A bit off of the photography topic, but not that far off...

Ok. I have this sophomore class, and we've been discussing whether

images from violent video games can be viewed as art with the specific

question: "Do you think that images from violent video games should be

(or could be) hung on the wall of a museum or gallery as art?"

 

 

I wanted to post this on photo.net because I think that you guys (and

gals) could

give some interesting feedback that I could then share with my

students. They're all Chinese and are interested in how Westerners

would react to this question (as am I). And this is not very far

removed from ideas about photography, digital manipulation and

computer art, questions about taste, acceptable artistic mediums, etc.

 

I have gotten mixed opinions. Most of the students who say *yes* do

so because they think that computer graphics is an art medium and they

are open to violent or disturbing art. The *no* kids say *no* because

they are concerned about the message that it would send, or they just

don't

think it's good enough to be called art.

 

So, how about it? For good ole education's sake, any ideas?

What is art? Art, to me, must address the eternal questions? As to violence, Goya's work depicted violence. But computer games are, to my mind, ephemeral and intended only to make money, not to address any eternal questions about the propensity of the human race to violence.

If you believe art can be anything, than it is art. But what does

that make art?

Do you think that images from movies should be (or could be) hung on the wall of a museum or gallery as art?" If the answer is yes then you do the same with v-game!!

Well...let's say a scene from an art film? That would essentially be a photograph, so that would be art. So I take it Sunil's response is affirmative. (??)

Matt, as the responses from your students demonstrate, what you have here is two

questions in one:<br>

<br>

1. Could images from video games qualify as "gallery-worthy" art?<br>

2. Should violent images of art be hung on the wall of a gallery?<br>

<br>

I don't think the question reduces perfectly to these two sub-questions, but first

answering these questions separately and then considering if the questions combined

results in a different opinion can provide some insight. In other words, do people accept

violent paintings and calm images from video games more easily than violent images from

video games.<br>

<br>

Anyway, in response to questioning the moral standing of Rockstar Games, several

reviewers have said that they consider Grand Theft Auto: Vice City more of a work of art

than a commercial product. Another example, Peter Molyneux is a game designer with a

similar stance, that game production is ultimately about grand visions (which I guess

explains why some many of his games are boring after the first few hours).<br>

<br>

My opinion is that, well, I can't see why a video game or stills from one couldn't qualify as

art, but I've yet to meet a game that actualized that possibility.

Of course they can be "art" & hung on wall. In fact there have been exhibitions in the Tate Modern (london) of just that. Wether they are good/meaningful/interesting etc is a matter of opinion - like any art.

Art is art when it is called art... not to sound vague but for example. I see a tin can on the ground, its just a tin can. i pick it up and nail it to a wall and call it art, and it becomes art, its meaning changes from a tin can to a representation, an idea, an asthestic object etc etc.

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">Keith Laban Photography</a><p>In order to answer your question you will first have to define the meaning of "art".<p>

 

Good luck, you'll need it.

One student said that she concidered imagery from Final Fantasy art, but that there was the violence factor that wouldn't allow her to accept violent video game imagery as art. So in this case it wasn't the video game imagery as art problem but the violent imagery as art problem. And I did mention Goya's violent imagery.

 

Thanks for all the great comments. This kids are amazing and I try to get them as many resources as I can.

I think art can be defined as something that can leave a change in mind or thinking,not just randomly but with the strong feeling that somehow something has been gained, after the viewer or the one who's participating in it came in contact with the art.

Some great films (to choose a medium of art) can easily stand up to this definition and since todays videogames come closer and closer in giving the player the same experience felt when watching a great movie ( and even more so since your not only get to watch it but also get to play it like if you're a real part in it and not only a viewer )I definitively think videogame's can be art.

Some of them also have a clear mark of authorship in them like Hideo

Kojima's <a href="http://www.konamijpn.com/products/mgs3/english/index.html">metalgearsolid</a> wich is also full of references from other media in art.

"For good ole education's sake, any ideas?"

 

Yeah! Tell them from an old dog, "Grow up!" :) "Logan's Run" anybody?

 

And then one might ask the question, how much emotional immaturity does one expect art in a museum to represent?

 

If you want emotional immaturity to be part and parcel of the contemporary pop art scene, hang any grapic image, from any video game which floats the curator's boat. And in reality, since I wouldn't be going to this hypothetical show, my overall thoughts on the matter aren't important as the show would be for benefit of your students, not this old dog's benefit for it would represent their contemporary interests, not mine.

 

The question, if you think about it, is nothing more than Andy Warhol and the Campbell soup can series revisited.

 

A question you might ask your students; would they go to an art show, in their location, displaying the sorts of images you're discussing, should a museum choose to put on this sort of show? That, to me, is the reality of the issue, not whether or not they should be displayed.

 

"Okay." "They're now on display." "Wadda-ya mean you don't want to go to the show."

 

Wishing you well with the outcome of both the question and the class.

It's already been done.

 

The computer game history exhibition called "Game On" was at the Design Museum in London a few years ago. So video game imagery has been exhibited in museums as art in the sense of design art if not fine art.

 

The question of violence is secondary. Much great art is violent. Much trash is, too.

