Games as Art

[SomTervo]

On the 'good and bad' and 'cant do' thing, I didn't make that kind of distinction, or at least I was trying not to. In my last post to Hottie I was saying it helps, but if you don't have training in something you could still produce something artistic or musical, it just takes vastly more ingenuity.

 

Yeah see there is this issue where it's basically mathematics, this programming stuff. But what I was trying to argue was that everything is programming, and everything can be artistic- it just depends what we're trained to do. Biology is programming, physics is programming, the whole structure of the world is basically programming on different levels. With the book/English argument, I was suggesting that, seeing as we've been taught the 'code' of language from birth, we can use that language to make something artistic, in a book. If you haven't been taught the code, you can't use it or make the art- just like without knowing the programming you can't make it compile, even if you have an image in your head. (To clear it up, as I said in the first paragraph, you could still do it but it'd take thousands of years of ingenuity to build up the knowledge to do it )

 

Imagine, hypothetically, that instead of learning English we were all just taught everything in code and computer logic systems. As children, we just had computers and an adult showed us how to do it. We communicated by making programs, let's say specifically we did it through games. There'd be games for fun, games for learning, games for discussion- everything in the world represented through code- and just like with English- we'd make games for art. Just like how we use English, our communicating code to make jokes or discuss or learn- we can use this code to make art. Just like programming code.

 

Nowadays, as you said yourself, only an extreme minority can do it, but that doesn't mean it isn't art, or it couldn't be art. It's like saying "only an extreme minority of people have been trained to stand on their head and shit out anything they want, and it's sometimes artistic, but seeing as the population as a whole can't do it, it's not art".

 

I'm trying to say, there's technically a high entry level for everything. You say there's zero entry level involved in that stuff, but really there's no zero entry level for anything, it's just what we're taught to do from birth, and we intuitively make art with what we've got, what we've learned; it's part of what makes us human. And some people take the time to learn to do that with games- any human being could though. This doesn't remove the "it takes years and years of teaching to learn how to do it", but hey, it takes years and years, almost decades of teaching to learn how to speak your thoughts decently, let alone articulately, or play a guitar to a standard where you can make great art.

 

Games obviously have a more immediate use as meaningless entertainment, and their roots are in meaningless entertainment. Art is meaningful entertainment, and some games most certainly have meaning. That's given by their developers, the people who put themselves in the game, their thoughts, feelings, insight- to a meaningful purpose.

Edited May 11, 2011 by kenshi_ryden

[deanb]

It only takes years to learn to speak because as animals we're born prematurely by several years.

 

I don't want to hurt feelings or anything but

But what I was trying to argue was that everything is programming, and everything can be artistic- it just depends what we're trained to do. Biology is programming, physics is programming, the whole structure of the world is basically programming on different levels.

this is one of the most retarded things I've heard. At most I feel you're making a reference to http://xkcd.com/435/ But even then it has jack all to do with programming or the topic at hand.

 

Your hypothetical world is just that though, entirely hypothetical. The reason we use the languages we do instead of using computer code is because it's so malleable. It's why it can be used in creative endeavours; you can do puns, make things rhyme, alliteration etc. Computer coding, logic circuits are rigid systems and inflexible. They need to be. And even if from birth you were taught programming you're still being taught it. You pick up English, drawing, music naturally. For the more complex stuff, yeah you need to be taught, but the regular normal stuff you pick up through exposure. Playing games for over a decade, wouldn't know where the hell to start with making one.

Also infants can't walk or hold down their meals, nevermind talk. I think it's a bit unfair to drag the required skill level down to "what toddlers can't do" level when they can't even take a shit unaided.

[excel_excel]

There's a lot of talk of Excel here. WELL HERE I AM

[Strangelove]

Its ironic that the people who know how to play their instruments the best lack the creativity of the kids who just pick up an instrument and wing it.

 

Dragonforce.

[SomTervo]

I don't want to hurt feelings or anything but

But what I was trying to argue was that everything is programming, and everything can be artistic- it just depends what we're trained to do. Biology is programming, physics is programming, the whole structure of the world is basically programming on different levels.

this is one of the most retarded things I've heard. At most I feel you're making a reference to http://xkcd.com/435/ But even then it has jack all to do with programming or the topic at hand.

 

Your hypothetical world is just that though, entirely hypothetical.

 

Um, it's now pretty solid and widespread scientific theory, man. I've read a lot about it and seen a couple of documentaries- although really, they're talking more about reality and the universe consisting only of maths, and the end result being just like programming. Everything around us and in us can be reduced to predictable inputs and outputs. Art is our ability to try and make something unpredictable, something interesting, but we're still limited by those formulas and programs that restrict us.

