Are Games Art Chat Log (or: Miyamoto: Our Chaplin or Our Winsor McCay)

Well, let's bring this conversation to a crawl and take time to listen to our special guest.
Dr. Henry Jenkins is the director, coordinator and visionary behind an interdisciplinary
program in media at M.I.T.
Hello Dr. Jenkins!
So, why don't we let Dr. Jenkins share some basics with us about HIS philosophy of games and art.
So, why don't we start with some definition of what we even MEAN by art.
I have written an essay which draws on Gilbert Seldes notion of the lively arts. for him, the function of art is to enliven human experience
So, I think enlivening the human experience is a good start.
It's certainly better than not enlivening the human experience.
as a def of art?
I think focus and perspective have a place in the definition, too.
But let me leave room for Eric to respond before I harangue you.
How about accessibility? Is art something that can strive as a mainstream object?
Something created that moves you in some way.
For me, art is a category that can be framed in many ways.
By strive, I mean thrive. Oops
The question of "games and art" is really about jostling for position within a hirearchy of cultural categories.
I think art is anything that has less than four explosions per minute.
I am a former art student, and "artist."
absolutely art can and should be accessible. that was Seldes's point. art isn't just what happens in museums. it is what happens when everyday people are encouraged to play with the materials of their culture
So I'm not getting down on the category or art.
Ah, so on some level art MUST be participatory, right?
But "art" for me really means the institutions and audiences that engage in the culture of the "high art" world.
Seldes was arguing well before his time that comics, jazz, cinema, were art and we don't question that conclusion today
Thats actualy a pretty good definition of art that encompasses all mediums
Visual art as it is today is largely as it was several centuries ago, which is home furnishings for rich people.
the danger of defs of art that attempt to be inclusive is that they widen the category out so much it takes in everything and becomes meaningless
eric, i don't think we should accept the art world's judgements at face value.
But most people that use the category "art" in questions of "games and art" are really talking about culture that can produce meaningful experiences.
Which is an important question.
True, but we can look to Installation, Performance, and conceptual art to get a better representation.
But my beef with the whole topic of this discussion, is:
that's what art means in art school but if we accept that definition, then most of us have little or no exposure to art.
Art is about the artist's process and inward journey. After that, the finished product, and who can say what the response will be?
Why posit "art" as the category of meaningful experiences.
?
It is such an overdetermined and misunderstood category.
yet for that reason, there is cultural power behind the category.
There are better models for what kinds of meaningful cultural ecosystems popular culture can take.
Of course it is a misunderstood category. Art cannot be measured.
So what you're asking is, why do we have to define something as 'art' before we say it's allowed to be meaningful?
And that is where I agree with Henry's point of departure in his investigation of popular arts.
i would argue that claiming for games the status of art offers some protection for the creative integrity of game designers
Cannot. Agreed.
I would say, as a game designer who is looking to shore up the cultural category of games -
Claiming games as art also suggests the need for reflection and discourse about them.
That the category of art does as much damage as good.
i don't think calling games art is the only meaningful defense of the medium. clearly i see it also as political speech, as an educational platform, etc.
That something is "art" signals that it has cultural acceptance, and since we all love games (I assume) we strive for cultural acceptance.
so calling games arts validates connoissieurship about them?
but why cede the category of art when it clearly has a value within our culture.
Because it is like the term "serious games."
in some contexts, rex.
Much of art is not "culturally acceptable" to the mainstream.
What we all want is not to be geeks, but to be art appreciaters...is that it?
It somehow tries to eschew the pleasure of games, their popular roots.
So to say that games are art means a) that they are on par with other "fine" cultural forms and b) that what we are doing personally is really important.
There is pleasure art isn't there?
i have no problem with being a geek. geek is one subcultural identity. but i think much of what geeks like is art.
That is usually what journalists mean when they ask me the questions.
Well, Henry, I feel like we are chasing each other around in a circle.
there is "fine" art and there is "non fine" art also
that's why i see Seldes' term, lively art, as valuable. it allows us to acknowledge that the popular arts operate according to different aesthetics and in different institutions than high art
I understand the objection to the pretentiousness of art, but I think there is a necessity to elevate the conversation beyond speaking of "just games."
I just feel like, first, that the category of "high art" is ALREADY today a problematic and somewhat dead category.
What if we were to define "art" as "any craft"?
It's not pretentiousness.
Pretentiousness is great!
keep in mind that i see comics as art, cinema as art. the question is whether we see Shigeru Miyamoto as important an artist as Alfred Hitchcock? My answer is yes.
I'm really talking about strategic deployment of cultural categories.
"High art" does sound like "boring" a lot of the time - there is a lot of energy in the feeling of being a "geek" as Henry says, and being not-art.
Yes the idea of high art really ended in the 60's
OK, Henry.
I would agree with that.
Why do you see those popular media as art.
Or, in what sense are they "art" for you?
* SantiSiri has joined #gamesandart
I think that part of what makes high art "the other persons" art is the inaccessability; that is to say, that only the artist and a few others truly appreciate multiple depths on that particular piece of art
Didn;t most art foms, that have been elevated start as popular media?
because they provoke strong emotions, because they encourage the imagination and playfulness, because they teach us to see the world in enw ways
new ways
So that is the "meaningful experience" angle on what "art" means.
Good point, Mckee
because they address core concerns
heh -- some would say that is what _separates_ them from the high art tradition!
See the world in "new ways" is what I meant by focus and perspective at the beginning.
Hello Everybody (sorry I'm late)
Yes, I agree that games need to speak more about the human condition.
as long as we don't reduce meaningfulness to a literal level. purely abstract works can be meaningful.
