default header

Theory

Can Cutscenes be Art?

Moderator: JC Denton

Can Cutscenes be Art?

Unread postby Codiekitty » 04 Mar 2008 22:25

http://insomnia.ac/commentary/for_artfags_only/

icycalm wrote:So which kinds of games are art then?", and the answer to that question should by now be obviously, "The good ones."

...

Well, the hoopla is due to the fact that practically everyone who writes about games today is a slobbering, uneducated, mentally retarded fuckwit, and therefore incapable of grasping the simple facts I just explained here.


Well said, friend.

I've played five games that get hyped as "art": Shadow of the Colossus, ICO, Okami, Killer 7, and Rez. The only one of those I would even give a thumbs up to Okami, and even then it's only a mild one.

Shadow of the Colossus looks like shit, has the worst camera I've yet dealt with, seems to build it's hype entirely on the size of the some bosses while ignoring the bosses look like giant teddybears and don't really do anything menacing and many of them aren't even that big, and its riddled with cliches from the "big reveal" at the end to how you beat the first lion to the game's fucking name.

You'd have to be missing a chromosome to be stumped by most of the "puzzles" in ICO.

Okami had some really good moments, but also a lot of fluff. The main annoyance off the top of my head is having to fight the eight-headed snake three times throughout the game, and the only difference in each fight is how many hits he takes. The plot also went all over the place after the first third of the game, which was annoying.

Killer7 was borderline insulting, both being retardedly easy and the ending.

I'd call Rez one of the worst games ever made, but it barely counts as a game.

I don't care if people like these games, but it seems like the only way anyone ever defends Shadow of the Colossus is by calling it "amazing" and leaving it at that, justifying/trivializing the flaws, and with logical fallacies (the favored being thought-terminating cliches like "It's not bad art, it's a style.") Another topic here mentions that 1Up review of Rez that gave it a 10 and basically said "Because it's ART."

While I definitely think there's ground to the Little Johnny trying to justify his hobby to his parents explanation, I think when most people call a game art, it's because they want that game to be more than it really is.
User avatar
Codiekitty
 
Joined: 07 Jan 2008 04:58

Unread postby raphael » 05 Mar 2008 00:41

icycalm:

Quoting excellent articles from my beloved Orwell may be an efficient way of fooling me. And by the way it's again an occasion to show how original and precise his thinking was (to the extent that I've always liked to consider him a philosopher). But some years of (mild) thinking about art, videogames, and other mediums of expression, had to have some effect on me, and give me a little more resistance.

I think you made very good points in your article, and I think it's all clever and wealthy, and let's go back to more important matters, and all that stuff. All in all, I agree.

... still ... I've heard some time ago a definition of art that I think is pretty efficient and interesting. And so all the part about talking about "art has no more meaning than praising what we are calling art" may fall apart.

The story of how the definition came to me would be of some interest ... if I could recall all the details and tell them in a suitable english. But I definitely can't. So I'll just keep that secret for me (something about an horny russian princess, you miss something, trust me). Anyway, here it is bluntly:

A work of art is defined by its ability to give a fully original point of view on reality. Something between our first childish theories of the sexes and the mythologies or founding texts of civilisations. Should a work not be an attempt at giving sense to the universe around the author, it could not be considered art.

It's certainly not a definition. But at the time I found it quiet precise, at least interesting, and maybe useful. Even today, and even without further refinement, I still feel there's some truth behind it... but you're missing the Russian princess part...
Last edited by raphael on 08 Jan 2009 08:58, edited 5 times in total.
User avatar
raphael
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2008 19:31
Location: Paris

Unread postby JoshF » 05 Mar 2008 01:06

I wonder if defining art is an art. :lol:
User avatar
JoshF
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:56

Unread postby raphael » 05 Mar 2008 01:30

Sounds more like wanking to me... yet wanking may be an art, based on icycalm's article.
User avatar
raphael
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2008 19:31
Location: Paris

Unread postby JoshF » 05 Mar 2008 02:14

Actually I was making fun of your wanking.
User avatar
JoshF
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:56

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Mar 2008 02:27

JoshF wrote:I wonder if defining art is an art. :lol:


If it is, then this:

raphael wrote:A work of art is defined by its ability to give a fully original point of view on reality.
Something between our first childish theories of the sexes and the mythologies or founding texts of civilisations.
Should a work not be an attempt at giving sense to the universe around the author, it could not be concidered art.


is the "defining art" equivalent of Mr. Bean: The Movie.