 

I was talking to my biologist flatmate about this last week; every living thing is a formula, and every non-living thing is a formula. And a formula, an algorithm, is what computer programming is. In some cases organisms propagate, in other cases they don't. Bacteria are essentially a program that reproduces, whereas a virus is a program that self replicates not for survival but as a malignant mutation that infects and destroys. I'm saying program because, just like a computer program, they can be coded by us. Scientists recently programmed a virus that deconstructs the malignant cells that cause cancer in monkeys. If that's not programming I don't know what is.

 

The same goes for physics- you find the a good algorithm for gravity, you should be able to predict what happens when you drop a football. If not, the maths won't add up- it won't compile, or work in any way. This is true of everything, you're taking it for granted that everything works just as it does. If you changed a fundamental biulding block of the maths and coding of reality, it would all collapse.

 

DNA? A code. One that, as we're learning, can be programmed to do different things, grow organisms in different ways- humans can be irreparably ruined by changing one integer in the code. We either won't compile (birth is impossible) or the output result wil be significantly damaged or altered. The argument is that everything in the universe is a program, even though you have to telescope in to a miniscule level to see it.

 

This is perhaps getting a bit far out, but I'm saying that even rigid, immovable code can add up to something artistic. That's something that you seem to be missing, it's what a game would add up to that makes it art; when it becomes greater than the sum of its parts in a human mind. Sure, the code is the code, but it can have an influence that is more significant, artistic, when the output comes round. Art exists in the mind, not in the maths. And if a developer sat down to make an artistic game that has emotional or mental influence, and it did so for anyone, it would be artistic.

 

The reason we use the languages we do instead of using computer code is because it's so malleable. It's why it can be used in creative endeavours; you can do puns, make things rhyme, alliteration etc. Computer coding, logic circuits are rigid systems and inflexible. They need to be. And even if from birth you were taught programming you're still being taught it. You pick up English, drawing, music naturally. For the more complex stuff, yeah you need to be taught, but the regular normal stuff you pick up through exposure.

 

As a linguist, definitively, I can tell you this is not true. (Not the coding bit. That is). Language is not malleable. You're taking it for granted- language, just like coding, is a series of inputs and outputs that you are taught from birth (just like I'm saying you could be taught in code). We can swap around the inputs and outputs in such a complex and intricate manner that it seems malleable, we can make inferred meanings and such (though this could be done with code as well, it would just be in a very different way). When you start messing with the actual structure of the language, it just doesn't make sense and won't work. You're looking at the high level effect of language- puns, figurative language- where I'm talking about the low level. Where it is basically just a program, and algorithm, that our brains (the most powerful computer in the world, right?) can run.

 

We don't pick any language up naturally. The brain is just so complex and effective at learning that it can learn things like that. If, however, you had a child, and you left them in the woods for the first 15 years of their life with no human contact, and you met them then- they would not be able to speak anything. There is no 'natural' picking up of language. What's worse, the kid would find it incredibly difficult to even begin learning a language to the standard that we speak it now. Grammar wouldn't and doesn't come naturally. We have been speaking for, what, thousands of years? We've been evolving for millions.

 

There are plenty of case studies showing this, cases of severe neglect with children etc. The fact that we pick up language so quickly is down to the fact that we learn it, generally, in the first 6 years of our lives- when the brain is still essentially crossing its own wires to survive, and imitate. That's how we learn through 'exposure', it's infantile imitation. My argument was that if we were taught computer coding at this stage, not a conversing language, we would pick it up just as fast. But we are not exposed to it until at least well after the first 6 years that are so great for learning, our brains get progressively worse at learning codification after that stage. Facts and figures and social rules, yeah that's fine, but learning complex codes to the level of language? Has to happen fast, it has to be intrinsic. Trying to learn programming as a teenager, is basically like trying to learn a first-time language as a teenager- it's like pulling teeth, and you won't learn it to such an intuitive standard. You can be good at it, seeing as it's far more mathematical and logical than spoken languages, and we are taught maths from a young age- but I think a child brought up to communicate through programming would be able to do things we couldn't imagine. It's all a program. For inside our brains.

 

Playing games for over a decade, wouldn't know where the hell to start with making one.

Also infants can't walk or hold down their meals, nevermind talk. I think it's a bit unfair to drag the required skill level down to "what toddlers can't do" level when they can't even take a shit unaided.

 

Playing a game isn't the same as understanding a language. You could study a language and know it's grammar and spelling and pronounciation, but not know anything about the meaning of it's words (that's a concept called a 'chinese room'). Conversely, you can know how to speak meaning through a language, but not know how it works, not know the code. That's what most language speakers do, and a person who is playing a game is understanding the meaning, but not knowing how it works.