 

Some fans of the game Halo used the multiplayer mode to generate characters and situations which they edited to make a kind of existentialist war movie called "Red vs Blue". It has been issued on DVD-Video. A series of movies is now up to episode 43 and available from the following web site http://www.redvsblue.com/archive/

 

If you can take a frame from a movie and hang it, you can take a frame from Red vs Blue hang it. Therefore video games can be used to create art.

 

Whether the work done so far has sufficient merit is debatable.

"The computer game history exhibition called "Game On" was at the Design Museum in London a few years ago."

 

Does the "Design Museum" qualify as an "art" museum? And were the images being displayed as examples of gaming graphics, representations of contemporary pop art or displayed in the context of being representational of a "computer game history exhibition?"

 

There is a difference is why I ask. One's historical in nature, journalism or reportage and the other is artistic or asthetic in nature.

Nope, it's not art.

 

What I mean is, when anything is used for crass commercial purposes, it's no longer viewed as art suitable for a gallery, regardless of how artistic it really is. Example: Norman Rockwell.

 

So, say, if the Mona Lisa had been commissioned for a corn flakes box, it would be worth maybe a couple of thousand today.

 

On the other hand, if those video game guys would just crunch out the art, and not put it in the game, then maybe they'd have something.

 

And personally, I'd much rather that violent art work hung on gallery walls, where no one much cared, than to have it on video games.

 

And if anybody wants to argue with the above, please note that I'm not totally serious.

I think scenes from video games can definitely be considered works of art. Even the backgrounds, environments, worlds, etc themselves are works of art that many designers put in lots of time and effort to create. It would be difficult to do such a work of art justice by hanging it on a wall, since that would require reducing it to a two-dimensional representation, but it might also be cool to hang a bunch of little plasma displays on a wall that would cycle through a 3D video scene instead. I've seen some screenshots that are pretty dang cool. What, specifically, are they talking about when they say "violent"? Is that like body parts flying around in a cloud of blood in Unreal Tournament 2004? I don't know if the depiction looks convincing enough to be disturbing. I think it's meant to be sort of comical.

There are other games that are probably disturbing, but as for the art, if you have a chance to check out some of the worlds/maps on Unreal Tournament 2004 (especially some of the user-created maps), you might agree that some of these maps are very good works of art. There's one that somebody created called "Marioland" that fits this description. They designed the world to look like a sort of cartoony environment from the Mario Bros. game, complete with stylized weather effects. These works are different from traditional art, and probably need to be viewed in 3D to be appreciated, but still very high quality IMHO.

One of the "weapons" in the new Grand Theft Auto game San Andreas is a camera. I already have a gallery collection of images taken with it.

Well, I have a tin can on my wall and I consider it art while others think that it is just plain stupid. Either way, art is subjective and that is where I find my peace of mind; no one person is wrong or right, it is what it is.

 

Matt - As far as the question regarding hanging clips from violent games in art galleries and museums, is it really about expression or is it a probe to see how westerners feel about violence in general?

Rolland,

www.pbs.org has a website called "Culture shock" which asks whether or not you think three different peices of art should be put on the website. One is a work with racial message, one is the Nazi film "the triumph of the will" and one is an image from a violent video game. I let my students go check it out, make their own decisions and then come back the next week to discuss it. We've been discussing it now for two weeks, and as we are wrapping up things, I thought it would be good to get some westerners feedback for them on this topic. I also want them to try to understand how the English language is used to discuss subjects that can be very challenging--such as this one. I have one more class discussing this. I'm about sick of it, actually. But the feedback I've gotten on this site has been really nice to read.

Thanks!

<i>What I mean is, when anything is used for crass commercial purposes, it's no longer viewed as art suitable for a gallery, regardless of how artistic it really is.</i><p>

 

In photography, and probably in painting as well, there is a long history of the opposite being true. Work done for ads often become standard gallery pieces. Look at Avedon's fashion work for example.<p>

 

There is no inherent relationship between "use" and "art" in terms of art's ability to be art. This would definitely say that a still from a video game could easily be art.

I just got finished with Doom3, and the concensus in the gaming community is this software qualifies as more a work of multimedia and interactive art than an actual computer game. Indeed the spectacular lighting engine and level design of this macabre first person shooter is nothing less than extrodinary on systems capable of running it.

You can divide the world into those who say you can make art with a computer and those who can't. [by the way I say, if you can make art with a hammer you can make it with a computer]

 

If you think of the sci-fi book covers, and similar posters - you know the 1970's air brush created ones ? And you look at stills from Halo (for example) I don't think there is that much difference.

Take a look at Ricky Gervais's book "Flanimals" (search on Amazon) and compare those fantasy creatures with the ones in Halo. There is a group of people that will say only the flanimals count as art because they were made with pigment applied with a stick. I don't buy that argument.

Video games are art? I thought the purpose of a video game was primarily to make money selling them to folks whose concept of the real world is akin to a mule with blinders......

Not only do I think it is Art, but I think that with time it will be considered some of the greatest art our generation has produced. What amazes me is to go back and look at some of the older Lucasarts and Sierra games and admire what the graphic artists achieved with a simple sixteen color palette.

The LucasArts adventures has excellent graphics. I also remember a company called Dynamix (later a division of Sierra) for their use of scanned images. I think it was a first.