Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Entertainment

Hideo Kojima Says Games Aren't Art 120

Posted by Zonk from the i-humbly-disagree dept.
Next Generation reports that, in a February OPM article, the maker of the Metal Gear series of games says games aren't art. From the article: "'I don't think they're art either, videogames,' he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. 'The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hideo Kojima Says Games Aren't Art More

Hideo Kojima Says Games Aren't Art

Comments Filter:

  • Hah,lets see you say that to graphics designers... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ShyGuy91284 ( 701108 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:19AM (#14539747)
    Although video games as a whole may not be art by some opinions, the scenery and graphics often are. I'm sure most of us have seen scenery in a game before and thought it was beautiful. And the graphics start somewhere. With design sketches, so just because you bring them into a 3D world, they are not art anymore?

  • Movie? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZiakII ( 829432 ) * on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:21AM (#14539763)
    But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art.'

    So how is this different from a movie? Last time I checked that is what a movie does as well.

    • Re:Movie? (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by karzan ( 132637 )
      Last time I checked that is what a movie does as well.

      No, that is what a Hollywood movie does. Hollywood movies (and Bollywood movies, and movies made anywhere where movies are made by an industry that churns them out in an attempt to maximise profits) are not art, they are simply formulaic shit that is intended to appeal to the lowest common denominator. By contrast, many, many films have been made that are very much art; they may not be popular, and in America they are certainly lumped into the category
    • Gigli?

      LK

  • Hmm.. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG ( 946591 )
    I just bought Resident Evil 4 over the weekend. I'm having trouble buying this guy's argument.

  • Catering (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jah-Wren Ryel ( 80510 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:23AM (#14539790)
    A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame.

    Sounds like he is saying that video games try to cater to the lowest common denominator.

    1) Such video games, will almost certainly suck.

    2) If catering to the lowest common denominator is sufficient to disqualify a creation as art, then most of hollywood's productions are not art either.
    • Actually I think he's trying to say that he's only making his games for about 100 people to play, and after the last couple of POS Metal Gear games, I would have to say I believe him. Play Splinter Cell instead, that's art!
    • most of hollywood's productions are not art either.

      I thought most everybody knew this.
    • Um so your saying that games that most people want to play are almost certainly going to suck?

      Isnt that an oxymoron?

      This, I think, is what hes talking about though. There is no such thing as a lowest common denominator with games. If a game appeals to lots of people it doesnt matter how much the quality of programming or graphics suffers. (Indeed ive seen plenty of people on here stress how little graphics and the aesthetic of a game dont mean everything.)

      Art doesnt care about the majority it stands on its
      • Oh but I do agree that plenty of Hollywood films also cant really be considered as art.

        Then you are in disagreement with Roger Ebert who is the one who originally started this public debate by saying video games can not be art.
    • If catering to the lowest common denominator is sufficient to disqualify a creation as art, then most of hollywood's productions are not art either.

      Yes, that's true. *Most* of Hollywood's productions are not art. Would you call "Armageddon" art? What about "Rambo III?" How about "Freddy vs Jason?"

      Every once in a while, they do produce art. But most of the time, no.
  • "For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

    So he creates the art and the museum... But the whole isn't enough to count as art? I disagree somewhat on the point that art is not meant to connect with a wide variety of people. There are certainly some artists that don't care, but for the most part I believe artists like to have their works appreciated by the widest base possible. Whether that outlet be movies, music, pa

  • 'The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame."

    Seems to me that he just said that video games should live up to a much higher standard than art. So damn near anything can be art, but

  • Johnny Rotten^H^H^H Fiona Apple^H^H^H The Beatles^H^H^H Madonna^H^H^H Andy Warhol^H^H^H The Wachowski Brothers^H^H^H Harlan Ellison^H^H^H Lindsay Lohan^H^H^H The Jerky Boys^H^H^H Hideo Kojima shows animosity toward medium that makes him rich and famous.