Sorry, Raphael. I hope you weren't expecting me to take that seriously.


Codiekitty wrote:I think when most people call a game art, it's because they want that game to be more than it really is.


Nothing can be more than it really is. Otherwise it wouldn't really be what it is. You might as well say that "people call a movie art, because they want the movie to be more than it really is".

What people need to do is catch up with early-20th century philosophy. It's been almost a hundred years now -- for how much longer will we have to put up with hearing this nonsense?
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Flying Omelette » 05 Mar 2008 02:38

What people need to do is catch up with early-20th century philosophy. It's been almost a hundred years now -- for how much longer will we have to put up with hearing this nonsense?


It sounds like you and I probably agree on this subject. Ever since the whole "Can Games be Art?" thing came up I've had some people attempt to goad me into giving my thoughts on the subject, but I won't because what they all don't realize is that I've already had this discussion years ago, circa 1995, 2001, and I've gotten past it. It's a Level 1 argument. If you're delving into serious game discussions and you haven't even yet decided if a game can or can't be art, then you haven't gotten past Level 1 yet.

And if someone hasn't gotten past Level 1, then I can only imagine that any and all discussions with them will involve me having to regurgitate 13 years of things I've already said, most of which will probably piss them off because it challenges everything they've been taught to believe by the media.
User avatar
Flying Omelette
 
Joined: 26 Dec 2007 22:49
Location: Ohio

Unread postby JoshF » 05 Mar 2008 03:12

is the "defining art" equivalent of Mr. Bean: The Movie.

:D

I mean, I'm not having my mind blown when I'm drawing out of my anatomy books, so according to him the Old Masters were not artists.
User avatar
JoshF
 
Joined: 14 Oct 2007 14:56

Unread postby Dale » 05 Mar 2008 03:16

I guess I look at the term art differently. Someone makes a series of sprites and or 3-D models, background for a game. Someone makes music and sound effects for the game. Every bit of a game is constructed in the same way forms of art are. If someone draws a 2-D piece of art that's art. If someone makes a good looking 3-D model that's art. I do believe that their are such things as "bad art' and "good art", but both are forms of art. Action 52 is just really really bad art. How you could have something that involves both sound, visuals and interactivity, and people not consider it an art form baffles me. It involves all other art forms and allows you to effect pieces of these art forms as you play.

I do realize that this will not change any people's minds in this thread but I just wanted to get out my 2 cents.

Since I'm not 100 percent sure I'm using the term correctly I copied this from dictionary.com.

art1 /ɑrt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahrt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/art

As far as I'm concerned games are made to look good in the eyes of people, made to sound good to the ears. And to be made well require intense skill in the field.

Admittedly my original assumption on what Art meant was off to an extent, I still think it works overall. I wish the term art could be used to describe the interactive key value of the genre but it doesn't seem to. I should look for another word.
Dale
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2007 02:24
Location: Michigan

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Mar 2008 03:24

Dale, copy-pasting random definitions in this thread is not useful. And you are wrong about art having to be beautiful. There are countless paintings that by most people's standards look ugly as shit, and still considered art.

You are missing the point. By several thousand miles.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Dale » 05 Mar 2008 03:50

I thought my first paragraph showed that I think any form of creative output no matter how ugly is still art. Hence some of my points.

The way the website I listed defines art perfectly matches the definitions listed in my 2006 Webster's Unabridged Dictionary I have at home. I don't know who else to trust in defining it.

