"Videogames Can Never Be Art" - Paul Gilbert

>"Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to enlarge upon it or defend it. That seemed to be a fool's errand, especially given the volume of messages I receive urging me to play this game or that and recant the error of my ways. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art. Perhaps it is foolish of me to say "never," because never, as Steve Vai informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form."

Did he have a legitimate point?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vFc3QnfgfEE
youtube.com/watch?v=2A71b8KVafM
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

who and why care

Hes wrong for the right reasons.

Video games being interactive and being more competitive in nature, and having very clear set goals etc, is why its not art.

The second a video game becomes "Art" its ceases to be a video game.

Right for the wrong reasons.

So how can you not find artistry in video games if you won't even try any of the games recommended to you? This stinks of "I'm right because I say so and there's nothing you can do to convince me of that".

MOMA considers them as art and are really the only legit word in the art scene as far as modern art

this is correct and there isn't anything else to be said about it

Tell Paul that he's GONE TOO FAR!

He burst onto the scene in the mid-80s as a teenage guitar prodigy with the speed metal band Racer X, before forming Mr. Big, a supergroup patterned after Van Hagar and Whitesnake. They had success in the West on the strength of one single before fucking off to Japan after grunge hit and becoming superstars there. He then tried to reinvent himself as a kid of heavy metal Rick Nielsen and then immigrated to Japan in the late '90s. Legit cool guy, if not a bit of an eccentric weirdo.

youtube.com/watch?v=vFc3QnfgfEE

He literally pose any argument what so ever. Why do people care? He didnt try to define what art is or why videogames dont fill those qualifications

But more importantly - who. gives. a fuck? Wouldnt a wider recognition of games as art lead to more shallow art project indie games with shit gameplay? Do any of you really care?

Anytime you want to make a statement on whether something is or isn't art, you have to define what 'art' is first. What's this wigger's definition of it?

>Did he have a legitimate point?

nah, he's just a cunt who can't broaden his horizons.

>when a buttrock musician criticizes your hobby

REEE

I have never heard of this guy, and he doesn't have a point because you don't quote any sort of 'point' just 'games aren't art'.

Are you disabled in some way, user

You can't make a statement and then expect everyone to take it at face value without you further emphasizing what you were saying about the subject. To make any statement as a public decree automatically invites anyone to challenge and examine your statements.

Also the question of "What is Art?" gets far too overanalyzed when it's really simple. Art is any medium where one can express erotica of people or be a medium that can be used to acquire a view of erotic poses of someone. Think about it

Paintings = Nudes
Sculpture = Nudes
Photography = Nudes
Singing and Music = Serenading women to acquire said nudes
Dancing = Erotic nude dancing or dancing with women to eventually acquire said nudes
Movies = Nudes in motion
Literature = Descriptive acts of people in the nude doing sexy things thereby imagining them nude
Video games = Interactive Nudes

Why do you think the Secret Museum is a thing with ancient erotic artifacts aka primitive porn, turns out we've been obsessed with naked women for a very long going back at least to the age of the Roman Empire if not further.

holy shit

Video games as of yet are not good (or high) art. You even have people who seem to understand art and video games like jonathan blow, and he couldn't even make a game that was good art.

It's almost like the medium is missing some sort of key innovation that lets it have the sort of emotional and philosophical depth of film and lit. Even though in theory games should have the same capabilities, in practice games are super shallow.

Why is it necessary? No one complains that music doesn't have the same kind of emotional and intellectual depth that literature has, they accept that it's a unique medium that should be judged by its own standards. But when it comes to games you expect them to reach the heights of literature and film as a story telling medium despite the fact that they aren't really one at their core, instead of seeing how good they are at what they do best which is creating deep, engaging, interesting and challenging interactive systems.

Is that just a limitation we accept?

I don't know, maybe in another 50 years if nobody has achieved something that's actually as strong as a great book or film, then I'll change my mind. But for now it seems like they aught to have the potential of film or lit, and the interactivity shouldn't be such a massive obstacle, and maybe people are getting closer to bridging the gap.