(abstractly or otherwise)
it seems to me that art is often valued on the depth of the intellectual experience it provides, and games appear -- to many people -- to be shallow in this respect. maybe because there aren't enough experts dissecting these games and telling us philistines why they're important
I think thats why its important to elevate games to and art status.
White Rabbit, I think you're on to something. We don't take matters seriously without criticism.
so far, for me, games have come closest to arts when they haven't been driven towards photorealism. but then i suppose i have a bias towards the fantastic and the expressive in media.
can you have art without good critics? is that like a tree falling in a forest...
part of Seldes's project was to take apart the idea that art had to be 'sublime'
Photorealism comes with alot of restrictive baggage.
There are some games that are quite visually realistic but still very artistically executed, though.
I think when games are overly focused on photorealism, they lose focus in other areas
But what exactly is "intellectual level" - is it the amount of information you need in your head and the amount of thought requirred to put together an experience inside?
but the idea that playing games gives someone that jolt of sublimity seems to be reintroducing it
Photorealistic games seem to be the action-special-effects-laden movies of our time
in a concealed form
Photorealism takes us back to Renaissance painting in a post-Impressionist era.
in other arts, realism is an aesthetic choice. if it were so in games, i could admire game realists. when it is a technical imperative, it can be a straight jacket.
Exactly
OK, let me try and make a connection here between the discussion of the definition of "art" and the photorealism issue.
Well, then again, I am unsure even how to tackle the topic of 'photorealism' because it depends on the experience you're trying to convey as being like real.
i often argue that high art is defined by the desire for emotional restraint, popular art by the desire for emotional intensity
Where does consumer demand fit into this?
Have you heard about the "Immersive Fallacy" spoken by Frank Lantz in this year's GDC rant?
Has anybody heard of the film-makers pact called "Dogme 1"? It is to create films with no articifial lighting or additional music. It thereby focuses soley on the story
Most games are the action-special-effects-laden movies of our time. Whether they're photorealistic or cel-shaded.
However, I think we've veered off the question of art and started speaking of artistic representation.
Yeah Santi I remember that
that idea is key actually
What happened in the art world in the 20th century, among other things, is that art gave up its role as a literally representational medium.
Is the ART the experience of playing the game and reflecting on it or how the subject is handled?
both
Eptin: this seems like a judgement call saying only the story has meaning and value but the music does not
"intellectual level" -- i don't know -- games often appear to engage participants on a strictly visceral level. play doesn't seem to be as closely tied to personal reflection of the experience as, say, reading a book does
Dr J, I am not sure how you seperate the two
You can't. It's organic.
Photorealism has nothing to do with the core beauty of games as art... Games are About INTERACTIVITY in its core, NOT about visuals
Sometimes the way things come together creates that sublime moment, particularly with music.
The trend towards thinking of computer graphics as on a quest for increasing realism is related to a naive understanding of "art" as based on the Renaissance window of pictorial representation.
It's not necessarily my view; mainly it's a venture taken on by Danish filmmakers as of late
i think games more often achieve art through shaping our emotional experiences and through play but i would love to see them reflect a bit more deeply on their content.
we should talk about Realistic Interactions NOT realistic visuals
HL2 was pretty well received for a game that was mostly visual.
yes I mean, art 101 here -- there's nothing 'realistic' about realism.
realistic interactions are problematic too
So a discussion of games that tries to bring them into the realms of "art" for me is a parallel naive track.
Agreed Eric. Could games be more baroque?
character AI seems to depend on suggesting things to the user that aren't actually being simulated
Realistic interactions are great, much harder to get than realistic visuals though, particularly realistic interactions with a story.
I'm not disagreeing that the approach Henry takes to defining art is an important one.
a baroque games is a game with complex rules?
even in Facade where the AI is complex much of hte experience is crafted by idiom
But most people's associations with art - particularly game developers - is quite flat-footed.
Santi, you're right. If we focus too much on realistic interactions, we can become obsessed with the physics of the transaction as opposed to the motivation of the transaction.
I don't think its in the rules, but the approach to content creation
Eric, what do you mean by 'flat footed' here?
check out Angela Ndlianis on games as a baroque art. it goes much furtherthan just complex rules.
In the 20th Century, most media and art forms spoke about their own status as constructed images and experiences.
Painting became about paint, among other things.
After Duchamp, it is difficult to hang onto pre-20th Century ideas about art.
Abstraction
I'm not saying Henry is, but
That's a pretty broad generalization there, cowboy.
a discourse about "games as art" tends to go in that direction.
Isn't that what you and henry are kinda doing in a sense?
So in that sense, "art" as a cultural category becomes an impedement.
Not because art in the philosophical sense is a wrong way to think about game design
But because people's associations with the concept of art are so old-fashioned.
that's why i am trying to seperate our notion of art from our notion of realism. games may be an expressive art like dance or architecture which has nothing to do with reproducing the real world
Yes, and I will give up this line of ranting for the sake of the conversation.
indeed, but a lot of games are not
Apologies for making my point too strongly.
henry: yes.
I think the art market is more to blame for art for art's sake than artists.
nope -- Eric, you are making an important point. to call for games as art is precisely to challenge the category of art as it is widely understood
I thought the art market was about art for money's sake.
The art market has been around since the notion of "high art" formed in the early Renaissance.
i simply think we should build on the way other popular media have been defined as art.
dude Romanticism as a whole is guilty for that one.
Henry, I more or less agree.
But that's a subtle meme to get out there.
There is so much art.... Highbrow to lowbrow. It's all happening at once. Art is actually in pretty good shape I think.
the danger though is that the narrow definition of art will get imposed on games. that games will become pretentious and lifeless. that the only games regarded as art are done so because they are novelistic or painterly. etc.
YES!
I think the point about architecture and dance as art is an important one. They resemble nothing of what the layman thinks of when he hears "art".