    • Re:This just in... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Lemmy Caution ( 8378 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:34AM (#14539894) Homepage
      Saying it isn't art is not the same as showing animosity.

      If there is one question I have been struggling with for the past year, it has been about the nature of videogames and art, and I am inclined now towards Kojima's position. The main problem is attention: there is a kind of aesthetic mode of attention, a way of looking at things that is open to certain types of signs, feelings and thoughts. The videogame mode of attention is not an aesthetic mode. When you look at a videogame "as art," you have to actually suspend looking at it "as a game." There is nothing wrong with it being a game, but one needs to recognize "gameness" as essentially and perhaps incompatibly different from "artness." "Gameness" is still culturally interesting, important, can be well- or poorly-done, etc.

      This is part of my PhD research, so I'm not going to eat up this thread with this issue yet. But it is a more important issue than I originally thought, and my views have changed dramatically.
      • So what is the "game" part and what is the "art" part? Is the game part so-called because the person can interact with it? What about art that can be interacted with (modern art in particular has many examples of this)? I just don't see it as two separate things. I see it as two components of the whole art.
        • The game part is where you are trying to beat/master a system - where you are competing against either a computer player or another human, trying to solve problems, master skills, understand the state of the system to respond to it. It isn't just interactivity (much art is interactive), it's the cognitive orientation of the player. It is a very active mental state - while art as such has, as a prerequisite, a reflective one.

          I'm not saying that one can never be part of the other. And again, this is very impo
          • I understand what you mean, I think, about the distinction. And certainly every video game would not necessarily be art per se. I just think that, in the case of games that are intended as or could be considered works of art on some level, the game-aspect of the work is a component of the art, though it might not be "art" on its own. Like, if you take a Final Fantasy game as art, the music, the plot, the visuals, etc. are all aspects of the art, but the gameplay... if you remove that, you have a differe
          • First, let me say I would be interested to read both your papers and what you cite in your research. I think this is a non-trivial problem, yet possibly also a simple one (though I don't know why people disagree with me :).

            A couple terms are needed: I'll use "classical art" to represent nongame art (physical, structural, sequential, etc.), and "video games" as the blanket term for console, PC, electronic, arcade, etc., games. I don't use the compound word because I'm ornery and video games are only one sm
            • I consider this an open question: I've had a change of attitude, but I don't consider the matter closed. But my papers actually reflect my old position, that videogames (I consider them too different from non-digital games that I consider them a new thing - the "games" in "videogames" are almost like the "fish" in "starfish") are simply a new media art. I think I understand games pretty well and generally always have: what has changed is my understanding of what art is. I now subscribe to a view of art (as
      • I can sort-of buy your arguments. But I think a great deal of the question rests on what your definition of art is (and there's no universally accepted one). Personally, my definition of art is "an artificial construction that is intended to evoke an emotional response in it's viewers". Something that doesn't evoke an emotional response, even though it tries to, is still art, it's just bad art :P

        When it comes to video games, I've found quite a few that evoke emotional responses. Just browse around the net

  • A Service He Says! (Score:5, Funny)

    by vain gloria ( 831093 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:29AM (#14539857) Homepage
    It's something of a service. It's not art.

    You mean that god-awful, dragged-out ending to Metal Gear Solid 2 was meant to be a service? To whom? I'd put this one down to a translation error, he probably meant to say "sermon".
  • Art is anything which invokes a sense of beauty in the observer. Beauty comes in many forms, but at their core they all appeal to our sense of pattern matching. True art appeals to that sense in a way that appeals to an individuals particular set of patterns somewhere between where the patterns get complex, and where they become chaotic and incomprehensible. It's the examination of those patterns that we find so fascinating.

    Many video games aren't art any more than your typical coffee cup is art. They'r
    • Art is anything which invokes a sense of beauty in the observer.

      So then what about art which is intended to be ugly, or disturbing, or shocking? What about A Clockwork Orange? What about art that really is not beautiful at all, just visually interesting, like much abstract postmodern art? Are you saying none of these are art, because none of them are beautiful?

