Computer Games as an Art Form

[Yogge Sothothe]

A pile of dog crap is not art because art requires pre-meditated intent to communicate. Now if someone took a picture of that pile of dog crap, or otherwise mediated it into a presentation form, then it *could* be art, although any form of media which is meaningless cannot be art. This is difficult, however, as anything which is framed and presented can induce meaning. Context is everything (Consider Duchamp's Fountain).

But just because something can be classified as art does not mean that it has value as art.

[Claudius]

ok so if the dog is communicating his displeasure at not getting a walk then you believe it is art

[Yogge Sothothe]

No because this is not abstract by any means. The fact that there is only one manner of interpreting it, as well as the fact that you have placed that manner into exact words, also indicates this is not an abstract communication.

[Claudius]

I think that what I recognize is that what makes something art is simply a thought that it is art.

If I sit down and draw a picture and I think ok I'm going to express my mood then that is art.

What I recognize is that it is merely mental labeling that it is art. In that sense art is shifty and not solid. You would have to study Tibetan Buddhism for awhile to get the flavor of what I am experiencing. Or perhaps you will catch on who knows?

Anyhow art is impermanent, composed of parts, and merely labeled. Convention. By noticing it is merely thinking the conviction in it collapses and you can relax and enjoy it.

I heard a story about tulku Trungpa Rinpoche overheard speaking with another lama. "That is what they call a tree" (both laugh). I guess when I go to an art museum what I say to myself is "that is what they call art".

But art as a yogic experience is actually an expression of emptiness-luminosity.

[Yogge Sothothe]

I understand where you are coming from in that in your opinion, the experience itself constitutes art. A blowing leaf can be called "art." But we are necessarily discussing a concrete definition of art here. Art requires human participation in its creation as well as in its consumption. A natural occurrence is not art, it is nature. This doesn't mean that it has to be permanent in its presentation, and indeed, many forms of art are not (consider performance art).

A higher state of mind is not necessarily art. An experience which produces a higher state of mind alone is not necessarily art. The key here is mediation.

[Claudius]

I meant that a concrete definition of art is merely mental labeling.

[Yogge Sothothe]

But that exactly is what is under discussion here. Academic labeling. Which is why I stated previously that this debate concerning whether or not games are art or not is moot to begin with.

Or, if i misunderstood your last post, you are stating that you can label anything art if it fits an arbitrary set of mental conditions. And again, this simply isn't the case. It not just a matter of opinion. There are concrete, defined conditions which need to be met.

Now, whether or not something meets those conditions can be subject to debate. But art as a concept has been and is defined. It is not abstract and nebulous.

[Claudius]

Ok so you believe that art is something recognized and described within academia. That is what I disagree with and what my ivory tower comment referenced.

I am not entirely swayed by what the art critic community thinks about art. Sure I listen to them with interest when I get a chance. I like to hear about their oppinion.

But the buck stops with me. What do I think? So if academia recognizes the mona lisa as great art I certainly listen to them. Of course. But in cases where the opinion of antiquity (or novelty) does not agree with my own discernment then I have to make up my own mind.

And due to my influences in studying Buddhism I believe that art as a social convention is stamped by the 3 marks of conditioned existence: impermanent, non-self, and unsatisfactory (merely labeled - cannot be grasped). Art as an expression of buddha nature is a different story but in that case we are sort of borrowing the word art from its social context - shoplifting it. The reason we would borrow the word is simply because it is a stirring word...we might have experiences in our own life producing art. Just as the word heart or clarity might be relevant to buddha nature although it also has a conventional meaning.

So why is my views on art/buddhism relevant to you? Because buddhism is a response to the same world. A buddhists same observation can be communicated to a non-buddhist they simply have to learn eachothers language. Its all about examining direct experience rather than getting caught up in appearances.

[fable]

Guys, this thread is about "Computer Games as an Art Form." I have no objection to any other mini-discussion, but I think the thread should basically reflect the content created by the person who started it. If anyone wants to argue that there should be no criteria for art, the best thing to do is start up a new thread.

I had no idea this would go on for so long, or I would have written something about that, before. Which is why I took a brief part, and obviously shouldn't have. Please, let's go back to the theme at hand.

[Claudius]

In that case I think computer games are an art form but I suspect I have a different basis for saying that than the OP desires.

I think that based upon the assumption that art is a mental construct they can certainly be held to be art.

I am indifferent to whether Planescape Torment will be on display in a museum So to me I think its not of high importance that it be recognized on par with say classic literature or popular music. In short I respect the creators of video games for producing good gaming experiences which might include thought provoking content. But I don't care if the media is given props or not (slang for respected*).

*universally

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

I've looked upon video games as art for a long time, think it was playing Return to Zork as a kid that did it.

@Fable - if you haven't done so, I recommend giving the original Super Mario Brothers a try if you can find a copy (since emulators are a no-no), it's mathematically (if not artistically) brilliant.

[C Elegans]

Sorry for the OT post, thanks for creating a new thread, Fable.

Just to repost the part that was about computer games:

Regarding computer games in general, I think their characteristics as a media makes the qualify as art easily, in the same as as film does. This is however merely theoretical. Computer games still have several steps to take to be art, there are several missing factors, but it could be included if one wanted. In the same way as I don't view "Rambo" as art, I don't view PS:T as art, but if someone defines "Rambo" as art (rather than "entertainment", which I view as a separate category from art), I would argue that that position would have to include PS:T as art, too.
However, from what little I know about video games, I think that if there is any computer game that really could qualify as art, it is not PS:T but Ico and Shadow of the Colossus.

[Dottie]

Originally Posted by C Elegans

However, from what little I know about video games, I think that if there is any computer game that really could qualify as art, it is not PS:T but Ico and Shadow of the Colossus.

Its interesting that you should mention Ico. The creator, Fumito Ueda, has an art education, and have also stated that if it wasn't for video games he would probably be an artist instead. I don't think this is a coincidence. To say something relevant, original and substantial you need knowledge about the context in which you want these properties. You also need a language that can transmit whatever you want to say. Currently game designers does not typically have the kind of background and education that would enable them to have those two things.