Making Statements With Video Games 329
You may have heard about the recent controversy at the Leipzig Games Conference over a modification of Space Invaders in which the invaders are slowly demolishing the World Trade Center. The creator intended it as an artistic expression, but has since removed the game, saying, "it was never created to merely provoke controversy for controversy's sake." Kotaku took this occasion to ask whether "statements" can and should be made via video games, and how it affects the ongoing question of whether video games should be considered art.
"The entire issue begs comparisons to Danny Ledonne's Super Colombine Massacre RPG!, an unsettling and involved title that tasks players on the most basic level with acting out the 1999 Littleton, Colorado school shooting in the role of killers Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold. Ledonne told the Washington Post that his intention with the title was never to glorify the tragedy, but to 'confront their actions and the consequences those actions had.' Like Stanley's Invaders!, Ledonne and his title stopped short of providing a direct interpretation - neither artist has been especially specific about 'what it means,' or in instructing players on how they should interpret their work or what 'message' should be taken away."
Abe's Oddysey.. vegetarian? (Score:1, Interesting)
You can troll with them = you can make statements (Score:5, Interesting)
It's unfortunate that the examples were all statements of "Lookit me! I'm an insensitive asshole!" But the answer is yes, they can express that.
The real question is if games can make statements that aren't
-I want money
-I want attention
-I hate (insert group of people here)
-I'm a jerk
The answer is yes, but we haven't been able to do it very sophisticated like yet.
One GOOD exmaple I'm thinking of is the guy who made "the emo game" You can find his works here
http://www.emogame.com/ [emogame.com]
Emo game 1 basically is making fun of emo music. A worthy goal. One of the sequels is an extremely not-subtle condemnation of conservatives, republicans, Bush, Paris hilton, the anti-stem cell movement, and shooting various other fishes in barrels. They're free and sometimes funny. Again, not subtle. Try them. A lot of the message relies on you playing through not very good gaming portions and then coming to a word document with the message inserted. It doesn't flow seamlessly with the game.
There are also games that are clearly environmental, and they range from bludgeoning you over the head with it to so subtle that you could miss it.
Bioshock I'm told has some moral questions for you to ponder. As I haven't played it yet I can't comment on that. I suspect though it's largely using movie techniques between game sequences.
Videogames as statements are clearly in their infancy, so it's to be expected that the examples we have are fairly crude. Props to the emogame guy for being a pioneer of sorts though, and of course for making a statement with his soapbox. But it definitely is possible and with time they'll develop mechanisms to make it actually part of the game as opposed to gaming between statements.
Re:meh (Score:2, Interesting)
I think it would be fun to have an augmented reality sniper rifle. You climb up on a tall building, sight up some people and then blast them.. the scope in the sniper rifle gives you a realistic account of the blood splatter and how they would fall to the ground, etc. You could wear headphones to simulate the sound of the rifle firing. Of course, when you take your eyes away from the scope the person is still alive and walking around.. I'm not suggesting we need VR goggles here.
Unfortunately, if someone spotted you up there on the roof pretending to shoot people, they'd send the police to kill you.
two comments. (Score:5, Interesting)
The second point, though, is that I don't like these two games being held up as examples of video-game art. Both the mentioned games seem to me a bit like the crucifix dipped in urine; it's making a crass, simplistic, unsubtle, and probably unintended statement. Artists seem to feel that they are free to make ridiculous and shoddily-executed statements, purely for shock, and that nobody should criticise them for it. It's 'art'.
Play Planescape:Torment to find a game rich with true art, that says something about humanity. The aforementioned two games are art, in the same sense hanging condoms from a Christmas tree painted red is.
Video games are not art (Score:4, Interesting)
He essentially said that he didn't believe video games were art as they offered an open ended experience where players can immerse themselves in order to form unique experiences.
As a whole, that's just what they are: packaged, bought and sold "worlds" or "realities" for us to play in, which can contain all sorts and varieties of artistic elements, but yet as a whole can not be considered art. A player's experience rewound and played forward as a non-interactive product of the player's volition (like a film) can be art, but the act of playing a video game is not by itself art.
This is not to subtract from the idea of video games as I'm an avid video gamer myself. Video games provide us with experiences we could not or would not replicate in real life, and our interaction with these games creates an individually tailored experience which can be chalked full of artistic things, yet not artistic as a whole because it is what you make of it.
Is riding the subway to work art? No. Is seeing a painting on the wall art? The painting itself is, yes, but not the act of seeing it or your choice to go and see it. Is listening to music art? Not the act of listening, but the music itself is art... and you see my point.
Video games offer us a passage to artistic things, but are wholly not art in themselves.
Hope that made sense.
Re:Oblig. Southpark (Score:5, Interesting)
Across the universe a million Jedi padawan cried out in laughter and were quickly elated by having their first play of GTA4 and 2.45 percent of those were arrested for committing copycat crimes within the hour.
Elsewhere, some guy creates a bunch of pixellated blips which make other blips make noise. It is too "controversial" to be released into the wild.
Replace "Video game" with.... (Score:2, Interesting)
And, like all previous mediums, is bound to be fertile ground for all kinds statements, from serious to the ridiculous.
My question is, when will we see the Jack Thompson Lawsuit Shootout Jamboree?
Re:meh (Score:2, Interesting)
The artistic statement is pretty clear to me: the "war on terror" works as well as the "war on Space Invaders", in that there's an unlimited number of them and you're going to eventually get blown up. As the Convention write-up put it "the players must prevent the catastrophe by controlling the well- known cannon at the lower screen border with their bodies and firing it using arm movements. Like the original, this trial is ultimately unsuccessful, thus creating an articulated and critical commentary about the current war strategy."
