Game developers are exploiting game mechanics and human behavior to raise funds, market, and capitalize on their investments.
Other mediums have had their brush with economy too. Painters once had to labor under the patronage of certain religious institutions in order to earn their keep and try to make their art on the side. Writers have always had to suffer in some level of Dante's hell, specially crafted for writers, in order to make bread. The poets never made any money and were free.
Can a commercial game developer produce a work of art? Perhaps. We hang those works of religious patronage in the most esteemed museums in the world today. Publishers have capitalized on literature before. Music has tried to make it into a machine. Significant works have been produced even when money has been involved.
Have video games produced a significant work of art yet? In my opinion, no. A significant work of art is a psychic program that mutates the human brain that interprets it. The less variation in the outcome of that mutation amongst a significant population of individuals the closer it is to expressing some universal truth of our condition. You can point to a work of Van Gogh, Kafka, or Mozart and explain its significance. Anyone who has experienced that art may have some personal interpretation of the experience but the significance of it remains much the same amongst a very large population of individuals. I haven't played a video game which has communicated such an idea through my interaction with it.
Many games have borrowed or stolen ideas from other media in order to express their authors' intent or idea: but that isn't novel or new to video games as a medium.
Will video games produce a movement? I think we're seeing some of that. We're seeing examples of games that show indications that we're developing a vocabulary capable of expressing ideas and emotions through interaction and interplay of strategy, choice, and value. However I don't think we've seen our Mozart or our Kafka -- yet.
Until then... grind on. We just need to keep making them and experimenting. And I don't think it's valuable to point out that a game is AAA or indie. We still consider The Last Supper to be a great work of art even though it was essentially commissioned by the church at the time. The new religion is Capitalism. In time we may view some of these games today as beautiful.
Though for now it seems like they're mere amusements.
>A significant work of art is a psychic program that mutates the human brain that interprets it. The less variation in the outcome of that mutation amongst a significant population of individuals the closer it is to expressing some universal truth of our condition. You can point to a work of Van Gogh, Kafka, or Mozart and explain its significance.
I'll make the argument that a large portion of the population experiences the same mutation because we are far removed from the original works. Society has come to agree on a set of truths a certain piece portrays. With time being the primary factor in determining the truth in a work of art, it makes sense why "classic" games get more attention than modern games. There are likely a number of significant games that have yet to be labelled and agreed upon as such.
> There are likely a number of significant games that have yet to be labelled and agreed upon as such.
Indeed, I agree! That's why, for me, the indie vs. publisher dichotomy doesn't make much sense in the long term. I wonder what the artists of the time thought of commissioned works such as Leonardo's The Last Supper. Later movements were defined by eschewing religious iconography and realism, etc. Today that painting is revered for various reasons but its significance is well understood... and perhaps time was the largest contributing factor.
I have seen a lot of paintings and listened to plenty of music, but none had a significant impact. So IMO they if games fail to qualify as art so does painting, architecture, sculpture, music, and just about everything but books, movies, as possibly TV.
However, if simply having a strong emotional response is enough then something as simple as Unreal World can be really intense. Fear, Joy, despair, angst, longing, it covers just about every base except love. http://www.unrealworld.fi/
In the end what separates video games from all other art is the experience can vary greatly. Go and see Mad Max and sure you might respond differently but you see the same movie, play in a sandbox game and our experiences can be wildly different.
Other mediums have had their brush with economy too. Painters once had to labor under the patronage of certain religious institutions in order to earn their keep and try to make their art on the side. Writers have always had to suffer in some level of Dante's hell, specially crafted for writers, in order to make bread. The poets never made any money and were free.
Can a commercial game developer produce a work of art? Perhaps. We hang those works of religious patronage in the most esteemed museums in the world today. Publishers have capitalized on literature before. Music has tried to make it into a machine. Significant works have been produced even when money has been involved.
Have video games produced a significant work of art yet? In my opinion, no. A significant work of art is a psychic program that mutates the human brain that interprets it. The less variation in the outcome of that mutation amongst a significant population of individuals the closer it is to expressing some universal truth of our condition. You can point to a work of Van Gogh, Kafka, or Mozart and explain its significance. Anyone who has experienced that art may have some personal interpretation of the experience but the significance of it remains much the same amongst a very large population of individuals. I haven't played a video game which has communicated such an idea through my interaction with it.
Many games have borrowed or stolen ideas from other media in order to express their authors' intent or idea: but that isn't novel or new to video games as a medium.
Will video games produce a movement? I think we're seeing some of that. We're seeing examples of games that show indications that we're developing a vocabulary capable of expressing ideas and emotions through interaction and interplay of strategy, choice, and value. However I don't think we've seen our Mozart or our Kafka -- yet.
Until then... grind on. We just need to keep making them and experimenting. And I don't think it's valuable to point out that a game is AAA or indie. We still consider The Last Supper to be a great work of art even though it was essentially commissioned by the church at the time. The new religion is Capitalism. In time we may view some of these games today as beautiful.
Though for now it seems like they're mere amusements.