      To say that art is characterised by beauty is to invoke an obsolete (i.e. romantic/neoclassical) definition of art. Art involves far more than be
      • [i]So then what about art which is intended to be ugly, or disturbing, or shocking? What about A Clockwork Orange? What about art that really is not beautiful at all, just visually interesting, like much abstract postmodern art? Are you saying none of these are art, because none of them are beautiful?[/i]

        Hmmm, food for thought. No, I'm not suggesting that they aren't art, and I am suggesting that they do invoke our sense of beauty.

        We don't consider the first group you suggested to be beautiful because the
        • But if art that is intended to be ugly, disturbing, and shocking is only art because it has some element of beauty in it contradicted by evoking some kind of distress, then what you are doing is creating a definition of beauty that is too broad to be useful.

          For example, there is an artist who paints pictures of people hanging from meathooks. You could say this is art because people are somehow beautiful and this is contradicted by the sense of distress. Or what about performance artists like Mark McGowan

    • Re:What is art? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
      Art is anything which invokes a sense of beauty in the observer.

      Art can also invoke a sense of revulsion in the observer, such as Man Ray's "The Gift"--a flat iron with nails protruding from its flat surface--when presented as being for ironing the great paintings in the Louvre (i.e. shredding them).

      Art is evocative. It produces an emotional reaction. Games exist in the realm of interactive artwork, and as they involve the viewer they can evoke more emotional reactions than a static work. When was the la

      • Art is evocative. It produces an emotional reaction.

        So does terrorism. Is that, then, art?

        • Art is evocative. It produces an emotional reaction.

          "So does terrorism. Is that, then, art?"

          Food is edible. Play-Doh is edible. Is Play-Doh food?

          Instead of Play-Doh, substitute people.

          Does any of this disprove that food is edible?

          • Re:What is art? (Score:2, Insightful)

            by Ksisanth ( 915235 )

            Does any of this disprove that food is edible?

            No, but it does suggest that "edible" is a bit too broad and should be refined, especially if "food is edible" is asserted to show that X is food because it is edible.

            If games should be considered art because they evoke an emotional response, then many other things could be considered art for the same reason: terrorism, funerals, weddings....

            I don't dispute that art is evocative (or even that some games are "art"), but I would hope that isn't regarded as

            • Re:What is art? (Score:3, Insightful)

              by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )
              But I'm really not approaching this as a way to look at art that says games are art, I'm starting from the premise that games are art and showing some areas in which they are common. I jumped in to counter that the measure of art is not beauty.

              If you're looking for a definition, perhaps one should start with what art is not. Though even then one could come up with a counter-argument, or counter-work-of-art. E.g. if interactivity excludes games from art, I counter John Cage's 4'33" where it is the sounds
      • Well, ok, I give up on this point. When it comes down to it, art is whatever people think it is. A reasonable case can be made that art is anything that people do that doesn't have any other point. Some people will stare at it mystified and call it art, while others will consider it pointless and dismiss it as such.

        I guess there's no accounting for taste.
  • So, games aren't art, but the service of providing them, is an art form? Thanks, Kojima-san. Get your meaning exactly. I'll file that next to the S3 project and "I need scissors, 61!".

  • Just another silly distinction (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ajs ( 35943 ) <ajs.ajs@com> on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:33AM (#14539890) Homepage Journal
    This is yet another attempt for artists to justify themselves to themselves. It's very much like the old "what makes us better than animals," foolishness. What makes us better than animals is that we're not eaten by them on too regular a basis. What makes art art is the appreciation of an audience (sometimes that audience is only the artist). These are simple facts that will not change, regardless of how hard we try to classify those things that we like as art and those things that we do not like as whatever else we want to call them.

    Now, that said, I'm not sure I see modern videogames being any better art than the fairgrounds of the early-to-mid 20th century. They are entertainment for the masses, and while both a fairground and a videogame are canvases on which art may be painted, we WILL look back at both as the pop-art of a generation in their own right.