 

That's another issue with games- the coding is all support to create a detached simulation. Just like the coding of language is just support to convey real-world meaning. The coding of a game also comes from nothing, just like language. It's an entirely human construct. You're making a differentiation between the act of coding, and the output result of a game. I'm saying if that boundary is bridged (like it always is with language because we are taught it from childhood) then art will easily emerge, and to a large extent art has emerged.

 

(Also, slight aside, but with a musical instrument, the fact that there's an instrument at all influences your ability to create art. It would be like having some programming software where you could only put in certain bits of code in certain places. An instrument is showing you, tunneling you to the notes that are on it. The voice is the only instrument without this, I think.)

EPIC POST OVER

Edited May 11, 2011 by kenshi_ryden

[Thursday Next]

Completely disagree with you Dean.

 

If a book is written in Chinese, or braille and is read out to you in English, does that make it not art? Does the requirement for an interpretive medium prevent it being art?

 

Code is a language that most of us don't understand, so we use machines to interpret the code into a form we do understand.

 

If we learned computer code as we did our native language then we would be like Cypher. "All I see now is Blonde, Brunette, Redhead..."

[SomTervo]

Yeah, exactly. It's the human perspective on/ interfacing with the code that makes the art.

 

Like in language, all it is is a very rigid form of linking articulated noises to human perception. But all most people care about is the 'human perception' part, not the 'system of articulated noises' part. In a game, all you care about is the experience that is entertaining you or making you think, not the underlying code. Though that's obviously equally important. The experience/ meaning is the art, not the code.

Edited May 11, 2011 by kenshi_ryden

[Hot Heart]

@hot heart: Punk would disagree with you. And very loudly too

 

As well as what everyone else has been saying, even though punk music is very basic, a guitarist would still have to know 5th or 'power' chords as well as some basic scales.

[Mr W Phallus]

Dean programming is just a language. The only reason you have to specific is because you are giving instructions to a computer which is incapable on interpretation. Compare it to composing music and musical notation - you have to write it down exactly, using the correct notes. If you make a mistake the person actually performing the music will play the wrong note and will not play what you have envisioned in your head, but what is down on the page. In the same way a computer can only 'perform' the code that you give it. It is possible, however, to pick up an instrument and make music from it without using musical notation. Just the same as it is possible to create a game using an 'instrument' which in this case could be a program or software. For example, on our Minecraft server I used the world editing tools that exist in the game to make my own game-within-a-game which was a simple platformer. Obviously I could no more make a platforming game from scratch than I could write a song - Beethoven style - without actually hearing the music but I made a game none-the-less.

 

I also refuse to believe there aren't programming jokes, puns etc. which display a non-rigid, creative use of programming language. There are certainly maths jokes. A computer won't understand them, but another human who understands programming would. Like I said, programming is just a language, a form of communicating, the fact that it is predominantly used to communicate with computers is the only reason why it is so rigid and inflexible.

[SomTervo]

Exactly, Phallus, the software is just the tool.

 

Also jokes/puns etc., humour in general, is defined by a disconnect in meaning. On different levels for each type of humour, but that's what it is. Humans can see disconnects like this- algorithms or formulas can't.

[TheMightyEthan]

If the requirement of computer programming makes games not art, then no computer animated film can ever be art either. That's just silly.

[Strangelove]

@hot heart: Punk would disagree with you. And very loudly too

 

As well as what everyone else has been saying, even though punk music is very basic, a guitarist would still have to know 5th or 'power' chords as well as some basic scales.

 

Actually no. A lot of people just make up their own chords because they dont know how theyre supposed to be. A lot of people also dont know scales. I dont know scales at all and i play just fine.

 

Its just sound. Thats all it is. Music has a balance between what is right and what is wrong as far as chords and scales, but thats not the artistic part of music, just the formal part. The learned part.

 

Dissonance is an art in itself. Music is like painting. The number of different colors you can combine to make a new one are infinite.

[Strangelove]

If the requirement of computer programming makes games not art, then no computer animated film can ever be art either. That's just silly.

 

 

To be quite honest, I understand art is about the creative aspect over the technical aspect, but I still sometimes have a hard time accepting photoshop art. Not the 3D stuff, but the stuff that emulates real medium like paintings and pencil drawings. Just the fact that they cant do it in real life...bugs me.

I guess because ive lost too many art contests to those people. People are impressed by that stuff more than they are by an actual scanned drawing.

 

Then again, i think electronic music is an art....and those guys dont play guitar, drums, or keyboards. Just a computer.

 

 

Honestly, the general population values skill in art than actual art. People want a house that looks like a house, a door that looks like a door and a person who looks like a person. If its even a bit off in some way, if its somewhat unnatural, theyll call you on it. Thats why Dragonforce has fans.

 

(im never going to stop making Dragonforce, just sayin. Fucking hacks.)

