Both of these pieces explore the perceived austerity of the gallery, illustrating that whilst it can be a static experience, interaction and playfulness are staple components of art, contemporary or otherwise.

VIB's picture

absolutely. play is central to any definition of art.

Digitalis's picture

What about the classical form of art? the painting. not much to play with there.

VIB's picture

hm.. but the definition of play changes. video games are based around hands-on physical play (the gamer's method of interpretation), while thinking and being affected by the painting is the play of ideas and feelings, or how the piece manipulates those feelings.

but i was thinking more of the process of creating art, rather than the finished thing. the process involves a lot of playing and experimenting with ideas. the process of playing a robust video game with a lot of options is pretty similar.