So...what about concept video games? Games made on flash with experimental gameplay that aren't necessarily a consumer product. Are those considered art then?

I think the problem here is overgeneralization. Generally, video games are products delivered to pay bills, but I think in certain context, certain video games can be considered art. You can say the same about the general photograph and general blockbuster movie too.

Good post. Hideo always speaks his mind, always has something interesting to say.

What does he know about computer games?
Harhar har

Games aren't epic films either Hideo, please shorten your cutscenes.

Don't like the long cut scenes? don't play his games.

anyways, I read that interview and man is that guy depressing. I love his games and everything but the guy is pretty weird.

Kojima is weird. Always has been.

I think a lot of people are taking his comments too seriously

I think Kojima does speak his mind very well, but the problem is that he is rather full of himself.

Anyway, I disagree with his point. To me, Art is a purely personal experience, something that i consider art is not necessarily considered art by the next person. To me some games are Art (Rez, Katamary) whilst other games are not (Quake,Doom). Video games are art like films are art.

This debate is very similair to the age old debate of what is Pornogrpahic and what is Art.

Here is a collection of definitions of art, borrowed from dictionary.com:

------------------------------------------------
art

a) Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

b) The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

c) The study of these activities.

d) The product of these activities; human works of beauty considered as a group.

e) High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.


art

1: the products of human creativity; works of art collectively; "an art exhibition"; "a fine collection of art"
2: the creation of beautiful or significant things; "art does not need to be innovative to be good"

-----------------------------------------------------

Games *definitely* relate directly to all these definitions. Now, let's look at the definition of "fine art".



fine art

a) Art produced or intended primarily for beauty rather than utility.

b) Something requiring highly developed techniques and skills: the fine art of teaching.
----------------------------------------------------

a) You could say games have an "utility"; then again, they don't have a utility. Games are *not* useful. Games are not used for transport, like cars, so comparing a game to a car is pretty stupid. Games are there for the sole purpose of being there, not of doing something for you, unless "entertaining" is a utility; then again, every art is entertaining, otherwise it wouldn't be there. Therefore, games can be a fine art (by that definition).

b) To develop games you need to be skilled, 'nuff said.

In no way does it say that art *can't* be interactive. The difference between movies and games is that when you take different paths, you are watching different movies. And if you say that "games are mass produced", well, so are movies, music, and literature. Even sculptists and painters need to live, so they might as well produce a lot of sculptures or paintings or drawings; hell, videogames need a lot of people, so they could even be compared to architecture! Hell, everyone has a unique experience with each game, yet when you see a movie, or read a book, or see a painting, everyone saw and heard the same, while the videogaming experience is even more personal; not like it matters anyway.

So either Kojima is too humble to not consider himself an artist, or he is too arrogant to consider that what he says actually makes sense. I bet Ebert doesn't even play games, so who is he to talk about it in public anyway?

By the way, what is it with people in the industry that tend to compare everything to a car? "But it's a safe bet to say they are both ferraris..." no they are not, shut the hell up. A Ferrari is not in hands of anyone; a console is in hands of the mass. I would say that the Xbox 360 is a Mustang, tops; the PS3 is a Lexus, tops. A ferrari would be a computer (or console) that costs at least a tenth of a ferrari. And no Kojima, we don't play games because we need to, we play because we want to, as opposed to driving, which is meant to satisfy a need, it is a *utility*, not a desire like gaming.

4 words: Shadow of the Colossus.

I don't think games are art. They sure have artistic merits, since graphic artists design character, interior artists design buildings, musicians creating beautiful music etc. But in the end, the purpose of a game is to entertain you, to have fun. It is meant to kill time. The higher arts are there not to entertain, but to push the boundaries of thinking, to inspire, to present the vast array of beauty, and depravity that exist in this world. Games can do that, but if they are not fun to play, noone will want to pick one up.

I totally disagree with the above statement that "higher" arts are not meant to entertain. the ideas you presented are the means to an end- entertainment. Intellectual stimulation can be just as entertaining, if not more so, than mindless papp.

"It is meant to kill time. The higher arts are there not to entertain, but to push the boundaries of thinking, to inspire, to present the vast array of beauty, and depravity that exist in this world. Games can do that, but if they are not fun to play, noone will want to pick one up."

Umm, actually, people that like "art", have fun with it. If they didn't, they wouldn't go see it or wouldn't buy it. If it didn't have mass appeal, then why even study it in the first place? You can kill time with "art" too. Doesn't GTA show the depravity that there is in this world? And not every form of "art" or every artist shows "the depravity" anyway. So in conclusion, videogames are a legitimately a form of art; it doesn't matter if a douche like Ebert doesn't think so; he has never picked up a controller in the first place.

If you put it that way then everything in this world is art. It's in the eye of the beholder right?
For example, a geek skimming through a PC magazine looks upon the latest video card. To him, it encompasses everything that is beautiful. It is the pinnacle of human creativity. All of these emotions are compatible with the definition of art. It is a 'means to an end - entertainment'.
Of course, lots of people will smirk at this and say, 'No way, a video card is not art'.
I am saying that I agree with Hideo Kojima, in that we don't think that kind of 'entertainment' and 'enlightenment' is not really considered an artform.

it's hard not to take serious a guy that says "I feel lonely all the time, even when I'm with people"

If that's not depressing, then I don't know what is.

"If you put it that way then everything in this world is art. It's in the eye of the beholder right?"

Well, no. I was talking about taking as true the definitions of art, so only whatever follows the above definitions. Sure everything is relative, but I was only citing those definitions.

"For example, a geek skimming through a PC magazine looks upon the latest video card. To him, it encompasses everything that is beautiful."

That would be like saying that a DVD player is art; it's only the art holder/player, not the art, and saying a video card is art isn't compatible with the definitions I just cited.

"It is the pinnacle of human creativity. All of these emotions are compatible with the definition of art. It is a 'means to an end - entertainment'."

Well, I'd say the pinnacle of human creativity would be what it is producing, not what it *is* per se. That's why a car isn't nor does it produce art: it produces *displacement*, which is not related to the above; its end has nothing to do with art. The end for a video card is art, but the video card itself is not.

"Of course, lots of people will smirk at this and say, 'No way, a video card is not art'."

Exactly, and as I said, it can be art since everything is relative, but it isn't according to the definitions above.

"I am saying that I agree with Hideo Kojima, in that we don't think that kind of 'entertainment' and 'enlightenment' is not really considered an artform."

And I'm saying I disagree, and that if we take the definitions above, then Kojima is wrong.