Games as Art.
How distinct is art from its medium? As in, when does "art" begin, and the medium on which that art is expressed end? Or are they intertwined?
I was just thinking about this when considering Games As Art. Would a game with great story, presentation, music, graphics, so on and so forth still be considered "art" if it were crippled by technical flaws? Could a game ever be art because of its technical flaws? Or, to put it less negatively, its technical limitations?
I would assume that it makes a difference whether a drawing is done on watercolour or crayons, or a sculpture on marble or ice. Would the art-game be different if it was on a PS3 versus a XBox360? How about a PS2 versus a PS3? A XBox360 versus a NES?
This thought was sparked by yet another debate on whether Games can be Art. The primary objections I can see are that firstly games are often tied to the system they are developed for not through artistic merit, but by commercial considerations: even is a game on a PS2 is Art, it cannot be played on a XBox360 if it's a Sony-exclusive, and if there is no commercial interest for emulation. (Non-commercial interest tends to run either towards charity or bootlegging.) I've heard Planescape: Torment cited as "good game-as-art", but I've never been able to play it because it seems to be out of print.
Secondly, something can be one part Art, but the rest not as much. Taking the Planescape: Torment example, the story and presentation and whatnot may be Art, but is the combat system Art? Or is it just an inconvenience that has nothing to do with Art value, like having to book a ticket to France to travel to the Louvre?
Thirdly, the skills used to appraise Art do not often have much to do with the skills used to play a game. Art-appreciators are not required to have twitch-reflexes. If the Art bits are gated based on gaming skill, then the Art can only be witnessed by proxy: someone posting the stuff on Youtube, or transcribing the script, or whatnot. Is this different from seeing a picture of the Mona Lisa on Wikipedia instead of seeing it for yourself?
Fourthly, a game that is Art may not end up being a very good game at all. Which ties in to all that comes before: if a game is intended to be Art but has sucky gameplay, is full of bugs, and is unnecessarily difficult or pointless, then can it be Art?
I was just thinking about this when considering Games As Art. Would a game with great story, presentation, music, graphics, so on and so forth still be considered "art" if it were crippled by technical flaws? Could a game ever be art because of its technical flaws? Or, to put it less negatively, its technical limitations?
I would assume that it makes a difference whether a drawing is done on watercolour or crayons, or a sculpture on marble or ice. Would the art-game be different if it was on a PS3 versus a XBox360? How about a PS2 versus a PS3? A XBox360 versus a NES?
This thought was sparked by yet another debate on whether Games can be Art. The primary objections I can see are that firstly games are often tied to the system they are developed for not through artistic merit, but by commercial considerations: even is a game on a PS2 is Art, it cannot be played on a XBox360 if it's a Sony-exclusive, and if there is no commercial interest for emulation. (Non-commercial interest tends to run either towards charity or bootlegging.) I've heard Planescape: Torment cited as "good game-as-art", but I've never been able to play it because it seems to be out of print.
Secondly, something can be one part Art, but the rest not as much. Taking the Planescape: Torment example, the story and presentation and whatnot may be Art, but is the combat system Art? Or is it just an inconvenience that has nothing to do with Art value, like having to book a ticket to France to travel to the Louvre?
Thirdly, the skills used to appraise Art do not often have much to do with the skills used to play a game. Art-appreciators are not required to have twitch-reflexes. If the Art bits are gated based on gaming skill, then the Art can only be witnessed by proxy: someone posting the stuff on Youtube, or transcribing the script, or whatnot. Is this different from seeing a picture of the Mona Lisa on Wikipedia instead of seeing it for yourself?
Fourthly, a game that is Art may not end up being a very good game at all. Which ties in to all that comes before: if a game is intended to be Art but has sucky gameplay, is full of bugs, and is unnecessarily difficult or pointless, then can it be Art?