Strong at what, though? There have been really amazing games that have held people's attention for thousands of hours, sometimes even becoming obsessions for over a decade. Not to mention being highly influential and innovative. What do you expect from them? Why do they have to deliver a strong narrative if they're already so damn successful in their own unique way?

I think the issue lies in the fact that by hazy conventional definition, people think of art as something that is "open to interpretation" if you catch my drift. Additionally vidya can also be seen more as a conglomeration of many different artistic disciplines (visual/audio/etc) as opposed to something unique on it's own. The unique point of video games of course is "interactivity" unto which we've seen little nudges into "artistic" territory i.e. environmental storytelling. Part of the problem is that a lot of mainstream games are loosely speaking, still "trying to be like movies". There's not much being done to take advantage of the interactive aspect beyond surface gameplay function.

For example, something that could be considered "artistic" is game design along the lines of BotW maybe, in the way subtle design choices influences player action.

At the end of the day though, those who don't want vidya in the realm of art just have their head stuck in the ground because vidya is designed first and foremost (generally speaking) as entertainment instead of obtuse 3deep5u pieces of "art".

The "video games are/aren't art" debate is so fucking stupid. Art is such a vague term. Be more specific you pseudo-intellectual twats.

Can I add animation of any kind to the list of things that can never be art then?

I never get why some get so butt-frustrated about needing vidya to be accepted as "art". It's like wanting to be validated by SJWs.

Strong at anything meaningful. Great books and films are great because they tend to be centered around ideas, ideas that are grounded in characters and events, ideas which can be brought back to real life and applied and pondered.

But games that people obsess over aren't designed to have meaning. They're designed to be attractive and rewarding. Systems in games aren't designed by what they mean, but by how fun and rewarding they are. They're designed to be escapism and barely anything more.

Yes because video games are not a story telling medium, the story telling comes from them borrowing other mediums. Again, it's the same deal with music, any meaning is projected upon it and it cannot by itself convey any ideas you can apply or ponder in real life, yet you yourself would probably not even attempt to argue that it's not art would you? If you would try to argue that, then I guess I see your point but otherwise you have an arbitrary standard you apply without any real consistency.

I didn't ever say vidya isn't art, just that it's not high art (yet).

Anyway, the idea that meaning can only come from stories is at the very least pretty controversial. I bet a lot of people even think music has some degree of inherent meaning (at least within cultures). I'm pretty sure that you could convey meaning through game systems just as powerfully as you can through narratives (or at least to augment narratives), but people still haven't figured it out.

Isn't that just a copypaste of Ebert's quote?

Yes but what I'm saying is that the criteria you use to judge whether or not a game is high art is skewed in favor of story telling mediums and doesn't take any other achievements into consideration, which is kinda dismissive of the unique strengths different mediums have.

>Paul Gilbert
Isn't the quote from Ebert?

Video games are escapist garbage and that's why they're fun. If you're actually trying to get your deep life-changing experiences from them like people do with real art then you are barking up the wrong tree imo.

OP Paul Gilbert has been my literal favorite guitarist for at least 10 years. I would know if he said this.
You're baiting, as other people have said this is just a slight change on Roger Eberts quote.
Nice try.
Paul is still based

But it's not skewed. The criteria is "Does this piece of art have meaning?"

You can be dismissive of the unique strengths of the medium because the strengths aren't actually contributing to the criteria. They're great strengths and they make games real good escapism (probably the best escapism), but they aren't being used to any greater effect than that.

>tfw video games have surpassed art because they are multimedia plus have ultimate feature of viewer interaction

Artfags BTFO'd

Art is something that evokes emotion, that's really all there is to it.

Yes because video games are just movies with soundtrack, actors, visuals, but for kids so they can be part of the story too but play with it. It's like a picture book vs. literature

This person is a top-tier idiot. Art now and always will be "in the eye of beholder."

Art isn't scientific fact like gravity. It's opinion/society thing just like moral and other things made by humans.

plebs leave

Watch out, user. You'll anger the pseudo-intellectuals who have been raised to think that their opinions are always correct.

