Comments for Peter Escott: "Postcolonial Logic Puzzles" http://russianglowcaps.net Trying to rule the comedy game and the seriousness game all at once. Thu, 20 May 2010 12:19:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Comment on The ultimate argument settler by Alex http://russianglowcaps.net/2010/05/the-ultimate-argument-settler/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Alex Thu, 20 May 2010 12:19:54 +0000 http://russianglowcaps.net/?p=40#comment-22 I don't think the whole video games as art argument won't die down until they get to sit beside cinema as a 'form of art'. And I completely agree, the argument is repetitive and cringe-worthy. But I don't agree with the idea that video games can't be viewed as art. The argument always leans on the definition of 'art', and it is never going to be a solid, objective definition. The closest I've come to a fair definition of art which could be applied here is 'something that is created with, or with the final purpose of, emotion or thought.' Now that is a horrible definition and not at all close to the definition I had in my head when thinking about this a few weeks ago, but I've always viewed art as the creation of something (the art) by way of emotion and input from the creator, which then holds some element of this emotion or thought-process in the final product. So many things can be considered an art. Art isn't a technical thing, it is really about the creation and realisation of an idea or emotion. Video games are created with very particular design decisions, be it graphical, enemy placement, level design or plot, and it is these decisions which take into account how it will effect [affect? I'm horrible] the player's experience with the product. Game design is usually primarily about making something fun or entertaining. In some cases, though, game design can be used in an attempt to communicate an idea, or emotion, or whatever other intangible fluff. Is this not art? I've been far too ranty here (and couldn't contain myself to a word limit if I tried) but I don't see how video games are that far removed from cinema, if we're talking about 'art'. I don't want to go into interaction, so I'll try to sum up my point that I've taken too long to get to: games are art - bad art, mind you. Video games have a long way to go before they're taken seriously in the art world, but I think they fit the criteria of what art should be. It's just that video games aren't very good pieces of art. They're great as entertainment though! As an aside, I actually recently finished ICO, and I found in that case it is the level design which is the part that should be touted as 'artistic'. It's almost like architecture! And that's art. If all else fails, I can refer to World 1-1 in Super Mario as a case for level design as art. That's my own addition. Read it and cringe. I don’t think the whole video games as art argument won’t die down until they get to sit beside cinema as a ‘form of art’. And I completely agree, the argument is repetitive and cringe-worthy. But I don’t agree with the idea that video games can’t be viewed as art. The argument always leans on the definition of ‘art’, and it is never going to be a solid, objective definition. The closest I’ve come to a fair definition of art which could be applied here is ‘something that is created with, or with the final purpose of, emotion or thought.’ Now that is a horrible definition and not at all close to the definition I had in my head when thinking about this a few weeks ago, but I’ve always viewed art as the creation of something (the art) by way of emotion and input from the creator, which then holds some element of this emotion or thought-process in the final product.

So many things can be considered an art. Art isn’t a technical thing, it is really about the creation and realisation of an idea or emotion. Video games are created with very particular design decisions, be it graphical, enemy placement, level design or plot, and it is these decisions which take into account how it will effect [affect? I'm horrible] the player’s experience with the product. Game design is usually primarily about making something fun or entertaining. In some cases, though, game design can be used in an attempt to communicate an idea, or emotion, or whatever other intangible fluff.

Is this not art? I’ve been far too ranty here (and couldn’t contain myself to a word limit if I tried) but I don’t see how video games are that far removed from cinema, if we’re talking about ‘art’. I don’t want to go into interaction, so I’ll try to sum up my point that I’ve taken too long to get to: games are art – bad art, mind you. Video games have a long way to go before they’re taken seriously in the art world, but I think they fit the criteria of what art should be. It’s just that video games aren’t very good pieces of art. They’re great as entertainment though!

As an aside, I actually recently finished ICO, and I found in that case it is the level design which is the part that should be touted as ‘artistic’. It’s almost like architecture! And that’s art.

If all else fails, I can refer to World 1-1 in Super Mario as a case for level design as art.

That’s my own addition. Read it and cringe.

]]> Comment on The ultimate argument settler by dave graney http://russianglowcaps.net/2010/05/the-ultimate-argument-settler/comment-page-1/#comment-12 dave graney Sun, 02 May 2010 00:19:57 +0000 http://russianglowcaps.net/?p=40#comment-12 what do you get to RULE? what do you get to RULE?

]]>