Hacker News Reader

Comment by pvg | Hacker News Reader

I think both Ebert and this talk address this directly and you can't say the presenter in this case was game illiterate. Something can be complex, creative, require artistic talent to produce, enjoyable, etc, etc and still not really be art, certainly not of the timeless variety. Better critical theory probably isn't going to turn a non-art into an art.

View on HN

The debate about defining art runs into the "No True Scotsman" problem because there are many different metrics that you can use to "define" art. If it's art and you don't want it to be, just pick a definition that excludes it. If it isn't art and you do want it to be, then pick one that includes it. Repeat more than a couple times and I think you lose the point somewhere in the back-and-forth.

I think the more productive way of thinking about it has to do with why one engages with art. Does it give you a way to socialize through discussing critiques? Is it a tool for inciting empathy? Do you simply want to bask in the emotions it inspires? And so forth.

When you look at it from a perspective of what you want it to do for you, then I think you can make a good case that for some purposes, games would work just as well if not better compared to books, movies, sculptures, dances, etc. Whether or not you call it art... isn't so important, really.

No it doesn't and both Ebert and Brian Moriarty make a detailed and strong case. 'No true Scotsman', 'just need better critical theory', 'what is art, really? it doesn't matter!' are just weaselly ways to avoid engaging in their actual arguments. All of this dancing about would be completely unnecessary if one could point to a single game that would be as much as a potential candidate for a long-lasting, culturally important and impactful artwork. This is true whether or not one finds it important, infuriating, irrelevant or regrettable.

I would offer SOMA, by Frictional Games. An exploration of the implications of consciousness.

Perhaps also To The Moon, by Freebird Games.

I think you can make an argument some of this stuff rises to the level of a decent-ish sci-fi novella or so. It pokes you in the eye because the medium is typically so narratively impoverished. But both of these, like many genuinely emotionally engaging games before them will be well-forgotten in a decade or so. The Discobolus, Hamlet or Guernica this is not.

You have to keep in mind that gaming is a very new medium. The more artistic variety of games has only been around for a few years. To demand something on the level of Shakespeare is very disingenuous.

A better way of seeing why games can be art is through a comparison to movies. Games can be made to essentially be movies but with the crucial difference of immersing the viewer entirely into the world through the choices it presents.

I do not see how adding more possibilities to an existing art form (movies) can ever demote something from art to non art (whatever you think these things mean).

I think a game like last of us is a great exploration of the potential of this form of game play.

Again, this is non-responsive to Brian Moriarty's and Ebert's argument. They specifically address your points and all you have is 'I don't see how'. And do you really think anyone is going to give a hoot about 'The Last of Us' in 20 years? 'The Third Man' is about to turn 70.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com