Roger Ebert rehashes old debate even indie hipsters are tired of

[ThunderPeel2001]

And that's my point. The end point I get from Moriarty's talk is: there are two types of art, I've defined them and my definitions are gospel. I just keep picturing him at an art gallery, going up to each piece and artist and putting a tick in the sublime or kitsch column and it's an incredibly absurd idea.

The idea is absurd, I agree, but I think I disagree, overall. There is such a thing as sublime art, and there is such a thing as kitsch art. So why not be able to categorize them? We may not all always agree, but I do think these definitions exist.

I agree with Ebert and Moriarty that no game has reached levels of sublime art. I've not been touched by a game the way I have while I'm reading Moby Dick, or watching The Seventh Seal, or Seven Samurai. The "why" of this is what's up for debate. Moriarty's argument is that by the nature of having to make decision in order to participate in a game, you cannot ever reach the sublime -- It can only ever be entertainment. If you disagree with him, it's over that. His poor ability to define sublime art and kitsch art are irrelevant (unless you're saying that such definitions don't exist...?).

For my part I know when I've been profoundly touched by art. I love Die Hard, but it did not inspire the divine in me. I love Monkey Island, but it doesn't either. I still think they're worthy and top class pieces of entertainment, and I would fight anyone who would say otherwise, but they're not sublime art.

I'm not sure if I agree with Moriarty's argument that by being a participant it can never profoundly touch you.

[DanJW]

The idea is absurd, I agree, but I think I disagree, overall. There is such a thing as sublime art, and there is such a thing as kitsch art. So why not be able to categorize them? We may not all always agree, but I do think these definitions exist.

I agree with Ebert and Moriarty that no game has reached levels of sublime art. I've not been touched by a game the way I have while I'm reading Moby Dick, or watching The Seventh Seal, or Seven Samurai. The "why" of this is what's up for debate. Moriarty's argument is that by the nature of having to make decision in order to participate in a game, you cannot ever reach the sublime -- It can only ever be entertainment. If you disagree with him, it's over that. His poor ability to define sublime art and kitsch art are irrelevant (unless you're saying that such definitions don't exist...?).

For my part I know when I've been profoundly touched by art. I love Die Hard, but it did not inspire the divine in me. I love Monkey Island, but it doesn't either. I still think they're worthy and top class pieces of entertainment, and I would fight anyone who would say otherwise, but they're not sublime art.

I'm not sure if I agree with Moriarty's argument that by being a participant it can never profoundly touch you.

I think I agree with most of this post. I do however believe, quite strongly, that the interaction, the making a decision, has the potential to create the most sublime experience ever. As sublime as real life, which is full of choices and also a few moments of subliminity.

[baconian]

I think I agree with most of this post. I do however believe, quite strongly, that the interaction, the making a decision, has the potential to create the most sublime experience ever. As sublime as real life, which is full of choices and also a few moments of subliminity.

Ok, but in order for a game to elicit this response, would it have to simulate (at least in part) the nature of reality to a near indistinguishable level of accuracy?

[DanJW]

Ok, but in order for a game to elicit this response, would it have to simulate (at least in part) the nature of reality to a near indistinguishable level of accuracy?

No. Our brains are easily fooled, especially when it comes to emotional response.

[baconian]

But I would think that the sublime rises above baser emotional responses, and incorporates an insight into reality.

Also, what about this idea and how it resonates with real life a bit more than the standard sort of progression found in games? I would posit that ideas like that might be the sort of raw material a genuinely artistically meritorious game might be made up of.

[DanJW]

But I would think that the sublime rises above baser emotional responses, and incorporates an insight into reality.

Most of our internal model of reality is illusory. Our senses are not as good as we think they are.

Or to try another tack: it would not need to simulate reality with any more accuracy than other artistic mediums.

[syntheticgerbil]

No. Our brains are easily fooled, especially when it comes to emotional response.

I was thinking the other day that a robot dog might possibly make me just as happy as a regular dog. I mean, this is assuming of course they are the crazy advanced types from the robot thread lying around here somewhere...