This review [kotaku.com] says it "may be unsettling, with its blending of archaic gameplay and modern day catastrophe, but it's also an impressive accomplishment in that it delivers complex messages via simple means. Despite its perceived insensitivity, Stanley's ability to use video games as a medium of artistic expression will likely be an important step in the form being taken seriously (by people who take things seriously)."
You might not like that statement, you may disagree with it, you may find the way it's expressed to be in poor taste. But to claim that it has no artistic value, only shock value, is off the mark.
("Could have said" or "could've said", not "could of said". Sorry, pet peeve, and I will now be fated to introduce at least one grammatical error into this post.)
An artist's job is to make art, not to explain it or apologize for it.
Re:You can troll with them = you can make statemen (Score:2, Interesting)
-I want money
-I want attention
-I hate (insert group of people here)
-I'm a jerk
The answer is yes, but you never hear about them on TV or the interwebs.
Re:there is no question (Score:4, Interesting)
Art can influence people, but it's rare that it induces people to a particular action unless they suffer from specific conditions. A painting I like to use as an example in this case is Goya's Tres de Mayo [wikipedia.org]. This image shows more blood than you'll see in a typical computer game screenshot. Yet, I learned about this painting in my Spanish classes in school.
Take a look at the painting. Does it fill you with emotion? It does for me. Even if you don't know the history behind the image, the image quite obviously shows a lot of anguish and fear and death. It's not a comfortable painting to look at for a long time, for most people. But, does it induce you to an action? Do you want to support Napoleon's invasion of Spain? Shoot some Spanish rebels? Wear a bright white shirt to your own execution? Probably not.
If you're worried that the interactive nature of games is more harmful than other media, go ahead and read the majority of the peer-reviewed studies out there. For most people, this is not an issue.
Re:there is no question (Score:3, Interesting)
Name one video game that has the intellectual depth of a fine art painting or literature.
Space Quest.
What it means (Score:3, Interesting)
Like spree murderers, we shouldn't publish their names. We should ignore them.
Art Carney! (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, many games are just there for the raw entertainment value.
Perhaps that's where we need to ask the question what the purpose of art is. Isn't art created for enjoyment? What is the purpose of a painting? Is it to be interesting to look at? Is it to tell a deeper story? Or is it just to have a status symbol to hang on your wall to look like you're educated? My money's on the last option, modern art has reduced the concept to its foundations by cheaply making something that the buyer can feel good about owning, possibly revelling in the knowledge that no one but him knows the deeper meaning of the picture (though he just read it off the label).
If you were to talk about somebody like Warhol, I'd say that's a pretty good assessment of the situation. But I think this whole cloud of intellectualism built up around art is largely a product of the community surrounding the art, not necessarily the artists themselves. A lot of art is just making things that are somehow interesting to the artist - it's the process of trying to share the mindset that produced the work that leads to things like the "artist's statement"... which depending on the artist could be a serious attempt to convey an idea, a koan-like scrambling process intended to make people think - or just a jumble of nonsense intended to make the artist look smart. And it's often very difficult to tell the difference between the three cases. :)
But I want to approach this question from the other direction, as well: suppose video games are art. So what? Do we place an unnecessarily high level of importance on that distinction?
Specifically, I think when we talk about whether video games are "art" we're really talking about a few separate issues: "Is it worthwhile?" - which is misleading, because lots of art isn't - "Is it a legitimate means of exercising free speech?" - which is also misleading, because that's not the exclusive domain of art... Basically, there's this artificial distinction in which things are only acknowledged as "art" if we have, to some extent, accepted them, and in which the designation "art" lends credibility to them...
Re:there is no question (Score:3, Interesting)
Sure the opening scene of Private Ryan is gruesome and vivid. Yet the message behind it is the pointlessness and futility of the whole thing.
No it is not. How many war resisters and pacifists appeared in Saving Private Ryan? At what point in the film do the soldiers mutiny and refuse to fight?
The message is: "Americans are awesome and the Nazis suck ass!", the same message as every WWII movie. Violence is consistently portrayed as good, even "the greatest good", as long as it's Americans using the violence. The soldiers are reverently portrayed and being noble and heroic and honoring their "sacrifice". Hell, the whole movie is about how the American soldiers are selfless, "going into danger to save one of their own". Did you miss the weepy scenes at the beginning and end of the film?
I'd argue that the message of the film is the exact opposite of what you claim. The message of the film is that it is a moral good to use violence to fight evil, even if that results in massive loss of life.
Re:there is no question (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd disagree with the limited audience bit.
I was a bit unclear there. It's not simply the fact that less people play video games than watch TV or movies, but consider the core reasons why that is true. The vast majority of people can watch TV or a move just fine; it takes a significant disability to prevent someone from seeing a story in one of these media. Now, enjoying that movie (or TV show) is another issue entirely. But, if someone doesn't have fast enough reflexes, or doesn't have clever enough puzzle solving skills, he or she may not be able to play a particular game. These types of faults aren't something that generally hinders you in the rest of your life.
So, since game require some outside skill beyond basic visual and listening comprehension, it will necessarily have a smaller audience than other media. That means less people fighting to get it considered to be "art", compared to the people that will fight for film and even TV. (Although, we do tend to be pretty persistent, at least online. ;)