Define art, then.

I'll be waiting.

Face it kids, you're toys will never reach the levels of sophistication reached by George R. R. Martin and Ayn Rand.

I chuckled.

I'm not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to do that. But you aren't either. I'm just smart enough to know that there is a lot more to it than just "art is something that evokes emotion." That's just a level of it.

Go read a book.

So you agree that evoking emotion is part of what makes art art, eh? Seeing how videogames can evoke emotions in addition to presenting ideas and discussing concepts, what exactly stops them from being art?

The fact that you can't handle a fairly new medium being counted in the same category as something that has existed for thousands of years? Because that is exactly what happened with film, and now it is happening with videogames.

You are a troglodyte that can't accept change and you have my pity.

I didn't even say they weren't art but I guess you can't read.

Also I like how you're already backtracking. "Art is about emotions, oh wait and ideas and concepts too!"

> people are still falling for this pasta bait
Last time i saw it it was Robert Fripp

Pretty sure it was Rodger Ebert whom'st'd've't say it first.

but you still need to finish a product and be good at expressing yourself in whatever art form you perform, a good musician practices more than what any person spends playing 1 game

Perhaps you should have articulated your position better then, instead of just tossing around the word "pleb".

Would you enjou vidyia more if it was art (or considered as such) Sup Forums?

i used to be so into him and steve vai. i had a big ass 40gig hard drive stuffed full of instructional videos i would play along to until 4am every night. still remember creasing at this goof

youtube.com/watch?v=2A71b8KVafM

watching that video you posted i'm disappointed as fuck cause he's still playing the same retarded repetitive licks.

take the jazz pill, shredheads

>deep life-changing experiences from them like people do with real art
what a bunch of bullshit, no one gets "life changing experiences" from watching a fucking painting

Art is not enjoyed.

It is appreciated.

Agreed, now we can have all pretentious hipsters trying to make artsy games and have them make fun games again.

B-but user, just look at this splendor! No videogame could ever compete!

this

Also holding the stance that games can't be art is fedora-tier. Definition of art has been subverted to be so lax that literal trash is now "art".

>Music can be art
>Movies can be art
>Performances can be art

>A medium that has aspects of all three can't
Really activates my almonds

>not smart enough to define what it is
>but smart enough to define what it is

Also, who said knowledge or intelligence was necessary for defining art? The meaning of art is open-ended, and interpretations for what defines art and what works qualify as art varies from person to person. If there was such a concrete definition for it, there would be little issue identifying what qualifies as art, and there wouldn't be discussions like this in the first place.

>There are people who still think that saying "videogames are not art" is an insult to videogames and not a compliment
>with what 'art' has become

These threads are always a mess because they're on opposite sides of the argument defending the same motive, or vice versa, and all kinds of stupid shit.

Art = media = entertainment != Inherently good or bad

>games
>a medium

all useless creations of man, together with the process of making them, are art until proven otherwise.

i'm so fucking bored of this debate.

the people who want to prove games ARE art inevitably rely on examples where the elements of other art forms are particularly good, like storytelling or visual design or whatever.

and the people who insist they are NOT art, well they just don't know much about video games and usually have a bias towards a particular medium they know a lot better.

we've all played games a long time and we all know how it feels to play a new game that feels expertly made. it feels good to play, is well paced and is emotionally satisfying. that is what good art does. even if you're one of those people who thinks art has to be 'challenging' and capable of engendering controversy and troubling feelings, there's no evidence that video games are incapable of such a thing.

it is simply true that if something can be *appreciated artistically* it must be art. and what would stop videogames from being appreciated artistically? interactivity? utter bullshit.

...

football is art
prove me wrong

I don't have to because you're right

How could anyone that quotes fucking Steve Vai know what art is?

>and the people who insist they are NOT art, well they just don't know much about video games and usually have a bias towards a particular medium they know a lot better.
Isn't this how it always is? I bet painters shit all over whomever first said that photography could be art.