I think that most people _still_ don't think of hip hop or The Sopranos as art.
Exactly, "art" games are art because they are recognizable as such
Another beef with the category is that it often means games imitating "art" forms.
or for that matter, cinematic or literary
only professors who have been disabused of these pretensions think that
I am a modernist, in a sense
if games are to be an art, it has to be on their own terms, because they do what games do well.
I think there was a big "games as art" moment with the interactive CD-ROM games of the mid-1990's.
That I feel there are forms games can take that are more game-centric
That owe more to the essential nature of games.
ok, games imitate other arts due to its infancy... Just like movies imitated theater
that's why I always raise Miyamoto. What makes him an artist is what makes him a great game designer. it is hard to read him through standards from other arts.
Where games tried to be many things that they weren't in order to be more highbrow.
Yes, Jesper, good reference.
Games are art because a game designer is an artist. Just like in filmmaking, we say that the director is the artist.
Good point, SantiSiri
Eric, I don't know of anyone who is trying to design games AS ART. ART is recognizing a vision once it's been expressed.
Myst?
it's also hard to read Miyamoto as a game designer in the traditional sense
Myst is what came to mind for me too, heh
Misappropriation of the word aside, isn't the concept just made irrelevant by your definition. When people rightly establish that art is not just something that looks like a painting but also basically anything and everything you want to apply it to, what are you saying when you say games are or aren't art? Not a lot, it seems.
Yes, Myst...
MYST isn't a game. It's a semi-interactive explorative experience.
Actually, many developers talk about wanting to make their work more like "art"
But I like Myst anyway.
myst was reviewed in the NYT book review, praised by literary critics. it is the game most loved by people who hate games.
What would it take for Myst to be a game?
but it IS a game
I'm going to a workshop on game design this weekend in Austin, and the idea of games as art has been all over the pre-workshop email list.
what they were responding to was its literariness -- that and it's Rembrandt lighting and texture
How can it not be art? Games are full of art.
And most hated by people who love games.
lets confess something: everyone wants to be an artist... It feels so damn good
I think they were responding to the low learning curve
do we have to debate the definition of game as well?
so meaningful
I am a reformed artist.
the same way people respond to the Impressioninsts, e.g.
Workshop on game design in austin this weekend?
I do not hunger after the category of art or being an artist.
I kind of see Myst as influential, however, there are a lot of games that did things AFTER it that reminded me of it. And that's not really damaging.
As am I.
Sorry, I was being provocative. Didn't mean to disrupt about MYST.
and i am a reformed art hater. nothing like a convert...
I am much more comfortable as a designer.
I am a reformed literature student.
well, designer's just a modest term
at least as I see it
A broad definition of art is not as bad as broad definition of games I think. Art will not get meaningless by saying that cooking is art or building houses are art.
i got tired of the art students kicking sand in my face and insisting that what they liked was art and what i liked was crap
You can only be an artist in the same way you can be a thinker. To be one all you have to do is say you are one. It has no palpable effect on anything though.
eric, what defines a difference between DESIGN and ART?
I got tired of the conventions and neuroses of the art world.
"Design" is another broad and vaguely defined term that gets tossed around pretty loosely. :)
Oh thats just us being insecure.
There are many ways to frame such complex terms, but...
I think design is a subset of art.
design doesn't necessarily have cultural significance?
I would say that as someone that has inhabited both categories.
Henry, so there is a question of having our personal tastes be accepted?
Everything is a subset of art. That's the problem.
Design has, if anything, more cultural significance.
Being an artist is more about expressing ideas, or expressing aspects of the artist's self...
while design is more about problem solving.
These are not hard and fast categories.
yeah. Ever tried writing a fugue?
So, design is a methodology and art is a statement?
good point Eric.
Clearly no to both, Dr J
saraid: i disagree. as a programmer, i design programs for a living, but i don't count that design as art
But look at what Target has done with the word "design." Those Michael Graves potholders aren't just problem solving.
but couldn't methodology be directed into statement?
but isn't it dangerous to think of games as design, then, if it means that designers don't aspire towards expression
I consider my code to be artful.
White Rabbit: You mean you've never spoken about "elegant code?"
what do games resolve then? from a design perspective
So, Art as an acceptance of games. Isn't that almost exactly why we're having this chat?, finding some excuse or way to get games accepted?
can't we reason that methodology is a process by which reason and meaning can reach an audience?
sure i have. i just don't attach cultural significance to the code i design.
There is an aspect to design in games, obviously. Because games are incredibly difficult to make. And until they aren't it will always be a more complex combination of the two than anything else.
for me, it's more than just about acceptance. it is about creative freedom on the one hand and artistic responsibility on the other
You have to wring this 'art' out of an inherently logical and structured process.
WhiteRbbt: the cultural significance is the weight of culture on your creation.
Henry, how can defining games as art or speaking of them as art help us with such things as the Limbaugh decision?
And also, granting to games the political protection that a form of art is granted, I'd say
I guess as long as we talk about "art" in a vague and broad sense, as "meaningful" or "elegant" cultural expressions, then certainly there is art in everything, potentially.
limbaugh's core argument is that games are not protected by the first ammendment because they do not express meaning.
I have no interest in cultural significance. I just want to make games with more disgusting aliens. Artfully, of course. ; )
he can make this claim because most people do not regard them as art or for that matter meaningful on other levels
So, if there was more dialogue and criticism about games as art, it would undermine that decision?
Disgusting aliens are culturally significant. =P
art benefits by including as much as posible but games benefit by drawing a line (somewhere). Games can therefore be included in the art definition but not the other way around
That's why I prefer to think of it in terms of the sociological or demographical or economic or institutional manifestations of "art"
many reformers feel that even if they are wrong about games causing violence, they can subtract games from our culture without loss.