I think your just disagreeing with the way the issue is commonly discussed and handled in mainstream gaming media rather then disagreeing that games are art. Or are you merely saying that thinking about the subject and discussing it is pointless because their is no doubt that it is art or that it is potentially art but the term is too vague to describe accurately whether they are or aren't art? Is it that to think about that aspect of gaming in general is pointless? Is it that your definition of the term just doesn't work in describing any aspects of games?

We honestly probably don't disagree on anything I'm just a little confused on what you disagree with on how the subject is discussed. If it's not too much trouble could you reiterate?
Dale
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2007 02:24
Location: Michigan

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Mar 2008 04:04

Dale wrote:We honestly probably don't disagree on anything I'm just a little confused on what you disagree with on how the subject is discussed.


There IS no "subject", Dale. The riddle does not exist. When you ask the question, "Can games be art?" you are using language improperly. What you need to do is learn how logic and language work. Once you learn that, you will understand that the question you are asking is nonsensical, and hence cannot be answered.

Now to learn how logic and language work you have to study philosophy seriously, for many years. There is no other way. Until then you'll just be babbling nonsense like everyone else.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Mar 2008 04:12

I'll try another attempt.

The question "Can games be art?" can be re-written as "Can X equal Y?" where X is something no one can define (games), and where Y is something that we have so far failed to agree on HOW to define (art).

You are telling me that this equation holds true. I am telling you that you need to learn mathematics.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Dale » 05 Mar 2008 04:39

It defines it in the dictionary that way, I don't know any better source to try to understand a concept. I'll admit that I haven't studied real deep into philosophy, but philosophy itself is kind of like guess work to begin with. Are you saying that theirs some deep defining level of what can be discussed in relation to another subject based off how the words are generally used and how they work within realm of well-accepted physiological studies.(one subject is undefinable and the other is too undetermend to show meaning on something that is undefinable?) I'm pretty sure you are. I pretty much got you now. But I don't see how games are an undefinable term I know what the qualifications are for Video Game to be a Video Game unless your trying to undermine the sentence itself"Are games art?"? As in this sentence the word "game" is not specified on what type of game, therefore undefinable?

I guess I just disagree with you in terms of diction, I think the word art has a valid meaning. And that Video Games are a specific thing with qualifications that make them a Video Game.

I don't really see this argument going anywhere. I think we should just agree to disagree.
Dale
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2007 02:24
Location: Michigan

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Mar 2008 04:49

Dale wrote:It defines it in the dictionary that way, I don't know any better source to try to understand a concept.


I have explained it to you. The word 'art' has practically hundreds of definitions, in hundreds of dictionaries. It's not like 'chair' or 'table'. It can mean anything. A crock of shit can be art. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY ACCEPTED DEFINITION. It doesn't mean anything and it can mean everything.

Dale wrote:but philosophy itself is kind of like guess work to begin with


If you say this again I'll ban you. I am not kidding. You are insulting generations of hard-working philosophers, you are insulting my ancestors, and you are insulting me.

Dale wrote:But I don't see how games are an undefinable term


From Wikipedia:

Ludwig Wittgenstein was probably the first academic philosopher to address the definition of the word game. In his Philosophical Investigations, Wittgenstein demonstrated that the elements of games, such as play, rules, and competition, all fail to adequately define what games are.

Dale wrote:I guess I just disagree with you in terms of diction, I think the word art has a valid meaning.


It doesn't just have A valid meaning, IT HAS A BILLION VALID MEANINGS. That is indeed the problem. If it had only one valid meaning there would be no problem.

Dale wrote:I think we should just agree to disagree.


"Agreeing to disagree" is for idiots. When two people disagree it is obvious. They don't have to agree to it.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Dale » 05 Mar 2008 05:01

One of the billions definitions of art is the one I accept(imao, I'm not saying that's the way it is in general). You don't accept it and that's fine. I guess I should say "Video Games" instead of "games" as "Video Games" has a pretty clear accepted meaning in society.

I'm not trying to insult Philosophy. I was actual trying to understand what you meant when you said philosophy, I have quite a bit of respect for it.

Since we both know that we don't agree on this let's just stop.
Dale
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2007 02:24
Location: Michigan

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Mar 2008 05:12

Dale wrote:One of the billions definitions of art is the one I accept.


