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

[Utforska]

Interesting observation. Though I think he picked Van Gogh and Michelangelo because they are artists that everyone knows about. Their names are more famous than the names of their separate works. In games, only the really big companys like Nintendo and Microsoft can be considered public knowledge, so it makes more sense for him to refer to the games' titles. I assume this article targets the general public, and it's more likely they recognize the name of those games than the name of their creators. If the article targeted gamers, they could easily refer to Blow, Söderström, Ueda, Rohrer, the Miller brothers, etc.

Compare it to movies - The Shining vs Stanley Kubrick, Star Wars vs George Lucas, Pirate of the Carribean vs Gore Verbinski, etc. More people probably know about the movies than their directors.

It might also be the simple fact that a painting doesn't need marketing, and the work itself usually doesn't include words. Hence, the name of the painting is never as important as the image of the painting.

[Albin Bernhardsson]

So, perhaps if we didn't name our "games".

[QXD-me]

So, perhaps if we didn't name our "games".

I kinda like this idea, naming is always difficult. Although it would probably only be even remotely plausible for well-established developers.


I think a lot of the problem is that game's are generally made by large groups of people. In fact, within the gaming press, games (and game series) are often reffered to as belonging to their developer (or copyright holder).

Perhaps it's also a matter of scale, as in, it's hard to believe that something so vast could be one person's. For example, I tend to think of Braid as being by Jonathan Blow (even though I think he used a contractor for the graphics), partly because his name is synonamous with it in the press, but there's also something else. On the other hand, American McGee's Alice has his name all over the title, but I don't really think of it as being by American himself. I'm not exactly sure why, but maybe it's a subconcious thing to do with scale (or possibly just because I know a lot of other people's work went into it).


Of course, the ultimate game company at not recieving credit is TOSE. I only happened to hear about them because I was looking at some top-ten lists on gamefaqs.

[Michaël Samyn]

I agree that it is probably appropriate for most current big games to not be attributed to a single person. They are often the product of teamwork. This is also the reason why they are not very valuable as works of art.

But cinema and architecture show that the scale of a production does not necessarily exclude the vision of individual artists. In cinema directors and actors, and cinematographers and music composers all get credit as artists. In general we think of movies, especially artistic ones, to be made by the director. In architecture, it is the person who designs the building, the architect, who gets the artistic credit (even if they work within a studio). Similar production processes could be used in videogames too.

[JordanMagnuson]

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

I'm right there with you Erik.

And I think you're right Michaël that the author's use of artists' names vs. game names is telling and significant. To me it emphasizes the fact that with video games we are generally working on a product, as you say, rather than attempting to express ourselves in a meaningful/personal/authorial way.

[Jeroen D. Stout]

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

I actually think she summarizes it quite well. I do, like her, think that art is a selective re-creation of reality that exemplifies certain aspects (truths, values) which the artist finds significant.

I very much dislike art that seems to have no purpose and does not express any values in a clear manner. Certainly in my own work I am growing towards this view... it makes for art that you find yourself enjoying with your rational mind. That does make it meaningful, and I suppose if it is not a platitude it is also original. But that description hardly says anything about the philosophical implications and reasons to tastes in aesthetics.