I recall that discussion in Michgian vividly, heh
Games express tons of meaning. Unfotunately, right now, it tends to be very base.
that because the games industry is not asserting a positive value for games. they are simply arguing that games aren't as bad as you think they are
McKee, yes.
It also seems like "games as entertainment" conflicts with "games as art"
The one about 'if I'm wrong more kids will play outside, if you are wrong MEN DIE'
Popular games are base because that's what sells, of course.
Henry, here I totally agree with you that games should be considered on par with other forms of media, art, entertainment, and expression.
Scott, it shouldn't.
the first ammendment doesn't require profound meaning. most media start out with base meanings.
One thing I wonder a lot is if game designers are worried or feel the need to protect their rights for freedom of speech.. if games are art, and have cultural relevance.. it should be because they can speak about powerful things... Yet Not many games talk about social changes, patriot act or whatever
How about the flip side to the discussion: What would we lose if games were more widely sconsidered "art"? Street cred?
eel: exactly
at some point in the history of cinema, people were arguing they were just chases and pies in the face.
Like I say. Eventually those base impulses will be burnt into insignificance and that's when people will start demanding less obvious things. The usual process.
Do we see games speaking about social issues? Speaking "for the people"?
Decades.
or is it just plain entertainment?
I don't see why art can't be entertaining. I think Shakespeare is wildly entertaining.
One difference between games and cinema is that games are ancient.
sjs, no art and entertainment are not in conflict. not if your definition of art includes the idea of stimulating the emotions.
Thousands of years old.
The comedies, anyways.
That is one thing that complicates these categorical discussions and comparisons.
and play is much older than that
again it is because our inherited notions of high art come with a degree of emotional distance that these categories are so often placed in opposition
Eric: I think cinema is the wrong comparative term there.
"High art" also has a retrospective quality to it.
Jesper, you study games qua games.
Do you think that considering them as art affects their scholarship?
the theatre, and even simply fiction can be viewed as the ancestors of cinema
games as games are ancient. games as a mode of expression through digital media are new. we are back in a category confusion here.
Unlike Henry, you are not coming at games from a training in another field.
Scott: There are two reasons why cinema has relevance. One, it has been transformed by technological shifts. Two, it is driven by the bottom line and built by studio efforts.
i am certain that the expressive potentials of games are well established but we are still learning how to play games through this medium.
Yes, Henry, that is a great point.
Scott: Maybe even a third--cinema didn't get much respect until recently.
The main thing about trying to define games, art, or design, is that
I think the outsider status of games makes them interesting - how can we discuss the potential of games _without_ trying to frame them as "almost as good as movies"?
Let us remember something very important:
Game development is closer to the evolution of cartoons than of films I think.
The definintion depends on the frame we consider them, which depends on the point we want to make:
Cinema got to wait 40 or even 50 years till they got mature technology such as color and sound film
So trying to use the "art" category forces us to make comparisons that may not be helpful in describing what games are best at doing.
And we are still using a mouse and keyboard to interact.
defending a medium to congress, or solving a game design problem, or doing comparative scholarship
As an art strongly dependent on technology, games are facing that same need of technological maturity
I am not saying games are almost as good as movies. Take this back to my claim that Miyamoto is as significant an artist as Hitchcock.
Game evolution will come in how we interact with them, not visual stimulus.
That's why the question "art games art" can't be answered without better defining the question.
Or perhaps: What type of answer would we like?
OK, so should we narrow the definition of games to "digital games"?
42
A binary one.
heh
are we asking "are games art" or are we asking "why aren't games considered art"? is there a single person here who disagrees that games are art?
OK: 011011
as a medium, games has as great or greater potential than cinema. yet it is fair to say that artists are still learning core properties of their medium and may not have yet fully achieved its potential
lol
I think games are about 6 art, personally.
I'm playing Cost Of Life right now and I'd have to say that the game is art - its art because I'm FEELING it, thats a quality beyond words, this coming from a guy whose undergrad is in English
most social questions cannot be answered without defining the question to specify the answer we want given
Thank you Faith.
I feel like someone got my point.
Just that a comment like Dugan's illustrates what I mean.
indeed
We can say that art = good.
But I don't think that furthers the dicussion.
Not that Dugan's comment isn't great
art as a category is good. not all art is good.
Also, we can further define the question:
becuase it demonstrates the depths of game experience.
"good" is subjective
good point henry, finally someone said it
and 'good' is still an incredably subjective measure
art is good is just a bend of art is sublime...
Not just "Are games art?" but also "Are games currently art, or will they be art later?"
it's the same thing
well, to further things, lets talk about the simulation gap
"are games good art?"
I would much rather say "games can be art".
You have to seperate out the determination of taste somehow.
is art defined by the process of making games or by the final product?
which is the renaisance definition, and we're back at the beginning...:P
simulation's edge on passive media is the embodiment of feedback loops and dynamics
Saraid: I agree. Games CAN be art.
Well whether or not you think any particular piece of art is good may also be a matter of your aesthetic
I think I'd be a pretty good twist if it turned out that art was games all along wearing a Scooby Doo style mask.
no -- games are an art form. some games achieve the potential of that art form better than others.
We could also try to discuss specific games: Myst is clearly a pretentious game that aspires to be "art". I think Galaga is a much better game, that does not aspire to be "art". How do we deal with the question then?
Point, Henry.
I like Jesper's direction.
Feedback loops? talk to DXarts about that, they know it's art.
Jesper, are you saying the game aspires, or its author?
Perception counts for more than aspiration.
Henry: what do those more-artful games do that the less-artful ones dnot'?
Myst is a pretentious game because it aspires to an artifical notion of what art is that is imposed on games from the outside
the gap between a dynamic and its representation is profound, and its within this gap that the play can be coaxed into an emotionally (in the art = good sense) and cognitively (in the sociologicla sense) significant experience
Art lies in the intention of the author
Has anyone played Pathologic?
