CNN thinks games are art (but forgets about the artists?)

[Michaël Samyn]

Sure, the swirls of Van Gogh's "Starry Night" or the magnificence of Michelangelo's statue of David can prompt awe and contemplation in onlookers. But should we think any less of sprawling virtual worlds that marry music, literature and graphics into a layered aesthetic experience filled with countless scenes, scenarios and choices open for individual interpretation?

From pioneering efforts such as "Another World" and "Myst" to cult classics like "Okami," "BioShock" and "Ico," games have long used eye-catching imagery and compelling narratives to evoke passion and sentiment in viewers.

Other titles, including "Passage," "Flower" and "Braid," also provide perspective-changing experiences with ample opportunity for introspection, as do the artworks of the masters.

Touched by the hands of dozens or even hundreds of talented individuals working in concert toward a larger creative vision, each video game is arguably its own self-contained symphony of programming and graphics.

From the haunting, shadowed realms of "Limbo" to the swirling sands you'll wander in the upcoming "Journey," these games further reflect the larger creative vision of the designers and directors who personally oversee these projects.

Not that Mr Steinberg is an art critic, but I can't help thinking that it's significant that when talking about "real" art, he mentions the names of the artists. And when talking about games, the titles will suffice.

I don't think this is negligence. This is how we think about games. They are products. And correctly, too. Many don't really have authors. Or the authors hide behind the format, the production process, the commerce, etc.

Art is made by artists. We'll be able to tell when videogames are art when people can just say "Jonathan Blow" and it will mean as much as saying "Vincent Van Gogh". Without naming a title of a product.

Thanks for the link, though.

[Michaël Samyn]

I guess that's partially up to us too. Maybe we should start signing our work with our names. Instead of hiding behind our companies.

[Stefan Barton-Ross]

There are some games with auteurial influences, such as Another World, but in most cases you are correct- the studio is a better reference. Still, can we not call groups like Metallica or Coldplay? Does art *need* a single identity behind it? In the industry today, the influence of one person in each game may be important, but it is rarely dominant. Game authors might better be compared to bands than soloists, to galleries rather than artists.

[Michaël Samyn]

You have a point. But only to some extent. Bands are musicians, interpreters. The songs are often written by one or two people (one does the text, the other the music, e.g.), often members of the band. So even in pop music, there's auteurs. You are correct, however, that their names are only mentioned in specialist publications. Most people refer to the interpretations and recordings of the songs (by the band), not to their compositions (by one or two persons).

[Michaël Samyn]

the studio is a better reference.

There's no names of studios in the article either.
Only titles of individual games.

[Jeroen D. Stout]

I guess that's partially up to us too. Maybe we should start signing our work with our names. Instead of hiding behind our companies.

This is why I moved away from my previous company name, "Post Black", to the more appropriate and authorical "Stout Games"

You must be happy he names Gogh and not Hirst, in any case. Perhaps nothing is more telling for the modern state of art that when we ask 'is something art' we compare it to classics, not moderns.

[Michaël Samyn]

Perhaps nothing is more telling for the modern state of art that when we ask 'is something art' we compare it to classics, not moderns.

It's what I like about the games industry. 

[Erik Svedäng]

To me this single thing has always been the most important aspect of what we call "indie"; way more important than the possibility of "unlimited freedom", "no deadlines", etc etc.

When you put your name on something you immediately make it 10000% percent more interesting, because you take the biggest possible responsibility for it. It's basically like saying "this thing describes me", and that's a very good way to make other care about what you do. People are interested in other people.

And obviously it helps anyone with a big ego, like me

[Michaël Samyn]

I agree that explicit authorship is a matter of responsibility. I think this is why many commercial developers don't sign their work. They refuse to take responsibility for the messages they are sending out (and there is always a message!). Of course one could argue that they are just being honest. Since those games generally don't really have authors (as they are designed in board room meetings or by an entire production team).

[Stefan Barton-Ross]

I think you've hit it there Michael. I think guilt about what they are producing, or perhaps more accurately something kind of like a mild disgust is behind the lack of authorship. It's intesting to note that many of the more challenging titles do put names behind the message -ken levine is synonymous with the 'shock' series of games, will wright with his own various titles. Of the two, Levine is perhaps the more identifiable having a distinct message, will wright considers himself more of a toymaker than an artist.

That said, I think some studios are (rightly) proud of what they produce. Blizzard and Valve in particular ooze indepedendance, little touches and 'signatures' by the various designers throughout their products. I'm sure you'd be willing to shoot me for saying games like WoW and Starcraft are phenomenal pieces of art, but I think blizzard is to normal fantasy/sci fi products what terry pratchet is to fantasy literature, warm hearted and scathing at once, postmodern in their acknowledgement of what they're building and simply awe inspiring in their execution much of the time. I don't think we should be quick to type all popular, somewhat standard games as something to be ashamed of, only those which are shamefully derivative and purely commercial.

[Michaël Samyn]

I think games can be original and meaningful without having to be art.

[Stefan Barton-Ross]

If the very definition of art is not something that is original and meaningful, what is it?

[Jeroen D. Stout]

Perhaps nothing is more telling for the modern state of art that when we ask 'is something art' we compare it to classics, not moderns.

It's what I like about the games industry. 

It is interesting, somehow it had never truly established with me, but obviously this exemplary of what you mean; games have not been tainted with modern developments in art, only with commercial establishment?

If the very definition of art is not something that is original and meaningful, what is it?

Art is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgments. Man’s profound need of art lies in the fact that his cognitive faculty is conceptual, i.e., that he acquires knowledge by means of abstractions, and needs the power to bring his widest metaphysical abstractions into his immediate, perceptual awareness. Art fulfills this need: by means of a selective re-creation, it concretizes man’s fundamental view of himself and of existence. It tells man, in effect, which aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important. In this sense, art teaches man how to use his consciousness. It conditions or stylizes man’s consciousness by conveying to him a certain way of looking at existence.

[Stefan Barton-Ross]

God, what a messy thinker. I thought objectivists were supposed to value elegance...

[Michaël Samyn]

If the very definition of art is not something that is original and meaningful, what is it?

For me, the intention is important. Something has to be made on purpose as art.

But I like the idea that other things can be beautiful and meaningful too. There's religion, for one. Mathematics, for another. And games. Why not? All different things that perhaps have a similar effect. Perhaps in different people. Some get their "understanding of the world" out of mathematics, others are more open to art. Just a theory. I like thinking of art as something very factual that exists next to other things. Instead of thinking of it as the "superlative form of anything".