Edited May 11, 2011 by Strangelove

[Hot Heart]

Obviously, there's that. But I was talking specifically about punk. You can obviously get a sense of what sounds 'right' but those guys would still have to know something, even if it's just how to tune the guitar.

 

I don't want to open a whole can of worms about what is considered 'music'. My main point was simply that an artist will have some knowledge about their chosen medium.

 

And as others have pointed out, the technical stuff is merely about tools for expression.

[Strangelove]

You just need to know how to pluck a string and hold a note. Thats it. Some people dont even do full chords. They just play one string at a time.

 

I think this is one of those agree to disagree moments right now.

[Hot Heart]

I guess?

 

Please don't take it that I mean if you don't know about instruments, tunings and scales then you can't create music. I guess I just think, for the most part, it takes a bit more than that to be able to express something 'artistic'.

[Strangelove]

[SomTervo]

That's what I was saying before, you don't need to know anything about a musical instrument at all- that just makes it much, much harder. You could do it without any training, but with training it gets easier and easier to make good art.

[CyberToyger]

"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."

 

Ergo, video games are art. Whether or not you personally appreciate any given video game is irrelevant -- if it contains imagery, text and/or sound arranged in a way that "affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect", its freakin' art. End of story, case closed, lock it up and throw away the damn key.

[TheMightyEthan]

Art has nothing to do with the quality of the end product, it's about the intent that went in to creating it.

[SomTervo]

And as long as it appeals to the senses, emotions, or intellect, as Toyger said.

[Mr W Phallus]

Art has nothing to do with the quality of the end product, it's about the intent that went in to creating it.

I disagree completely. Art without an audience is nothing, nor does an artist have any control of their art once it is released into the world. Just as an artist can't dictate the meaning of their art, something that wasn't even intended to be art can still be interpreted as art.

 

Edit: I slightly misread that, I agree that quality doesn't enter into art, but intent doesn't really enter into it either.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Mr W Phallus

[SomTervo]

I struggle with the whole 'bad art' and 'good art' argument, personally.

 

I want to believe that if anyone set out to make something artistic, whatever they come up with should be art.

 

But in reality, it's so easy to look at some art and just think "... That's shit." But I guess this is where opinion comes in.

 

How do you figure intent doesn't come into it Phallus? If someone creates something interesting or emotional, I reckon it's art if they intended it to be so, and if they didn't intend it to be so. But maybe not. I don't know. Arrgh.

[TheMightyEthan]

Art has nothing to do with the quality of the end product, it's about the intent that went in to creating it.

I disagree completely. Art without an audience is nothing, nor does an artist have any control of their art once it is released into the world. Just as an artist can't dictate the meaning of their art, something that wasn't even intended to be art can still be interpreted as art.

 

Edit: I slightly misread that, I agree that quality doesn't enter into art, but intent doesn't really enter into it either.

I agree that an artist loses control of their art once it's released into the world (I really like the death of the author theory), and I also agree that something that was never intended to be art can be interpreted as art. But I think in that situation the person interpreting it as art is actually the artist, they're the ones creating the "art" out of what was previously not art. So it's not necessarily the intent of the person who created the thing, it can be the intent of the person who's viewing it or using it.

 

In the same way I think all art is participatory (which is part of why I reject the argument that the participatory nature of games makes them not art), because the person viewing/experiencing it is creating/changing its nature and what it means.

 

I guess it just goes in to where you define the point of creation. The moon isn't art, but the person who sees meaning in it and paints it or takes a picture of it is an artist, and their painting or picture is art, they created the art out of something that was not art before. I think in the same way someone who sees art in a beer bottle or whatever is the artist, because they've created the "art" aspect of the thing, whether or not they ever share that with anyone else.

[Mr W Phallus]

Basically what I'm saying is, sort of along the lines of The Death of the Author, the 'meaning' of a work of art is created not by the artist but by the viewer/reader/audience. So really, whatever the creators intentions were, at the end of the day whether something is considered art comes down to an audience's interpretation - or rather whether the audience considers it worthy of or capable of eliciting an interpretation.

 

I do believe that a knowledge - or perhaps it would be better to say perception - of the artists intention can greatly influence our interpretation of a work of art, but in terms of actually defining art, the author's intention is not actually relevant.

 

I do think it is possible to look at a work that someone presents as art and say 'to me this is meaningless, to me this is not art', but this can only apply to the self. Someone else may see artistic merit where you do not and vice-versa.

 

I also think that art can be applied to pretty much any area of human creative endeavour, and in many ways is a redundant term.

 

Edit: I spent so long composing my thoughts I got ninja'd by Ethan. Basically, I agree with what you just said.

Edited May 11, 2011 by Mr W Phallus