    Ebert can stuff his "movies are art but video games aren't," foolishness.
  • I doubt even Halo appeals to 1 in 100 people.

    The argument is flawed, because people who don't pay attention to art are still likely to see it. People who don't pay attention to video games are unlikely to see them.

  • art (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slashdotnickname ( 882178 ) on Monday January 23, 2006 @11:47AM (#14540045)
    art is in the eye of the beholder... you stop understanding art the minute you try telling others what it should be to them.
  • I do believe Mr. Kojima is attempting to draw the line of 'entertainment' versus 'art'.

    I don't buy his position. You could say precisely the same thing about a film.

    Of course, there are examples of both entertainment and art in films and videogames. Jurassic Park is not trying to be art - its a popcorn flick, loud noises and thrills. A film like 2001 could certainly be called art. (Kubrick is a great example actually; pretty much all of his films left lots of room for interpretation, as was the intenti

    • I've seen Ebert put forth this opinion as well, that video games are not really 'art' because with art you are expressing a certain point of view; the argument says, if someone gleans a different experience than what was perhaps intended by the game's creators, then it cannot be art, as art is always about communicating a certain point of view (and emotional manipulation). And this is where Ebert's arguement falls apart. Over the past hundreds of years art was considered just what Ebert argued, a convergen
  • or even photographic, or music. When you start saying "if you want to sell to the "folk" then do not make art" is the de facto most elitiste crap I heard. HECK, some of the most "artful" old painter or classic musician did not paint for the fun of painting, but because they needed the money. What make something art is not the way you do it. What make it art is the "recognition" the final product gets.
    • some of the most "artful" old painter [...] did not paint for the fun of painting, but because they needed the money.

      No, it's more like they *sold* their art because they needed the money. They made the art because they loved doing it. You can never get good enough to be called an artist if you don't like doing it in the first place.

      Leonard Cohen for instance, made poetry because that's what he loved. He made music so that he could pay the bills. And even then, that may not have been such a wise decision, s
  • So apparently an artist should endeavor to have his work appeal to as few people as possible?

    I read that quote to mean that art is an expression by the artist of something personal, without respect to whether that expression resonates with the audience. It seems to me that videogames transcend that "one way" definition of art. Really new and innovative games come from creators who express personal concepts and images in ways that are inherently interactive. Unlike passive forms of quasi-art, like commercia
  • So when 100 people walk by a brilliant Van Gogh or Michelangelo piece, and all of them are captured by it, it is no longer art? I feel that the greatest works of art appeal to parts of our brain that are universally human. We all have different experiences and lives, but certain emotions and reactions are conserved within all humans. If a piece of art is able to exploit this, it certainly doesn't disqualify it as art, and it perhaps makes it even more valuable than something more personal and specific.
  • That we're even having this discussion is a pretty damn good indicator that video games are art.
  • Surely anything can be categorized by human beings? And if so, it's up to the human beings to categorize it. And for something as subjective, ephemeral and man-made as art, it's up to each of us to come up with their own opinion of what's art, just like it's up to all of us to come up with an opinion of what's good?
    • If you're trying to categorize things into bins so small that some things are 'art' and some things aren't, you're really being overspecific. I try to just lump things I experience into 2 bins: 'best thing ever' and 'worst thing ever', and these are ever changing and evolving. So anyone asking me my opinion on something is going to get 'What's that?' (likely), 'That's the best thing ever!', or 'That's the worst thing ever!'

      I'm still waiting for something to happen where I can honestly say 'it was the best
  • Although I disagree with his opinion that Art is meant for one person I do agree with his concept that most games can contain art and that the game itself is really a "museum" where the "Art" can be appreciated. But here's a question: Can a musuem be considered a work of Art? Is the Hirschorn or the MET any less a work of art in themselves? They are functional, yet artistic but is that enough to classify them as works of art?