Not necessarily. A musician will spend a lot of time on their instruments overall because their career is long, but they won't typically spend as much time on a day to day basis as you would expect from a professional gamer.

>"Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to enlarge upon it or defend it.

Why would you make a public statement and refuse to explain yourself?

Why do people want their vidya to be so artsy anyway?

>He burst onto the scene in the mid-80s as a teenage guitar prodigy with the speed metal band Racer X, before forming Mr. Big, a supergroup patterned after Van Hagar and Whitesnake. They had success in the West on the strength of one single before fucking off to Japan after grunge hit and becoming superstars there. He then tried to reinvent himself as a kid of heavy metal Rick Nielsen and then immigrated to Japan in the late '90s.
Wow that make him so qualified to talk about video games

surely he is like the pope of video games

Paul never made this statement

the sole reason this argument still goes on is because nobody will fucking define art so you have a measuring point you can take a game and run down the checklist.

you don't need video games to be 'artsy' to be art, that's one of the main issues with this debate. limbo is no more of a piece of art than sonic is

>refuses to play games
>haha can't convince me
I don't think any games are fine art that will be remembered hundreds of years in the future, except maybe SMB, but his attitude is one of the reasons the "art" community are a laughing stock. Right behind undergrads yelling about science and kids cartoons in the same breath.

"Interactivity makes something not art" and "Competition makes something not art," are opinions, and stupid opinions at that. The "clear set of goals," in a game are nothing more rules, and the statement that anything that conveys rules to the audience to help define or contextualize the experience makes something not art is absolutely absurd.

So what you're saying is that VNs aren't vidya?

so a literal who?

Not really, he's a successful pop star in Asia, as well as being pretty well known and liked amongst fans of rock and metal music.

>paul gilbert
>artist
art=boring shit?

Well known internationally, I should say.

>Hey, how can I make my shitty opinion about art even worse?
>I know, I'll mention fucking Steve Vai in my verbal drivel!

i don't know this guys specific argument but usually they don't have a good position. they're usually operating from ignorance, maybe even thinking about games as being solely competitive, and even there they're almost purposely ignoring the aesthetic and, well, artist elements.

you may ask yourself if you think of board games as an art, might put yourself more in the shoes of guys like the one in the OP.

Making a distinction between art and entertainment is dumb. Art has rarely if ever in history been created for its own sake, and yes, visiting it in museums or gallerias or whatever is also a form of entertainment.

Also, Art isn't just about conveying a message that is open to interpretation on the audience's part either, that's has never been the case even in the medium that people most associate with that definition of art, painting. Sometimes its about conveying a specific message, or nothing. Sometimes its not about conveying at all, its about EVOKING an emotion or thought or image or place or... anything. Sometimes its about EXPRESSING, the creator himself putting on a performance or creating a thing and it is the audience's privilege to bear witness to the thing that they've made, and whether it has any meaning beyond its creation or existence in and of itself is irrelevant to its artistic status.

I could go on. The point is, defining art in a highly limited sense as a way of saying games, video or otherwise, don't qualify is something dumb people do. Call them on it.

No, vidya can be art, unlike modern "art"

> Single player games don't exist.

I think you can make a distinction between art and entertainment. A lot of entertainment is created without the intention of it to be interpreted as art, and as you said some art is not made to entertain. The distinction is subjective.

I will agree with you however, that there is a large overlap.

...

>pic related is somehow art
>videogames aren't
wew

They don't, in fact expressing the opinion that games are not currently art is exactly what's driving walking simulators and other "art" games because they are trying to turn an "artless" medium into an "artful" one. When in reality the medium already contains art and all they are doing is progressing backwards.

The AVGN video on this does a good job of explaining why video games can essentially be art these days.

Art has no bounds
Anything and everything can be art. Music can be art. Movies can be art. Books can be art. Yes, video games can be art. Of course much more like the origin of art (paintings) it requires effort and passion between some other stuff. Were all that to work and create something and that something makes you feel. Whether that feeling is insecurity, happiness, worries, etc then surprise it is art.