The authors - "the intentional fallacy" speaking.
and is aspiring to be art thus pretentious
Long shot but it might just work.
Henry: and Galaga?
you can't evaluate something without understanding the aesthetic context in which it operates
great art, is defined by its authors: Beethoven, Shakespaere, Kubrick
the intention matters
auteurism is another important sub-topic
Games are art if the designer and crew create it with artistic sensibilities in mind (in practice!) rather than commercial ones.... There's going to be a trade off though.
i don't know Galaga well enough to speak definitely but my bet is that it acheives art by being true to its medium and by making sense to the community that it is addressing
I'm fairly sure some of those didn't define as art but as 'what will get me paid this week'
Intention is key.
Galaga is definitely those things.
Galaga was a further exploration of the "Space Invaders" style of games, or the shooter genre
Galaga is beautiful design
Actually, intention is a fairly outmoded way of defining cultural categories these decades.
Galaga is evolved design
Is it?
I'm finding in the development that I do that the real quality develops through collaborative sharing of the creativity
YES.
in some cases, as Eric's games demonstrate, simplicity and clarity may trump pretension.
Faith: games that aren't done for play's sake, but rather for money's sake, aren't art?
How so?
Damn! I'm trying so hard to be pretentious!
all art is produced in an economic context. being made for money doesn't disqualify something as art.
At its core, it's capitalizing on a successful template for game design
I wasn't saying that - I was responding to the suggestion that whether they were art or not depended on the intension of the author
Not all art, but most art. Paradise Lost wasn't written to be sold.
I saw someone playing Galaga today and I was struck by the beauty (I would use that word) of the movements of the aliens, and by how it manages to generate memorable and unique play sessions in the very tight space that is the arcade format.
Art is in the eye of the beholder. :-]
Or the historian ;-)
my sense is that most artists/designers work with a mix of economic and aesthetic motives.
Art is more about the artist's inward journey. The way an artist thinks and gets lost in the art he or she is creating. Beyond that, it is out of the artist's control, and the artist usually doesn't care about it anyway.
Or the pretentious academic :)
The arcade format isn't all that restrictive.
have to keep us fed somehow
This group has proposed easily 50 definitions of art so far.
Perhaps one question is:
lol
So to push a traditional idea of "art", Galaga is an amazing work within the restrictions it faces. (The arcade format being very restrictive in the time it can allow the player to play.)
What is at stake in defining games as art or in comparing the two.
I can't speak to Milton but much religious art was shaped by a system of economic patronage. researchers looking at the contracts discovered that Mary's dress was a particular shade of blue because this was an expensive pigment and the patrons wanted to see their money on the canvas. they also stipulated when the paintings had to be completed -- i.e. a ship date
good question Eric
Government funding.
That's about it.
what is at stake? call me a souless husk but I think it boils down to marketing
and thats my god honest opinion
Eric: Nothing? Everything?
Part of it is legislation of culture.
lol good one
Context of Paradise Lost was Milton's government getting demolished.
Henry has taken part in those debates.
I don't think he had funding.
much of this function's aim, overall, is to help build momentum for a market for "art games"
we're playing the same game that's been played with every new medium of expression
actually, dugan, it is also about giving designers greater clout in dealing with marketing.
Another is the growth of the game industry.
Dugan: Freedom of expression is definitely at stake.
It can be fun to watch a skilled player execute a good session of a well-programmed game and that in and of itself is a kind of performance art
Even your question is a broad one.
Eric, I think that part of it may be simple realm of possiblity.
cinema for example produces prestige films which don't make as much as blockbusters but generate other rewards for the studios.
Expanding how games are funded, who plays them, and how they are considered within cultural history.
there is no such thing as a prestige game.
true, I believe marketing starts with design, so if you set out to make "art" you should have specific audience needs in mind
Maturing games as a medium
I know that in some discussions it has been suggested that art is that which is aesthetic. So, if games are art, then that is a claim that games can be aesthetic.
By questioning game's role as art, we also question the freedom of expression within games
I wish that there were the equivalent of film grants, festivals, and investors in games.
to let games communicate powerful ideas
Or maybe you just don't hear about them because there is no audience for it.
*ahem* macarthur grant *ahem*
The fact that film is considered fine art means that people with money will fund films they know will probably make no money.
That in pat allows for the independent cinema industry since the 70s.
that's true
ahah!, that's useful
Changing the perception - games still suffer from the 'games are for children' (and 'art is either for adults or otherwise good for you TM')
Yet, there is already a hierarchy of game taste. It often begins with various Japanese games on top and ends with First Person Shooters and matching tile games at the bottom.
I have spoken to many of those people about investing in games.
the french government has started to embrace games as part of the national culture.
They don't play games.
Yes, Canada too.
and they are starting to fund them as part of their creative industries policy.
of course, the french also think jerry lewis is an artist so that may not be much of an indicator
movies, in their origins where an superficial entertainment focused on fancy visual FX, just like games today
Eric: That will change in time.
So that is one concrete set of concerns that might result from considering games as art or not.
The Republic of China is also investing heavily in game development.
what about casual games as a way to wedge open the market, thereby creating more niches for art?
But is is not about abstract philosphical discussions defining art.
In that case, art is a cultural category defined by money and institutions.
so Eric
But I guess the two overlap...
casual games as haikus, beautiful small games
China's investment is more complicated -- they are interested in games as a political and educational tool more than as a form of art
I'm very interested in funding from the indepedent film community
If the investors and goverment officials didn't think that games were art, which is meaningful beauty, or whatever...
how receptive is that sector?
they wouldn't invest in the first place.
