At the beginning of the “Racing the Beam” article, the authors ask how the art of video game design compares to more established art forms such as poetry and photography. The article went on to examine how video game design developed as its own art form through the Atari VCS and other early consoles. I was intrigued by the explanation of the different components of video games and how they work together to produce the entire experience of playing a game. Is it reasonable to say that when a game designer is “writing software in a high-level programming language” he is going through a similar creative process as a poet stringing together rhymes? Though the actual game that players engage in is a crucial element to the gaming experience, without the technical aspects such as the microprocessor and video card you’d be left with useless strings of code with no interpretable meaning. Video game designers, as artists, are responsible for constructing the various mechanical pieces of the work. This is similar to a photographer’s rigorous process of chemical induction and film developing to produce the final, comprehensible piece of art. Without the technical process, photographs would just be undeveloped film and novels would be un-conceptualized ideas in the minds of writers. Most people only consider the aesthetic elements of the game to be artistic features (such as the graphic design, plot and sound effects/soundtrack) but fail to understand the immense amount of technological achievement and advancements that have been made to produce even simple games like Combat, PacMan, and Pong.
Videogames in Critical Contexts
HNRS 353 Spring 2010
Your analogy to photography is quite appropriate. Creating beautiful or compelling photographs is as much a technical achievement as an artistic one (whether you develop film in a dark room or use Photoshop).
There is artistry involved on another level too. In fact, there’s a saying among programmers that “code is poetry.” In other words, a tightly scripted, functional piece of code can be a beautiful aesthetic object in and of itself, even before you consider what function the code actually performs.
Art classes often start with the question, “What is art?” At this, the class gives a collective sigh, and begins spouting off ambiguous definitions that the teach gobbles up. This exchange, however, shows that there is debate over the definition of art– and it is a debate that is often discussed. Some people say that art is limited to fine art, or the production of an aesthetically pleasing image. Others claim that it can be something as ambiguous as a leaf that has fallen just so on the sidewalk. I think that it’s interesting and also exemplary of our “technology age” to apply this ancient question to video games.
This article (http://onlamp.com/pub/a/onlamp/2005/06/30/artofprog.html) while not very well executed, explores the question of art and programming. One line that I thought was particularly interesting is this one: “writing the code itself alters and shapes an idea and its design. The design stage is implicit and ongoing. If there is art in idea and design, then this is kneaded through the dough of the project like a special magic ingredient.”
Anyone who knows an appropriate programming language can write code for a video game. But simply knowing the code isn’t all there is to it– you could have a piece of code that is perfect in all of the technical aspects, but ends up being completely unremarkable and not at all enjoyable. This is because (especially in the case of old Atari games, where one person created the entire video game) you must be creative in addition to skilled. There is always talk about that “special something” that makes a game great– and I think much of that comes from the creativity and innovation of the behind-the-scenes team, not just from the graphics or awesome soundtrack. In this regard, I think it is possible to call video game programming art. Making a video game requires ingenuity, creativity, imagination, and all sorts of other skills that fall under the artistic category.
(This also brings up another good question– if video games are considered art, doesn’t that make the five-layer model seem too technical to apply to video games? People often claim that there is no scale you can hold art to, no specific criteria you can use to judge it. Should the same apply to video games?)
I also found this element of the article fascinating. I’ve taken quite a few art and art history classes, and like Brandi said, they often begin with clumsy discussions of “what is art?” and rarely offer a concrete answer. The debate is certainly still open, and in fact, much art is dedicated to pushing the limits of what can be considered art. Everyday artists are redefining and expanding. Technology has certainly played a role in that as well, and the dialogue between games and art is full of potential.
Specifically I found it fascinating that the five layer method of analyzing games reminded me a lot of some methods of analyzing art. While games are looked at based on platform, game code, game form, interface, and reception & operation, art is often analyzed based on context, process, medium, form, and response. While not exactly the same, there is a similar layered method for understanding the work.
Videogames are certainly an interesting medium when viewed as art, given their ability to be experienced visually, audibly and through narrative structure and written words. Their ability to harness all these different facets of communication and experience creates a powerful forum to be experienced by the ‘gamer’ and those around.
And certainly, the work put into videogames, both creative and technical is similar in some ways to the artistic process. Creative construction of narrative and visual worlds, as well as harnessing different platforms and programing languages creates an experience for the ‘gamer’ with the television set functioning as the gallery.
Before this discussion progresses any further (forward, in a circle, or otherwise) I think it would be useful to reconsider the distinctions we’re employing. The common thread among our many unfruitful classroom discussions on the nature of art is not the classroom—it’s the topic. We would probably find the same result if asking a room full of professors, or even artists. The distinction between “art” and “non-art” is not only arbitrary but incredibly vague and thus highly misleading as well.
We have compared the creation of videogames to the creation of a photo presumably on the fact that there is a technical aspect to the production process which is often overlooked. Perhaps I am wrong, but I feel the exact opposite is the case! When I think of media in which technical appreciation is widespread even among the public, videogames and photography immediately come to mind. The casual gamer can be heard to remark on the incredible graphic capabilities of a PS3; a viewer may be impressed by the intense detail of photograph taken of a dust mite; I myself was absolutely blown away by the visual effects of Avatar in 3D.
However, these media are certainly not unique for having a technical aspect—every single “art” medium (and practically any act of production whatsoever) uses tools. The quality of a painter’s brushes and inks or the craftsmanship of a musician’s guitar is certainly of considerable importance, if not to the public then usually to those intimately involved in the field—which brings me to a related point. Clearly there are acts of creativity, ingenuity and brilliance which offhand might not appear to be “art,” but that is precisely why I find discussions of art to be rather pointless, if not outright dangerous. Is the creativity not what’s important? We sometimes hear brilliant technical feats described as “works of art,” but those occasions are few and far between and for seemingly no good reason, almost using the phrase figuratively. Why should making a useful device be a different achievement from a pretty painting? Whether something is aesthetically appealing, thought-provoking, delicious, or useful, the end result is human enjoyment.
It seems to me that everyone in this thread is making a similar point. I don’t think when anyone asks the question “What is art?” or even more to the point, “Is this art?” they are really expecting conclusive answers. Rather, they’re trying to highlight exactly how difficult it is to define these terms, and that by creating a category called “Art,” we automatically are making subjective judgment calls.
I really like Mitchell’s point that “much art is dedicated to pushing the limits of what can be considered art.” As we get deeper into the semester we’ll be looking at videogames attempting the same thing: pushing the limits of what can be considered games.