    In a related note, I play WoW and I found a snapshot of a sun setting in Azeroth
  • but zelda windwaker looks like art to me..

    maybe he is not the programmer or artist who actually created the game content.. but I think the game should be art for them.
  • If the Serial Experiments Lain PSX game isn't an example of art, I don't know what is. And then there are the better examples of interactive visual novels. The question which then arises being are these actually games? Maybe what he's groping towards is the notion that one can sensibly define "game" and "art" to be mutually exclusive at a local level. Of course, in this situation it will always be possible to produce things which are part-game and part-art.
  • From http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.html [copyright.gov]: "Copyright protects only the particular manner of an author's expression in literary, artistic, or musical form." It isn't music, it isn't literature. If they say it's not art, I guess it does not fall under copyright law?

    • it isn't literature

      Yes it is, at least for the purposes of the Copyright Act of 1976 as amended. Literature, or "literary works" as defined in 17 USC 101 [copyright.gov], consists of "works, other than audiovisual works, expressed in words, numbers, or other verbal or numerical symbols or indicia, regardless of the nature of the material objects, such as books, periodicals, manuscripts, phonorecords, film, tapes, disks, or cards, in which they are embodied." Such as a computer program.

  • Like many others here I disagree that increased utility, functionality, and accessibility disqualify any creative expression from being art. Perhaps your art may "feel" differently (more museum-like for Mr. Kojima) but it isn't disqualified.

    What distinguishes something from craft (even excellent craft) and turns it into Art is the ability of that work to change the audience either through conveying an experience of the artist's or (in the case of games) allowing the audience to have an experience. Great art

  • ...then [selectparks.net] what [salford.ac.uk] are [watercoolergames.org] these [c-level.cc] guys [tmpspace.com] making... [osu.edu]?
  • If there was ever a word that resisted discreet categorisation it's "Art".
    Art is such a sliding scale it would be immensly foolish to say whether games are art or not. Is a play a piece of art? Is a moving mechanical construct art? Where do you draw the line between art, artistry and simple aesthetics?

    The amount of time and effort wasted by people trying to pin down the definition of something that, by it's very nature, is personal and massively subjective is astounding. Really - for every work of art that
  • Most films, comics, (pulp) novels, and so on aren't "art" either.

    I think he's got a kind of "Art-with-a-capital-A" concept in his head here, and that's all well and good, but you have to apply that kind of thinking evenly.

    Also notice that his definition doesn't RULE OUT games as art; he's merely saying that they're not currently being treated as such. I guess games are still waiting for their Orson Wells or Claude Monet to take a "pedestrian" medium and make it transcendent.
  • ...are that if you see someone doing something you don't understand when studying a culture, as a gross oversimplification it's either art, religion, or a lone nut. My mom, not being in the computer culture, doesn't understand it. Gaming isn't a "lone nut" phenomenon. So, is it art, or religion?

    I can see a case being made either way....

    • Thus the prophet Bill seized the holy Xbox and did turn once for a full three-hundred-and-sixty degrees. Neither three-hundred-and-fifty-nine nor three-hundred-and-sixty-one did he turn, for he turned the full three-hundred-and-sixty degrees. Thus did he hold aloft to his loyal followers the new Xbox 360. It's once dark exterior shone radiant white in the sun.

      The followers who had camped out for days scrabbled to be the first to recieve The Good Box. Unfortunately not all were able to recieve the gift fo
  • is that art is created solely to be art. Kojima does imply that functionality is a detriment to the creation of art, because then the object is made not simply to be an art object, but to then perform some purpose. This has already been challenged in the art world several times over--Claes Oldenburg's paint-splattered bed, for one--and the sister subject, whether there is something artistic lying in that which is created primarily to be functional (namely Warhol's silkscreens of soup cans). Perhaps our s
  • MGS 2 was one of the closest things to an art form I've even seen on a game console. The writer of the screenplays for the MGS games definately met this guy's definition of art.
  • This is just an idiotic statement :-)

    To the extent that movies are art, how are games not also art? Paintings? Stained glass windows? Music?