Art has always been used as a persuader. Propaganda for example. Advertising. Religion.
better defining games as art will further our enjoyment of them
Henry: I was speaking of RoC, not PRoC. They are certainly building plenty of incubators.
i don't mean to say art can't also be propaganda or education, only that the discourse is different.
So "games as art" _and_ government funding will likely come from some hierarchy of game genres. The governments will usually not put money into games they are assured are not like the violent games they heard about.
Eptin, better defining games will do that.
You can leave art out of it.
Agreed.
Since we've already, inexplicably, discussed Galaga in the context of art, what about Fahrenheit. In a way it is a good representative for the French view of gaming. Visibly striving to be art.
(Sorry: I mean that governments will usually _only_ put money into games they are assured are not like the violent games they heard about.)
so we risk that, once we define games as art, what we will get is a myrriad of high quality japanese shmups?
isn't part of the solution simply pushing the medium forward through design?
in many parts of the world, governments are funding games to build up digital industries, which is again different from funding them as part of their arts policy
Samorost.
It was more of a response to the comparison of "Casual games as haikus"
and isn't part of the solution merely a time game?
So, here's a question that I think we've touched briefly on above: what are the consequences and advantages of defining games as not-art?
Games will become more and more accepted as younger generations grow into adulthood.
Yes, Henry, it's important to note that governments have many interests in games that do not overlap with the "games as art" question.
I don't think casual games are haikus at all.

has anyone played the "Super Columbine Massacre RPG!"?
So, should a developer apply for an NEA grant?
I think I'm responding more to the US independent film investor situation, in which the glamor of the industry and the idea of funding significant culture are the main moticators.
(motivators)
casual are to big games, what poetry can be to novels
so there is potential there?
Casual games are "fast food" games.
I agree with Eel.
but...what is significant culture when it comes to games?, games that are like Myst?, or the japanese games Jesper speaks of?
novels are read by geeks in their basement, and poetry is read by middle-aged moms?
Unfortunately.
Casual games:"Big" games::Short stories:Novels, not Poetry:Novels
or what?
well, yes, most of casual games are quite lame
Poetry implies that you are creating a short experience that can be just as powerful as something drawn out.
Not all things that are quick are not-beneficial
different versions of big macs
But fast food can be DELICIOUS!
Casual games are however accessible to people who don't understand 'big' games
(big macs = tetris bejeweled, etc=
lol True.
I like the short story analogy
most console games are quite lame...
But is fast food culinary art?
=P
aha!
Great analogy.
since providing a good content spine is essential to presenting the $20 value for a casual game conversion
Why is a cup of tea (same amount of time as fast food) so highly rated in comparison? Casual games have simply not matured yet
Though a lot of people don't understand that casual games are games. Like a parent who plays 4 hours of solitare a lot but finds his son's 4-hour WoW habit harmful
For the high culture chef, fast food is not art.
I find the crunchwrap makes for excellent munching
For the cultural historian, absolutely.
For the consumer who has had a sublime Big Mac experience, why not?
Well, is food art? What ideas does it express?
I guarantee you that the team that came up with the Chalupa poured months of design work into it. :)
It depends on why and how you ask the question.
After all, doesn't Galaga take up the same amount of time as any modern day Casual Game?
and for a cultural studies type, the question is to understand the criteria by which we judge a Big Mac as opposed to a Whopper
Yes, always the meta-question...
Eptin: good point
or as opposed to beef orange
have casual games replaced arcade games, in a sense?
as opposed to clockwork orange
Someone said the arcade format was restrictive because of its time constraints
In terms of the "pick up and play" appeal
Casual games have the same constraints
whether games are an art is not a yes and no question. it depends on whose asking from what framework in what context for what purpose
YES!!!!!!!!!!!!
If Casual Games are too large, they are no longer casual
hehe
Thanks, Henry, for stating that so well.
So, let's skip beyond the abstract question and move to examples. Henry: What games have you played that you MOST consider art. Then, let's let Eric reply.
they come midway between solitaire card games and the arcade
Games are art because they are made up of graphics, sound design, animation, writing, architecture, music, acting, all of which are "arts." Many would say that programming is an art, and there is a common notion that design is an art. So, art + art + art + art = art. ; )
Is the core of the issue not that rather than sitting around wondering whether games are not art or are art or are 63% art, the only way you can actually answer the question is to locate and hold up the Kubricks and Shakespeares and so forth as examples rather than wait for someone 40 years from now to look back and say "Hey this was pretty good but nobody cared!"
finally something concrete ;D
I'm not sure Galaga is it.
art, marketing, industry, design.. are just lenses to perceive the same thing, games..
i have already suggest Miyamoto. Super Mario Brothers remains the work that got me excited, really excited, about games as a medium
Casual games don't have to end in three minutes so someone can put in the next quarter. That's the difference. There is no economic pressure towards making the play sessions be very short.
Actually, I think what I said was silly but hey, go for it!
but there's economic pressure to extend a play experience.
for me, it explored unique possibilities of games -- the idea of spatial exploration, of expressive architecture, of an immersive microworld, of imaginative desgin
Miyamoto does not exactly need holding up. And the problem with Miyamoto is that while his design and structure are impeccable, he doesn't say a whole lot.
Nor does he care to.
Henry: How specifically did SMB affect you and influence you?
beyond the first hour of Diner Dash, I feel economic pressure to pay PlayFirst a tenner
No economic pressure for casual games, but they often resemble each other (in amount of time to consume them)
'say' a whole lot meaning the game has no deep message?
What he does say is airy and nebulous, I love that guy. (Miyamoto) ; )
It taught me a way of feeling, a way of moving through digital worlds that i have never experienced before.
miyamoto is our Chaplin
Meaning that he fails the definitions of art thrown around here except in the basic sense of I am playing game gosh isn't it exciting.
it isn't about making a comment about our reality -- it's about teaching us what it would be like to inhabit a different reality.
