State of the "Art"

[DavidS]

Spoiler below!

While discussing the state of art, first of all, you had to point out what is art and what is not. Another thing and a lot more important thing you had to point out, which art forms are evolving and vice versa which are petrified.

Do you mean "have to" instead of "had to" (as in "we have to individually determine our vocabulary before we talk about subject x")? Or do you think I should`ve given my own definition on art beforehand to open a more specific discussion?

Well, my English is not as good as I dream it to be, so sorry if some or most of my words are hardly understandable. But yeah I meant exactly "had to", like you say "definition on art beforehand to open a more specific discussion?"

Anyway. As for games as art there's one single big problem. All forms of art are somehow based on being "framed" or "edited". Author is making accents, managing consumer's attention. I mean that we see, listen, read, etc... only those things which author have decided to include in his work. Everything that is not needed for that nominal art work is cutted off. I mean that author is controlling what and when a consumer would think or imagine. But with games the most important thing is a freedom of a consumer to choose by himself where to move and look. No "frames" and no "editing". Even the rhythm is not controlled by author. Etc. As a result you, me, anyone who would like to transform games into the new innovative art form would have to solve the unsolvable (heh) problem of how to save the freedom of a player and at the same time how to nearly fully control his, player, thoughts.

At the right moment the biggest problem is an absence of really innovative decorations or environment design. There's a lot of simply good and beatiful examples, but there's no artists talanted enough to create environments as new in terms of art as... uhhhm... as for example Hans Giger. Just for a example. What would be "Alien" without Giger designs? Anything but art. And as I believe and that's my personal opinion, I do not insist I am right, there's no artist in game development industry as talanted as Picasso, Dali, Caravaggio, Da Vinci, etc. And that's a big problem. I presume studios like TheChineseRoom would solve the problem how to control thoughts of a player without making linear restrictions like in Dear Esther. But they would not solve the problem of "decorations". There's just no artist in the industry who is genius enough to build up new worlds priceless in terms of art.

[/quote]

You sure are right that games face big challenges and we have yet to reach certain artistic "landmarks", yet I do also think we easily tend to devalue what is happening right now because it is contemporary and not yet aknowledged as of "historical and lasting social value". Personally I do think there is much to be seen in games like Journey or Limbo (and yes, also in Dear Esther as it is a step forward for narration in games.).

I guess games are in a similar situation like movies, just before the dawn of arthouse. Many critics back then were also of the opinion that movies are not art. Much similar like the dawn of the photocamera. (I feel reminded of the "Technobild" theory by Vilèm Flusser.)

You wrote a problem is the lack of innovation in environmental and decorative design. I can partially agree. I think the reason lies mostly in nowadays very easy access to artistic media throughout the western world, so we have seen much more than people 20 years ago. There is an old proverb that goes like "Every word you can write has been written before".

What I can`t agree with is the concept that art needs to be "framed" (as in being restrictive in the way it lets you perceive it). If we look at a painting or movie we can still decide on what we want to focus and due to all being different, none of us will experience it the same way or will draw the exact same conclusions. On the other side, letting the audience interact with something gives you new possibilities to play with immersion, purpose and exploration. Since the audience partakes in the action, you can, for instance, create a feeling of responsibility and sympathy towards a subject you like to explore. You also have different and strong possibilities to make the audience reflect on themselves (why did I do this? Why did they do that? What do my actions tell about myself?) and for me, that makes a big part of what art should be.

In the end that is just my view of things. But it is also the reason why I haven`t started the thread with a statement/idea of what art has to be within this discussion. Much more open this way. I am pretty sure we wouldn`t have this nice debate if I`ve set up rules. That said, I am thankfull for your words. Having different perspectives and talking about it forms the root of progress and I am looking forward to your answer.