Dale, no one cares about which definition of art you accept. There are hundreds of definitions and they are all equally valid, because we use all of them every day.

Dale wrote:I guess I should say "Video Games" instead of "games" as "Video Games" has a pretty clear accepted meaning in society.


It makes no difference what you say. If we can't define games, we can't define video games either.

Dale wrote:I'm not trying to insult Philosophy.


Maybe you were not trying to, but that's what you did.

Dale wrote:Since we both know that we don't agree on this let's just stop.


Dale, you are starting to really annoy me. You are coming in my forum, starting a conversation with me, and then asking me to "stop"? Go fuck yourself, dude.

Learn some manners or stop posting. I won't say this again.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Dale » 05 Mar 2008 05:27

I guess from the way you look at it theirs no way to define almost anything involving gaming or competition. You think their is no valid definition for art I think their is one. Your just being mean to say that "know one cares", this is a forum I have an opinion and you have yours, your insulting me for no reason.

What does this being your forum have to do about this debate? We're two people with similar interests their is no reason for you to be pissed at me. I'm being as civil about this as possible. If almost anyone says "no one cares" to me on a forum I usually insult them back but being that I have a lot of respect for you I have remained as civil as I possibly can.

If you want to continue debating thats fine. But theirs no reason to be mad.
Dale
 
Joined: 04 Oct 2007 02:24
Location: Michigan

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Mar 2008 05:33

Dale, I am going to have to ask you to stop posting in this forum. You are wasting my time and you are clogging up this thread with nonsense. I mean for fuck's sake dude:

Dale wrote:You think their is no valid definition for art I think their is one.


In the original article I explained that there are hundreds of valid definitions. In this thread I told you several times that there are hundreds of valid definitions. Are you on drugs or something?

Just please stop posting.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Codiekitty » 05 Mar 2008 05:48

icycalm wrote:Nothing can be more than it really is. Otherwise it wouldn't really be what it is. You might as well say that "people call a movie art, because they want the movie to be more than it really is"

Maybe a better term would have been "something special when it isn't"?
User avatar
Codiekitty
 
Joined: 07 Jan 2008 04:58

Unread postby Crawl » 05 Mar 2008 06:11

I disagree that "Can games be art?" is as meaningless a statement as "The outstanding feature of this work is its living quality."

In the latter statement, "living" is not supposed to have a discoverable meaning. Likely, it is intended to be meaningless, to disguise that the author is bs-ing. Most charitably, it might mean that "living" gives the writer a particular feeling, as does the work, although there's no guarantee that anyone else gets that particular feeling from "living" (it'd be internal as well as subjective), so the word doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to the author as to anyone else.

Some people might use "Can games be art?" with "games" and "art" vaguely defined, but it is possible to clarify the parameters for a particular discussion. In "Can games be art?", "games" and "art" can be short hand for more complicated concepts (eg., "games" = "videogames played by a single player with a reasonably clear beginning and end"), whereas "living", in regards to art, does not itself mean anything nor is it shorthand for anything; it is truly meaningless.

I'm sure you must know that "Can games be art?" can be decoded at least pragmatically if not rigorously since you sort of answered the question yourself (in the affirmative).

I think "Games are fun" is a much more meaningless statement (and it's made much more often than any statement about "art"). When most people say such and such game is fun, I often have no idea what they mean -- not only that I can't rigorously define what they mean by "fun", but that I have no intuitive or vague feeling for what they're trying to say either. And people rarely (virtually never, really) clarify what they mean by "fun", so I'm led to believe the word is really intended to meaningless. At absolute best, "I like this game because it is fun" means, "I like this game because I like it" -- circular logic.
Crawl
 
Joined: 05 Mar 2008 05:49

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Mar 2008 06:20

Crawl, welcome to this forum. I feel the need to warn you to tread softly in this thread, because I have not much patience left.

Crawl wrote:I disagree that "Can games be art?" is as meaningless a statement as "The outstanding feature of this work is its living quality."


No one here said this. You are disagreeing with a proposition that you yourself came up with.

