3 ms·

Just to play devil's advocate: the argument in the negative would probably say that video games are consumer electronics. And therefore more formally belong in

Just to play devil's advocate: the argument in the negative would probably say that video games are consumer electronics. And therefore more formally belong in the design category. You can't separate the commercial aspect, from the medium. And no artist has yet arguably manifested a visionary work from a "game engine". It's just code and art assets after all. Looking at the History of Computer Art, digital images created from algorithms draw a direct line of descent from Sol LeWitt's conceptual works. Manfred Mohr considered his geometric plots a kind of "digital painting". Computer Games have existed since PDP-1 SpaceWar! (1962). Has there ever been a Computer Art Game? There is also the question of preservation. A digital video of a Computer Art work can be transmitted forever using open codecs. But what are we referring to when we talk about Video Game Art. The visuals and sounds, or the game play itself? TBH I actually wish MoMA took video games as first class citizens. In the manner of their excellent film and video wings. Rhizome, Bitforms, Ars electronica, even the Smithsonian Institute are all probably better staffed for emulation into the distant future ;) Manfred Mohr, A Formal Language: Celebrating 50 Years of Artwork and Algorithms https://bitforms.art/exhibition/mohr-2019/ https://bitforms.art/exhibition/mohr-2019/

teraflop 6y ago
> You can't separate the commercial aspect, from the medium. What does this even mean? If you mean that all video games are produced for commercial benefit, that's certainly not true. Maybe most of them are, but you could say exactly the same about movies and books. > But what are we referring to when we talk about Video Game Art. The visuals and sounds, or the game play itself? Isn't this just trying to unnecessarily force games into the mold of existing media? A video game is an interactive composition that consists of visuals and sound and narrative and control mechanics and game logic, just as a painting typically consists of shape and color.
- ArtWomb 6y ago
  It's the old form vs content debate. The average movie goer probably won't purchase a ticket and sit through hours of Andy Warhol's "Empire" or Christian Marclay's Clocks. In same the way they would go see the Coen Brothers' Scarface re-make. Film as Art is often considered under Auteur Theory. The entire body of work is investigated. To glean a unique vision specific to the director. One of the more popular retrospectives at MoMA pre-lockdown was the films of Mae West. Depression era escapism for the audiences of those days. But nearly a century later, they have a very different impact. In 500 years, Super Mario Bros may be more important than Hamlet. As a society, we are on the cusp of playing games directly with our minds (via Neuralink). It's not a question of the immersion or interactivity these simulations will have. But in how they advance our understanding of our humanity. I know it all sounds a bit snobby and elitist. But looking at some games that attempted to transcend. Bjork's Biophilia for instance. Or the CD-ROMs of Theresa Duncan. I can't help but feel the pinnacle has not been achieved yet. And is still very much up for grabs ;)
elliekelly 6y ago
Why can’t algorithms create art? Or even be art? By your definition much of what Pixar does isn’t “art” because it’s “just code and assets”: https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/41879/pixar-in-a-box-teaches-math-through-real-animation-challenges https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/41879/pixar-in-a-box-teaches-...
samplatt 6y ago
>It's just code and art assets after all. Paintings are just oil and canvas, fibres and minerals. >And no artist has yet arguably manifested a visionary work from a "game engine". I can't imagine anyone comprehensively familiar with games claiming this. Even if you want to erroneously confine yourself to a definition of art as "single-developer/artist releases unified-vision under already-established game engine", look at Fragments of Euclid, or Superliminal. Much of "art" is about exploration of abstract concepts. Games (especially those two above) give the ability to play with spatial dynamics and perspective unconstrained by narrative or the limits of conventional medium. They very literally challenge your preconceptions about how to operate in our "normal" 3-5 dimensions. If that isn't art I don't know what is.

teraflop 6y ago

> You can't separate the commercial aspect, from the medium. What does this even mean? If you mean that all video games are produced for commercial benefit, that's certainly not true. Maybe most of them are, but you could say exactly the same about movies and books. > But what are we referring to when we talk about Video Game Art. The visuals and sounds, or the game play itself? Isn't this just trying to unnecessarily force games into the mold of existing media? A video game is an interactive composition that consists of visuals and sound and narrative and control mechanics and game logic, just as a painting typically consists of shape and color.

ArtWomb 6y ago
It's the old form vs content debate. The average movie goer probably won't purchase a ticket and sit through hours of Andy Warhol's "Empire" or Christian Marclay's Clocks. In same the way they would go see the Coen Brothers' Scarface re-make. Film as Art is often considered under Auteur Theory. The entire body of work is investigated. To glean a unique vision specific to the director. One of the more popular retrospectives at MoMA pre-lockdown was the films of Mae West. Depression era escapism for the audiences of those days. But nearly a century later, they have a very different impact. In 500 years, Super Mario Bros may be more important than Hamlet. As a society, we are on the cusp of playing games directly with our minds (via Neuralink). It's not a question of the immersion or interactivity these simulations will have. But in how they advance our understanding of our humanity. I know it all sounds a bit snobby and elitist. But looking at some games that attempted to transcend. Bjork's Biophilia for instance. Or the CD-ROMs of Theresa Duncan. I can't help but feel the pinnacle has not been achieved yet. And is still very much up for grabs ;)

elliekelly 6y ago

Why can’t algorithms create art? Or even be art? By your definition much of what Pixar does isn’t “art” because it’s “just code and assets”: https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/41879/pixar-in-a-box-teaches-math-through-real-animation-challenges https://www.kqed.org/mindshift/41879/pixar-in-a-box-teaches-...

samplatt 6y ago

>It's just code and art assets after all. Paintings are just oil and canvas, fibres and minerals. >And no artist has yet arguably manifested a visionary work from a "game engine". I can't imagine anyone comprehensively familiar with games claiming this. Even if you want to erroneously confine yourself to a definition of art as "single-developer/artist releases unified-vision under already-established game engine", look at Fragments of Euclid, or Superliminal. Much of "art" is about exploration of abstract concepts. Games (especially those two above) give the ability to play with spatial dynamics and perspective unconstrained by narrative or the limits of conventional medium. They very literally challenge your preconceptions about how to operate in our "normal" 3-5 dimensions. If that isn't art I don't know what is.