Mario is the train coming at the screen.
even the moustache of mario looks like Chaplin´s vagabond
miyamoto is our Winsor McCay.
lol
yeah
That's a good comparison
Heh
For me, perhaps the most "beautifu" game is Go. But it defies many of the categories of art that we have discussed this evening. There is no author. It is a folk game, rather than a designed experience. And it' status as art comes more from the ways it has existed within culture, and built up cultures and rituals around it, than from the rules of the game itself.
in that case, comics achieved some of their greatest work within the first decade of their existence.
and games may have done the same.
Sorry, Henry - didn't mean to step on your discussion of Miamoto.
In some senses they have. People are working backwards all over the place
Eric: but of course, that's only one lense of looking at it, right?
I thought that had ended.
no -go for it, eric
Yes, SJS.
I don't think that's true, elegance is interesting from a design perspective, but art and design are different in subtle ways
Okay. Good.
If we're talking about the contexts in which art "happens," then folk art is just as interesting as "high" art.
I'm not sure I think of games I like as art.
absolutely
Go is a good example of that.
Doom 3 is worse than Doom because rather than single-mindedly setting out to create the most powerful experience games are now hampered with needing to be legitimate.
do most people regard comics as art?
after a while, does all art just become material history?
comics artists do
I think Alan Moore's work is art
some more than others
How about you, Jesper? What game would you consider art?
just like game designers regard games as art..
I mean, "art"?
so do comics readers. so do the french, who keep poping randomly into this conversation
Material history? You mean no effect on the current culture (looking backward through history here)
true. the french truly love their B.D.
?
OOH!let's go there!
I suspect it depends on the comic - it again splits into the 'casual' comic and the epic
No.
Bandes Dessinees are HUGE in France
lucky luke, asterix
in a way that comic books are not in the US
Speaking of DOOM, Egglet, the main rationale for the content was that they had gotten a lot of complaints from gamers about killing the DOGS in Wolfenstein. They tried to figure out what people wouldn't criticize killing and came up with demons. People still criticized.
manga in japan... anyone?
many of us regard Jack Kirby to be a great popular artist, too, SJS
Eric, in a personal perspective there are some games that I pick up and say to myself "yes, that's the stuff" - I had this experience recently with New Super Mario Bros or, say, Super Monkey Ball. That is not "art", but art in a very craftsmanlike way.
I like lowbrow, It's a movement. It started in the 60's and is still going strong. Here;s an older example by Robert Williams. Is it art. Yes! http://www.digital-eel.com/blog/images/enchilada_xl.jpg I want to make a game that looks like this.
For me, Wolfenstein 3D was art because it was the first game that put a gun in my hand and made me look a 2D guy in the face while I pulled the trigger.
So Jesper, you also seem to want to resist the cultural category of art/
But why?
To be perfectly honest it'd have been better if they hadn't made Doom at all, if the legacy of it is anything to go by. But at least it's a lesson learnt. An obstacle passed.
(I share this instinct)
Facade, Planescape: Torment, the Columbine RPG, Ian's airport security game in a slapstick kind of way, all register as art to me
Doom is art. Gorgeous. Moody. Strange. It looks like dog poop now but it was arty in its way I think.
Eric, I used to study literature and show off quoting T.S. Eliot's The Wasteland ("April is the cruelest month"). In a way I find it very refreshing not trying to pose as an "educated person".
Planescape: Torment definately - but that had a very cinemagraphic feel in how the story played out
It seems unfair to say a certain work shouldn't exist because it spawned bad imitators.
I've got some bad news for you, Jesper.
Planescape as art?
You're not fooling anyone.
how related are the ideas of games being "art" and games being "fun"?
( and some good imitators )
Games are a way out of pretentiousness.
Go Jesper!
Damn!
A man can only hope.
:D
And I thought I was entering a pretentious field.
Jesper: Just because you're like a patient etherized upon a table. ;-)
so the reason so many gamers resist a discourse about games is art is that they want to remain primatives.
but isn't that just another artistic pose?
You are. It's just that there are the pretentious ones and the less pretentious ones.
Coming from the "Art" world I feel that games tend to have the same level of pretentiousness.
Whoa now hang on. That's a horrible generalisation.
bit surely that is one of the points of placing games in the 'art' sphere - it gives us leave to be pretentious about them ;-)
It's because people have very idiosyncratic and personal ideas about what "art" means, Henry, both positive and negative.
What about art and immersion?
A lot of people resist talking about games as art because they feel there are a whole boatload of more pertinent issues.
i am just responding to this fantasy of escaping art, escaping pretension.
That is why I try and stay away from the term.
They just pwn it more.
Henry, just so you know - I embrace pretentiousness.
So I don't fall into that camp.
I think people who think there are a whole boatload of more pertinent issues are like my pretentious friends who don't "read fiction."
isn't that a little dangerous?
Eric, I mean
but the reason i like this question is that it forces us to re-examine our assumptions about what we mean by art and also to re-examine our assumptions about the cultural status of games.
I'm not saying games as art is not a legitimate question. But it isn't really one that is going to directly impact the quality or content of games. It's a question for people who study games, not people who play games.
I suppose in a way it can be liberating to not 'have to be art,' if, for example, you just want to make a game about blowing things up and don't feel like you should be held to artistic standards.
Immersion happens in a lot of artistic forms, true.
Henry, which question?
The "I don't care whether my music is art" is just as well-defined a pose of course. (Sometimes means: "Please say it's art. Pleeaase".)
are games art?
Ah.
Yes.
Good point Egglet. Defining games as art will have little initial impact on the gamer
Of course.