[CaptainFish]

The idea is absurd, I agree, but I think I disagree, overall. There is such a thing as sublime art, and there is such a thing as kitsch art. So why not be able to categorize them? We may not all always agree, but I do think these definitions exist.

His poor ability to define sublime art and kitsch art are irrelevant (unless you're saying that such definitions don't exist...?).

I'm probably caught up on his definitions, but academic discussions like this require an agreed upon set in order to proceed. Just to be clear I don't think that the categories of kitsch and sublime art shouldn't exist or be defined, I just think the entire spectrum of art is more than just 2 points.

As for whether interactivity can preclude sublime art, I think not. Like I said before, Chess and Go fit Moriarty's ideal of sublime art in that they evoke the inexpressible, and are always relevant. Especially Go with it's ideas of life/death and territory forming a game that evolves from sparse points into a final board that is a time-line of the conflict. Both games represent ideas through their mechanics alone that are universal IMO.

As for video games, I don't know which ones are sublime. Is Indiana Jones for the Atari 2600 Art? Is Lemmings Art? Is EVE Online Art? There have been games that I found fascinating, like Planetfall in it's use of a companion in an interactive medium or Braid in it's framing of it's mechanics. I know fascination does not equal Art, but those are places where mechanics are interesting, not the trappings borrowed from other genres. I feel like we're too close to determine whether a game is high art, though.

There are examples of art in the past that was considered populous at the time, that is currently regarded as high art in hindsight. Shakespeare is the most obvious example. Charles Dickens work was also ubiquitous at the time and some of his serials were charged with emotion. Those works are now considered literature, which is Art, right? I know Moriarty started his talk by stating that games have been around forever, but not in this form. I also disagree that all games prior to VGs aren't art. I feel like some distance in time will be needed before we settle this debate. If it ever gets settled at all.

Whether or not it's happened already, I do believe it's possible for Video Games to be art at some point in time.

[PlastickCouch]

In about 40 years, everyone will agree games are art, especially when we drop our rigid definitions of art.

Mozart today might be composing music for the game, Dickens would be writing the next Fallout game...

First you got your books. then your movies, which are acted out books (scripts) with added music, then they added CGI, now we got video games which are entirely CGI, have full music scores, and allow the player to visualize themselves in a different world/scenario.

Art does not have to carry some strict moral with it, it can simply be inspirational, which is up to the reader/viewer/player (ie - participant). I tell you, Fallout 2 is art and anyone claiming otherwise simply hasn't played it.

[ThunderPeel2001]

But I would think that the sublime rises above baser emotional responses, and incorporates an insight into reality.

As Alan Moore wrote: Artists use lies to reveal truths within ourselves. I don't think "reality" is necessary, as long as something is profound.

As for being able to interact with something profound, I'm beginning to see E & M's point of view: You can't enter a meditative state and contemplate your life and your viewpoint, while part of your brain is active and having to make decisions... At least I can't.

Also, what about this idea and how it resonates with real life a bit more than the standard sort of progression found in games? I would posit that ideas like that might be the sort of raw material a genuinely artistically meritorious game might be made up of.

I love this idea. I think it could make a really interesting game, as you'd have to learn and improve your skills as you continued. Also, it evokes this:

[ThunderPeel2001]

I'm probably caught up on his definitions, but academic discussions like this require an agreed upon set in order to proceed. Just to be clear I don't think that the categories of kitsch and sublime art shouldn't exist or be defined, I just think the entire spectrum of art is more than just 2 points.

I guess that's where we disagree. I know when something is profound (to me), and when it's not. When something (as Ebert puts it) is making me more "cultured, civilized and empathetic". Likewise, something can be extraordinarily well crafted, but it doesn't necessarily inspire the divine.

So there are definitely a clear division for me.

I was thinking more on this, and the closest I've gotten to that feeling is Planescape: Torment. Some of the passages you have to read (which tell the story) are pretty profound and touching. Hmm, maybe that would qualify?