Drew

Did you know that today I saw a story on the news about some naked drunk guy that stole a backhoe, drove it on the wrong side of the road, and attacked a huge semi with it all while screaming how the driver of said semi needs to die? And they say the news isn't entertaining!

-Justin Freeman

Yo Drew,

Just thought you might like to see this completely useless web page modifier...

http://www.askjesus.org/ask.cgi?http://www.thegia.com/letters.html

makes the column rather different, eh?

-The Steve

Hiya, Drewsters. Long-time-no-write.

I have always believed art to be the physical expression of an emotion. It is created when the artist feels something, and wants to convey that feeling to others. The artist must somehow channel emotion-fueled creativity into some tangible form, whether that be writing, painting, programming, gluing a fork onto a vase, or whatever.

-Aaron L.

Here is my definition of art as related to video games, which has been accepted by everyone I've shared it with so far. I will also briefly relate art to science and then as the two are implemented as video games. It is really quite simple, the word art springs from the world "artificial," so art is the recreation of something that appears in reality (as art exists in reality, it cannot logically imitate something not reality, I believe.) So, a good artist is one who actually sees the world around them and can recreate that to some regard. Good art is usually dynamic, like a painting which is aesthetically pleasing but also gives us insight into humanity (War scenes showing us the incredible pain and madness of battle, a film painting a negative picture of the American Dream, Like American Beauty.) A scientist is like an artist, in that he is interested in the world, but seeks to define it and quantify it in formulae and hard data. Both fields require a certain level of visionary talented, which is why I believe that great minds can work equally well between the two, like Lewis Carroll (Alice Through the Looking Glass and some important work in Symbolic Logic.) Video games are most definitely an art form. The programmer is very much like a scientist, defining the reality of the game. The characters you see in the games have been either drawn or modeled by someone implementing the same goal as Da Vinci, that of trying to accurately capture the human machine in sketches. Giving a thing the label of "art" doesn't mean that it is thought-provoking or a work of true genuis, it just defines it as someone trying to "hold a mirror to nature." Most games today have banal plots and characters, but some beautiful graphic art or recreation of movement (the ball in FF8 captured a lot of emotive nuance, as the two characters interacted through body language alone.) I apologize if this letter is too pedantic or incoherent, please feel free to email me with any questions.

-Sean

"I'm glad I could cut you and remove the sheathes of your ignorance" -Mr.Bungle

Drew,

I'm thinking about making a video game where you stare at pictures of female nipples being touched by someone under eighteen while various swear words scroll by the whole thing. What kind of rating do you think I can expect to get in the US?

My definition of art: Mimes. 'Nuff said.

~Ian P.

Drew-

I still believe that in their current form, games by nature are not meant to have meaning in the way that movies or books have meaning. In my conception of art, it is how a certain piece of work causes a change in some way in a person. As a different medium, games should express the emotions they aim to evoke in a different way than any other. As a different form of media, games can be viewed as art (although to this date I really cannot name one game that deserves this title), but would have to be developed in a manner taking full advantage of the medium. Although, like you said, games are probably way too early in their development to be considered 'art' or anything other than simple entertainment.

Games that try to be movies simply try to pound a square (...irony?) peg into a round hole. Strangely enough, the developer who had the most high profile movie-games, Sakaguchi, is actually directing a movie himself, and I really can't wait to see it because I'm sure that it will be suited to the media it is designed for. Conversely, I also look forward to every Miyamoto game, because he is the closest example to a possible... game-artist (?), since he knows how to properly take advantage of the medium he works with.

The thing I am trying to say is that plot development is not the only way that a video game can have 'meaning'. (although, certainly 'meaning' is different for everybody) Super Mario Brothers games are among the most plotless of plotless games ever, but the games in that series are undoubtedly among the best games ever, and likely one of them is the best game of all time...not that I'm trying to start a controversy here. A long time from now, if videogames continue their evolution in the proper path, that is without imitation of other medias, and possibly have some games be considered 'art', I believe that games like Super Mario Bros. or Legend of Zelda could be looked upon as the Gutenberg Bible (not necessarily for its own merit, but for being the first of its kind) of video games.

As for the statement that some RPGs have deep plots, the way I see it there have been a few different storylines in the past few years, with most modern RPGs reiterating it over and over. Let's see, if you play a Game Arts RPG you get 'Lets go on an adventure!', or if you want to play a Final Fantasy, you have the brooding, cold lead character who learns to love, while saving the world from an unspeakable evil! There are a million other RPG cliches, just take a look at Fritz's own (::cosmo canyon shout out here::) list of RPG cliches. So, unless you're talking about Xenogears, then I really can't see any RPGs that have a plot that's non-cliche. And if you are talking about Xenogears, then I'd be better off not replying at all...

-ReigunRed

This one's easy. Art = Ideas. It's that simple. Art doesn't have to be a "thing," something that you can hold in both hands. It doesn't have to be something you can see or hear or touch. It *can* be, but it doesn't *have* to be.

So the question is, what isn't art? Everything around you, from your keyboard to your phone, to the smell of your mother's cooking, to the guitar riff you have playing incessantly in your head; it's all art. All of those things is a combination, a compilation, of ideas, translated into a language that you understand.

Art, much like beauty, isn't created; it is revealed. It's shown to you, as fast or as slow, as you can understand it. It can be universal. It can be ridiculously personal. Even if you don't "get it" it never stops being art. It never stops being a representation of ideas. Does it matter where those ideas come from? Of course not. Does it matter if it's "original." Again, of course not, as there really is no such thing as "originality."

All ideas, as well as art, come from somewhere else. And *those* ideas came from somewhere else, and so on and so on. The ergonomic design of my car could very well have been a daydream of a designer thinking about ladybugs. It doesn't matter. I still consider my VW art.

The problem is that too many people think that "art" is something that hangs in a museum, or something that is printed on a page, or something carved in granite or cast in bronze. Understand, what art "is," is simply *more.* There's so much *more* to a painting hanging on the wall. There's so much *more* to the words printed on a page. There's so much *more* to a lump of rock that shows where pieces have been chipped away and where pieces haven't.

It's the ideas, the thoughts, the daydreams behind it all. THAT is what art "is."

I am,

-Jim Loffredo