Goddamn that dog is scary.




...Bear?

Hahahaha...I love that picture.

If Jackson Pollock could program video games, what kind of video games would he program (i'd reckon they would smell of fish.... i see what i did there)

Honestly, some of the best art isn't art...

Dada... my Anti-art. If you just call Videogames Dada, there is an excuse for the so called "Lack of Artistic Value", because it's Dada, it's not art... but it's art...

Everyone wins? No? Fine...

Lets ship Mr. Preston a copy of Shadow of the Colosus, a PS2, and a Strategy Guide (since he'll probably need it ;)) and see what he thinks of games as art then...

also: @WiNG

It looks like a horribly giant evil demon-spawned puppy...

This art argument again?

hmmm.

Games have only just started to challenge the players viewpoint of the world. And isn't that what art is?

But, as most gamers have noticed, as the consoles have become more powerful, the games produced are becoming less adventurous and more "realistic". "Realistic" translates to browns and greys and dark greens. If there is any art in games, artists really have to step out of the mould and avoid the convergence that is taking place. There really is too much sameness. Too much to be even calling for a debate.

I thought that was a picture from a new Shadow of the Colossus game

Someone at the company needs to tell Mr. Preston what the "A" in EA stands for.

Maybe he should read one of those "history of the company" bullshit memos I had to read for every job I ever accepted.

For those of you too lazy to do the research, I'll enlighten you.

Electronic ARTS was a new type of game company that emerged in the days of anonymous programmers who were paid next to nothing for the work they put into a game.

In its infancy EA concentrated all its advertising and recognition on the people behind the games you loved, featuring group photos on the box of the team responsible for the product you bought.

Their stance was that the games were art produced by artists, who were skilled at their craft.

Too bad this company devolved into a factory churning out uninspired sequels to 20 year old games year after year.

Do game designers really aspire to be artists? I mean, every artist I know is a total asshole (myself included). Who's life-aspiration is to be an asshole (albeit a respected asshole)?

I think anyone who dares define what is and isnt art is really over-stepping their bounds. There really is nothing in the world more subjective. It is completely in the eye of the beholder.

Preston is essentially saying this:

"Shut up and get back to work".

Thanks to Joystiq for the nice write up and link to my article. I think a couple of people in this thread may be mistaken on what I'm saying. I'm neither affirming nor denying that games are art. Instead I am saying that in order to even come to an agreement on what qualifies as art we need to have a common conception of what art really means. Just as we all need to have a common conception of what english is in order to understand each others' comments in this thread.

Yet I feel that most people I meet don't really have a thoughtful conception of art, but just regard it as an extension of their emotions. While the culture as a whole holds a wide variety and often conflicting conceptions of art. I simply suggest we as gamers should not even bother with the debate, but simply work on the conditions by which games will be viewed as art by the majority of the people in the culture, regardless of what their underlying conception of art is. That is, my argument is a political one, not an aesthetic one.

Are games art? They damn well better be - if they aren't art, then they aren't protected under the same freedom of speech laws that film and literature are.

his argument is lunatic. since when does cultural diversity invalidates art? it's the opposite!!!

but really, in order to say "this is art, that isn't" objectively, you have to define what art is, and that is something very subjective, to define art...

so, the question "is games art" is stupid in itself, as it is a completely subjective matter.

Cool pic

Preston is right. We DO need a Shadow of the Colossus sequel.

Claiming the debate about whether something is or is not 'art' is meaningless is simply claiming that the term 'art' is meaningless. It is the claim one cannot define a term and thus cannot identify its referents in reality. The individual who makes such a claim removes himself from any conversation about the term and referents because he is claiming there is no such thing. Any ongoing discussion on his part is simply a blatant (and very extended) contradiction.

All I know is that I beat HL2 EP2 last night, and I don't remember the last time any type of entertainment has moved me so much.

Art = Subjective

/debate

Art = Subjective

=

Art = nothing (ie no definition/no referents in reality)

This is simply the attempt to eliminate the concept art from rational discussion.

His argument doesn't show that the debate is meaningless, it just shows that the debate is really about the definition of "art" and not about games , per se.

Shea! Like this guy once put a refrigerator in a pedestal, and called it art. I was like "shouldn't the men, woman and factory machines that made it be the artists?

Crappy art anecdotes aside, I see the point. Art=relative = videogames-as-art=relative. I HATE relativism, though...

"His argument doesn't show that the debate is meaningless, it just shows that the debate is really about the definition of "art" and not about games , per se."

Except that even the editorial introduction says his argument shows the debate is meaningless, not to mention the fact that his position is that we shouldn't be "adopting a philosophical or aesthetic strategy" - ie we shouldn't worry about the definition of art at all. (Why? See above.)

Just focus on making the games I'll be playing. Kay thanks bye.