That question.
People will make games and they will put their souls into them. Before the commercial industry got going they were doing it much more honestly than now.
games and music... united by the word play
Egglet -- no. I think the discourse of art impacts consumers when we have critics who can help people develop an appreciation of innovation and experimentation within games
And theater, Santi.
hah, Santi, you've hit on something significant
right saraid
You can only develop an appreciation of innovation when you know what is not innovative.
I think play is the universal medium
And games were always commerical, just like all forms of mass media culture.
i think that having cinema studies classes helped to create the market for independent cinema by exposing people to a broader range of what cinema can do
the pure proof that games are Art Patrick :)
And until everyone plays enough games, that won't happen. The cycle.
Dr J, I need to go soon.
Henry: Well, since that was our goal at CGW in the old days and we lost out to the PC GAMER mentality, where can this criticism REACH the consumer?
me too
How do we wrap this up?
What IS the forum for criticism?
We vote.
play, such a beautiful word... and not as bastarded as art
Until there is enough experience to form cliche, how do people know what is cliche at all?
lol
We vote on, "Are games art?"
Jesper, that's a great suggestion. A vote will surely solve the debate for all time.
lol
right now, blogs are probably doing the best job. I've said before that the folks at Penny Arcade are doing the best criticism to date of games as a medium
Can I put in a write in vote for Mickey Mouse?
fuck yeah! GAMES ARE ART.. they where meant to be played with the soul, just like we play music
recently Jerry suggested that Television has been displaced as a dominant medium
although then we get back to the 'are online cartoons art' ;-)
I'll be Diebold. The votes are in and games are art.
I vote YES
I vote NO NO NO NO YES NO NO NO SOMETIMES NO.
I vote for Zimmerman.
hahaha
Eric, you've voted for Pat Buchannan
My chad is hanging.
Thank you, Henry and Eric. This was a stimulating free-for-all and I hope there are no bruises.
this balot is just too confusing.
Excuse me!
Games are pwonkenfojel.
The way the PA guys write also influence at least my personal play/purchase decisions way more than any magazine review, because the critique is stronger
I think that the amount of academic criticism coming out is helping establish games as something at least worthy of discussion.
good point jesper
This concludes the "formal" discussion.
Discussions like this one...
why are discussions like this one important? (real question -- i'm not trying to be an ass)
Wow. I was waiting for a formal discsussion.
Did it happen?
Eric, you blinked.
for a formal discussion, it was certainly informal.
Oh wow, has it been an hour already?
and there is a strong incentive to study games in academia because then we get to play games at work
PA write incisively but they don't represent anything but they don't forward any particularly unique view. They are very much commenting on their own flow down the river rather than resisting it with regard to WoW and such.
was this discussion art?
But are we just discussing the inevitable? Is this discussion just a symptom of an unstoppable tendency of games becoming more and more high brow and in the end, "obviously art"?
That sentence sort of exploded. I'm too tired to think.
The "" were supposed to indicate that I wasn't serious. ;-)
heh
most likely
This discussion was important because it helps the people who are trying to support games understand what the hell they're talking about.
I think so jesper.
the votes show games are art, don't they?
see ya, folks.
incidentally, South Park is now on in the EST time zone
* HENRYJENKINS has quit IRC
Later Henry.
We, the people, declare games to be art.
Thanks for coming by Henry, Eric, Jesper.
I thought this discussion mattered because it gives Manifesto games some marketing content.
:-]
Heh
Well there's that.
And we ALL are putting our stamp of approval on Manifesto, implicity.
* ALR has quit IRC
A lot of games are not art. Some games are art. I reckon about the fastest way to make more games art is to point out the ones that are art.
Are games art
It would have, but Henry said Penny Arcade did better criticism.
garfunkel?
Hello, fellow pawns.
Heh.
Jesper, you never said your big joke!
carney?
You missed it!
Gentlemen, it was a real honour.. let me invite everyone for the after-chat at GAMESAREART.COM !
Ees gud revolutionary deescussion for Manifesto.
I'll be fielding a comment
* DrKL has left #gamesandart
Art games art?
Arf.
Thanks to everyone for the discussion
Games are art because the designer is the artist. As I said afore, like in filmmaking: the director is the artist. The vision=holder, the shaper, the ultimate crud filter.
No I invite everyone to disagree at GAMESAREACTUALLYNOTARTATALL.COM.
Arrrr games arrrrt?
sometimes its best not to take oneself too seriously
Thank you for your tacit approval, Eric.
only pirated games arrrrr
*lol*
(Although I wasn't sure if it was over I'm saying that now since some people are leaving!)
arrr
Puzzle Pirates is definitely arrrrt.
I think the only real constant is that games are art unless they were designed by the programmer in which case god help us all.
hahaha kind regards from argentina to all! cheers
* saraid wonders if /me works.
Cheers!
later Santi
Good night.
so Eric, you never answered my question about indie film financeers being interested in game projects, I'd appreciate your take from your experience
Great talk!
Good night!
Egglet: No, games are art unless they were designed by the MARKETING department.
Cheers for this
Is that Patrick Dugan?
Marketing isn't art?
yes sir
Games are art if they have been selected by a curator.
Who else would it be?
The one I inadvertently dissed?
Marketers will says its art.
I'd agree but you clearly haven't played enough freeware.
haha
(sorry about that!)
and the possibility always exists for them to be used to make art after they have been released
We can talk about that offline...
hey we're in the same business
THe investor question I mean.
After your fifty seventh inexplicably awful platfomer you might rethink your opinion.
I have an "s" problemsss.
I have to go finish my laundry and pack for a trip...
* Lady_Stereo has quit IRC
Good discussion, though we had some issues with the turntaking.
SIMs may or may not be art but it has been used to create art
It's IRC.