Crawl wrote:In the latter statement, "living" is not supposed to have a discoverable meaning. Likely, it is intended to be meaningless, to disguise that the author is bs-ing. Most charitably, it might mean that "living" gives the writer a particular feeling, as does the work, although there's no guarantee that anyone else gets that particular feeling from "living" (it'd be internal as well as subjective), so the word doesn't necessarily mean the same thing to the author as to anyone else.


This is totally off-topic so I am not even going to bother answering. The quotation at the beginning of the article is only there to set the tone for what will follow.

Crawl wrote:Some people might use "Can games be art?" with "games" and "art" vaguely defined, but it is possible to clarify the parameters for a particular discussion. In "Can games be art?", "games" and "art" can be short hand for more complicated concepts (eg., "games" = "videogames played by a single player with a reasonably clear beginning and end"), whereas "living", in regards to art, does not itself mean anything nor is it shorthand for anything; it is truly meaningless.


Again here, you are concentrating on the opening quotation.

Crawl wrote:I'm sure you must know that "Can games be art?" can be decoded at least pragmatically if not rigorously since you sort of answered the question yourself (in the affirmative).


It was a joke answer. Go back and have another look at it.

Crawl wrote:I think "Games are fun" is a much more meaningless statement (and it's made much more often than any statement about "art"). When most people say such and such game is fun, I often have no idea what they mean -- not only that I can't rigorously define what they mean by "fun", but that I have no intuitive or vague feeling for what they're trying to say either. And people rarely (virtually never, really) clarify what they mean by "fun", so I'm led to believe the word is really intended to meaningless. At absolute best, "I like this game because it is fun" means, "I like this game because I like it" -- circular logic.


Ummmmm.... okay. Still off-topic, though.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby icycalm » 05 Mar 2008 06:23

Codiekitty wrote:
icycalm wrote:Nothing can be more than it really is. Otherwise it wouldn't really be what it is. You might as well say that "people call a movie art, because they want the movie to be more than it really is"

Maybe a better term would have been "something special when it isn't"?


Yeah, I think that would be much better.

And they are right! A good game really is special, after all, since most of them suck. Same goes for a good book, a good movie and a good piece of music. And these good games, books, movies and pieces of music we call art, in order to distinguish and honor them.
User avatar
icycalm
Hyperborean
 
Joined: 28 Mar 2006 00:08
Location: Tenerife, Canary Islands

Unread postby Crawl » 05 Mar 2008 06:31

I guess I'd like for you to clarify what you meant. My reading of the essay is, "'Can games be art?' is a meaningless question because neither 'games' nor 'art' can be rigorously defined."
Crawl
 
Joined: 05 Mar 2008 05:49

Unread postby raphael » 05 Mar 2008 11:01

icycalm wrote:
JoshF wrote:I wonder if defining art is an art. :lol:


If it is, then this:

raphael wrote:A work of art is defined by its ability to give a fully original point of view on reality.
Something between our first childish theories of the sexes and the mythologies or founding texts of civilisations.
Should a work not be an attempt at giving sense to the universe around the author, it could not be concidered art.


is the "defining art" equivalent of Mr. Bean: The Movie.

Sorry, Raphael. I hope you weren't expecting me to take that seriously.

Definitly not, but i hoped to add some water to the (wind)mill.
So far the attempt is missed.
Who cares ?

I agree with F.O. : this all is level 1 of the discussion on videogame's value. In 2008 I hope we can all skip to more interesting levels, boss fight and bullet dodging.


EDIT: Well I should add this is (was) a definition used among artsellers and artgalleries, it is used to help define what's valuable and what's not. So in the end, most of (what is called) art we are exposed to is supposed to respect this criteria.
It's not mine anyway, and I don't mind the goofing. But at least I think knowing what criteria they use is of some interest.
... the problem beeing: I may have not understood or translated it well ... my bad.
Last edited by raphael on 05 Mar 2008 11:49, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
raphael
 
Joined: 04 Mar 2008 19:31
Location: Paris

Next

Return to Theory