    All arts are services by that definition. Go design games and stop giving interviews.
  • Nothing will kill a creative endeavor faster than wondering "Is it art?"

    In fact, it's a very self-indulgent thing to ask. Most artists of note didn't set out to create "art", they were(are) inspired by the passion and drive to create, or because they just had something to say. They'd do it whether culture called it art or not (and in fact, many great artists who were lesser names did.)

    So, who cares if games are "art" or not? That's not for the game creators to decide, that's for culture to sort out later
  • Although I do understand the notion of trying to please everyone with a well-rounded video game that no-one is unhappy with, I think they captivate people in a different way. When I was playing Shadow of The Colossus, I was absolutely enthralled by the whole design of the game - not just the etheral visuals, but the enivironmental sounds, the subtle changes in the world as you moved between areas, and the awesome feeling when clinging on to a stone giant's fur in order to have a fighting chance... It was a
  • This is an offense to the creators of games like Katamari Damacy and Shadow of the Collossus. For God's sake, the *manuals* for both of those games are art! (I think We 3 Katamari's manual is more artsy than Katamari Damacy's though, but whatever). Katamari Damacy doesn't try to appeal to all 100 of those people that he speaks of, so does that not make it a game? Basically, what he's saying doesn't make sense. Is Katamari a game or an art? Why does he think all games absolutely *have* to try to appeal to al
  • You know, I keep reading quotes from this guy and, while obtuse, they aren't exactly insightful. The guy created 1 great game (Metal Gear: Solid) and the rest have been mediocre. The stories, characters and writing in general in every other Metal Gear game have been awful. The game mechanics have been mediocre and cliched ever since Solid (and don't tell me Metal Gear for NES was any good -- it wasn't).

    Ask Miyamoto what's art. Or Will Wright. Not this guy.
  • If someone calls something art, you have to consider it as such. Placing things in absolute catagories is without any benefit. I personally have played some games that I consider to be art (Killer 7 is the most recent). If Hideo doesn't feel they're art, that doesn't change my viewpoint at all. Plenty of people don't think a Jackson Pollock is art. Plenty don't think a Warhol is art. Those people do not change anything.
  • There isn't any point in even trying to argue this guy's statements because they're so narrow-minded.

    Just because this guy is known for a popular series of games doesn't mean he knows what he's talking about, nor does it make what he says relevant. He clearly has a very limited vision of what art should be and regardless, he probably views games from a business perspective, as a way of simply making money.

    What I don't understand is why individuals keep getting all the credit for these games, like this guy w

  • Games fall under the same banner as books, music, television, and movies, which are all considered forms of artistic expression. All of these forms can be worked on by one person, or several hundred people. All of them are mass-produced for public consumption. A lot of what's released is crap, though not all of it. Each has critics praising and shaming respective works. Yet, despite the similarities, games aren't art because they follow the rules of every artform? What a load of shit.

    If games didn't jump

  • The problem with this whole controversy is, how precisely do you define art [wikipedia.org]?

    And example. One man takes a blank white canvas. He takes paint and in a frenzy of anger, fear, disgust, throws paint about, with no real image in mind, just a need to express. And that is called art.

    Another man takes the same canvas, and with a pencil he draws a portrait of a woman. This woman means nothing to him, she is just a model. He uses techniques and skills he's been taught to best capture the natural beauty the woman

  • Before getting excited about what is and isn't art, consider this- why do we need games to be considered art?

    The simple answer is this society considers art to be legitimate, and therefore time spent enjoying art also is legitimate, therefore in order for playing games not to be frowned upon then games have to be considered art. (or, electronic games need to be considered professional sports, if you read the other 50% of the games.slashdot stories that all tie in to the desire to legitimize games)

    I don't t

Slashdot Top Deals

Programmers do it bit by bit.

Close